WORLD TRADE WT/DS26/9
25September 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-4084)
ECMEASURES CONCERNING MEAT AND MEAT PRODUCTS (HORMONES)
Notification ofanAppeal bytheEuropean Communities under
paragraph 4ofArticle 16oftheUnderstanding onRules
andProcedures Governing theSettlement ofDisputes (DSU)
Thefollowing notification, dated 24September 1997, sentbytheEuropean Communities to
theDispute Settlement Body (DSB), iscirculated toMembers. Thisnotification alsoconstitutes the
Notice ofAppeal, filedonthesame daywiththeAppellate Body, pursuant totheWorking Procedures
forAppellate Review .
_________________________
PursuanttoArticle16:4oftheUnderstandingonRulesandProceduresGoverningtheSettlement
ofDisputes (DSU) andRule 20oftheWorking Procedures forAppellate Review, theEuropean
Communities hereby notifies itsdecision toappeal totheAppellate Body certain findings andthe
conclusions ofthePanel onEuropean Communities -Measures concerning meatandmeatproducts
(hormones) -Complaint bytheUnited States (WT/DS26/R/USA).
TheEuropean Communities request thattheAppellate Body review thefollowing errors of
issues oflawcovered inthepanel report andlegalinterpretations developed bythePanel:
1. ThePanel erred inlawinfinding thattheEuropean Communities hasacted inconsistently with
therequirements contained inArticle 3:1oftheSPSAgreement, inparticular initslegal
interpretation oftheconcepts of"based on",burden ofproof, appropriate level ofsanitary
protection chosen bytheEuropean Communities, thejustifications required oftheEuropean
Communities toshow thatithasfulfilled theconditions ofArticle 3:3oftheSPSAgreement,
andtheroleassigned totherecommendations ofCodex Alimentarius asinternational standards
forthefivehormones indispute, when usedforgrowth promotion inaccordance withgood
practice.
2. ThePanel erred inlawinfinding thattheEuropean Communities hasacted inconsistently with
therequirements contained inArticle 5:1oftheSPSAgreement forthesixhormones indispute,
inparticular initslegalinterpretation ofthetechniques andthefactors tobetaken intoaccount
fortheassessment ofrisk,theconcepts of"identifiable" riskandweight ofevidence incase
ofscientific uncertainty, andthelegalreasons forwhich thescientific andother evidence which
wasinvoked bytheEuropean Communities could notmeettherequirements ofArticles 5.1-5.2
oftheSPSAgreement.
./.WT/DS26/9
Page2
3. ThePanel erred inlawinfinding thattheEuropean Communities hasacted inconsistently with
therequirements contained inArticle 5:5oftheSPSAgreement, inparticular initslegal
interpretation oftheprovisions ofArticle 5:5andthereasons forwhich itfound "arbitrary
orunjustifiable distinctions" inthelevels ofsanitary protection applied bytheEuropean
Communities in"different situations" forboththenatural andsynthetic hormones (including
thehormone MGA) usedasgrowth promoters, asopposed tothose occurring endogenously
inmeatandother natural products andforCarbadox, andofitsinterpretation andapplication
ofthephrase "discrimination oradisguised restriction oninternational trade".
4. ThePanel erred inlawinitsfindings thattheEuropean Communities violated Articles 3:1,
3:3,5:1and5:5oftheSPSAgreement because these findings arebased onlegalreasoning
which failed tointerpret these provisions intheirproper context, inparticular thesovereign
right ofStates todetermine theirappropriate levelofsanitary protection; anditsfailure to
exercise proper judicial self-restraint. Thepanel alsofailed toapply theappropriate standards
ofreview andtheappropriate burden ofproof, toshow deference tothescientific andfactual
determinations made bytheauthorities oftheEuropean Communities, thussubstituting its
scientific judgment forthatoftheEC; anditfailed toexamine theapplicability ofthe
precautionary principle toallhormones indispute, itdistorted andinterpreted erroneously the
scientific andfactual evidence submitted orreferred toitbytheEuropean Communities, and
itfailed tomake anobjective assessment (asrequired bytheDSU) ofthescientific evidence
presented toitbysome ofthescientific experts ithaschosen.
5. ThePanel erred inlawintheprocedural andorganizational decisions ithastaken asregards
theselection ofthescientific andtechnical experts, themandate andquestions submitted to
those experts, theextended third-party rights itgranted toCanada intheproceeding andits
refusal torequest theUnited States toprovide copies ofthescientific evidence onwhich it
granted theauthorizations fortheuseofthesixhormones indispute foranimal growth
promotion.