四川省经济合同管理条例
作者:法律资料网 时间:2024-07-23 14:22:44 浏览:8516
来源:法律资料网
四川省经济合同管理条例
四川省人大常委会
四川省经济合同管理条例
已由一九八六年十一月十四日四川省第六届人民代表大会常务委员会第二十二次会议审议通过，现予公布施行。
一九八六年十一月十八日
四川省经济合同管理条例
（一九八六年十一月十四日四川省六届人大常委会第二
十二次会议通过）
第一章 总则
第一条 为了加强经济合同的管理，根据《中华人民共和国经济合同法》和有关法律法规的规定，结合我省实际，制定本条例。
第二条 经济合同管理，必须依据有关法律、法规，保护经济合同当事人的合法权益，保证国家计划的执行，维护社会主义经济秩序，促进经济体制改革和社会主义现代化建设的顺利进行。
第三条 本条例适用于法人之间，法人与个体工商户、农村承包经营户、个人合伙之间，个体工商户，农村承包经营户、个人合伙相互之间，在四川省行政区域内订立或履行的经济合同。
第四条 各级人民政府应加强经济合同管理工作的领导。
各级工商行政管理部门是经济合同的主管机关，统一管理各类经济合同。
各级经济合同主管机关、司法行政机关与各业务主管部门、银行、信用合作社应密切配合，依照各自的职能，组织本条例的实施。
第二章 经济合同管理部门和企业事业单位的职责
第五条 经济合同主管机关的职责是：
（一）宣传贯彻经济合同法律、法规和政策，制订管理经济合同的规章制度；
（二）监督检查经济合同的订立、履行、变更和解除；
（三）办理经济合同鉴证；
（四）调解、仲裁经济合同纠纷；
（五）确认和处理无效经济合同；
（六）查处利用经济合同进行违法活动的行为；
（七）指导、监督各业务主管部门和企业事业单位的经济合同管理工作。
工商行政管理部门应设立经济合同管理机构，配备相应的管理人员。
第六条 各级业务主管部门负责管理本系统的经济合同，其职责是：
（一）宣传贯彻经济合同法律、法规，制订本系统的经济合同管理制度和考核办法；
（二）监督检查本系统经济合同的订立、履行、变更和解除；
（三）调解本系统的经济合同纠纷，促进双方互相谅解，达成协议；调解不成或事后翻悔的，督促当事人及时向经济合同仲裁机关申请调解、仲裁或直接向人民法院起诉；
（四）防止本系统订立无效经济合同和利用经济合同进行违法活动，一经发现，应报请工商行政管理部门或司法机关依法处理。
各级业务主管部门应设立或指定管理经济合同的机构，配备相应的专职或兼职人员。
第七条 银行、信用合作社应通过信贷管理和结算管理，监督经济合同的履行，其职责是：
（一）银行、信用合作社应当按照结算制度的规定办理结算，并处理承付、拒付以及扣收延付款项、维护经济合同当事人的合法权益；
（二）工商行政管理部门在确认无效经济合同和查处违法经济合同案件过程中，确需向银行、信用合作社查询案件当事人的帐户存款，银行、信用合作社应凭县以上（含县）工商行政管理部门的查询函件协助办理；
（三）经济合同当事人对调解书、仲裁决定书或法院的判决书在规定期限内没有自动履行的，银行、信用合作社在收到人民法院的协助执行通知书后，应当从当事人帐户中扣留或划拨需支付的款项；
（四）经济合同当事人对工商行政管理部门已经确认生效的无效经济合同确认书、违法合同处理决定书，在规定期限内不自动履行的，银行、信用合作社在收到县以上（含县）工商行政管理部门的协助执行通知书后，应当从当事人帐户中扣留或划拨需支付的款项。
第八条 区公所、乡（镇）人民政府、街道办事处负责所属企业、个体工商户、农村承包经营户、个人合伙的经济合同管理工作。
第九条 各企业事业单位管理本单位的经济合同，其职责是：
（一）组织本单位干部、职工学习贯彻经济合同法律、法规，建立健全本单位的经济合同管理制度和考核办法；
（二）根据国家和业务主管部门下达的计划、项目和企业生产经营的需要，依法签订和履行经济合同，办理经济合同的变更，解除工作；
（三）发生经济合同纠纷，应及时协商解决，协商不成，依法向经济合同仲裁机关申请调解、仲裁或直接向人民法院起诉；
（四）发现所签订的经济合同属无效经济合同或违法经济合同，应报请工商行政管理部门或司法机关依法处理。
各企业事业单位视需要设立或指定管理经济合同的机构或人员。
第三章 经济合同的监督检查
第十条 各业务主管部门应建立定期或不定期的经济合同检查制度，工商行政管理部门应会同业务主管部门重点抽查或联合检查。
经济合同当事人必须接受、服从工商行政管理部门、银行、信用合作社、业务主管部门的监督检查。
第十一条 监督检查经济合同的主要内容：
（一）审查当事人的合法资格及经济合同的主要条款；
（二）审查经济合同的真实性、合法性及当事人的履约能力；
（三）监督当事人对不能及时清结的经济往来，必须依法签订书面经济合同；
