WORLD TRADE WT/DS7/R
5August 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-3119)
Original: English
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES -TRADE DESCRIPTION
OFSCALLOPS
(REQUEST BYCANADA)
Report ofthePanel
Thisreport ofthePanel isbeing circulated toallMembers, pursuant totheDSU.
Thereport isbeing circulated asanunrestricted document from5August 1996pursuant
totheProcedures fortheCirculation andDerestriction ofWTO Documents
(WT/L/160/Rev.1).WT/DS7/R
Page2
1. On19May1995, theGovernment ofCanada requested consultations withtheEuropean
Communities ("EC") concerning French Order NOR MERP9300051A of22March 1993 andits
amendments, relating totheofficial names andpermitted trade descriptions ofscallops inFrance.
Thisrequest wasmade pursuant toArticle XXII:1 oftheGeneral Agreement onTariffs andTrade
1994("GATT1994"),Article14.1oftheAgreementonTechnicalBarrierstoTrade("TBTAgreement"),
andArticle 4oftheUnderstanding onRules andProcedures Governing theSettlement ofDisputes
("DSU"). Inaccordance withArticle 4oftheDSU, therequest wascirculated toMembers ofthe
World Trade Organization ("WTO") on24May1995 (WT/DS7/1).
2. Pursuant toArticle 4.11 oftheDSU, Chile on31May 1995 (WT/DS7/2), andIceland
(WT/DS7/3), Japan (WT/DS7/4) andPeru(WT/DS7/5) on2June1995, requested tobejoined inthe
consultations requested byCanada. On23June1995, theECinformed theDispute Settlement Body
(“DSB”)thatithadaccepted these requests (WT/DS7/6). Consultations were heldinGeneva on
19June1995.
3. Consultations failed tosettle thedispute and,on7July1995, Canada requested theDSBto
establish apanel, atitsnextmeeting, pursuant toArticle XXIII ofGATT 1994, Article 14oftheTBT
Agreement andArticles 4and6oftheDSU(WT/DS7/7 andCorr.1). Canada requested thatthepanel
consider andfindthattheFrench Order andsubsequent amendments are:
(a) inconsistent withArticle 2oftheTBTAgreement;
(b) inconsistent withArticles IandIIIofGATT 1994; and
(c) nullifying andimpairing benefits accruing toCanada under theWTO Agreement.
4. On19July1995, pursuant totherequest made byCanada, theDSBestablished apanel with
standard terms ofreference. Theterms ofreference ofthePanel arethefollowing:
"Toexamine, inthelightoftherelevant provisions ofthecovered agreements citedbyCanada
indocument WT/DS7/7, thematter referred totheDSBbyCanada inthatdocument andto
make suchfindings aswillassist theDSBinmaking therecommendations oringiving the
rulings provided forinthose agreements".
5. Australia, Chile, Iceland, Japan, PeruandtheUnited States reserved theirrights toparticipate
inthePanel proceedings asthirdparties. Allthese Members, except Australia, attended thesession
forthirdparties andsubmitted written communications tothePanel.
6. Theparties tothedispute agreed on6September 1995 tothefollowing composition ofthe
Panel:
Chairman: Mr.Michael Cartland
Members: Mr.Peter Palecka
Mrs. Barbara Rigassi.
7. PeruandChile requested consultations withtheECconcerning thesame French Order, on
18and24July1995, respectively. Atitsmeeting on11October 1995, inaccordance withArticle
9oftheDSU, theDSBestablished asingle panel onthesame matter pursuant totherequests ofPeru
(WT/DS12/7) andChile (WT/DS14/6). AtthatDSBmeeting, PeruandChile asked fortheapplication
ofArticle 9.3oftheDSU sothatthesame panelists asthose serving inthisdispute between theEC
andCanada (WT/DS7) would alsoserve onthesingle Panel established pursuant totherequests ofWT/DS7/R
Page3
PeruandChile. On12October 1995, thepanelists serving onthePanel between theECandCanada
(WT/DS7) agreed toactaspanelists onthePanel established forthedispute between theECandPeru
andChile. ThePanel report ofthisrelated dispute iscontained inWT/DS12/R, WT/DS14/R.
8. ThePanel metwiththeparties on12and13October 1995, on12December 1995 andon
5February 1996. Itmetwithinterested thirdparties on13October 1995.
9. On6February 1996, pursuant toArticle 12.9oftheDSU, theChairman ofthePanel informed
theDSBthatthePanel would notbeabletoissueitsreport within sixmonths (Article 12.8oftheDSU).
Thereasons forthatdelay areprovided indocument WT/DS7/9.
10. ThePanel issued theDescriptive Partofitsreport on19February 1996. Itissued theInterim
Report on14March 1996.
11. On2April 1996, attherequest oftheEC,thePanel heldareview meeting withtheparties
pursuant toArticle 15.2oftheDSU, tohearthecomments oftheparties onthePanel’sInterim Report.
12. On16,19and29April 1996, theparties requested thePanel topostpone issuance oftheFinal
Report totheparties.
13. On2May1996, theparties again requested thePanel topostpone issuance oftheFinal Report
totheparties until10May1996 (WT/DS7/10).
14. On10May1996,thepartiesrequestedthePaneltosuspendthePanelproceedingsinaccordance
withArticle 12.12 oftheDSU because theywerediscussing theterms ofamutually agreed solution
(WT/DS7/11).
15. On5July1996, pursuant toArticle 3.6oftheDSU, theparties notified theDSBandtherelevant
Councils andCommittees thattheyhadreached amutually agreed solution, which wascirculated as
document WT/DS7/12 on19July1996.
16. ThePanel takes noteofthismutually agreed solution between theparties tothedispute and
oftheprovisions ofArticle 12.7oftheDSU which provide that“where asettlement ofthematter
among theparties tothedispute hasbeenfound, thereport ofthepanel shallbeconfined toabrief
description ofthecaseandtoreporting thatasolution hasbeenreached ”.Accordingly, thePanel
concludes itsworkbyreporting thatamutually agreed solution tothisdispute hasbeenreached between
theparties.