有關WTO爭端解決小組及上訴機構報告在歐洲共同體法律體系內部之地位與效力，引起諸多爭議、探討與關注。烏拉圭回合之前，歐洲共同體法院判例並未明揭應如何定位1947年GATT時代之爭端解決小組報告。烏拉圭回合之後，歐洲共同體法院及第一審法院在若干案件中均駁回原告直接援引WTO爭端解決報告所提之主張。儘管如此，在Biret一案中，歐洲共同體法院所持之立場似乎有所轉變。設若WTO爭端解決小組或上訴機構裁定歐體法規或措施不符WTO協定之規定並建議歐體改正後，倘因歐體未於合理期間內確實執行報告內容而導致個人權益受損，仍不應完全排除個人得直接援引WTO爭端解決報告向法院主張其權利之可能性。不過截至目前為止，歐體法院或第一審法院在處理此一問題時，似乎仍採審慎保守之態度與立場。

The question of the status and the effect of the WTO dispute settlement reports in the European Community legal system has instigated a legal debate and therefore merit some closer attention. Before the Uruguay Round, the case law of the European Court of Justice did not give any guidance as to how the Court would qualify the legal status of a 1947 GATT panel report. After the Uruguay Round, both the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance have rejected in several cases the arguments brought forward by the applicants concerning the direct effect of the WTO Panel and Appellate Body reports. However, it seems that the European Court of Justice has changed its reasoning in the Biret judgment. In this judgment, it seems to leave open the possibility of individuals relying on the WTO panel and Appellate Body reports to recover damages suffered if the panel or Appellate Body has established that certain EC rules or practices are not in conformity with the WTO rules and has required the EC to bring them into conformity with the WTO rules, but the European Community has failed to comply within a reasonable period of time. To date, both the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance have been very prudent and have taken a rather conservative approach in this regard.