（四）督促、检查当事人全面履行经济合同；
（五）检查变更或解除经济合同是否履行了法定手续；
（六）检查无效经济合同和利用经济合同进行违法的行为。
第十二条 凡法律、法规和规章规定应报送备案的经济合同，当事人必须将合同副本分别报送双方所在地的工商行政管理部门和业务主管部门备案。
加强经济合同文本管理，使合同文本规范化，除各级主管部门商得工商行政管理部门同意制定的专业合同文本外，凡未制定统一文本的，由县以上（含县）业务主管部门会同工商行政管理部门制定。
各级工商行政管理部门、业务主管部门、企业事业单位，都应建立经济合同档案。
第十三条 因经济合同当事人一方的违约行为，侵害国家或社会公共利益造成严重经济损失，另一方必须依法追究违约方的责任，如不追究责任，县以上（含县）工商行政管理部门有权收缴违约方应偿付的违约金和赔偿金，上缴国库。
第四章 经济合同的鉴证、公证和纠纷的处理
第十四条 经济合同的鉴证机关是各级工商行政管理部门。工商行政管理部门根据当事人双方的申请，依法证明该经济合同的真实性、合法性。
第十五条 经济合同的鉴证，一般由合同签订地或履行地的工商行政管理部门办理，签订合同的当事人至少有一方在合同签订地或履行地，工商行政管理部门才予以鉴证。
经鉴证的涉及外地的经济合同，由鉴证机关及时将合同副本转给对方所在地工商行政管理部门。
第十六条 经济合同的公证机关是公证处。公证机关根据经济合同当事人双方申请，依照法定程序证明该经济合同的真实性、合法性。
经济合同的公证，按照《中华人民共和国公证暂行条例》的规定办理。
第十七条 经济合同的鉴证与公证均实行自愿原则，但国家和省人民政府规定必须鉴证或公证的除外。
经济合同当事人，可到鉴证机关鉴证，也可到公证机关办理公证。
第十八条 经鉴证或公证的经济合同，如需变更或解除，必须经双方协商一致，并以协议书形式，报送原鉴证机关或公证机关备案。
第十九条 工商行政管理部门、公证机关依法鉴证或公证经济合同，符合鉴证或公证规定的，予以鉴证或公证；不符合鉴证或公证规定的，不予鉴证或公证。
发现经鉴证或公证的经济合同有错误，原鉴证或公证机关应及时撤销鉴证或公证，责任属原鉴证或公证机关的，退还鉴证或公证费。
第二十条 人民法院受理经济合同纠纷案件按有关法律规定办理。
经济合同仲裁机关受理经济合同纠纷案件，按《中华人民共和国经济合同仲裁条例》办理。
第五章 无效经济合同的确认和处理
第二十一条 无效经济合同的确认权归工商行政管理部门和人民法院。
第二十二条 人民法院受理的无效经济合同案件，按有关法律规定办理。
第二十三条 工商行政管理部门在监督检查中发现的无效经济合同案件，用确认书处理；涉及罚款的无效经济合同案件，用决定书处理。
经济合同仲裁机关在仲裁经济合同纠纷案件中发现的无效经济合同，用调解书或仲裁决定书处理。
第二十四条 当事人对经济合同仲裁委员会的仲裁不服，在收到仲裁决定书之日起十五天内，向人民法院起诉；逾期不起诉的，仲裁决定书即发生法律效力。
第二十五条 当事人对工商行政管理部门确认的无效经济合同不服，可在接到确认书和处理决定书之日起十五天内，向上一级工商行政管理部门申请复议，逾期不申请复议的，确认书和处理决定书即生效。
上一级工商行政管理部门审查复议申请，如原确认正确，驳回复议申请，原确认错误，发回原处理机关重新处理，也可以直接处理。
上一级工商行政管理部门的复议确认为终局确认。
第二十六条 本级工商行政管理部门发现已经发生效力的确认确有错误的，应当撤销确认，重新处理。
上级工商行政管理部门发现下级工商行政管理部门已经发生效力的确认或终局确认确有错误的，应当撤销确认，重新处理。
第六章 利用经济合同进行违法的查处
第二十七条 下列行为属利用经济合同进行违法活动的行为：
（一）伪造经济合同，牟取非法利益；
（二）假冒他人名义签订经济合同，牟取非法利益；
（三）弄虚作假，签订没有履约能力的经济合同，牟取非法利益；
（四）利用经济合同倒卖调拨单、提货单、批文及国家规定的禁止流通物或限制流通物，牟取非法利益；
（五）倒卖经济合同，牟取非法利益；
（六）为不法分子提供盖有公章的空白合同文本，证件和银行、信用合作社帐户，牟取非法利益；
（七）利用签订和履行合同之机，行贿受贿；
（八）利用经济合同转包，牟取非法利益；
（九）一方当事人未经对方同意，擅自将经济合同规定的权利义务转让给第三者，从中牟取非法利益；
（十）其他利用经济合同牟取非法利益的行为；
第二十八条 司法机关和工商行政管理部门依法查处利用经济合同进行违法活动的案件。
第二十九条 工商行政管理部门查处利用经济合同进行违法活动的案件，由发现地工商行政管理部门办理。管辖权发生争议的，由争议双方协商解决。协商不成的，报上级工商行政管理部门指定管辖。
