the EU nine times, and cases in which Chinafiled complaints against the EU
accounted for 33.3 % of those.
Second, all measures involved in complaintsfiled against the EU by China were
two major trade remedy measures—antidumping and anti-subsidy—and involved
thefield of trade in goods and did not involve thefields of trade in services and
intellectual property. The“Fastener case”in which Chinafiled complaints against
the EU in July, 2009 was thefirst case in which Chinafiled complaints against
another major trading partner—the EU—under the dispute settlement mechanism
following the USA and experienced all dispute settlement procedures including
consultation, hearing by an expert panel, review by the Appellate Body and
enforcement. The“Leather shoes case”in which Chinafiled complaints against the
EU in February, 2010 was thefirst case against the EU with a formal international
legal personality under the dispute settlement mechanism after theTreaty of Lisbon
came into force. Both antidumping measure cases have been closed, in which China
prevailed.
6.2.2.2 Characteristics of Cases in Which the EU Filed Complaints
Against China
First, the EU did notfile thefirst complaint against China until 2006, but China
quickly became the uppermost target against which the EUfiled complaints. In the
same period, the EUfiled complaints 17 times against 8 members, among which 6
complaints werefiled against China, making China rank No. 1 in terms of com-
plaints, followed by the USA which was only involved in 3 complaints, while the
number of complaints involving the remaining members was fewer than 2. This
showed that the degree of attention paid to China by the EU was very high.
However, in the same period, complaints werefiled 29 times against China, and
thosefiled against China by the EU accounted for 21 %, lower than the percentage
of complaintsfiled against the EU by China.
Second, among six cases in which complaints werefiled against China, two
cases involved complaintsfiled by the EU alone and the remaining four cases
involved complaints jointlyfiled by the EU and two other members; the USA
participated in each of these four complaints. In dispute settlement practice, all
complaints were led by the USA with cooperation from the EU and other members.
Existence of“the shadow of the USA”suggested that the EU’s desire tofile
complaints against China was not too strong. The“Fastener case”in which the EU
filed a complaint against China constituted retaliation to a certain extent, against the
“fastener case”in which China hadfiled a complaint against the EU.^15 This case
was thefirst case in which the EU alonefiled a complaint against China and also the
(^15) Previously, China and the EU took antidumping and anti-subsidy measures against fasteners
from the other party respectively. A similar case occurred in X-ray security inspection equipment.
126 L. Heng