EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – MEASURES PROHIBITING THE IMPORTATION AND MARKETING OF SEAL PRODUCTS AB-2014-1 AB-2014-2
Document: Reports of the Appellate Body Note by the Secretariat: The Appellate Body is issuing these Reports in th e form of a single document constituting two separate Appellate Body Reports: WT/DS400/AB/R; and WT/DS401/AB/R. The cover page, preliminary pages, sections 1 through 5, and the annexes are common to both Reports. The page header throughout the document bears the two document symbols WT/DS400/AB/R and WT/DS401/AB/R, with the following exceptions: section 6 on pages CAN-191 to CAN-192, which bears the document symbol for and contains the Appellate Body's conclusions and recommendation in the Appellate Body Report WT/DS400/AB/R; and section 6 on pages NOR-193 to NOR-194, which bears the document symbol for and contains the Appellate Body's conclusions and recommendation in the Appellate Body Report WT/DS401/AB/R.
Date: 22 May 2014
Document codes: WT/DS400/AB/R; WT/DS401/AB/R; WT/DS400/AB/R; WT/DS401/AB/R.; WT/DS400/AB/R; WT/DS401/AB/R
Complainant: Canada
Respondent: EU
Third parties: Argentina, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Iceland, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Russia, U.S.
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. I:1, III:4, XI:1, XXIII:1(b)  GATT 1994Art. 2.1, 2.2, 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.6, 7.1  Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – MEASURES PROHIBITING THE
IMPORTATION AND MARKETING OF SEAL PRODUCTS
AB-2014-1
AB-2014-2
Reports of the Appellate Body
Note by the Secretariat:

The Appellate Body is issuing these Reports in th e form of a single document constituting two
separate Appellate Body Reports: ; and The cover page,
preliminary pages, sections 1 through 5, and the annexes are common to both Reports. The page
header throughout the document bears the two document symbols and
, with the following exceptions: section 6 on pages CAN-191 to CAN-192, which
bears the document symbol for and contains the Appellate Body's conclusions and
recommendation in the Appellate Body Report ; and section 6 on pages NOR-193
to NOR-194, which bears the document symbol for and contains the Appellate Body's conclusions
and recommendation in the Appellate Body Report
 •

CASES CITED IN THESE REPORTS
Short Title Full Case Title and Citation
Argentina – Footwear (EC) Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Safeguard Measures on Imports of
Footwear, , adopted 12 January 2000, DSR 2000:I, p. 515
Argentina – Hides and Leather Panel Report, Argentina – Measures Affecting the Export of Bovine Hides and
Import of Finished Leather, and Corr.1, adopted 16 February
2001, DSR 2001:V, p. 1779
Australia – Salmon Appellate Body Report, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon,
, adopted 6 November 1998, DSR 1998:VIII, p. 3327
Brazil – Internal Taxes Working Party Report, Brazilian Internal Taxes, GATT/CP.3/42 (First Report),
adopted 30 June 1949, BISD II, p. 181; GATT/CP.5/37 (Second Report),
adopted 13 December 1950, BISD II, p. 186
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded
Tyres, WT/DS332/AB/R, adopted 17 December 2007, DSR 2007:IV, p. 1527
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres Panel Report, Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres,
WT/DS332/R, adopted 17 December 2007, as modified by Appellate Body
Report WT/DS332/AB/R, DSR 2007:V, p. 1649
Canada – Aircraft
(Article 21.5 – Brazil)
Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian
Aircraft – Recourse by Brazil to Article 21.5 of the DSU, WT/DS70/AB/RW,
adopted 4 August 2000, DSR 2000:IX, p. 4299
Canada – Autos Appellate Body Report, Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive
Industry, WT/DS139/AB/R, WT/DS142/AB/R, adopted 19 June 2000,
DSR 2000:VI, p. 2985
Canada – Periodicals Appellate Body Report, Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals,
WT/DS31/AB/R, adopted 30 July 1997, DSR 1997:I, p. 449
Canada – Provincial Liquor
Boards (EEC)
GATT Panel Report, Canada – Import, Distribution and Sale of Alcoholic
Drinks by Canadian Provincial Marketing Agencies, L/6304, adopted 22 March
1988, BISD 35S, p. 37
Canada – Renewable Energy /
Canada – Feed-in Tariff
Program
Appellate Body Reports, Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable
Energy Generation Sector / Canada – Measures Relating to the Feed-in Tariff
Program, WT/DS412/AB/R / WT/DS426/AB/R, adopted 24 May 2013
Chile – Price Band System Appellate Body Report, Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures
Relating to Certain Agricultural Products, WT/DS207/AB/R, adopted 23
October 2002, DSR 2002:VIII, p. 3045 (Corr.1, DSR 2006:XII, p. 5473)
China – Auto Parts Appellate Body Reports, China – Measures Affecting Imports of Automobile
Parts, WT/DS339/AB/R / WT/DS340/AB/R / WT/DS342/AB/R, adopted 12
January 2009, DSR 2009:I, p. 3
China – Publications and
Audiovisual Products
Appellate Body Report, China – Measures Affecting Trading Rights and
Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment
Products, WT/DS363/AB/R, adopted 19 January 2010, DSR 2010:I, p. 3
China – Publications and
Audiovisual Products
Panel Report, China – Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution
Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products,
WT/DS363/R and Corr.1, adopted 19 January 2010, as modified by Appellate
Body Report WT/DS363/AB/R, DSR 2010:II, p. 261
Colombia – Ports of Entry Panel Report, Colombia – Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry,
WT/DS366/R and Corr.1, adopted 20 May 2009, DSR 2009:VI, p. 2535
Dominican Republic – Import
and Sale of Cigarettes
Appellate Body Report, Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the
Importation and Internal Sale of Cigarettes, WT/DS302/AB/R, adopted
19 May 2005, DSR 2005:XV, p. 7367
EC – Asbestos Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos
and Asbestos-Containing Products, WT/DS135/AB/R, adopted 5 April 2001,
DSR 2001:VII, p. 3243
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

Short Title Full Case Title and Citation
EC – Asbestos Panel Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and
Asbestos-Containing Products, WT/DS135/R and Add.1, adopted 5 April 2001,
as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS135/AB/R, DSR 2001:VIII,
p. 3305
EC – Bananas III Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation,
Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/AB/R, adopted 25 September
1997, DSR 1997:II, p. 591
EC – Bananas III Panel Reports, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and
Distribution of Bananas (EC – Bananas III), WT/DS27/R/ECU (Ecuador) /
WT/DS27/R/GTM, WT/DS27/R/HND (Guatemala and Honduras) /
WT/DS27/R/MEX (Mexico) / WT/DS27/R/USA (US), adopted 25 September
1997, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS27/AB/R, DSR 1997:II,
p. 695 to DSR 1997:III, p. 1085
EC – Bed Linen
(Article 21.5 – India)
Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on
Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the
DSU by India, WT/DS141/AB/RW, adopted 24 April 2003, DSR 2003:III,
p. 965
EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar,
WT/DS265/AB/R, WT/DS266/AB/R, WT/DS283/AB/R, adopted 19 May 2005,
DSR 2005:XIII, p. 6365
EC – Fasteners (China) Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping
Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China, WT/DS397/AB/R,
adopted 28 July 2011, DSR 2011:VII, p. 3995
EC – Hormones Appellate Body Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products
(Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, adopted 13 February 1998,
DSR 1998:I, p. 135
EC – Poultry Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting the
Importation of Certain Poultry Products, WT/DS69/AB/R, adopted 23 July
1998, DSR 1998:V, p. 2031
EC – Sardines Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Trade Description of
Sardines, WT/DS231/AB/R, adopted 23 October 2002, DSR 2002:VIII,
p. 3359
EC – Seal Products Panel Reports, European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the Importation
and Marketing of Seal Products, WT/DS400/R / WT/DS401/R / and Add.1,
circulated to WTO Members 25 November 2013
EC – Selected Customs Matters Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Selected Customs Matters,
WT/DS315/AB/R, adopted 11 December 2006, DSR 2006:IX, p. 3791
EC – Tariff Preferences Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Conditions for the Granting
of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries, WT/DS246/AB/R, adopted 20
April 2004, DSR 2004:III, p. 925
EC – Tariff Preferences Panel Report, European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff
Preferences to Developing Countries, WT/DS246/R, adopted 20 April 2004, as
modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS246/AB/R, DSR 2004:III, p. 1009
EC – Trademarks and
Geographical Indications (US)
Panel Report, European Communities – Protection of Trademarks and
Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, Complaint
by the United States, WT/DS174/R, adopted 20 April 2005, DSR 2005:VIII,
p. 3499
EC – Tube or Pipe Fittings Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on
Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil, WT/DS219/AB/R,
adopted 18 August 2003, DSR 2003:VI, p. 2613
EC and certain member
States – Large Civil Aircraft
Appellate Body Report, European Communities and Certain Member States –
Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft, WT/DS316/AB/R, adopted
1 June 2011, DSR 2011:I, p. 7
India – Patents (US) Appellate Body Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and
Agricultural Chemical Products, WT/DS50/AB/R, adopted 16 January 1998,
DSR 1998:I, p. 9
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

Short Title Full Case Title and Citation
Japan – Agricultural Products II Appellate Body Report, Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural Products,
WT/DS76/AB/R, adopted 19 March 1999, DSR 1999:I, p. 277
Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II Appellate Body Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS8/AB/R,
WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted 1 November 1996, DSR 1996:I,
p. 97
Japan – Apples Appellate Body Report, Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples,
WT/DS245/AB/R, adopted 10 December 2003, DSR 2003:IX, p. 4391
Korea – Alcoholic Beverages Appellate Body Report, Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages,
WT/DS75/AB/R, WT/DS84/AB/R, adopted 17 February 1999, DSR 1999:I,
p. 3
Korea – Dairy Appellate Body Report, Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of
Certain Dairy Products, WT/DS98/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2000,
DSR 2000:I, p. 3
Korea – Various Measures on
Beef
Appellate Body Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled
and Frozen Beef, WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/AB/R, adopted 10 January
2001, DSR 2001:I, p. 5
Thailand – Cigarettes
(Philippines)
Appellate Body Report, Thailand – Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes
from the Philippines, WT/DS371/AB/R, adopted 15 July 2011, DSR 2011:IV,
p. 2203
US – Anti-Dumping and
Countervailing Duties (China)
Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Anti-Dumping and
Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China, WT/DS379/AB/R,
adopted 25 March 2011, DSR 2011:V, p. 2869
US – Carbon Steel Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany,
WT/DS213/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 19 December 2002, DSR 2002:IX,
p. 3779
US – Clove Cigarettes Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Production and
Sale of Clove Cigarettes, WT/DS406/AB/R, adopted 24 April 2012
US – Continued Zeroing Appellate Body Report, United States – Continued Existence and Application
of Zeroing Methodology, WT/DS350/AB/R, adopted 19 February 2009,
DSR 2009:III, p. 1291
US – COOL Appellate Body Reports, United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling
(COOL) Requirements, WT/DS384/AB/R / WT/DS386/AB/R, adopted 23 July
2012
US – COOL Panel Reports, United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL)
Requirements, WT/DS384/R / WT/DS386/R, adopted 23 July 2012, as
modified by Appellate Body Reports WT/DS384/AB/R / WT/DS386/AB/R
US – FSC
(Article 21.5 – EC)
Appellate Body Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales
Corporations" – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European
Communities, WT/DS108/AB/RW, adopted 29 January 2002, DSR 2002:I,
p. 55
US – Gambling Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border
Supply of Gambling and Betting Services, WT/DS285/AB/R, adopted 20 April
2005, DSR 2005:XII, p. 5663 (Corr.1, DSR 2006:XII, p. 5475)
US – Gambling Panel Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of
Gambling and Betting Services, WT/DS285/R, adopted 20 April 2005, as
modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS285/AB/R, DSR 2005:XII, p. 5797
US – Gasoline Appellate Body Report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and
Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R, adopted 20 May 1996, DSR 1996:I,
p. 3
US – Gasoline Panel Report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional
Gasoline, WT/DS2/R, adopted 20 May 1996, as modified by Appellate Body
Report WT/DS2/AB/R, DSR 1996:I, p. 29
US – Large Civil Aircraft
(2nd complaint)
Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil
Aircraft (Second Complaint), WT/DS353/AB/R, adopted 23 March 2012
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

Short Title Full Case Title and Citation
US – Malt Beverages GATT Panel Report, United States – Measures Affecting Alcoholic and Malt
Beverages, DS23/R, adopted 19 June 1992, BISD 39S, p. 206
US – Oil Country Tubular
Goods Sunset Reviews
Appellate Body Report, United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping
Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, WT/DS268/AB/R,
adopted 17 December 2004, DSR 2004:VII, p. 3257
US – Section 211
Appropriations Act
Appellate Body Report, United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations
Act of 1998, WT/DS176/AB/R, adopted 1 February 2002, DSR 2002:II, p. 589
US – Section 337 Tariff Act GATT Panel Report, United States Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
L/6439, adopted 7 November 1989, BISD 36S, p. 345
US – Shrimp Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp
and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998,
DSR 1998:VII, p. 2755
US – Shrimp
(Article 21.5 – Malaysia)
Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp
and Shrimp Products – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Malaysia,
WT/DS58/AB/RW, adopted 21 November 2001, DSR 2001:XIII, p. 6481
US – Softwood Lumber VI
(Article 21.5 – Canada)
Appellate Body Report, United States – Investigation of the International
Trade Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada – Recourse to
Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada, WT/DS277/AB/RW, adopted 9 May 2006,
and Corr.1, DSR 2006:XI, p. 4865
US – Superfund GATT Panel Report, United States – Taxes on Petroleum and Certain Imported
Substances, L/6175, adopted 17 June 1987, BISD 34S, p. 136
US – Tobacco GATT Panel Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Importation,
Internal Sale and Use of Tobacco, DS44/R, adopted 4 October 1994, BISD
41S, p. 131
US – Tuna II (Mexico) Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Concerning the Importation,
Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products, WT/DS381/AB/R, adopted
13 June 2012
US – Tuna II (Mexico) Panel Report, United States – Measures Concerning the Importation,
Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products, WT/DS381/R, adopted
13 June 2012, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS381/AB/R
US – Upland Cotton Appellate Body Report, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton,
WT/DS267/AB/R, adopted 21 March 2005, DSR 2005:I, p. 3
US – Upland Cotton
(Article 21.5 – Brazil)
Appellate Body Report, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton –
Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Brazil, WT/DS267/AB/RW, adopted
20 June 2008, DSR 2008:III, p. 809
US – Wheat Gluten Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on
Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities, WT/DS166/AB/R,
adopted 19 January 2001, DSR 2001:II, p. 717
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

PANEL EXHIBITS CITED IN THESE REPORTS
Short Title Full Case Title and Citation
CDA-12 Council Directive No. 83/129 of 28 March 1983 concerning the importation into Member
States of skins of certain seal pups and products derived therefrom, Official Journal of the
European Communities, L Series, No. 91 (9 April 1983), pp. 30-31
CDA-29 J.C. Talling and I.R. Inglis, "Improvements to trapping standards", DG ENV (2009) (a joint
research report by Food and Environment Research Agency (UK), Federation of Associations
for Hunting and Conservation of the EU, Julius Kühn-Institut (Germany), and Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency)
CDA-34 P-Y. Daoust and C. Caraguel, "The Canadian harp seal hunt: observations on the
effectiveness of procedures to avoid poor animal welfare outcomes", Animal Welfare (2012),
Vol. 21, pp. 445-455
CDA-47 EFSA, "Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal and Welfare on a request from the
Commission related to welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing the main
commercial species of animals", The EFSA Journal (2004), No. 45, pp. 1-29
CDA-98 R. Munro, "Report on the Deer Industry in Great Britain, 2002", prepared for DEFRA and the
Food Standards Agency, available at:
<http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/hunting/deer/Documents/IllinoisDeerHarvestReportFinal.2011.2
012.pdf>
CDA-102 Nunavut Economy Fact Sheet
CDA-122 Deer Commission for Scotland/Scottish Natural Heritage webpage, Best Practice Guide,
"Reaction & follow-up", available at:
<http://www.bestpracticeguides.org.uk/culling/follow-up> (accessed 19 April 2013)
CDA-123 DEFRA, Current and Future Deer Management Options, Report on behalf of DEFRA European
Wildlife Division, December 2003, pp. 14-15, available at:
<http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/managementoptions_tcm6-4637.pdf>
CDA-124 The British Deer Society webpage, "Learn about deer", available at:
<http://www.bds.org.uk/learn_about_deer.html> (accessed 24 April 2013)
JE-1 Regulation (EC) No. 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
16 September 2009 on trade in seal products, Official Journal of the European Union,
L Series, No. 286 (31 October 2009)
JE-2 Commission Regulation (EU) No. 737/2010 of 10 August 2010 laying down detailed rules for
the implementation of Regulation (EC) No. 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the
Council on trade in seal products, Official Journal of the European Union, L Series, No. 216
(17 August 2010), pp. 1-10
JE-4 Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, Report on the proposal for a
regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning trade in seals products
(5 March 2009), A-0118/2009
JE-8 European Commission webpage, "Implementatio n of Humane Trapping Standard in the EU
– 1991-2005", available at:
<http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/animal_welfare/hts/index_en.htm> (accessed
14 October 2012)
JE-9 European Commission, Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council
concerning trade in seal products (23 July 2008), COM(2008) 469 final
JE-16 European Commission, "Commission Staff Wo rking Document accompanying document to the
Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the council concerning trade in
seal products – Impact Assessment on the potential impact of a ban of products derived from
seal species" (23 July 2008), COM(2008) 469 final
JE-17 European Commission, Staff Working Paper, "Impact Assessment: accompanying the
document, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and
the European Economic and Social Committee on the European Union Strategy for the
Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015" (19 January 2012), COM(2012) 6 final
JE-20 COWI, Assessment of the potential impact of a ban of products derived from seal species
(April 2008)
JE-21 COWI, Study on implementing measures for trade in seal products, Final Report
(January 2010)
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

Short Title Full Case Title and Citation
JE-22 European Food Safety Authority, "Scienti fic Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and
Welfare on a request from the Commission on the Animal Welfare aspects of the killing and
skinning of seals", The EFSA Journal (2007), No. 610, pp. 1-122
JE-24 North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, Report of the NAMMCO Expert Group Meeting on
Best Practices in the Hunting and Killing of Seals (February 2009)
JE-26 Government of Greenland, Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture, Management and
Utilization of Seals in Greenland (revised April 2012)
JE-27 Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Commercial Seal Harvest Overview
2011, Statistical and economic analysis series (October 2012)
JE-30 Nunavut Department of Environment, Fisheries and Sealing Division, Report on the Impacts
of the European Union Seal Ban, (EC) No. 1007/2009, in Nunavut (2012)
JE-31 Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (VKM), Panel on Animal Health and Welfare,
Scientific Opinion on animal welfare aspects of the killing and skinning in the Norwegian seal
hunt (October 2007)
EU-48 Report of the Royal Commission, Seals and Sealing in Canada (1986), Vol. I, Chapter 11,
"Public Opinion on Sealing"
EU-49 Public opinion survey by Orb for Respect for Animals, 16 December 2008 (United Kingdom)
EU-50 Public opinion survey by TNS Infratest for IFAW, February 2009 (Germany)
EU-51 Public opinion survey by TNO NIPP, July 2006 (The Netherlands)
EU-52 Public opinion survey by Ipsos-MORI for IFAW, 11 October 2007 (Portugal and Slovenia)
EU-53 Public opinion survey by Dedicated Research for IFAW, May 2006 (Belgium)
EU-54 Public opinion survey by IPSOS for IFAW, 18 October 2007 (France)
EU-55 Public opinion survey by TNS Infratest for IFAW, August 2007 (Austria)
EU-56 Public opinion survey by IPSOS-Mori for IFAW, January 2008 (Sweden)
EU-57 Public opinion survey by TNS Aisa for IFAW, February 2008 (Czech Republic)
EU-58 A summary of the results of various pu blic opinion surveys compiled by IFAW
EU-59 Public opinion survey by IPSO-Mori for IFAW and HSI, June 2011 (Belgium, France, Germany,
United Kingdom, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain and Sweden)
EU-145 "European Commission representative visits Iqaluit on good-will trip", Nunatsiaq Online,
23 April 2013
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THESE REPORTS
Abbreviation Description
AGRI Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Parliament
Basic Regulation Regulation (EC) No. 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
16 September 2009 on trade in seal products, Official Journal of the
European Union, L Series, No. 286 (31 October 2009) (Panel Exhibit JE-1)
Canada Panel Report
(DS400)
Panel Report, European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the Importation and
Marketing of Seal Products (WT/DS400/R)
Canadian Seal Harvest
Overview
Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Commercial Seal
Harvest Overview 2011, Statistical and economic analysis series (October 2012)
(Panel Exhibit JE-27)
Commission 2008 Impact
Assessment
European Commission, "Commission Staff Working Document accompanying
document to the Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the
council concerning trade in seal products – Impact Assessment on the potential
impact of a ban of products derived from seal species" (23 July 2008),
COM(2008) 469 final (Panel Exhibit JE-16)
Commission Proposal European Commission, Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and
the Council concerning trade in seal products (23 July 2008), COM(2008) 469
final (Panel Exhibit JE-9)
Complainants Canada and Norway
COWI Danish-based international consulting group
COWI 2008 Report COWI, Assessment of the potential impact of a ban of products derived from seal
species (April 2008) (Panel Exhibit JE-20)
COWI 2010 Report COWI, Study on implementing measures for trade in seal products, Final Report
(January 2010) (Panel Exhibit JE-21)
CSA poll Opinion poll conducted by the Canadian Sealers Association (Research
Dimensions, 1985) (results printed in Royal Commission Report, pp. 151-152)
DSB Dispute Settlement Body
DSU Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes
EC Seal Pups Directive Council Directive No. 83/129 of 28 March 1983 concerning the importation into
Member States of skins of certain seal pups and products derived therefrom,
Official Journal of the European Communities, L Series, No. 91 (9 April 1983),
pp. 30-31 (Panel Exhibit CDA-12)
EFSA European Food Safety Authority
EFSA Scientific Opinion European Food Safety Authority, "Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal
Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission on the Animal Welfare
aspects of the killing and skinning of seals", The EFSA Journal (2007), No. 610,
pp. 1-122 (Panel Exhibit JE-22)
ENVI Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety of the European
Parliament
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EU Seal Regime The Basic Regulation and the Implementing Regulation combined together
GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services
GATT 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
Greenland 2012 Seal
Management Report
Government of Greenland, Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture,
Management and Utilization of Seals in Greenland (revised April 2012) (Panel
Exhibit JE-26)
IC Inuit or other indigenous communities
IC exception An exception under the EU Seal Regime for seal products obtained from seals
hunted by Inuit or other indigenous communities
IC hunts Hunts undertaken by Inuit or other indigenous communities
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

Abbreviation Description
Implementing Regulation Commission Regulation (EU) No. 737/2010 of 10 August 2010 laying down
detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No. 1007/2009 of the
European Parliament and of the Council on trade in seal products, Official Journal
of the European Union, L Series, No. 216 (17 August 2010), pp. 1-10
(Panel Exhibit JE-2)
ISO/IEC Guide International Organization for St andardization/International Electrotechnical
Commission, Guide 2:1991 – General terms and their definitions concerning
standardization and related activities, 6th edn
MFN Most favoured nation
MRM Marine resource management
MRM exception An exception under the EU Seal Regime for seal products obtained from seals
hunted for purposes of marine resource management
MRM hunts Hunts conducted for marine resource management purposes
Norway Panel Report
(DS401)
Panel Report, European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the Importation and
Marketing of Seal Products (WT/DS401/R)
Nunavut 2012 Report Nunavut Department of En vironment, Fisheries and Sealing Division, Report on
the Impacts of the European Union Seal Ban, (EC) No. 1007/2009, in Nunavut
(2012) (Panel Exhibit JE-30)
Panel Reports Panel Reports, European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the Importation
and Marketing of Seal Products (WT/DS400/R / WT/DS401/R)
Parliament Report Committee on the Inte rnal Market and Consumer Protection, Report on the
proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
concerning trade in seals products (5 March 2009), A-0118/2009 (Panel Exhibit
JE-4)
PPMs Processes and production methods
RC poll Opinion poll conducted by the Cana dian Royal Commission (Canadian Gallup Poll
Limited, 1986a, 1986b) (results printed in Royal Commission Report,
pp. 150-151)
Royal Commission Report Report of the Royal Commission, Seals and Sealing in Canada (1986), Vol. I,
Chapter 11, "Public Opinion on Sealing" (Panel Exhibit EU-48)
SCM Agreement Agreement on Subsid ies and Countervailing Measures
SPS Agreement Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
TBT Agreement Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade
Travellers exception An exception under the EU Seal Regime for seal products brought by travellers
into the European Union in limited circumstances
Working Procedures Working Procedures for Appellate Review, WT/AB/WP/6, 16 August 2010
WTO World Trade Organization
WTO Agreement Marrakesh Agreement Esta blishing the World Trade Organization
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

1.2. The measure at issue in these disputes, as identified by the Panel 9, consists of the following
legal instruments:
a. Regulation (EC) No. 1007/2009 of the Euro pean Parliament and of the Council of
16 September 2009 on trade in seal products10 (Basic Regulation); and
b. Commission Regulation (EU) No. 737/2010 of 10 August 2010 laying down detailed rules
for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No. 1007/2009 of the European Parliament
and of the Council on trade in seal products11 (Implementing Regulation).
1.3. The Panel considered it appropriate to treat the Basic Regulation and the Implementing
Regulation as a single measure, which it referred to as the "EU Seal Regime". 12 We do the same in
these Reports.
1.4. The EU Seal Regime prohibits the placing of seal products on the EU market unless they
qualify under certain exceptions, consisting of the following: (i) seal products obtained from seals
hunted by Inuit or other indigenous communities (IC exception); (ii) seal products obtained from
seals hunted for purposes of marine resource management (MRM exception); and (iii) seal
products brought by travellers into the European Union in limited circumstances (Travellers
exception).
13 The EU Seal Regime lays down specific requirements in respect of each of these
exceptions.14
1.5. Canada and Norway claimed before the Pa nel that the EU Seal Regime violates various
obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) and the
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement). The complainants alleged that the
IC and MRM exceptions of the EU Seal Regime violate the non-discrimination obligations under
Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994 and, accord ing to Canada, also under Article 2.1 of the
TBT Agreement. Both complainants contended, in essence, that the IC and MRM exceptions accord
seal products from Canada and Norway less favourable treatment than that accorded to like seal
products of domestic origin, mainly from Sweden and Finland, and those of other foreign origin,
particularly from Greenland. The complainants also asserted that the EU Seal Regime creates an
unnecessary obstacle to trade, inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, because it is
more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective. They further argued that
certain procedural aspects of the measure violate the requirements for conformity assessment
under Article 5 of the TBT Agreement. The compla inants additionally claimed that the IC, MRM,
and Travellers exceptions impose quantitative restrictions on trade, in a manner inconsistent with
Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.
15 Norway also argued that, if the EU Seal Regime was found to
violate Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, then it wo uld also violate Article 4.2 of the Agreement on
Agriculture. Finally, Canada and Norway both co ntended that the application of the EU Seal
Regime nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to them under the covered agreements within the
meaning of Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994.16
1.6. The Panel Reports were circulated to Members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) on
25 November 2013. In its Reports, the Panel found it appropriate first to address the claims under
the TBT Agreement, followed by those made under the GATT 1994.17

9 Panel Reports, para. 7.7.
10 Official Journal of the European Union, L Series, No. 286 (31 October 2009) (Panel Exhibit JE-1).
11 Official Journal of the European Union, L Series, No. 216 (17 August 2010) (Panel Exhibit JE-2).
12 Panel Reports, para. 7.8; see also para. 7.26 (referring to the parties' responses to Panel question
No. 2).
13 Panel Reports, para. 7.1. Apart from the reference to "conditions" in paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2, the
Panel referred throughout its Reports to the IC, MRM, and Travellers "exceptions". (See e.g. ibid., para. 7.35)
14 Panel Reports, para. 7.1.
15 Panel Reports, para. 7.2.
16 Panel Reports, para. 7.2.
17 Panel Reports, para. 7.69.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

1.7. With respect to Canada's and Norway's claims under the TBT Agreement, the Panel concluded
that:
a. the EU Seal Regime is a "technical regulation" within the meaning of Annex 1.1 to the
TBT Agreement;
b. with respect to Canada's claim under Article 2.1, the IC exception and MRM exception
under the EU Seal Regime are inconsistent with Article 2.1 because the detrimental
impact caused by these exceptions does not stem exclusively from legitimate regulatory
distinctions and, consequently, the exceptions accord imported seal products treatment
less favourable than that accorded to like domestic and other foreign seal products;
c. the EU Seal Regime is not inconsistent with Article 2.2 because it fulfils the objective of
addressing EU public moral concerns regarding seal welfare to a certain extent, and no
alternative measure has been demonstrated to make an equivalent or greater
contribution to the fulfilment of the objective of the EU Seal Regime;
d. the European Union acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 5.1.2 because
the conformity assessment procedures under the EU Seal Regime were incapable of
enabling trade in qualifying products to take place as from the date of entry into force of
the EU Seal Regime; and
e. Canada and Norway did not demonstrate that the European Union had acted
inconsistently with its obligations under Article 5.2.1.
18
1.8. With respect to Canada's and Norway's claims under the GATT 1994, the Panel concluded
that:
a. the IC exception under the EU Seal Regime is inconsistent with Article I:1 because an
advantage granted by the European Union to seal products originating in Greenland is
not accorded immediately and unconditionally to like seal products originating in Canada
and Norway;
b. the MRM exception under the EU Seal Regime is inconsistent with Article III:4 because it
accords imported seal products treatment less favourable than that accorded to like
domestic seal products;
c. each of the IC, MRM, and Travellers exce ptions under the EU Seal Regime is not
inconsistent with Article XI:1;
d. the IC exception and the MRM exception under t h e E U S e a l R e g i m e a r e n o t j u s t i f i e d
under Article XX(a) because they fail to meet the requirements under the chapeau of
Article XX; and
e. the IC exception and the MRM exception under t h e E U S e a l R e g i m e a r e n o t j u s t i f i e d
under Article XX(b) because the European Union failed to make a prima facie case for its
claim.
19
1.9. The Panel rejected Norway's claim under Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture 20, and
refrained from examining Canada's and Norway's non-violation claim under Article XXIII:1 of the
GATT 1994.21 The Panel found that, pursuant to Article 3.8 of the Understanding on Rules and
Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), to the extent that the European Union
had acted inconsistently with Article 2.1 (in the case of Canada) and Article 5.1.2 of the

20 Norway Panel Report (DS401), para. 8.4.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

TBT Agreement, and Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994, it nullified or impaired benefits
accruing to Canada and Norway under these agreements.22
1.10. On 24 January 2014, Canada and Norway each notified the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB),
pursuant to Articles 16.4 and 17 of the DSU, of its intention to appeal certain issues of law covered
in the Panel Reports and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel, and each filed a
Notice of Appeal23 and an appellant's submission pursuant to Rule 20 and Rule 21, respectively, of
the Working Procedures for Appellate Review 24 (Working Procedures). On 29 January 2014, the
European Union notified the DSB, pursuant to Arti cles 16.4 and 17 of the DSU, of its intention to
appeal certain issues of law covered in the Panel Reports and certain legal interpretations
developed by the Panel and filed a Notice of Other Appeal
25 and an other appellant's submission
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Working Procedur es. On 11 February 2014, the European Union,
Canada, and Norway each filed an appellee's submission. 26 On 14 February 2014, Iceland, Japan,
Mexico, and the United States each filed a third participant's submission. 27 On the same day,
Namibia notified its intention to appear at the oral hearing as a third participant 28 (in DS401 only),
and Argentina, China, and Ecuador (on 17 February 2014), Colombia (on 19 February 2014), and
Russia (on 21 February 2014) each notified its intention to appear at the oral hearing as a third
participant.
29
1.11. On 29 January 2014, the Appellate Body re ceived a joint communication from Canada and
Norway requesting that the oral hearing in these appellate proceedings be opened to public
observation. Both complainants proposed that public observation be permitted via simultaneous
closed-circuit television broadcasting with the option for the transmission to be turned off should a
third participant indicate that it wished to keep its oral statement confidential. They further
requested the adoption of additional procedures to ensure the security and orderly conduct of the
proceedings. On the same date, the Appellate Body received a communication from the
European Union, joining Canada and Norway's requ est for public observation of the hearing, and
indicating that it had no objections to the proposed additional security arrangements.
1.12. On 30 January 2014, the Appellate Body Divi sion in these appellate proceedings invited the
third parties to comment in writing on the participants' request for an open oral hearing. Japan,
Mexico, and the United States submitted their responses on 3 February 2014. In its
communication, Japan indicated that it had no objection to the request for public observation or
the proposed logistical arrangements. Mexico also did not object, but nevertheless stated that its
position in these appeals was without prejudice to its systemic views on the public observation of
oral hearings. The United States articulated its support for the request to open the hearing to the
public, and suggested that the Division accommodate the participants' logistical requests to the
extent possible.
1.13. On 5 February 2014, the Division issued a Procedural Ruling authorizing the request of
Canada, Norway, and the European Union to open the hearing to public observation and adopting
additional procedures for the conduct of the hearing. The Procedural Ruling is attached as Annex 4
to these Reports.
1.14. The oral hearing in these appeals was originally scheduled for 3-5 March 2014. On
30 January 2014, the Appellate Body received letters from Canada, Norway, and the European
Union, requesting the postponement of the dates for the oral hearing due to logistical difficulties
faced by the parties during the week of 3 March 2014. The participants requested that the oral
hearing be postponed to no earlier than th e week of 17 March 2014. On 31 January 2014, the
Division invited the third parties to comment in writing on the request for postponement of the oral
hearing. Japan, Mexico, and the United States submitted their comments on 4 February 2014,
indicating that they had no objection to the participants' request. On 5 February 2014, the Division

23 WT/DS400/8 (Canada), WT/DS401/9 (Norway) (attached as Annexes 1 and 2 to these Reports,
respectively).
24 WT/AB/WP/6, 16 August 2010.
25 WT/DS400/9, WT/DS401/10 (attached as Annex 3 to these Reports).
26 Pursuant to Rules 22 and 23(4) of the Working Procedures.
27 Pursuant to Rule 24(1) of the Working Procedures.
28 Pursuant to Rule 24(2) of the Working Procedures.
29 Pursuant to Rule 24(4) of the Working Procedures.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

issued a Procedural Ruling rescheduling the oral hearing for 17 to 19 March 2014. The Procedural
Ruling is attached as Annex 5 to these Reports.
1.15. On 19 February30, 6 March31, and 17 March 2014 32, the Appellate Body received unsolicited
amicus curiae briefs. The participants and third particip ants were given an opportunity to express
their views on the admissibility and substance of these briefs at the oral hearing, if they so wished.
We note that the brief of 17 March 2014 was received on the first day of the oral hearing. In the
light of its late filing, and mindful of the requ irement to ensure that participants and third
participants are given an adequate opportunity fully to consider any written submission filed with
the Appellate Body, the Division deemed this br ief inadmissible. The Division did not find it
necessary to rely on the other two amicus curiae briefs in rendering its decision.
1.16. The oral hearing in these appeals was held from 17 to 19 March 2014. Public observation
took place via simultaneous closed-circuit television broadcast to a separate viewing room. The
participants and Ecuador, Japan, Mexico, Namibia, and the United States made opening
statements. The participants and third participan ts responded to questions posed by the Members
of the Division hearing the appeals.
1.17. On 24 March 2014, the Chair of the Appellate Body informed the Chair of the DSB that, due
to the requests made by the participants to postpone the date for the oral hearing and the
subsequent rescheduling of the oral hearing fr om 3-5 March 2014 to 17-19 March 2014, and also
due to the size of these appeals and the other appeal by the European Union, including the
number and complexity of the issues raised by the participants, it was expected that the Appellate
Body Reports in these appeals would be circulated to WTO Members no later than Tuesday,
20 May 2014.
33 Subsequently, by letter dated 16 May 2014, the Chair of the Appellate Body
informed the Chair of the DSB that due to the time required for translation and the caseload of the
Appellate Body, the Reports in these appeals woul d be circulated on Thursday, 22 May 2014 in all
official languages.34
2 ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTICIPANTS AND THIRD PARTICIPANTS
2.1 Claims of error by Canada – Appellant
2.1.1 Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement
2.1. Canada submits that the Panel erred by formulating and applying the wrong legal test under
Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement. Canada further challenges the Panel's intermediate conclusion,
in the context of its analysis under Article 2.1, that the regulatory distinction between commercial
hunts and hunts undertaken by Inuit or other indigenous communities (IC hunts) is justified.
Canada requests the Appellate Body to complete the legal analysis under Article 2.1 by applying
the correct "even-handedness" test; and to uphold the Panel's ultimate finding that the
detrimental impact of the EU Seal Regime does not stem exclusively from a legitimate regulatory
distinction under Article 2.1, but on the modified grounds that the distinction between commercial
and IC hunts is arbitrary and unjustifiable.
2.2. Canada submits that the Panel committed a legal error by articulating the wrong test to
determine whether the detrimental impact of the EU Seal Regime on the competitive opportunities
of Canadian seal products stems exclusively from a legitimate regulatory distinction. Specifically,
Canada takes issue with the Panel's framing of the test as consisting of three distinct elements.
According to Canada, this is contrary to the Appellate Body's framing of the test, in three previous
disputes under the TBT Agreement, as "a determin ation of whether the regulatory distinction that

30 From a group of animal welfare organizations. These organizations include Anima, Animal Rights
Action Network, Asociación Nacional para la Defensa de los Animales, Bont Voor Dieren, Compassion in World
Farming, Djurens Rätt, Eurogroup for Animals, Fondation Brigitte Bardot, Fondation Franz Weber, Four Paws,
GAIA, Humane Society of the United States/Humane Society International, International Fund for Animal
Welfare, Lega Anti Vivisezione, Prijatelji živontinja, Respect for Animals, Royal Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals, Svoboda zvířat, and World Society for the Protection of Animals.
31 From the International Fur Federation.
32 From Professor Robert Howse, Joanna Langille, and Professor Katie Sykes.
33 This letter was circulated as document WT/DS400/10, WT/DS401/11.
34 This letter was circulated as document WT/DS400/11, WT/DS401/12.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

resulted in the detrimental impact was desi gned or applied in an even-handed manner." 35 Canada
submits that the Panel erred in treating the first two elements of its test – i.e. whether the
regulatory distinction was rationally connected to the objective and, if not, whether there was
another cause or rationale that could justify the di stinction – as distinct from the third element –
i.e. whether the regulatory distinction was designed and applied in an even-handed manner.
36 In
support of its argument, Canada points to the Appellate Body's findings in US – Clove Cigarettes
and US – COOL . Canada argues that, in both of these cases, "the absence of [a] rationale
explaining or justifying the regulatory distinction played a central role in the Appellate Body finding
that there had been a lack of even-handedness in how the distinction was designed and applied."37
Hence, in Canada's view, "the presence or absence of a rationale that explains or justifies the
regulatory distinction is a critical aspect in determining whether a regulatory distinction is
even-handed."
38
2.3. Canada further submits that the Panel committed a number of legal errors in finding that the
regulatory distinction between non-conforming Canadian seal products and Greenlandic Inuit seal
products was justifiable. First, Canada asserts th at the Panel erred in finding that the distinction
was justifiable despite evidence demonstrating that the rationale for the distinction "goes against"
the objective of the EU Seal Regime.
39 Canada highlights that, in its assessment of the EU Seal
Regime's contribution to its objective, the Panel found that the IC exception actually "diminishes"
the overall contribution of the EU Seal Regime to that objective. 40 Canada submits that a
regulatory distinction that undermines the objective of a measure cannot be justified, as it would
constitute arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination. Canada argues that, in Brazil – Retreaded
Tyres, the finding that the rationale for the di scrimination undermined the objective of the
measure at issue was determinative for the finding of arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination.
41
Given the similarities between the test under Arti cle 2.1 of the TBT Agreement and the chapeau of
Article XX of the GATT 1994, Canada argues that th e fact that the rationale for the discrimination
completely undermines the objective of the measure must play a determinative role under both
provisions. Canada further clarifies its view that the Panel committed an error in attempting to
distinguish the Appellate Body's reasoning in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres .
42 Canada notes that,
according to the Panel, the Appellate Body's conclusion of arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination
in that case was based on a finding that the rationale for the exception was not sufficient to justify
the exception in the face of the rational disconne ction to the objective of the measure. Canada
submits that this is not correct. In Canada's view, the Appellate Body's conclusion was based
solely on its determination that there was no rational connection between the exception and the
objective of the ban, and did not involve a balancing of the objective of the exception with the
rational disconnection.
2.4. Second, Canada alleges that the Panel committed a legal error "by relying on international
instruments extraneous to the case" to justify the distinction between IC and commercial hunts.
43
Canada notes that the international agreements ci ted by the European Union before the Panel do
not require the European Union to protect the interests of Inuit or other indigenous communities
by discriminating against the products of non-indigenous peoples. Canada further argues that "the
merits of according preferential treatment to indigenous peoples must still be balanced with how
such treatment accords with the objective of the measure."
44 Canada recalls the Appellate Body's
observation in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres that, even if a rationale is not capricious or random, it can
still be found to be arbitrary or unjustifiable because it bears no relationship to the objective of the
measure or goes against it. 45 Canada submits that the existence of international agreements that

35 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 51 (referring to Appellate Body Reports, US – Clove
Cigarettes, paras. 182 and 215; US – Tuna II (Mexico), paras. 216 and 225; and US – COOL, paras. 271, 272,
and 341).
36 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 52 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.259).
37 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 77.
38 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 77.
39 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 78 (quoting Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres,
para. 228).
40 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 78 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.448).
41 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 80-82 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded
Tyres, para. 227).
42 Canada's opening statement at the oral hearing.
43 Canada's appellant's submission, heading B.a), at p. 27.
44 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 89.
45 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 89 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded
Tyres, para. 232).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

recognize, in general terms, the interests of indigenous people cannot be a determining factor in
assessing whether the rationale for the regulatory distinction is justified.
2.5. The third legal error that Canada identifies is the Panel's failure to examine whether giving
effect to the distinction will actually fulfil its rationale. Canada points to the Appellate Body's
discussion of the rationales for the distinction between clove and menthol cigarettes that the
United States put forward in the US – Clove Cigarettes case. According to Canada, the Appellate
Body in that case dismissed the rationales on the basis that "it was not clear" that the alleged
consequences of not making the distinction – namely, the impact on the US health care system
associated with banning menthol and the risk of the development of a black market for menthol
cigarettes – would materialize.
46 Canada argues that, in the present disputes, it is equally "not
clear" that the IC exception will serve to protect Inuit or other indigenous communities' (IC)
interests. Canada notes that Inuit communities were opposed to the EU Seal Regime as a whole
despite the IC exception because they believe that it will have a negative impact on the market for
all seal products.
47 Canada submits that the Panel's failure to consider the lack of fulfilment of the
regulatory distinction's purpose constitutes legal error.48
2.6. Canada further alleges that the Panel erred by focusing on the wrong comparison in its
assessment of whether the regulatory distinction is even-handed. According to Canada, the Panel
erroneously applied the "even-handedness" test by analysing different Inuit hunts rather than the
regulatory distinction between commercial and IC hunts, which it had found to be causing the
detrimental impact. Canada notes that, in assessing the legitimacy of a regulatory distinction for
the purposes of Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreemen t, the Appellate Body has focused only on the
distinction that accounts for the detrimental impact on imported products as compared to domestic
products.
49 Canada submits that, by not focusing on th e proper regulatory distinction, the Panel
failed to follow the guidance provided by the Appellate Body in previous TBT disputes. Canada
argues that, had the Panel directed its attent ion towards the regulatory distinction between
commercial and IC hunts, it would have had the correct basis to conclude that this regulatory
distinction was designed and applied in an arbitrary manner because the IC hunt in Greenland
exhibits the characteristics of a commercial hunt. As Canada sees it, the fact that the application of
the IC exception results in differentiated benefits amongst the Inuit is not germane to the question
of whether the regulatory distinction between commercial and IC hunts is even-handed. As a
result, Canada argues, the Panel failed to determine whether the regulatory distinction between
commercial and IC hunts is even-handed.
2.7. Canada further submits that the Panel erred by failing to examine the arbitrary aspects of the
regulatory distinction between commercial and IC hunts.
50 In Canada's view, the Panel should
have taken into account its finding that the Inuit hunt in Greenland has "characteristics that are
closely related to that of commercial hunts" in examining whether the regulatory distinction
between commercial and IC hunts was designed and applied in an arbitrary or unjustifiable
manner.
51 For Canada, the Panel's findings regarding the similarities between the Inuit hunt in
Greenland and commercial hunts are relevant to the application of the test under Article 2.1, not
because they show that the IC exception was not designed or applied in an even-handed manner,
but because they demonstrate that the distinctio n between Inuit and commercial hunts is "illusory
in practice", and is thus designed in an arbitrary manner.
52 According to Canada, it is, therefore,
the distinction between commercial and IC hunts, ra ther than the IC exception as such, that is

46 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 90 (quoting Appellate Body Report, US – Clove Cigarettes,
para. 225).
47 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 91 (referring to Nunavut Department of Environment,
Fisheries and Sealing Division, Report on the Impacts of the European Union Seal Ban, (EC) No. 1007/2009, in
Nunavut (2012) (Panel Exhibit JE-30) (Nunavut 2012 Report), p. 3; Government of Greenland, Ministry of
Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture, Management and Utilization of Seals in Greenland (revised April 2012)
(Panel Exhibit JE-26) (Greenland 2012 Seal Management Report), pp. 31-36; and Canada's first written
submission to the Panel, paras. 526-532).
48 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 92.
49 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 94 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Tuna II (Mexico),
para. 286).
50 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 99.
52 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 102 (referring to Canada's second written submission to the
Panel, paras. 280-284).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

designed in an arbitrary manner. 53 Canada submits that the Panel's analysis of the
even-handedness of the regulatory distinction between commercial and IC hunts was misdirected
and constitutes an error of law.
2.8. Canada further submits that the factual findings made by the Panel in its analysis of the
even-handedness of the EU Seal Regime with resp ect to different IC hunts support the conclusion
that the Greenlandic seal hunt is not primarily driven by subsistence considerations. 54 Therefore,
Canada argues, the application of the regulatory distinction between Canada's commercial hunt
and the Greenlandic hunt is arbitrary, even if the distinction between commercial hunts and Inuit
hunts, generally, may not be.
2.9. Canada further argues that the Panel acted inconsistently with its duties under Article 11 of
the DSU in failing to assess Canada's evidence demonstrating that the commercial hunts in Canada
possess characteristics that are similar to the characteristics of subsistence hunts. According to
Canada, this evidence was "highly material" to Canada's claims pertaining to the legitimacy of the
regulatory distinction between commercial and IC hunts.
55 Canada asserts that, in its assessment
of commercial hunts, the Panel selectively highlighted certain characteristics that are not similar to
those of IC hunts, and did not respond to Canada's claims regarding the long-standing tradition of
seal hunting on the east coast of Canada, the generation of income for small seal-hunting
communities from the seal hunt, as well as the use of seal by-products in those communities.
56
Canada submits that, even if examining this evidence would not have changed the Panel's ultimate
finding on the uniqueness of IC hunts, the Pane l had a duty under Article 11 of the DSU to
consider this evidence and explain why this information did not affect its finding.
2.10. Canada, therefore, requests the Appellate Body to complete the legal analysis under
Article 2.1 by applying the correct "even-handedness" test; and to uphold the Panel's ultimate
finding that the detrimental impact of the EU Seal Regime does not stem exclusively from a
legitimate regulatory distinction under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, but on the modified
grounds that the distinction between commercial and IC hunts is arbitrary and unjustifiable.
57
2.1.2 Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement
2.11. Canada claims that the Panel erred in finding that the EU Seal Regime is more trade
restrictive than necessary within the meaning of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. Canada submits
that the Panel erred in its analysis of the degree of contribution that the EU Seal Regime makes to
the identified objective, in failing to assess the risk non-fulfilment would create and to conduct a
"relational" analysis, and in its analysis of whether the alternative measure makes at least an
equivalent or greater contribution to the objective. Canada requests that the Appellate Body
reverse the Panel's finding and complete the legal analysis and find that the EU Seal Regime is
inconsistent with Article 2.2.
2.1.2.1 The Panel's analysis of the contribution of the EU Seal Regime to its objective
2.12. Canada argues that the Appellate Body has stressed the importance of "clear and precise"
panel findings in considering the three elem ents of the test under Article 2.2 of the
TBT Agreement.
58 Without clear and precise findings regarding the degree of contribution of the
measure to the objective, Canada argues, "a panel cannot complete the relational analysis or the
comparison of the challenged measure with an alternative measure as it will not have a sufficiently
accurate benchmark degree of contribution for comparison."
59

53 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 102 (referring to Canada's second written submission to the
Panel, paras. 280-284).
54 Canada's opening statement at the oral hearing.
55 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 111.
56 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 110 and 111 (referring to Canada's first written submission to
the Panel, paras. 25-31).
57 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 112.
58 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 158 (quoting Appellate Body Reports, US – COOL, para. 479).
59 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 158.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.13. Canada claims that the Panel erred in its "contribution" analysis in several respects. Canada
submits that the Panel erred in its analysis of the contribution of the EU Seal Regime to the first
aspect of the identified objective, namely, prev enting the EU public from being exposed to or
purchasing products derived from seals killed inhumanely. Canada argues that the Panel's
consideration of the prohibitive part of the measure is "immaterial" because its permissive aspect
allows unlimited amounts of products from IC hunts and hunts conducted for marine resource
management purposes (MRM hunts).
60 Because the Panel found that the EU public is exposed to
and may be purchasing seal products derived fr om inhumanely killed seals under the EU Seal
Regime, Canada states that the Panel "should have found that the EU Seal Regime, as a whole,
fails to contribute to the first aspect of the objective because the EU public may still purchase seal
products derived from seals killed inhumanely".
61
2.14. Moreover, Canada argues that, even if the Panel correctly found that the ban contributes to
the first aspect of the objective, it erred "by failin g to make an overall conclusion that the EU Seal
Regime as a whole makes a net positive contribution to preventing the EU public from being
exposed to or purchasing seal products from inhumanely killed seals".62 Canada maintains that the
degree of contribution is a key factor in assessing the necessity of a measure under Article 2.2.
In Canada's view, the Panel's failure to articulate a "clear or precise" finding of the extent of a
positive or negative contribution to the first aspect of the objective of the EU Seal Regime and to
provide an overall conclusion on the degree of contribution to that objective as a whole constitutes
legal error.
63 Canada adds that, if the Panel had proper ly articulated the extent of the degree of
contribution of the prohibitive and permissive aspects to the first aspect of the objective, there
were factual findings in other sections of the Panel Reports "that [led] to the conclusion that
products allowed access under the IC exception in particular, include a much higher risk of being
derived from inhumanely killed seals".
64 Canada maintains that, based on the Panel's findings,
"there is an increased likelihood of seal products being derived from inhumanely killed seals" in
Greenlandic versus Canadian hunts, and "a high likelihood of an increase in supply of seal products
from Greenland in the absence of seal products from Canada and Norway".
65 In Canada's view, not
only are EU citizens being exposed to and po ssibly purchasing seal products derived from
inhumanely killed seals under the EU Seal Regime, but the extent to which this occurs is higher
under the EU Seal Regime and increases the negati ve contribution of the exceptions to the first
aspect of the objective. If the Panel had applied the "degree of contribution" test correctly to the
facts, Canada argues, it would have found that "the EU Seal Regime as a whole fails completely to
make a contribution to the first aspect of the objective."
66
2.15. Canada submits that the Panel erred in its analysis of the contribution of the EU Seal
Regime to the second aspect of the identified objective, namely, reducing the incidence of the
inhumane killing of seals. Canada argues that the Panel sought to determine whether the measure
contributed to a "proxy objective" of reducing demand for seal products in the EU and globally
without assessing whether this then contributed to a reduction in the incidence of the inhumane
killing of seals.
67 Canada states that, in failing to assess this second step, the Panel failed to
demonstrate that there was "a genuine relation ship of ends and means between the objective
pursued and the measure at issue". 68 Canada moreover states that this finding was made on the
basis of its examination of trade data, despite finding that "the extent of the connection between
the ban aspect of the measure and the reduction in the number of seals killed is not clearly
discernible".69