第三十条 工商行政管理部门查处利用经济合同进行违法活动的案件，应以事实为依据，法律为准绳，区别不同情况，给予通报、返还原物、赔偿损失、罚款、收缴进行非法活动的财物和非法所得、限期停业整顿、吊销营业执照的处理。以上处理，可单独适用，也可并用。
利用经济合同进行违法活动触犯刑律的，移送司法机关处理。
第三十一条 工商行政管理部门对利用经济合同进行违法活动的行为，用违法合同处理决定书处理。
第三十二条 当事人对工商行政管理部门的处理不服，可在收到处理决定书之日起十五日内，向上一级工商行政管理部门申请复议，逾期不申请复议的，决定书即生效。
上一级工商行政管理部门审查复议申请，如原处理正确，驳回复议申请；原处理错误，发回原处理机关重新处理。也可以直接处理。
上一级工商行政管理部门的复议决定为终局决定。
第三十三条 本级工商行政管理部门发现已经发生效力的处理决定书确有错误的，应当撤销决定，重新处理。
上级工商行政管理部门发现下级工商行政管理部门已经发生效力的处理决定书或终局决定确有错误的，应当撤销决定，重新处理。
第三十四条 任何单位和个人，不得包庇纵容利用经济合同进行违法活动的行为，不得对检举揭发人进行打击报复。违者，由有关部门给予行政处分，情节严重触犯刑律的，由司法机关处理。
第七章 附则
第三十五条 本条例由四川省工商行政管理局解释。
第三十六条 本条例自颁布之日起施行。
大连市人民政府关于印发大连市渔业船舶转港生产安全管理办法（试行）的通知
辽宁省大连市人民政府
大连市人民政府关于印发大连市渔业船舶转港生产安全管理办法（试行）的通知
大政发 [2006] 36号
各区、市、县人民政府，大连开发区管委会，市政府有关部门：
现将《大连市渔业船舶转港生产安全管理办法（试行）》印发给你们，请遵照执行。
二○○六年四月十三日
大连市渔业船舶转港生产 安全管理办法（试行）
第一条 为加强渔业船舶转港生产的安全管理，保障渔民生命和财产安全，根据《中华人民共和国安全生产法》、《中华人民共和国海上交通安全法》、《辽宁省海洋渔业安全管理条例》和《辽宁省渔船管理条例》等有关法律、法规，结合我市实际，制定本办法。
第二条 本办法适用于我市转港生产的渔业船舶。
转港生产的渔业船舶是指超过船籍港管辖海域从事捕捞生产和为渔业生产服务并到其他港口停泊或装卸渔获物的渔业船舶。
第三条 区市县人民政府（含大连开发区管委会，下同）应当加强对转港生产渔船安全工作的领导，层层落实安全管理责任制。
第四条 乡（镇）人民政府（含街道办事处，下同）具体组织实施转港生产渔船安全管理，对船东、船长和渔民进行安全教育，实施乡与村、村与船签状管理，落实安全生产责任制。
第五条 村民委员会（含居民委员会，下同）负责对本辖区的转港生产渔船进行编队，确定带队船和负责人。
第六条 市及区市县渔业行政主管部门是转港生产渔船安全管理主管部门，负责转港生产渔船的安全监督管理工作。
第七条 区市县人民政府、渔业行政主管部门应加强对乡（镇）人民政府、村民委员会的领导和协调，在早春和晚冬时节，督促、组织有关人员到本辖区转港生产渔船生产所在地，对渔船、渔民实施跟踪管理和安全检查教育。
第八条 转港生产渔船较多的地区，当地渔业行政主管部门和乡（镇）人民政府应设立单边带电台，保证陆、海通讯联络。
第九条 转港生产渔船船东是本船安全生产第一责任人，船长对本船航行、作业和锚泊负直接责任。
第十条 转港生产渔船转港前，船东应当向船籍所在地乡（镇）人民政府及村民委员会报告转港的时间和目的港及经常进出港。当地乡（镇）人民政府应将转港生产渔船数量、编队等情况，报所属区市县渔业行政主管部门备案。
第十一条 转港生产渔船每年出海前，应当与当地渔业行政主管部门或乡（镇）人民政府签订《安全生产保证书》、《不越界捕鱼承诺书》等协议。
第十二条 转港生产渔船应符合下列条件：
（一）船体及设备技术状况良好。渔船应经渔船检验机构检验合格，按规定配备救生、消防、通讯导航设备。每船必须配备对讲机或同等性能的通讯设备和卫星导航定位仪，带队船还须配备100瓦以上单边带电台，保证船与船、船与陆台之间通讯畅通。
（二）有关证书齐全。渔船应持有效的船舶检验证书、渔船登记证书（国籍证书）和船舶航行签证簿。捕捞渔船应持有捕捞许可证；入渔韩国、日本专属经济区水域的渔船应持有捕捞专项特许证。
（三）按规定配备职务船员和足以保证船舶安全的普通船员。职务船员必须持有相应等级的证书，入渔韩国、日本专属经济区水域渔船的职务船员，必须参加市渔港监督部门的业务培训，熟悉渔业法规、涉外安全知识及外事纪律。动力150千瓦以上（含150千瓦）的渔船船员应当持有海上求生、救生艇阀操纵、船舶消防、海上急救等专业训练证书；动力150千瓦以下的渔船船员应当持有专业基础训练证书。
（四）按规定刷写船名号，悬挂船名牌。
