Common use of The EU Clause in Contracts

The EU. At the outset, the EU contended that SACU has failed to identify a legal basis for its request that the Arbitration Panel rule as a preliminary matter on the objections,185 and concluded that this request was therefore inadmissible.186 100. In any event, according to the EU, no such legal basis exists: the EU pointed to Article 82(2) EPA, which allows arbitration panels to issue a preliminary ruling “[i]n cases of urgency”, and contends that this is no such case.187 The EU further disputed that ▇▇▇▇’s request could be granted by way of a procedural ruling, which the Arbitration Panel may issue in line with Articles 5, 7(5), and 7(6) of the Rules of Procedure.188 101. Turning to the merits of the preliminary objections, the EU argued that they stem from a “fundamental misunderstanding”,189 i.e., a confusion between the “measure at issue”, and the claims arising from that measure.190 For the EU, ITAC’s investigation and the safeguard duty are “two parts (or elements) of the same” measure (namely, the bilateral safeguard measure).191 The EU next contended that ITAC’s investigation was mentioned several times in its REP, and was “extensively discussed” during the consultations with SACU.192