60 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 161.
61 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 162.
62 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 163.
63 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 168.
64 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 169.
65 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 174.
66 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 175.
67 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 177.
68 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 178 (quoting Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres,
para. 145).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.16. In Canada's view, the Panel erred because it "failed to provide a clear and precise
articulation of an actual contribution and the extent of the contribution or the capability of making
a contribution to the proxy objective". 70 Canada adds that the Panel then "failed to undertake an
examination of whether a reduction in demand for seal products in the EU or globally would
consequently result in a reduction in the incidence of inhumane killing of seals". 71 Canada argues
that findings made by the Panel in other parts of its Reports would not support such a showing
since "the incidence of inhumane killing under the exceptions would be greater despite the
possibility of fewer overall seals being killed."
72 Canada further alleges that the Panel compounded
its error by referring to the "'incidence' of i nhumane killing" without clarifying whether it was
referring to the "proportion of seals being killed inhumanely or a total number of seals killed
inhumanely".
73 Canada also contends that the Panel acted contrary to Article 11 of the DSU by
failing to refer to any evidence that supports its finding that, by reducing global demand for seal
products resulting from commercial hunts, fewer seals will be killed in an inhumane way.
2.17. Canada argues that the Panel erred because its findings with respect to the contribution that
the EU Seal Regime makes to the identified objective "are insufficiently specific or detailed to
provide an accurate assessment of the 'degree' of contribution and a benchmark for comparison
with the alternative measure".
74 Relying on the Appellate Body reports in US – COOL , Canada
contends that a panel needs to present "clear and precise" findings that enable identification of the
degree of contribution made to the objective. 75 In Canada's view, however, the Panel failed to
articulate what degree of contribution the EU Seal Regime as a whole makes to the identified
objective "beyond vague references to 'some' contribution, 'a contribution' and 'contributes to a
certain extent'".
76 Moreover, Canada considers that the Panel's finding that one part of the EU Seal
Regime is capable of making and does make some contribution to the objective, while finding that
the contribution is diminished and further negati vely affected by other parts of the measure,
provides an insufficient basis on which to identify the overall degree to which the EU Seal Regime
makes a contribution to the objective. Canada argues that, without a finding of the overall degree
of contribution of the measure to the objective, "it is not possible to compare the degree of
contribution of the EU Seal Regime with that of the alternative measure."
77
2.18. Canada further explains that its argument is not that imports from Greenland will replace
imports from Canada, but rather that imports from Greenland can and do have access to the
EU market despite the fact, as found by the Panel, that these products may be derived from seals
killed inhumanely
78 Similarly, with respect to reducing the incidence of inhumanely killed seals,
Canada notes that its contention is not that imports from Greenland will replace imports from
Canada, but rather that they could, because there is no limit on the number of imports under the
IC exception that can be placed on the EU market. Thus, Canada maintains, a reduction in demand
for seal products in the European Union would not necessarily result in a decrease in the incidence
of inhumanely killed seals since imports from Greenland are derived from hunting practices that
have been recognized as creating poor animal welfare outcomes.
2.19. Finally, Canada claims that the Panel erred in two respects in its application of the legal
standard under Article 2.2. First, the Panel failed properly to assess the risks non-fulfilment would
create. According to Canada, although the Panel determined that the level of protection actually
achieved by the measure is not as high as the European Union had claimed, the Panel then failed
"to continue its analysis to assess the 'nature of the risks at issue' and the 'consequences of
non-fulfilment' of the objective under the EU Seal Regime".
79 Second, Canada considers that the
Panel compounded this error by failing to undertake a "relational" analysis between the risks
non-fulfilment would create under the EU Seal Regime, the trade-restrictiveness of the EU Seal
Regime, and the contribution of the EU Seal Regi me to the identified objective. Had the Panel
completed this analysis, Canada asserts, the Panel would have concluded that "a very

70 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 186.
71 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 187.
72 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 189 (referring to, inter alia, Panel Reports, paras. 7.164,
7.216, 7.220, 7.250, 7.268, 7.269, 7.310, 7.314, and 7.315).
73 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 194.
74 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 209.
75 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 213 (quoting Appellate Body Reports, US – COOL, para. 479).
76 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 215.
77 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 215.
78 Canada's opening statement at the oral hearing.
79 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 309.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

trade-restrictive measure that does not make a significant contribution to the objective and has
relatively low consequences of nonfulfillment of the objective is not 'provisionally' necessary
pending confirmation by comparison with a less trade-restrictive alternative".
80
2.1.2.2 The Panel's analysis of the alternative measure
2.20. Canada claims that the Panel erred in several respects in its assessment of the alternative
measure. Canada argues that the Panel erred by comparing the contribution of the alternative
measure against only the prohibitive aspect of the EU Seal Regime. Canada notes that, unlike the
Panel's analysis of the contribution of the EU Se al Regime, in which it assessed both positive and
negative contributions to the objective, the Panel made no reference to the manner in which the
exceptions, both implicit and explicit, diminish and undermine the contribution to the objective.
Canada argues that the Panel erred by "ignoring its own findings" and establishing an improper
benchmark for analysis of the alternative measure that considered the EU Seal Regime as "only a
prohibition without the explicit or implicit exceptions".
81
2.21. Canada maintains that, by failing to assess the alternative measure against the actual
contribution of the EU Seal Regime, the Panel "assessed the alternative measure against the
standard of complete fulfilment of the objective". 82 Canada considers that such an approach
created an improper standard against which to co mpare the alternative measure. With regard to
the first aspect of the objective, Canada argues that it appears the Panel was requiring that the
alternative measure "would have to limit market access to only those seal products that were, in
fact, derived from humanely killed seals"
83, and thus "prescribe adequate animal welfare standards
and a certification and labelling scheme that would succeed in limiting access to the EU market
exclusively to seal products derived from humanely killed seals". 84 And although the Panel also
concluded that less stringent animal welfare standards and verification requirements would
diminish the degree of contribution to the fulfilment of the objective, Canada argues that the Panel
"fail[ed] to reconcile this with its finding that the IC and MRM exceptions 'diminish' the extent of
the contribution that the 'ban' makes to both aspects of the objective and that the 'implicit
exceptions' undermine the objective".
85
2.22. With regard to the second aspect of the objective – namely, reducing the number of
inhumanely killed seals – Canada observes that, on the one hand, the Panel found that the
alternative measure may subject a greater number of seals to the risks of poor animal welfare by
"restoring the potential market" in the European Union.
86 On the other hand, the Panel considered
that the imposition of animal welfare requirements may also promote the humane killing practices
in seal hunts that could reduce the number of inhumanely killed seals to some extent. Canada
argues, however, that the Panel here also "failed to make an overall determination of the extent of
contribution that the alternative measure makes to this aspect of the objective".
87 Canada
considers that, by comparing the alternative measure to a standard of complete fulfilment of the
objective and its two aspects, a standard that the EU Seal Regime itself failed to meet, the Panel
erred in the application of the "necessity" test under Article 2.2.
88
2.23. Canada also argues that the Panel erred by adopting the incorrect legal standard of
complete fulfilment of the objective with respec t to determining the degree of contribution the
alternative measure would need to make and thus the reasonable availability of the alternative
measure on that basis. In Canada's view, "[s]ince complete fulfilment of the objective is a higher
degree of contribution than what was found under the EU Seal Regime, the Panel erred in finding
that the alternative measure is not reasonably available."
89 Canada argues that, when the Panel
considered whether the EU Seal Regime was reasonably available, it sought to determine whether
the alternative measure reflected a high level of animal welfare. In doing so, Canada contends, the
Panel erred "by basing its conclusion that the alternative measure was not reasonably available on

80 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 322.
81 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 244.
82 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 246.
83 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 250.
84 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 251. (emphasis original)
85 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 253.
87 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 257 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.485).
88 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 259.
89 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 261.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

the requirement that it meet this level of animal welfare". 90 Canada argues that the Panel also
wrongly concluded that certification at the country or hunter level is insufficient because it would
fail to convey accurate information in respect of seal welfare. Canada thus maintains that the Panel
erred because its conclusion that the stringent version of the alternative measure imposes the sort
of prohibitive costs and technical difficulties th at can prevent an alternative measure from being
considered to be reasonably available was "premised on the alternative measure being required to
completely fulfil the objective".
91
2.24. Canada submits that the Panel's error in evaluating the alternative measure against
complete fulfilment of the objective led it to err in its reliance on certain jurisprudence and to
disregard other relevant considerations. Canada argues, for instance, that the Panel's
misconception about the standard against which to compare the alternative led it to err in its
reliance on the Appellate Body report in EC – Asbestos .
92 According to Canada, it was not
appropriate for the Panel to rely on the Appella te Body's analysis of whether the alternative
measure led to a continuation of asbestos-related health risks because, in contrast to the measure
in EC – Asbestos , the EU Seal Regime does not achieve the level of protection asserted by the
European Union.
2.25. Canada maintains that the Panel further erred in its interpretation and application of the
jurisprudence by dismissing the evidence regarding other wildlife hunts and abattoirs. Canada
points to the Appellate Body's statements in Korea – Various Measures on Beef as support for
examining measures applicable to other related product areas in assessing the reasonable
availability of a proposed alternative measure.
93 Canada argues that, because the Panel found that
the EU public's specific moral concern with respect to the inhumane killing of seals was rooted in
animal welfare generally being an issue of public morals in the EU, "the same regulatory actions
applied in the cases of other animals relied on by the EU to support its assertion of a public moral
on seal welfare are relevant to the issue of wh ich types of regulatory responses are reasonably
available."
94 In Canada's view, if the Panel had correctly interpreted and applied the jurisprudence,
it would have found that the types of measures applied with respect to the welfare of other
animals – including setting animal welfare requirements, certification, labelling, monitoring, and
enforcement – raise doubts with respect to the ne cessity of the more restrictive EU Seal Regime.
Furthermore, Canada argues that, because the Panel misinterpreted and misapplied the
jurisprudence to the facts of this case, it "erred in considering the costs and logistical demands on
hunters and marketers of seal products if a strict certification scheme were to be adopted by
the EU".
95 C a n a d a a l s o a r g u e s t h a t i t i s t h e b u r dens and costs imposed by compliance with an
alternative measure on the responding WTO Member , not on the industry, that are relevant for a
finding that the alternative measure is reasonably available.
2.26. For these reasons, Canada requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's finding, and
to complete the legal analysis and find that the EU Seal Regime is inconsistent with Article 2.2 of
the TBT Agreement.96
2.27. Canada also asserts a claim under Article 11 of the DSU regarding the Panel's finding that
the alternative measure could result in an increa se in the number of seals killed inhumanely. In
particular, Canada argues that the Panel's finding was based on an assertion of the European
Union, which is itself a restatement of an unsupported assertion made in an amicus curiae
submission. According to Canada, the Panel thus found that "a stringent animal welfare standard
would lead to more seals being killed inhumanely … without any evidentiary support."
97

90 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 263.
91 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 269.
92 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 270 and 271 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC –
Asbestos, para. 174).
93 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 281 and 282 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Korea –
Various Measures on Beef, paras. 170 and 168, respectively).
94 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 284.
95 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 291.
96 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 335.
97 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 334.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.1.3 Article XX of the GATT 1994
2.1.3.1 Scope of Article XX(a)
2.28. Canada appeals the Panel's finding that the EU Seal Regime was designed to protect public
morals and therefore falls within the scope of application of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994.
Relying on the Panel report in US – Gambling , Canada notes that the first element of the test
under Article XX(a) is to determine whether a given measure is designed "to protect" public
morals.
98 C a n a d a h i g h l i g h t s t h a t t h e p h r a s e " t o p r o t e c t " i s a l s o u s e d i n A r t i c l e X X ( b ) . I n EC –
Asbestos, the panel observed that "the use of the word 'protection' implies the existence of a
risk."99 In Canada's view, "[g]iven the close similarity between Articles XX(a) and XX(b), the
interpretive reasoning of the panel in EC – Asbestos is highly relevant to this dispute".100 For these
reasons, Canada "extrapolate[s] that the test to be applied" in determining whether a measure
falls within the scope of application of Article XX(a) includes three elements: (i) "identification of a
public moral"; (ii) "identification of a risk to that public moral"; and (iii) "establishing that a nexus
exists between the challenged measure and the protection of the public moral against that risk in
the sense that the measure is capable of making a contribution to the protection of that public
moral".
101
2.29. With respect to the first element of its test, Canada argues that the Panel failed to "inquire
what the content of the [relevant] moral norm is" by evaluating "the standard of right and wrong
conduct in the European Union with respect to animal welfare".102 According to Canada, "[s]uch an
inquiry must focus on the content of animal welfare laws, policies and practices" in the European
Union.
103 Instead, Canada argues, the Panel "merely po inted to the existence of EU animal welfare
legislation while noting that the presence of animal welfare policies in a variety of EU and
EU Member State legislation supports the idea that animal welfare is a moral matter".104
2.30. Turning to the second element of its test, Canada asserts that, in order to ascertain whether
a "risk" to the public morals identified above ex ists, the Panel should have considered "whether
there is evidence to show that the animal welfare practices with which the measure is concerned
fall below that standard."
105 According to Canada, a "risk" to public morals in the European Union
exists only if the evidence leads to the conclusion that "the commercial seal hunts targeted by the
ban exhibit a degree or incidence of animal suffering that falls below the standard or norm of right
and wrong conduct in the context of animal we lfare shown to prevail within the [European
Union]."106 Canada recalls that it had presented ev idence before the Panel to show that
"EU policies and practices with respect to animal welfare included a tolerance for a certain degree
of animal suffering, both for slaughterhouses and wildlife hunts", and that the welfare risks
associated with commercial seal hunts are "'commonplace' in situations that involve the killing of
animals, especially in the context of wild life hunts".
107 On this basis, Canada argues that the Panel
failed to consider whether the risks associated with commercial seal hunts "exceeded the accepted
level of risk of compromised animal welfare, as reflected in the EU's policies and practices in this
field".
108

98 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 386 and fn 470 thereto (quoting Panel Report, US – Gambling,
para. 6.455).
99 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 388 (quoting Panel Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 8.184).
100 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 389.
101 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 390.
102 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 392.
103 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 392.
104 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 393 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.409).
105 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 394.
106 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 396.
107 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 395 (referring to Canada's first written submission to the
Panel, paras. 146-162 and 198-213; second written submission to the Panel, paras. 45-49; opening statement
at the second Panel meeting, paras. 44-50; response to Panel question No. 60, paras. 248-250; and the
following Exhibits submitted by Canada before the Panel: Panel Exhibits CDA-29; CDA-34, p. 453; CDA-47;
CDA-98; CDA-122; CDA-123, p. 14; CDA-124; JE-8; JE-17; and JE-22, p. 88 (see list of Panel Exhibits,
pp. 9-10).
108 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 397.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.31. Canada also challenges the Panel's findings under Article 11 of the DSU, specifically in
respect of the Panel's finding "that the circumstances and conditions of seal hunts present certain
specific challenges to the humane killing of seals".
109 Canada argues that, by characterizing seal
hunts as "unique", and by disregarding the evidence relating to other situations involving the
killing of animals, the Panel "failed to provide th e comparative basis that would have allowed it to
evaluate whether the commercial seal hunt failed to satisfy prevailing animal welfare standards in
the European Union that provide the foundation for the alleged public moral concern".
110
2.32. Canada asserts that "[t]he Panel did not pr ovide any analysis based on the evidence before
it to support its finding that the physical environment of seal hunts was distinguishable from
wildlife hunts."
111 While the Panel did consider the European Food Safety Authority's Scientific
Opinion on Animal Health and Welfare 112 (EFSA Scientific Opinion) that compared the conditions
between seal hunts and abattoirs, it did not refer to any part of the EFSA Scientific Opinion that
looked at other wildlife hunts. 113 Canada argues that much of the evidence regarding seal hunts,
including the EFSA Scientific Opinion, provided comparison with other hunts "for the purpose of
making qualified conclusions regarding the seal hunt", and such comparisons were necessary for
the findings in the EFSA Scientific Opinion. 114 Because the Panel "felt that the other wildlife hunts
were not comparable", Canada argues, the Panel "deviated from the proper scientific method
employed by the experts to arrive at their conclusion on the seal hunt". 115 According to Canada,
the Panel, "[a]t a minimum", should have provided "a thorough assessment of the findings in the
EFSA Scientific Opinion regarding other wildlife hunts."
116 Canada argues that the Panel acted
inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU when it failed to provide reasons why environmental
conditions between seal hunts and other wildlife hunts "are so different as to make the animal
welfare aspects of the respective hunts incomparable", and when it did not objectively assess the
evidence before it, "particularly evidence that goes to the heart of Canada's arguments".
117
2.33. Canada also argues that the Panel did not properly compare the risks to animal welfare that
arise from other terrestrial hunts. In particular, Canada points out that the Panel failed to take into
account its evidence and arguments with respect to poor animal welfare outcomes in deer hunts,
and, therefore, failed to recognize and compar e the poor animal welfare outcomes in other
terrestrial hunts.
118 According to Canada, the particular characteristics of seal hunts identified by
the Panel "that pose 'various risks to the welfare of seals' including things such as ineffective
stunning, delays in the killing process and struck an d lost rates are all equally evident in wildlife
hunts".
119 Canada recalls that it "had shown that the shooting of wildlife such as deer pose similar
risks due to poor marksmanship, wounding as opposed to killing of deer as well as the inordinate
delay between a shot and when a hunter checks the animal".
120 The Panel, however, "failed to
disclose why this evidence that is of utmost relevance for Canada's arguments did not have a
bearing on its determination regarding the particular risks to seal hunting".121

110 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 400.
111 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 401.
112 European Food Safety Authority, "Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a
request from the Commission on the Animal Welfare aspects of the killing and skinning of seals", The EFSA
Journal (2007), No. 610, pp. 1-122 (Panel Exhibit JE-22).
113 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 401 (referring to Panel Reports, fn 254 to para. 7.187).
114 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 403 (referring to the following Exhibits submitted by Canada
before the Panel: Panel Exhibits JE-20; JE-21; JE-22; JE-24; JE-31; and CDA-34 (see list of Panel Exhibits,
pp. 9-10).
115 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 403.
116 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 403. (fn omitted)
117 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 402.
118 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 404 (referring to DEFRA, Current and Future Deer
Management Options, Report on behalf of DEFRA European Wildlife Division, December 2003, pp. 14-15,
available at: <http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/managementoptions_tcm6-4637.pdf> (Panel Exhibit
CDA-123)).
119 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 406.
120 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 406 (referring to Canada's oral statement at the second Panel
meeting, paras. 42-49).
121 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 406.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.1.3.2 The Panel's analysis of "necessity"
2.34. Canada claims that the Panel also erred in its interpretation and application of the
"necessity" test under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994. To the extent that the Panel relied upon its
analysis under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, Canada puts forth the same claims of error with
respect to the Panel's "necessity" analysis under Article XX(a) as Canada's claims of error with
respect to Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.
122 Additionally, Canada presents a "specific claim of
legal error" concerning the Panel's interpretation of the "material contribution" test established by
the Appellate Body in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres.123
2.35. Canada takes issue with the Panel's conclusion that "for a preliminary finding that 'the
measure as a whole is "necessary"' the contribution 'made by the "ban" to the identified objective
must be shown to be at least material given the extent of its trade-restrictiveness'."
124 According
to Canada, in taking this approach, the Panel appears to have relied on the statement of the
Appellate Body in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , that refers to "restrictive effects" "as severe as those
resulting from an import ban". 125 Canada highlights, however, that in that dispute the panel
analysed the import ban on retreaded tyres as a measure on its own and the MERCOSUR exception
as a separate measure because of the structure of the complainant's request for the establishment
of a panel in that case.
126 Relying on the Appellate Body's observations in Brazil – Retreaded
Tyres, Canada argues that "the jurisprudence does not provide a basis upon which only the ban,
which is not the aspect of the measure found inconsistent with the other provisions of the
GATT 1994, is examined for the purposes of determining whether the measure makes a material
contribution to the objective."
127 For these reasons, Canada contends that the Panel erred in its
interpretation and application of the "contribution" test by only considering the "ban" aspect of the
EU Seal Regime when considering whether the me asure makes a "material" contribution to its
identified objective.128
2.36. Next, Canada argues that, had the Panel a pplied the contribution element of the "necessity"
test correctly, it would have found that the EU Seal Regime failed to make a material contribution
to its objective. Canada recalls that, under its Article XX(a) analysis, the Panel referred to its
findings in the context of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement to conclude that "[o]verall, with respect
to the EU Seal Regime as a whole … we found that it contributed to a certain extent to its
objective."
129 T h e P a n e l ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e E U S e a l R e g i m e m a k e s " s o m e c o n t r i b u t i o n " o r
"contributes to a certain extent" does not provide a "sufficient or meaningful articulation" of the
degree of contribution of the measure to the objective. 130 For a measure to be considered
"necessary", "it should fall significantly closer to the pole of 'indispensable' rather than the
opposite pole of 'simply making a contribution to'."
131 However, the EU Seal Regime's "degree of
contribution" identified by the Panel, "fall[s] clos er to the 'simply making a contribution to' end of
the spectrum rather than the indispensable end". 132 For these reasons, Canada contends that the
Panel erred in characterizing "some contribution" and "makes a contribution to" the identified
objective as equivalent to making a "material contribution", as suggested by the Appellate Body in
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres.133

122 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 407 and 408 (referring to Panel Reports, paras. 7.634
and 7.637-7.639).
123 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 409 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded
Tyres, para. 150).
126 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 418 (quoting Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded
Tyres, para. 123).
127 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 419 and 420 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Brazil –
Retreaded Tyres, para. 126).
130 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 429.
131 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 423 (quoting Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various
Measures on Beef, para. 161).
132 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 429.
133 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 430 and 424, respectively (referring to Appellate Body
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.37. Canada also takes issue with the Panel's statement: "[w]e consider, and the parties do not
dispute, that … such public moral concern [with regard to the protection of animals] is indeed an
important value or interest."
134 Specifically, Canada refers to its second written submission to the
Panel to assert that it "did not agree that the specific public moral concern[s] in issue [were]
considered important or presented a serious risk". 135 For this reason, Canada asserts that the
Panel erred in stating that Canada did not dispute the importance of the public moral concerns at
issue in this case, and thus erred in making an objective assessment of the matter, contrary to
Article 11 of the DSU.
2.38. Canada, therefore, requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's intermediate findings
under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 that: (i) the measure falls within the scope of application of
Article XX(a); (ii) the EU Seal Regime as a whole makes a contribution to the identified objective;
and (iii) the alternative measure advanced by Canada is not reasonably available.
136 Canada also
requests the Appellate Body to complete the lega l analysis and find that the EU Seal Regime
cannot be provisionally justified under Article XX(a).137
2.1.3.3 The Panel's analysis under the chapeau of Article XX
2.39. Canada argues that, although the Panel came to the correct conclusion, it erred in its
reasoning under the chapeau of Article XX of th e GATT 1994 by finding that the discrimination
against Canadian "non-Inuit" seal products is justifiable. Canada takes issue with the Panel's
"exclusive" reliance on its legal analysis and find ings under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement to
determine whether the EU Seal Regime is applied in a manner that constitutes "arbitrary or
unjustifiable discrimination" within the meaning of the chapeau of Article XX.
138 Canada argues
that, by "relying solely on the ['legitimate regulatory distinction'] test it had devised under
TBT Article 2.1", the Panel committed an "error in law". 139 Canada maintains that the general
overlap in scope and similarities in the obje ctives between the GATT 1994 and the TBT Agreement
are not sufficient to "import the results of the ['legitimate regulatory distinction'] test directly into
the analysis of the chapeau requirements", while "ignor[ing] crucial elements of the test for
arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination" under the chapeau.
140 According to Canada, although the
text of the chapeau of Article XX is similar to the text of the sixth preambular recital of the
TBT Agreement, there is no reason why "the word ing of the sixth recital of the preamble of the
TBT Agreement, created in 1994, should affect th e interpretation of the chapeau requirements of
Article XX, which dates back to 1947." 141 Canada asserts that the Panel "did not have a proper
basis under the customary international law rules of treaty interpretation to read into the text of
the chapeau requirements the ['legitimate regulatory distinction'] test applicable to another
agreement".
142 Canada also argues that, by relying on its analysis under Article 2.1, the Panel
erred by failing to apply the test la id down by the Appellate Body in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres . In
that case, the Appellate Body ended its analysis under the chapeau of Article XX after finding that
"there was no rational connection between the discrimination in the Brazilian measure and its
objective".143 Canada argues that, "[a]t a minimum", the Panel should have referred to the
"rational connection" test that is directly applicable to the chapeau and provided an explanation
why it did not apply the test in its chapeau analysis.
144
2.40. Canada asserts that "[t]he ['legitimate regulatory distinction'] test developed by the Panel
for TBT Article 2.1 did not properly assess the just ifiability of the rationale for the regulatory
distinction in the light of the identified objective of the measure." 145 According to the Appellate
Body, Canada adds, "a rationale that purports to explain discrimination cannot be justified under

134 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 431 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.632).
135 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 434 (referring to Canada's second written submission to the
Panel, paras. 176, 179, and 181-183; and Panel Report, US – Gambling, paras. 6.489-6.492).
136 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 467.
137 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 467.
138 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 447 and 450.
139 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 449.
140 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 450.
141 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 452.
142 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 453.
143 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 456 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded
Tyres, para. 228).
144 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 457.
145 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 460.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

Article XX where there is no rational connection to the objective or if it goes against the
objective."146 In Canada's view, the chapeau analysis "is not designed to assess whether a WTO
Member has properly put forward a policy rationale that is not covered by one of the paragraphs of
Article XX".147 Canada argues that the Panel erred "by finding that discrimination arising from a
regulatory distinction was justified despite the fact that the objective of that distinction had not
been assessed to determine whether it fell within the scope of application of any of the paragraphs
under Article XX".
148 Canada further argues that the Panel also erred "by failing to take into
account the fact that, not only is there no rational connection between the discrimination and the
policy objective of addressing the EU public moral concerns regarding seal welfare", but also that
the exceptions in fact "go against that objective by enabling IC and MRM-sourced seal products to
be sold on the EU market".
149
2.41. In the event that the Appellate Body does not agree with Canada that the EU Seal Regime is
not provisionally justified under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, Canada requests the Appellate
Body to reverse the Panel's intermediate finding that the discrimination against Canadian
commercial seal products arising from the IC exception is justifiable. 150 Canada requests the
Appellate Body to complete the legal analysis on this specific point by applying the test set out in
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres and to find that the discrimination between Canadian commercial seal
products and IC seal products arising from the application of the EU Seal Regime is "arbitrary and
unjustifiable".
151 Should the Appellate Body disagree with its requests, Canada clarifies that its
challenge under the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1944 is restricted to the Panel's reasoning
thereunder, and not its ultimate finding that the EU Seal Regime does not meet the requirements
of the chapeau.
152
2.2 Claims of error by Norway – Appellant
2.2.1 Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement
2.2.1.1 The Panel's identification of the objective of the EU Seal Regime
2.42. Norway contends that the Panel erred in finding that the protection of the interests of
indigenous communities, as reflected in the IC exception, and the promotion of the sustainable
management of marine resources, as reflected in the MRM exception, do not amount to
"objectives" of the EU Seal Regime for purposes of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. Norway
challenges the Panel's findings on several grounds.
2.2.1.1.1 Reasons provided by the Panel
2.43. Norway argues that the Panel gave erroneous reasons for finding that the protection of the
IC and MRM interests do not amount to an objective of the EU Seal Regime within the meaning of
Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. Norway submit s that, even assuming that the Panel properly
assessed the evidence before it, it nevertheless erred in its application of the law to the facts in
finding that the IC and MRM interests do not amount to an objective of the EU Seal Regime within
the meaning of Article 2.2. Specifically, Norway takes issue with four aspects of the Panel's
reasoning that led the Panel to conclude that the interests accommodated in the IC and
MRM exceptions do not amount to objectives of the EU Seal Regime.
2.44. First, Norway agrees that the public conc erns regarding seal welfare must be distinguished
from the policy interests targeted by the Euro pean Union in allowing the marketing of seal
products derived from IC and MRM hunts. However, Norway emphasizes that "the mere fact that
the three different policy interests pursued by the legislation (public concerns on seal welfare;
protection of IC communities; and promoting sust ainable marine resource management) must be
distinguished is not a valid reason for considering that two of the three interests do not amount to

146 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 461 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded
Tyres, para. 228).
147 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 464.
148 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 463.
149 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 466.
150 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 468.
151 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 468.
152 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 468.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

'objectives'."153 According to Norway, "the need to distinguish the three legislative interests
pursued by the measure was merely an organizational issue for the Panel in structuring its analysis
and reasoning" and not a substantive reason to find that two of the interests are not objectives.154
2.45. Second, Norway suggests that the Panel erred in assuming that, for an interest to amount
to a regulatory objective, it must be "grounded in the concerns of citizens". 155 Norway emphasizes
that this need not necessarily be the case. For ex ample, an interest "may be grounded in policy
interests raised by legislators or regulators that enjoy limited or no public support and do not
address citizens' concerns".156
2.46. Third, according to Norway, the Panel erre d by assuming that the IC and MRM exceptions
could not amount to objectives of the EU Seal Regime given that they were "included in the course
of the legislative process".
157 Norway submits instead that "it is to be expected that the objectives
of the legislative or regulating entity responsible for adopting the measure would arise 'in the
course of the legislative process'."158
2.47. Fourth, Norway alleges that the Panel erre d by relying on the Appellate Body report in
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres to support its conclusion that the IC and MRM interests were not
"objectives". Norway notes in particular that the exception at issue in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres "did
not form part of the measure itself" but was "made effective through the application of the
measure" and followed from a ruling of the MERCOSUR tribunal. 159 According to Norway, "[t]he
factual circumstances surrounding the adoption of that exception were, therefore, very different
from the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the IC and [M]RM 'exceptions', which were
included by the legislator at the time it adopted the measure."
160 Norway adds that "[t]he mere
fact that the respondent in a different dispute did not argue that an exception under a different
measure, adopted in unusual circumstances in a different country, had distinct policy objectives,
does not mean that exceptions cannot have distinct policy objectives."
161 Nor does it mean,
according to Norway, that "the IC and MRM requirements – even if they were 'exceptions' – do not
evidence distinct policy objectives." 162 Norway adds that, if a regulator adopts exceptions to
general rules, there is usually a policy reason for doing so – "the exception will have some aim,
target or goal, just as the IC and MRM requirements do".163
2.48. On this basis, Norway claims that the Panel erred under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement by
providing "invalid reasons" for concluding that the interests accommodated by EU legislators in the
IC and MRM exceptions do not amount to objectives of the EU Seal Regime, and therefore requests
the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's findings under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.164
2.2.1.1.2 The Panel's legal characterization of the objective of the measure
2.49. In addition to challenging the reasoning provided by the Panel in paragraph 7.402 of the
Panel Reports, Norway contends, as a separate matter, that the evidence before the Panel, as well
as the Panel's own findings and the Panel's findings relating to the legislative history, text, and
structure, design, and expected operation of th e measure, do not support the Panel's overall
conclusion that "the EU Seal Regime pursues a single objective, and does not pursue objectives
relating to the IC and [M]RM requirements". 165 According to Norway, since the task of the Panel
under Article 2.2 consisted of assessing the eviden ce before it for the purpose of identifying the
objectives of the measure, the Panel's errors in this regard constitute errors in the legal
characterization of the facts. Norway challenges several aspects of the Panel's analysis.

153 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 83.
154 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 84. (emphasis original)
155 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 85. (emphasis omitted)
156 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 87.
158 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 94.
159 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 98 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded
Tyres, para. 122 and fn 163 thereto; and quoting Panel Reports, fn 659 to para. 7.402).
160 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 98.
161 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 99.
162 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 99.
163 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 100.
164 Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 108 and 109.
165 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 114.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.50. First, with regard to the Panel's analysis of the legislative history of the EU Seal Regime,
Norway argues that the Panel erred in finding that addressing EU public moral concerns regarding
seal welfare was the "principal" objective of the EU Seal Regime, when, according to Norway, the
legislative history of the measure indicated that "the interests of indigenous communities and
sustainable resource management were also priorities in the minds of legislators when developing
the measure."
166 In support of its position, Norway refers to the legislative proposal by the
European Commission for a regulation concerning trade in seal products167 (Commission Proposal),
which not only makes reference to public concerns regarding seal welfare, but also includes
protecting IC interests as one of the "[g]rounds for and objectives of the proposal".168 According to
Norway, the Panel failed to take this into account in its analysis. Norway also refers to the report
of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection on the Commission Proposal
169
(Parliament Report) and an opinion provided th erein by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural
Development of the European Parliament (AGRI), which, in Norway's view "indicated the
importance to EU legislators of the policy objectives underlying the IC and [M]RM objectives".
170
Norway further explains that the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety of
the European Parliament (ENVI) proposed, in the Parliament Report, "a full ban on trade in seal
products with a limited exemption for Inuit communities"
171 and the Rapporteur of AGRI also
supported restrictions that excluded Inuit communities from the scope of the regulation. 172 In
addition, referring to remarks made by Finland and Sweden within the Council of the European
U n i o n , N o r w a y a r g u e s t h a t " t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e E U S e a l R e g i m e i n t h e p r e c i s e f o r m i t t o o k
reflected a compromise attempt to incorporate a multitude of 'policy' aims and objectives proposed
by the various stakeholders in the European Union's institutions: the Parliament, the Commission
and the Council."
173 For Norway, these goals were animal welfare, protection of Inuit interests, and
marine resource management.
2.51. Norway submits that, despite this evidence, "the vast majority of the Panel's reasoning on
objectives examines whether the evidence supported the objective asserted by the European
Union, namely that the measure addressed public concerns about seal welfare."
174 Moreover, when
it came to the objectives asserted by the complainants, the Panel made only "selective" references
to some of the above evidence. 175 For example, according to Norway, the Panel "did not …
consider the role played by passages from the same Proposal on the need to 'ensur[e]' that the
regulation protected the Inuit interests, in inform ing the objective of the EU measure" and did not
mention the Parliament Report.176
2.52. Regarding the Panel's analysis of the text of the EU Seal Regime, Norway asserts that the
Basic Regulation reflects the fact that the IC an d MRM interests "are prominently reflected in the
measure in a manner that gives rise to a hierarchy of interests established in favour of" the
interests accommodated in those exceptions. 177 In Norway's view, the design and structure of
those exceptions indicate that the legislator "prioritized market access for products from qualifying
hunts".178 Norway further alleges that the Panel "entirely overlooked" the Implementing
Regulation, noting simply that, "while providing practical details necessary for the enforcement of
the Basic Seal Regulation, the Implementing Regulation does not in itself assist us in identifying
the objective of the measure."
179 Norway points out that the Implementing Regulation is an
"integral part" of the EU Seal Regime, and that "detail with which the permissive elements are

166 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 120.
167 European Commission, Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council
concerning trade in seal products (23 July 2008), COM(2008) 469 final (Panel Exhibit JE-9).
168 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 121 (quoting Commission Proposal, p. 5).
169 Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, Report on the proposal for a regulation
of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning trade in seals products (5 March 2009),
A6-0118/2009 (Panel Exhibit JE-4).
170 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 123.
171 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 124 (quoting Parliament Report, Opinion of ENVI, Short
Justification, p. 33).
172 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 125 (referring to Parliament Report, Opinion of AGRI, Short
Justification, pp. 56 and 62).
173 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 129.
174 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 130.
175 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 130.
176 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 131.
177 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 149.
178 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 153.
179 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 157 (quoting Panel Reports, fn 633 to para. 7.388).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

described and provided for illustrate that the IC and [M]RM concerns were prominent in the minds
of the legislators."180
2.53. Further, Norway claims that the Panel failed to consider and give appropriate weight to its
own findings in other sections of the Panel Reports regarding the design, structure, and expected
operation of the EU Seal Regime, which indicates that the IC and MRM exceptions amount to
objectives of the EU Seal Regime. In particular, Norway recalls that the Panel noted earlier in its
Reports that the EU Seal Regime is expected "to operate in such a way that most of the products
from Greenland and Sweden qualify under the IC requirements and are therefore permitted into
the EU market, whereas practically none of the seal products from Norway and Canada are
permitted".
181 Norway adds that Greenland is expected to supply large quantities of the imported
seal products and has the capacity to meet all of the European Union's demand. Thus, through the
design and operation of the EU Seal Regime, seal products are not banned, but are instead
allowed, through the IC and MRM exceptions. According to Norway, "[t]he expected operation of
the measure therefore fulfills the aim of the regulators to ensure that products meeting the IC and
[M]RM requirements have access to the EU market."
182 Norway further claims that the Panel
"failed to draw the relevant legal conclusion, namely, that the operation of the measure reinforces
its aim or goal of pursuing the IC, [M]RM, and personal use interests, and in fact undermines the
degree to which the measure addresses public concerns about seal welfare".
183
2.54. Norway further emphasizes that, in any event, the issue is not whether the IC and
MRM interests are more or less important than seal welfare; the issue is simply whether the
objectives of the measure include promoting IC and MRM interests.
184 To be an objective, a policy
interest must form a regulatory goal or target, whether it is more, less, or equally important
compared to other goals. Norway argues that a panel may have regard to the ways in which
different interests are pursued and balanced, but it need not conclude that there is some absolute
hierarchy among different objectives.
2.2.1.1.3 Claims under Article 11 of the DSU
2.55. Norway further claims that, through its tr eatment of the evidence relating to the design,
structure, and legislative history of the EU Seal R e g i m e , t h e P a n e l f a i l e d t o m a k e a n o b j e c t i v e
assessment of the facts, as required under Articl e 11 of the DSU, in finding that the interests
pursued by the IC and MRM exceptions do not amo unt to separate and independent objectives of
the EU Seal Regime. Norway's claim that the Panel acted inconsistently with its obligations under
Article 11 of the DSU is based on four grounds.
2.56. Norway contends, first, that the Panel di sregarded evidence provid ed by Norway showing
that the legislative objectives of the EU Seal Regime included protecting the economic and social
interests of indigenous communities, and separately promoting the sustainable management of
marine resources.
185 Instead, the Panel undertook a "selec tive" and "unbalanced" review of the
evidence of the legislative history, dedicating mo st of its analysis to addressing evidence that
supported the public morals objective asserted by the European Union. 186 In contrast, the Panel's
"discussion and consideration of the IC and [M]RM objectives asserted by Norway receive[d] a few
cursory lines of commentary".187 Norway emphasizes, however, that "[a]n objective assessment of
the facts requires substantially more than 'notice' by a panel." 188 Norway further asserts that the
Panel's "imbalanced treatment of the evidence is highlighted by its selective reliance" on the
Commission Proposal. 189 In this regard, Norway notes that "[t]he Panel referred to the
Commission's Proposal to support the view that public concerns regarding seal welfare were to be
addressed in the measure, quoting two full paragraphs of that Proposal." 190 Yet, according to

180 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 158.
181 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 164.
182 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 164. (emphasis original)
183 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 165. (emphasis original)
184 Norway's opening statement at the oral hearing.
185 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 180 (referring to Norway's first written submission to the
Panel, paras. 591-630; and second written submission to the Panel, paras. 166-170).
186 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 182.
187 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 183.
188 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 184.
189 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 188 (referring to Commission Proposal, p. 5).
190 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 188.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

Norway, "the Panel failed to attribute equal (or for that matter any) weight in its discussion to
other objectives highlighted in that very same document" 191, namely that "[t]he fundamental
economic and social interests of Inuit communities traditionally engaged in the hunting of seals
should not be adversely affected."
192
2.57. Second, Norway asserts that the Panel failed adequately to take into account the text of the
EU Seal Regime, and in particular the Implementi ng Regulation for purposes of identifying the
objective of the EU Seal Regime. Norway argues that, in its consideration of the text of the EU Seal
Regime, the Panel erred because it failed to appreciate the import of its own finding that the
preamble of the Basic Regulation sets out three main considerations with equal prominence, which
included those relating to IC and MRM interests. According to Norway, the Panel's failure to explain
why, in the light of that finding, "it still gave prom inence singularly to the seal welfare concerns of
the EU public, constitutes further error".193
2.58. Third, according to Norway, the Panel failed to account for the relevance of the measure's
operation to discern the objective of the EU Seal Regime. More specifically, the Panel failed entirely
to consider and give probative weight to its own findings in other sections of its Reports. According
to Norway, these show that the EU Seal Regime will operate to allow into the EU market "all, or
virtually all" seal products from Greenland under the IC exception, and that seal products from
certain EU countries, including Sweden, would "likely qualify" under the MRM exception.
194 Norway
posits that this evidence concerning the expected operation of the EU Seal Regime "confirms that
the goals expressed in the legislative history, and reflected in the text and hierarchy of the
measure, are implemented in the measure's operation to a considerable practical extent". 195 Thus,
Norway contends that, together "with the remaining evidence, these findings should have revealed
to the Panel that the EU Seal Regime pursues objectives relating to the protection of IC and
[M]RM interests".
196
2.59. Fourth, Norway alleges that the Panel's reasoning in paragraph 7.402 of its Reports lacks
coherence to a degree that falls short of basic standards required under Article 11 of the DSU and
is not supported by the evidence that was before the Panel. In this regard, Norway recalls its
argument that the reasons given by the Panel for finding that protecting the IC and MRM interests
were not objectives of the EU Seal Regime were: (i) that the three interests pursued in the
measure "must be distinguished"; (ii) that the IC and MRM interests are not grounded "in the
concerns of EU citizens"; (iii) that the IC and MRM "exceptions" were "included in the legislative
process"; and (iv) that the exception in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres was not argued to constitute an
"objective".
197 In Norway's view, "these reasons do not provide a coherent basis for the Panel's
conclusion."198 Moreover, according to Norway, the Panel's reasoning fails to address the
"considerable evidence" on the Panel record showin g that protection of the IC and MRM interests
were objectives of the measure.199
2.2.1.2 The Panel's analysis of the contribution of the EU Seal Regime to its objective
2.60. Norway claims that the Panel erred in finding that the EU Seal Regime was more trade
restrictive than necessary within the meaning of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. Norway first
directs its challenge at the Panel's finding regarding the degree of contribution made by the
EU Seal Regime to the protection of EU public mo rals. Norway asserts that the Panel's findings on
contribution were insufficiently clear and precise, and were not properly substantiated.

191 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 188. (emphasis original)
192 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 188 (quoting Commission Proposal, p. 5).
193 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 198.
194 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 204 (quoting Panel Reports, paras. 7.164 and 7.351,
respectively).
195 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 205.
196 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 206.
198 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 209.
199 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 209.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.2.1.2.1 Degree of contribution
2.61. Norway contends that the Panel was required "to state with sufficient clarity and precision
the degree or extent of the net overall positive contribution it found to be made by the EU Seal
Regime" to its objective. 200 Recognizing that a panel enjoys flexibility in conducting its analysis of
the degree of the contribution, Norway observes that "the Panel opted for a methodology in which
it considered the degree of positive, then negati ve, contribution made by the measure to each
aspect of the EU public morals objective" before "reaching an overall conclusion that there is a net
positive contribution to the objective of the measure". 201 Norway maintains that "the Panel was
[thus] required to articulate sufficiently clearly and precisely the degree of the contribution made
by the measure to each aspect of the objective, so that it could conclude with sufficient precision
and clarity" that the measure made an overall net positive contribution to its objective.
202 Because
the prohibitive and permissive aspects of the measure at issue "counteract each other" 203, Norway
considered it particularly important that the Panel "articulate with clarity and precision the degree
to which the positive contributions made by the prohibitive elements exceeded the negative
contributions made by the permissive elements".204 This, Norway adds, would provide an objective
basis on which to conclude that the measure makes an overall net positive contribution to its
objective, and provide a benchmark for purposes of comparison with the contribution of alternative
measures.
2.62. Norway maintains that the Panel failed to establish the degree of contribution made by
either of the two aspects of the public morals ob jective of the EU Seal Regime identified by the
Panel, namely: (i) whether the measure ensures that EU citizens do not participate as consumers
in products derived from seals killed inhumanely; and (ii) reducing the incidence of the inhumane
killing of seals. Regarding the first aspect of the objective, Norway argues that, although the Panel
concluded that the prohibitive element of the measure prevents the EU public from purchasing seal
products to the "extent" that the banned produc ts include products derived from seals killed
inhumanely, the Panel never considered to what extent these hunts actually involved inhumane
killing.
205 Moreover, Norway contends that the Panel failed in its assessment of the negative
contribution of the IC and MRM hunts by not articulating with any clarity the extent of the risk of
inhumane killing in these hunts, particularly in relation to the banned hunts. Norway concludes
that the Panel, having failed to articulate the degree of the positive and negative contributions
made, "had no basis to conclude that the measure actually makes a net positive contribution to
that aspect of the objective". 206 Although the Panel concluded that the ban is capable of making a
contribution to the measure's objective, Norway argues that it never determined "in what
circumstances will the capability of contributing be converted into an actual contribution".
207
2.63. With regard to the second aspect of the objective, Norway first criticizes the Panel for failing
to explain the basis for treating a reduction in demand for seal products as a proxy for a reduction
in inhumane killing. According to Norway, "[e]ven if demand were to fall, inhumane killing could
increase if the measure favours supply from a hunt with poorer animal welfare outcomes."
208
Norway contends that, under these circumstances, the supply of seal products derived from
inhumanely killed seals would increase, which is what occurs under the EU Seal Regime. Norway
argues that the Panel failed to articulate the ex tent of the positive contribution made by the
prohibitive elements of the measure to this as pect of the objective. In particular, Norway
maintains that the EU Seal Regime is incapable of affecting consumer demand, and that the Panel
itself acknowledged that it was unable to draw any concrete conclusions based on the available
data. Moreover, Norway considers that the Panel's conclusion that the measure "may have
contributed" to reducing EU demand is nothing more than a "possibility" that the measure did
so.
209

200 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 262. (emphasis original)
201 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 263.
202 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 263.
203 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 265.
204 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 266. (emphasis original)
205 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 273.
206 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 281.
207 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 284. (emphasis original)
208 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 291.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.64. Norway argues that the Panel's articulation of the negative contribution made to the second
aspect of the measure is also inadequate. According to Norway, the Panel did not set out the
extent of the negative contribution, or the extent to which that contribution is minimized by the
inability of certain indigenous communities to benefit from the IC exception, or by commercial
activity occurring under one of the implicit exceptions. As it did in respect of the contribution of the
first aspect of the measure, Norway concludes that the Panel had no basis to conclude that the
measure actually makes an overall net contribution to that aspect of the objective, and in fact
never even stated that there was such a contribution.
2.65. With regard to the Panel's conclusion concerning the measure as a whole, Norway echoes
the concerns it raises in respect of the Panel's intermediate findings. As Norway argues, the
Panel's contribution findings "are so beset with equivocation, vagueness, and imprecision that it is
impossible to form an understanding as to how the findings justify the overall conclusion that there
is even 'some' contribution, much less what the Panel itself considered to be the degree or extent
of that contribution".
210 Norway adds that there is, therefore, no basis for the Panel's finding that
the EU Seal Regime makes a contribution to its public morals objective, and requests that the
Panel's finding be reversed.211
2.66. Norway further argues that the fact that a qualitative assessment is chosen does not mean
that the specification of the extent of the contri bution may be vague and imprecise, as suggested
by the European Union.212 Norway maintains that, despite the existence of qualitative assessments
in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres and US – Tuna II (Mexico) , the panels in both of those cases
nevertheless offered detailed qualitative explanations in support of their findings that a
contribution existed.
2.2.1.2.2 Basis for a finding of contribution
2.67. Norway claims that the Panel also erre d in applying Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement
"to arrive at the conclusion that the measure makes 'some' net overall contribution to that
objective".213 Norway focuses this aspect of its appeal on two features of the Panel's overall
conclusion: (i) that the Panel undervalued the negative contribution of the permissive elements;
and (ii) that it overvalued the positive contribu tion of the prohibitive elements. Norway considers
that "neither the evidence before the Panel, nor its own findings, support the conclusion that the
EU Seal regime makes a net overall positive contribution to the objective."
214 Norway considers
that the Panel's errors constitute errors in the legal characterization of the facts, but also makes
claims under Article 11 of the DSU with respect to limited aspects of the Panel's assessment of the
issue.
2.68. Norway identifies six points that it considers the Panel undervalued in assessing the
negative contribution of the EU Seal Regime to the public morals objective. First, Norway refers to
the Panel's conclusions that virtually all seal products from Greenland and the European Union are
likely to be introduced on the EU market by virtue of the IC and MRM exceptions, whereas the vast
majority of Canadian and Norwegian seal products do not meet the requirements of either of these
exceptions. Norway observes that these except ions "impose no animal welfare conditions
whatsoever"
215, and recalls the Panel's finding that seal products may be sold on the EU market
under the IC and MRM exceptions "regardless of wh ether they derive from seals killed humanely"
and without any quantitative limits.216
2.69. Second, Norway takes note of the Panel's conclusion that EU public moral concerns
regarding seal welfare appear to be related to seal hunts in general, not to particular types of seal
hunts. Although the European Union had argued that certain interests prevailed over concerns in
respect of seal welfare, Norway claims that the Panel rejected this argument because it was
unsupported by the evidence of record on the scope and content of the relevant public moral.
217

210 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 315. (emphasis original)
211 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 315.
212 Norway's opening statement at the oral hearing.
213 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 316.
214 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 317.
215 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 325.
217 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 333 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.442).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

Thus, Norway argues, "the moral standard found by the Panel applies to the IC and [M]RM hunts
conducted in Greenland and the European Union as much as it does to other seal hunts."218
2.70. Third, Norway criticizes the Panel for faili ng to make an assessment of the animal welfare
risks presented by the Greenlandic hunt in relati on to the banned hunts. Norway points to the
Panel's conclusions that "the use of rifles from boats in 'open water hunting' or trapping and
netting appear to be the main hunting methods for Greenlandic Inuit", and that those hunting
methods contribute to seal welfare concerns.
219 Norway also points to differences in compliance
monitoring efforts as between Greenland, and Canada and Norway. Norway argues that the Panel,
however, "failed to make any assessment of the animal welfare risks presented by the Greenlandic
hunt in relation to the banned hunts".220
2.71. Fourth, Norway points to Panel findings and record evidence that, in its view, support the
conclusion that the EU Seal Regime would lead to the substitution of Greenlandic seal products for
imports previously derived from commercial hunt s in Canada and Norway. Norway argues that
these Panel findings and record evidence demonstrate that Greenlandic trade could by itself satisfy
EU demand.221 Norway further argues that the data relied on by the European Union to show levels
of Canadian imports into the European Union were overstated because they also include transit
goods that do not enter the EU market.
222
2.72. Fifth, Norway argues that the Panel wron gly concluded that indigenous communities have
not been able to benefit from the IC exception, a factor that the Panel considered to limit the
negative impact of the exceptions. Norway asserts that the Panel's finding was "disingenuous"
223
because no Greenlandic imports were possible under the IC exception until a Greenlandic body to
certify imports was recognized in April 2013, four days before the second Panel meeting. 224
Norway argues that the Panel's conclusion demonstrates a selective treatment of the evidence and
a failure to refer to or reconcile its findings, in violation of Article 11 of the DSU.
2.73. Sixth, Norway accuses the Panel of failing to assess the impact of the implicit exceptions
under the EU Seal Regime. Norway contends that, despite the fact that the Panel's findings
demonstrate that the implicit exceptions have commercial importance, and thus make an
important negative contribution to countering the measure's objective, its significance "is nowhere
properly taken into account or characterized by the Panel in arriving at its overall conclusion".
225
2.74. In addition, Norway asserts two errors of the Panel that demonstrate its overvaluing of the
positive contribution of the EU Seal Regime to th e public morals objective. First, Norway considers
that the Panel committed a "recurring error" by failing properly "to characterize the consequences
of the explicit and implicit 'exceptions' for the capability of the 'ban' to make an overall net positive
contribution".226 Norway asserts that the Panel failed to reconcile the effects of the prohibitive and
permissive aspects of the measure, and that it is impossible to understand on this basis how and
why the Panel concluded that there is a net positive contribution to the measure's objective.
Moreover, Norway asserts that, in terms of Articl e 11 of the DSU, "the imprecision of the Panel's
analysis means that the Panel provide[d] an inadequate statement on how it weighed, balanced,
and reconciled the competing evidence of positive and negative contributions".
227 Norway adds
that, "[a]s the Panel failed to explain and reconcile the evidence in arriving at its conclusion,
including in making its intermediate factual findings, there is no objective basis to comprehend
how it arrived at its net overall conclusion".
228 This, Norway contends, demonstrates a lack of
objectivity by the Panel, in violation of Article 11 of the DSU.