第十三条 转港生产渔船在海上作业、航行和锚泊时，应当遵守《国际海上避碰规则》及我国有关海上交通的法律、法规和规章。不得在通航密集区生产或锚泊。夜间作业、航行、锚泊时应当加强值班、了望，按规定显示号灯。在通航管制海域航行时，船长应当亲自驾驶，其他职务船员应严格履行各自职责，保障渔船和人员的安全。
第十四条 转港生产渔船出海作业时，应当按时收听天气预报，不得超风级、超航区生产作业。如收到超过本船抗风等级大风警报，应当及时到就近港避风，不得蓄意在海上抗风熬潮。来不及回港避风的，应当采取切实可行保证安全的防风措施。
第十五条 转港生产渔船在海上作业、航行、锚泊时，应当保持船与船、船与陆地之间的通讯联络畅通，特别是在大风恶劣天气中，应当始终保持与陆台或友邻船的通讯联络，及时通报情况。
第十六条 转港生产渔船在大风浪天航行时，应当关闭水密装置，保持甲板畅通，固定好船上活动物品，保证船舶稳性，船上人员应穿着救生衣。
第十七条 转港生产渔船雾天作业、航行、锚泊时，应当加强值班、了望，按规定施放有效声号。
第十八条 转港生产渔船在防台汛期间，应当服从当地港航安全管理部门和编队带队船的指挥，离开禁用港口到防台汛港口锚泊避风。在台风来临时，应当加强值班，密切注意风流变化，采取有效抗风防浪措施。如在海上作业，应当立即停止作业到就近安全港口避风。
第十九条 转港生产渔船在冬季作业时，应当采取防冻、防滑、防冰安全措施，防止煤烟中毒事故。
第二十条 转港生产渔船应当加强日常生活用火和机舱防火管理，严禁船员在机舱内吸烟，烟头、火柴梗不得乱丢。船员离船时，应当对船上的火源进行彻底检查，确保安全后锁好门窗方可离去。
第二十一条 转港生产渔船应当合理配载，不准搭客和违章超载。
第二十二条 转港生产渔船发生海损事故时，应当组织自救，并及时发出求救信号，同时以最迅速的方式将出事时间、地点、受损情况、救助要求及发生事故的原因，向就近的渔港监督机构报告，同时向船籍所在地的乡（镇）人民政府和有关管理部门报告。
第二十三条 事故现场附近的船舶在收到求救信号或发现渔船和人员遭遇危险时，在不严重危及自身安全的情况下，应当尽力救助，并迅速向有关单位报告本船的名称、呼号、位置和现场情况。
第二十四条 转港生产渔船转港前和返回后，应当按有关规定到当地渔港监督机构办理签证手续。渔港监督人员应当登船进行安全检查，做好记录。
第二十五条 本办法自发布之日起施行。
Chapter VI
General Rules of Evidence
under the WTO Jurisprudence
OUTLINE
I Burden of Proof under the WTO Jurisprudence
(ⅰ) General Rules Well Established in Violation Complaints
(ⅱ) Burden of Proof in case of Invoking an Exception
(ⅲ) Special Rules Concerning Non-Violation Claims
(ⅳ) Summary and Conclusions
II Admissibility of Certain Evidences
(ⅰ) Evidence Obtained from Prior Consultations
(a) Procedural Concern: Confidentiality of Consultations
(b) Substantial Concern: Necessity or Relevance of Evidence
(ⅱ) Arguments before Domestic Investigative Authorities
(ⅲ) Arguments Submitted after the First Substantive Meeting
(a) There is a significant difference between the claims and the arguments supporting those claims.
(b)There is no provision establishing precise deadlines for the presentation of evidence.
III Panel’s Right to Seek Information
(ⅰ) A Grant of Discretionary Authority
(ⅱ) The Admissibility of Non-requested Information
(ⅲ) Summary and Conclusions
