EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – DEFINITIVE SAFEGUARD MEASURE ON SALMON
Document: Request for Consultations by Norway
Date: 3 March 2005
Document codes: WT/DS328/1; G/L/733; G/SG/D33/1
Complainant: Norway
Respondent: EU
Dispute stage: Consultation
Agreements cited: Art. XIX  GATT 1994Art. 2, 3, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 7.4, 11.1(b)  Safeguards

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – DEFINITIVE SAFEGUARD MEASURE
ON SALMON

Request for Consultations by Norway

 The following communication, dated 1 March 2005, from the delegation of Norway to the
delegation of the European Communities and to th e Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is
circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.

 Norway hereby requests consultations with the European Communities (EC) pursuant to
Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),
Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tari ffs and Trade (GATT 1994) and Article 14 of the
Agreement on Safeguards (Safeguards Agreement). This request is related to the definitive safeguard
measure applied by the EC in terms of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 206/2005 of
4 February 2005 ("EC Regulation") to imports of farmed salmon, whether or not filleted, fresh,
chilled or frozen.

 The EC Regulation was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on
5 February 2005. It took effect on 6 February 2005 and will remain in force until 13 August 2008.
The measure consists of (a) a system of tariff quotas beyond which an additional duty will be applied
to imports of the product in question; (b) a mi nimum import price, which applies to all imports,
whether within or in excess of the tariff quota; and (c) a security to be provided on importation
payable by all importers.

 Norway considers this definitive safeguard me asure to be inconsistent with the European
Communities' obligations under the GATT 1994 and the Safeguards Agreement, because, inter alia:

(a) There were no "unforeseen developments" that resulted in an increase in imports as required
by Article XIX of GATT 1994;

(b) The product concerned is not being imported in sufficiently sudden, sharp, and significantly
increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury
to the domestic industry producing like or directly competitive products, as required by
Article XIX of GATT 1994 and Article 2.1 of the Safeguards Agreement;

(c) The determination of the scope of the domestic industry is not consistent with Article 4.1(c)
of the Safeguards Agreement.

(d) In determining whether the domestic indus try suffered serious injury, the competent
authorities failed adequately to evaluate all relevant factors (including those listed in

Article 4.2(a) of the Safeguards Agreement) of an objective and quantifiable nature having a
bearing on the situation of the domestic industry, as required by Article 4.2(a). Furthermore,
there was no "significant overall impairment" in the position of the domestic industry that
justified the determination of serious injury as required by Article 4.2(a) of the Safeguards
Agreement;

(e) The determination fails to establish the ex istence of the necessary causal link between the
increased imports and the finding of serious in jury, as required by Article 4.2(b) of the
Safeguards Agreement. The determination also fails to adequately distinguish between the
injurious effects of the increase in imports a nd the injurious effects of other factors causing
injury to the domestic industry at the same time , and fails to ensure that injury caused by
other factors has not been attributed to increas ed imports as required by Article 4.2(b) of the
Safeguards Agreement;

(f) The determination that an increase in imports and serious injury justified the imposition of a
safeguard measure on 4 February 2005 was not based on sufficiently recent data, given that
the Commission terminated the period of inves tigation at the end of December 2003, and the
determination is therefore inc onsistent with Article XIX of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1,
3.1 and 4.2 of the Safeguards Agreement;

(g) The report issued by the competent authoriti es did not set forth adequately the findings and
reasoned conclusions on all pertinent issues of f act and law, including those identified in the
preceding paragraphs, as required by Article 3. 1 of the Safeguards Agreement, and does not
provide a detailed analysis of the case, includi ng a demonstration of the relevance of the
factors examined, as required by Article 4.2(c) of the Agreement;

(h) The competent authorities have failed to comply with the obligations set forth in Article 3.1
of the Safeguards Agreement to provide all inter ested parties with an adequate opportunity to
present their views and to respond to the presentations of other parties;

(i) The definitive safeguard measure imposed is in consistent with Article 5.1 of the Safeguards
Agreement because it exceeds the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury caused
by increased imports and to facilitate adjustment;

(j) Articles 2 and 3 of the EC Regulation are inc onsistent with Article 11. 1(b) of the Safeguards
Agreement in so far as they impose a mini mum price control mechanism - including the
provision of a security to guarantee import prices - which monitors import prices.

(k) Articles 2 and 3 of the EC Regulation are in consistent with Article 7.4 of the Safeguard
Agreement because they do not include any basis for a progr essive liberalization of the
minimum price and the security to be provided on importation.

 In light of the above considerations, Norw ay considers the definitive safeguard measure
imposed on imports of farmed salmon, whether or not filleted, fresh, chilled or frozen, to be
inconsistent with various WTO provisions including Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 11 of the Safeguards
Agreement and XIX:1 of GATT 1994.

 Norway reserves its rights regarding the pursuit of the remedies provided for in the
Safeguards Agreement and the DSU and also reserves its rights to raise additional factual matters and
legal claims during the course of the consultations and in any future request for panel proceedings.

 We look forward to receiving your reply to this request and to fixing a mutually acceptable
date for consultations.