218 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 334.
220 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 344.
221 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 356 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.315, in turn referring
to COWI, Study on implementing measures for trade in seal products, Final Report (January 2010) (Panel
Exhibit JE-21) (COWI 2010 Report), p. 84).
222 Norway's opening statement at the oral hearing.
223 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 363.
224 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 365 (referring to Panel Reports, fn 220 to para. 7.164).
225 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 374.
226 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 376.
227 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 415. (emphasis original)
228 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 418.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.75. Second, Norway maintains that the Panel erroneously found that the ban reduces demand
for seal products within the European Union and globally. With respect to the decline in demand
within the European Union, Norway contends that "[t]he Panel did not identify any features of the
measure, by design or otherwise", that affect the demand for seal products.
229 In Norway's view,
the exceptions of the EU Seal Regime will ensure "sufficient quantities of seal products … in the
EU market to meet the entirety of EU demand".230 Norway also contends that the reasons given by
the Panel for finding that the direct impact of the ban is a reduction of demand within the
European Union "do not withstand scrutiny". 231 Norway further asserts that, in terms of Article 11
of the DSU, the Panel failed to substantiate its findings and engaged in selective treatment of the
evidence demonstrating a lack of objectivity. Moreover, Norway argues that the Panel relied for its
conclusion on trade data that do not pertain to EU or global demand, and that the Panel itself
stated did not provide it with a basis to reach concrete conclusions. Accordingly, Norway argues,
the Panel's findings lack objectivity.
2.2.1.2.3 Other issues regarding contribution
2.76. Norway further contends that the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU when
it failed to address Norway's claim that the so-called "non-profit", "non-systematic", and "sole
purpose" conditions of the MRM exception are unnecessary to the achievement of the seal welfare
considerations underlying the public moral concerns found by the Panel, or to the achievement of
sustainable resource management. As Norway argues, these three conditions "establish a barrier
to trade in seal products from Norway"
232 and thus form a critical part of Norway's claim under
Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. Norway maintains that, "[b]y completely ignoring this element
of Norway's claim", the Panel failed in its duty under Article 11 of the DSU.233
2.77. Finally, Norway contends that the Panel failed to address "arbitrary or unjustifiable
discrimination" in its analysis of whether the EU Seal Regime is more trade restrictive than
necessary under Article 2.2. Norway contends that the sixth recital of the TBT Agreement reflects
that WTO Members "have consciously carried over the qualifications in the chapeau to the
disciplines that regulate technical regulations".
234 Norway adds that, because the Appellate Body
previously found relevant contextual support in the sixth recital for its interpretation of Article 2.2,
to "give effect to this context", a panel must as sess whether there is "arbitrary or unjustifiable
discrimination", in the pursuit of the justifying objective, in determining whether trade restrictions
are necessary to fulfil an objective.
235 Norway claims that the Panel erred in its interpretation and
application of the legal standard under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, and, by failing to address
Norway's arguments in this regard, acted inconsistently with its duty under Article 11 of the DSU.
2.2.1.3 The Panel's analysis of the alternative measure
2.78. Norway then addresses the Panel's analysis of the proposed alternative measure. Norway
claims that, although the Panel identified the corre ct question in examining the contribution of a
less trade-restrictive alternative measure, the Panel erred by "focus[ing] on whether the
alternative could fulfil completely the identified objective, as if the contested measure being
compared against the alternat ive were a comprehensive ban ".236 Norway contends that the Panel
thus erred by holding the alternative measure up to a benchmark level of contribution that was
higher than the contribution achieved by the EU Seal Regime. This error, Norway argues,
compromised the Panel's analysis of whether the contribution of the alternative was equal to or
greater than the level actually achieved by the EU Seal Regime, and of whether the alternative
was reasonably available.
2.79. Norway considers that the Panel's assessm ent is erroneously premised on a requirement
that the less-trade-restrictive alternative effectiv ely prevents exposure to products from seals
killed inhumanely. Norway finds evidence of the Pane l's error in its conclusion that, even if market

229 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 381.
230 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 382.
231 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 384.
232 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 507.
233 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 508. (emphasis original)
234 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 534.
235 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 542.
236 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 583. (emphasis original)
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

access were limited to seal products that meet animal welfare requirements, those seal products
"would originate in hunts that may have caused poor animal welfare outcomes for some other
number of seals".
237 Norway contends that the "logical implication" of this rationale is that "the
current EU Seal Regime performs better than the alternative in this respect". 238 According to
Norway, the IC and MRM exceptions allow the market ing of seal products irrespective of animal
welfare considerations, and admit seal products from seal hunts, such as the Greenlandic hunt,
that permit and commonly use inhumane killing methods, such as netting. Norway thus argues
that "unlimited quantities of seal products are already admitted to the EU market" from hunts that
have caused poor animal welfare outcomes.
239 In Norway's view, an alternative that conditions
EU market access on a requirement that seal products be derived from seal hunts applying strict
animal welfare requirements "can only be an im provement" on the EU Seal Regime, since it has
exceptions that admit seal products regardless of animal welfare outcomes.
2.80. Norway also considers that the Panel similarly erred in its statement that the alternative
may "have the consequence of subjecting a greate r number of seals to the animal welfare risks
incidental to seal hunting".
240 In doing so, the Panel relied on a report that rejected a proposed
amendment during the legislative process on th e grounds that it did not meet EU citizens'
demands to end the trade in seal products. 241 As Norway argues, the Panel overlooked its own
findings since the EU Seal Regime focused not on ending the trade in seal products, but rather on
addressing concerns about the welfare of seals. Norway considers that the Panel's approach "holds
the alternative measure up to a standard of contribution that is much higher than that actually
achieved by the EU Seal Regime".
242
2.81. With respect to the availability of the al ternative measure, Norway argues that the Panel
erred by considering the feasibility of an alternative measure that would completely fulfil the
objective at issue. Norway points to the Panel's consideration of the level of stringency required
from animal welfare standards "in order to genuinely assuage [animal welfare] concerns".
243
In Norway's view, the Panel's findings on the contribution of the EU Seal Regime show that the
measure at issue does not genuinely assuage animal welfare concerns, because consumers are
exposed to unlabelled seal products imported under the IC and MRM exceptions. By way of further
example, Norway considers that the Panel's assertion that stringent animal welfare standards are
not a reasonably available alternative because stringent standards might not be met relies on an
inappropriate benchmark. In Norway's view, "animal welfare requirements are already not being
met in the IC and [M]RM hunts".
244 According to Norway, "the proposed alternative actually
imposes animal welfare requirements, whereas the measure imposes none."245 Norway points to
other errors it argues the Panel made in respec t of certification, labelling, and costs. Norway,
moreover, criticizes the Panel for its reliance on EC – Asbestos for the proposition that a
responding Member cannot be expected to employ an alternative measure that involves a
continuation of the risk that the challenged measure seeks to halt.
246 In Norway's view, this
reliance by the Panel was misplaced, because the EU Seal Regime itself "does not even 'seek to
halt' the animal welfare risks associated with seal hunting", given that it admits seal products
under the IC and MRM exceptions.
2.82. Finally, Norway submits that the Panel misapplied WTO jurisprudence, in particular by
indicating that the significance of costs and tech nical difficulties relates to those borne by WTO
Members, not industry. Norway argues that efficien t suppliers will have an incentive to meet any
costs they bear, because they still are permitted to trade. In Norway's view, "compliance costs do
not make the measure less 'reasonably available' to the regulating Member , since the cost of

238 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 593. (emphasis original)
239 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 594. (emphasis original)
241 See Panel Reports, fn 772 to para. 7.482 (referring to Parliament Report, Justification for
Amendment, p. 21).
242 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 596.
243 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 601 (quoting Panel Reports, para. 7.496). (emphasis added
by Norway)
244 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 602 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.496). (emphasis
original)
245 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 603. (emphasis original)
246 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 611 (referring to Panel Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 7.502).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

compliance could be borne by industry." 247 Moreover, Norway contends that the Panel
"fundamentally misunderstood" the relevance of costs and technical difficulties addressed by the
Appellate Body in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres and US – Gambling and, in doing so, "laid down an
improper standard for less-restrictive alternatives to meet".
248 In Norway's view, it is clear from
these decisions that the Appellate Body "was addressing the relevance of costs and technical
difficulties that would be borne by the responding Member under a proposed alternative measure",
and "was not addressing the cost to be borne by industry".249
2.83. Norway further submits that the Panel acted in violation of Article 11 of the DSU by ignoring
two further alternative measures it had proposed during the course of the Panel proceedings. First,
Norway proposed an alternative that consisted of the removal of the restrictive conditions of the
EU Seal Regime. Under this alternative, trad e would be permitted from hunts that, under the
measure at issue, "could not meet the conditions for market access under the IC, [M]RM or
Travellers 'exceptions'".
250 The second alternative was the removal of three contested conditions
for access to the MRM exception – namely, the "not-for-profit", "non-systematic", and "sole
purpose" conditions – leaving all the other el ements of the EU Seal Regime undisturbed. 251 In
Norway's view, "this alternative could include animal welfare, certification, and labelling
requirements on seal products that meet the two remaining [M]RM conditions".
252 According to
Norway, "these alternatives were completely ignored by the Panel". 253 Norway contends that the
Panel's failure to address the second alternative was "egregious" since the three conditions were
found to restrict access to the EU market.
254 Norway asserts that "the Panel's failure to assess
whether Norway's proposed alternative – which excludes these three restrictive conditions, but
adds animal welfare requirements and labelling – could make an equivalent contribution to the
public morals objective is manifestly inadequate."255
2.2.1.4 Request for completion of the analysis
2.84. Finally, Norway requests, if the Appellate Body reverses the Panel's finding that the EU Seal
Regime is not inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, that the Appellate Body
complete the legal analysis. Norway explains that "there may not be a sufficient basis in the Panel
findings and record to complete the analysis on all aspects of Norway's claim".
256 Norway thus
requests that the Appellate Body make "limited findings" in relation to the objectives of the
EU Seal Regime and the legitimacy of the objectives, as well as a "narrow finding" of inconsistency
in relation to certain conditions for market access under the MRM exception.
257
2.85. Norway requests the Appellate Body to complete the legal analysis in relation to three
specific points. First, Norway requests the Appellate Body to find that, in addition to addressing
EU public moral concerns regarding seal welfare, the EU Seal Regime also includes two additional
objectives: protecting IC interests, and promoting marine resource management. 258 Second,
Norway requests the Appellate Body to find that the MRM objective is legitimate, although it does
not request completion as to whether the objective of protecting IC interests is legitimate.
259
Third, Norway requests the Appellate Body to find that the EU Seal Regime is more trade

247 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 614. (emphasis original)
248 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 614.
249 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 616. (emphasis original)
250 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 621 (referring to Norway's first written submission to the
Panel, paras. 776-778).
251 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 622 (referring to Norway's first written submission to the
Panel, paras. 782 and 912-917; opening statement at the first Panel meeting, para. 138; second written
submission to the Panel, paras. 313-315; opening statement at the second Panel meeting, paras. 70-77; and
response to Panel question No. 114, para. 81).
252 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 622 (referring to Norway's opening statement at the second
Panel meeting, para. 77; and responses to Panel question No. 114, para. 81, and Panel question No. 145,
fn 204 to para. 214).
253 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 623. (emphasis original)
254 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 624.
255 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 625.
256 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 632. (emphasis original)
257 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 632.
258 Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 641-671.
259 Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 672-680.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

restrictive than necessary by virtue of three contested conditions of the MRM exception: namely,
the "not-for-profit", "non-systematic", and "sole purpose" conditions.260
2.2.2 Article XX of the GATT 1994
2.2.2.1 Aspects of the measure to be justified under Article XX(a)
2.86. Norway asserts that the Panel identified two precise aspects of the EU Seal Regime that
violated the substantive provisions of the GATT 1994, namely, the IC exception and the
MRM exception. According to Norway, although th e Panel purported to agree with the parties and
the relevant WTO jurisprudence that it is these "specific provisions"
261 – i.e. the IC and
MRM exceptions found to be GATT-inconsistent – that have to be provisionally justified under
Article XX(a), the Panel departed from this approach by expressly finding that "the EU Seal Regime
can be provisionally deemed 'necessary' within the meaning of Article XX(a)." 262 Norway highlights
that the Panel sought to draw a distinction between "justifying" the IC and MRM exceptions, on the
one hand, and "considering" or "analysing" the EU S e a l R e g i m e a s " a w h o l e " i n t h e p r o c e s s o f
"justifying" the IC and MRM exceptions, on the other hand. 263 Norway does not consider such
distinction objectionable to the limited extent th e Panel "consider[ed]" and "analy[sed]" the "ban"
aspect of the EU Seal Regime to "better underst and[]" the IC and MRM exceptions, all with the
ultimate aim of assessing the provisional justification of these exceptions. 264 However, Norway
points out that the Panel instead assessed and found the EU Seal Regime "as a whole" to be
provisionally justified on the basis of the positive contribution of the ban, which allowed the Panel
to "mask" and "overcome" the negative contribution of the exceptions.
265 In this way, the Panel's
consideration of the ban went well beyond "better understanding" 266 the exceptions, as it allowed
aspects of the EU Seal Regime found to be WTO-consistent (i.e. the ban) to "shield from scrutiny"
under Article XX(a) those aspects of the measure found to be WTO-inconsistent (i.e. the
exceptions).
267
2.87. Norway makes three arguments in support of its position. First, Norway refers to the
GATT Panel report in US – Section 337 Tariff Act and the Appellate Body reports in Thailand –
Cigarettes (Philippines) and US – Gasoline to show "consistent" GATT and WTO jurisprudence that
it is the "particular aspect of the measure found to be inconsistent that must be justified under
Article XX".268 With respect to US – Section 337 Tariff Act , Norway recalls that the GATT panel
found that "the part of the measure found to be inconsistent with GATT obligations is the part that
must be justified".
269 The panel noted that, otherwise, contracting parties could introduce
GATT-inconsistent provisions that are not "necessary", simply by making them part of a measure
that contained other elements that are "necessary". 270 Norway considers that this approach
was affirmed by the Appellate Body in Thailand – Cigarettes (Philippines) when it observed that,
"when Article XX(d) is invoked to justify an inconsistency with Article III:4, what must be shown to
be 'necessary' is the treatment giving rise to discrimination". 271 Finally, with respect to
US – Gasoline , Norway notes that only the WTO-inconsistent part of the measure at issue in that
case – i.e. the "baseline establishment rules" – were found by the Appellate Body to be
provisionally justified under Article XX(g). 272 Norway maintains that, in that dispute, "[t]he
WTO-consistent non-degradation requirements were treated merely as 'context' for understanding
whether the WTO-inconsistent baseline establishmen t rules were 'related to' conservation" within

260 Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 681-746.
261 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 787.
262 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 788 (quoting Panel Reports, para. 7.639). (emphasis added
by Norway)
263 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 792 (referring to Panel Reports, paras. 7.618 and 7.624).
264 Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 793 and 794.
265 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 795.
266 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 794.
267 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 795.
268 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 823.
269 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 806 (referring to GATT Panel Report, US – Section 337 Tariff
Act, para. 5.27).
270 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 806 (referring to GATT Panel Report, US – Section 337 Tariff
Act, para. 5.27).
271 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 809 (quoting Appellate Body Report, Thailand – Cigarettes
(Philippines), para. 177).
272 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 818.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

the meaning of Article XX(g). 273 In Norway's view, "although the Appellate Body considered the
non-degradation requirements as context, it asse ssed, and found, that the baseline establishment
rules were themselves provisionally justified." 274 Norway submits that these cases establish that
the WTO-consistent parts of a measure play a "limited role", and can do no more than "shed light"
on understanding whether the WTO-inconsistent parts are justified under Article XX.
2.88. Second, Norway takes issue with the Panel's finding that "an exception to a general rule, by
definition, would hardly be considered as 'necessa ry', when considered on its own, to achieve a
policy objective of the general rule". 275 Norway sees no reason why a properly characterized
exception, even if found to be WTO-inconsistent, cannot be justified as "necessary" to achieve a
policy objective as set out in one of these subparagraphs of Article XX, even if it is different from
the objective of the measure as a whole. For ex ample, Norway suggests that the European Union
could have sought to justify the MRM exception on the ground that they relate to the conservation
of exhaustible natural resources. According to Norway, "an unnecessary WTO- inconsistent
provision does not become necessary to achieve an objective, simply because the WTO- consistent
provisions are necessary to achieve that objective."
276 If such a "flawed approach" were permitted,
it would remove multilateral scrutiny of WTO-inconsistent provisions under Article XX only because
they are formally characterized as "exceptions".
277
2.89. Norway argues that the Panel's reliance on its findings under the TBT Agreement to justify
its approach under Article XX of the GATT 1994 was misplaced, because the Panel did not explain
the precise relevance of these findings to the "distinct analysis" under Article XX.
278 Specifically,
Norway challenges the Panel's reliance on its fi ndings under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement,
because the subject matter of the examinations under Article 2.2 and Article XX(a) are different.
Under Article 2.2, the Panel considered whether the technical regulation "as a whole" is more trade
restrictive than necessary.
279 In so doing, the Panel weighed the positive contribution made by the
ban against the negative contribution made by the explicit and implicit exceptions of the measure.
By contrast, Norway submits that, under Article XX(a), the Panel was required to assess whether
the "discriminatory IC and [M]RM 'exceptions' are 'necessary' to protect EU public morals", and
therefore the necessity of the prohibitive ba n element and the contribution it makes are
"irrelevant" to the analysis under Article XX(a). 280 Since the Panel found that the IC and
MRM exceptions are "rationally disconnected" from the public moral concerns, and undermine its
achievement, the exceptions cannot be found to be necessary to protect public morals.
281 Norway
requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's finding that the EU Seal Regime, as a whole,
should be provisionally justified under Article XX(a), and to complete the legal analysis to find that
the IC and MRM exceptions cannot be provisionall y justified under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994.
Specifically, Norway argues that, since the Pane l found that the IC and MRM exceptions are not
"rationally connected" to the objective of addressing the EU public moral concerns regarding seal
welfare
282, and since the requirements under the two exceptions "counteract and prejudice" the
achievement of the EU Seal Regime's objective 283, the IC and MRM exceptions " could never
contribute, much less be 'necessary', to protect the public moral at issue".284

273 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 818 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Gasoline,
p. 19, DSR 1996:I, pp. 17-18).
274 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 818.
276 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 831. (emphasis original)
277 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 833.
278 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 835.
279 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 857. (emphasis omitted)
280 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 838. (emphasis omitted)
281 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 839 (referring to Panel Reports, paras. 7.275 (IC exception)
and 7.340 (MRM exception).
282 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 845 (quoting Panel Reports, para. 7.340, and referring to
para. 7.298).
283 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 845 (referring to Panel Reports, paras. 7.447, 7.448, 7.451,
7.452, 7.459, 7.460, and 7.638).
284 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 848. (emphasis original)
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.2.2.2 The Panel's analysis of "necessity"
2.90. In the event that the Appellate Body disa grees with Norway and finds that the Panel was
correct in finding that it was the EU Seal Regime "as a whole" that should be provisionally justified
as "necessary" under Article XX(a), Norway argues that the Panel erred in its finding that the
EU Seal Regime contributes to the objective of protecting public morals regarding seal welfare.
285
The Panel considered that only "the 'contribution' made by the 'ban' aspect of the measure needed
to be ' material', and that it was sufficient for the measure as a whole to contribute to ' a certain
extent' to its objective of addressing EU public moral concerns". 286 Norway highlights that,
assuming that the Panel was correct in "considering the provisional justification of the measure as
a whole (quod non), it was required to consider whether the contribution of the measure as a
whole was 'material'".287 A "material" contribution is a "signi ficant degree of contribution that
exceeds the minimal level of contribution reflected in the Panel's finding that there is contribution
'to a certain extent'".288 Although the Panel referred to "materiality" as regards the "ban" aspect of
the measure, it did not consider that "its task was to determine whether the measure as a whole
made a 'material' contribution to [the protection of] public morals."289
2.91. Norway asserts that the Panel's findings "reflect error in the application of the proper legal
standard under Article XX(a) for two reasons". 290 First, the Panel's statement of the level of
contribution of the EU Seal Regime lacks clarity and precision. The Panel's conclusion that the
EU Seal Regime as a whole contributes to a "certain extent" 291 to the protection of EU public
morals lacks the "clarity and precision that is indispensable to a finding of contribution under the
'necessity' analysis in Article XX".
292 According to Norway, as with the analysis under Article 2.2 of
the TBT Agreement, a "clear and precise" articulati on of the degree of contribution of the EU Seal
Regime was required in order to establish whether the contribution meets the "required legal
standard of contribution", reflected in the notion of "materiality", and to provide an "operable and
objective benchmark" against which the contribution of Norway's less trade-restrictive alternative
measures could be assessed.
293
2.92. Norway also contends that the factual find ings of the Panel do not support the conclusion
that the EU Seal Regime "contributes either 'to a certain extent' – as the Panel found – or
'materially' – as it was required to find under the proper legal standard". 294 For the same reasons
as its appeal with respect to the Panel's analysis under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, Norway
asserts that the Panel both overvalued the positive contribution of the ban aspect of measure and
undervalued the negative contribution made by the permissive aspects of the measure. For the
same reasons as provided in its Article 2.2 appeal, Norway submits that the Panel's conclusion that
the EU Seal Regime contributes "to a certain extent" to its objective "cannot be sustained".
295
Moreover, as with its appeal under Article 2.2, Norway submits that the Panel's intermediate
findings with respect to the contributions of the prohibitive and permissive aspects, as well as the
overall contribution of the EU Seal Regime, are "not grounded in an objective assessment of the
facts" and, therefore, are inconsistent with Article 11 of the DSU. 296 For these reasons, Norway
contends that "there is simply no basis for a finding that the EU Seal Regime makes a 'material'
contribution to [the protection of] EU public morals."
297

285 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 851.
286 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 854 (referring to Panel Reports, paras. 7.635-7.638).
(emphasis original)
287 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 855 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.636). (emphasis
original)
288 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 856 (quoting Panel Reports, para. 7.638). (emphasis added
by Norway)
289 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 856.
290 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 857.
292 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 859.
293 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 859. (emphasis omitted)
294 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 857.
295 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 863.
296 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 864.
297 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 865.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.93. Norway notes that, having concluded that the EU Seal Regime contributed to "a certain
extent" to its objective, the Panel recalled its "less trade-restrictive alternative" analysis under
Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, wherein it conc luded that the alternative measure proposed by
the complainants was not reasonably available to the European Union.
298 For the same reasons set
out in its appeal under Article 2.2 of the TBT Ag reement, Norway asserts that the Panel erred:
(i) in concluding that the less trade-restrictive alternatives proposed by Norway were not
reasonably available; and (ii) in failing to make an objective assessment of the facts, as required
by Article 11 of the DSU.
2.2.2.3 The Panel's analysis under the chapeau of Article XX
2.94. In the event that the Appellate Body disagr ees with Norway that the Panel was incorrect in
determining whether the EU Seal Regime as a whole was justified under Article XX(a) of the
GATT 1994, Norway argues that, although it reached the correct conclusion, the Panel erred in the
reasoning underpinning its finding that the EU Seal Regime is inconsistent with the requirements
of the chapeau of Article XX. Specifically, Norway submits that the Panel erred in its analysis under
the chapeau because it failed to: (i) articulate the relevant legal standards under the chapeau; and
(ii) apply the proper standard to the IC and MRM exceptions. As to the Panel's failure to articulate
the proper legal standard, Norway argues that th e Panel erroneously applied the same test under
the chapeau that it had adopted to address the "legitimate regulatory distinction" under Article 2.1
of the TBT Agreement. Although the Appellate Body has explained that the GATT 1994 and the
TBT Agreement are "similar", Norway asserts th at, "when seeking to understand how the legal
standards under each Agreement are to be interpreted and applied, a panel must be faithful to the
independence of the analysis to be conducted under each Agreement."
299
2.95. Moreover, the legal standard developed by the Panel under Article 2.1 and applied by the
Panel under the chapeau is contrary to the "wel l-accepted" jurisprudence on the requirements
under the chapeau. 300 According to Norway, WTO jurisprudence is clear that, in considering
whether WTO-inconsistent provisions of a measure comply with the chapeau, "a panel must assess
whether there is any discrimination that runs counter to, or is otherwise rationally disconnected
from, the objective that the measure pursues under one of the sub-paragraphs of Article XX ."
301
Norway adds that, if the rationale or reason for discrimination " goes against, or otherwise bears
no rational relationship to, even to a small extent, the objective assessed under one of the
sub-paragraphs, it is arbitrary and unjustifiable." 302 Norway argues that, instead of applying this
legal standard, the Panel erroneously applied its "three-step test" developed in the context of its
"legitimate regulatory distinction" analys is under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement. 303 Norway
notes that "step 1" of the Panel's analysis under Article 2.1 – namely, that the regulatory
distinctions drawn between commercial and IC/MRM hunts must be rationally connected to the
objective of the EU Seal Regime – "bears some resemblance" to the legal test developed by the
Appellate Body under the chapeau.
304
2.96. By contrast, Norway argues that "step 2" of the Panel's analysis under Article 2.1 – "which
serve[d] for the Panel to justify a regulatory distinction in a measure that is rationally
disconnected to the objective of the measure" – "represents a subversion of the structure of
Article XX".305 Norway highlights that the Appellate Bo dy has "never allowed the discrimination
under the chapeau to be justified by reference to an objective (cause or rationale) that had not
provided the basis for provisional justification under one of the sub-paragraphs of Article XX". 306
Norway notes that, although the Panel rejected the European Union's argument that the IC and
MRM exceptions were also provisionally justified under Article XX(a), rather than drawing the
"obvious consequence" from the European Union's failure to secure provisional justification of the
IC and MRM exceptions under one of the subparagraphs of Article XX, the Panel's "step 2" analysis

299 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 897 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Tuna II
(Mexico), para. 405).
300 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 898.
301 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 891. (emphasis original)
302 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 891. (emphasis original)
303 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 876 (referring to Panel Reports, paras. 7.649 and 7.650).
304 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 904 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded
Tyres, para. 227).
305 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 906. (emphasis original)
306 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 911
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

"simply excused the European Union from that burden ".307 Such an approach, in Norway's view,
undermines the "interpretive harmony" between the chapeau and the subparagraphs of Article XX,
which requires that the discrimination be rationally connected " to the objective that provides the
basis for provisional justification under a sub-paragraph ", since, under the chapeau analysis, a
panel must "verify" whether the provisional justification under a given subparagraph of Article XX
is "not lost because the Member seeks … 'abuse or illegitimate use of the exceptions' to justify the
WTO-inconsistent aspects".308
2.97. Turning to "step 3" of the Panel's analys is under Article 2.1, which sought to determine
whether the discriminatory aspects of the measure are applied in an even-handed manner with
regard to the additional cause or rationale used to "justify" it under "step 2", Norway submits that,
although a panel may consider even-handedness with respect to the pursuit of the objective found
to be provisionally justified under a subparagraph of Article XX, "there is simply no basis for the
consequential third step of assessing whether this additional objective (cause or rationale) is
pursued in an even-handed manner."
309 For these reasons, Norway asserts that the three-step test
developed by the Panel under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement is "erroneous" in the context of the
chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994.310
2.98. As a consequence of the erroneous legal standard adopted by the Panel for its Article XX
analysis, Norway argues that the Panel erred in its reasoning as to why the IC and MRM exceptions
do not meet the chapeau requirements. To the ex tent that Norway acknowledges the similarities
between "step 1" of the Panel's analysis under Article 2.1 and the legal standard under the
chapeau of Article XX, Norway asserts that the Panel should have found that the distinction
between the IC and MRM hunts, on the one hand, and the commercial hunts subject to the ban, on
the other hand, was not rationally connected to the objective of the EU Seal Regime. 311 For these
reasons, Norway requests the Appellate Body to mo dify the Panel's reasoning and to find that the
IC and MRM exceptions are not justified under th e chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994 for the
aforementioned reasons.312
2.3 Arguments of the European Union – Appellee
2.3.1 Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement
2.99. In response to Canada's argument th at the Panel articulated the wrong test under
Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, the European Un ion argues that the Panel in fact conducted a
proper two-step analysis. According to the Europe an Union, the Panel first examined whether the
regulatory distinction between commercial and IC hunts was "'justifiable' in the abstract", "without
looking into the particular features of the IC exception as contained in the EU Seal Regime". 313
Having found this to be the case, the Panel then turned to examine whether that regulatory
distinction between commercial and IC hunts "was 'indeed' designed and applied in an
even-handed manner and did not reflect discrimination". 314 According to the European Union, the
Panel thus sought to establish whether the objective or rationale pursued by the regulatory
distinction was justifiable, and in that case, whether the measure at issue was designed and
applied in an even-handed manner. The Europe an Union emphasizes that the Panel did not
consider these two elements in isolation, but instead conducted an overall analysis as to whether
the detrimental impact stemmed from a legitimate regulatory distinction. The European Union
argues that the Panel did not err in structuring its analysis in this way. The European Union
submits that the analysis of the rationale of a regulatory distinction "could be made in the
abstract … or in the context of examining the design and application of the particular measure at
issue".
315 For the European Union, "[t]he key point is that such an analysis of the alleged rationale

307 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 913. (emphasis original)
308 Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 917-922 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Gasoline,
p. 25, DSR 1996:I, p. 23; and Panel Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 7.221). (emphasis original)
309 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 926. (emphasis original)
310 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 927.
311 See Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 929-932 (referring to Panel Reports, paras. 7.274,
7.275, and 7.337-7.339).
312 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 934.
313 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 56.
314 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 57.
315 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 61.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

or justification must be conducted as part of the analysis." 316 Thus, the European Union
characterizes Canada's arguments as "formalistic and rigid".317
2.100. The European Union responds to Canada's appeal of the Panel's finding that the distinction
between commercial and IC hunts is justifiable even though the rationale of the distinction "goes
against" the objective of the EU Seal Regime 318 by highlighting the case-specific nature of the
Panel's finding.319 The European Union submits that the Panel's conclusion is both legally correct
and reasonable on substantive terms, given that "exceptions are precisely 'exceptions' because
they go against the general rule". 320 The European Union acknowledges that an exception "may
pursue an objective that detracts from the main objective of the general rule in view of other
legitimate regulatory concerns or rational explanations/justifications".
321 The European Union
considers that, where a measure "clearly shows the weighing of opposing interests with the main
objective", the regulatory distinction embodied in the measure could be found to be non-arbitrary
and justifiable "even if the exception under mines the main objective of the measure". 322 The
European Union notes that this view finds support in the Appellate Body report in US – Clove
Cigarettes, where the Appellate Body examined the ju stifications provided by the defending
Member, even though it had already found that there was no rational connection between the
objective of the measure at issue and the exception.
323
2.101. In response to Canada's argument that the Panel improperly relied on "international
instruments extraneous to the case"324 to justify the distinction between IC and commercial hunts,
the European Union recalls that the Panel did not rely only on the existence of international
instruments recognizing the interests of indigenous peoples, but also found such recognition in the
legislative history of the EU Seal Regime and in measures adopted by other WTO Members,
including Canada. 325 Moreover, the European Union submits that the Panel was referring to
international instruments as "evidence" – in line with the practice of the Appellate Body – and not
as instruments setting out legal obligations that would conflict with the WTO agreements. 326 The
European Union further argues that, in finding that the distinction between commercial and
IC hunts was justifiable, the Panel took into account the balance between the protection of
IC interests and the principal objective of the measure as reflected in the EU Seal Regime.
According to the European Union, it was only logical for the Panel to assess the merits of
protecting the interests of indigenous peoples by reference to international instruments. Finally,
the European Union notes that the Appellate Body has recognized that a technical regulation may
pursue several purposes, including purposes which are not listed in the sixth recital of the
TBT Agreement.
327
2.102. With respect to Canada's allegation that the Panel failed to examine whether giving effect
to the IC exception will actually fulfil the rationale of protecting Inuit interests, the European Union
notes that, while the Panel found evidence that Inuit communities have been adversely affected by
the EU Seal Regime as a whole, the Panel also found that Greenland was currently benefiting from
the IC exception. According to the European Union, this shows that the IC exception does serve to
protect the interests of the Inuit communities engaged in seal hunting. The European Union further
argues that, in any event, the opposition of some Inuit communities to the EU Seal Regime does
not demonstrate that the purpose of the IC exception, i.e. to protect IC interests, is not fulfilled by
the regulatory distinction, given that, without the IC exception, seal products derived from
IC hunts would fall under the general ban and would thus not be permitted to be placed on the
EU market. The European Union acknowledges that Inuit sealing communities would be better off

316 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 61.
317 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 66.
318 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 176 (referring to Canada's appellant's submission,
paras. 78 and 79).
319 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 76.
320 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 79.
321 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 79.
322 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 80.
323 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 82 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Clove
Cigarettes, paras. 225 and 236).
324 Canada's appellant's submission, heading B.a), at p. 27.
325 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 88 (referring to Panel Reports, paras. 7.292-7.298).
326 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 90 (referring, as examples, to Appellate Body Reports,
US – Shrimp, para. 168; and US – Shrimp (Article 21.5 – Malaysia), paras. 127 and 128).
327 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 92 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Tuna II
(Mexico), para. 213).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

absent any regulation of the placing on the EU market of seal products; however, the IC exception
seeks to mitigate the necessarily adverse impact of the EU Seal Regime on the Inuit and other
indigenous communities.
2.103. The European Union submits that Canada's argument that the Panel focused its analysis of
even-handedness on the wrong comparison and fa iled to examine the arbitrary aspects of the
distinction between commercial and IC hunts is based on a misreading of how the Panel conducted
the analysis of whether the detrimental impact that it had found to exist stemmed from a
legitimate regulatory distinction. As the European Union sees it, the Panel had already examined
the arguments raised by Canada in the context of its analysis of whether the regulatory distinction
is justified.
328 To the European Union, it appears logical that the Panel did not need to repeat the
same analysis in the context of its assessment of the even-handedness of the distinction. At the
same time, the European Union recalls that, in its other appellant's submission, it expresses the
view that the Panel misinterpreted and misa pplied Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement when
examining the even-handedness in the desi gn and application of the IC exception. 329 According to
the European Union, the Panel should have examin ed whether the IC exception under the EU Seal
Regime was designed and applied in a reasonable, impartial, and harmonious manner, having
regard to the objective it pursues.
2.104. With respect to Canada's argument that the distinction between commercial and Inuit
hunts is "illusory" in the light of the strong commercial dimension of the Inuit hunt in Greenland,
the European Union maintains that the extent of development of the commercial aspect in the
marketing of by-products from Inuit communities in Greenland is irrelevant for assessing the
even-handedness of the IC exception. The European Union submits that, as long as the relevant
criteria to qualify as a legitimate indigenous subsistence activity are met and subsistence thus
remains the primary objective of the hunts, the exte nt to which some of the by-products of these
hunts are sold through commercial channels is irrelevant for assessing even-handedness. Hence,
this does not show any arbitrariness in the de sign and application of the IC exception. The
European Union also argues that the Panel did not find Greenland's hunt to be commercial in
nature. Rather, the Panel found that, while the commercial aspect of seal hunting in Greenland has
been developed to a degree that is comparable to that of commercial hunts, Greenland's hunts
remain "subsistence"/IC hunts. The European Union underscores that seal hunts in Greenland are
primarily conducted for subsistence purposes, "even if they may have a commercial aspect".
330
2.105. For the aforementioned reasons, the European Union requests the Appellate Body to reject
Canada's allegations that the Panel erred in its findings relating to Canada's claim under Article 2.1
of the TBT Agreement.
331
2.106. The European Union further submits that Canada's allegations of error under Article 11 of
the DSU should be dismissed for several reasons. First, the European Union argues that Canada
has failed to explain how the Panel's alleged failure to consider the evidence put forward by
Canada affected the objectivity of the Panel's as sessment. Second, the European Union notes that
the Panel summarized the arguments raised by Canada in the Panel Reports 332, and that the Panel
distinguished commercial and IC hunts on the basis of their "primary purpose". 333 Third, the
European Union submits that the alleged simila rities between Canada's east coast hunt and
IC hunts are irrelevant. The European Union notes that Canada never contested that the majority
of seal hunts conducted in Canada are commercial hunts with the sole or primary purpose of
making a profit. Finally, the European Union recalls the Panel's finding that the type of the hunter
(Inuit versus non-Inuit) is also relevant for the regulatory distinction at issue. According to the
European Union, the similarities between commercial and IC hunts mentioned by Canada "are
irrelevant insofar as the hunter in question does not belong to the Inuit or other indigenous
communities".
334

328 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 101 (referring to Panel Reports, paras. 7.256-7.300).
329 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 102 (referring to European Union's other appellant's
submission, section 4).
330 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 104; see also fn 92 thereto.
331 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 121.
332 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 113 (referring to Panel Reports, paras. 7.226-7248).
333 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 114.
334 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 118.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.3.2 Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement
2.3.2.1 The Panel's identification of the objective of the EU Seal Regime
2.107. The European Union maintains that the Panel correctly found that the main objective of the
EU Seal Regime is to address EU public moral concerns regarding seal welfare. 335 The European
Union explains that, as found by the Panel, the te xt of the Basic Regulation, its drafting history,
and its design and structure, establish that the EU Seal Regime was adopted in order to respond to
EU public moral concerns regarding seal welfare.
2.108. The European Union agrees with the Panel's finding that the objectives of the IC exception
and the MRM exception are not "independent" of the main objective of the EU Seal Regime. 336
Instead, they seek to accommodate other interests that the EU legislators deemed "morally
superior to the welfare of seals in certain circumstances and under certain conditions" identified by
the EU legislators.
337 By providing for such exceptions, the EU legislators were hence not
undermining the public morals objective of the EU Seal Regime, "but instead giving effect to the
basic moral standard that underlies the EU Seal Regime and, more generally, all EU legislation on
animal welfare".338 The European Union adds that the scope of the IC and MRM exceptions was,
nevertheless, "carefully circumscribed, so as to preserve, to the extent possible, the contribution
of the EU Seal Regime to the objective of improving the welfare of seals".
339
2.109. The European Union submits that, if the EU legislators' objective had been "to protect the
interests of the Inuit and other indigenous communities or the objective that Norway ascribes to
the MRM exception, they would have refrained fr om adopting the EU Seal Regime in the first
place".
340 According to the European Union, "[t]hose objectives would be best served by removing
all restrictions to the marketing of seal products."341
2.110. The European Union further emphasizes that "[t]he IC exception does not seek to promote
exports of seal products by the Inuit and other indigenous communities, but rather to mitigate the
necessary adverse effects of the EU Seal Regime on those communities to the extent compatible
with the main objective of addressing the public moral concerns with regard to the welfare of
seals."
342 According to the European Union, there is evidence of such adverse effects. 343 The
European Union further recalls that the IC exception was part of the Commission Proposal for a
regulation concerning trade in seal products, and a similar exception is found in the European
Council Directive concerning imports of certain seal pup skins and products
344 (EC Seal Pups
Directive), in the national bans enacted by some EU member States prior to the EU Seal Regime,
and in the measures banning trade in seal products adopted by other Members, both before and
after the adoption of the EU Seal Regime. 345 According to the European Union, this shows the
existence of a "broad consensus" regarding the duty to take into account the special needs of the
Inuit and other indigenous communities. 346 In all those legal instruments, however, the provisions
in favour of the Inuit and other indigenous communities operate as "exceptions from the
restrictions generally applied with regard to the marketing of seal products".
347

335 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 138.
336 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 140 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.402).
337 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 140.
338 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 140.
339 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 140.
340 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 141.
341 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 141 (referring to Norway's appellant's submission,
para. 621).
342 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 142.
343 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 142 (referring to Canadian Department of Fisheries
and Oceans, Canadian Commercial Seal Harvest Overview 2011, Statistical and economic analysis series
(October 2012) (Panel Exhibit JE-27) (Canadian Seal Harvest Overview), Table 14; Greenland 2012 Seal
Management Report, pp. 31-36, and Table 4, at p. 33; and Nunavut 2012 Report, p. 3).
344 Council Directive No. 83/129 of 28 March 1983 concerning the importation into Member States of
skins of certain seal pups and products derived therefrom, Official Journal of the European Communities,
L Series, No. 91 (9 April 1983), pp. 30-31 (Panel Exhibit CDA-12).
345 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 142.
346 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 142.
347 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 142.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.111. The European Union further notes that, un like the IC exception, the MRM exception was
not envisaged in the Commission Proposal. Nor is a similar exception provided for in the EC Seal
Pups Directive or in any of the measures taken by the EU member States or other WTO Members
in order to restrict trade in seal products. Instead, the MRM exception was introduced in the
EU Seal Regime towards the end of the legislative process in response to the concerns raised by
some EU member States with regard to small-scale hunts conducted exclusively for MRM purposes.
The European Union further explained that "the MRM exception was subjected to strict conditions
that define very narrowly its scope" in order to avoid creating a loophole allowing the marketing of
products from large-scale commercial hunts.
348 The European Union adds that, in 2011, only
96 seals qualified for the MRM exception. On this basis, the European Union does not agree with
Norway that the objective pursued by the MRM exception would be more "prominent" than the
objective of addressing EU public moral concerns regarding seal welfare.
349
2.112. For the European Union, although "it is in the nature of all exceptions to derogate from the
general rule", this does not mean that, "for that reason, the objective of the exception should be
regarded as being equally important, or even mo re important, than the objective of the general
rule."350
2.113. As a separate matter, the European Union argues that, having found that the objectives of
the IC and MRM exceptions are not "independent" of the main objective of the EU Seal Regime,
the Panel should have proceeded to find that both objectives are "rationally connected" because
they stem from the same standard of morality.
351 In the European Union's view, it was
"contradictory" for the Panel to maintain that the objective pursued by the IC exception is not
"independent" of the public morals objective pursued by the EU Seal Regime and, at the same
time, that the IC exception does not bear any "rational relationship" to that objective. 352 Thus, in
the event that the Appellate Body were to reject the European Union's other appeal concerning this
aspect of the Panel's findings 353, the European Union submits th at the Appellate Body should
uphold Norway's claim that the Panel erred by fa iling to identify the objective pursued by the
IC exception as one of the objectives of the EU Seal Regime to be examined under Article 2.2 of
the TBT Agreement. 354 The European Union explains in this regard that "the mere fact that the
public morals objective is the 'main' objective of a measure does not have the implication that
other, less important, but 'rationally disconnected' objectives of the same measure become
irrelevant under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement."
355 Thus, on the assumption that the objective
of the IC exception was not "rationally connected" to the public morals objective of the EU Seal
Regime, it should, according to the European Union, have been identified by the Panel as a
separate objective of the EU Seal Regime, albeit one of lesser importance than the public morals
objective.
2.3.2.2 The Panel's analysis of the contribution of the EU Seal Regime to its objective
2.114. The European Union submits that Cana da's and Norway's arguments are "unfounded"
356,
because the TBT Agreement does not prescribe the manner in which the contribution to the
fulfilment of the measure's legitimate objective should be assessed, nor how specific that
assessment should be.
357 The European Union argues that the Appellate Body in Brazil – Retreaded
Tyres clarified that there is no requirement to quan tify the contribution to the achievement of the
measure's objective, and that panels may rely on a qualitative analysis. 358 The European Union
maintains that the Panel's analysis is in line with this guidance, and that, because the quantitative

348 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 143.
349 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 143.
350 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 144.
351 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 145.
352 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 145.
353 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 146 (referring to European Union's Notice of Other
Appeal, paras. 5-8).
354 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 147.
355 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 148.
356 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 165.
357 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 166.
358 European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 167 and 168 (referring to Appellate Body Report,
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, paras. 145-147).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

evidence available did not permit a precise quanti fication of the contribution, "the Panel had no
alternative but to resort to qualitative reasoning."359
2.115. The European Union contends that the Pane l's findings were no less specific than those
reached by other panels conducting a "necessity" test. 360 The European Union further contends
that the analysis by the Appellate Body in US – COOL contradicts the position of the complainants
in these disputes. In particular, the European Union refers to the Appellate Body's reliance on the
fact that the measure in those disputes contributed to the objective "at least to some degree".
361
The European Union adds that, although the Appellate Body alluded to the panel's failure to specify
the degree of contribution among the reasons that prevented it from completing the legal analysis,
this was not the only obstacle cited by the Appe llate Body. According to the European Union, the
Appellate Body's analysis in US – COOL "shows that it is not possible to determine, in the abstract,
whether a finding of contribution is sufficiently specific", and that such a determination "can only
be made taking into account the circumstances of each dispute".362
2.116. The European Union argues that the complainants' claim that the Panel's contribution
finding was unsubstantiated is premised entirely on the contention that imports from Norway and
Canada will be replaced by imports from Green land under the IC exception. As a preliminary
matter, the European Union submits that the errors alleged by the complainants raise factual
issues and should have been submitted under Ar ticle 11 of the DSU, and requests the Appellate
Body to consider whether these claims should be examined as a legal characterization of the facts
or under Article 11.
363
2.117. The European Union argues that the complainants' main piece of evidence – a statement
by the Danish-based international consulting grou p COWI that "[t]he Greenlandic trade is more
than enough to cover EU demand364 – "is not supported by any evidence or reasoning and it is not
possible to know on what basis COWI came to that view". 365 The European Union identifies other
facts that, in its view, contradict the complainants' position: (i) the number of seals hunted in
Canada and Norway has traditionally exceeded the number of catches in Greenland; (ii) unlike in
Canada and Norway, a large part of the seal skin s in Greenland are consumed domestically rather
than traded internationally; (iii) a large part of the seal skins are exported from Greenland to
markets outside the European Union; (iv) Greenland can also export seal skins under Inuit
exceptions to seal product bans in other countries; (v) the assumption that global demand for seal
products will remain unchanged at currently depressed levels; (vi) the IC exception is subject to
conditions that constrain Greenland's ability to expand supply more than traditional levels;
(vii) Greenland's supply capacity is declining; and (viii) Greenlandic export data show declining
exports to the European Union.
366
2.118. The European Union contends that this evidence demonstrates that, due to depressed
global demand and prices produced in part by the EU Seal Regime, imports from Greenland "have
not even returned to their usual level" before seal product bans were first introduced in the
European Union in 2007. 367 The European Union also maintains that Norway's assertion that
Greenland's supply of 80,000 seal skins per year can easily supply the European Union's average
imports of 20,000 skins "is deeply flawed".
368 These data, the European Union argues, only cover
tanned skins, whereas Canada's principal exports to the European Union consisted of raw skins.
Noting that Canada exported more than 100,000 raw skins to the European Union in 2006, the

359 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 170.
360 European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 171-173 (referring to Appellate Body Reports,
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, paras. 136 and 137; US – Tuna II (Mexico), para. 327; and US – Gambling,
para. 301; each referring in turn to the respective Panel Reports, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 7.148; US –
361 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 174 (quoting Appellate Body Reports, US – COOL,
para. 473). (emphasis added by the European Union)
362 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 175. (emphasis original)
363 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 180.
364 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 184 (quoting COWI 2010 Report, p. 84).
365 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 184.
366 European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 186-195.
367 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 196.
368 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 199.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

European Union asserts that Norway's own estimates show that "Greenland could not supply that
volume on its own, even if it were to discontinue its exports to all other countries."369
2.119. The European Union also argues that th e evidence before the Panel supports the finding
that the Inuit have been adversely affected by the EU Seal Regime and have not always been able
to benefit from the IC exception. According to the European Union, the EU Seal Regime has a
depressing effect on global prices and demand, including on seal products from the IC hunts, and
"this negative impact is one of the main reasons why the Complainants' speculative allegations
that imports from Greenland will simply replace imports into the European Union from Canada and
Norway are unfounded."
370 The European Union also challenges as "thoroughly misguided"
Norway's assertion that the only reason the indigenous communities have not been able to benefit
from the IC exception, as the Panel found, was because Greenland did not have an established
recognized body at the time of the Panel proceedings.
371 Noting that the Panel was "well aware
that Greenland had benefitted effectively from the IC exception since 2010", the European Union
argues that the Panel must be understood as refe rring to difficulties faced by Inuit and other
indigenous communities in Canada, not Greenland.
372
2.120. The European Union submits that, contrary to the complainants' allegations, the evidence
before the Panel supported the Panel's finding that the EU Seal Regime contributes to reducing
EU demand for seal products, as well as global demand. The European Union asserts that "[i]t is
beyond dispute that the EU Seal Regime has effectively limited imports of seal products resulting
from the commercial hunts in Canada and Norway."
373 Although the Panel found that the statistics
are incomplete because they do not track separately all categories of seal products, the European
Union considers that "this does not mean that those statistics are unreliable." 374 The European
Union thus considers that the Panel was correct in concluding that the statistics "show a general
trend that seal product imports from the comp lainants into the EU Market have decreased
significantly over the last few years".
375 The European Union again rejects the "speculative
prediction" underlying the complainants' arguments that the EU Seal Regime does not contribute
to reduce the demand for seal products within the EU market because imports from Canada and
Norway will be replaced by imports from Greenland.
376
2.121. The European Union further maintains that , because EU demand for seal products is a
component of the global demand for such products, reducing EU demand also contributes to
reducing global demand. Accordingly, while othe r factors may contribute to reducing global
demand, "the reduction in EU demand would still entail a reduction in potential global demand."
377
According to the European Union, this is supported by trade statistics that showed a decline in
Canada's exports and a "precipitous reduction in the number of seals hunted".
378 The European
Union moreover observes that Canada acknow ledged the "negative impacts" and "depressing
effects" of the EU Seal Regime on the EU seal product market, and that the Panel found that a
connection exists, even if it could not be precisely quantified, between the EU Seal Regime and the
number of seals hunted.
379
2.122. The European Union considers wrong on two counts the complainants' allegations that the
Panel failed to establish any link between a reduction in global demand and the number of
inhumanely killed seals. First, the European Union maintains that neither it nor the Panel ever
sought, in referring to the "incidence of inhumane killing" of seals, to ascribe any meaning to that
term other than that relating to the number of such inhumanely killed seals.
380 Second, the
European Union argues that "the Panel was entitled to assume that a reduction in the number of

369 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 199.
370 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 205.
371 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 206.
372 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 206 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.452).
373 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 208.
374 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 209 (referring to Norway's appellant's submission,
para. 442).
375 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 209 (quoting Panel Reports, para. 7.456).
376 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 212.
377 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 214. (emphasis original)
378 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 219.
379 European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 220 and 221, respectively.
380 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 224 (referring to Canada's appellant's submission,
para. 193).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

seals killed would entail necessarily a reduction of the number of seals being killed inhumanely" on
the basis of its factual findings regarding the welfare risks inherent in all seal hunts.381
2.123. The European Union also rebuts the compla inants' claims under Article 11 of the DSU. The
European Union does not separately address most of these claims, as it considers them "largely
duplicative of those previously made" by the complainants in their claims of error in the legal
application of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. 382 With regard to Norway's claim that the Panel
acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU by failing to examine the contribution of certain
conditions of the MRM exception to meeting the EU public moral concerns regarding seal welfare,
the European Union argues that "this claim is entirely dependent" on Norway's previous appeal of
the Panel's finding that MRM interests are not an objective of the EU Seal Regime. The European
Union adds that, by examining the contribution of the EU Seal Regime as a whole to the objective
of addressing EU public moral concerns with re gard to seal welfare, the Panel "examined the
contribution of the conditions attached to the MRM exception to that objective".
383
2.124. The European Union rejects Canada's contention that the Panel failed to assess the risks of
non-fulfilment and to conduct a "relational" analysis before considering the proposed less
trade-restrictive alternative. The European Union maintains that the Panel conducted its
assessment of the risks of non-fulfilment at para graphs 7.465 and 7.466 of its Reports before
proceeding to assess the less trade-restrictive alternative. The European Union contends that the
comparison with a proposed less trade-restrictive alternative "is a more sophisticated and reliable
conceptual tool for assessing the necessity of a measure in the light of the relevant weighing
factors than the type of relational analysis" suggested by Canada.
384 Given that the Appellate Body
stated in US – Tuna II (Mexico) that a comparison with the proposed less trade-restrictive
alternative is required in most cases, the European Union argues that panels are not required to
make an explicit and motivated finding justif ying why they proceed to such a comparison.
385 The
European Union adds that such a justification "is required only in the exceptional cases where a
panel decides not to perform a comparison with the proposed [less trade-restrictive
alternative]".386
2.125. The European Union also rejects Norway's argument that the Panel erred by failing to
consider "arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination" under Article 2.2. According to the European
Union, Norway's interpretation has no basis in the text of Article 2.2 or in recent Appellate Body
reports concerning Article 2.2.
387 The European Union further contends that the proviso in the last
part of the sixth recital alludes to Article 2.1, but "does not justify reading the same requirement
into Article 2.2". 388 The European Union considers that Norway's interpretation would be
"superfluous because it would prohibit what is already prohibited by Article 2.1". 389 The
European Union goes on to reject the distinction Norway draws between origin-based
discrimination under Article 2.1 versus other types of discrimination captured under Article 2.2.
As the European Union explains, Article 2.2 is designed to address measures "that are not
discriminatory, but nevertheless create unnecessary obstacles to trade".
390 Moreover, the
European Union explains, "if a measure found justified under Article 2.2 is applied in a
discriminatory manner, such discriminatory application can be challenged under Article 2.1."
391

381 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 226.
382 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 232.
383 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 235.
384 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 300.
385 European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 300 and 302 (referring to Appellate Body Report,
386 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 302. (emphasis original)
387 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 315 (referring to Appellate Body Reports, US –
Tuna II (Mexico); US – COOL; and US – Clove Cigarettes).
388 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 317.
389 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 318.
390 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 321.
391 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 321.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.3.2.3 The Panel's analysis of the alternative measure
2.126. The European Union argues that the comp lainants' allegations that the Panel assessed the
contribution made by the proposed less trade-restrictive alternative against the wrong benchmark
"misrepresent the analysis conducte d by the Panel and are unfounded".
392 The European Union
contends that the Panel did not ignore its findings regarding the exceptions, and that, even if it did
not expressly repeat its findings with regard to the exceptions, "those findings are reflected in the
Panel's overall assessment of the contribution".
393 The European Union maintains that, because the
complainants failed to articulate a sufficiently precise less trade-restrictive alternative, the Panel
"had to assess instead the degree of contribution and the reasonable availability of two distinct
hypothetical regimes within the scope of the broad [less trade-restrictive alternative] proposed by
the Complainants". 394 The European Union recalls the Panel's conclusions that, while "more
stringent regimes" would make a positive contribution to the objective, they were not "reasonably
available"; by contrast, "more lenient regimes" we re "reasonably available", but would "call into
question the degree to which the alternative measure can contribute to the welfare of seals".395
2.127. The European Union maintains that, although the complainants sought to establish that a
more lenient regime was possible, they "failed to specify the content of such a 'more lenient
regime' before the Panel, let alone provide any me aningful assessment of its contribution to the
measure's objective".396 The European Union adds that, although the Panel could have dismissed
the claim on that basis alone, it "made considerable efforts to examine the degree of contribution
and reasonable availability of different hypothetical regimes spanned by the broad [less trade-
restrictive alternative] proposed".
397 The European Union rejects as "unsupported speculation" the
complainants' claims that the negative impact descr ibed by the Panel would be offset by the fact
that seal products currently covered by the IC exception would be excluded from the EU market by
virtue of a more lenient regime. 398 The European Union adds that much would depend on the
specific welfare requirements and certification methods of the more lenient regime, but that the
complainants failed to specify any such requirements and methods before the Panel.
2.128. The European Union also addresses the complainants' claim that the Panel improperly
relied on dictum from EC – Asbestos . The European Union argues that the quoted language
"reflects the basic and undisputed principle that , both under Article XX of the GATT and under
Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, the proposed [le ss trade-restrictive alternative] must achieve at
least the same degree of contribution as the challenged measure". 399 The European Union further
argues that "[t]he mere fact that the measure at issue in EC – Asbestos provided for a more
comprehensive ban on trade in the product concerned than the EU Seal Regime is wholly
immaterial."
400 What matters, the European Union adds, "is that in both cases the defending
Member cannot be forced to adopt alternative measures that would fail to achieve the same
degree of contribution to its objective".401
2.129. The European Union rejects Canada's claim that the Panel failed to take into account
certain measures applied by the European Union in other areas in its analysis. The European Union
argues that Korea – Various Measures of Beef does not support such a comparison if it does not
address behaviour of the same kind for like or at least similar products. 402 According to the
European Union, the Panel recognized that "seal hunting gives rise to specific welfare risks".403 The
European Union also maintains that, "even if the Panel had found that the welfare risks of seal
hunting were sufficiently similar" to other situatio ns, "the European Union would still have been