IV Adverse Inferences from Party’s Refusal to Provide Information Requested
(ⅰ) The Authority of a Panel to Request Information from a Party to the Dispute
(ⅱ) The Duty of a Member to Comply with the Request of a Panel to Provide Information
(ⅲ) The Drawing of Adverse Inferences from the Refusal of a Party to Provide Information Requested by the Panel
V Concluding Remarks
I Burden of Proof under the WTO Jurisprudence
Generally, the question of whether a member acted in accordance with the agreement hinges frequently on whether and to what extent that member must demonstrate compliance or the complaint must demonstrate a lack of compliance. It is demonstrated that the burden of proof is a procedural concept which speaks to the fair and orderly management and disposition of a dispute. This is the issue of “the ultimate burden of proof for establishing a claim or a defence”. In this respect, the Panel Report on US-Copyright Act (DS160) states, “[w]hile a duty rests on all parties to produce evidence and to cooperate in presenting evidence to the Panel, this is an issue that has to be distinguished from the question of who bears the ultimate burden of proof for establishing a claim or a defence”.1
(i) General Rules Well Established in Violation Complaints
Art. 3.8 of the DSU provides that in cases where there is an infringement of the obligations assumed under a covered agreement -- that is, in cases where a violation is established -- there is a presumption of nullification or impairment. However, the issue of burden of proof here is not what happens after a violation is established; the issue is which party must first show that there is, or is not, a violation. In this respect, a number of GATT 1947 panel reports contain language supporting the proposition that the burden of establishing a violation under Article XXIII:1(a) of the GATT 1947 was on the complaining party, i.e., it was for the complaining party to present a prima facie case of violation before a panel. This rule is taken on by the DSB.
