EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – TRADE DESCRIPTION OF SARDINES
Document: Notification of an Appeal by the European Communities under paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU")
Date: 27 June 2002
Document codes: WT/DS231/10
Complainant: Peru
Respondent: EU
Third parties: Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, U.S.
Dispute stage: Mutually Agreed Solution
Agreements cited: Art. I, III  GATT 1994Art. 2, 12  Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. XI:1  GATT 1994

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – TRADE DESCRIPTION OF SARDINES
Notification of an Appeal by the European Communities
under paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU")
The following notification, dated 25 June 2002, sent by the European Communities to the
Dispute Settlement Body ("DSB"), is circulated to Members. This notification also constitutes the
Notice of Appeal, filed on the same day with the Appellate Body, pursuant to the Working Procedures
for Appellate Review.
Pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the "DSU ") and Rule 20 of the Working procedures for
Appellate review, the European Communities hereby notifies its decision to appeal to the Appellate
Body certain issues of law and legal interpretations covered in the panel report on (, 29 May 2002).
The Appeal relates to the following issues of law and legal interpretation developed by the
Panel in its report:
(a) The Panel erred in law in finding that Council Regulation (EEC) 2136/89, ("the Regulation")
and in particular Article 2 thereof, is a technical regulation relating to preserved Sardinops
Sagax.
(b) The Panel erred in law in considering that Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement was applicable
to technical regulations prepared and adopted before the WTO Agreement entered into force
and in considering that Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement applies to the maintenance of a
technical regulation and not just to its adoption.
(c) The Panel erred in law in its interpretation of the term "relevant international standard" and its
application to Codex Stan 94 and the Regulation.
(d) The Panel erred in law in its interpretation of the Codex Stan-94 and in considering that it is
unambiguous.
(e) The Panel erred in law in its interpretation and application of the term "as a basis for" in
Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement.
(f) The Panel erred in law in its interpretation of Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement and in its
application of the burden and standard of proof thereunder.

(g) The Panel committed several legal errors in coming to the conclusion that Codex Stan 94 is
not ineffective or inappropriate to fulfil the legitimate objectives pursued by the EC
Regulation under consideration, in particular the Panel erred in law in refusing to consider
domestic law as relevant to the question of consumer expectations.
(h) The Panel failed its obligation to make an objective assessment of the matter before it under
Article 11 DSU, inter alia with regard to points (c), (d ), and (g) above.
(i) The Panel erred in law in concluding that the EC Regulation is more trade restrictive than the
Codex Stan 94.