392 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 245.
393 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 249.
394 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 260.
395 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 260.
396 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 261.
397 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 261.
398 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 265.
399 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 269 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC –
Asbestos, para. 174).
400 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 269.
401 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 269.
402 European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 270-272 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Korea –
Various Measures on Beef, para. 172; and Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 278-290).
403 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 273.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

entitled to apply different measures with regard to seal products". 404 The European Union adds
that the objective "pursued by the EU Seal Regime is to address public moral concerns with regard
to the welfare of seals, rather than protecting the welfare of seals as such."
405
2.130. The European Union also takes issue with the argument by the complainants that Brazil –
Retreaded Tyres requires that consideration of any "prohibitive costs or substantial technical
difficulties" must be those borne by the Member. 406 According to the European Union, that dispute
simply identifies an example of a situation wher e the proposed less trade-restrictive alternative
would not be reasonably available, and there "can be other circumstances where a measure would
not be available because it would be 'merely theoretical in nature'". 407 The European Union refers
to the Panel's various findings regarding the challenges presented by a "more stringent regime".408
The European Union also notes that, despite the Panel's conclusion regarding the greater
expenditure and practical challenges of implementa tion, the costs of such a regime was "just one
of the obstacles mentioned by the Panel and, by no means, the most important".409
2.131. The European Union disagrees with Canada that the Panel failed to make an objective
assessment under Article 11 of the DSU by finding that the less trade-restrictive alternative could
result in an increase in the number of inhumanely killed seals. The European Union contends that
the Panel's finding "can be reasonably inferred from the Panel's findings regarding the inevitability
of certain risks of inhumane killing arising from the conditions and circumstances of the seal
hunts".
410
2.132. The European Union also rejects Norway's argument that the Panel committed a violation
of Article 11 of the DSU by failing to address two other less trade-restrictive alternatives put
forward by Norway. The European Union notes that one of these proposed less trade-restrictive
alternatives consisted of removing all of the re quirements of the EU Seal Regime, and "amounted
effectively to repealing the EU Seal Regime". 411 Because Norway's proposal was premised on the
assumption that the EU Seal Regime made no contribution to its objective, the European Union
argues that the Panel implicitly rejected this claim. The European Union notes that the other less
trade-restrictive alternative put forward by Norway was the removal of three conditions attached
to the MRM exception (the "not-for-profit", "non-s ystematic", and "sole purpose" conditions). The
European Union argues that, although the Panel did not expressly address this proposal, it is
clearly implicit in the Panel's reasoning and findings that this less trade-restrictive alternative
would also fail to make an equivalent contribution to the measure's objective.
2.133. For the above reasons, the European Union requests the Appellate Body to reject the
claims raised by Canada and Norway under Articl e 2.2 of the TBT Agreement with regard to the
contribution made by the EU Seal Regime to it objective and the Panel's analysis of the proposed
less trade-restrictive alternatives.
412 The European Union further requests the Appellate Body to
uphold the Panel's finding that the EU Seal Regime is not inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the
TBT Agreement.
413

404 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 276.
405 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 277 (referring to, as examples, European Union's
responses to Panel question Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 104; and second written submission to the Panel,
paras. 271-276).
406 European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 278 and 279 (referring to Panel Reports,
407 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 279 (quoting Appellate Body Report, Brazil –
Retreaded Tyres, para. 156).
408 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 281 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.496 and
fn 801 to para. 7.497).
409 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 281.
410 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 291.
411 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 306.
412 European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 236 and 308.
413 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 474.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.3.3 Article XX of the GATT 1994
2.3.3.1 Aspects of the measure to be justified under Article XX(a)
2.134. The European Union requests the Appellate Body to reject Norway's appeal against the
Panel's findings with respect to the aspect of the EU Seal Regime to be justified under Article XX(a)
of the GATT 1994. According to the European Unio n, contrary to what Norway alleges, WTO
jurisprudence on the issue "is not as clear cut and rather suggests that an artificial separation of
certain provisions from the remainder of the me asure at issue … is not conducive to a proper
understanding of the measure and can affect the correctness of the analysis under Article XX".
414
2.135. Responding to Norway's criticism of the Panel's reliance on US – Gasoline , the European
Union points out that the Appellate Body in US – Gasoline was of the view that "not only the
provisions relating to importers and blenders, but also those related to domestic refiners had to be
considered in determining whether the measure [– i.e. the Gasoline Rule –] [could] be
justified".415 This is because, in that case, the less favourable treatment found to be in violation of
Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 "resulted from the interplay between the provisions relating to
baselines for domestic refiners and the provisions relating to baselines for blenders and importers
of gasoline".416 The Panel's approach in the present case is similar to the approach adopted by the
Appellate Body in US – Gasoline since, under the EU Seal Regime, "the less favourable treatment
alleged by the Complainants results from the interplay between the General Ban and the IC and
MRM exceptions and not from the exceptions alone." 417 The Panel was, therefore, correct in
concluding that the ban and the exceptions under the EU Seal Regime are "closely connected to
each other and could not operate in isolation". 418 The European Union adds that the approach of
the Appellate Body in US – Gasoline was "echoed subsequently" in the Panel report in Argentina –
Hides and Leather.419
2.136. With respect to Norway's reliance on the Appellate Body report in Thailand – Cigarettes
(Philippines), the European Union submits that, contrary to what Norway alleges, the Appellate
Body's observations in that dispute indicate that, when less favourable treatment results from
certain regulatory treatment of imports, "the an alysis under the exceptions of Article XX should
focus on whether such 'regulatory differences' ar e 'necessary' in order to achieve the objectives
set out in either of those two provisions at th e level of protection chosen by the responding
Member."420
2.137. Based on these cases, the European Union asserts that the aspect of the measure to be
justified should not be defined so narrowly as to make it impossible correctly to understand the
measure, and that the focus of the analysis under Article XX should be on "regulatory
differences".421 In the present case, the Panel was correct in not limiting its analysis to the IC and
MRM exceptions, since the discrimination found to be inconsistent with the GATT 1994 resulted
from the "interplay" between the ban and the exceptions.422
2.138. In response to Norway's criticism of the Panel's reasoning that an "exception", when
considered alone, could never be "necessary" to achieve the objective of a ban, the European
Union posits that "the mere fact that the exception is considered together with the general rule in
the context of the analysis of the design and structure of the measure under a paragraph of
Article XX in no way means that the exception is altogether 'removed from scrutiny'".
423 Instead,
the exception "critically informs the design and stru cture" of the measure, particularly "the extent

414 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 389.
415 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 393 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US –
Gasoline, p. 16, DSR 1996:I, p. 15).
416 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 393.
417 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 395.
418 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 395 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.620).
419 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 396 (referring to Panel Report, Argentina – Hides and
Leather, paras. 11.303-11.305).
420 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 404 (quoting Appellate Body Report, Thailand –
Cigarettes (Philippines), para. 177).
421 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 404.
422 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 407.
423 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 412 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.638).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

to which the measure contributes to the stated objective", which then affects the Article XX
analysis.424 Finally, the European Union contends that the Panel did not err in making a reference
to its analysis under the TBT Agreement in its assessment of the measure with respect to
Article XX. If at all, the Panel's "consistent an d coherent analysis between the TBT Agreement and
the GATT 1994 … further supports the correctness of [its] approach".
425
2.139. In the event that the Appellate Body agrees with Norway that the Panel erred in
considering whether the EU Seal Regime as a whole was provisionally justified under Article XX(a),
the European Union notes its other appeal of the Panel's finding that the objective of the
IC exception is rationally disconnected from the EU Seal Regime objective.426 If the Appellate Body
agrees with the European Union and reverses the Panel's finding that the IC exception does not
bear a rational relationship to the objective of addressing EU public moral concerns regarding seal
welfare, "in completing the analysis following No rway's appeal, the Appellate Body would need to
base its analysis on the finding that there is a rational connection between the IC exception and
the objective of the EU Seal Regime."
427 If the Appellate Body upholds the Panel's finding that the
IC exceptions does not bear a rational relationship with the objective of the EU Seal Regime, the
European Union submits that the Appellate Body "should uphold Norway's claim that the Panel
erred by failing to identify the objective pursued by the IC exception as an independent objective
of the EU Seal Regime".
428 In completing the analysis under Article XX(a) in such circumstances,
the European Union requests the Appellate Body to take into account "the modified Panel's
analysis as to the objective of the IC exception an d its contribution to its fulfilment and find that
the IC exception is justified" under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994.429
2.3.3.2 Scope of Article XX(a)
2.140. The European Union disagrees with Canada's claim that the Panel erred in finding that the
EU Seal Regime falls within the scope of applicat ion of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994. Contrary to
Canada's arguments, the European Union submits that there is no requirement to assess the "risk"
to public morals in order to determine whether a measure falls within the scope of Article XX(a).
Instead, such examination must be undertaken as part of the "necessity" analysis because, where
the risks that a measure purports to address are shown to be "inexistent or negligible", the
measure will be found "unnecessary".
430 Relying on a statement by the Appellate Body in Korea –
Various Measures on Beef , the European Union argues that "all that must be shown in order to
establish that a measure falls within the scope of Article XX(a) is that the measure is designed to
protect public morals."431 The European Union points out that Canada has not appealed the Panel's
finding that the EU Seal Regime pursued a "public morals objective". On the basis of this finding,
the European Union considers that "the Panel was entitled to conclude that the EU Seal Regime
was designed to protect public morals and, therefore, fe ll within the scope of Article XX(a) of the
GATT 1994."
432
2.141. The European Union submits that Canada's interpretation of Article XX(a) would
"effectively introduce … a strict consistency test", which would impose on Members the burden of
proving "that the relevant standard of morality is consistently applied by them in each and every
situation involving similar risks."
433 According to the European Union, WTO jurisprudence shows
that the application of a measure in one area is "only of a limited relevance" to an Article XX
analysis.434 The European Union adds that introducing a "consistency" test into Article XX would
limit Members' "regulatory autonomy and, in particular, their right to select an appropriate level of

424 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 412.
425 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 414 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Clove
Cigarettes, paras. 90 and 91).
426 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 415 (referring to European Union's other appellant's
submission, paras. 91-123).
427 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 416.
428 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 417.
429 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 417.
430 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 342.
431 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 344 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Korea –
Various Measures on Beef, para. 157). (emphasis original)
432 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 346. (emphasis original)
433 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 347.
434 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 349.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

protection in different situations". 435 Such a limitation, the European Union maintains, cannot be
easily presumed absent clear text, since, when the drafters intended to provide for a consistency
obligation, they did so expressly, such as in Ar ticle 5.5 of the Agreement on the Application of
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement).
436
2.142. The European Union also takes issue with Canada's argument that the EU Seal Regime
does not address genuine risks to public morals on animal welfare on the ground that the
European Union "tolerates" a similar degree of animal suffering in slaughterhouses and terrestrial
wildlife hunts.
437 The European Union highlights that the Panel gave detailed reasons for its
findings on the uniqueness and distinctiveness of the welfare risks associated with seal hunts, and
that these findings have not been challenged by Canada. The European Union reiterates that
comparing seal hunts with those activities would be "of limited value" given the differences in the
animals involved, the killing methods, and the physical environment.
438 Owing to these
differences, and the "limited value" accorded to comparisons with terrestrial hunts, the
European Union argues that the Panel was not bound to address Canada's evidence concerning the
poor welfare outcomes in terrestrial wildlife hunts.
2.143. Finally, with respect to Canada's claim that the Panel failed to make an objective
assessment of the matter, contrary to Article 11 of the DSU, by failing to take into account
evidence relating to environmental conditions and risks in other situations, such as wildlife hunts,
the European Union notes that Canada misstates the Panel's finding. According to the
European Union, the Panel did not simply distinguish the physical environmental conditions of seal
hunts from the conditions in wildlife hunts, but rather distinguished between "hunts occurring
within or near Arctic and sub-Arctic regions, on the one hand, and terrestrial wild life hunts, on the
other hand".
439 The European Union submits that the differences between Arctic and semi-Arctic
marine habitats and the terrestrial habitats of animals are "self-evident". 440 A s t o C a n a d a ' s
argument that the Panel failed thoroughly to assess the EFSA Scientific Opinion, the European
Union submits that, contrary to Canada's arguments, the EFSA Scientific Opinion "stressed that the
methods for killing wild animals and their efficacy vary considerably" and "cautioned that 'care
should be taken when comparing their efficacy because of the great variation in environmental
conditions concerned'".
441 With respect to the Panel's alleged failure to consider the risks to animal
welfare in terrestrial wildlife hunts in determining whether such risks exist for seal hunts, the
European Union points out that the Panel found comparisons with terrestrial hunts to be "of limited
value" and, therefore, it was not necessary fo r the Panel to address the evidence cited by
Canada.
442
2.3.3.3 The Panel's analysis of "necessity"
2.144. The European Union asserts that the complainants' arguments with respect to the Panel's
"contribution" analysis are based on a misreadi ng of the Appellate Body's observations in Brazil –
Retreaded Tyres. The European Union clarifies that the Appellate Body in that case left open "the
possibility that, exceptionally, an import ba n may be considered necessary even when the
contribution is not 'material'".443 Moreover, the European Union adds, in using the phrase "material
contribution", the Appellate Body "did not purpor t to define a minimum legal requirement to be
enforced by panels as a mandatory component of the necessity test". 444 Instead, the Appellate
Body simply made a "prediction about the likely legal characterization of a certain factual
scenario", which provides useful guidance, but should not be taken as a legal requirement. 445 The

435 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 352.
436 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 352.
437 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 353 (quoting Canada's appellant's submission,
para. 395).
438 European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 354 and 378 (quoting Panel Reports, fn 300 to
para. 7.206).
439 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 370 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.187).
(emphasis original)
440 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 371.
441 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 376 (quoting EFSA Scientific Opinion, p. 36).
442 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 378 (quoting Panel Reports, fn 300 to para. 7.206).
443 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 423 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Brazil –
Retreaded Tyres, para. 510).
444 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 423.
445 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 423.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

European Union considers that the interpretation advanced by the complainants would contradict
the interpretation of the contribution requirem ent under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement as
applied in US – COOL , in which "the Appellate Body rebuked the panel for having considered it
necessary for the COOL measure to meet some minimum level of fulfilment". 446 The European
Union also highlights that, unlike the measure at issue in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , the EU Seal
Regime does not provide for "a complete import ban", as the complainants themselves appear to
have acknowledged.
447
2.145. In any event, the European Union maintains that, in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , the
Appellate Body held that "a contribution should be deemed 'material' provided that it is not
'marginal or insignificant'."
448 In this case, the European Union claims that both the Panel's
findings and the evidence on record "demonstrate that the contribution of the EU Seal Regime is
clearly more than 'marginal or insignificant', even if it cannot be quantified precisely". 449 For these
reasons, the European Union requests the Appellate Body to reject Canada's and Norway's claims
and arguments on appeal with regard to the nece ssity of the EU Seal Regime under Article XX(a)
of the GATT 1994.
2.3.3.4 The Panel's analysis under the chapeau of Article XX
2.146. The European Union submits that the Appellate Body should reject Canada's claims of legal
error with respect to the Panel's reasoning under the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994.
According to the European Union, the Panel's approach of taking into account its "legitimate
regulatory distinction" analysis under Article 2. 1 of the TBT Agreement for the purposes of its
assessment of "arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination" under the chapeau is legally correct.
450
The European Union asserts that the complainants' "rigid interpretation" of the term "arbitrary or
unjustifiable discrimination" as embodying a requirement that the reasons for discrimination be
"rationally connected" to the policy objective of the measure is not reflected in the text of the
chapeau or past Appellate Body jurisprudence.
451 While the European Union agrees that
determining whether the discrimination at issue is "arbitrary or unjustifiable" usually involves an
investigation of the reason underlying the discrimination, in its view, investigating the cause
underlying the discrimination is not necessarily limited to determining whether such cause is
"rationally connected" to the objective of the measure. Moreover, as reflected in prior Appellate
Body jurisprudence, determining the cause of the discrimination may involve the consideration of
other factors.
452
2.147. The European Union considers that its position is supported by Brazil – Retreaded Tyres ,
where the Appellate Body found that, under the specific circumstances of that case, the
MERCOSUR arbitral ruling was "not an acceptab le rationale for the discrimination, because it
[bore] no relationship to the legitimate objective pursued by the Import Ban that [fell] within the
purview of Article XX(b), and even [went] against this objective".
453 The European Union
emphasizes that, unlike the EU Seal Regime, the measure in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres was a health
measure, which was provisionally justified under Article XX(b). According to the European Union,
the "line of equilibrium" that the Appellate Body found with respect to the health measure in
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres under the specific circumstances of that case does not apply to the
EU Seal Regime, which requires a different "bal ancing exercise" between public moral concerns
and other interests.
454 The European Union contends that the Panel, therefore, correctly based its
conclusion on the justification of the regulatory distinction on the specific circumstances of these
disputes.

446 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 424.
447 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 427.
448 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 429.
449 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 429.
450 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 442.
451 European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 443-447 (referring to Appellate Body Reports, US –
Gasoline, p. 23, DSR 1996:I, p. 21; and US – Shrimp, paras. 158 and 159).
452 European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 448-456 (referring to Appellate Body Reports, US –
Gasoline, pp. 28-29, DSR 1996:I, p. 27; and US – Shrimp, paras. 161, 165, 166, 173, 175, and 180-184).
453 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 451 (quoting Appellate Body Report, Brazil –
Retreaded Tyres, para. 228).
454 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 453 (quoting Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp,
para. 159).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.148. The European Union further maintains th at the Panel based its conclusion about the
justification of the regulatory distinction on its finding that, in the EU Seal Regime, "the interests
underlying the IC exception are 'balanced agai nst the objective of the measure at issue.'"
455 The
European Union adds that, by contrast, in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, the Appellate Body did not find
"any such balancing" in the measure at issue, since, in that case, there was a "complete
dissociation of objectives". 456 Finally, the European Union notes that the nature of the exceptions
in the two cases differ significantly. In the present case, the IC exception is "based on a broad
recognition of the unique interests of Inuit and other indigenous communities", whereas in Brazil –
Retreaded Tyres, the exception at stake had "a mere economic objective, i.e. implementing the
market access concessions contained in the MERCOSUR free trade agreement". 457 Given the
"relevant differences" between the present case and Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, the European Union
submits that the Panel's approach to not "exclusively focus" on the rational connection between
the cause of the exceptions and the main objective of the measure "appears correct".458
2.149. The European Union also submits that the approach proposed by the complainants also
conflicts with the purpose of Article XX, which is "to balance the substantive obligations established
in the GATT 1994 with certain important and legitimate policy objectives". 459 The European Union
underscores that the "[e]xceptions are often not 'rationally connected' to the main purpose of a
measure", and when they are "inserted to achi eve a balance between the main objective … and
conflicting other legitimate objectives, there will typically be a 'disconnect' between their rationale
and the main objective pursued".
460 The approach proposed by the complainants would preclude
Members from carrying out such a balancing exercise, when there is nothing "arbitrary or
unjustifiable" in "striking a balance between animal welfare and these other objectives". 461 Finally,
the European Union contends that the "rigid interpretation" proposed by the complainants also
disregards the context provided by the TBT Ag reement to the chapeau of Article XX of the
GATT 1994, and that the Panel rightly attemp ted to achieve a "coherent and consistent
interpretation" by taking into account its analysis under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement.
462 For
these reasons, the European Union requests the Appellate Body to reject Canada's and Norway's
allegations of errors concerning the Panel's findings under the chapeau of Article XX of the
GATT 1994.463
2.150. In the event that the Appellate Body accepts Canada's and Norway's appeals, the
European Union notes its other appeal of the Panel's finding that "the IC exception does not bear a
rational relationship to the objective of addressing the moral concerns of the public on seal
welfare."464 According to the European Union, if the Ap pellate Body modifies the Panel's reasoning
following successful appeals by Canada and Norway as regards the interpretation of the chapeau,
the Appellate Body "should not base its analysis on a finding of a lack of rational connection
between the IC exception and the objective of the EU Seal Regime".465
2.4 Claims of error by the European Union – Other appellant
2.4.1 Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement
2.151. The European Union contends that the Pane l erred in its interpretation and application of
the terms "product characteristics" and "applicable administrative provisions" in the definition of a
"technical regulation" under Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement, and consequently requests the
Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's conclusion that the EU Seal Regime constitutes a "technical

455 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 454 (quoting Panel Reports, para. 7.296).
456 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 454 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Brazil –
Retreaded Tyres, paras. 228 and 234).
457 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 455 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.298).
458 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 456.
459 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 457 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp,
para. 121).
460 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 457.
461 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 458.
462 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 458 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Clove
463 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 461.
464 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 459 (referring to European Union's other appellant's
submission, paras. 91-123).
465 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 460.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

regulation" and to declare moot and of no legal effect the Panel's findings and conclusions under
Article 2.1, 2.2, 5.1.2, and 5.2.1 of the TBT Agreement.466
2.152. First, with respect to the Panel's interpretation of the term "applicable administrative
provisions", the European Union submits that the Panel erred in considering that the word
"applicable" pertains to "products" rather than "product characteristics or their related processes
and production methods" (PPMs). 467 Pointing to the text of Annex 1.1, the European Union
observes that "[t]he reference to 'applicable administrative provisions' immediately follows the
mention of 'product characteristics or their relate d [PPMs]'", with the two categories being linked
by "the conjunctive term 'including'". 468 Regarding the measure at issue, the European Union
asserts that, while the procedural requirements contained in the Implementing Regulation might
be described as administrative provisions, they "do not directly pertain to … what the Panel
considered as a product characteristic laid down in the negative form, namely that the products
must not contain seal". 469 Instead, they regulate trade in seal products. For the European Union,
they cannot therefore be considered as being "app licable" to a product characteristic within the
meaning of Annex 1.1.
2.153. Second, the European Union alleges that th e Panel erred in its interpretation of the term
"product characteristics" by relying only on "a fragment of the Appellate Body's analysis in
EC – Asbestos " on the ordinary meaning of "product characteristics". 470 In particular, the Panel
erred in relying on EC – Asbestos to find support for its finding that any "objectively definable
features" of a product constitute product characteristics. 471 This led the Panel to find that the
criteria established under the Implementing Regu lation concerning the type of hunter and/or
qualifying hunts amount to "product characteristics" within the meaning of Annex 1.1. Under the
Panel's interpretation of Annex 1.1, "virtually anyt hing" that bears a relation to a product could be
construed as a product characteristic". 472 The European Union adds that the Panel's reading of
Annex 1.1 renders redundant, at least in part, the inclusion of "related [PPMs]", as the two
concepts overlap in scope. It also contradicts th e object and purpose of the TBT Agreement, which
"was designed to elaborate on the disciplines of Ar ticle III of the [GATT] for a very specific subset
of measures" rather than to cover "all government regulatory actions affecting products" or "all
internal measures covered by Article III:4 of the GATT 1994". 473 The European Union further
argues that the negotiating history of the TBT Agreement reflects the intent to narrow the scope of
the TBT Agreement, as negotiators only agreed to include PPMs " related to product
characteristics".
474
2.154. On this basis, the European Union submits that the conditions imposed under the EU Seal
Regime – the IC, MRM, and Travellers exceptions – "do not concern the intrinsic characteristics or
features that are related to the products". 475 Specifically, the IC exception deals with "the identity
of the hunters, the traditions of their communities and the purpose of the hunt" 476; the
MRM exception relates to "the size, intensity and purpose of the hunt and the marketing conditions
(i.e. non-profit and non-systematic) of the products" 477; and the Travellers exception pertains to
"the use of the products and the circumstances of their importation". 478 None of these conditions,
argues the European Union, set out any intrinsic or related features of the products.
2.155. Finally, referring to the Appellate Body's findings in EC – Asbestos , the European Union
recalls that the proper legal characterization of the measure at issue cannot be determined unless
the measure is examined "as a whole". 479 The European Union adds, however, that the Appellate

466 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 88-90 and 332.
467 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 53.
468 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 55.
469 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 58.
470 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 61.
471 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 65 (quoting Panel Reports, para. 7.110).
472 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 66.
473 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 68 and 69, respectively (quoting Appellate
474 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 70. (emphasis original)
475 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 71.
476 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 72.
477 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 73.
478 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 74.
479 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 76 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC –
Asbestos, para. 64).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

Body did not suggest in that case that "it is sufficient for one component to meet the criteria for a
technical regulation for a measure as a whole to be considered" as such. 480 Thus, it was incorrect
for the Panel to conclude that a measure as a whole can be deemed a technical regulation "simply
because one of its components meets the criterion for a technical regulation".
481 In the European
Union's view, since not all of the components of the EU Seal Regime meet the criteria for a
technical regulation, the Panel should have instead based its determination on consideration of "all
components of the measure and their respective role in [its] operation and object and purpose".
482
In this regard, the European Union argues that the Panel failed to address how the ban on
products consisting exclusively of seal impacts on the legal characterization of the measure as a
whole.
483 The European Union further highlights that, while the exceptions in the measure at issue
in EC – Asbestos "permitted certain products which were identified according to their intrinsic
characteristics"484, none of the conditions under which seal-containing products may enter the
European Union market "relate to intrinsic or related product characteristics". 485 Thus, if the
prohibition contained in the EU Seal Regime is examined in the light of the IC, MRM, and Travellers
exceptions, the measure "cannot be reduced to the simple negative intrinsic product characteristic
that products may not contain seal".486 Nor does the EU Seal Regime, when considered as a whole,
lay down "product characteristics" within the meaning of Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement.
2.4.2 Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement
2.156. The European Union appeals the Panel's finding that "the IC exception does not bear a
rational relationship to the objective of addressing the moral concerns of the public on seal
welfare".
487 The European Union submits that this finding was "based on an incorrect interpretation
of the notion of 'public morals'", according to which a Member claiming that a measure pursues a
public morals objective has to show that the measure is supported by a majority of its
population.
488 Alternatively, the European Union submits that, in reaching its conclusion that the
EU public does not support the IC exception, the Panel failed to make an objective assessment of
the evidence before it as required by Article 11 of the DSU.
2.157. The European Union observes that the Pane l cited with approval the interpretation of the
notion of "public morals" made by the panels in US – Gambling and China – Publications and
Audiovisual Products, but argues that, in its reasoning, the Panel disregarded the interpretation
developed in these previous disputes. 489 According to the European Union, the Panel held that the
IC exception was not related to the public morals objective of the EU Seal Regime because it was
not "grounded in the concerns of EU citizens", a fi nding that it had in turn inferred from evidence
"consisting exclusively of opinion polls and a public consultation". 490 The European Union takes
issue with the Panel's finding on the basis that the "standards of right and wrong" that make up a
M e m b e r ' s p u b l i c m o r a l s " d o n o t n e c e s s a r i l y h a v e t o b e h e l d b y a m a j o r i t y o f m e m b e r s o f a
community".491 Instead, the European Union argues that these standards "can be set by a
Member's authorities on behalf of a community, in accordance with that Member's own system of
government".492 The European Union submits that "[i]t is … the task of legislators and regulators
to translate the broader moral concerns of the public into precise requirements, by relying on their

480 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 77.
481 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 79 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.100).
482 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 81.
483 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 83 (referring to Panel Reports, fn 153 to
para. 7.106). In its opening statement at the oral hearing, the European Union explained that the purpose of a
ban is not to set out product characteristics or related PPMs, compliance with which would allow certain
products to have access to the market. The purpose of a ban, thus, fundamentally differs from the purpose of a
technical regulation. The European Union noted that, like a ban, a technical regulation may have as a
consequence the exclusion of certain products from the market; however, unlike a ban, a technical regulation
also ensures that conforming products, which possess the required product characteristics or related PPMs, are
given access to the market.
484 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 87 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC –
Asbestos, para. 74).
485 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 88.
486 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 88.
487 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 91 (quoting Panel Reports, para. 7.275).
488 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 92.
489 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 107.
490 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 107 (quoting Panel Reports, para. 7.402).
491 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 108.
492 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 108. (emphasis original)
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

superior knowledge of the specific factual circumstances." 493 This means, according to the
European Union, that, even if it could be concluded that the IC exception is not "grounded in the
concerns of EU citizens", this would not imply that the IC exception is "rationally disconnected"
from the public morals objective pursued by the EU Seal Regime.
494
2.158. The EU Seal Regime, according to the European Union, reflects the "moral standard" that
"humans ought not to inflict suffering upon animals without a sufficient justification". 495 The
European Union claims that the IC exception reflects a "balancing of interests which is an integral
part of that moral standard". 496 The European Union finds the Panel's conclusion to be "all the
more difficult to understand" in view of the fact that the Panel, in reaching its earlier finding that
public concerns regarding the welfare of seals were "moral" in nature, had found ample evidence
for the existence of a "well-established moral doctrine" grounding these concerns.
497 According to
the European Union, the Panel totally disregarde d that evidence when considering whether the
IC exception was rationally connected to the public morals objective of the EU Seal Regime.
Nevertheless, the European Union claims that the IC exception is in fact the outcome of the
application of that moral doctrine in the context of seal hunting.
2.159. The European Union further explains that the fundamental tenet of the moral doctrine of
"animal welfarism" is that it is morally acceptable to inflict suffering upon animals where
sufficiently justified by human needs.
498 The European Union notes that none of the laws on animal
welfare cited by the Panel stipulate an absolute prohibition on inflicting suffering upon animals;
rather, all of them provide for exceptions based on overriding human needs. The European Union
further submits that the evidence before the Pane l confirmed that the IC exception was the result
of a proper application of the moral standard in voked by the European Union. The European Union
points to the Panel's finding that "seal hunting represents a vital element of the tradition, culture,
and livelihood of Inuit and indigenous populati ons", and submits that the EU legislators could
reasonably have concluded that these specific circumstances rendered the IC exception
necessary.
499
2.160. The European Union submits that the Panel misinterpreted and misapplied Article 2.1 of
the TBT Agreement when examining whether the IC exception is even-handed in its design and
application. According to the European Union, the Panel should have examined whether the
IC exception was designed and applied "in a reasonable, impartial and harmonious manner",
having regard to its objective, namely, to protect the interests of Inuit and other indigenous
communities traditionally engaged in seal hunting for subsistence purposes.
500 Instead, the Panel
determined that the IC exception was de facto available exclusively to Greenland, without
examining the actions and omissions of the relevant Canadian authorities and operators. The
European Union further submits that the Panel wrongly focused on the greatest similarities
between seal hunts in Greenland and commercial hunts, which is irrelevant for the assessment of
even-handedness, given that the Panel had al ready found that seal hunts in Greenland are
IC hunts conducted for subsistence purposes.
501
2.161. More specifically, the European Union recalls that the IC exception makes a distinction
between IC and commercial hunts in view of their pu rposes – i.e. subsistence versus primarily or
solely for profit – and that the requirements to qualify under the IC exception are "reasonable,
tailor-made and harmonious with the objective" of the IC exception – i.e. the protection of Inuit
interests. The European Union further argues that the operation and application of the
IC exception is fair, impartial, and harmonious with its objective, in that only seal products derived
from hunts conducted by Inuit communities for subsistence purposes can benefit from the
exception. The European Union notes that any entity within the Inuit communities in Canada or
elsewhere can meet the requirements to become a recognized body for the purposes of assessing
conformity with the IC exception. The European Un ion submits that the fact that, so far, only an

493 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 109.
494 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 107 (quoting Panel Reports, para. 7.402).
495 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 110.
496 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 110.
497 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 111.
498 European Union's opening statement at the oral hearing.
499 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 143 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.295).
500 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 151.
501 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 151 (referring to Panel Reports, paras. 7.288
and 7.289).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

entity in Greenland has become a recognized body results from the decisions of the relevant
authorities and operators in other countries, and cannot be attributed to the EU Seal Regime. The
European Union argues that, contrary to what the Panel found, there is no "inherent flaw" or
permanent defect in the IC exception that prevents Inuit communities, other than those in
Greenland, from taking advantage of it.
502
2.162. The European Union further submits that the Panel's focus on the de facto exclusivity of
the IC exception to Greenland, where the Inuit hunt bears the greatest similarities to commercial
hunts, is misdirected. According to the Euro pean Union, the Panel wrongly assessed the
even-handedness of the IC exception by looking at the effects of the measure in a particular period
of time. The European Union underscores that, while Canada and its Inuit communities have not
taken any steps to benefit from the IC exception despite numerous efforts made by the
EU authorities, they could do so at any time in the future, if and when they so wish, based on their
assessment of whether exports to the European Union are desirable. In the European Union's view,
the fact that the Canadian authorities purchase Inuit products under a targeted programme means
that they have, in principle, a convenient and easy means to identify the seal products qualifying
for the IC exception.
2.163. With respect to the Panel's findings on the degree of the commercial aspect in seal hunts
in Greenland, the European Union expresses its understanding that the Panel did not find that seal
hunts in Greenland should be characterized as "commercial hunts" – i.e. as hunts having as their
sole or primary purpose to make a profit out of selling seal products on the market. The European
Union submits that, as long as these hunts meet the criteria to qualify as a legitimate indigenous
subsistence activity, and are thus "'subsistence'/IC hunts", the extent to which some of the
by-products of these hunts are sold through commercial channels by Inuit communities in
Greenland is irrelevant for assessing even-handedness in the design and application of the
IC exception.
503 The European Union notes that the commercial aspect of subsistence hunts "by
definition" resembles the commercial characteristics of commercial hunts. 504 The European Union
argues that, given that the Panel accepted the legi timacy of an exception to the sales ban for the
marketing of by-products of indigenous subsistence hunting, the fact that such marketing then
"actually happen[ed]" cannot invalidate that legitimacy on the basis of a lack of even-
handedness.
505 For the European Union, the Panel's reference to the degree of commercialization
of seal products in Greenland is, therefore, "logically erroneous".506
2.4.2.1 Claims under Article 11 of the DSU
2.164. The European Union maintains that the evid ence on which the Panel relied – consisting of
opinion polls and a public consultation – lend s no support to the Panel's finding that the
IC exception is not "grounded in the concerns of EU citizens". 507 Before the Panel, the European
Union had argued that two opinion polls referenced in the 1986 Report of the Royal Commission on
seals and sealing in Canada508 (Royal Commission Report) confirmed that the EU public's concerns
varied according to the purpose of the hunt, and more specifically, that the public was less
concerned with the hunts conducted by the Inuit for subsistence purposes than with commercial
hunts. In the first poll – conducted by the Royal Commission (RC poll) – respondents were asked
which, if any, of various types of seal hunts they found acceptable. According to the European
Union, the results showed that only a very small percentage of respondents found commercial seal
hunts acceptable, while a very large percentage found seal hunting by indigenous communities for
food and clothing acceptable. The European Union contends that, while the percentage of
respondents who found Inuit seal hunting for cash or to finance hunting for food acceptable was
significantly smaller, it was still much higher than the percentage of respondents who found
acceptable either the purely commercial hunts or all hunts.
509 In the second poll – conducted by

502 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 193.
503 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 206 and 207 (referring to Panel Reports,
paras. 7.285, 7.287, and 7.288).
504 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 208.
505 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 208.
506 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 208.
507 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 112 (quoting Panel Reports, para. 7.402).
508 Report of the Royal Commission, Seals and Sealing in Canada (1986), Vol. I, Chapter 11, "Public
Opinion on Sealing" (Panel Exhibit EU-48).
509 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 114 (citing information taken from Royal
Commission Report, Table 11.6, at p. 169).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

the Canadian Sealers Association (CSA poll) – re spondents were asked under which conditions the
killing of animals would be acceptable. The European Union points out that 90% of respondents
agreed with the statement that "the killing of wild animals is acceptable if a person's survival or
livelihood depends on it".
510
2.165. The European Union submits that the Panel did not claim that these polls support its
finding, but rather characterized them as "unreliable". 511 The European Union argues that, in
reaching this conclusion, the Panel "disregard ed" or "distorted" the findings of the Royal
Commission.512 Although the Panel noted that the Royal Commission identified "two uncertainties"
about the result of the polls, the European Union argues that these uncertainties did not lead the
Royal Commission to question the "reliability" of the CSA poll. 513 Instead, the Royal Commission
concluded that the CSA poll "at least, supports the view that there is strong public approval of
taking seals for subsistence purposes". 514 In the European Union's view, it is "impossible to
reconcile" this finding of the Royal Commission with the Panel's finding that EU public concerns
regarding seal welfare do not vary depending on the purpose of the hunt.
515 In addition, although
the Panel relied on the observation of the Royal Commission that the responses to the RC poll
"may perhaps imply little general understanding of the essential economic structure" of Inuit
hunts516, the European Union contends that the Royal Commission went on to conclude that both
the RC poll and the CSA poll "showed that the purpose behind the hunt may have a great effect on
public reaction to it".517 In the European Union's view, the public's relatively low level of knowledge
as to the economic realities of Inuit hunts would not render "unreliable" the opinions expressed by
the public or the underlying moral views.
518
2.166. Regarding the public consultation conducted by the EU Commission in connection with the
adoption of the EU Seal Regime, the European Union took note of the Panel's observation that
62% of respondents stated that seals should not be hunted for any reason, whereas 18% stated
that hunting is most acceptable when the hunter belongs to a traditional seal culture/community
or depends on the seal hunt for his main income.
519 The European Union also notes the comment
by COWI that the consultation showed that there is a "greater level of acceptance of the hunt if it
is embedded in a traditional seal hunting culture" 520, and further observes that the
representativeness of the respondents was limited, and that there are "clear indications" that the
consultation underestimates the actual percentage of members of the public who regard traditional
hunts conducted for subsistence purposes as more acceptable than other hunts.
521
2.167. In the alternative, the European Union alleges that the Panel acted inconsistently with
Article 11 of the DSU in finding that: (i) the text, legislative history, and application of the
IC exception indicate that the IC exception is available de facto exclusively to Greenland; and
(ii) the commercial aspect of seal hunts in Greenland is comparable to that of commercial hunts.
The European Union further claims that the Panel's finding that "the text of the IC exception, its
legislative history, and the actual application of the IC exception, cast serious doubt on the
even-handedness of the design and application of the IC exception" is inconsistent with the Panel's
duty under Article 11 of the DSU to make an objective assessment of the facts.
522 The

510 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 115 (citing information taken from Royal
Commission Report, p. 160).
511 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 116 (referring to Panel Reports, fn 676 to
para. 7.410).
512 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 116.
513 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 116 (quoting Panel Reports, fn 676 to
para. 7.410).
514 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 117 (quoting Royal Commission Report,
p. 185).
515 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 117.
516 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 118 (quoting Royal Commission Report,
p. 168).
517 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 118 (quoting Royal Commission Report,
p. 185).
518 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 118.
519 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 119 (referring to Panel Reports, fn 652 to
para. 7.398 and fn 676 to para. 7.410, in turn referring to COWI, Assessment of the potential impact of a ban
of products derived from seal species (April 2008) (Panel Exhibit JE-20) (COWI 2008 Report), pp. 124-127).
520 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 121 (quoting COWI 2008 Report, pp. 126-127).
521 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 122 (quoting COWI 2008 Report, p. 125).
522 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 223 (quoting Panel Reports, para. 7.317).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

European Union submits that the Panel failed to provide reasoned and adequate explanations,
lacked a sufficient evidentiary basis, and provid ed incoherent reasoning in arriving at this
conclusion.
2.168. With respect to the text of the IC except ion, the European Union notes the Panel's finding
earlier in its analysis that, "[b]ased on the text, we consider that the requirements of the
IC exception are generally linked to the characteristics of IC hunts". 523 For the European Union,
this means that the Panel "did not find anything wrong with the requirements" attached to the
IC exception.524 The European Union, therefore, fails to understand how the Panel could have
relied on the text of the IC exception as a ba sis for finding a lack of even-handedness. The
European Union submits that, by doing so, the Pane l provided incoherent reasoning and failed to
provide an adequate explanation for its finding.
2.169. With respect to the legislative history of the IC exception, the European Union notes the
Panel's observation that the COWI 2008 and 2010 Reports 525 "anticipated" that Greenland would
be the only beneficiary of the IC exception, as well as the Panel's finding that the fact that
Greenland is the only beneficiary of the IC exception is "not merely an incidental effect" of the
application of the exception. 526 According to the European Union, the Panel based its conclusion
that the IC exception was drafted with the knowledge that only Greenland could benefit from it on
the two COWI Reports, as well as the Parliament Report on the proposal for a regulation
concerning trade in seal products. 527 The European Union submits that the Panel's reliance on
those documents was "unwarranted", and that the Panel lacked an evidentiary basis for its
finding.
528 According to the European Union, neither the COWI Reports nor the Parliament Report
lends support to the conclusion that "only Greenland could benefit from the IC exception".529
2.170. With respect to the COWI 2010 Report on the study on implementing measures for trade
in seal products, the European Union asserts that the Panel took certain statements by COWI out
of context, and that they were in any event uns upported by any evidence. For example, the COWI
statement that the Panel relied upon was made in the context of assessing the impact of adopting
stricter, as compared to less stringent, systems of traceability of seal products. The European
Union notes that COWI merely found that "[t]he more stringent the implementing rules (i.e. the
traceability system), the more likely this would result in the diversion of all exempted trade to
Greenland."
530 The European Union further submits that the Panel ignored a number of statements
contained in the COWI 2010 Report that indicated that the IC exception was potentially available
to many Inuit communities. 531 The European Union further notes that the Panel gave an
inappropriate value to COWI's statements. The European Union underscores that COWI did not
have the authority, the qualifications, or the mandate to engage in the legal interpretation of the
Basic Regulation. Moreover, the European Union highlights that the Implementing Regulation,
which specifies the conditions for qualifying for the IC exception, was adopted well after the
COWI 2010 Report was issued. The statement contained in the COWI 2010 Report was thus "mere
speculation".
532 With respect to the Parliament Report and the COWI 2008 Report on the
assessment of the potential impact of a ban of products derived from seal species, the European
Union claims that it is unable to identify how these sources lend support to the Panel's findings, as
the propositions that the Panel attributes to those sources cannot be found in them. The European
Union, therefore, submits that the Panel failed to provide reasoned and adequate explanations,
and that these sources do not support the Panel's conclusion.
2.171. With respect to the actual application of the IC exception, the European Union argues that
the fact that the Danish customs authorities, ba sed on their interpretation of the Implementing
Regulation, processed imports based on certificates issued by the Greenlandic authorities prior to a
Greenlandic entity obtaining recognized body status, says very little as to whether the

523 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 224 (quoting Panel Reports, para. 7.308).
524 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 225.
525 See supra, fns 221 and 520.
526 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 226 (quoting Panel Reports, para. 7.315).
527 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 227.
528 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 228.
529 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 228.
530 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 236; COWI 2010 Report, p. 84.
531 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 237 (referring to COWI 2010 Report, pp. v, 24,
27, 30, and 33).
532 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 239.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

IC exception only benefits imports from Greenland. The European Union notes that it took more
than two years for the EU authorities to process Greenland's request to become a recognized body.
Further, the EU authorities issued explicit invitations and made substantial efforts so that entities
in Canada could also become recognized bodies, and the Canadian Inuit could benefit from the
IC exception. The European Union argues that this shows that the application of the IC exception
does not reveal that the IC exception could on ly benefit Greenland. The European Union submits
that the above errors made by the Panel in its assessment of the even-handedness of the
IC exception were material and that the Panel's reasoning and ultimate conclusion cannot stand.
2.172. The European Union alleges that the Panel erred in finding that "the degree of the
commercial aspect of [Greenland's IC] hunts is comparable to that of the commercial hunts", and
that "the Inuit hunt [in Greenland] bears the greatest similarities to the commercial characteristics
of commercial hunts."
533 The European Union notes that these Panel findings rested on three
factors: (i) the level of development of the commercial aspect of Greenlandic seal hunts; (ii) the
volume of sealskins trade in Greenland; and (iii ) the integrated nature of the seal product
industries in Greenland, Canada, and Norway. The European Union submits that the Panel wrongly
assessed these factors and provided incoherent reasoning, thus failing to make an objective
assessment of the facts.
534
2.173. The European Union submits that, with respect to the development of the commercial
aspect of Greenlandic seal hunts, the Panel made "a fundamental mistake".535 The European Union
points out that the source on which the Panel relied for its statement that "over 50 per cent of the
hunted seals in Greenland are sold to the tannery of Great Greenland A/S"
536 actually states that
"the skins from just over half of all caught seals are sold by the hunters to the tannery of Great
Greenland A/S".537 The European Union emphasizes that, while half of the skins are sold, the other
parts of the seals hunted by Inuit in Greenland are still consumed by them. For the European
Union, this indicates that the commercial aspect of Greenland's hunts is not comparable to that of
commercial hunts, where 100% of the seals hunted are sold in their entirety.538
2.174. With respect to the volume of sealskins traded in Greenland, the European Union points
out that the volumes in Greenland are relatively constant, whereas the volumes in Canada reflect
market conditions. For the European Union, the relative inelasticity of the production of seal
products in Greenland is an "important difference" that the Panel ignored when relying on the
volume of the hunts in Greenland as a basis to conclude that such a volume "was comparable to
that of commercial … hunts in Canada".
539 The European Union further alleges that the Panel
disregarded the fact that Greenland provides subsidies to support Inuit hunters in order to support
the subsistence of Inuit communities and allow them to preserve their cultural identity. Finally, the
European Union points to the fact that the volume of seals hunted in commercial hunts is produced
by a few hunters killing many seals in a short period of time, whereas the volume of seals hunted
by Inuit communities derives from a large population that hunts throughout the year. The
European Union submits that, in ignoring these factors, the Panel wrongly assessed the relevance
of the volume of sealskins traded in Greenland.
2.175. With respect to the allegedly integrated nature of the seal product industries in Greenland,
Canada, and Norway, the European Union alleges th at the Panel's findings are not supported by
the evidence on the record. The European Union no tes that, in response to the question asked by
the Panel on this issue, the complainants recognized that there was "little direct cooperation"
between their industries and Greenland.
540 Moreover, the European Union points out that the one
example of integration that the Panel mentions – the purchase of sealskins from Canada by Great
Greenland A/S – was a "one-off situation in the rather distant past", and was not based on general

533 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 248 (quoting Panel Reports, paras. 7.313
and 7.317, respectively).
534 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 248.
535 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 250.
536 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 249 (quoting Panel Reports, para. 7.309).
537 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 250 (quoting Greenland 2012 Seal
Management Report, p. 25). (emphasis added by the European Union)
538 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 251 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.240;
and Nunavut Economy Fact Sheet (Panel Exhibit CDA-102), p. 1).
539 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 257 (quoting Panel Reports, para. 7.310).
540 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 264; Canada's and Norway's responses to
Panel question No. 152.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

commercial considerations, but rather on an attempt to deal with a temporary crisis in a way that
avoided laying off local workforce.541
2.176. Finally, the European Union submits that th e Panel's conclusion that "the purpose of seal
hunts in Greenland has characteristics that are closely related to that of commercial hunts"
contradicts its earlier conclusion that the primary purpose of seal hunts conducted by Inuit
communities, including in Greenland, was the "subsistence" of those communities in terms of their
culture and tradition as well as their livelihood. 542 According to the European Union, the Panel's
reasoning is therefore incoherent.
2.177. Consequently, the European Union requests the Appellate Body to find that the Panel failed
to make an objective assessment of the matter, co ntrary to Article 11 of the DSU, and to reverse
the Panel's finding that the IC exception was not designed and applied in an even-handed
manner.543
2.4.3 Article I:1 and Article III:4 of the GATT 1994
2.178. The European Union requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's finding that the
legal standard for the non-discrimination obligati on under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement does
not "equally apply" to claims under Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994. 544 In addition, the
European Union requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's conclusion that the measure at
issue is inconsistent with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 because it does not "immediately and
unconditionally" extend the same market access advantage to Canadian and Norwegian seal
products compared to seal products originating from Greenland.
545
2.179. The European Union submits that the Panel' s interpretation of Articles I:1 and III:4 is in
error for the following reasons: (i) it is contrary to established Appellate Body jurisprudence under
Article III:4 of the GATT 1994; (ii) it fails to take account of the context provided by Article III:1 of
the GATT 1994; and (iii) it is incoherent with the interpretation of Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement
and renders that provision irrelevant.
2.180. The European Union contends that, in Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes,
the Appellate Body clarified that a detrimental effect on imports alone does not indicate a de facto
"less favourable treatment" of imports under Article III:4.
546 This finding, according to the
European Union, is in line with the Appellate Body's earlier finding in EC – Asbestos that "a
Member may draw distinctions between products which have been found to be 'like', without, for
this reason alone, according to the group of 'lik e' imported products 'less favourable treatment'
than that accorded to the group of 'like' domestic products."
547 The European Union observes that,
in US – Clove Cigarettes , the Appellate Body clarified that, in Dominican Republic – Import and
Sale of Cigarettes, a violation of Article III:4 was not established because the detrimental impact
on competitive opportunities for "like" imported products was not attributable to the specific
measure at issue. 548 For the European Union, this confirms that the analysis under Article III:4
goes beyond a consideration of whether there has been a detrimental impact on the competitive
opportunities for "like" imported products.
2.181. The European Union submits further that the Panel erred in its interpretation of Articles I:1
and III:4 because it failed to take into account the context of Article III:1 of the GATT 1994. In
this regard, the European Union points out that, in Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II , the Appellate
Body considered that the general principle reflected in Article III:1 – that internal measures should

541 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 269.
542 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 272 (quoting Panel Reports, para. 7.313).
543 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 275.
544 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 310; Panel Reports, para. 7.586.
545 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 314 and 315 (referring to Panel Reports,
para. 7.600).
546 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 292 and 293 (quoting Appellate Body Report,
Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes, para. 96).
547 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 294 (quoting Appellate Body Report, EC –
Asbestos, para. 100).
548 European Union's opening statement at the oral hearing.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

not be applied so as to afford protection to domestic production – informs the rest of Article III. 549
Further, in EC – Asbestos , the Appellate Body confirmed the relevance of Article III:1
for the interpretation of Article III:4. 550 The European Union notes that the Appellate Body has
found that a determination of whether a measure is applied so as to afford protection to domestic
production – within the meaning of Article III:1 – requires an inquiry into the design, architecture,
and revealing structure of a measure. Moreover, panels should, in conducting this inquiry, give full
consideration to all the relevant facts and circumstances of a given case.
551 The European Union
submits that this test "corresponds to the second step of the de facto discrimination analysis" that
the Appellate Body has found to be requir ed under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement. 552 Thus, the
Panel's suggestion that this analysis is unnecessary for a finding of de facto discrimination under
Articles III:4 and I:1 "clearly fails to take account" of the context of Article III:1.553
2.182. The European Union also contends that th e Panel's interpretation of Articles I:1 and III:4
fundamentally misunderstands the contextual relationship between the GATT 1994 and the
TBT Agreement. Relying on the Appellate Body's finding in US – Clove Cigarettes that the
GATT 1994 and the TBT Agreement should be interp reted in a coherent and consistent manner,
the European Union argues that the Panel failed to put forward any convincing reason as to why
the interpretation of Articles III:4 and I:1 should be "clinically isolated from the context given by
Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement", and lead to diverging results with regard to de facto
discrimination.
554
2.183. According to the European Union, under the Panel's interpretation, a technical regulation
could be considered non-discriminatory under the agreement specifically addressing these types of
measures, but still violate the GATT 1994 addressing goods-related measures. The European Union
explains that the list of possible legitimate objectives that may factor into an analysis under
Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement is open, in contrast to the closed list of objectives enumerated
under Article XX of the GATT 1994. Thus, the Panel's "divergent approach to de facto
discrimination" could lead to a situation where, under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, a technical
regulation that has a detrimental impact on import s would be permitted if such detrimental impact
stems from a legitimate regulatory distinction, while, under Articles I:1 and III:4 of the
GATT 1994, the same technical regulation would be prohibited if its objective did not fall within the
subparagraphs of Article XX of the GATT 1994.
555 The European Union concedes that such an
"asymmetrical outcome" would not arise in the context of these disputes "since the Panel rightly
considered that the objective of the EU Seals Regime fell within the list of objectives of
Article XX".556 However, under the Panel's interpretation of Articles I:1 and III:4, the regulatory
space under the TBT Agreement could, in other case s, be "significantly" wider than the regulatory
space under the GATT 1994.557 This would "render Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement irrelevant" as
complainants would have a strong incentive not to invoke Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, and,
instead, to bring claims under the GATT 1994, even if the measure at issue qualified as a technical
regulation.558
2.184. Finally, the European Union notes that its proposed interpretation of Articles I:1 and III:4
of the GATT 1994 requiring, in respect of de facto discrimination claims, a determination of
whether any detrimental impact on imports resulting from the measure stems exclusively from a
legitimate regulatory distinction leaves "significant space" for Article XX, which would remain