With regard to the issue of burden of proof, the Appellate Body in US-Shirts and Blouses (DS33) rules that: “In addressing this issue, we find it difficult, indeed, to see how any system of judicial settlement could work if it incorporated the proposition that the mere assertion of a claim might amount to proof. It is, thus, hardly surprising that various international tribunals, including the International Court of Justice, have generally and consistently accepted and applied the rule that the party who asserts a fact, whether the claimant or the respondent, is responsible for providing proof thereof. Also, it is a generally-accepted canon of evidence in civil law, common law and, in fact, most jurisdictions, that the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether complaining or defending, who asserts the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. If that party adduces evidence sufficient to raise a presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden then shifts to the other party, who will fail unless it adduces sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption.” 2And this ruling is demonstrated to be well established in subsequent cases as a general rule concerning burden of proof.
For example, in Argentina-Leather (DS155), the Panel states: “The relevant rules concerning burden of proof, while not expressly provided for in the DSU, are well established in WTO jurisprudence. The general rule is set out in the Appellate Body report on United States - Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses, wherein it is stated that: ‘It is a generally-accepted canon of evidence in civil law, common law and, in fact, most jurisdictions, that the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether complaining or defending, who asserts the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. If that party adduces evidence sufficient to raise a presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden then shifts to the other party, who will fail unless it adduces sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption’.” 3
And in US-Cotton Yarn (DS192), the Panel rules in pertinent part: “The Appellate Body and subsequent panels endorsed this principle that a complainant bears the burden of proof. For example, the Appellate Body, in EC - Hormones, states as follows: ‘… The initial burden lies on the complaining party, which must establish a prima facie case of inconsistency with a particular provision of the SPS Agreement on the part of the defending party, or more precisely, of its SPS measure or measures complained about. When that prima facie case is made, the burden of proof moves to the defending party, which must in turn counter or refute the claimed inconsistency. This seems straightforward enough and is in conformity with our ruling in United States - Shirts and Blouses, which the Panel invokes and which embodies a rule applicable in any adversarial proceedings.’” 4
As a whole, on the one hand, as ruled by the Panel in Argentina-Ceramic Floor Tiles (DS189), “[w]e recall that the burden of proof in WTO dispute settlement proceedings rests with the party that asserts the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. It implies that the complaining party will be required to make a prima facie case of violation of the relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement, which is for the defendant…to refute. In this regard, the Appellate Body has stated that ‘... a prima facie case is one which, in the absence of effective refutation by the defending party, requires a panel, as a matter of law, to rule in favour of the complaining party presenting the prima facie case’…”; 5 on the other hand, as noted in the Panel Report on US-Copyright Act (DS160), “[t]he same rules apply where the existence of a specific fact is alleged. We note that a party who asserts a fact, whether the claimant or the respondent, is responsible for providing proof thereof. It is for the party alleging the fact to prove its existence. It is then for the other party to submit evidence to the contrary if it challenges the existence of that fact”. 6
In sum, with respect to the general rules of burden of proof in the context of violation complaints, as ruled by the Panel in Japan-Film (DS44): “[w]e note that as in all cases under the WTO/GATT dispute settlement system - and, indeed, as the Appellate Body recently stated, under most systems of jurisprudence - it is for the party asserting a fact, claim or defence to bear the burden of providing proof thereof. Once that party has put forward sufficient evidence to raise a presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden of producing evidence then shifts to the other party to rebut the presumption.…”. 7Certainly, as noted by the Appellate Body in US-Shirts and Blouses (DS33), “[i]n the context of the GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement precisely how much and precisely what kind of evidence will be required to establish such a presumption will necessarily vary from measure to measure, provision to provision and case to case”.8
(ii) Burden of Proof in case of Invoking an Exception
As discussed above, generally, the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether complaining or defending, who asserts a fact or the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. As to be shown, this rule applies equally even in case of invoking an exception.
