EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - TRADE DESCRIPTION OF SCALLOPS
Document: Original: French EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - TRADE DESCRIPTION OF SCALLOPS Request for Consultations by Canada
Date: 24 May 1995
Complainant: Canada
Respondent: EU
Third parties: Australia, Chile, Iceland, Japan, Peru, U.S.
Dispute stage: Mutually Agreed Solution
Agreements cited: Art. 2  Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. I, III  GATT 1994

WORLD TRADE WT/DS/7/1

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - TRADE DESCRIPTION OF SCALLOPS
Request for Consultations by Canada
The following communication dated 19 May 1995 from the Permanent Mission of Canada in
Geneva to the Permanent Delegation of the European Commission was received by the WTO Secretariat
on 19 May 1995 and is circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.
The Government of Canada requests consultations with the European Union concerning the
French Government Order NOR MERP9300051A of 22 March 1993 and subsequent amendments laying
down the official names and the trade description of pectinidae (scallops). This request is made pursuant
to Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), Article 14.1 of
the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, and Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and
Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes of the . The Government
of Canada hopes that these consultations will lead to the full restoration of its long-standing competitive
position on the French market for the pectinidae (scallops) called "noix de coquille Saint-Jacques" or
"noix de Saint-Jacques" in France.
As already mentioned, this issue concerns the original Order and the amendments
NOR ECOC9300190A of 29 December 1993 and NOR ECOC9400066A of 3 October 1994, whose
effect is to restrict the trade description that may be used in France for the marketing of the Canadian
scallops whose scientific name is Placopecten magellanicus. The most recent amendment imposes use
of the term "pétoncle (Saint-Jacques)" (small scallop) until 31 December 1995; after that date, only
the word "pétoncle" will be authorized. The requirement that Canadian scallops should be described
as "pétoncles" has already greatly weakened the competitive position of the Canadian product on the
French market and has decreased the volume and value of Canadian exports. The eventual prohibition
on using the description "Saint-Jacques" will only worsen the situation.
This measure by the French Government is unjustified because it is contrary to traditional trade
practice and the consumer does not make any distinction between Placopecten magellanicus and other
scallops which can be called "noix de Saint-Jacques"; there is in fact no difference between these
products in terms of colour, size, texture, appearance and use.
Contrary to the European Union's obligations under Article III of GATT 1994, Canadian scallops
are given less favourable treatment than that given to the like national product. Moreover, contrary
to Article I of GATT 1994, scallops from other member countries may be described as "noix de
Saint-Jacques", whereas the Canadian product, which is a like product, cannot be so described.

WT/DS/7/1

In addition, the measure is not consistent with Article 2 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers
to Trade.
Since 1993, Canada has made several sincere efforts to settle the issue with the French
Government. Subsequently, consultations with the EU under Article XXII.1 of the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade 1947 enabled a temporary solution to be identified, although Canada clearly stated
that a permanent solution was necessary. Not only has no permanent solution arisen but, in
October 1994, the French Government introduced an amendment which annulled the temporary solution.
The original Order, as well as the subsequent amendments, cannot be justified under the
Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO Agreement); they nullify and impair
the rights Canada enjoys under the WTO Agreement. Furthermore, the material economic injury suffered
by Canada as a result of the Order, in comparison with its reasonable expectations, also constitutes
nullification and impairment.
In conclusion, the Government of Canada requests consultations with a view to arrive at a
mutually satisfactory agreement.