549 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 295-297 (referring to Appellate Body Report,
Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II, p. 18, DSR 1996:I, p. 111).
550 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 295-297 (referring to Appellate Body Report,
EC – Asbestos, para. 100).
551 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 299 (referring to Appellate Body Report,
Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II, p. 29, DSR 1996:I, p. 120).
552 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 300 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US –
Clove Cigarettes, para. 182).
553 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 300.
554 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 304.
555 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 307.
556 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 307.
557 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 307.
558 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 308.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

applicable to provisions not relating to discrimination, for example, Article XI and to de jure
discrimination claims.559
2.185. With regard to the Panel's finding th at the requirements of the IC exception are
inconsistent with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994, the European Union contends that this finding is
based on the Panel's incorrect interpretation of the legal standards under Articles I:1 and III:4 of
the GATT 1994. Consequently, the European Union requests the Appellate Body to reverse the
Panel's finding that the measure at issue is inconsistent with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 because
it does not immediately and unconditionally exte nd the same market access advantage accorded
to seal products of Greenlandic origin to like seal products of Canadian and Norwegian origin.
560
2.4.4 Article XX of the GATT 1994
2.4.4.1 The Panel's analysis under the chapeau of Article XX
2.186. In the event that the Appellate Body upholds the Panel's finding that the IC exception is
inconsistent with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994, the European Union appeals the Panel's finding that
the IC exception was not justified under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 because it fails to meet
the requirements of the chapeau.
561 Given that, in its analysis under the chapeau of Article XX,
"the Panel applied mutatis mutandi the analysis that it had conducted in the context of Article 2.1
of the TBT Agreement"562, the European Union refers to its other appeal of the Panel's findings of
even-handedness under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement. 563 The European Union requests, if the
Appellate Body accepts its arguments with respect to Article 2.1 and reverses the Panel's finding
that the IC exception was not designed and appl ied in an even-handed manner, that it also
reverse the Panel's finding under the chapeau of Article XX(a).
564 Finally, since the IC exception is
"applied in a reasonable, impartial and harmonious manner, where all Inuit communities can
equally benefit from the IC exception", the Eu ropean Union requests the Appellate Body to
complete the legal analysis under the chapeau of Article XX(a) and find that the IC exception
meets the requirements under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, including its chapeau.565
2.4.4.2 The Panel's analysis under Article XX(b)
2.187. In the event that the Appellate Body upholds the Panel's finding that the EU Seal Regime is
inconsistent with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994, and reverses the Panel's finding that the EU Seal
Regime is provisionally justified under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, the European Union appeals
the Panel's finding that "the European Union has failed to establish a prima facie case for its claim
under Article XX(b)".
566 The European Union takes issue with the three reasons provided by the
Panel in support of its appealed finding, and claims that the Panel failed to conduct an objective
assessment of the matter as required by Article 11 of the DSU. First, the European Union considers
that the Panel's statement that "the European Union never submitted in this dispute that the
protection of seal welfare was as such the objective of the EU Seal Regime" is "factually
inaccurate".
567 The European Union asserts that it "identified the objective of contributing to the
welfare of seals as being 'simultaneously a legitimate objective on its own and one of the
instruments to achieve the first, broader and overarching, objective.'" 568 Second, the European
Union argues that the Panel could "hardly justify its finding that the European Union failed to
establish a prima facie case" merely on the basis that it found the objective of the EU Seal Regime
was to address EU public moral concerns regarding seal welfare, and that this objective fell within

559 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 309.
560 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 314 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.600).
561 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 316 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.650).
562 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 317 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.649).
563 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 318.
564 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 318.
565 European Union's other appellant's submission, fn 336 to para. 319 (referring to ibid., paras. 191
and 192).
566 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 320 (quoting Panel Reports, para. 7.640).
567 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 326 and 328, respectively (referring to
European Union's second written submission to the Panel, para. 273).
568 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 328 (quoting European Union's second written
submission to the Panel, para. 273). (emphasis added by the European Union in its other appellant's
submission)
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

the scope of Article XX(a). 569 The European Union notes the Panel's recognition that a measure
may pursue more than one objective, adding that there is not any reason why a measure cannot
be justified "simultaneously under more than on e of the grounds listed in Article XX of the
GATT".
570 According to the European Union, this reason, "[a]t most", could have justified
exercising judicial economy with respect to its defence under Article XX(b).571
2.188. The European Union further submits that the Panel's observation on the "limited" extent of
the European Union's argument is also "incorrect as a matter of fact" 572, because, with respect to
Article XX(b), the European Union "cross-referred to arguments and evidence previously submitted
under Article 2.2 [of the TBT Agreement] and … Article XX(a) [of the GATT 1994]". 573 The
European Union contends that the arguments and evidence analysed by the Panel for its
"contribution" analysis under Article 2.2 "would have allowed the Panel to determine whether the
EU Seal Regime was 'necessary' to attain the objective mentioned under … Article XX(b) [of the
GATT 1994]".
574 Similarly, the European Union adds, the arguments and evidence examined by the
Panel under its chapeau analysis are equally relevant, "irrespective of whether the EU Seal Regime
is deemed necessary to achieve the objective mentioned under letter a) and/or under letter b)
of … Article XX [of the GATT 1994]". 575 For these reasons, in the event that the two conditions for
its other appeal under Article XX(b) are met, the European Union requests the Appellate Body to
reverse the Panel's finding that the European Union failed to establish a prima facie case under
Article XX(b) and to complete the legal analysis and find that the EU Seal Regime is justified under
Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994.
576
2.5 Arguments of Canada – Appellee
2.5.1 Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement
2.189. Canada requests the Appellate Body to uphold the Panel's finding that the EU Seal Regime
is a "technical regulation" within the meaning of Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement. Canada agrees
with the Panel's interpretation of the terms "product characteristics" and "applicable administrative
provisions" and considers that the Panel correctly applied Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement to the
facts of the case in finding that the measure at issue constitutes a "technical regulation".
2.190. Canada submits that the European Union "incorrectly characterizes the Panel's conclusion
as being that 'any document containing administrative provisions relating to identifiable products'
will constitute applicable administrative provisions under Annex 1.1".
577 Instead, Canada argues,
the Panel correctly found that the EU Seal Regime "[lays] down a product characteristic in the
negative form by requiring that 'all products not contain seal'". 578 Moreover, the Panel correctly
found that, in order to place seal-containing products on the EU market, "the requirements of the
IC and MRM exceptions had to be met and certain administrative provisions (such as the criteria to
be met to qualify for an exception and the production of an attesting document) had to be
followed."
579 I n C a n a d a ' s v i e w , t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e E U S e a l R e g i m e " a p p l y t o
product characteristics in the sense that the administrative provisions operate to ensure that
products that exhibit the product characteristic of containing seal satisfy the criteria set out in the
exceptions".580 According to Canada, the European Union was, therefore, "misguided" in its
concern that the Panel's reasoning leads to an "over-inclusive" characterization of "applicable

569 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 329.
570 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 329 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.400).
571 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 329.
572 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 330.
573 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 330.
574 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 330.
575 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 330.
576 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 331.
577 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 34 (quoting European Union's other appellant's submission,
para. 53).
578 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 37 (quoting Panel Reports, para. 7.106, in turn referring to
Norway's second written submission to the Panel, paras. 154 and 155).
579 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 39.
580 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 40 (referring to European Union's other appellant's
submission, para. 55).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

administrative provisions", as the administrative provisions under the EU Seal Regime apply to
"products that contain seal" that meet the requirements of one of the exceptions.581
2.191. Canada further argues that, by focusing on a single sentence in paragraph 7.110 of the
Panel Reports, the European Union fails to take into account the broader context of the Panel's
interpretation of "product characteristics", which includes, in Canada's view, "the Panel's findings
that the exceptions define the scope of the prohib itive aspects of the EU Seal Regime, and … also
set out the 'administrative provisions with which compliance is mandatory'". 582 Canada maintains
that the Panel described the criteria under the exceptions as identifying the seal products that may
be placed on the EU market "by defining the categories of seal that can be used as an input". 583 In
Canada's view, the Panel "carefully considered th e interplay among these various elements of the
EU Seal Regime" prior to finding that the measure as a whole lays down product characteristics. 584
The European Union's focus on the Panel's reference to the criteria under the exceptions as
constituting "objectively definable features" of seal products is therefore, according to Canada, a
mischaracterization of the Panel's overall analysis of the role played by the exceptions in the
EU Seal Regime.
585
2.192. Lastly, Canada argues that the Panel correctly recalled the Appellate Body's conclusion in
EC – Asbestos that a measure must be examined as "an integrated whole" to determine whether it
constitutes a technical regulation. 586 Canada agrees with the Panel that the Appellate Body report
in EC – Asbestos "does not suggest that for a measure consisting of a ban and certain exceptions
to qualify as a technical regulation, both the prohibition and the exceptions must individually lay
down product characteristics or their related PPMs".
587 In addition, Canada maintains that the
Panel was correct in relying on the measure at issue in EC – Asbestos to describe the EU Seal
Regime, which "operates as a ban on seal products, combined with an exception and two
derogations, forming three conditions prescribed in Article 3 of the Basic Regulation".
588
2.193. In Canada's view, the EU Seal Regime and the measure at issue in EC – Asbestos are
"essentially the same in all material respects relevant to determining whether a measure
is a technical regulation".
589 According to Canada, both measures: (i) prohibit "pure"
products – i.e. asbestos fibres or seal products containing only seal inputs; (ii) prohibit products
from exhibiting an intrinsic characteristic – i.e. containing asbestos fibres or seal inputs, thus
laying down product characteristics in a negative form; (iii) contain exceptions to the prohibition
that set out criteria to be met to qualify for mark et access – i.e. the absence of a safer substitute
for asbestos fibres, or the identity of the hunter and purpose of the hunt for seal products; and
(iv) set out administrative provisions with which compliance is mandatory to allow a product
containing the proscribed characteristic to be placed on the relevant market. Canada notes that
"the exceptions under both the Asbestos measure and the EU Seal Regime do not themselves set
out product characteristics" but ,rather, "merely set out criteria that must be met in order for the
product to contain the otherwise proscribed characteristic".
590 In Canada's view, the Panel properly
engaged in a thorough examinatio n of the discrete elements of the EU Seal Regime, including the
prohibitive and permissive aspects of the measure, the criteria to be applied to determine whether
a given product is permitted to contain seal inputs, and the administrative provisions, in order to
reach its conclusion on whether the EU Seal Regime constitutes a technical regulation.

581 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 41 (referring to European Union's other appellant's
submission, para. 56).
582 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 44.
584 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 46 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.111).
585 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 47.
589 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 62 (referring to European Union's other appellant's
submission, para. 85; Panel Reports, fn 153 to para. 7.106, and paras. 7.108 and 7.109; and Appellate Body
Report, EC – Asbestos, paras. 72-74).
590 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 60.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.194. In the event that the Appellate Body were to reverse the Panel's finding that the EU Seal
Regime lays down product characteristics and/or applicable administrative provisions, Canada
requests the Appellate Body to complete the lega l analysis and find that the EU Seal Regime
constitutes a "technical regulation" within the meaning of Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement.
591
2.5.2 Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement
2.195. With respect to the European Union's appeal of the Panel's finding that the IC exception
does not bear a rational relationship to the objective of addressing the EU public moral concerns
regarding seal welfare, Canada submits that the problem with the European Union's conception of
a "moral norm" is that "it is open-ended, and therefore not a standard at all." 592 Canada argues
that, "[i]f it is simply left to the legislator to decide when the suffering of animal[s] is justified, the
content of the so-called moral standard becomes inherently subjective and therefore arbitrary."
593
As Canada sees it, the Panel found that the IC exception is not grounded in public moral concerns,
but in a decision of the legislator that the pursuit of the public morals objective should not damage
the interests of Inuit and other indigenous communities.
2.196. Canada further submits that the European Union does not accurately characterize the
previous jurisprudence on the notion of "public morals".
594 Canada highlights that a panel is only
required to give some scope to a Member's definition of its public morals. Finally, Canada notes
that the Panel did not look directly to moral doctrine to determine the objective of the EU Seal
Regime, but instead based its determination on th e evidence presented by the European Union.
According to Canada, this evidence persuaded the Panel to find that animal welfare is an issue of
an ethical and moral nature in the European Union, but did not demonstrate that protecting the
interests of Inuit and other indigenous communities also fell within the scope of the objective of
addressing the EU public moral concerns regarding seal welfare.
2.197. Canada responds to the European Union's appeal of the Panel's conclusion that the
IC exception is not designed and applied even-h andedly by arguing that "the European Union's
conception of the "even-handedness" test is not reflected in the jurisprudence."
595 Canada further
considers that the terminology introduced by the European Union does not add anything to, or
clarify, the legal standard as established by the Appellate Body. 596 Canada also takes issue with
the European Union's suggestion that the test of even-handedness focuses on the relationship
between the regulatory distinction and the objectiv e that the distinction pursues. Canada argues
that the question is instead whether the regulatory distinction can be shown to be rationally
connected to the objective of the measure. At the same time, Canada acknowledges that the
Panel's finding of a lack of even-handedness in this case was based on its consideration of "the
rationale or cause of the exception", namely, the subsistence of Inuit and other indigenous
communities.
597 According to Canada, the Panel contrasted this rationale with its finding that the
IC exception, as designed and applied, is de facto available exclusively to Greenland, and thus
effectively allows only large-scale, sophisticated Inuit sealing operations to take advantage of the
market access it offers. According to Canada, this approach is entirely consistent with the
Appellate Body's analysis in previous disputes , which focused on the question of whether the
design and application of the measure effectively addressed the specific problem or concern that
the responding party claimed to be addressing.
598
2.198. With respect to the European Union's argument that the Panel erred by discounting the
lack of action by Canadian authorities and Canadian Inuit authorities to seek access to the
EU market under the IC exception, Canada submits that the Panel did in fact consider the
behaviour of the Canadian authorities. Canada further alleges that the European Union has
misunderstood the thrust of the Panel's reasonin g. According to Canada, the Panel's concerns

591 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 66.
592 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 84.
593 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 84.
594 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 85 (referring to European Union's other appellant's
submission, para. 106, in turn referring to Panel Reports, US – Gambling, para. 6.461; and China –
595 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 120. (fn omitted)
596 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 120.
598 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 127 (referring to Appellate Body Reports, US – Clove
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

about the design and application of the IC exception did not relate to whether Canadian Inuit seal
products formally qualified for EU market access under the IC exception, but rather to the question
of whether they could benefit from it in practice. As Canada sees it, the Panel concluded that they
could not because the IC exception was designed and applied in such a way that only large-scale,
commercially oriented seal-hunting operations possess the wherewithal to do so. Canada
highlights the Panel's reference to a statement by the Canadian Inuit that their hunt is too small to
"generate market interest alone on an international scale", and that "market realities are ꞌmajor
factors contributing to the ineffectiveness of the Inuit exemption to the EU seal ban ꞌ".
599 According
to Canada, the Panel agreed that there is "little point" in Canadian Inuit applying for the
IC exception if, due to its design and applicat ion, they are unable to take advantage of it.
600
Canada alleges that, more generally, the actions of a WTO Member or private actors should not
form the basis for an assessment of whether the challenged measure discriminates against that
WTO Member.
2.199. With respect to the European Union's argument that the Panel erred by relying on the
degree of similarities of the seal hunt in Greenland with commercial hunts, Canada submits that
the Panel conducted this examination as a means to assess what would be required for a given
Inuit hunt to be able to take advantage of the IC exception. Canada faults the European Union for
equating access with formal compliance with the criteria set out in the IC exception. Canada
argues that, for the Panel, this was not sufficien t, as even-handedness required equal access in
practice. Canada submits that the factors examined by the Panel relate to the ability of Inuit
communities to get their products to the EU market, and that these factors – in particular the
degree of commercialization of the seal hunt in Greenland – are highly relevant to determine the
even-handedness of the regulatory distinction.
2.200. Canada responds that the European Union mischaracterizes the Panel's approach to the
arguments and evidence concerning the scope of the EU public's moral concerns. Canada argues
that, contrary to what the European Union suggests, the Panel did not rely "exclusively" on the two
opinion polls and the public consultation cited by the European Union.
601 Rather, the Panel based
its conclusion on "all the evidence before it".602 According to Canada, the Panel found that the polls
were of "limited probative value", and that the "r eliability of the results" had not been clearly
demonstrated.603
2.201. Canada notes that the European Union does not challenge the finding that the polls cited in
the Royal Commission Report have limited probative value. Instead, Canada argues, the European
Union selectively identifies aspects from the two polls that, in its view, do not support the Panel's
finding that the EU public's concerns about seal welfare relate to seal hunting in general and not to
any particular type of hunt. Canada submits that the results of the RC poll are "unclear" and "not
evidently reliable".
604 Canada also points to the fact that the RC poll was conducted in 1985 and
only included respondents from three EU member States. Canada asserts that the RC poll provides
"no information on the EU public's views on the mo ral concerns with respect to different types of
seal hunts".605
2.202. With respect to the CSA poll, Canada notes that the specific results in the poll cited by the
European Union are responses to the question that the Royal Commission found to raise
"uncertainties".606 In response to the European Union's argument that the Panel failed explicitly to
state that these uncertainties rendered the CSA poll unreliable, Canada submits that the Panel's
finding was due to the failure of the European Union to demonstrate the reliability of the results.
Canada claims that, as the European Union had presented the Royal Commission Report in support
of its factual claim, it was incumbent on the European Union to explain why the Panel should
disregard the uncertainties.

599 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 133 (quoting Nunavut 2012 Report, p. 9).
600 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 136.
601 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 96.
602 Canada's appellee's submission, paras. 96 and 97, respectively. (fn omitted)
603 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 97 (referring to Panel Reports, fn 676 to para. 7.410).
604 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 104. (fn omitted)
605 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 104 (referring to Canada's opening statement at the second
Panel meeting, para. 75).
606 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 106.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.203. With respect to the Panel's reliance on the results of public surveys, Canada submits that
the fact that 62% of the respondents stated that seals should not be hunted for any reason is
consistent with the Panel's finding that the EU public's moral concerns about the hunt do not vary
according to the type of seal hunt. At the same time, Canada argues that the Panel did not rely on
the evidence from the public consultation to support its "basic" finding on whether the EU public's
concerns on seal welfare varied with the type of hunt.
607 Canada further submits that the fact that
the Panel did not explicitly address COWI's comment on the results of the consultation was
"reasonable in the circumstances", and was within its discretion as the trier of fact.608
2.204. Canada responds that the European Unio n's claims that the Panel committed material
inaccuracies that led to erroneous factual determinations and incoherent reasoning are without
merit. First, Canada submits that the Panel did not say that each of the elements that it
considered – the text, legislative history, and a pplication of the IC exception – demonstrated a
lack of even-handedness. Instead, according to Ca nada, the Panel only stated that it considered
these three elements. With respect to the text of the IC exception, Canada notes that the
European Union fails to mention the Panel's observation that the "scope and meaning of the
'subsistence' criterion under the requirements [o f the IC exception] is not defined under the
measure", as well as the Panel's reference to an observation in the COWI 2010 Report to the effect
that, in order to fall into the "subsistence" ca tegory, a hunt must not be "organized on a large
scale".
609 According to Canada, the Panel's scrutiny of the text of the IC exception established a
"crucial element" in its analytical framework.610
2.205. With respect to the Panel's examination of the legislative history of the IC exception,
Canada submits that the European Union misconstrues the findings of the COWI 2010 Report.
According to Canada, COWI's comments to the effect that Greenland would be the only Inuit
community that would be able to make use of the IC exception were based not only on the
potential stringency of the compliance regime, but also on the relative sizes of the Canadian and
Greenlandic Inuit hunts. Moreover, even though COWI could not have known at that time which
compliance regime the European Union would even tually adopt, Canada submits that the Panel
could rely on COWI's statements given that it had "full knowledge" of the actual compliance
regime that the European Union had put in place.
611 Canada also disputes the European Union's
claim that other statements in the COWI 2010 Report express the view that the Canadian Inuit will
benefit from the IC exception. According to Cana da, those statements only suggest that Canadian
Inuit products might be able to comply with the requirements of the IC exception. Canada submits
that those statements were, therefore, not probative considerations in the Panel's assessment of
even-handedness.
2.206. With respect to the actual application of the IC exception, Canada also contests the
European Union's claim that the Panel wrongly suggested that the European Union had favoured
Greenlandic seal products in applying the exception. According to Canada, the Panel made no such
suggestion. Canada submits that the Panel merely considered the uncontroverted fact that
Greenlandic seal products had been processed in advance of obtaining approval to enter the
EU market in order to confirm that Greenland is a de facto beneficiary of the IC exception. Canada
argues that, since the evidence does not contradict the Panel's finding, there is no violation of
Article 11 of the DSU. In sum, Canada submit s that the Panel did not incorrectly assess the
evidence and that, even if there were errors, they were not material.
2.207. Canada considers that the European Union's challenge to the Panel's findings concerning
the commercial aspects of Greenland's hunts is entirely without merit. With respect to the level of
development of the commercial aspect of Greenland's hunts, Canada takes issue with the way in
which the European Union contrasts the fact that only seal skins are processed on an industrial
scale in Greenland with the conditions in commercial hunts. Canada alleges that it is also true for
commercial hunts that only certain parts of the seal are commercialized.
612 Canada notes, for
example, that seal meat has been commercialized only to a very limited extent. 613 Canada adds

607 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 110.
608 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 112.
609 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 152 (quoting Panel Reports, para. 7.308 and fn 486 thereto).
610 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 152.
611 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 157.
612 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 167 (referring to Canadian Seal Harvest Overview, pp. 3-4).
613 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 167 (referring to Canada's first written submission to the
Panel, paras. 68-70; and Canadian Seal Harvest Overview, p. 5).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

that, to the extent that commercial sealers retain the meat from seal carcasses, they have done so
largely for personal consumption.
2.208. With respect to the volume of sealskins traded, Canada also alleges that the reasons why
Greenland's seal product exports are limited to seal skins have less to do with the diversion of
other products towards subsistence, and more to do with the fact that the Greenlandic seal
industry faces logistical challenges in collecting fresh blubber quickly enough to refine it into oil. 614
Canada further asserts that commercialized seal products are not limited to skins, given that teeth
and claws are used to make products for the tour ist industry, and the meat, blubber, and offal are
sold in local markets and restaurants, as well as in larger supermarkets.615
2.209. Canada further points out that the European Union neglects to address the many other
considerations that led the Panel to describe the Greenlandic seal hunt as exhibiting characteristics
that are closely related to those of commercial hunts. In this regard, Canada notes the Panel's
finding that Greenland has 2,100 paid full-time hunters, who are licensed professionals and who
kill roughly 80% of all seals hunted in Greenland.
616 Canada further points to the presence of the
government-owned Great Greenland A/S, which operates a state-of-the-art processing facility, as
well as manufacturing, design, and marketing facilities in Greenland. 617 In sum, Canada submits
that the range of seal products sold by Greenland does not change the commercial characteristics
of the Greenlandic hunt so that it no longer resembles a commercial hunt.
2.210. In response to the European Union's argument that the Panel wrongly assessed the
relevance of the volume of seal skins traded in Greenland, Canada recalls the Panel's finding that
the scale of a hunt is important in determining what a commercial hunt is.
618 Canada submits that
the fact that Greenland subsidizes the seal hu nt does not mean that there is a qualitative
difference in the volume of seals killed in Greenland. Canada points to the Greenlandic
government's intention to provide subsidies in response to "world market prices" as evidence of
the commercial characteristics of the Greenlandic hunt.619
2.211. With respect to the Panel's findings regarding the allegedly integrated nature of the seal
product industries in Greenland, Canada, and No rway, Canada submits that the European Union
misrepresents the complainants' submissions on this issue. According to Canada, the fact that
there is "little direct cooperation" between the Canadian industry and Greenland does not mean
that the seal product industries are not integrated.
620 Canada also argues that the Panel's finding
with respect to the integrated nature of the se al industry is but one element in its overall
conclusion that the Greenlandic seal industry exhibits characteristics closely related to commercial
hunts.
2.212. Canada responds to the European Union's argument that the Panel provided incoherent
reasoning in attributing commercial characteristics to what it had previously found to be a
subsistence hunt by alleging that the European Union fails to take into account the Panel's
explanation of what is a subsistence hunt. Canada recalls the Panel's finding that the subsistence
purpose of IC hunts encompasses not only direct use and consumption of seal products, but also a
commercial component. Thus, Canada submits that a finding that an Inuit hunt has characteristics
closely related to those of commercial hunts is not inconsistent with the Panel's characterization of
what constitutes a subsistence hunt. In conclusion, Canada asserts that the Panel did not err in its
findings regarding the commercial aspect of Greenland's hunts. Canada claims that none of the
European Union's allegations have merit and, even if factually correct, they do not rise to the level
of a violation by the Panel of Article 11 of the DSU.
621

614 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 168 (referring to COWI 2010 Report, p. 44).
615 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 169 (referring to COWI 2010 Report, p. 29).
616 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 170 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.309; and
Greenland 2012 Seal Management Report, Figure 14, at p. 25).
617 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 170 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.309; and COWI 2010
Report, p. 43).
618 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 173 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.310).
619 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 174 (quoting Greenland 2012 Seal Management Report,
p. 26).
620 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 176.
621 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 184.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.5.3 Article I:1 and Article III:4 of the GATT 1994
2.213. Canada submits that the Panel was correct in finding that the legal standard with respect
to the non-discrimination obligations under Arti cle 2.1 of the TBT Agreement does not equally
apply to claims under Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994. 622 Therefore, Canada requests the
Appellate Body to dismiss the European Union's appeal of the Panel's interpretation of Articles I:1
and III:4 of the GATT 1994. In th e event that the Appellate Body reverses the Panel's
interpretation of Articles I:1 and III:4, Canada requests the Appellate Body to complete the legal
analysis and find that the measure at issue is inconsistent with Articles I:1 and III:4 of the
GATT 1994.623
2.214. Turning to the European Union's argument that the Panel's interpretation of Articles I:1
and III:4 is not supported by the Appellate Bo dy's jurisprudence, Canada notes that the
European Union relies largely on jurisprudence developed under Article III:4 to support its
interpretation of both Articles I:1 and III:4. In doing so, the European Union fails to take account
of the fact that Article I:1 does not refer to "treatment no less favourable", but rather requires that
"any advantage, favour, privilege or immunity granted to any product originating in or destined to
another WTO Member be granted immediately and unconditionally to the like product of every
other WTO Member."
624 Canada submits that the Appellate Body has expressly excluded
consideration of the policy rationale underlying the challenged measure for the purpose of an
analysis under Article I:1. Instead, the Appella t e B o d y " h a s b e e n c l e a r " t h a t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n
between like products originating from different WTO Members is inconsistent with Article I:1
unless the obligation has been waived or the measure falls within one of the exceptions set out in
the GATT 1994.
625
2.215. In addition, Canada submits that the Appellate Body's findings in Dominican Republic –
Import and Sale of Cigarettes and EC – Asbestos do not support the European Union's
interpretation of Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994. Canada points out that, in US – Clove
Cigarettes, the Appellate Body rejected an argument that its finding in Dominican Republic –
Import and Sale of Cigarettes stood for the proposition that, similar to Article 2.1 of the
TBT Agreement, under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, a panel is required to inquire into the
rationale of a measure causing detrimental impact to imported products. 626 Instead, the Appellate
Body found in US – Clove Cigarettes that the "'treatment no less favourable standard' under
Article III:4 … prohibits WTO Members from modifying the conditions of competition in the
marketplace to the detriment of the group of imported products vis-à-vis the group of domestic
like products".627
2.216. Canada considers that the European Union's reading of the Appellate Body report
in EC – Asbestos is also incorrect. That report, according to Canada, indicates that, while a
distinction between products in itself will not automatically result in a finding of less favourable
treatment under Articles I:1 and III:4, a distinction that modifies the conditions of competition in
the relevant market to the detriment of imported products will result in such a finding.
628 For
Canada, the Appellate Body was referring to distinctions between products that do not themselves
result in less favourable treatment of imported products. However, Canada points out that, in the
current disputes, the Panel's factual findings indicate that there is a direct relationship between the
measure and the detrimental impact on competitive opportunities for Canadian and Norwegian seal
products.
629 The Panel was therefore correct in not considering, under Articles I:1 and III:4,

622 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 194 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.586).
623 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 256.
624 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 211. (emphasis original)
625 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 215 (referring, as example, to Appellate Body Report, EC –
Bananas III, paras. 191 and 206).
626 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 201 (referring to Appellate Body Reports, Dominican
Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes, para. 96; and US – Clove Cigarettes, fn 372 to para. 179).
627 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 203 (quoting Appellate Body Report, US – Clove Cigarettes,
para. 179, in turn referring to Appellate Body Report, Dominican Republic – Sale and Import of Cigarettes,
para. 96).
628 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 208 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos,
para. 100).
629 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 209 (referring to Panel Reports, paras. 7.159, 7.164,
and 7.168).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

whether the detrimental impact on imported products stems from a legitimate regulatory
distinction.
2.217. Turning to the European Union's argument that the Panel's interpretation of Articles I:1
and III:4 disregards the context provided by Ar ticle III:1, Canada submits that the European
Union misinterprets the Appellate Body's comments in Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II on the
relevance of Article III:1 for the interpretation of the legal standard under Article III:2, second
sentence.630 In Canada's view, the Appellate Body simply recognized that, under Article III:2,
second sentence, panels should consider the relevant circumstances, including the design,
structure, operation, and application of the measure at issue in determining whether the measure
at issue results in de facto discrimination. The Appellate Body did not, according to Canada,
"suggest this to mean that discrimination under Article III could be justified by regulatory
distinctions".
631
2.218. Canada considers as unfounded the European Union's argument that the Panel's
interpretation of Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994 is incoherent with the interpretation of
Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement. In Canada's view, the European Union is suggesting that the
legal standards under Articles I:1 and III:4 of th e GATT 1994, on the one hand, and Article 2.1 of
the TBT Agreement, on the other hand, should be the same. Canada submits, however, that this is
not supported by the text, context or jurisprudence of Articles I:1 or III:4.
2.219. Canada observes that, in setting out the "alleged incoherency" between the de facto
discrimination standards under the GATT 1994 an d the TBT Agreement, the European Union
"incorrectly compares" Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement with Articles I:1 and III:4 of the
GATT 1994.632 In Canada's view, the proper comparison is between, on the one hand, Article 2.1
of the TBT Agreement, as interpreted in the light of the preamble of the TBT Agreement, and, on
the other hand, Articles I:1, III:4, and XX of th e GATT 1994. Canada submits that the Appellate
Body confirmed in US – Clove Cigarettes that the balance between the pursuit of trade
liberalization under Articles I:1 and III:4 and the right to regulate under Article XX "corresponds
to" the balance found in Article 2.1 itself, read in the light of the context and object and purpose of
the TBT Agreement.
633
2.220. Canada disagrees with the European Union's argument that, because the list of possible
legitimate objectives under the TBT Agreement is open while the list of objectives under Article XX
of the GATT 1994 is closed, accepting the Panel's approach would result in divergent outcomes
under the TBT Agreement and the GATT 1994, in respect of the same measure. 634 Noting the
Appellate Body's statement in US – Clove Cigarettes that the TBT Agreement and the GATT 1994
should be "interpreted in a coherent and consistent manner", Canada submits that "the more
reasonable view with respect to the scope or range of objectives that may be considered legitimate
for the purposes of the TBT Agreement is that it mirrors the scope of Article XX of the
GATT 1994".
635
2.221. Finally, Canada submits that the European Union's argument that the Panel's interpretation
of Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994 would render Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement irrelevant
is entirely speculative. Further, Canada asserts that this interpretation cannot justify ignoring the
textual and contextual differences between th e TBT Agreement and the GATT 1994 simply to
prevent the possibility that Members may choose no t to invoke Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement,
and instead proceed solely under the GATT 1994 in challenging technical regulations.

630 Canada's appellee's submission, paras. 218 and 219 (referring to European Union's other appellant's
submission, paras. 299 and 300; and Appellate Body Report, Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II, p. 29,
DSR 1996:I, pp. 120-121).
631 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 220.
632 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 231.
633 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 236 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Clove
Cigarettes, paras. 95, 96, and 109).
634 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 238 (referring to European Union's other appellant's
submission, para. 307).
635 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 240 (referring to and quoting Appellate Body Report, US –
Clove Cigarettes, para. 91).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.222. Canada, therefore, requests the Appellat e Body to dismiss the European Union's appeal
that the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of the legal tests under Article I:1 and
Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. If, ho wever, the Appellate Body reverses the Panel's finding that
Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994 do not incl ude a "legitimate regulatory distinction" test,
and consequentially reverses the Panel's findings of violations under these two provisions, Canada
requests the Appellate Body to complete the legal analysis to find that the detrimental impact to
the competitive opportunities of Canadian seal products caused by the IC and MRM exceptions
does not stem exclusively from a legitimate regula tory distinction, and that , therefore, the IC and
MRM exceptions violate Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994.
636
2.5.4 Article XX of the GATT 1994
2.5.4.1 The Panel's analysis under the chapeau of Article XX
2.223. Canada requests the Appellate Body to reject the European Union's other appeal that the
IC exception is justified under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 because it meets the requirements
of the chapeau. Canada refers to the arguments set out in its appellant's submission to assert that
"[t]the Panel's transposition of the ['legitimate regulatory distinction'] test into the chapeau
analysis is incorrect as a matter of law."
637 According to Canada, the European Union's other
appeal requests the Appellate Body to repeat this error, while disregarding the proper test under
the chapeau. 638 Even if the Appellate Body reverses the Panel's finding with respect to the
"legitimate regulatory distinction" test under Ar ticle 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, Canada asserts
that the Appellate Body must undertake an inde pendent assessment, based on the proper test
under the chapeau of Article XX, to determine wh ether the IC exception meets the requirements
under the chapeau. For these reasons, should the Appellate Body reverse the Panel's findings
under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, and the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994, Canada
requests the Appellate Body to complete the legal analysis under the chapeau and find that the
IC exception does not meet its requirements "because it arbitrarily and unjustifiably discriminates
between Canadian seal products and Greenlandic seal products".639
2.5.4.2 The Panel's analysis under Article XX(b)
2.224. Canada requests the Appellate Body to reject the European Union's conditional claims of
error with respect to the Panel's findings under Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994. Specifically,
Canada argues that the European Union fails to show that the Panel exceeded the bounds of its
discretion as the initial trier of facts under Article 11 of the DSU.
640 Canada points out that,
contrary to the European Union's arguments on appeal, its written submissions to the Panel did
not clearly identify the welfare of seals as an independent objective for the purpose of
Article XX(b). Canada asserts that the European Union's second written submission to the Panel
instead referred to the objectives of the measure under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.
641
Canada adds that, in the European Union's first written submission to the Panel, it "merely referred
to the EU Seal Regime as making 'a substantial contribution to the welfare of seals'", which is
"entirely consistent" with the Panel's finding that seal welfare is one aspect of the moral concerns
in question, rather than a second objective of the EU Seal Regime. 642 C a n a d a a r g u e s t h a t t h e
Panel "carefully considered the European Union's varied articulations of the policy objective"643 and
"did not find that '… the protection of seal welfare as such was the objective of the EU Seal
Regime'".644 Canada argues that the Panel considered the European Union's arguments with

636 Canada's appellee's submission, paras. 255 and 256.
637 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 264.
638 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 264.
639 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 266.
640 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 280.
641 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 275 (referring to European Union's second written submission
to the Panel, para. 273).
642 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 276 (quoting European Union's first written submission to the
643 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 277.
644 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 277 (quoting Panel Reports, para. 7.640). (emphasis added by
Canada)
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

respect to the objective, and "rejected the idea that the EU Seal Regime pursued any objectives
other than EU public moral concerns on seal welfare".645
2.225. Finally, Canada considers that the European Union's claim that the Panel erred in finding
that its arguments under Article XX(b) were "limited" is "equally ill-founded from the standpoint of
the legal standard under Article 11". 646 Canada maintains that the European Union's first and
second written submissions to the Panel dealt with Article XX(b) in one paragraph and two
paragraphs, respectively.
647 Although the European Union made several cross-references to other
parts of its submissions in these paragraphs, Canada notes that those cross-references "were
general and made no attempt to situate the content of the cross-referenced sections in the specific
context of the elements that together make up Article XX(b)". 648 For these reasons, Canada
asserts that the European Union has failed to establish that the Panel acted inconsistently with
Article 11 of the DSU, and, therefore, requests the Appellate Body to dismiss the European Union's
claim of error with respect to Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994.649
2.5.5 Non-violation nullification or impairment in the sense of Article XXIII:1(b) of the
GATT 1994
2.226. Canada recalls that it had presented arguments and evidence before the Panel to
demonstrate that, if the EU Seal Regime was not found to be inconsistent with either the
TBT Agreement or the GATT 1994, the measure's application nevertheless nullifies or impairs
benefits that would otherwise accrue to Canada in the sense of Article XXIII:1(b) of the
GATT 1994. Canada points to its arguments before the Panel that the EU Seal Regime has upset
the competitive relationship between Canadian seal products and seal products from the European
Union and Greenland, thereby frustrating Canada's legitimate market access expectations arising
from concessions granted by the European Union in the Tokyo and Uruguay Rounds.
650
2.227. Canada notes that, having found the IC an d MRM exceptions to be inconsistent with the
European Union's obligations under the TBT Agreement and the GATT 1994, the Panel considered
it unnecessary to address Canada's non-violation claim under Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994.
According to Canada, the Panel thereby left Canada's claim "unresolved".
651
2.228. In the light of the European Union's claims of error in these appeals, and in the event that
the Appellate Body reverses the Panel's findings that the EU Seal Regime is inconsistent with the
TBT Agreement and the GATT 1994, Canada requests the Appellate Body to complete the legal
analysis under Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994.
652 In this regard, Canada points the Appellate
Body to the arguments and evidence that it had submitted to the Panel with respect to its claim
under Article XXIII:1(b).653
2.6 Arguments of Norway – Appellee
2.6.1 Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement
2.229. Norway requests the Appellate Body to reject the appeal of the European Union with
respect to the legal characterization of the EU Seal Regime as a "technical regulation" within the
meaning of Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement.

645 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 278.
646 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 279.
647 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 279 (referring to European Union's other appellant's
submission, paras. 322 (referring to European Union's second written submission to the Panel, paras. 272
and 273) and 323).
648 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 279.
649 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 280.
650 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 281 (referring to Canada's first written submission to the
Panel, paras. 734-751; second written submission to the Panel, paras. 345-358; and response to Panel
question No. 51, paras. 197-220).
651 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 284.
652 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 286.
653 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 287 (referring to Canada's first written submission to the
Panel, paras. 735bis-751; second written submission to the Panel, paras. 345-358; and response to Panel
question No. 51, and Panel Exhibits referred to therein).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.230. Norway agrees with the Panel's finding that the EU Seal Regime "prescribes 'applicable
administrative provisions' for products with certain objective characteristics". 654 The administrative
provisions under the measure at issue in EC – Asbestos applied to products possessing the
regulated product characteristic of containing chrysotile asbestos 655, while the exceptions under
the EU Seal Regime include administrative provisions that "'apply' to products possessing the
regulated product characteristic" of containing seal. 656 Thus, these administrative provisions are
"inextricably linked to the mandatory requirements regarding product characteristics laid down in
the measure".657 According to Norway, "the close nexus between 'administrative provisions' and
'product characteristics' arises because the products exhibit or possess the 'product characteristic'
laid down in the document in question." 658 For Norway, the products subject to the administrative
provisions are identifiable not just as products in general but because they possess the regulated
product characteristic.
2.231. Norway further agrees with the Panel's characterization of the EU Seal Regime as a
measure that "lays down, in positive and negative terms, characteristics for all products, namely,
when and under what conditions products may, and may not, contain seal inputs". 659 Like the
measure at issue in EC – Asbestos, the EU Seal Regime contains permissive elements that form an
"integral part of the measure", as they "defin e the scope of the prohibitive elements" without
having an "independent meaning in the absence" thereof. 660 These permissive elements "appl[ied]
to products possessing defined objective characteristics (i.e. products containing chrysotile
asbestos or seal)", and "operate[d] on the basis of a defined set of criteria".
661 In Norway's view,
the EU Seal Regime, "through the combination of the prohibitive and permissive elements", lays
down product characteristics in the negative form for all products that might contain seal. 662
Norway adds that the "criteria for determining when and under what conditions a product may
contain a particular input lay down an 'intrinsic' feature of the subject products" and this, in turn,
defines "an aspect of product 'composition'".
663
2.232. Lastly, like Canada, Norway considers that "the prohibition and exceptions need not
'individually' lay down product characteristics, so long as, as a whole, they did so." 664 In Norway's
view, the Panel's finding that the EU Seal Regime constitutes a technical regulation was based on a
holistic examination of the "ban" and the "excepti ons" components of the measure. Norway adds
that the Panel correctly found that the EU Seal Regime, through its exceptions, lays down
applicable administrative provisions. As to the European Union's argument that the ban on "pure
seal products" does not lay down product characteristics, Norway contends that seal products are
not in their "naturally occurring state" as "'live' seals or 'dead' seal carcasses", but rather involve
some form of processing, such as in the prepar ation of skins, blubber, oil, meat, or further
processed seal products.
665 Moreover, Norway recalls that "the majority of seal products subject to
the measure are mixed products that include non-seal inputs", and "the extent of pure seal
products is so limited" that it does not affect the overall finding that the EU Seal Regime, through
the combination of its prohibitive and permissive elements, lays down product characteristics for
all products that might contain seal inputs.
666 Norway adds that the mere fact that the EU Seal
Regime applies to pure seal products does not preclude the measure from being characterized as a
technical regulation, considering that it lays down characteristics for all products containing seal
inputs.

654 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 63.
655 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 61 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos,
para. 73).
656 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 63.
657 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 63.
658 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 80. (emphasis original)
659 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 44. (fn omitted)
660 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 57.
661 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 57.
662 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 58.
663 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 45 (referring to Norway's second written submission to the
Panel, para. 146; and response to Panel question No. 127).
664 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 88 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.100).
665 Norway's appellee's submission, paras. 93 and 94, respectively (referring to European Union's other
appellant's submission, paras. 82 and 83).
666 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 96.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.233. In concluding, Norway argues that the European Union "concedes that the measure lays
down product characteristics by prohibiting products from containing seal inputs". 667 According to
Norway, the European Union also concedes that th e exceptions in the EU Seal Regime "define the
scope of the prohibitions". 668 Norway submits that, rather than accepting the "consequences of
these admissions", the European Union takes issue with "fragments of the Panel's analysis" and
focusses "on a small minority of products consisting exclusively of seal". 669 According to Norway,
the European Union's "objections to the Panel's reasoning do not alter the 'fundamental thrust and
effect', and 'centre of gravity', of the measure as a whole." 670 Norway requests, on this basis, that
the Appellate Body uphold the Panel's finding that the EU Seal Regime constitutes a "technical
regulation" within the meaning of Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement.
2.234. In the event that the Appellate Body reverses the Panel's finding that the EU Seal Regime
lays down product characteristics and/or applicable administrative provisions, Norway requests the
Appellate Body to complete the legal analysis and to find that the measure is a "technical
regulation" within the meaning of Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement.
671
2.6.2 Article I:1 and Article III:4 of the GATT 1994
2.235. Norway requests the Appellate Body to re ject the European Union's appeal of the Panel's
interpretation of Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994. With regard to the Panel's application of
Article I:1 and its legal conclusion thereunder, Norway notes that the European Union "raises no
additional argument" as to why the Panel's conclusion under Article I:1 should not be upheld by
the Appellate Body, beyond its arguments concerning the alleged errors in the Panel's
interpretation of that provision.
672 According to Norway, because the Panel did not err in its
interpretation of Article I:1, the Appellate Bo dy should reject the European Union's appeal
regarding the Panel's conclusion under that provision.
2.236. Turning to the specific arguments raised by the European Union, Norway disagrees with
the European Union's assertion that the Panel's interpretation of these provisions is not supported
by the Appellate Body reports in Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes and
EC – Asbestos. With respect to the European Union's reliance on Dominican Republic – Import and
Sale of Cigarettes , Norway points out that, in US – Clove Cigarettes , the Appellate Body clarified
that, in the former dispute, it had rejected the complainant's claim under Article III:4 for reasons
other than any justification given for the detrimental impact caused by the measure on imported
products. Thus, the Appellate Body confirmed that the focus of the analysis under Article III:4 is
on whether the measure at issue "modif[ies] the conditions of competition in the marketplace to
the detriment of the group of imported products vis-à-vis the group of domestic like products".
673
2.237. Norway contends that the European Union's reliance on EC – Asbestos is also misplaced.
For Norway, the Appellate Body merely explained in that dispute that "Article III:4 is not violated
for the sole reason that objective distinctions are drawn between like products." 674 According to
Norway, "[t]he mere fact that a regulating Member may draw objective distinctions, under
Article III:4, between like products does not mean that, if the distinction gives rise to a
detrimental impact on imports, the regulating Member may justify those distinctions under
Article III:4."
675

667 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 98 (referring to European Union's other appellant's
submission, para. 85).
668 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 98 (quoting European Union's other appellant's submission,
para. 87).
669 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 98.
670 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 98 (referring to Appellate Body Reports, Korea – Various
Measures on Beef, fn 44 to para. 142; US – FSC (Article 21.5 – EC), para. 215; and China – Auto Parts,
para. 171).
671 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 101.
672 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 327.
673 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 266 (quoting Appellate Body Report, US – Clove Cigarettes,
para. 179).
674 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 272.
675 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 273.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.238. Norway further disagrees with the European Union's argument that, by failing to apply the
same test developed under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement to Articles I:1 and III:4 of the
GATT 1994, the Panel overlooked the context provided by Article III:1 of the GATT 1994. The
Appellate Body has emphasized that the role of Article III:1 in interpreting the remaining
paragraphs of Article III depends on whether Article III:1 is expressly invoked in the particular
paragraph of Article III.
676 Norway notes in this regard that Article III:1 is not expressly invoked in
Article III:4, and that the Appellate Body clar ified that the legal requirements set out in
Article III:4 are themselves an application of the general principle set forth in Article III:1. Thus, in
assessing whether there is less favourable treatment of imports under Article III:4, a panel is
required to examine whether the measure has a de trimental or "adverse impact on competitive
opportunities for imported versus like domestic products".
677 Norway asserts that, if it does, the
measure will not be in accordance with the "general principle" expressed in Article III:1, which is
"to ensure equality of competitive conditions between imported and like domestic products".678
2.239. Noting the European Union's argument that the test under Article III:2, second sentence,
of the GATT 1994 "'corresponds to the second step of the de facto discrimination analysis' under
Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement", Norway submit s that the European Union misunderstands the
legal standard under Article III:2, second sentence. 679 According to Norway, under Article III:2,
second sentence, a panel is not required to ente rtain "a justification for a tax measure that has
been found to have a detrimental impact" on the equality of competitive conditions for imported
products.
680 Instead, if dissimilar taxation results in such detrimental impact, then the respondent
may justify that detrimental impact under Article XX of the GATT 1994.
2.240. Norway further disagrees with the European Union's argument that the Panel's
interpretation of Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994 is incoherent with Article 2.1 of the
TBT Agreement. First, Norway considers th at the Appellate Body's statement, in US – Clove
Cigarettes, that the TBT Agreement and the GATT 1994 "should be interpreted in a coherent and
consistent manner" does not mean that the provisions of the two agreements should be given the
same meaning.
681 Norway notes in this regard the Appellate Body's statement in US – Tuna II
(Mexico) that the scope and content of Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement and of Articles I:1
and III:4 of the GATT 1994 are not the same.682
2.241. Second, Norway disagrees with the Europe an Union's argument that, because the list of
legitimate policy objectives under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement is open, in contrast to the
closed list of objectives under Article XX of the GATT 1994, the Panel's interpretation could lead to
diverging results under the two agreements. In No rway's view, the European Union overstates the
supposed gap between the list of policy interests that may justify a detrimental impact on imports
under the TBT Agreement and the GATT 1994. A ccording to Norway, although the range of
legitimate interests that may be pursued under Article 2.1 is wider than the range of interests
under Article XX, it is not wider than the range of interests reflected in all provisions of the covered
agreements. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is some policy interest that may
be pursued under the TBT Agreement, but not under the GATT 1994, "it would not be appropriate
to circumvent the drafters' decision by allowing a policy interest not reflected in the GATT 1994 to
justify a trade-restrictive measure under that Agreement."
683

676 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 279 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Japan – Alcoholic
Beverages II, p. 18, DSR 1996:I, p. 111).
677 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 286 (quoting Appellate Body Report, Thailand – Cigarettes
(Philippines), para. 134).
678 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 286 (quoting Appellate Body Report, Canada – Periodicals,
p. 18, DSR 1997:I, p. 464, in turn referring to GATT Panel Reports, US – Tobacco, para. 99; US – Malt
Beverages, para. 5.6; Canada – Provincial Liquor Boards (EEC), para. 5.6; US – Section 337 Tariff Act,
679 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 282 (quoting European Union's other appellant's submission,
para. 300).
680 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 283. (emphasis omitted)
681 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 288 (quoting European Union's other appellant's submission,
para. 302, in turn quoting Appellate Body Report, US – Clove Cigarettes, para. 91).
682 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 289 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Tuna II
(Mexico), para. 405).
683 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 300.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.242. Finally, in response to the European Union's argument that the Panel's interpretation of
Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994 renders Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement irrelevant,
Norway contends that the European Union ignores the "fundamental interpretative principle" that
the obligations in the different WTO covered agreements are cumulative. 684 Thus, "[a]bsent an
express statement modifying the cumulative application of the TBT Agreement and the GATT 1994,
there are no grounds to conclude that a measure could not be consistent with … Article 2.1 of the
TBT Agreement[] and inconsistent with … Article III:4 of the GATT 1994".
685
2.6.3 Article XX of the GATT 1994
2.243. In its appellee arguments under Article XX of the GATT 1994, Norway addresses certain of
the European Union's claims on appeal, including those concerning Article 2.1 of the
TBT Agreement. Norway submits, for instance, th at the European Union's appeal of the Panel's
finding that the IC exception does not bear a rational relationship to the measure's objective of
addressing the EU public moral concerns regarding seal welfare must be dismissed on the basis
that the European Union has not linked its argument that "the Panel erred in interpreting the term
'public morals' to the language of Arti cles 2.1 and 2.2" of the TBT Agreement.
686 According to
Norway, a party that alleges an error in a panel's " interpretation of the existing provisions of a
covered agreement … must somehow tie its claims and arguments to the words that are used in
the treaty." 687 Norway, therefore, requests the Appellat e Body to dismiss the European Union's
interpretative appeal insofar as it relates to Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.688
2.244. With respect to the notion of "public morals" under Article XX of the GATT 1994, Norway
argues that a panel cannot "simply accept the respondent's assertions on the precise and specific
content of an alleged moral that purportedly justifies a GATT-inconsistent measure, even when the
measure is adopted by the Member's 'representative institutions'". 689 Norway notes that
"[a] respondent could easily tailor the scope of an alleged moral norm to fit the precise contours of
the … legal norm that its legislator has adopted." 690 Norway is concerned that, if "the legislator's
adoption of the contested measure, effectively, becomes proof of the measure's asserted moral
objective", then "the respondent's justification of the measure becomes entirely circular", since the
measure is "ultimately justified by its own adoption".
691
2.245. Norway further asserts that "[t]he Panel engaged in careful scrutiny of the evidence and
rejected the view that the public moral at stake varied according to the type of seal hunt." 692
According to Norway, "the Panel saw no evidentiary basis to conclude that the adoption of the
IC requirements by the EU legislator reflected the establishment of a public moral that IC interests
are morally more important than seal welfare." 693 In sum, Norway submits that "the European
Union was unable to substantiate its assertion that the EU legislator acted on the basis of, or
established, a public moral in adopting the IC requirements."694
2.6.3.1 The Panel's analysis under the chapeau of Article XX
2.246. Norway also addresses in its appellee's submission the Panel's analysis of
even-handedness of the IC exception in the contex t of Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement. Norway
notes that the European Union's appeal under the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994 is
"closely intertwined" with its appeal under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement.
695 Norway argues
that, in the light of its own appeal under Article XX, the Appellate Body need not consider the
European Union's other appeal under the chapeau.696 In the event that the Appellate Body were to