In this context, it is a general principle of law, well-established by panels in prior GATT/WTO practice, that the party (the defendant) which invokes an exception in order to justify its action carries the burden of proof that it has fulfilled the conditions for invoking the exception. However, in the author’s view, to understand the issue concerning burden of proof in case of invoking an exception, which is different from the relatively clear burden of establishing a prima facie case of violation on the complaining party, it’s helpful to stress some points here, among which the key point is to be cautious while determine which defence is “affirmative” and therefore burdens the defendant to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the challenged violation.
In United States-Shirts and Blouses (DS33), India argues that it was “customary GATT practice” that the party invoking a provision which had been identified as an exception must offer proof that the conditions set out in that provision were met. The Appellate Body acknowledges that several GATT 1947 and WTO panels have required such proof of a party invoking a defence, such as those found in Art. XX or Art. XI:2(c)(i), to a claim of violation of a GATT obligation, such as those found in Arts. I:1, II:1, III or XI:1. Arts. XX and XI:(2)(c)(i) are limited exceptions from obligations under certain other provisions of the GATT 1994, not positive rules establishing obligations in themselves. They are in the nature of affirmative defences. It is only reasonable that the burden of establishing such a defence, i.e. invoking an exception in the nature of affirmative defences, should rest on the party asserting it. 9
However, as ruled by the Appellate Body in EC-Hormones (DS26/DS48), “[t]he general rule in a dispute settlement proceeding requiring a complaining party to establish a prima facie case of inconsistency with a provision of …[the covered agreements] before the burden of showing consistency with that provision is taken on by the defending party, is not avoided by simply describing that same provision as an ‘exception’. In much the same way, merely characterizing a treaty provision as an ‘exception’ does not by itself justify a ‘stricter’ or ‘narrower’ interpretation of that provision than would be warranted by examination of the ordinary meaning of the actual treaty words, viewed in context and in the light of the treaty's object and purpose, or, in other words, by applying the normal rules of treaty interpretation. It is also well to remember that a prima facie case is one which, in the absence of effective refutation by the defending party, requires a panel, as a matter of law, to rule in favour of the complaining party presenting the prima facie case.” 10
In short, during the process of the establishment of a violation, it’s generally up to the complainant to provide evidence concerning inconsistency, and only in case of limited exceptions the burden of proof rests upon the defending party invoking a defence in the nature of affirmative defences, such as those found in Art. XX or Art. XI:2(c)(i) of the GATT 1994.
(iii) Special Rules Concerning Non-Violation Claims
As suggested by the corresponding provisions, the most significant difference between violation complaints under Art. XXIII:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and non-violation ones under Art. XXIII:1(b) is, while, when violation complaints are brought under Art. XXIII:1(a), the infringement of an obligation of the agreements is considered prima facie to constitute a case of nullification or impairment, from the fact of violation alone, by establishing a formal presumption, such a presumption does not exist in non-violation cases.
With the lack of such a presumption, and given the nature of the factually complex disputes and particular claims of non-violation nullification or impairment, the resolution of issues relating to the proper allocation of the burden of proof is of particular importance. In case of non-violation nullification or impairment, i.e., where the application of Art. XXIII:1(b) is concerned, Art. 26.1(a) of the DSU and panel practice in the context of the WTO Agreement and GATT jurisprudence confirm that this is an exceptional course of action for which the complaining party bears the burden of providing a detailed justification to back up its allegations.
This requirement has been recognized and applied by a number of GATT panels. For example, the panel on Uruguayan Recourse to Art. XXIII noted that in cases “where there is no infringement of GATT provisions, it would be ... incumbent on the country invoking Article XXIII to demonstrate the grounds and reasons for its invocation. Detailed submissions on the part of that contracting party on these points were therefore essential for a judgement to be made under this Article”. And the panel on US - Agricultural Waiver noted, in applying the 1979 codification of this rule: “The party bringing a complaint under [Article XXIII:1(b)] would normally be expected to explain in detail that benefits accruing to it under a tariff concession have been nullified or impaired”.
Art. 26.1(a) of the DSU codifies the prior GATT practice, which provides in relevant part: “the complaining party shall present a detailed justification in support of any complaint relating to a measure which does not conflict with the relevant covered agreement ...”.
