Ds27 manual

If you get stuck in repairing a defective appliance download this repair information for help. See below. Good luck to the repair! Please do not offer the downloaded file for sell only use it for personal usage! Looking for similar panasonic manual? Document preview [1st page]. No preview item for this file. Possible causes: No preview picture generated yet. It is not a pdf file. Please tick the box below to get download link:. For this no need registration. On 7 June , the panel was composed.

The panel report was circulated to Members on 22 May On 11 June , the European Communities notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel.

The Appellate Body report was circulated to Members on 9 September On 13 November , Ecuador requested the reactivation of consultations initiated by a letter sent jointly with the other co-complainants on 18 August and held on 17 September On 18 November , the European Communities confirmed their willingness to reactivate the consultations with a view to concluding the discussion of the subjects that were not discussed during the September consultations.

Consultations between Ecuador and the European Communities took place on 23 November with the presence of Mexico who joined as a co-complainant in the same meeting.

On 15 December the European Communities requested the establishment of a panel under Article The European Communities' request for a compliance panel was made in response to measures taken by the United States regarding the EC implementing measures, which the United States considered had failed to implement the WTO recommendations.

More specifically, the European Communities requested the compliance panel to determine that the EC implementing measures must be presumed to conform to WTO rules unless challenged in accordance with DSU procedures. The complainants other than Ecuador objected in writing to the fact that the European Communities' request be considered as constituting recourse to Article Ecuador compliance panel. At its meeting on 12 January , the DSB agreed to reconvene the original panel, pursuant to Article Lucia, Mauritius, St.

Vincent, indicated their interest to join as third parties in both requests, while Ecuador and India indicated their third-party interest only in the European Communities' request.

The four original complaining parties other than Ecuador i. Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States refrained from requesting a panel or from joining the procedure initiated by Ecuador.

On 14 January , the United States requested pursuant to Article On 8 November , and prior to the adoption of the reports of the European Communities and Ecuador compliance panels, Ecuador also requested authorization from the DSB to suspend the application to the European Communities of concessions or other related obligations see below. On 18 January , the compliance panels were composed.

The two compliance panel reports were circulated on 12 April The EC compliance panel found that, because a challenge had actually been made by Ecuador regarding the WTO-consistency of the EC measures taken in implementation of the DSB recommendations, it was unable to agree with the European Communities that the European Communities must be presumed to be in compliance with the recommendations of the DSB. The compliance panel requested by Ecuador found that the implementation measures taken by the European Communities in compliance with the recommendations of the DSB were not fully compatible with the European Communities' WTO obligations.

On 14 January , the United States requested, pursuant to Article The European Communities objected to the level of suspension proposed by the United States on the ground that it was not equivalent to the level of nullification or impairment of benefits suffered by the United States and claimed that the principles and procedures set out in Article Pursuant to Article The DSB referred the issue of the level of suspension to the original panel for arbitration on 29 January The decision by the arbitrator was circulated on 9 April On 9 April , the United States, pursuant to Article At the DSB meeting on 19 November , the European Communities objected to the proposed level of suspension alleging it exceeded the level of nullification or impairment Ecuador had suffered and to Ecuador's request for cross-retaliation stating Ecuador has not followed the principles and procedures set forth in Article The European Communities therefore requested, pursuant to Article At its meeting on 19 November , the DSB referred the issue to the original panel for arbitration in accordance with Article The Arbitrator's decision on the Ecuadorian request for suspension of concessions was circulated to Members on 24 March The Arbitrator found that the level of nullification and impairment suffered by Ecuador amounted to USD The Arbitrator found that Ecuador's request for retaliation did not follow the principles and procedures set forth in Article The Arbitrator also noted that, pursuant to Article On 8 May , Ecuador requested, pursuant to Article The measures at issue are relevant provisions of the recently passed EC Council Regulation governing the import regime for banana.

The measures at issues were adopted following two Arbitrations under the Doha Waiver, both of which ruled against previous proposals by the European Communities to address the same matter.

On 16 November , Ecuador requested consultations under Article On 28 November , Ecuador submitted a revised request for consultations under Article Lucia, St.

Vincent and the Grenadines, and Suriname requested to join the consultations. On 4 December , Cameroon requested to join the consultations.

On 6 December , Jamaica requested to join the consultations. On 11 December , Panama and the United States requested to join the consultations. The European Communities informed the DSB that they had accepted all the requests to join the consultations. On 23 February , Ecuador requested the establishment of a compliance panel. At its meeting on 20 February , the DSB deferred the establishment of a compliance panel.

At its meeting on 20 March , the DSB agreed to refer to the original panel, if possible, the question of whether the new EC banana regime was in conformity with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and the United States reserved their third-party rights. On 5 June , Ecuador requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the compliance panel. On 15 June , the Director-General composed the compliance panel. On 5 December , the Chairman of the compliance panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible to circulate its report within 90 days after the date of referral.

The compliance panel expected to issue its final report to parties in December and, following translation, the final report was expected to be circulated to Members in February On 29 June , the United States requested the establishment of a compliance panel as it considered that the European Communities had failed to bring its import regime for bananas into compliance with its WTO obligations and the regime remains inconsistent. At its meeting on 12 July , the DSB referred the matter to the original panel, if possible.

Vincent and the Grenadines, and Suriname reserved their third-party rights. On 3 August , the United States requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the compliance panel. On 13 August , the Director-General composed the compliance panel. On 21 February , the Chairman of the compliance panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible to circulate its report within 90 days after the date of referral.

The compliance panel expected to issue its final report to parties no later than the end of the first week of March On 7 April , the compliance panel report requested by Ecuador was circulated to Members. The Panel rejected the preliminary issue raised by the European Communities that Ecuador is prevented from challenging the EC current import regime for bananas, including the preference for ACP countries, because of the Understanding on Bananas, signed by both Members in April Accordingly, and after having examined the substantive claims raised by Ecuador as well as the defences invoked by the European Communities, the compliance panel concluded that:.

In consequence, the compliance panel concluded that, through its current regime for the importation of bananas, established in Council Regulation EC No. The compliance panel recommended that the DSB request the European Communities to bring the inconsistent measures into conformity with its obligations under the GATT On 19 May , the compliance panel report requested by the United States was circulated to Members. Regarding the preliminary objections advanced by the European Communities, the compliance panel found that:.

The compliance panel accordingly rejected the preliminary issues raised by the European Communities.