684 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 304.
685 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 310.
686 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 145. (emphasis original)
687 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 144. (emphasis original)
688 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 147.
689 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 167 (quoting European Union's other appellant's submission,
para. 109). (emphasis omitted)
690 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 168.
691 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 170.
692 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 177.
693 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 182.
694 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 186.
695 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 332.
696 Norway's appellee's submission, paras. 335 and 370.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

address its other appeal, Norway submits that th e appeal should be dismissed because, when
considered on its own terms, the Panel was correct in finding that the IC exception is not designed
and applied in an even-handed manner.
697
2.247. Norway submits that, in its arguments on appeal, "the European Union misses the
rationale underpinning the Panel's finding." 698 According to Norway, the Panel's assessment of the
even-handedness of the IC exception did not rely so lely on the formal written requirements of the
exception, but also on the actual and expected operation of these requirements. As Norway sees
it, the Panel viewed the fact that only the Greenlandic hunt, which "bears all the hallmarks of a
large-scale commercial hunt", could benefit from the IC exception as an indication of a certain
"inherent flaw" in the IC requirements.
699 Norway further submits that, while the Panel accepted
that "a degree of commercialization could be accommodated under the subsistence hunts
qualifying as IC hunts, this commercial aspect could not transform the hunt [in]to, in essence, a
commercial hunt."700 Norway recalls that, during the legislative process leading up to the adoption
of the EU Seal Regime, "much narrower definitions of 'subsistence'" than the current formulation of
the IC requirements, which do not "specify the degree to which the hunt must be for 'subsistence'
purposes", were proposed and rejected by the EU legislators. 701 Norway submits that "the
Greenlandic hunt, which more closely resembles a commercial hunt, thereby benefits from the
absence of any definition in the measure that would ensure that qualifying hunts are truly
subsistence hunts."702
2.248. Norway further argues that the Panel di d not err in relying on its finding that the
IC exception is de facto only available to Greenland in drawing its conclusion on the
even-handedness of the IC exception. According to Norway, "the Panel explicitly acknowledged
that the fact that Greenland has so far been the only beneficiary under the IC requirements was
not … sufficient to establish arbitrariness in the design or application of the IC requirements", but
was "merely 'an indication' that had to be considered with other factors".
703 Norway further
submits that "the Panel adequately examined the implications" of the actions and omissions of the
Canadian authorities and operators.
704 Norway highlights the Panel's observation that "it is not
cost effective under the current circumstances to segregate [Canadian] Inuit products from other
products".705 Norway also underscores the Panel's suggestion that this result had been anticipated
by the EU legislator. Norway submits that the Eu ropean Union cannot claim that the requirements
of the IC exception do not discriminate against Cana dian Inuit when the EU legislator in fact knew
that this would be the case. According to Norway, it is because of the terms of the measure that
Canadian Inuit, who truly pursue a subsistence hunt, are effectively denied the choice to benefit
from the IC exception. Norway asserts that th e European Union is, therefore, wrong when it
argues that "the failure of the Canadian Inuit to de facto qualify under the IC requirements cannot
be 'attributed' to the EU Seal Regime, or the European Union".
706
2.249. Norway also takes issue with what it understands as the European Union's assertion that
the extent of the commercialization of the Greenlandic hunt is immaterial in determining
even-handedness, so long as the hunt satisfies the formal criteria for an IC hunt. Norway alleges
that, for the Panel, "the extent of commercialization of the Greenland hunt called into question the
very basis on which the distinction between th e IC and commercial hunt is supposedly drawn."
707
Norway submits that the Panel was right in focusing on the paradoxical result of the operation of
the IC requirements, namely, the fact that "ge nuine subsistence hunts were not benefitting from
the IC requirements, whereas the Greenlandic hunt, which more closely resembles a commercial

697 Norway's appellee's submission, paras. 336 and 372.
698 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 382.
699 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 384 (quoting Panel Reports, para. 7.306). (emphasis omitted)
700 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 388.
701 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 390 (referring to Parliament Report, pp. 34-35).
702 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 390.
703 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 394. (emphasis omitted)
704 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 395.
706 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 402.
707 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 406. (emphasis omitted)
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

hunt, was."708 In Norway's view, the Panel did not err in finding that these factors "'cast serious
doubt' on the even-handedness of the design and application" of the IC exception.709
2.250. Norway submits that the Panel was within its discretion as the trier of fact to weigh the
evidence and find that the European Union had no t met its burden of proving that the EU public
moral concerns regarding seal welfare vary according to the type of hunt. Norway agrees with
Canada that "[t]he Panel made its finding that 'the EU public concerns on seal welfare appear to be
related to seal hunts in general, not any particular type of seal hunts'" not solely on the basis of
the two polls and the public consultation, but rath er in "'light of the evidence before' it as a
whole".710 Norway notes that this evidence included non-governmental organization surveys that
indicated the absence of support for the proposition that the EU public's animal welfare concerns
vary according to the type of hunt, or that substantiated the opposite conclusion.
711
2.251. Norway further alleges that the European Union misreads a footnote in the Panel Reports
that explains why the Panel chose not to ascribe probative weight to the two polls and the public
consultation.
712 Norway argues that the Panel did not rely on these three pieces of evidence to
reach its finding, let alone exclusively rely on this evidence, as Norway understands the European
Union to be suggesting. In Norway 's view, the Panel inserted this footnote "to describe the basis
on which it [had] found that the European Union's evidence did not carry probative weight". 713
Norway submits that the European Union has failed to show that the Panel exceeded the bounds of
its discretion in doing so.
2.252. In response to the European Union's argument that the Panel failed to make an objective
assessment of the facts in finding that the text of the IC exception, its legislative history, and its
actual operation cast doubt on the even-hande dness of the design and application of the
exception, Norway submits that the Panel made no error in assessing these elements. Norway
argues that the Panel was correct in examining the text of the IC exception as the starting point of
its analysis. For Norway, the European Union's arguments regarding the Panel's assessment of the
legislative history of the IC exception miss the point. According to Norway, in this part of its
analysis, the Panel observed that the EU legislat or was aware of "these important differences"
between the Greenlandic hunt and the Canadian Inuit hunt in respect of their scale and their
capability to make the investments that are required to benefit, as a matter of fact, from the
IC exception.
714 Norway submits that the Panel made no error, in reviewing the facts, in reaching
this view. Norway also sees no error in the Pane l's consideration of the fact that Danish customs
authorities allowed imports from Greenland before the Greenlandic authorities had obtained the
status of a recognized body. For Norway, this fact illustrates that the IC exception has benefitted
Greenland in practice. Norway submits that the Panel made no error in its objective assessment by
weighing this fact, together with other facts, to find that the IC requirements lack
even-handedness.
2.253. In respect of the European Union's claim that the Panel erred in assessing the level of
development of the commercial aspect of the Greenlandic hunt, Norway submits that the European
Union's argument is "absurd" because "[t]he facts before the Panel regarding the commercial focus
of a large proportion of the … Greenlandic hunt we re compelling and the Panel made no error in
weighing them".
715 Norway notes that the volume of seal skins caught in Greenland that are sold
to Great Greenland A/S – at 95,000 skins annually – "dwarfs the size of the Norwegian
'commercial' seal hunt[s], all other indigenous hunts, and also represents an important amount of
total world trade".
716 Norway further highlights that only full-time hunters may sell seal skins to

708 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 407.
709 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 412.
710 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 207 (quoting Panel Reports, para. 7.410, in turn referring to
Royal Commission Report; and European Union's response to Panel question No. 31).
711 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 208 (referring to the public opinion surveys contained in Panel
Exhibits EU-49 to EU-59, in particular, EU-52 and EU-53).
712 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 209 (referring to Panel Reports, fn 676 to para. 7.410).
713 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 210. (emphasis omitted)
714 Norway's appellee's submission, paras. 429 and 430 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.315).
715 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 437.
716 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 438 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.457; COWI 2010
Report, pp. 23-36; and European Union's other appellant's submission, Table 3-1, at para. 256).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

Great Greenland A/S, which for Norway means that "the internationally traded seal skins are
produced as part of a supply chain that is necessarily commercial in nature".717
2.254. Norway further submits that the fact that the Greenland hunt is subsidized does not render
it non-commercial. According to Norway, producers benefiting from subsidies "still form part of the
commercial marketplace".718 Norway also points out that the European Union's position that the
scale of a hunt is irrelevant for a qualitative assessment of the commercial aspect of a hunt is
inconsistent with the European Union's argument before the Panel that scale had a fundamental
importance in distinguishing hunts under the rules of morality asserted by the European Union.
With respect to the European Union's argument that the Panel erred in finding a degree of
integration between the seal industries in Greenland, Canada, and Norway, Norway asserts that
the material presented by the European Union in its appeal itself supports the Panel's finding, as it
documents various interactions between the sealing industries in the three countries.
719 Norway
also does not see incoherent reasoning in the Panel's finding, on one hand, that "the purpose of
seal hunts in Greenland has characteristics that are closely related to that of commercial hunts"
and, on the other hand, what the European Union understands to be the Panel's finding that the
Greenlandic hunt has a "subsistence" character.
720 Norway notes that the degree of the
commercial aspect varies between indigenous hunts, and asserts that, in Greenland, the hunt is
commercial to a significant degree, "reaching levels that more [closely] resemble commercial
hunts".721 Accordingly, Norway sees no contradiction or incoherency in the Panel's reasoning.
2.6.3.2 The Panel's analysis under Article XX(b)
2.255. Norway requests the Appellate Body to reject the European Union's conditional claims of
error with respect to the Panel's findings under Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994. Norway submits
that, contrary to the European Union's arguments, the Panel made an objective assessment of the
facts as required by Article 11 of the DSU in finding that the European Union did not make a
prima facie case under Article XX(b). Norway highlights that, while the European Union identifies
three alleged factual errors by the Panel, it does not explain why these errors are "failures by the
Panel to objectively assess the facts, pursuant to the standard laid down by Article 11 of the DSU,
such that they may invalidate the entire conclusion of the Panel".
722 To the contrary, Norway
contends the Panel's statements were "accurate" and "within the bounds of its discretion". 723
Norway argues that the European Union "never submitted" that it pursued a "separate and distinct
objective of promoting seal welfare". 724 Rather, Norway adds, the paragraph to which the
European Union referred addresses the objectives of the measure under Article 2.2 of the
TBT Agreement, and is contained in a section in which the European Union "emphatically states"
that the EU Seal Regime pursued a "single public morals objective".
725 Norway argues that the
Panel's finding of the "limited extent" of the European Union's arguments with respect to
Article XX(b) is also "accurate" and within the bounds of the Panel's discretion. Norway observes
that, even in its other appellant's submission, the European Union refers to only three paragraphs
of its second written submission to the Panel. According to Norway, "[b]y any measure, this is
indeed an argument of 'limited extent', particularly one where the European Union bore the burden
of proof."726
2.256. Norway compares the European Union's failure to make a prima facie case under
Article XX(b) to the failure of Thailand to make a prima facie case under Article XX(d) in Thailand –
Cigarettes (Philippines). Specifically, Norway takes issue with the "erroneous", "ineffective"
cross-referencing by the European Union to other parts of its first written submission to the Panel,
and notes that the Appellate Body used ineffect ive or erroneous cross-referring as a basis for

717 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 438.
718 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 441.
719 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 447.
720 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 449. (fns omitted)
721 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 450.
722 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 471. (emphasis original)
723 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 472.
724 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 472.
725 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 472 (referring to European Union's second written submission
to the Panel, paras. 271-276). (emphasis original)
726 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 473.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

disposing of claims by the complainants in Thailand – Cigarettes (Philippines).727 In referring to its
arguments that the EU Seal Regime was "n ecessary" to protect "public morals" under
Article XX(a), Norway considers that the European Union failed to demonstrate how the arguments
and evidence with respect to public morals under Article XX(a) was relevant to claims regarding
animal health and life under Article XX(b). Norway submits that it is no "substitute" for a claim
under Article XX(b) to give "passing and scant reference" to arguments about public morals in
Article XX(a).
728 Moreover, Norway notes that the European Union, through its cross-referencing,
failed to provide legal arguments and evidence, based on the proper legal standard of necessity,
as to how the discriminatory aspects of the measure – i.e. the IC and MRM exceptions – are
necessary under Article XX(b). In Norway's view, the European Union's arguments before the
Panel dealing with the "necessity" analysis under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 and
Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement address "solely" the necessity of the prohibitive features
of the measure – i.e. the ban – and not the discrimination that has arisen from the IC and
MRM exceptions.
729 Finally, Norway notes that the European Union failed to identify or explain in
more than a "few lines" how the EU Seal Regime was justified under the chapeau, even assuming
that the EU Seal Regime pursued an independent objective under Article XX(b). 730 In particular,
Norway claims, since the risk of inhumane treatment of seals is the same in all countries where
seals are hunted, the European Union never explained how the distinction between IC and
MRM hunts, on the one hand, and the Norwegian and Canadian hunts, on the other hand, is not
"arbitrary and [un]justifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail"
under the chapeau.
731
2.257. Even if the Appellate Body were to reverse the Panel's finding under Article XX(b), and
proceed to complete the legal analysis, Norway requests the Appellate Body to find that the
EU Seal Regime is not justified under Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994.
732 Norway considers that,
under the proper legal test, the European Union has to show that the discriminatory aspects of the
measure – i.e. the IC and MRM exceptions – are necessary to protect the life and health of seals
under Article XX(b).
733 Norway contends that the EU Seal Regime, by providing market access to
seal products from the Greenlandic hunts, which has the worst animal welfare outcomes,
"undermines" seal welfare, even when considered "as a whole".734
2.6.4 Non-violation nullification or impairment in the sense of Article XXIII:1(b) of the
GATT 1994
2.258. Norway conditionally requests the Appella te Body to complete the legal analysis of
Norway's claim of non-violation nullification or im pairment in the sense of Article XXIII:1(b) of the
GATT 1994.735 Norway's request is conditional upon findings by the Appellate Body to the effect
that the EU Seal Regime is either not a technical regulation or not inconsistent with Article 2.2 of
the TBT Agreement, and that the EU Seal Regime is not inconsistent with the GATT 1994. Norway
refers to the materials set forth in its submissions before the Panel with respect to its claim under
Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994. Norway co nsiders that these materials provide sufficient
uncontested evidence for the Appellate Body to complete the analysis.736

727 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 482 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Thailand – Cigarettes
(Philippines), para. 180).
728 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 484.
729 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 487. (emphasis omitted)
730 Norway's appellee's submission, paras. 489 and 490 (referring to European Union's first written
731 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 490 (quoting European Union's first written submission to the
Panel, para. 590).
732 Norway's appellee's submission, paras. 492 and 493.
733 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 493.
734 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 494.
735 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 497.
736 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 502 (referring to Norway's first written submission to the
Panel, section VIII; response to Panel question No. 51, paras. 266-285; second written submission to the
Panel, section VIII; opening statement at the second Panel meeting; as well as to all of the evidence referred
to in these sections of Norway's submissions to the Panel).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.7 Arguments of the third participants
2.7.1 Ecuador
2.259. Pursuant to Rule 24(4) of the Working Procedures, Ecuador chose not to submit a third
participant's submission, but it did make an open ing statement at the oral hearing. Due to its
systemic interest in the interpretation of Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, Ecuador wishes to
address the Panel's finding that the distinction between commercial and IC hunts is justified.
Ecuador supports the Panel's consideration of subsistence as including income generating activities
necessary to support traditional forms of life for indigenous communities, and its reference to
international instruments to inform its analysis. Ecuador moreover considers that the Panel was
correct to evaluate the relevant distinction through a case-by-case approach.
2.7.2 Iceland
2.260. Iceland focuses on the test established by the Panel for ascertaining whether a measure
aims to address a "public morals" concern, namely: (i) whether the concern in question exists in
the society of the regulating Member; and (ii) whether this concern falls within the scope of "public
morals" as defined and applied by the regulating Member "in its territory, according to its own
systems and scales of values".
737 Iceland argues that this test differs significantly from previous
WTO jurisprudence and results "in a considerable extension" of what constitutes "public morals"
within the meaning of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. 738 Iceland also maintains that the Panel
failed to explain what "standard of right and wr ong conduct" exists in the European Union that
makes selling seal products a public morals concern. 739 Iceland further emphasizes that the
exceptions under the EU Seal Regime appear seriously to undermine the same moral principle that
the measure allegedly aims to protect. 740 Thus, Iceland suggests that the reference to the
protection of the life and health of animals under Article 2.2 is sufficient to address concerns
related to animal welfare, and there is no need to make the "public morals" provision a "catch-all"
exception.741
2.261. With respect to Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, Iceland takes issue with the Panel's test on
how to assess whether a measure aims to address a "public morals" concern. 742 Iceland highlights
that the Panel's approach in the present disputes differs from the approach taken by the panel in
US – Gambling , because, in that case, the panel based its conclusion that public moral concerns
existed on the "prior associations between the co ncern in question (gambling) and the concept of
'public morals', particularly in the context of earlier multilateral trade negotiations". 743 By contrast,
Iceland notes that the present Panel adopts a two-pronged test, which seeks to determine:
(i) whether a concern exists in the society in question; and (ii) whether that concern, according to
the system and scale of values in the Member concerned, falls within the scope of "public
morals".
744 This approach, Iceland contends, provides "l ittle in terms of actually clarifying the
scope of 'public morals'", because the Panel's reasoning is "tautolog[ical]", as it appears to suggest
that the European Union's claim of acting to addr ess the concerns of its public was "proof enough"
that it was acting out of public concern. 745 Moreover, Iceland argues that "[t]he Panel only
provide[d] a general statement to the effect that animal welfare is a matter of ethical or moral
nature in the European Union."
746 In Iceland's view, the Panel's test suggests that it is "sufficient
to declare that a measure was taken because a 'concern' existed, and establish a link between this
'concern' and an abstract moral issue".747

737 Iceland's third participant's submission, para. 7 (quoting Panel Reports, para. 7.383).
738 Iceland's third participant's submission, para. 9.
739 Iceland's third participant's submission, para. 13.
740 Iceland's third participant's submission, para. 15.
741 Iceland's third participant's submission, para. 17.
742 Iceland's third participant's submission, para. 7 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.383).
743 Iceland's third participant's submission, para. 8 (referring to Panel Reports, US – Gambling,
744 Iceland's third participant's submission, para. 10 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.383).
745 Iceland's third participant's submission, para. 11 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.389).
746 Iceland's third participant's submission, para. 13.
747 Iceland's third participant's submission, para. 13.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.262. Iceland submits that the Panel erred when it stated that "the exceptions to the EU Seal
Regime must be distinguished from the main objective of the measure as a whole" because, if a
measure is supposed to serve a "moral principle", then the existence of such a principle "must be
assessed on the basis of the measure as a whole, including its exceptions".
748 Furthermore,
Iceland submits that there is "no need to rely on the notion of 'public morals' to justify measures
taken to meet animal welfare concerns", and Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement and Article XX(b) of
the GATT 1994 are "entirely sufficient" to address animal welfare concerns.
749 In Iceland's view,
the "public morals" provisions, such as Article XX(a), should not be a "catch-all" exception that
Members can rely on when they cannot justify their measures under other provisions. 750 Finally,
Iceland takes issue with the Panel's approach to the less trade-restrictive alternative measures
proposed by the complainants. According to Icelan d, the Panel considered that "the alternative
measures should be assessed on the basis of the professed objective of the measure", and not the
"actual contribution" of a measure "in reality".
751 According to Iceland, the "problem" with such an
approach is "not only that a guarantee of this sort would be hard to meet in any trade with animal
products, but that the EU Seal Regime itself pate ntly does not prevent marketing of seal products
that may be derived from sealing with poor animal welfare outcomes". 752 Instead, Iceland
suggests that the alternative measures should be assessed on the basis of the "actual
contribution" of the EU Seal Regime to its objective.753 Under such an approach, Iceland concludes,
Canada's and Norway's proposed alternatives would "easily meet" the requirement of making an
"equivalent or greater" contribution to the fulfilment of the EU Seal Regime's objective.
754
2.7.3 Japan
2.263. Japan submits that, in order to analyse whether the regulatory distinction that gives rise to
a detrimental impact on imported products is ev en-handed or legitimate, the Panel should have
carried out an analysis involving the following four steps: (i) an examination of whether the
regulatory distinction is rationally connected to the objective of the measure; (ii) if this is not the
case, an examination of whether there is any other rationale that can justify the regulatory
distinction; (iii) an analysis of whether the distinction is rationally connected to this rationale; and
(iv) an inquiry into whether the distinction is actually calibrated towards the rationales or
objectives pursed by the distinction.
755 Japan considers that a regulatory distinction that
undermines the stated objective of a measure can manifestly not be justified on the basis of the
alleged legitimacy of that objective. Unless the regulatory distinction is justifiable under a different
rationale, there would then be a presumption that such a regulatory distinction cannot be
considered as legitimate.
2.264. Japan submits that a "conflict" between th e regulatory distinction and the stated objective
of a measure would seem "impossible to justify" unless it is the "necessary consequence" of the
need to protect certain justifiable policy object ives that would otherwise be impaired by the
measure.
756 Japan considers that any such policy objectives must themselves be justifiable as
"separate legitimate objectives" 757, and that there must be a "rational connection" between the
policy objective and the regulatory distinction at issue. 758 Moreover, Japan suggests that the
regulatory distinction must be calibrated to the rationale or objective that it pursues.
2.265. Japan considers that, in the present disputes, the analysis under Article 2.1 should focus
on the regulatory distinction between commercial hunts, on the one hand, and IC and MRM hunts,
on the other hand, since this is the distinction that causes the detrimental impact on the
competitive opportunities of imported seal products. In Japan's view, the Panel erred when it
analysed the even-handedness of the distinction by comparing the treatment of seal products from
IC hunts in Canada and Greenland. Japan underscores that it is the regulatory distinction between

748 Iceland's third participant's submission, para. 15 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.402).
749 Iceland's third participant's submission, para. 17.
750 Iceland's third participant's submission, para. 17.
751 Iceland's third participant's submission, para. 20.
752 Iceland's third participant's submission, para. 19 (referring to European Union's appellee's
submission, para. 127).
753 Iceland's third participant's submission, para. 20.
754 Iceland's third participant's submission, para. 20.
755 Japan's third participant's submission, para. 8.
756 Japan's third participant's submission, para. 13.
757 Japan's third participant's submission, para. 14.
758 Japan's third participant's submission, para. 17.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

commercial hunts and IC hunts that causes the detrimental impact, not the differences in
application of the IC exception to seal products derived from different IC hunts. In Japan's view,
the Panel should have examined instead whether th e similarities and differences in characteristics
of commercial hunts and IC hunts are such that the distinction drawn by the European Union
allows the differentiation among seal products according to the two conflicting objectives of
addressing the moral concerns of the EU public regarding the welfare of seals while protecting
IC interests. According to Japan, such a calibratio n exercise requires a detailed examination of the
similarities between IC hunts and commercial hunts and the identification of the aspects of
IC hunts that are necessary to ensure the subsistence of indigenous communities.
759
2.266. Japan further comments in its submission on two issues under Article 2.2 of the
TBT Agreement: (i) the degree of contribution to the legitimate objective of the measure at issue
and the alternative measures; and (ii) the "arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination" test. First,
Japan asserts that the Panel's finding that the EU Seal Regime makes "some contribution" or
contributes "to a certain extent" to the legitimate objective does not reveal the actual "degree" of
contribution of the measure to its objective.
760 Given that it failed to ascertain this degree of
contribution, the Panel could not have properly reached a conclusion as to whether the alternative
measure could make an "equivalent or greater" contribution to the objective.
761
2.267. Second, Japan argues that, contrary to Norway's contention, the requirement that a
technical regulation does not give rise to an "arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination" is provided
under the sixth recital of the preamble of the TB T Agreement, and can neither be transposed to,
nor read as a separate and independent test from, Article 2.2. The wording of Article 2.2 already
reflects the balance between trade-liberalization and the Members' right to regulate trade by
concerning itself with "restrictions on internationa l trade that exceed what is necessary to achieve
the degree of contribution that a technical regula tion makes to the achievement of a legitimate
objective".
762 Being an aspect separate from the issue of a measure's consistency with the
TBT Agreement, the text of the sixth recital canno t, according to Japan, be made part of such
inquiry.
2.268. In its opening statement at the oral hearing, Japan made submissions concerning the
European Union's other appeal of the Panel's interpretation of Articles I:1 and III:4 of the
GATT 1994. With regard to the European Union's appeal of the Panel's finding that the legal
standard for the non-discrimination obligations under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement does not
apply equally to claims under Articles I:1 and III:4, Japan observes that there are textual
differences between Articles I:1 of the GATT 1 994 and Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement. In
addition, Japan notes that the "legitimate regulato ry distinction" test under Article 2.1 has been
developed primarily in the context of the national treatment obligation, and having regard to the
text of Article III:4 but not of Article I:1.
2.269. Japan further notes the European Union's argument that, because the list of possible
legitimate objectives that may factor into an analysis under Article 2.1 is open, in contrast to the
closed list of objectives enumerated under Article XX of the GATT 1994, the Panel's interpretation
might lead to a situation where a technical regulation could be considered non-discriminatory
under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, but still violate Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, because
the legitimate objective it pursues is not covered under Article XX.
763 Japan agrees that the
objectives that can justify a measure under Article XX are limited. Japan submits, however, that
the legitimate objectives to be considered under Article 2.1 are not unlimited. In this connection,
Japan points out that, in the context of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, the Appellate Body, in
US – Tuna II (Mexico), considered several factors that may inform what might be considered to be
a legitimate objective under Article 2.2. These factors, Japan submits, also inform what might be
considered to be a legitimate objective under Article 2.1.

759 Japan's third participant's submission, para. 20.
760 Japan's third participant's submission, para. 25 (referring to Panel Reports, paras. 7.443 and 7.460).
761 Japan's third participant's submission, para. 27 (referring to Panel Reports, paras. 7.446 and 7.479).
762 Japan's third participant's submission, para. 36 (quoting Appellate Body Report, US – Tuna II
(Mexico), para. 319).
763 Japan's opening statement at the oral hearing.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

2.270. Japan considers further that an argument in favour of the European Union's interpretation
of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 is that Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement provides relevant context
for the interpretation of Article III:4 when the measure at issue is a technical regulation. 764 Japan,
however, expresses some concerns with this approach. First, Japan notes that this approach does
not appear to be consistent with the existing case law of the Appellate Body under which
"treatment no less favourable", within the meaning of Article III:4, is assessed by examining
whether a measure modifies the conditions of competition in the relevant market to the detriment
of like imported products. Second, Japan adds that, "if some flexibility" were introduced into
Article III:4, the question would arise as to whether this would render Article XX of the GATT 1994
meaningless.
765
2.271. Regarding the Panel's analysis under Article XX of the GATT 1994, Japan considers that the
Appellate Body's observations in Thailand – Cigarettes (Philippines) "imply that what a panel needs
to focus on in an Article XX examination is the aspects leading to a finding of less favourable
treatment".
766 Japan notes, however, that, in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , the Appellate Body
suggested that the panel "might have opted for a more holistic approach" by examining the import
ban at issue in combination with the MERCOSUR exemption, and whether the "combined measure"
or the "resulting partial import ban" could be considered necessary within the meaning of
Article XX(b) invoked in that case. 767 In the present case, Japan understands the Panel to have
followed such a "more holistic" approach. 768 According to Japan, it was "essential to take into
account the ban together with the IC and MRM exceptions".769
2.272. With respect to the "necessity" test under Article XX(a), Japan notes that, although both
Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement and Article XX of the GATT 1994 require a determination of the
contribution of the measure to the achievement of a particular objective, the legal standard or
"test" under the two provisions is "clearly different". 770 Under Article 2.2, Japan notes that the
analysis is not focused on whether a technical regulation is "necessary" to achieve the legitimate
objective identified, but on whether "the technical regulation is not 'more trade-restrictive than
necessary to fulfil the legitimate objective'".
771 Japan adds that, under Article 2.2, a technical
regulation is not required to achieve a "certain degree of contribution" to the legitimate
objective.772 Japan considers that, under Article XX(a), when examining whether a measure is
"necessary to protect public morals", the issue is not whether a measure makes "a" or "some"
contribution to the protection of public morals, but, instead, whether the measure at issue "is
closer to the pole of indispensable rather than simply making a contribution to protect public
morals".
773 In Japan's view, to the extent that the "necessity" test under Article XX(a) requires
that a measure must "make[] a material contribution" to its objective, it appears that the Panel's
finding of "some contribution" or a contribution "to a certain extent", with respect to the EU Seal
Regime's contribution, would not meet the "necessity" requirement under Article XX(a).774
2.273. Japan also disagrees with the Panel's reliance on its "legitimate regulatory distinction"
analysis under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement in its analysis under the chapeau of Article XX for
two reasons. First, Japan notes that the Panel's "extrapolation" of its Article 2.1 analysis to its
assessment under the chapeau of Article XX does not include any analysis of the text of the two
provisions.
775 Second, Japan considers that, to the extent that the "legitimate regulatory
distinction" test involves "taking into account rationales other than the one which has been

764 Japan's opening statement at the oral hearing.
765 Japan's opening statement at the oral hearing.
766 Japan's third participant's submission, para. 45 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Thailand –
Cigarettes (Philippines), para. 177).
767 Japan's third participant's submission, para. 45 (quoting Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded
Tyres, para. 126).
768 Japan's third participant's submission, para. 46.
769 Japan's third participant's submission, para. 47.
770 Japan's third participant's submission, para. 49 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Tuna II
(Mexico), para. 317).
771 Japan's third participant's submission, para. 50.
772 Japan's third participant's submission, para. 50.
773 Japan's third participant's submission, para. 52 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Brazil –
Retreaded Tyres, para. 141, in turn referring to Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef,
para. 161).
774 Japan's third participant's submission, para. 53 (quoting Panel Reports, paras. 7.637, 7.460,
and 7.638, respectively).
775 Japan's third participant's submission, para. 61.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

provisionally justified under one of the paragraphs of Article XX", it is contrary to the test under
the chapeau as developed in WTO jurisprudenc e, namely that the rationale or cause of
discrimination be rationally connected to the objective of the measure.776
2.7.4 Mexico
2.274. Mexico agrees with the participants and the Panel that, under Annex 1.1 to the
TBT Agreement, "the proper legal character of the measure should be determined by examining
the measure as a whole, in a holistic manner." 777 At the same time, Mexico disagrees with what it
sees as a "mechanistic test" proposed by the European Union that would seem "to require a
different type of analysis when not every component of the measure at issue meet[s] the definition
of a 'technical regulation' in isolation".778
2.275. Mexico recalls that the Appellate Body established a two-step test for discrimination under
Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement. This test invo lves, first, an assessment of whether the measure
at issue modifies the conditions of competition to the detriment of imported products and, second,
an inquiry as to whether this detrimental impact stems exclusively from a legitimate regulatory
distinction. Mexico takes issue with the Panel's deci sion to divide the second step of the analysis
into three separate questions. Mexico agrees with Canada that the questions of whether a
distinction is rationally connected to the objective of a measure or whether it is otherwise justified
should be part of the overall assessment of th e even-handedness of the relevant regulatory
distinction.779
2.276. Mexico further observes that the Panel appears to equate even-handedness to the absence
of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination. Mexico submits that the Appellate Body has not limited
the meaning of even-handedness in this way, but instead has considered the presence of arbitrary
and unjustifiable discrimination as an example of a lack of even-handedness. 780 In Mexico's view,
any fact that could indicate a lack of even-handedness is relevant to the examination, including a
consideration of whether a measure is a disguised restriction on trade, or whether it is fair,
impartial, reasonable, and harmonious, having regard to the objective it pursues.
2.277. Mexico agrees with Canada that the Panel should have included "the risks non-fulfilment
would create" – namely, "the nature of the risks at issue and gravity of consequences that would
arise from non-fulfilment of the objective[s] pursued by the Member through the measure" – as
the third factor in its assessment of "necessity" under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.
781 Further,
Mexico argues that, in the comparative analysis of the challenged measure and the possible
alternative, ascertaining the degree of contribution of the latter "means more than simply 'having
the same result' or a similar narrow definition that would apply to 'equivalent contribution' when
viewed in isolation".
782 Thus, Mexico contends that, in such a comparative analysis, the degree of
contribution of the alternative measure to the legitimate objective does not have to be the same
as that of the challenged measure, but could also be of a lesser degree if it is justified in the light
of the risks non-fulfilment would create. In Mexico's view, "[t]his interpretation is consistent with
the concept of proportionality."
783
2.278. Mexico submits that the European Union's interpretation of Articles I:1 and III:4 of the
GATT 1994 would undermine the scope and application of these provisions. In Mexico's view, a
measure accords less favourable treatment to imported products compared to like domestic
products under Article III:4 where it modifies the conditions of competition in the relevant market
to the detriment of the like imported products. Noting the Appellate Body's statement that the

776 Japan's third participant's submission, para. 62 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Brazil –
Retreaded Tyres, paras. 225-228).
777 Mexico's third participant's submission, para. 6.
778 Mexico's third participant's submission, para. 6 (referring to the European Union's other appellant's
submission, para. 77).
779 Mexico's third participant's submission, para. 9 (referring to Canada's appellant's submission,
para. 66).
780 Mexico's third participant's submission, para. 10 (referring to Appellate Body Reports, US – Clove
Cigarettes, paras. 95 and 271; and US – COOL, paras. 272, 293, 340, and 341).
781 Mexico's third participant's submission, para. 18 (referring to Canada's appellant's submission,
paras. 303-306; and quoting Appellate Body Reports, US – COOL, para. 378).
782 Mexico's third participant's submission, para. 22.
783 Mexico's third participant's submission, para. 23.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

term "treatment no less favourable" in Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement is to be interpreted in the
light of the specific context provided by that ag reement, Mexico agrees with the Panel that the
additional element that the Appellate Body considered as necessary to complete an analysis under
Article 2.1 reflects the absence in the TBT Agreement of a general exceptions clause equivalent to
that of Article XX of the GATT 1994.
784 In Mexico's view, because of this difference between the
TBT Agreement and the GATT 1994, there is no le gal basis to introduce into Article III:4 the
two-step approach that has been developed for determining de facto less favourable treatment
under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement.
2.7.5 Namibia
2.279. Pursuant to Rule 24(4) of the Working Procedures, Namibia chose not to submit a third
participant's submission, but it did make an opening statement at the oral hearing. Namibia
submits that the Panel erred under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. In Namibia's view, there is
no logical connection for upholding the ban under the EU Seal Regime in order to protect public
morals. Namibia contends that, by allowing the ban for seals emanating from outside the European
Union, while animal welfare or public moral considerations are not applied to seal products
originating in the European Union, the Panel's ruling condones for the European Union what it
condemns for others. Namibia further contends that "public morals" is not a legitimate objective
within the meaning of Article 2.2, and that, given th at it is an important issue, the drafters would
have listed it in the list of legitimate objectives under Article 2.2 if they had wanted to include it.
In addition, the travaux préparatoires make no reference to "public morals". Namibia expresses its
concern that, absent an explicit reference to pu blic morals in a challenged measure, a Member
may seek ex post facto to adjust the content of the objective to justify the measure.
2.280. Namibia also criticizes the Panel for not referring to legislation and regulations of Namibia
that illustrate that compliance and monitoring in respect of seal harvesting can be achieved.
Namibia urges the Appellate Body to take into account the stringent measures that Namibia has
put in place for the protection of animal welfare, including the protection of seal welfare.
2.7.6 United States
2.281. The United States argues that, within the meaning of Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement,
"[a] measure that simply prohibits the sale of a product does not prescribe a product
characteristic."
785 Instead, a measure with different aspects "would need to be analyzed separately
for purposes of the definition in the TBT Agreement".786
2.282. The United States observes that WTO Members may ban the sale of products for various
reasons, and, as part of the effort to prevent the sale of those products, a WTO Member "may also
ban the sale of products containing the banned product".
787 It is not clear to the United States
why, under the Panel's logic, this action "would result in a finding every time that the ban should
be considered to be a technical regulation".788 For the United States, the Panel's finding that a ban
prescribes product characteristics in the negative – "no product sold can contain the banned
product" – does not appear to be consistent with the text of the Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement,
read in its context, and in the light of the object and purpose of the Agreement.789 Referring to the
1991 sixth edition of the ISO/IEC general terms and definitions concerning standardization 790
(ISO/IEC Guide), the United States points out that the focus of standards, as well as technical
regulations, "is on ensuring that a product is fit for its purpose or aim".791 By contrast, the purpose
of a technical regulation "is not to ban a product but to ensure that the product possesses or does
not possess a product characteristic that makes it usable, compatible, safe, protective of the
environment or health, etc." 792 Consequently, "to the extent that a measure bans the sale of a

784 Mexico's third participant's submission, para. 29 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.585).
785 United States' third participant's submission, para. 30.
786 United States' third participant's submission, para. 31.
787 United States' third participant's submission, para. 32.
788 United States' third participant's submission, para. 32.
789 United States' third participant's submission, para. 32 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.106).
790 International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission,
Guide 2:1991 – General terms and their definitions concerning standardization and related activities, 6th edn.
791 United States' third participant's submission, para. 35 (referring to ISO/IEC Guide, definitions for
"standardization", "aims of standardization", and "product standard").
792 United States' third participant's submission, para. 35.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

product, rather than prescribing that the pr oduct possess or not possess a certain product
characteristic, the measure is not a technical regulation."793
2.283. Moreover, the United States submits that the criteria under the exceptions provide that
any seal inputs in a product "must result from certain processes or production methods" 794, which,
in the United States' view, "are unrelated to the characteristics of the product". 795 The
United States underscores that the PPMs referred to in the definition of a "technical regulation" are
those that relate to product characteristics. Th e United States notes that, under Annex 1.1, the
administrative provisions must apply to product characteristics or their related PPMs. For the
United States, it is therefore important to ascertain whether the administrative provisions at issue
apply to product characteristics or PPMs that ar e related to product characteristics, "or whether
they instead apply to PPMs that are not related to product characteristics, such as the nature of
the hunt involved".
796 The United States further argues that the EU Seal Regime bans seal
products based not on the characteristics of the products, but on the type of hunt that resulted in
the seal product.
797 Consequently, according to the United States, the EU Seal Regime would not
appear to be a "technical regulation".
2.284. The United States submits that, because the "critical phrases" of Article III:4 of the
GATT 1994 and Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement ar e "identically worded", the two provisions
must, under the customary rules of interpretation of public international law, have the same
ordinary meaning.798 The United States contends that neit her the context of these provisions, nor
the object and purpose of the agreements in whic h they appear, indicates that the identical terms
in these provisions should have different meanings. For the United States, the second recital of the
preamble of the TBT Agreement – "Desiring to further the objectives of the GATT 1994" – also
indicates that Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 and Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement should be
interpreted in the same way.799
2.285. The United States further contends that th e Panel's interpretations of Articles I:1 and III:4
of the GATT 1994 create an incoherent and incons istent relationship between the TBT Agreement
and the GATT 1994. Noting that the Appellate Body has concluded that the TBT Agreement and the
GATT 1994 "should be interpreted in a coherent and consistent manner", the United States
maintains that the Panel's interpretations of Arti cle III:4 of the GATT 1994 and Article 2.1 of the
TBT Agreement are contrary to the principle that Article III:4 serves as relevant context for the
interpretation of Article 2.1.
2.286. In the United States' view, the Appellate Body's finding in US – Clove Cigarettes that
Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement does not prohib it technical regulations reflecting "solely"
legitimate regulatory distinctions "followed naturally" from the context of past Appellate Body
reports examining Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.
800 Thus, interpreting Article III:4 and Article 2.1
as setting forth different legal standards would be contradictory, given the origin of the Appellate
Body's approach to the interpretation of Article 2.1.
801
2.287. The United States rejects Canada's suggestion that the EU Seal Regime fails to make any
contribution to its objective because it does not completely prevent consumers from being exposed
to seal products from inhumanely killed seals.
802 In the view of the United States, a challenged
measure is not inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement merely because it does not fulfil
its legitimate objective completely. The United States adds that a proposed alternative must then
be assessed to determine whether it would achieve the legitimate objective at the level chosen by
the Member. The United States further contends that Canada conflates the legal tests under

793 United States' third participant's submission, para. 38.
794 United States' third participant's submission, para. 39.
795 United States' third participant's submission, para. 40.
796 United States' third participant's submission, para. 43.
797 United States' opening statement at the oral hearing.
798 United States' third participant's submission, paras. 5 and 6, respectively.
799 United States' third participant's submission, para. 6 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Clove
Cigarettes, para. 91).
800 United States' third participant's submission, para. 15 (referring to Appellate Body Reports, US –
Clove Cigarettes, paras. 91 and 100; US – Tuna II (Mexico), paras. 214 and 215; and US – COOL, para. 269).
801 United States' third participant's submission, para. 16 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US –
Clove Cigarettes, para. 91).
802 United States' opening statement at the oral hearing.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement and Article XX of the GATT 1994. According to the United States,
Article 2.2 is not about whether the measure is necessary to achieve the designated objective, but
rather whether the trade-restrictiveness of the measure is greater than necessary. Additionally,
the United States maintains that Norway conflates these two provisions by arguing that Article 2.2
prohibits arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination. The United States asserts that Article 2.2 is not
about discrimination, but rather about whether a measure is more trade restrictive than necessary.
2.288. The United States submits further that th e Panel's interpretation of Article III:4 of the
GATT 1994 "establishes the illogical possibility that a technical regulation could be found to be
consistent with the national treatment obligation" of the TBT Agreement, but "inconsistent with the
same national treatment language in the more general agreement, the GATT 1994".
803 According
to the United States, "[t]he Panel's interpretation would yield this result for a whole class of
measures, namely technical regulations that pursue objectives that fall outside of the scope of
Article XX" of the GATT 1994, and that "result in a detrimental impact" on imported products that
"stems exclusively from legitimate regulatory distinctions".804
2.289. The United States submits that the Panel' s interpretation of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994
"contradicts the principle that the [TBT Agreemen t and the GATT 1994] strike the same balance"
between trade-liberalization and Me mbers' right to regulate trade. 805 The United States explains
that the list of possible legitimate objectives that may justify a technical regulation is "open and
broad" under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, while Article XX of the GATT 1994 presents a
closed list of legitimate objectives. 806 Thus, under the Panel's interpretation of Article III:4 of the
GATT 1994, the balance between Members' right to regulate trade and the general interest of
trade-liberalization would be completely different under the GATT 1994 and the TBT Agreement.
Under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, technical regulations serving objectives that fall outside
the scope of Article XX of the GATT 1994 could be justified, while, under the Panel's interpretation
of Article III:4, measures serving these same objectives could not be justified.
2.290. With respect to Article XX of the GATT 1994, the United States submits that Article XX(a)
does not require some prescribed degree of consistency between public moral concerns in different
situations.807 As regards the Panel's reliance upon its assessment under Article 2.1 of the
TBT Agreement for the purposes of its analysis und er the chapeau of Article XX, the United States
submits that the question under Article 2.1 is whether the measure discriminates, while the
question under the chapeau is whether any discrimination is arbitrary or unjustifiable. According to
the United States, while the analysis under Article 2.1 can end once discrimination is found, this is
only the "starting point" for the analysis under the chapeau of Article XX, and the chapeau
becomes relevant only once discrimination has been found. Finally, the United States expresses its
concern about Canada's and Norway's reading of the Appellate Body report in Brazil – Retreaded
Tyres, and submits that the chapeau does not limit the justification for discrimination only to a
justification based on the objective under the relevant subparagraph of Article XX, rather than
other "legitimate and non-protectionist" objectives.

803 United States' third participant's submission, para. 19.
804 United States' third participant's submission, para. 20.
805 United States' third participant's submission, para. 22 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US –
Clove Cigarettes, para. 109).
806 United States' third participant's submission, para. 23.
807 United States' opening statement at the oral hearing.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

3 ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS
3.1. The following issues are raised in these appeals:
a. whether the Panel erred in finding that the EU Seal Regime constitutes a "technical
regulation" within the meaning of Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement (raised by the
European Union);
b. with respect to the Panel's analysis under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement:
i. whether the Panel erred in formulating and applying the legal test under Article 2.1
(raised by Canada);
ii. whether the Panel erred in finding that the IC exception bears no "rational
relationship" to the objective of the EU Seal Regime (raised by the European Union);
iii. whether the Panel erred in finding that the regulatory distinction between
commercial and IC hunts is justifiable (raised by Canada);
iv. whether the Panel erred in finding that the EU Seal Regime is inconsistent with
Article 2.1 because the IC exception is not designed and applied even-handedly
(raised by the European Union); and
v. whether the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in its analysis of:
- whether the IC exception is designed and applied even-handedly (raised by the
European Union);
- the relationship between the IC except ion and the objective of the EU Seal
Regime (raised by the European Union); and
- whether commercial hunts and IC hunts can be distinguished on the basis that
IC hunts are primarily for the purpose of subsistence (raised by Canada).
c. with respect to the Panel's identification of the objective of the EU Seal Regime, whether
the Panel erred under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, and acted inconsistently with
Article 11 of the DSU, in finding that the obje ctive of the EU Seal Regime is to address
EU public moral concerns regarding seal welfare (raised by Norway);
d. with respect to the Panel's analysis under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement:
i. whether the Panel erred under Article 2.2, and acted inconsistently with Article 11 of
the DSU, in its relational analysis, including with respect to the contribution of the
EU Seal Regime to its objective, and the less trade-restrictive alternatives (raised by
Canada and Norway), and the risks that non-fulfilment would create (raised by
Canada); and
ii. whether the Panel erred in failing to address "arbitrary or unjustifiable
discrimination" in its analysis under Article 2.2 (raised by Norway);
e. with respect to the Panel's analysis under Article I:1 and Article III:4 of the GATT 1994,
whether the Panel erred:
i. in finding that the legal standard of the non-discrimination obligations under
Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement does not apply equally to claims under Article I:1
and Article III:4 (raised by the European Union); and
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

ii. in finding that the EU Seal Regime is inconsistent with Article I:1 because, through
the IC exception, it does not "immediately and unconditionally" extend the same
market access advantage accorded to seal products of Greenlandic origin to like seal
products of Canadian and Norwegian origin (raised by the European Union);
f. with respect to the Panel's analysis under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, whether the
Panel erred in:
i. concluding that the analysis under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 should examine
the prohibitive and permissive aspects of the EU Seal Regime (raised by Norway);
ii. concluding that the objective of the EU Seal Regime falls within the scope of
Article XX(a) (raised by Canada); and
iii. in finding that the EU Seal Regime is provisionally deemed necessary within the
meaning of Article XX(a) (raised by Canada and Norway);
g. if the Appellate Body were to uphold the Panel's finding under Article I:1 of the
GATT 1994, and were to reverse the Panel's finding under Article XX(a) of the
GATT 1994, then whether the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in
finding that the European Union has failed to establish a prima facie case in respect of its
claim under Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994 (raised by the European Union); and
h. with respect to the Panel's analysis under the chapeau of Article XX, whether the Panel
erred:
i. by applying the test developed under Arti cle 2.1 of the TBT Agreement to determine
the existence of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination (raised by Canada and
Norway); and, if so, whether the Panel erred in finding that "the IC exception does
not bear a rational relationship to the objective of addressing the moral concerns of
the public on seal welfare" (raised by the European Union);
ii. in finding that the distinction between commercial and IC hunts is justifiable (raised
by Canada); and
iii. in finding that the manner in which the IC exception is designed and applied does not
meet the requirements of the chapeau (raised by the European Union).
4 BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURE AT ISSUE
4.1. Before addressing the participants' claims on appeal, we provide an overview of the measure
at issue in these disputes.
808 As noted by the Panel, the measure consists of the following two legal
instruments:
a. Regulation (EC) No. 1007/2009 of the Euro pean Parliament and of the Council of
16 September 2009 on trade in seal products809 (Basic Regulation); and
b. Commission Regulation (EU) No. 737/2010 of 10 August 2010 laying down detailed rules
for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No. 1007/2009 of the European Parliament
and of the Council on trade in seal products810 (Implementing Regulation).

808 For additional details on the measure at issue, recourse should be had to paragraphs 7.10 to 7.24 of
the Panel Reports.
809 Official Journal of the European Union, L Series, No. 286 (31 October 2009) (Panel Exhibit JE-1).
810 Official Journal of the European Union, L Series, No. 216 (17 August 2010) (Panel Exhibit JE-2).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

4.2. Before the Panel, the parties agreed th at the Basic Regulation and the Implementing
Regulation should be treated as a single measure and the Panel, accordingly, examined the two
instruments as an "integrated whole".
811 Following the terminology employed by the parties and
the Panel, we refer to these legal instru ments, together, as the "EU Seal Regime". 812 Pursuant to
Article 8 of the Basic Regulation and Article 12 of the Implementing Regulation, the EU Seal
Regime entered into force on 20 August 2010.
4.3. The EU Seal Regime does not have a specific section setting forth the objective of the
EU Seal Regime. As noted by the Panel, the preamble of the Basic Regulation, comprising
21 recitals, refers to the EU public's concerns about seal welfare issues (recitals 1, 4, 5, 10, 11)
and the need to preserve the economic and social interests of Inuit communities engaged in seal
hunting and to define the conditions for the exceptions under the EU Seal Regime (recitals 14
and 17).
813
4.4. The EU Seal Regime establishes rules co ncerning the placing on the market of seal
products.814 The term "seal products" is defined by the Basic Regulation as "all products, either
processed or unprocessed, deriving or obtained fr om seals, including meat, oil, blubber, organs,
raw fur skins and fur skins, tanned or dressed, including fur skins assembled in plates, crosses and
similar forms, and articles made from fur skins".
815
4.5. Article 3 of the Basic Regulation sets out rules regarding "conditions for placing on the
market" of seal products:
Article 3
Conditions for placing on the market
1. The placing on the market of seal products shall be allowed only where the seal
products result from hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit and other indigenous
communities and contribute to their subsistence. These conditions shall apply at the
time or point of import for imported products.
2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1:
(a) the import of seal products shall also be allowed where it is of an occasional
nature and consists exclusively of goods for the personal use of travellers or their
families. The nature and quantity of such goods shall not be such as to indicate that
they are being imported for commercial reasons;
(b) the placing on the market of seal prod ucts shall also be allowed where the seal
products result from by-products of hunting that is regulated by national law and
conducted for the sole purpose of the sustainable management of marine resources.
Such placing on the market shall be allowed only on a non-profit basis. The nature
and quantity of the seal products shall not be such as to indicate that they are being
placed on the market for commercial reasons.
The application of this paragraph shal l not undermine the achievement of the
objective of this Regulation. …

811 See Panel Reports, paras. 7.8 and 7.26.
812 See Panel Reports, paras. 2.1, 2.3, 3.7, 7.1, and 7.8.
813 Panel Reports, paras. 7.386 and 7.387.
814 Basic Regulation, Article 1.
815 Basic Regulation, Article 2(2).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

4.6. As noted by the Panel, Article 3 of the Ba sic Regulation starts with a paragraph prescribing
that the placing on the market 816 of seal products shall be allowed only where the seal products
result from hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit817 and other indigenous communities818 (referred
to by the Panel as "IC"), and contribute to their subsistence. 819 The word "subsistence" is not
defined in the EU Seal Regime. 820 Article 3(1) also states that the conditions in the first paragraph
shall apply at the time or point of import for imported products.821
4.7. The second paragraph of Article 3 begins with the phrase "by way of derogation from
paragraph 1" and provides for two situations where derogation from paragraph 1 is allowed. First,
Article 3(2)(a) allows the import of seal products where: (i) the act of import is of an occasional
nature; and (ii) the goods at issue are for the "personal use of travellers or their families". 822
Second, Article (3)(2)(b) allows the placing on the market of seal products where: (i) the seal
products result from by-products of hunting that is regulated by national law; (ii) the hunting is
conducted for the sole purpose of the sustainable management of marine resources (also referred
to by the Panel as "marine resource management" or "MRM"); and (iii) the placing on the market
is only on a non-profit basis.
823 Both provisions contain a final sentence stipulating that "[t]he
nature and quantity of [such goods/the seal products] shall not be such as to indicate that they
are being [imported/placed on the market] for commercial reasons." The EU Seal Regime does not
provide a definition for the terms "commercial" or "commercial reasons".
824
4.8. As noted by the Panel, "the practical implication of Article 3 is that seal products derived from
hunts other than IC or MRM hunts cannot be imported and/or placed on the EU market" except to
the extent that the Travellers exception permits limited imports for personal use.
825 Furthermore,
as the Panel observed, the EU Seal Regime creates " implicit exceptions f o r s e a l p r o d u c t s f o r
transit, inward processing, and importation for auction and re-export".826

816 The Basic Regulation defines "placing on the market" as "introducing onto the Community market,
thereby making available to third parties, in exchange for payment". (Basic Regulation, Article 2(3))
817 The Basic Regulation defines "Inuit" as "indigenous members of the Inuit homeland, namely those
arctic and subarctic areas where, presently or traditionally, Inuit have aboriginal rights and interests,
recognised by Inuit as being members of their people and includes Inupiat, Yupik (Alaska), Inuit, Inuvialuit
(Canada), Kalaallit (Greenland) and Yupik (Russia)". (Basic Regulation, Article 2(4))
818 The Implementing Regulation defines "other indigenous communities" as:
[C]ommunities in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their
descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the
country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present State
boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social,
economic, cultural and political institutions.
(Implementing Regulation, Article 2(1)) Neither the Basic Regulation nor the Implementing Regulation defines
the meaning of "subsistence".
819 The Panel referred to this provision as setting out the "IC exception". (See e.g. Panel Reports,
paras. 7.53 and 7.377) We do the same in these Reports.
820 Panel Reports, para. 7.283 (referring to COWI, Study on implementing measures for trade in seal
products, Final Report (January 2010) (Panel Exhibit JE-21) (COWI 2010 Report), p. 9).
821 The Basic Regulation defines "import" as "any entry of goods into the customs territory of the
Community". (Basic Regulation, Article 2(5))
822 The Panel referred to this exception as the "Travellers exception". (See e.g. Panel Reports,
para. 7.53) We do the same in these Reports.
823 The Panel referred to this exception as the "MRM exception". (See e.g. Panel Reports, paras. 7.53
and 7.377) We do the same in these Reports. The Implementing Regulation defines "placing on the market on
a non-profit basis" as "placing on the market for a price less than or equal to the recovery of the costs borne
by the hunter reduced by the amount of any subsidies received in relation to the hunt". (Implementing
Regulation, Article 2(2))
824 Panel Reports, para. 7.41 (referring to European Union's response to Panel question No. 123,
para. 84).
825 Panel Reports, para. 7.45.
826 Panel Reports, para. 7.53 (referring to European Union's response to Panel questions Nos. 75, 101,
131, and 177; and Canada's and Norway's comments on European Union's response to Panel questions
Nos. 75, 101, 131, and 177). (emphasis original)
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

4.9. The Implementing Regulation sets out deta iled rules concerning the operation of the Basic
Regulation. Article 3 of the Implementing Regulati on provides that, for placing on the market of
seal products pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Basic Regulation, the seal products must originate
from seal hunts that satisfy three conditions:
a. the seal hunt was conducted by Inuit or other indigenous communities that have a
tradition of seal hunting in the community and in the geographical region;
b. the products of the seal hunt are at least partly used, consumed or processed within the
communities according to their traditions; and
c. the seal hunt contributes to the subsistence of the community.
4.10. Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation states that, in order to qualify under the Travellers
exception in Article 3(2)(a) of the Basic Regulati on, one of the following three requirements must
be fulfilled:
a. the seal products are either worn by the travellers, or carried or contained in their
personal luggage;
b. the seal products are contained in the personal property of a natural person transferring
his normal place of residence from a third country to the European Union; or
c. the seal products are acquired on site in a third country by travellers and imported by
those travellers at a later date, provided that, upon arrival in the EU territory, those
travellers present to the customs author ities of the member State concerned the
following documents:
i. a written notification of import; and
ii. a document giving evidence that the products were acquired in the third country
concerned.
4.11. Finally, Article 5 of the Implementing Regula tion provides that, in order to qualify under the
derogation set out in Article 3(2)(b), the seal products at issue must originate from seal hunts that
satisfy three conditions:
a. the seal hunt was conducted under a national or regional natural resources management
plan that uses scientific population models of marine resources and applies the
ecosystem-based approach;
b. the seal hunt did not exceed the total allowable catch (TAC) quota established in
accordance with the national or regional natural resources management plan referred to;
and
c. the by-products of the seal hunt can only be placed on the market in a non-systematic
way on a non-profit basis.
4.12. Besides these specific requirements, Articles 3(2) and 5(2) of the Implementing Regulation
stipulate that, in cases of seal products from IC and MRM hunts, the seal products must be
accompanied by the attesting documents prescribed in Article 7(1) of the Implementing Regulation
at the time of the placing on the market. Pursuant to Article 7(1), such attesting documents shall
be issued by a "recognized body". Article 6 of the Implementing Regulation lays down the
substantive and procedural requirements that must be fulfilled for an entity to be included in "a list
of recognized bodies".
4.13. The Panel used the terms "IC hunts" and "MRM hunts" to refer to seal hunts conforming to
the requirements of the IC and MRM exceptio ns, respectively, whereas it used the term
"commercial hunts" to refer to hunts that do not conform to the IC and MRM requirements.
827

827 Panel Reports, paras. 7.13 and 7.14.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

During the interim review stage, Norway asserted that use of the terms "commercial hunts" and
"IC and MRM hunts" could be taken to reflect a "m oral judgement" with respect to the different
hunts, and that the Panel's own findings demonstrate "the falseness of the distinction created by
the Panel between 'commercial' and the other types of hunts".
828 Norway suggested that the Panel
adopt instead "neutral language" to reflect the basis for its distinction, such as "non-conforming
hunts", or the "Canadian East Coast hunt" and "Norwegian West Ice hunt". 829 Canada suggested
that the phrase "non-conforming hunts" be used instead of "commercial hunts". 830 In rejecting the
parties' requests, the Panel explained that the te rminology it employed was without prejudice to
any findings on "the existence of a commercial element in IC and MRM hunts".831
4.14. The EU Seal Regime does not expressly distinguish between "commercial" and
"non-commercial" seal hunts. Instead, it dist inguishes between IC hunts and MRM hunts, on the
one hand, and all other hunts, on the other hand. Only seal products originating from the former
two types of hunts can be placed on the EU market , provided that they comply with the relevant
requirements. In these Reports, we refer, as did the Panel, to hunts other than IC or MRM hunts as
"commercial hunts" for ease of reference and without prejudice to the existence of a commercial
element in IC and MRM hunts.832
5 ANALYSIS OF THE APPELLATE BODY
5.1 Legal characterization of the EU Seal Regime – Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement
5.1.1 Introduction
5.1. Before the Panel, Canada and Norway challenged the consistency of the EU Seal Regime with
various provisions of the GATT 1994 and the TBT Agreement.
833 The Panel determined that it
would first examine the complainants' claims under the TBT Agreement. Before proceeding to
address the substance of these claims, the Panel ad dressed the threshold question of whether, as
contended by Canada and Norway, the measure at issue constitutes a "technical regulation" within
the meaning of Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement. In its analysis of this question, the Panel referred
to what it described as a "three-tier test" and made three intermediate findings. 834 First, the Panel
found that the measure applies to an "identifiable group of products" 835, namely, seal products.
Second, the Panel determined that the EU Seal Re gime "lays down characteristics for all products
that might contain seal" as well as "applicable administrative provisions for certain products
containing seal inputs that are exempted from the prohibition under the measure [at issue]".
836
Third, the Panel found that the measure imposes mandatory compliance.837
5.2. The European Union does not contest the Panel's finding that the measure applies to an
"identifiable group of products".838 Nor does it take issue with the Panel's determination839 that the
measure imposes mandatory compliance. Instead, the European Union's appeal focuses on the
Panel's finding that the measure lays down product characteristics, including the applicable
administrative provisions, and the Panel's conclusion that the EU Seal Regime is a technical

828 Panel Reports, para. 6.7 (referring to Norway's comments on the Interim Panel Reports, paras. 37
and 38).
829 Panel Reports, para. 6.7.
830 Panel Reports, para. 6.7.
831 Panel Reports, para. 6.9.
832 Panel Reports, paras. 6.7-6.9 and 7.179 (referring to Norway's comments on the Interim Panel
Reports, paras. 37 and 38).
833 Specifically, both complainants brought claims under Articles I:1, III:4, XI:1, and XXIII:1(b) of the
GATT 1994, and Articles 2.2, 5.1.2, and 5.2.1 of the TBT Agreement. Additionally, Canada presented a claim
under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement. Norway also brought a claim under Article 4.2 of the Agreement on
Agriculture.
834 Panel Reports, para. 7.85 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC – Sardines, para. 176, in turn
referring to Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, paras. 66-70; and Appellate Body Reports, US – Clove
Cigarettes; US – Tuna II (Mexico); and US – COOL).
835 Panel Reports, para. 7.117 (quoting Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 70; and referring to
Appellate Body Report, EC – Sardines, para. 180).
836 Panel Reports. para. 7.111.
837 Panel Reports, para. 7.125.
838 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 38 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.117).
839 Panel Reports, para. 7.125.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

regulation.840 In reaching this conclusion, the Panel determined that the prohibition on
seal-containing products lays down a product characteristic in the negative form by requiring that
products placed on the EU market not contain seal.
841 The Panel also found that the EU Seal
Regime sets out, through its exceptions, the applic able administrative provisions for products with
"certain characteristics".842 In the light of these findings, the Panel considered it unnecessary to
examine whether the EU Seal Regime also lays down "related" processes and production
methods.
843
5.3. On appeal, the European Union argues that the Panel erred by construing the term
"applicable administrative provisions" as relating to "products" rather than "product characteristics
or their related processes and production methods".
844 The European Union underscores that the
procedural requirements contained in the EU Seal Regime do not directly pertain to "what the
Panel considered as a product characteristic laid down in the negative form, namely that the
products must not contain seal".845 Consequently, they cannot be considered as being "applicable"
to a product characteristic within the meaning of Annex 1.1. The European Union further argues
that the Panel erred in finding that the criteria under the exceptions of the EU Seal Regime lay
down "product characteristic[s]". 846 Instead, they impose requiremen ts relating to the identity of
the hunter or the type or purpose of the hunt. A ccording to the European Union, the EU Seal
Regime differs in this respect from the measure at issue in EC – Asbestos, where the exceptions
themselves laid down product characteristics. 847 The European Union cautions that, under the
Panel's reasoning, "virtually anything that [bears] any relation to a product" could be construed as
a product characteristic, and be potentially cons idered a technical regulation subject to the
disciplines of the TBT Agreement.
848 This, in the European Union's view, would "subsume
[processes and production methods] into product characteristics" and mean that non-product
related processes and production methods (P PMs) would fall within the ambit of the
TBT Agreement.
849
5.4. The European Union further claims that the Panel erred in limiting its analysis of whether the
measure lays down product characteristics to it s finding that the EU Seal Regime lays down
characteristics of a product in a negative form, by providing that all products may not contain seal.
Referring to the Appellate Body's findings in EC – Asbestos , the European Union recalls that the
proper legal characterization of the measure at i ssue requires that it be examined "as a whole". 850
Thus, it was incorrect for the Panel to assume that a measure can be deemed a technical
regulation "simply because one of its components meets the criterion for a technical regulation".851
The Panel should, instead, have based its determination on a consideration of all components of
the measure and their respective role in the operation and purpose of the EU Seal Regime.
852 In
this regard, the European Union highlights that, if the prohibition contained in the EU Seal Regime
is examined in the light of the IC, MRM, and Travellers exceptions, the measure "cannot be
reduced to the simple negative intrinsic product characteristic that products may not contain
seal".853 Nor does the EU Seal Regime, when considered as a whole, lay down "product
characteristics" within the meaning of Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement.854
5.5. Canada and Norway consider that the Pane l properly interpreted the scope of Annex 1.1 and
rightly characterized the EU Seal Regime as a technical regulation. Canada maintains that the
"administrative provisions" in the EU Seal Regime "apply" to product characteristics because the
relevant provisions in the Implementing Regulation operate to ensure that products containing seal

840 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 89.
841 Panel Reports, para. 7.106.
842 Panel Reports, para. 7.108.
843 Panel Reports, para. 7.112.
844 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 53.
845 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 58.
846 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 66.
847 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 59.
848 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 66.
849 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 67.
850 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 76 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC –
Asbestos, para. 64).
851 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 79 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.100).
852 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 81.
853 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 88.
854 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 88.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

satisfy the criteria under the exceptions. 855 In Canada's view, this is not different from the
situation in EC – Asbestos, where the administrative provisions in question established a procedure
to ensure that the criteria set ou t in the exception were satisfied. 856 For Canada, the European
Union's concern that the Panel's approach will lead to an "over-inclusive" interpretation of
"applicable administrative provisions" is unwarranted. 857 Canada further argues that the Panel
properly examined and based its determination on the relevant elements of the EU Seal Regime,
including the prohibitive and permissive aspects of the measure, and the administrative
procedures. According to Canada, the Panel carefully considered the interplay among the various
elements of the EU Seal Regime in reaching its conclusion.
858
5.6. For its part, Norway argues that the criter ia set out in the exceptions under the EU Seal
Regime lay down an "intrinsic" feature of the su bject products because they determine "when and
under what conditions a product may contain a particular input". 859 Norway emphasizes that the
legal situation in these disputes is very similar to the one confronted by the Appellate Body in EC –
Asbestos, and that the Panel closely followed the Appellate Body's reasoning in that dispute. 860
Norway argues that the basis for the Panel's find ing that the EU Seal Regime lays down product
characteristics was that the prohibitive elemen ts of the measure, in conjunction with the
permissive elements that define their scope, lay down a product characteristic in the negative form
by requiring that all products not contain seal. 861 Norway further submits that the administrative
provisions in the EU Seal Regime are applicable to certain products because these products exhibit
or possess the "product characteristic" of containing seal inputs.
862 I n t h a t s e n s e , a c c o r d i n g t o
Norway, these administrative provisions "apply, pertain and relate to the product characteristic".863
Finally, Norway maintains that the Panel conducted a "holistic analysis" of the EU Seal Regime 864,
and correctly understood the import of EC – Asbestos to mean that "the prohibition and exceptions
need not 'individually' lay down product characteristics, so long as, as a whole, they [do] so."865
5.7. We turn to review the text of Annex 1.1 in the light of the various issues implicated by the
European Union's appeal.
5.1.2 Interpretation of Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement
5.8. Article 1.2 of the TBT Agreement stipulates that "for the purposes of this Agreement the
meaning of the terms given in Annex 1 applies". The first paragraph of Annex 1.1 defines the term
"technical regulation" as follows:
Document which lays down product characteristics or their related processes and
production methods, including the applicable administrative provisions, with which
compliance is mandatory. It may also include or deal exclusively with terminology,
symbols, packaging, marking or labelling re quirements as they apply to a product,
process or production method.
5.9. Annex 1.1 describes a technical regulation by reference to a "document". As noted by the
Appellate Body in US – Tuna (II) (Mexico) , the use of the term "document" could "cover a broad
range of instruments or apply to a variety of measures".
866

855 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 40.
856 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 40.
857 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 41 (quoting European Union's other appellant's submission,
para. 56).
858 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 46 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.111).
859 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 45 (referring to Norway's second written submission to the
Panel, para. 146; and Norway's response to Panel question No. 127).
860 Norway's appellee's submission, paras. 46-64.
861 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 69 (referring to Panel Reports, paras. 7.106 and 7.111).
862 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 83.
863 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 80.
864 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 89.
866 Appellate Body Report, US – Tuna II (Mexico), para. 185.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

5.10. The first sentence of Annex 1.1 delineates the scope of measures that can be characterized
as a technical regulation by referring to a document that "lays down product characteristics or
their related processes and production methods, including the applicable administrative
provisions".
867 The verb "lay down" is defined as "establish, formulate definitely (a principle, a
rule); prescribe (a course of action, limits, etc.)". 868 Annex 1.1 further describes a technical
regulation by reference to a "document" and makes clear that it is "compliance" with the content
of the document laying down product characteristi cs or their related PPMs that must be found to
be "mandatory". Accordingly, the scope of Anne x 1.1 appears to be limited to those documents
that establish or prescribe something and thus have a certain normative content.
5.11. The first sentence of Annex 1.1 refers to "product characteristics" or "their related processes
and production methods". Looking first at the meaning of "product characteristics", in EC –
Asbestos, the Appellate Body explained that the "chara cteristics" of a product include "objectively
definable 'features', 'qualities', 'attributes', or other 'distinguishing mark' of a product".
869 The
Appellate Body added that such "product characteristics" might relate, inter alia, to "a product's
composition, size, shape, colour, texture, hardne ss, tensile strength, flammability, conductivity,
density, or viscosity". 870 The Appellate Body described these characteristics as "features and
qualities intrinsic to the product itself", adding th at "product characteristics" within the meaning of
Annex 1.1 may also include "related 'characteristics'". 871 As the Appellate Body has noted, a
technical regulation may lay down "only one or a few 'product characteristics'".872
5.12. The definition of a technical regulation further provides that such a regulation may prescribe
"product characteristics or their related [PPMs]". The use here of the disjunctive "or" indicates that
"related [PPMs]" may play an additional or alternative role vis-à-vis "product characteristics" under
Annex 1.1. The noun "process" is ordinarily understood to refer to "a course of action, a
procedure, a series of actions or operations directed to some end, as in manufacturing".
873 We
further note that the dictionary defines the term "production" as "[t]he process of being
manufactured commercially, esp. in large quantities" 874, while the word "method" is defined as "a
(defined or systematic) way of doing a thing". 875 The ordinary meaning of the term "related" is
"[h]aving relation; having mutual relation; connected". 876 A plain reading of Annex 1.1 thus
suggests that a "related" PPM is one that is "connected" or "has a relation" to the characteristics of
a product. The word "their", which immediately precedes the words "related processes and
production methods", refers back to "product ch aracteristics". Thus, in the context of the first
sentence of Annex 1.1, we understand the reference to "or their related processes and production
methods" to indicate that the subject matter of a technical regulation may consist of a process or
production method that is related to product characteristics. In order to determine whether a
measure lays down related PPMs, a panel thus wi ll have to examine whether the processes and
production methods prescribed by the measure have a sufficient nexus to the characteristics of a
product in order to be considered related to those characteristics.
5.13. Continuing with our review of the first sentence of Annex 1.1, we note the reference to
"applicable administrative provisions", which is linked to the words "product characteristics or their
related processes and production methods" by the conjunctive "including". The word "provision" is
relevantly defined as "a legal or formal statement providing for some particular matter".
877 The

867 Appellate Body Report, US – Tuna II (Mexico), para. 185.
868 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th edn, A. Stevenson (ed.) (Oxford University Press, 2007),
Vol. 1, p. 1562.
869 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 67.
870 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 67.
871 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 67. In that appeal, the Appellate Body considered that
such "related" characteristics may pertain to "the means of identification, the presentation and the appearance
of a product". (Ibid.)
872 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 67.
873 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th edn, A. Stevenson (ed.) (Oxford University Press, 2007),
Vol. 2, p. 2356.
874 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th edn, A. Stevenson (ed.) (Oxford University Press, 2007),
Vol. 2, p. 2359.
875 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th edn, A. Stevenson (ed.) (Oxford University Press, 2007),
Vol. 1, p. 1767.
876 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th edn, A. Stevenson (ed.) (Oxford University Press, 2007),
Vol. 2, p. 2519.
877 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th edn, A. Stevenson (ed.) (Oxford University Press, 2007),
Vol. 2, p. 2384.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

adjective "administrative", in turn, is defined as "[p]ertaining to management of affairs". 878 The
term "applicable" in this context indicates that the relevant "administrative provisions" must
"refer" to or be "relevant" to the product characteristics or their related PPMs as prescribed in the
relevant document.
879 The word "including" suggests that, where a mandatory document laying
down product characteristics or their related processes and production methods also contains
"administrative provisions" that refer to those "product characteristics" or "related processes and
production methods", those administrative provisions are to be considered as an integral part of
the technical regulation and are thus subject to the substantive provisions of the TBT Agreement.
In the context of Annex 1.1, we understand th e appositive clause "including the applicable
administrative provisions" to refer to provisions to be applied by virtue of a governmental mandate
in relation to either product characteristics or their related processes and production methods.
5.14. The second sentence of Annex 1.1 further enumerates specific elements that technical
regulations "may also include or deal exclusively with", namely, "terminology, symbols, packaging,
marking or labelling requirements" as they apply to a product, process or production method. The
use of the words "also include" and "deal exclusively with" at the beginning of the second sentence
indicates that the second sentence includes elemen ts that are additional to, and may be distinct
from, those covered by the first sentence of Annex 1.1.
5.15. Having reviewed the text of Annex 1.1, we turn to examine whether the Panel erred in its
application of Annex 1.1 to the facts of this case when it found that the EU Seal Regime constitutes
a technical regulation. We consider it useful to begin by recalling the relevant aspects of the
measure that the Panel found in this case to constitute a "technical regulation" within the meaning
of Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement.
5.1.3 Whether the EU Seal Regime constitutes a technical regulation
5.1.3.1 Overview of the EU Seal Regime
5.16. As noted by the Panel, the EU Seal Regime establishes "rules concerning the placing on the
market of seal products".
880 Specifically, Article 3(1) of the Basic Regulation prescribes that the
placing on the market of seal products is allowed "only where the seal products result from hunts
traditionally conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities and contribute to their
subsistence".881 Article 3(2) of the Basic Regulation sets out two "derogations" from Article 3(1).
First, Article 3(2)(a) allows the importation of a seal product by a traveller under certain
conditions. Second, Article 3(2)(b) allows the placing on the market of seal products where: (i) the
seal products result from by-products of hunting that is regulated by national law; (ii) the hunting
is conducted for the sole purpose of the sustainable management of marine resources; and (iii) the
placing on the market is only on a non-profit basis. Specific requirements for each of the three
conditions for importing and/or placing seal pr oducts on the market are elaborated in the
Implementing Regulation.
882
5.17. Referring to the IC, MRM, and Travellers ex ceptions, the Panel noted that the conditions set
out under the EU Seal Regime, together, both allo w and prohibit the placing of seal products on
the market. The Panel therefore correctly considered that the EU Seal Regime does not constitute
a "total" or "general" ban on seal products, but instead "consists of both prohibitive and permissive
components and should be examined as such".
883

878 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th edn, A. Stevenson (ed.) (Oxford University Press, 2007),
Vol. 1, p. 28.
879 See Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th edn, A. Stevenson (ed.) (Oxford University Press, 2007),
Vol. 1, p. 103.
880 Panel Reports, para. 7.40 (referring to Basic Regulation, Article 1).
881 Panel Reports, para. 7.13 (quoting Basic Regulation, Article 3(1)).
882 See supra, paras. 4.9-4.11.
883 Panel Reports, para. 7.54.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

5.1.3.2 Preliminary remarks
5.18. We wish to make three preliminary remarks before we examine the European Union's claims
regarding the Panel's characterization of the measure at issue under Annex 1.1 to the
TBT Agreement.
5.19. First, the Appellate Body has emphasized that a determination of whether a measure
constitutes a technical regulation "must be made in the light of the characteristics of the measure
at issue and the circumstances of the case".
884 As the Appellate Body has explained, this analysis
should give particular weight to the "integral and essential" aspects of the measure. 885 In
determining whether a measure is a technical regulation, a panel must therefore carefully examine
the design and operation of the measure while s eeking to identify its "integral and essential"
aspects.
886 It is these features of the measure that are to be accorded the most weight for
purposes of characterizing the measure, and, ther eby, for determining whether it is subject to the
disciplines of the TBT Agreement. The ultimate conclusion as to the legal characterization of the
measure must be made in respect of, and having considered, the measure as a whole.
5.20. Second, the issue of how best to characterize a measure at issue which comprises several
different elements is one that arises in many disput es. The question is of particular significance in
cases where the inclusion or exclusion of certain elements in the definition of the measure can
affect the legal characterization, or substantive analysis of the measure. A panel may, in some
cases, find it appropriate to treat several domestic legal instruments together as a single measure
in order to facilitate its analysis of that measure in the light of the claims raised or defences
invoked.
887 Conversely, there may be instances where a panel may choose to consider different
elements set out in a single legal instrument as different "measures", for purposes of its
analysis.888 As regards the measure at issue in the present disputes, the Panel noted that: (i) the
Basic Regulation and the Implementing Regulation "operate in conjunction with each other in
governing the importation and the placing of seal products on the EU market" 889; (ii) the
permissive and the prohibitive elements of th e measure are intertwined within the EU Seal
Regime890; and (iii) the parties agreed that the EU Seal Regime should be treated as a single
measure.891 For the purpose of Annex 1.1, we therefore consider it appropriate to draw
conclusions regarding the legal characterization of the EU Seal Regime as a whole on the basis of
an integrated analysis of the constituent parts of the measure.
5.21. Third, regarding the scope of this aspect of the European Union's appeal, we recall that the
European Union does not contest the Panel's findin g that the measure applies to an "identifiable
group of products"
892 or the Panel's determination that the measure imposes mandatory
compliance.893 We consider it useful nonetheless to note, as did the Panel, that the product scope
of the EU Seal Regime is defined in Article 2(2) of the Basic Regulation as "all products, either
processed or unprocessed, deriving or obtained fr om seals, including meat, oil, blubber, organs,
raw fur skins and fur skins, tanned or dressed, including fur skins assembled in plates, crosses and
similar forms, and articles made from fur skins". This confirms that the measure at issue applies to
an identifiable group of products, that is, seal products as defined in Article 2(2).

884 Appellate Body Report, US – Tuna II (Mexico), para. 188 (referring to Appellate Body Reports, EC –
Asbestos, para. 64; and EC – Sardines, paras. 192 and 193).
885 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 72.
886 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 72.
887 For example, in EC – Bananas III, the EC Banana Regime comprised the Council Regulation
(EEC) 404/931 "and the subsequent EC legislation, regulations and administrative measures, including those
reflecting the provisions of the Framework Agreement on Bananas, which implemented, supplemented and
amended that regime". (Panel Reports, EC – Bananas III, para. 1.1) Treating multiple legal instruments as a
single measure does not preclude a complainant from challenging different aspects of such a measure under
different provisions of the WTO covered agreements.
888 See e.g. Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, paras. 126 and 127.
889 Panel Reports, para. 7.26.
890 For example, in the case of the IC exception, Article 3(1) of the Basic Regulation prescribes that the
placing on the market of seal products is allowed "only where the seal products result from hunts traditionally
conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities and contribute to their subsistence". (emphasis added)
891 Panel Reports, para. 7.26 (referring to parties' responses to Panel question No. 2).
892 Panel Reports, para. 7.117.
893 Panel Reports, para. 7.125.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

5.22. Moreover, the EU Seal Regime is mandatory in the sense that it prescribes rules concerning
the placing on the market of seal products "in a binding or compulsory fashion".894 Specifically, the
EU Seal Regime prohibits seal products from the EU market, except in cases where they meet the
conditions prescribed in Article 3 of the Basic Re gulation and Articles 3 and 5 of the Implementing
Regulation. The mandatory nature of the EU Seal Regime is therefore found in the conditions that
govern the placing on the EU market of seal pr oducts, as defined in Article 2(2) of the Basic
Regulation.
5.23. Although the Panel's findings regarding these features of the EU Seal Regime have not been
appealed, they may nonetheless assist us in determining whether, in the light of the design and
operation of the EU Seal Regime, the Panel properly determined that the measure lays down
product characteristics, including the applicable administrative provisions, and, therefore,
constitutes a "technical regulation" within the meaning of Annex 1.1.
5.24. With these considerations in mind, we turn to examine the Panel's analysis of the EU Seal
Regime in the light of the European Union's appeal.
5.1.3.3 Whether the EU Seal Regime lays down product characteristics including the
applicable administrative provisions
5.1.3.3.1 The Panel's approach
5.25. Referring to the Appellate Body report in EC – Asbestos , the Panel stated that it would
"proceed to examine the prohibitive and permissive aspects of the EU Seal Regime with a view to
determining whether the EU Seal Regime, taken as a whole, lays down product characteristics or
their related PPMs within the meaning of Annex 1.1".
895 The Panel recalled the Appellate Body's
finding in EC – Asbestos that the prohibition on asbestos fibres "as such" did not lay down "product
characteristics" because it simply banned asbestos fibres in their natural state.896 The Panel further
noted, however, that the prohibition on asbestos-containing products was found by the Appellate
Body "to lay down a product characteristic in the negative form by requiring that all products must
not contain asbestos". 897 Turning to the measure at issue in the instant disputes, the Panel
observed that the EU Seal Regime "prohibits all seal products, whether they are made exclusively
of seal or contain seal as an input" and that it makes an exception "with regard to the import
and/or placing on the market of seal products in three situations, namely when they result from
IC hunts, MRM hunts, or in the case of Travellers imports". 898 Based on the text of the measure,
and in the light of the reasoning of the Appellate Body in EC – Asbestos, the Panel concluded:
[W]e believe that the prohibition on seal-containing products under the EU Seal
Regime lays down a product characteristic in the negative form by requiring that all
products not contain seal.[*]
899
[*fn original] 153 We note that such conclusion is not affected by the fact that the prohibition of
seals "in their natural state" might not, in itself, prescribe or impose any "characteristics". In this
regard, Norway argues that the appropriate analog ues to the "raw mineral form" of asbestos in
the context of the EU Seal Regime would be live seals or unprocessed seal carcasses. In
Norway's view, the majority of seal products ar e in fact "mixed" products, i.e. they must be
combined with other products derived from other sources. (Norway's second written submission,
paras. 154-155).

894 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 68.
895 Panel Reports, para. 7.102. See also para. 7.99 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos,
para. 64).
896 Panel Reports, para. 7.104 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 71). See also
Panel Reports, para. 7.99.
897 Panel Reports, para. 7.104.
898 Panel Reports, para. 7.105 (referring to Basic Regulation, Articles 3(1), 3(2)(a), and 3(2)(b)).
899 Panel Reports, para. 7.106.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

5.26. On appeal, the European Union recalls that the proper legal character of the measure at
issue cannot be determined unless the measure is examined "as a whole". 900 According to the
European Union, if the prohibition contained in the EU Seal Regime is examined in the light of the
IC, MRM, and Travellers exceptions, the measure "cannot be reduced to the simple negative
intrinsic product characteristic that products may not contain seal".
901
5.27. The Panel's reasoning on the issue of whether the EU Seal Regime lays down product
characteristics is limited to the brief passage set out above. Moreover, the conclusion the Panel
reached in paragraph 7.106 of the Panel Reports pertains to the "prohibition on seal-containing
products".902 The Panel then proceeded to find, in paragr aph 7.108, that the EU Seal Regime sets
out, through its exceptions, "applicable administrative provisions" without assessing the weight
that should properly be ascribed to those elemen ts of the measure in identifying the essential and
integral aspects of the measure. Subsequently, in paragraph 7.111 of its Reports, the Panel stated,
without further reasoning, that the EU Seal Regime "considered as a whole" lays down
characteristics for all products that might contain seal.
5.28. We disagree with the approach adopted by the Panel. The Panel stated that the EU Seal
Regime "consists of both prohibitive and permi ssive components and should be examined as
such"
903, explaining that the "prohibitive" component of the EU Seal Regime "operates as a ban on
seal products", while the "permissive" component consists of "an exception and two derogations,
forming three conditions prescribed in Article 3 of the Basic Regulation (i.e. seal products obtained
from IC hunts, MRM hunts, and those imported under the Travellers imports category)".
904
Although the Panel set out to "examine the prohibitive and permissive aspects of the EU Seal
Regime with a view to determining whether the EU Seal Regime, taken as a whole, lays down
product characteristics or their relate d PPMs within the meaning of Annex 1.1" 905, it appears that
the Panel's conclusion that the measure lays down product characteristics rests on its assessment
of a single component of the measure. In other words, having compartmentalized its assessment
of the various components of the EU Seal Regime in this manner, the Panel seemed satisfied once
it had found that the prohibition on seal-containing products laid down product characteristics in
the negative form. The Panel then proceeded to find that other components of the measure,
i.e. the exceptions under the EU Seal Regime, constitute "applicable administrative provisions"
because they "define the scope of the prohibition" of the EU Seal Regime; and that the "nature of
the exceptions is to allow products containing seal" subject to "strict administrative requirements"
based on a "set of criteria".
906 It is not apparent from its Reports that the Panel conducted a
holistic assessment of the weight and relevance of each of the relevant components of the EU Seal
Regime before reaching a conclusion as to the legal characterization of the measure "as a whole".
5.29. As noted, the Appellate Body has emphasized that a determination of whether a measure
constitutes a technical regulation "must be made in the light of the characteristics of the measure
at issue and the circumstances of the case".
907 In EC – Asbestos , the Appellate Body placed
particular emphasis on the "integral and essential" aspects of the measure908, "taking into account,
as appropriate, the prohibitive and the permissive elements that are part of it". 909 In order to
determine the proper legal characterization of the EU Seal Regime, the Panel should therefore
have examined the design and operation of the me asure while seeking to identify its "integral and
essential" aspects before reaching a final conclusion as to the legal characterization of the measure

900 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 76 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.101).
901 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 88.
902 Panel Reports, para. 7.106.
903 Panel Reports, para. 7.54.
904 Panel Reports, para. 7.56.
905 Panel Reports, para. 7.102.
906 Panel Reports, para. 7.108. We further note in this regard that the Panel found that the criteria
under the exceptions of the EU Seal Regime constitute "objectively definable features" of the seal products and
"consequently lay down particular 'characteristics' of the final products". (Panel Reports, para. 7.110)
907 Appellate Body Report, US – Tuna II (Mexico), para. 188 (referring to Appellate Body Reports, EC –
Asbestos, para. 64; and EC – Sardines, paras. 192 and 193).
908 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 72.
909 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 64. In reaching this conclusion, the Appellate Body took
into account the content of Canada's request for the establishment of a panel (i.e. Canada's identification of
the Decree concerned as "the measure at issue") as well as the content of the measure itself (consisting of
prohibitions and limited exceptions). The Appellate Body then examined each component (i.e. prohibitions and
exceptions) of the measure before making an overall assessment of whether the measure, viewed as an
integrated whole, was a "technical regulation" within the meaning of Annex 1.1.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

in respect of, and having considered, the measure as a whole. Although a measure that comprises,
among other elements, a prohibition of seal-containing products may include a component that
appears to prescribe product characteristics, we consider the Panel to have erred, to the extent it
reached a final conclusion as to the legal character of the measure on the basis of an examination
of the aspect of the EU Seal Regime that sets out a "prohibition on seal-containing products" taken
alone.
910 The Panel could not have properly reached a conclusion as to the legal character of the
measure at issue without analysing the weight and relevance of the essential and integral
elements of the measure as an integrated whole.
5.30. Having expressed our concern regarding the overall approach adopted by the Panel, we turn
to address the participants' arguments as they relate to the three specific aspects of the EU Seal
Regime: (i) the prohibition on products consisting exclusively of seal (pure seal products); (ii) the
prohibition on seal-containing products ("mixed" products); and (iii) the conditions under the
IC/MRM/Travellers exceptions. Then, to the extent necessary, we address the participants'
arguments regarding the applicable administrative provisions. We do so in order to assess
whether, and to what extent, these aspects of the measure have features prescribing product
characteristics while seeking to identify the e ssential and integral features of the measure.
Following our examination of the EU Seal Regime as a whole, we draw a conclusion as to whether
the Panel erred in finding that the measure lays down product characteristics including applicable
administrative provisions in the sense of Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement.
5.1.3.3.2 Prohibitive and permissive elements
5.31. We note, first, that the Appellate Body has previously explained that a measure "may
provide, positively, that products must possess certain 'characteristics'", or it "may require,
negatively, that products must not possess certain 'characteristics'".
911 As the Appellate Body has
explained, the legal result is the same in both cases: "the document 'lays down' certain binding
'characteristics' for products, in one case affirmatively, and in the other by negative
implication."912
5.32. The European Union observes that one aspect of the EU Seal Regime consists of a
prohibition on pure seal products.913 According to the European Union, the Panel erred by failing to
take into account that such a ban on pure seal products does not set out product characteristics.
The European Union adds that this aspect of the measure is similar to the prohibition of asbestos
fibres "as such" in EC – Asbestos , which the Appellate Body found did not constitute a technical
regulation.
914
5.33. Norway counters that the mere fact that th e EU Seal Regime applies to pure seal products
does not preclude the measure from being characterized as a technical regulation, considering that
it lays down characteristics for all products containing seal inputs. 915 Norway adds that the
majority of seal products subject to the EU Seal Regime are "mixed products" that include
non-seal inputs, such as "tanned seal fur skin; boots with seal fur skins; slippers with seal fur skin;
refined seal oil; omega-3 oil capsules; and processed seal meat".
916 According to Norway, "the
extent of pure seal products is so limited" that it does not affect the overall finding made by the
Panel that the EU Seal Regime lays down product characteristics for all products that might contain
seal inputs.
917

910 Panel Reports, para. 7.106.
911 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 69. (emphasis original)
912 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 69.
913 The Panel concluded on the basis of its examination of the text and legislative history of the EU Seal
Regime, as well as other evidence pertaining to its design, structure, and operation, that the objective of the
EU Seal Regime is "to address the moral concerns of the EU public with regard to the welfare of seals". (Panel
Reports, para. 7.410)
914 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 33 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC –
Asbestos, paras. 71 and 72).
915 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 95.
916 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 96 (referring to Norway's first written submission to the Panel,
paras. 85-102).
917 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 96.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

5.34. In EC – Asbestos , the Appellate Body observed that the measure at issue prohibited
asbestos fibres in their raw form.918 The Appellate Body found that if a measure consisted only of a
prohibition on a product in its natural state, it might not constitute a technical regulation.
Specifically, the Appellate Body stated:
The first and second paragraphs of Article 1 of the Decree [96-1133] impose a
prohibition on asbestos fibres, as such. This prohibition on these fibres does not, in
itself, prescribe or impose any "characteristics" on asbestos fibres, but simply bans
them in their natural state. Accordingly, if this measure consisted only of a prohibition
on asbestos fibres, it might not constitute a "technical regulation".
919
5.35. We agree with the European Union that a prohibition of pure seal products does not
prescribe or impose any "characteristics" on such products. Unlike in EC – Asbestos, where it was
undisputed that asbestos fibres had "n o known use in their raw mineral form" 920, products
consisting exclusively of seal are used, consumed and traded to a considerable extent even though
trade in "mixed products" has surpassed trade in seal products in recent years.
921
5.36. We agree with the European Union that the Panel should therefore have assessed the
relevance of this aspect of the measure in order to determine whether it was a part of the integral
and essential aspects of the measure and, if so, what weight it should ascribe to it in determining
whether the EU Seal Regime, as a whole, lays do wn product characteristics. As noted, however,
rather than conducting such an assessment, the Panel simply stated in footnote 153 of its Reports,
that its conclusion that the measure lays down product characteristics is "not affected by the fact
that the prohibition of seals 'in their natural state' might not, in itself, prescribe or impose any
'characteristics'".
922 This does not, in our view, show sufficient consideration of the integral and
essential aspects of the measure as a whole.
5.37. We turn next to examine the EU Seal Regime as it applies to products containing seal as an
input. With regard to products containing seal and other ingredients ("mixed" products), the
European Union argues that the Panel should have also taken into account, together with the
prohibition on seal-containing products, the exceptions under the measure, "because it is the
permissive elements, together with the prohibition, that determine the situations where seal
products may be placed on the European Union market".
923 In response, Canada argues that the
Panel correctly found that the EU Seal Regime "[lays] down a product characteristic in the negative
form by requiring that 'all products not contain seal'".
924
5.38. For its part, Norway argues that the Pane l took the exceptions under the EU Seal Regime
"into account in finding that the measure as a whole lays down product characteristics". 925 Norway
notes, in particular, that the Panel reasoned that the exceptions "define the scope of the
prohibition" of the EU Seal Regime and that the "nature of the exceptions is to allow products
containing seal" subject to "strict administrative requirements" under the measure.926
5.39. In EC – Asbestos , the Appellate Body found that an "integral and essential aspect of the
measure [was] the regulation of ' products containing asbestos fibres '".927 The Appellate Body
attached importance to the fact that the measure at issue in that case effectively prescribed
"certain objective features, qualities or 'characteristics' on all products".
928 The prohibition on
seal-containing products as such may be seen as imposing certain "objective features, qualities or
characteristics" on all products by providing that they may not contain seal. Yet, that prohibition is
but one of the components of the EU Seal Regime and has to be analysed together with other

918 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 71.
919 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 71. (emphasis original)
920 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 72 (referring to Panel Report, EC – Asbestos,
paras. 3.418 and 3.439).
921 Panel Reports, paras. 7.240 and 7.241.
922 Panel Reports, fn. 153 to para. 7.106 (quoting Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 71).
923 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 34 (referring to European Union's first written
submission to the Panel, para. 216). (emphasis original)
924 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 37 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.106).
925 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 49.
927 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 72. (emphasis original)
928 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 72. (emphasis omitted)
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

components of the measure before reaching a conclusion under Annex 1.1. As the Appellate Body
has previously noted, "the proper legal character of the measure at issue cannot be determined
unless the measure is examined as a whole."
929 Moreover, the Appellate Body in EC – Asbestos did
not conclude that the relevant French Decree qualified as a technical regulation merely on the
basis of its intermediate finding that the aspect of the measure setting out a prohibition on "mixed
products" prescribed "certain objective features, qualities or 'characteristics' on all products". 930
Rather, the Appellate Body reached its conclusion only after further examining other aspects of the
measure (i.e. certain exceptions to such prohibition). Given that the EU Seal Regime "consists of
both prohibitive and permissive components" 931, we consider it necessary further to examine the
permissive elements of the measure before drawing, on the basis of all relevant components of the
EU Seal Regime, an overall conclusion as to whether the measure prescribes product
characteristics.
5.40. As noted, Article 1 of the Basic Regulation, entitled "Subject matter", states that the
Regulation establishes "rules concerning the placing on the market of seal products". Article 3, the
key substantive provision of the Basic Regulation, entitled "Conditions for placing on the market",
starts with a paragraph prescribing that the plac ing on the market of seal products shall be
allowed only where the seal products result from hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit and other
indigenous communities and contribute to their subsistence. 932 The second paragraph of Article 3
provides for two situations where derogation from paragraph 1 is allowed. First, the placing on the
market of seal products on a non-profit basis is allowed where a seal product is derived from
MRM hunts and is not being placed on the market for "commercial reasons" (Article 3(2)(b)).
933
Second, the import by travellers of a seal product is allowed to the extent that it is not for
"commercial reasons" (Article 3(2)(a)). Specific requirements for each of the three conditions for
importing and/or placing seal products on the ma rket are elaborated in other parts of the Basic
Regulation and the Implementing Regulation.
934
5.41. Before turning to examine the conditions under the exceptions, we consider it helpful to
observe the different features of the measures at issue in EC – Asbestos and in these disputes.
First, we note that, under the French Decree, asbestos-containing products were regulated
due to the carcinogenicity or toxicity of the physical properties of the subject products
– i.e. the fact that those products contained asbestos fibres. By contrast, the EU Seal Regime does
not prohibit seal-containing products merely on the basis that such products contain seal as an
input. Rather, such prohibition is imposed subject to conditions based on criteria relating to the
identity of the hunter or the type or purpose of the hunt from which the product is derived.
In EC – Asbestos, by contrast, the identity of the producer or manufacturer, or the type or purpose
of manufacturing, did not feature in the French Decree as conditions for the prohibition or
permission to place asbestos products on the market. Moreover, the prohibition of products
containing asbestos set out in Article 1, paragraphs I and II of the French Decree, was an "integral
and essential aspect" of the measure at issue in EC – Asbestos .
935 On the other hand, under the
EU Seal Regime, in particular, Article 3 of the Basic Regulation, the prohibition on the products
containing seal seems to be derivative of the three (IC/MRM/Travellers) market access conditions,
that is, the permissive component of the measure.
5.42. In addition, we note the difficulty of verifying precisely whether a particular product contains
seal as an input.
936 This may suggest, albeit indirectly, that the regulation of the "mixed products"
is not an equally important feature of the EU Seal Regime as far as the operation of the measure is
concerned, as it was the case for the regulation of products containing chrysotile asbestos fibres
under the measure at issue in EC – Asbestos. Finally, we note that, with respect to the exceptions
regarding crysotile asbestos fibres, pursuant to Article 2 of the French Decree at issue
in EC – Asbestos , the exceptions under that measure applied on "an exceptional and temporary

929 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 64.
930 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 72. (emphasis omitted)
931 Panel Reports, para. 7.54.
932 Panel Reports, para. 7.13.
933 Article 3(2)(b) of the Basic Regulation states, at the end: "The nature and quantity of the seal
products shall not be such as to indicate that they are being placed on the market for commercial reasons."
(emphasis added)
934 See supra, paras. 4.9-4.11.
935 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 72.
936 European Union's response to questioning at the oral hearing.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

basis"937 and the Appellate Body referred to these as "limited exceptions" 938, which is not the case
for the exceptions under the EU Seal Regime.
5.43. We now turn to examine whether the cond itions under the exceptions of the EU Seal
Regime have features prescribing product characteristics.
5.44. The complainants confirmed at the oral hear ing that they did not allege that the exceptions
under the EU Seal Regime, when considered alone, lay down product characteristics. 939 The
European Union asserts, however, that the Panel did make such a finding, and points to the
following reasoning by the Panel:
[O]nly seals obtained from the specific type of hunter and/or the qualifying hunts may
be used in making final products. These criteria in our view constitute "objectively
definable features" of the seal products that are allowed to be placed on the
EU market and consequently lay down particular "characteristics" of the final products.
Therefore, as was the case in EC – Asbestos, the exceptions under the EU Seal
Regime identify a group of products with particular "characteristics" through a
narrowly defined set of criteria.
940
5.45. The Panel's discussion cited above gives the impression that the Panel treated the identity
of the hunter, the type of hunt, and the purpose of the hunt as "product characteristics" within the
meaning of Annex 1.1. In particular, we note that the Panel referred to these as "objectively
definable features" of seal products that "lay down particular 'characteristics' of the final
products".
941 We consider the Panel to have erred in this regard. We see no basis in the text of
Annex 1.1, or in prior Appellate Body reports, to suggest that the identity of the hunter, the type
of hunt, or the purpose of the hunt could be viewed as product characteristics. 942 Nor do we see a
basis to find that the market access conditions under the exceptions to the EU Seal Regime exhibit
features setting out product characteristics.
5.46. We now turn to examine the participants' arguments regarding the "applicable
administrative provisions".
5.1.3.3.3 Applicable administrative provisions
5.47. As noted by the Panel, Articles 6 thro ugh 10 of the Implementing Regulation prescribe
procedural requirements that must be met to pl ace seal products on the market. For example,
under Article 7 of the Implementing Regulation, for a seal product to be placed on the market, it
must be accompanied by an attesting document is sued by a recognized body, and a reference to
the attesting document number must be included in any further invoice.
943 Competent authorities
designated by the EU member States may verify the certificates accompanying imported products,
and monitor the issuing of certificates by recognized bodies established in their territory. 944
Similarly, with regard to the Travellers exceptio n, the EU Seal Regime includes a requirement to
present, for products imported to the European Un ion, a written notification of import to customs
authorities.945
5.48. The Panel found that the EU Seal Regime sets out, through its exceptions, the "applicable
administrative provisions" "for products with certain objective 'characteristics'". 946 The Panel
explained in this regard that the exceptions und er the EU Seal Regime constitute "applicable

937 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 2 (quoting French Decree, Article 2).
938 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 73.
939 Canada's and Norway's responses to questioning at the oral hearing.
940 Panel Reports, para. 7.110.
941 Panel Reports, para. 7.110.
942 We note in this regard that Article 2.9 of the TBT Agreement envisages that technical regulations
have "technical content". While the term "technical" can have a range of meanings, it does not appear
plausible that a measure that purportedly distinguishes between seal products on the basis of criteria relating
to the identity of the hunter and the purpose of the hunt would be "technical" in nature or have "technical"
content.
943 Implementing Regulation, Article 7.
944 Implementing Regulation, Article 9(1).
945 Implementing Regulation, Article 4(3).
946 Panel Reports, para. 7.108.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

administrative provisions" because they "define the scope of the prohibition" of the EU Seal
Regime.947 The Panel further noted that the "nature of the exceptions is to allow products
containing seal" subject to "strict administrative requirements" based on a "set of criteria".948
5.49. The European Union argues on appeal that the Panel erred in considering that the word
"applicable" pertains to products rather than "product characteristics or their related processes and
production methods". 949 Pointing to the text of Annex 1.1, the European Union observes that
"[t]he reference to 'applicable administrative provisions' immediately follows the mention of
'product characteristics or their related processes and production methods'", with the two
categories being linked by "the conjunctive term 'including'". 950 Regarding the measure at issue,
the European Union contends that, while the procedural requirements contained in the
Implementing Regulation might be described as ad ministrative provisions, they "do not directly
pertain to … what the Panel considered as a product characteristic laid down in the negative form,
namely that the products must not contain seal". 951 Instead, they regulate trade in seal
products.952 For the European Union, they cannot therefore be considered as being "applicable" to
a product characteristic within the meaning of Annex 1.1.
5.50. Canada counters that the administrative provisions in the EU Seal Regime "apply to product
characteristics in the sense that the administrative provisions operate to ensure that products that
exhibit the product characteristic of containing seal satisfy the criteria set out in the exceptions".953
According to Canada, the European Union was therefore "misguided" in its concern that the Panel's
reasoning leads to an "over-inclusive" characterization of "applicable administrative provisions".
954
5.51. Norway agrees with the Panel's finding that the EU Seal Regime "prescribes 'applicable
administrative provisions' for products with certain objective characteristics". 955 The administrative
provisions under the measure at issue in EC – Asbestos applied to products possessing the
regulated product characteristic of containing chrysotile asbestos 956, while the exceptions under
the EU Seal Regime include administrative provisions, which "'apply' to products possessing the
regulated product characteristic" of containing seal. 957 According to Norway, "the close nexus
between 'administrative provisions' and 'product characteristics' arises because the products
exhibit or possess the 'product characteristic' laid down in the document in question."958
5.52. As noted above, we read the clause "including the applicable administrative provisions" in
Annex 1.1 to refer to provisions to be applied by virtue of a governmental mandate in relation to
either product characteristics or their related processes and production methods. To the extent
that the essential and integral aspects of the EU Seal Regime that were identified above do not set
out product characteristics, it follows that their related administrative provisions cannot be
characterized as being applicable to product characteristics.
5.53. We further note that the EU Seal Regime differs from the measure at issue in EC – Asbestos
in the sense that the exceptions contained in the latter measure were found by the Appellate Body
to involve product characteristics, and the Appellate Body could therefore find that the
"administrative provisions" in that dispute applied to such product characteristics. Specifically, in
EC – Asbestos, the Appellate Body found that the nature of the exceptions in that case was to
permit "the use of certain products containing chrysotile asbestos fibres , subject to compliance
with strict administrative requirements".
959 The Appellate Body added that "[t]he scope of the

947 Panel Reports, para. 7.108.
948 Panel Reports, para. 7.108.
949 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 53 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.108).
950 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 55.
951 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 58.
952 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 58.
953 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 40 (referring to the European Union's other appellant's
submission, para. 55).
954 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 41 (quoting the European Union's other appellant's
submission, para. 56).
955 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 63 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.109).
956 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 61 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos,
para. 73).
957 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 63.
958 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 80. (emphasis original)
959 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 73. (emphasis added)
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

exceptions [was] determined by an 'exhaustive list' of products that are permitted to contain
chrysotile asbestos fibres ".960 It is uncontested that the conditions governing the exception
in EC – Asbestos applied to products possessing defined objective characteristics – i.e. products
containing chrysotile asbestos fibres. Moreover, the inclusion of a product in the list of exceptions
depended "on the absence of an acceptable alternative fibre for incorporation into a particular
product, and the demonstrable provision of 'all technical guarantees of safety'". 961 We further note
that, under the measure at issue in EC – Asbestos, the alternative fibre, the absence of which gave
rise to the exception, was designed to be incorporated into a particular product and provide all
technical guarantees of safety, which would seem to be features closely related to product
characteristics.
5.54. Ultimately, the Appellate Body considered that, through these exceptions , the measure at
issue in EC – Asbestos set out " applicable administrative provisions " for products with particular
characteristics.
962 Unlike the measure at issue in EC – Asbestos , the EU Seal Regime does not
prohibit (or permit) the importation or placing on the EU market of products depending on whether
or not they contain seal as an input. Instead, as the Panel observed:
[I]n order to fall under the IC or MRM exceptions, products containing seal must meet
inter alia the following criteria relating to seal hunts from which the seals used as their
input are derived: the identity of the hunt er (Inuit or indigenous); the type of hunt
(traditional Inuit hunts); the purpose of the hunt (subsistence or marine resource
management); and the way in which the products are marketed (non-systematically
and on a non-profit basis).
963
5.55. In this way, the measure conditions market access on the type and purpose of the seal
hunt, and the identity of the hunter. 964 As we pointed out above, such criteria do not constitute
product characteristics in the sense of Annex 1.1.
5.56. Referring to Articles 3(2), 5(2), and 7(1) of the Implementing Regulation, the Panel noted
that, under the EU Seal Regime:
Any person wishing to import and/or place seal products on the market under these
exceptions must have such products certified by a recognized body as meeting the
necessary criteria under each exception. Furthermore, the products must be
accompanied by an attesting document at the time of placing on the market. In
addition, with respect to the particular unit of seal products for which it is issued, the
attesting document indicates whether the products result from hunts conducted by
Inuit or other indigenous communities, or from hunts for the sustainable management
of marine resources.
965
5.57. Although the administrative provisions under the EU Seal Regime "apply" to products
containing seal, this does not, in our view, mean that the measure at issue amounts to a technical
regulation for that reason alone. Rather, as we see it, the administrative provisions serve to
identify the exempted products, through the type and purpose of the relevant seal hunt, and the
identity of the hunter. The administrative provisions under the EU Seal Regime also require that
these products be certified by a recognized body as meeting the necessary criteria under each
exception.
966 Yet, when viewed together with the exceptions under the EU Seal Regime, we
consider that this aspect of the measure is ancillary, and does not render the measure a "technical
regulation" within the meaning of Annex 1.1.

960 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 73. (emphasis added)
961 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 73. (emphasis added)
962 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 74 (referring to Panel Report, EC – Asbestos,
para. 8.69). (emphasis added)
964 See supra, paras. 4.4-4.11.
966 Articles 6 through 10 of the Implementing Regulation prescribe the procedural requirements that
must be met to place seal products on the EU market, that is, for a seal product to be placed on the
EU market, it must be accompanied by an attesting document (Article 7) issued by a recognized body
(Article 6). A reference to the attesting document number must be included in any further invoice
(Article 7(4)). A model attesting document is attached as an annex to the Implementing Regulation. (See Panel
Reports, para. 7.24)
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

5.1.3.3.4 Conclusion
5.58. Having reviewed the relevant aspects of the EU Seal Regime, we see only one feature that
may suggest that the measure lays down product char acteristics, while all others suggest that this
is not the case. For example, to the extent that the measure regulates the placing on the
EU market of pure seal products, which is a pa rt of the integral and essential aspects of the
measure, it does not prescribe or impose any "characteristi cs" on the products themselves. To the
extent the measure prohibits the placing on the EU market of seal-containing products, it could be
seen as imposing certain "objective features, qualities or characteristics" on all products by
providing that they may not contain seal. However, as stated above, we are not persuaded that
this part of the Regulation constitutes the main feature of the measure at issue. Moreover, the
EU Seal Regime's prohibition of "mixed" products differs, to a considerable extent, from the
prohibitive aspects of the French Decree under EC – Asbestos . More importantly, as noted by the
Panel, the EU Seal Regime "consists of both proh ibitive and permissive components and should be
examined as such".
967 As we see it, when the prohibitive aspects of the EU Seal Regime are
considered in the light of the IC and MRM exceptions, it becomes apparent that the measure is not
concerned with banning the placing on the EU ma rket of seal products as such. Instead, it
establishes the conditions for placing seal products on the EU market based on criteria relating to
the identity of the hunter or the type or purpose of the hunt from which the product is derived. We
view this as the main feature of the measure. That being so, we do not consider that the measure
as a whole lays down product characteristics. This is not changed by the fact that the
administrative provisions under the EU Seal Regime may "apply" to products containing seal.
5.59. In the light of the above, we reverse the Panel's findings, in paragraphs 7.111 and 7.112 of
the Panel Reports, that the EU Seal Regime lays down product characteristics. The Panel's
conclusion that the EU Seal Regime constitutes a "technical regulation" relied on its intermediate
finding that the EU Seal Regime lays down product characteristics. Accordingly, having reversed
this finding by the Panel, we also reverse the Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.125 and 8.2(a) of
the Panel Reports that the EU Seal Regime constitutes a "technical regulation" within the meaning
of Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement.
5.60. In our analysis above, we have addressed the participants' arguments as they pertain to the
Panel's interpretation and application of the terms "product characteristics" and "applicable
administrative provisions" in the first sentence of Annex 1.1. In doing so, we have focused on the
text and the immediate context found in Annex 1. 1 as well as on previous jurisprudence by the
Appellate Body. In future cases, depending on the nature of the measure and the circumstances of
the case, a panel may find it helpful to seek further contextual guidance in other provisions of the
TBT Agreement, for example, those pertaining to standards
968, international standards 969, and
conformity assessment procedures 970, in delimiting the contours of the term "technical
regulation".971 It may also be relevant for a panel to examine supplementary means of
interpretation such as the negotiating history of the TBT Agreement or the types and the nature of
claims that have been brought by the complainants. Indeed, as the Appellate Body has
emphasized, a determination of whether a measure constitutes a technical regulation "must be
made in the light of the characteristics of th e measure at issue and the circumstances of the
case".
972

967 Panel Reports, para. 7.54.
968 TBT Agreement, Annex 1.2.
969 TBT Agreement, Articles 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.9.
970 TBT Agreement, Article 5 and Annex 1.3. If the requirements set out in a measure are not apt to be
subject to "conformity assessment procedures" as defined in Annex 1.3, this may be an indication that the
measure at issue is not a technical regulation.
971 Thus, for example, if a measure has characteristics of a "standard" within the meaning of Annex 1.2,
it would not constitute a technical regulation. In determining whether this is the case, it may also be relevant
to consider provisions such as Articles 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.9 of the TBT Agreement.
972 Appellate Body Report, US – Tuna II (Mexico), para. 188 (referring to Appellate Body Reports,
EC – Asbestos, para. 64; and EC – Sardines, paras. 192 and 193).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

5.1.3.4 Completing the legal analysis
5.61. We note that both Canada and Norway have requested, should we find that the Panel erred
in determining that the EU Seal Regime lays down "product characteristics" and/or "applicable
administrative provisions" within the meaning of Annex 1.1, and reverse either of those findings of
the Panel, that we complete the analysis and find that the EU Seal Regime constitutes a "technical
regulation" within the meaning of Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement.
973 Hence, having reversed the
Panel's finding that the measure lays down "product characteristics", we now consider whether we
can complete the legal analysis as requested by the complainants.
5.62. We begin by noting that, in its Notice of Other Appeal, the European Union appealed the
Panel's finding that the EU Seal Regime is a "technical regulation" and alleged specifically that the
Panel erred: (i) in finding the exceptions under the EU Seal Regime constitute "applicable
administrative provisions"; (ii) in concluding that the measure laid down "product characteristics";
and (iii) in failing to make a holistic assessment of the measure at issue. In our reasoning above,
we have addressed each of the issues raised on appeal by the European Union.
5.63. In some previous disputes, the Appellate Body has completed the analysis with a view to
facilitating the prompt settlement and effective resolution of the dispute.
974 However, the Appellate
Body has done so only if the factual findings of the panel and the undisputed facts on the panel
record provide it with a sufficient basis for its own analysis. 975 In addition, the Appellate Body has
been unable to complete the legal analysis in the light of the complexity of the legal issues
involved, in conjunction with the absence of full exploration of the issues before the panel, and,
consequently, considerations pertaining to parties' due process rights.
976 Moreover, the Appellate
Body has declined to complete the legal analysis of a panel in circumstances where that would
involve addressing claims "which the panel had not examined at all".977
5.64. Turning to the specific case before us, we recall that the first sentence of Annex 1.1
indicates that the subject matter of a technical regulation may consist of either "product
characteristics" or "their related processes and production methods". Hence, we might, in
principle, be able to complete the analysis by ruling on whether the EU Seal Regime lays down
"their related processes and production methods" and therefore qualifies as a technical regulation
even though it does not lay down product characteristics.
5.65. The European Union argued at the oral hearing that the Appellate Body would not be in a
position to determine whether the EU Seal Regime lays down "related processes and production
methods" in the absence of sufficient factual findin gs by the Panel. We are not entirely convinced.
As we see it, the text of the measure provides us with some basis to determine whether the
EU Seal Regime lays down "related processes and production methods" within the meaning of

973 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 66; Norway's appellee's submission, para. 101.
974 See e.g. Appellate Body Reports, Australia – Salmon, paras. 117 and 118; US – Wheat Gluten,
paras. 80-92; and Canada – Aircraft (Article 21.5 – Brazil), paras. 43-52.
975 See Appellate Body Reports, Australia – Salmon, paras. 241 and 255; Korea – Dairy, para. 102;
Canada – Autos, paras. 133 and 144; and Korea – Various Measures on Beef, para. 128. See also Appellate
Body Reports, EC – Asbestos, para. 79; and EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar, para. 337.
976 See Appellate Body Reports, Canada – Renewable Energy / Canada – Feed-in Tariff Program,
para. 5.224 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar, fn 537 to para. 339). In EC –
Export Subsidies on Sugar, the Appellate Body stated that, "in the light of Article 21 of the Agreement on
Agriculture and the chapeau of Article 3 of the SCM Agreement, the question of the applicability of the
SCM Agreement to the export subsidies in this dispute raises a number of complex issues." (Appellate Body
Report, EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar, para. 339 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Upland Cotton,
paras. 532 and 533, in turn quoting Appellate Body Report, EC – Bananas III, para. 155; and referring to
Appellate Body Report, Chile – Price Band System, para. 186)) In that case, the Appellate Body considered
that, "in the absence of a full exploration of these issues, completing the analysis might affect the due process
rights of the participants." (Ibid.)
977 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 79. See also Appellate Body Report, EC – Poultry,
para. 107.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

Annex 1.1. The European Union has not explained to us why factual findings in this regard would
have been required and which factual findings are missing.978
5.66. Norway argued before the Panel, as an alte rnative to its argument that the EU Seal Regime
lays down "product characteristics", that the measure at issue "prescribes related PPMs within the
meaning of Annex 1.1". 979 Norway asserted that a PPM is laid down through the IC and
MRM exceptions. With respect to the IC category , Norway argued that "the IC requirements
prescribe a 'process' involving a particular course of action (a traditional hunt by specified persons)
with a defined end (the production of se al products for community subsistence)."980 Regarding the
MRM category, Norway claimed that "the measure imposes a particular course of action relating to
the purpose of the hunt (sustainable marine resource management); the way in which the hunt is
conducted (regulated at national level pursuant to a resource management plan); and the way in
which the seal products are marketed (not-for-profit, non-commercial nature and quantity)."
981
Furthermore, "the action also has a defined end (the sale of MRM by-products)." 982 Norway further
argued that the processes prescribed through the IC and MRM exceptions under the EU Seal
Regime "'relate' to defined product characteristics" in the sense that they lay down "when a
product containing seal can be marketed". 983 For its part, Canada argued that "the identity of the
producers of a product could be a relevant factor in the identification of a PPM." 984 In particular,
Canada noted that "certain elements of the Inuit Communities category could be characterized as
[PPMs]".985
5.67. Although the Panel recognized in its Reports 986 that the complainants had made arguments
on "related PPMs" in the alternative, it also noted that "[t]he meaning of the phrase 'their related
PPMs' has not yet been examined in a WTO dispute."987 In addition, the Panel expressly stated that
it did "not find it necessary to examine whether the EU Seal Regime also lays down PPMs". 988 The
Panel did not develop any interpretation of "related PPMs", nor did it make any findings on whether
the EU Seal Regime lays down "related processes and production methods". 989 Under the Panel's
logic, as it found the EU Seal Regime to lay down product characteristics including the applicable
administrative provisions, it saw no reason to examine this issue. Consequently, the Panel
proceedings were conducted without the Panel exploring this issue with the parties, and we thus
lack the benefit of sufficient elaboration by the parties of their arguments on this matter.
5.68. In their written submissions on appeal, the complainants have not developed argumentation
on whether and why the EU Seal Regime lays down related PPMs. At the oral hearing, Norway
reiterated its argument that a PPM is "related" to product characteristics when compliance with the
prescribed PPM determines whether a product can or cannot have a particular characteristic.
990 For
its part, Canada confirmed at the oral hearing that it had not argued in these proceedings that the

978 In China – Auto Parts, the Appellate Body recalled that:
[T]he municipal law of WTO Members may serve not only as evidence of facts, but also as
evidence of compliance or non-compliance with international obligations. When a panel examines
the municipal law of a WTO Member for purposes of determining whether the Member has
complied with its WTO obligations, that determination is a legal characterization by a panel, and
is therefore subject to appellate review under Article 17.6 of the DSU. The Appellate Body has
reviewed the meaning of a Member's municipal law, on its face, to determine whether the legal
characterization by the panel was in error, in particular when the claim before the panel
concerned whether a specific instrument of municipal law was, as such, inconsistent with a
Member's obligations.
(Appellate Body Reports, China – Auto Parts, para. 225 (fns omitted))
979 Panel Reports, para. 7.90.
980 Panel Reports, para. 7.90 (referring to Norway's second written submission to the Panel, para. 162).
981 Panel Reports, para. 7.90 (referring to Norway's second written submission to the Panel, para. 162).
982 Panel Reports, para. 7.90 (referring to Norway's second written submission to the Panel, para. 162).
983 Norway's second written submission to the Panel, para. 162.
984 Panel Reports, para. 7.91 (referring to Canada's response to Panel question No. 21, para. 109).
985 Panel Reports, para. 7.91 (quoting Canada's response to Panel question No. 21, para. 109).
986 Panel Reports, paras. 7.90 and 7.91.
987 Panel Reports, para. 7.103.
988 Panel Reports, para. 7.112.
989 In US – Gambling, the Appellate Body noted that, "in some instances, a panel's decision to continue
its legal analysis and to make factual findings beyond those that are strictly necessary to resolve the dispute
may assist the Appellate Body should it later be called upon to complete the analysis".989 (Appellate Body
Report, US – Gambling, para. 344)
990 Norway's response to questioning at the oral hearing.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

IC and MRM requirements are "related" PPMs.991 Norway similarly indicated that it did not consider
that the conditions under exceptions of the EU Seal Regime, taken alone, amount to related
PPMs.
992 Norway emphasized, however, that the conditions under the exceptions, when considered
together with other elements of the measure, make the EU Seal Regime as a whole a technical
regulation.993
5.69. As noted994, the Appellate Body has refrained from completing the legal analysis in view of
the novel character of an issue which the panel "had not examined at all" and on which the Panel
had made no findings. Importantly, it has not completed the analysis in the absence of a full
exploration of issues before the panel that might have given rise to concerns about the parties'
due process rights. We believe that all these elements are present in this case. We further note
that the line between PPMs that fall, and those that do not fall, within the scope of the
TBT Agreement raises important systemic issues. Although we explored the issue of whether the
EU Seal Regime lays down related PPMs with the participants and third participants at the oral
hearing, and while the participants' answers to the Division's questions did shed at least some light
on the issue, we consider that in order to develop an interpretation of that phrase in the first
sentence of Annex 1.1 and in order to reach a conclusion in this respect regarding the EU Seal
Regime, more argumentation by the participants and exploration in questioning would have been
required. The Panel has made no findings on this issue and the question was not explored by the
Panel. Moreover, the complainants focused in their argumentation on the issue of whether the
EU Seal Regime lays down "product characteristics" and "applicable administrative provisions"
within the meaning of Annex 1.1. In these circumstances, we do not consider it appropriate to
complete the legal analysis by ruling on whether the EU Seal Regime lays down "related processes
and production methods" within the meaning of Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement.
5.1.4 Overall conclusion
5.70. Having reversed the Panel's finding that the EU Seal Regime constitutes a technical
regulation subject to the disciplines of the TBT Agreement and having found that we are not in a
position to complete the legal analysis in this case, we declare moot and of no legal effect the
Panel's findings under Articles 2.1, 2.2, 5.1.2, and 5.2.1 of the TBT Agreement.
5.2 Article I:1 and Article III:4 of the GATT 1994
5.71. We turn now to consider the European Union's appeal of the Panel's findings under
Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994. The Europe an Union appeals the Panel's interpretation of
Articles I:1 and III:4, as well as the Panel's conclusion that the EU Seal Regime is inconsistent with
Article I:1. The European Union does not appeal th e Panel's conclusion that the EU Seal Regime is
inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.995
5.72. With regard to the Panel's interpretation of Articles I:1 and III:4, the European Union
requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's finding that the legal standard for the
non-discrimination obligations under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement does not "equally apply" to
claims under Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994.
996 With respect to the Panel's conclusion
under Article I:1, the European Union requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's finding
that the measure at issue is inconsistent with Article I:1 because it does not "immediately and
unconditionally" extend the same market acce ss advantage accorded to seal products of
Greenlandic origin to like seal products of Canadian and Norwegian origin.
997 The European Union's

991 See also Canada's response to Panel question No. 21, paras. 108-110.
992 Canada's and Norway's responses to questioning at the oral hearing.
993 Norway's response to questioning at the oral hearing.
994 See supra, para. 5.63.
995 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 227; European Union's response to questioning at the oral
hearing.
996 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 310. Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement
provides: "Members shall ensure that in respect of technical regulations, products imported from the territory
of any Member shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products of national
origin and to like products originating in any other country."
997 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 314 and 315 (referring to Panel Reports,
para. 7.600).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

challenge of the Panel's conclusion under Article I:1 is based entirely on the alleged errors in the
Panel's interpretation of that provision.998
5.73. Canada and Norway contend that the Panel was correct in finding that the legal standard for
the non-discrimination obligations under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement does not apply equally
to claims under Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994. Thus, Canada and Norway request the
Appellate Body to reject the European Union's appe al of the Panel's interpretation of Articles I:1
and III:4, and of the Panel's conclusion that the measure at issue is inconsistent with Article I:1.999
5.74. In addressing the European Union's appeal, we begin by reviewing the Panel's findings with
respect to the relationship between the non-discrimination obligations under Articles I:1 and III:4
of the GATT 1994, on the one hand, and Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, on the other hand.
5.2.1 The Panel's findings
5.75. At the outset of its analysis, the Panel considered that, because the complainants had raised
claims under the non-discrimination obligations of both the GATT 1994 and the TBT Agreement, it
was useful "to review the relationship between, and the legal standards under, the GATT 1994 and
the TBT Agreement" before examining the specific claims under the GATT 1994.
1000
5.76. The Panel noted that the Appellate Body had provided guidance on the relationship between
the obligations under the TBT Agreement and the GATT 1994 in recent disputes involving claims
under the TBT Agreement.1001 Referring to previous Appellate Body reports, the Panel found that:
[U]nder the GATT 1994 (Articles I:1 and III:4) … the "treatment no less favourable"
standard prohibits WTO Members from modifying the conditions of competition in the
marketplace to the detriment of the group of imported products vis-à-vis the group of
domestic like products, whereas under the TBT Agreement, the "treatment no less
favourable" standard does not prohibit detrimental impact on imports that stems
exclusively from a legitimate regulatory distinction rather than reflecting
discrimination against the group of imported products.
1002
5.77. Based on this understanding of, on the one hand, Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994,
and, on the other hand, Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, the Panel rejected the European Union's
argument that the legal standard under Article 2.1 applies equally to claims under
Articles I:1 and III:4.1003 The Panel explained that, under the GATT 1994, the objective of trade
liberalization – including the obligation to respect the non-discrimination obligations under
Articles I:1 and III:4 – is balanced against the right of Members to regulate under Article XX
of the GATT 1994.
1004 According to the Panel, the additional element in the analysis under
Article 2.1 – whether a measure's detrimental impact on imports stems exclusively from a
legitimate regulatory distinction – reflects the absence in the TBT Agreement of a general
exceptions provision that resembles Article XX of the GATT 1994.1005
5.2.2 The legal standards of the obligations under Article I:1 and Article III:4 of the
GATT 1994
5.78. We note that, in reviewing the European Union's argument that the legal standard of the
obligations under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement applies equally to claims under Articles I:1
and III:4 of the GATT 1994, the Panel appears to have focused its analysis on the phrase
"treatment no less favourable" – a phrase contained in Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement and

998 European Union's response to questioning at the oral hearing.
999 Canada's appellee's submission, paras. 255 and 262; Norway's appellee's submission, paras. 317
and 329.
1000 Panel Reports, para. 7.581.
1001 Panel Reports, para. 7.582 (referring to Appellate Body Reports, US – Clove Cigarettes; US –
Tuna II (Mexico); and US – COOL).
1002 Panel Reports, para. 7.585 (referring to Appellate Body Reports, US – Clove Cigarettes,
paras. 180-182 and 215; and US – Tuna II (Mexico), para. 215).
1003 Panel Reports, para. 7.586 (referring to European Union's first written submission to the Panel,
para. 528).
1004 Panel Reports, para. 7.586.
1005 Panel Reports, para. 7.585.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, but not found in Article I:1 of the GATT 1994. For example,
referring to Articles I and III of the GATT 1994, the Panel stated that "under the GATT 1994 the
'treatment no less favourable' standard prohibits WTO Members from modifying the conditions of
competition in the marketplace to the detriment of the group of imported products vis-à-vis the
group of domestic like products".
1006 Thus, it seems to us that the Panel assimilated the legal
standards under Articles I:1 and III:4, insofar as it found that, for the purposes of establishing an
inconsistency with both provisions, a demonstration that a measure modifies the conditions of
competition to the detriment of like imported products is dispositive. We consider it useful,
therefore, to make some general observations about the similarities and differences between these
two provisions, before turning to address the Euro pean Union's specific claims on appeal under
Articles I:1 and III:4.
5.79. First, although the most favoured nation (MFN) and national treatment obligations under
Articles I:1 and III:4 are both fundamental non-discrimination obligations under the GATT 1994,
their points of comparison, for the purposes of determining whether a measure discriminates
between like products, are not the same. On the one hand, the MFN obligation under Article I:1
proscribes, with respect to measures falling within its scope of application, discriminatory
treatment between and among like products of different origins. On the other hand, the national
treatment obligation under Article III:4 proscribes, with respect to measures falling within its
scope of application, discriminatory treatment of imported products vis-à-vis like domestic
products.
5.80. Second, we note that Article I:1 incorporates "all matters referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4
of Article III". Thus, there is overlap in the scope of application of Articles I:1 and III:4, insofar as
"internal matters may be within the purview of the MFN obligation".
1007
5.81. Third, there are textual differences betw een Articles I:1 and III:4. Like the national
treatment and MFN obligations under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, the national treatment
obligation under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 is also expressed through a "treatment no less
favourable" standard. By contrast, as Canada rightly points out, the MFN obligation in Article I:1 of
the GATT 1994 is not expressed through a "treatment no less favourable" standard.
1008 Instead,
the legal standard under Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 is expressed through an obligation to extend
any "advantage" granted by a Member to any product originating in or destined for any other
country "immediately and unconditionally" to the "like product" originating in or destined for all
other Members.
5.82. Finally, we observe that, notwithstandin g the textual differences between Articles I:1
and III:4, each provision is concerned, fundamentally, with prohibiting discriminatory measures by
requiring, in the context of Article I:1, equalit y of competitive opportunities for like imported
products from all Members, and, in the cont ext of Article III:4, equality of competitive
opportunities for imported products and like domestic products.1009 It is for this reason that neither
Article I:1 nor Article III:4 require a demonstration of the actual trade effects of a specific
measure.

1006 Panel Reports, para. 7.585 (referring to Appellate Body Reports, US – Clove Cigarettes,
paras. 180-182 and 215; and US – Tuna II (Mexico), para. 215). We note that, in the paragraphs of the
Appellate Body reports cited by the Panel, the Appellate Body made observations concerning the relationship
between the national treatment obligations articulated in Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 and Article 2.1 of the
TBT Agreement. The Appellate Body did not, as the Panel seems to suggest, comment specifically on the
relationship between the most favoured nation (MFN) obligations in Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement and
Article I:1 of the GATT 1994.
1007 Panel Reports, EC – Bananas III, para. 7.176. See also Panel Report, EC – Trademarks and
Geographical Indications (US), para. 7.713.
1008 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 211.
1009 In the context of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, see Appellate Body Reports, US – Clove Cigarettes,
para. 176 (referring to GATT Panel Report, US – Section 337 Tariff Act, para. 5.10); China – Publications and
Audiovisual Products, para. 305 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef,
paras. 135 and 136); Thailand – Cigarettes (Philippines), para. 126 (referring to Appellate Body Report,
Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II, p. 16, DSR 1996:I, p. 109); and Korea – Alcoholic Beverages, para. 127. In the
context of Article I:1 of the GATT 1994, see Panel Reports, US – COOL, para. 7.571 (referring to Panel Report,
Colombia – Ports of Entry, para. 7.236, in turn referring to Panel Report, Argentina – Hides and Leather,
para. 11.20, in turn referring to Appellate Body Reports, Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II, p. 16, DSR 1996:I,
p. 109; and Korea – Alcoholic Beverages, paras. 119, 120, and 127).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

5.83. With these considerations in mind, we examine separately the Panel's interpretation of the
legal standards under Article I:1 and Article III:4, respectively. We begin with the European
Union's claim that the Panel erred in finding that the legal standard for the non-discrimination
obligations under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement does not equally apply to claims under Article
I:1 of the GATT 1994.
5.2.3 Article I:1 of the GATT 1994
5.84. The issue before us is whether the legal standard for the non-discrimination obligations
under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement applies equally to claims under Article I:1 of the
GATT 1994. We must thus consider whether Article I:1 prohibits: (i) a detrimental impact on
competitive opportunities for like imported products; or (ii) only a detrimental impact on
competitive opportunities for like imported products that does not stem exclusively from a
legitimate regulatory distinction. We understan d the European Union to argue on appeal that
Article I:1 prohibits only the latter. Thus, in the European Union's view, an analysis of a claim
under Article I:1 entails an assessment of whether the detrimental impact on competitive
opportunities for like imported products stems exclusively from a legitimate regulatory
distinction.
1010
5.85. Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 provides:
General Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment
1. With respect to customs duties and charges of any kind imposed on or in
connection with importation or exportation or imposed on the international transfer of
payments for imports or exports, and with respect to the method of levying such
duties and charges, and with respect to all rules and formalities in connection with
importation and exportation, and with respect to all matters referred to in
paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article III,[] any advantage, favour, privilege or immunity
granted by any Member to any product originating in or destined for any other country
shall be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the like product originating in or
destined for the territories of all other Members.
5.86. Article I:1 sets out a fundamental non-discrimination obligation under the GATT 1994. The
obligation set out in Article I:1 has been describ ed by the Appellate Body as "pervasive", a
"cornerstone of the GATT", and "one of the pillars of the WTO trading system".
1011 Based on the
text of Article I:1, the following elements must be demonstrated to establish an inconsistency with
that provision: (i) that the measure at issue fall s within the scope of application of Article I:1;
(ii) that the imported products at issue are "lik e" products within the meaning of Article I:1;
(iii) that the measure at issue confers an "advanta ge, favour, privilege, or immunity" on a product
originating in the territory of any country; and (iv) that the advantage so accorded is not extended
"immediately" and "unconditionally" to "like" products originating in the territory of all Members.
Thus, if a Member grants any advantage to any product originating in the territory of any other
country, such advantage must be accorded "immed iately and unconditionally" to like products
originating from all other Members.
5.87. Article I:1 thus prohibits discrimination among like imported products originating in, or
destined for, different countries.
1012 In so doing, Article I:1 protects expectations of equal
competitive opportunities for like imported products from all Members.1013 As stated above, it is for
this reason that an inconsistency with Article I:1 is not contingent upon the actual trade effects of
a measure. We consider that an interpretation of the legal standard of the obligation under
Article I:1 must take into account the fundamental purpose of Article I:1, namely, to preserve the
equality of competitive opportunities for like imported products from all Members.

1010 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 313.
1011 Appellate Body Report, EC – Tariff Preferences, para. 101 (referring to Appellate Body Reports,
1012 Appellate Body Report, Canada – Autos, para. 84.
1013 Panel Reports, US – COOL, para. 7.571 (referring to Panel Report, Colombia – Ports of Entry,
para. 7.236, in turn referring to Panel Report, Argentina – Hides and Leather, para. 11.20, in turn referring to
Appellate Body Reports, Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II, p. 16, DSR 1996:I, p. 109; and Korea – Alcoholic
Beverages, paras. 119, 120, and 127).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

5.88. Under Article I:1, a Member is proscribed from granting an "advantage" to imported
products that is not "immediately" and "unconditionally" extended to like imported products from
all Members. This means, in our view, that an y advantage granted by a Member to imported
products must be made available "unconditionally", or without conditions , to like imported
products from all Members.
1014 However, as Article I:1 is concerned, fundamentally, with
protecting expectations of equal competitive opportunities for like imported products from all
Members, it does not follow that Article I:1 prohibits a Member from attaching any conditions to
the granting of an "advantage" within the meanin g of Article I:1. Instead, it prohibits those
conditions that have a detrimental impact on the competitive opportunities for like imported
products from any Member. Conversely, Article I:1 permits regulatory distinctions to be drawn
between like imported products, provided that such distinctions do not result in a detrimental
impact on the competitive opportunities for like imported products from any Member.
5.89. For the European Union, the analysis under Article I:1 is not limited to an assessment of
whether a measure has a detrimental impact on competitive opportunities for like imported
products. Instead, if it is found that a measure has a detrimental impact on competitive
opportunities for like imported products, the analysis under Article I:1 must consider further the
rationale for such impact, and, more specifically, whether it stems exclusively from a legitimate
regulatory distinction.
5.90. Contrary to what the European Union suggests, we see no basis in the text of Article I:1 to
find that, for the purposes of establishing an inconsistency with that provision, it must be
demonstrated that the detrimental impact of a measure on competitive opportunities for like
imported products does not stem exclusively from a legitimate regulatory distinction. Instead, we
consider that, where a measure modifies the conditions of competition between like imported
products to the detriment of the third-country imported products at issue, it is inconsistent with
Article I:1.
5.91. The European Union advances three arguments to support its claim that the Panel erred in
finding that the legal standard for the non-discrimination obligation under Article 2.1 of the
TBT Agreement does not apply equally to claims under Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994:
(i) that the Panel's interpretation is "contrary to established Appellate Body jurisprudence" under
Article III:4
1015; (ii) that the Panel's interpretation fails to take account of the context provided by
Article III:1; and (iii) that the Panel's interpretation is incoherent with the interpretation of
Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement and renders Article 2.1 "irrelevant".1016
5.92. The arguments advanced by the European Union do not, in our view, provide a basis for
interpreting the legal standard under Article I:1 as requiring an inquiry into whether the
detrimental impact of a measure on competitive opportunities for like imported products stems
exclusively from a legitimate regulatory distinct ion. We note, as argued by Norway and Canada,
that the European Union's arguments rely prin cipally on WTO jurisprudence developed under
Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 and Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement. 1017 Moreover, the European
Union's arguments appear to be directed at the Pa nel's interpretation of the term "treatment no
less favourable" in Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. Thus, we consider these arguments in
examining the Panel's interpretation of the legal standard under that provision.
5.93. In the light of the above, we consider th at Article I:1 prohibits Members from conditioning
the extension of an "advantage", within the mean ing of Article I:1, on criteria that have a
detrimental impact on the competitive opportunities for like imported products from any Member.
A panel is not required, under Article I:1, to assess whether the detrimental impact of a measure
on competitive opportunities for like imported products stems exclusively from a legitimate
regulatory distinction. Such an assessment is a necessary analytical element of Article 2.1 of the
TBT Agreement, but not of Article I:1 of the GATT 1994.
5.94. In the light of the above, we reject the European Union's claim on appeal that the Panel
erred in finding that the legal standard for the non-discrimination obligations under Article 2.1 of
the TBT Agreement does not apply equally to claims under Article I:1 of the GATT 1994.

1014 Panel Report, EC – Tariff Preferences, para. 7.59.
1015 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 289.
1016 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 289.
1017 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 210; Norway's appellee's submission, paras. 262 and 276.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

5.95. We note that, in these disputes, the Panel concluded that the measure at issue, although
origin-neutral on its face, is de facto inconsistent with Article I:1. The Panel found that, while
virtually all Greenlandic seal products are likely to qualify under the IC exception for access to the
E U m a r k e t , t h e v a s t m a j o r i t y o f s e a l p r o d u c t s f r o m C a n a d a a n d N o r w a y d o n o t m e e t t h e
IC requirements for access to the EU market. Thus, the Panel found that, "in terms of its design,
structure, and expected operation", the measure at issue detrimentally affects the conditions of
competition for Canadian and Norwegian seal products as compared to seal products originating in
Greenland.
1018 Based on these findings, the Panel considered, correctly in our view, that the
measure at issue is inconsistent with Article I:1 because it does not, "immediately and
unconditionally", extend the same market access advantage to Canadian and Norwegian seal
products that it accords to seal products originating from Greenland.
1019
5.96. Given that the European Union's challenge of the Panel's conclusion under Article I:1 is
based entirely on the alleged errors in the Panel's interpretation of that provision 1020, and given
that we have rejected the European Union's appeal in this regard, we have no basis to disturb the
Panel's finding that the EU Seal Regime is inconsistent with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994. We
therefore uphold the Panel's finding, in paragrap h 7.600 of the Panel Reports, that the measure at
issue is inconsistent with the European Union's obligation under Article I:1 of the GATT 1994.
5.2.4 Article III:4 of the GATT 1994
5.97. We turn now to consider whether, as ar gued by the European Union, the legal standard
under Article III:4 entails an inquiry into whether the detrimental impact of a measure on
competitive opportunities for like imported products stems exclusively from a legitimate regulatory
distinction.
5.98. Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 provides:
National Treatment on Internal Taxation and Regulation
…
4. The products of the territory of any Member imported into the territory of any other
Member shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like
products of national origin in respect of all laws, regulations and requirements
affecting their internal sale, offering for sa le, purchase, transportation, distribution or
use. The provisions of this paragraph shall not prevent the application of differential
internal transportation charges which are based exclusively on the economic operation
of the means of transport and not on the nationality of the product.
5.99. There are three elements that must be demonstrated to establish that a measure is
inconsistent with Article III:4: (i) that the imported and domestic products are "like products";
(ii) that the measure at issue is a "law, regulation, or requirement affecting the internal sale,
offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution, or use" of the products at issue; and
(iii) that the treatment accorded to imported products is "less favourable" than that accorded to
like domestic products.
1021
5.100. The European Union's appeal is directed at the Panel's interpretation of the term
"treatment no less favourable" in Article III:4. The participants dispute whether, for the purposes
of establishing a violation of Article III:4, a finding that a measure has a detrimental impact on
competitive opportunities for imported products, compared to like domestic products, is

1018 Panel Reports, para. 7.597.
1019 Panel Reports, para. 7.600. Although some aspects of the Panel's reasoning can be read as
suggesting that an analysis of the actual trade effects of a measure is necessary under Article I:1 of the
GATT 1994, we consider that the Panel's reliance on the "design, structure, and expected operation" of the
measure highlights that, under Article I:1, the focus of the analysis is on the impact of a measure on
competitive opportunities for like imported products, rather than the actual trade effects of a measure.
(emphasis added)
1020 European Union's response to questioning at the oral hearing.
1021 Appellate Body Report, Thailand – Cigarettes (Philippines), para. 127 (referring to Appellate Body
Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef, para. 133).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

dispositive. The European Union submits that a panel must conduct an additional inquiry into
whether the detrimental impact on competitive opportunities for like imported products stems
exclusively from a legitimate regulatory distinction. Thus, in the European Union's view, the legal
standard for the non-discrimination obligations under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement applies
equally to claims under Article III:4. By contrast, Canada and Norway contend that this additional
inquiry is a necessary step in the analysis under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, but not under
Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.
5.101. The meaning of the term "treatment no less favourable" in Article III:4 has been
considered by panels and the Appellate Body in prior disputes. As a result, the following
propositions are well established. First, the term "treatment no less favourable" requires effective
equality of opportunities for imported products to compete with like domestic products.
1022 Second,
a formal difference in treatment between imported and domestic like products is neither
necessary, nor sufficient, to establish that imported products are accorded less favourable
treatment than that accorded to like domestic products.
1023 Third, because Article III:4 is
concerned with ensuring effective equality of competitive opportunities for imported products, a
determination of whether imported products are treated less favourably than like domestic
products involves an assessment of the implications of the contested measure for the equality of
competitive conditions between imported and like domestic products.
1024 If the outcome of this
assessment is that the measure has a detrimental impact on the conditions of competition for like
imported products, then such detrimental impact will amount to treatment that is "less favourable"
within the meaning of Article III:4.
1025 Finally, for a measure to be found to modify the conditions
of competition in the relevant market to the detriment of imported products, there must be a
"genuine relationship" between the measure at issue and the adverse impact on competitive
opportunities for imported products.
1026
5.102. In response to questioning at the oral hear ing, the European Union explained that it is not
suggesting that the legal standard of the obligatio n under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement should
be transposed to Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. Instead, the European Union argues that WTO
jurisprudence under Article III:4 establishes that the analysis of whether imported products are
accorded treatment less favourable than that accorded to like domestic products "goes beyond" a
consideration of the detrimental effect of a measure on the competitive opportunities for like
imported products.
5.103. The European Union contends that, in Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes,
the Appellate Body found that a detrimental effect on imports alone does not indicate that a
measure accords de facto "less favourable treatment" to imports under Article III:4.
1027 In this
regard, the European Union notes that, in US – Clove Cigarettes , the Appellate Body clarified that
a violation of Article III:4 had not been established in Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of
Cigarettes, because the detrimental impact on competitive opportunities for like imported products
was not attributable to the specific measure at issue.1028

1022 Appellate Body Reports, US – Clove Cigarettes, para. 176 (referring to GATT Panel Report, US –
Section 337 Tariff Act, para. 5.10); China – Publications and Audiovisual Products, para. 305 (referring to
Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef, paras. 135 and 136); and Thailand – Cigarettes
(Philippines), para. 126 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II, p. 16, DSR 1996:I,
p. 109).
1023 Appellate Body Reports, US – Clove Cigarettes, para. 177 (referring to Appellate Body Report,
Korea – Various Measures on Beef, para. 137); and Thailand – Cigarettes (Philippines), para. 128 (referring to
Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 100).
1024 Appellate Body Reports, US – Clove Cigarettes, paras. 177 and 179; Thailand – Cigarettes
1025 Appellate Body Reports, US – Clove Cigarettes, para. 179; Thailand – Cigarettes (Philippines),
1026 Appellate Body Reports, US – COOL, para. 270 (quoting Appellate Body Report, US – Tuna II
(Mexico), fn 457 to para. 214, in turn referring to Appellate Body Report, Thailand – Cigarettes (Philippines),
para. 134).
1027 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 292 and 293 (referring to Appellate Body
Report, Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes, para. 96).
1028 European Union's response to questioning at the oral hearing (referring to Appellate Body Report,
US – Clove Cigarettes, fn 372 to para. 179).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

5.104. As Canada and Norway observe, in US – Clove Cigarettes, the Appellate Body explained its
earlier finding in Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes .1029 The Appellate Body
explicitly rejected the notion that its finding in Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes
stands for the proposition that, under Article III:4, panels should conduct an inquiry into whether
the detrimental impact of a measure on imports is unrelated to the foreign origin of the imported
products. The Appellate Body buttressed this explanation of its finding in Dominican Republic –
Import and Sale of Cigarettes by pointing out that, subsequent to its finding in that case, it had, in
the context of a claim under Article III:4 in Thailand – Cigarettes (Philippines) , "eschewed an
additional inquiry" as to whether the detrimental impact of a measure on imports is related to the
foreign origin of the products.
1030 The Appellate Body also pointed out that, in Thailand –
Cigarettes (Philippines) , it had clarified that, for a finding of less favourable treatment under
Article III:4, "there must be in every case a genuine relationship between the measure at issue
and its adverse impact on competitive opportunities for imported versus like domestic products to
support a finding that imported products are treated less favourably".
1031
5.105. In US – Clove Cigarettes , the Appellate Body thus clarified that a violation of Article III:4
had not been established in Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes , since, in that
dispute, the detrimental impact on competitive opportunities for like imported products was not
attributable to the specific measure at issue. The Appellate Body has stated that, in determining
whether the detrimental impact on competitive opportunities for like imported products is
attributable to, or has a genuine relationship with , the measure at issue, the relevant question is
"whether it is the governmental measure at issue that 'affects the conditions under which like
goods, domestic and imported, compete in the market within a Member's territory'".
1032 Thus,
contrary to what the European Union suggests, an analysis of whether the detrimental impact on
competitive opportunities for like imported products is attributable to the specific measure at issue
does not involve an assessment of whether such detrimental impact stems exclusively from a
legitimate regulatory distinction.
5.106. The European Union also relies on the Appellate Body's statement in EC – Asbestos that "a
Member may draw distinctions between products wh ich have been found to be 'like', without, for
this reason alone, according to the group of 'lik e' imported products 'less favourable treatment'
than that accorded to the group of 'like' domestic products".
1033 In the European Union's view, this
statement supports its contention that, for the purposes of establishing a violation of Article III:4,
a finding that a measure has a detrimental impact on competitive opportunities for like imported
products is not dispositive.
5.107. Canada and Norway disagree wi th the European Union's reading of EC – Asbestos . In
Canada's view, EC – Asbestos is consistent with the Appellate Body's earlier finding, in Korea –
Various Measures on Beef , that "a distinction between products in itself will not automatically
result in a finding of less favourable treatment" under Article III:4. Canada submits that
"a distinction that modifies the conditions of competition in the relevant market to the detriment of
imported products" will, however, result in less favourable treatment under Article III:4. 1034 Like
Canada, Norway submits that the Appellate Body's statement in EC – Asbestos that Article III:4 is
not violated for the sole reason that objective distinctions are drawn between imported and
domestic like products, does not mean that if these distinctions give rise to a detrimental impact
on the like imported products, a Member may justify such detrimental impact under
Article III:4.
1035
5.108. In our view, the Appellate Body, in EC – Asbestos , merely highlighted that the term
"treatment no less favourable" in Article III:4 has a more unfavourable connotation than the
drawing of distinctions between imported and domestic like products. WTO Members are free to
impose different regulatory regimes on imported and domestic products, provided that the

1029 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 201; Norway's appellee's submission, para. 265.
1030 Appellate Body Report, US – Clove Cigarettes, fn 372 to para. 179.
1031 Appellate Body Report, US – Clove Cigarettes, fn 372 to para. 179 (quoting Appellate Body Report,
Thailand – Cigarettes (Philippines), para. 134).
1032 Appellate Body Reports, US – COOL, para. 270 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various
Measures on Beef, para. 149).
1033 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 100.
1034 Canada's appellee's submission, paras. 206-208 (referring to Appellate Body Reports, EC –
1035 Norway's appellee's submission, paras. 272 and 273.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

treatment accorded to imported products is no less favourable than that accorded to like domestic
products. Thus, Article III:4 does not require the identical treatment of imported and like domestic
products, but rather the equality of competitive conditions between these like products. In this
regard, neither formally identical, nor formally di fferent, treatment of imported and like domestic
products necessarily ensures equality of competitive opportunities for imported and domestic like
products. For this reason, the Appellate Body has considered that:
A formal difference in treatment between impo rted and like domestic products is thus
neither necessary, nor sufficient, to show a violation of Article III:4. Whether or not
imported products are treated "less favourably" than like domestic products should be
assessed instead by examining whether a measure modifies the conditions of
competition in the relevant market to the detriment of imported products.
1036
5.109. The proposition that distinctions may be drawn between imported and like domestic
products without necessarily according less favourable treatment to the imported products implies
only that the "treatment no less favourable" standard, under Article III:4, means something more
than drawing regulatory distinctions between im ported and like domestic products. There is,
however, a point at which the differential treatment of imported and like domestic products
amounts to "treatment no less favourable" within the meaning of Article III:4. The Appellate Body
has demarcated where that point lies, in the following terms:
[T]he mere fact that a Member draws regu latory distinctions between imported and
like domestic products is, in itself, not determinative of whether imported products are
treated less favourably within the meaning of Article III:4. Rather, what is relevant is
whether such regulatory differences distort the conditions of competition to the
detriment of imported products. If so, then the differential treatment will amount to
treatment that is "less favourable" within the meaning of Article III:4.
1037
5.110. In the light of the above, we do not agree with the European Union's reading of the
Appellate Body's statement in EC – Asbestos . Specifically, we do not consider that the Appellate
Body's statement that a Member may draw dist inctions between imported and like domestic
products without necessarily violating Article III:4 stands for the proposition that the detrimental
impact of a measure on competitive opportunities for like imported products is not dispositive for
the purposes of establishing a violation of Article III:4.
5.111. The European Union further contends that the Panel's interpretation of the legal standard
under Article III:4 fails to take account of the general principle, expressed in Article III:1 of the
GATT 1994, that internal regulations should not be applied "so as to afford protection" to domestic
production. The European Union observes that th e Appellate Body has found that the protective
application of a measure, within the meaning of Article III:1, can most often be discerned from the
design, the architecture, and the revealing structure of a measure.
1038 I n t h e E u r o p e a n U n i o n ' s
view, this "test" "corresponds to the second step of the de facto discrimination analysis" under
Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement. 1039 Thus, by suggesting that "this analysis is unnecessary for
finding de facto discrimination" under Article III:4, the Panel, in the European Union's view, failed
to take account of the context provided by the general principle articulated in Article III:1.1040
5.112. Canada responds that, in the context of claims under Article III:2, second sentence, of the
GATT 1994, the Appellate Body has "simply recognized" that panels should consider the relevant
circumstances, including the design, structure, operation and application of the measure at issue
to determine whether the measure at issue results in de facto discrimination.
1041 Canada
emphasizes that the Appellate Body did not "suggest this to mean that discrimination under
Article III could be justified by regulatory distinctions". 1042 In addition, Canada points out that the
Appellate Body has confirmed that the term "treatment no less favourable" in Article III:4

1036 Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef, para. 137. (emphasis original)
1037 Appellate Body Report, Thailand – Cigarettes (Philippines), para. 128. (emphasis added; fn omitted)
1038 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 299 (referring to Appellate Body Report,
Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II, p. 29, DSR 1996:I, p. 120).
1039 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 300.
1040 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 300.
1041 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 220 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Japan – Alcoholic
Beverages II, p. 29, DSR 1996:I, p. 120).
1042 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 220.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

expresses the general principle in Article III:1, so that "[i]f there is 'less favourable treatment' of
the group of 'like' imported products, there is, conversely, 'protection' of the group of 'like'
domestic products."1043
5.113. Norway, for its part, notes that Article III: 1 is not expressly invoked in Article III:4, and
that the legal requirements set out in Article III: 4 are an application of the general principle set
forth in Article III:1. Thus, in assessing whether there is less favourable treatment of imports
under Article III:4, a panel is required to examine whether a measure has a detrimental or
"adverse impact on competitive opportunities for imported versus like domestic products".
1044
Norway asserts that, if it does, the measure will not be in accordance with the "general principle"
expressed in Article III:1.
1045
5.114. It is well established that the general pr inciple expressed in Article III:1 – that internal
measures should not be applied to afford protection to domestic production – informs the rest of
Article III, including Article III:4.1046 This general principle, however, informs the other paragraphs
of Article III in different ways, depending on the textual connection between Article III:1 and the
other paragraphs of Article III. 1047 Thus, the interpretative direction that Article III:1 provides to
the other paragraphs of Article III must respect, and in no way diminish, the meaning of the words
actually used in those other paragraphs.
5.115. As both Canada and Norway have poin ted out, Article III:4, like Article III:2, first
sentence, does not explicitly refer to Article III:1. As clarified by the Appellate Body, this does not
mean that Article III:1 does not apply to Article III:2, first sentence. Rather, "the first sentence of
Article III:2 is, in effect, an application of" the general principle in Article III:1.
1048 We consider
that, just as the omission of a textual reference to Article III:1, in Article III:2, first sentence,
must be given meaning, so too must the absence of a reference to Article III:1 in Article III:4. In
our view, Article III:4 is, itself, an expression of the principle set forth in Article III:1.
Consequently, "[i]f there is 'less favourable treatment' of the group of 'like' imported products,
there is, conversely, 'protection' of the group of 'like' domestic products."
1049
5.116. As noted above, the term "treatment no less favourable" in Article III:4 requires effective
equality of opportunities for imported products to compete with like domestic products. 1050 Thus,
Article III:4 permits regulatory distinctions to be drawn between products, provided that such
distinctions do not modify the conditions of competition between imported and like domestic
products. Hence, a determination of whether impo rted products are treated less favourably than
like domestic products involves an assessment of the implications of the contested measure for the
equality of competitive conditions between imported and like domestic products. If the outcome of
this assessment is that the measure has a detrimental impact on the conditions of competition for
like imported products, then such detrimental impact will amount to treatment that is "less
favourable" within the meaning of Article III:4.
5.117. In the light of the above, we consider that the "treatment no less favourable" standard
under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 prohibits WT O Members from modifying the conditions of
competition in the marketplace to the detriment of the group of imported products vis-à-vis the
group of like domestic products. We do not consider, as argued by the European Union, that for
the purposes of an analysis under Article III:4, a panel is required to examine whether the
detrimental impact of a measure on competitive opportunities for like imported products stems
exclusively from a legitimate regulatory distinction.

1043 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 221 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos,
para. 100).
1044 Norway's appellee's submission, paras. 284 and 286.
1045 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 286 (quoting Appellate Body Report, Canada – Periodicals,
p. 18, DSR 1997:I, p. 464, in turn referring to GATT Panel Reports, US – Tobacco, para. 99; US – Malt
Beverages, para. 5.6; Canada – Provincial Liquor Boards (EEC), para. 5.6; US – Section 337 Tariff Act,
1046 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 94.
1047 Appellate Body Report, Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II, p. 18, DSR 1996:I, p. 111.
1048 Appellate Body Report, Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II, p. 18, DSR 1996:I, p. 111.
1049 Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 100.
1050 See supra, para. 5.101.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

5.118. We note the European Union's argument that, under the Panel's interpretation of
Articles I:1 and III:4, a technical regulation could be considered non-discriminatory under the
TBT Agreement, but still violate the GATT 1994.
1051 Expounding on this argument, the European
Union explains that the list of possible legitimate objectives that may factor into an analysis under
Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement is open, in contrast to the closed list of objectives enumerated
under Article XX of the GATT 1994. Thus, the Panel's "divergent approach to de facto
discrimination" could lead to a situation where, under Article 2.1, a technical regulation that has a
detrimental impact on imports would be permitted if such detrimental impact stems from a
legitimate regulatory distinction, while, under Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994, the same
technical regulation would be prohibited if the objective that it pursues does not fall within the
subparagraphs of Article XX of the GATT 1994.
1052 For the European Union, the Panel's
interpretation of Articles I:1 and III:4 would thus "render Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement
irrelevant" as complainants would have a strong incentive not to invoke Article 2.1 of the
TBT Agreement, and, instead, would bring claims under the GATT 1994, even if the measure at
issue qualified as a technical regulation.
1053
5.119. Canada disagrees with the European Union's argument that accepting the Panel's approach
would result in divergent outcomes under the TBT Agreement and the GATT 1994. 1054 Noting the
Appellate Body's statement that the TBT Agreement and the GATT 1994 should be "interpreted in
a coherent and consistent manner", Canada submits that "the more reasonable view with respect
to the scope of objectives that may be cons idered legitimate for the purposes of the
TBT Agreement is that it mirrors the scope of Article XX of the GATT 1994." 1055 Canada asserts, in
addition, that the European Union's argument that the Panel's interpretation of Articles I:1
and III:4 of the GATT 1994 would render Article 2. 1 of the TBT Agreement "irrelevant" is entirely
speculative.
5.120. Norway, like Canada, disagrees with the European Union's argument that the Panel's
interpretation of Articles I:1 and III:4 is incoherent with Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement. 1056
First, Norway considers that the Appellate Bo dy's statement that the TBT Agreement and the
GATT 1994 "should be interpreted in a coherent and consistent manner" does not mean that the
provisions of the two agreements should be given the same meaning. 1057 Second, Norway
considers that the European Union overstates the supposed gap between the list of policy interests
that may justify a detrimental impact on imports under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, on the
one hand, and Article XX of the GATT 1994, on the other hand. 1058 According to Norway, although
the range of legitimate interests that may be purs ued under Article 2.1 is wider than the range of
interests under Article XX, this is not wider than the range of interests reflected in all provisions of
the covered agreements.1059 Norway submits that, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that
there is some policy interest that may be pursued under the TBT Agreement but not under the
GATT 1994, it would be inappropriate to "circumvent the drafters' decision by allowing a policy
interest not reflected in the GATT 1994 to justify a trade-restrictive measure under that
Agreement".
1060
5.121. At the outset, we recall that, in US – Clove Cigarettes , the Appellate Body made certain
observations of "general import" concerning, inter alia, the preamble of the TBT Agreement; the
relevance of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 in interp reting Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement; and
the absence among the provisions of the TBT Agreement of a general exceptions provision similar
to Article XX of the GATT 1994. The Appellate Body considered that the language of the second
recital of the TBT Agreement indicates that the TBT Agreement expands on pre-existing

1051 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 307.
1052 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 307.
1053 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 308.
1054 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 238 (referring to European Union's other appellant's
submission, para. 307).
1055 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 240 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Clove
Cigarettes, para. 91).
1056 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 287.
1057 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 288 (quoting Appellate Body Report, US – Clove Cigarettes,
para. 91).
1058 Norway's appellee's submission, paras. 290 and 291.
1059 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 296.
1060 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 300.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

GATT disciplines and emphasized that the two agreements should be interpreted in a coherent and
consistent manner.1061
5.122. In addition, the Appellate Body considered that the very similar formulation of Article 2.1
of the TBT Agreement and Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, and the overlap in their scope of
application in respect of technical regulations, confirm that Article III:4 is relevant context for the
interpretation of the national treatment obligation under Article 2.1. Thus, in interpreting
Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, a panel should focus on the text of Article 2.1, read in the
context of the TBT Agreement, including its preamble, and also consider other contextual
elements, such as Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.
1062 Turning to the preamble of the
TBT Agreement, the Appellate Body considered that the balance between the desire to avoid
creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade under the fifth recital, and the recognition of
a Member's right to regulate under the sixth recital, is not, in principle, different from the balance
set out in the GATT 1994, where obligations such as national treatment in Article III are qualified
by the general exceptions provision of Article XX.
1063
5.123. We observe that the GATT 1994, the TB T Agreement and the other covered agreements
are integral parts of the Marrakesh Agreemen t Establishing the World Trade Organization
(WTO Agreement). Thus, the provisions of the WTO covered agreements should be interpreted in a
coherent and consistent manner, giving meaning to all applicable provisions harmoniously. 1064 This
principle applies to the relationship between th e TBT Agreement and the GATT 1994, as confirmed
and reinforced by the second recital of the prea mble of the TBT Agreement. We do not consider
that the principle that the provisions of the WTO covered agreements should be read in a coherent
and consistent manner means that the legal standards for similar obligations – such as Articles I:1
and III:4 of the GATT 1994, on the one hand, and Ar ticle 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, on the other
hand – must be given identical meanings.
5.124. The Appellate Body has observed that the TBT Agreement does not contain a general
exceptions clause similar to Article XX of th e GATT 1994. This does not mean, however, that
Members do not have a right to regulate under the TBT Agreement. Instead, the sixth recital of the
preamble of the TBT Agreement suggests that a Member's right to regulate should not be
constrained if the measures taken are necessary to fulfil certain legitimate policy objectives, and
provided that they are not applied in a manner that would constitute a means of arbitrary or
unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade, and are otherwise in
accordance with the provisions of the Agreement.
1065 As the Appellate Body has explained, it is the
specific context of Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreem ent – which includes Annex 1.1; Article 2.2; and
the second, fifth, and sixth recitals of the preamble – that supports a reading that Article 2.1 does
not operate to prohibit a priori any restriction on international trade.1066
5.125. By contrast, as noted by the Panel, the obligations assumed by Members to respect the
non-discrimination disciplines under Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994 are balanced by a
Member's right to regulate in a manner consistent with the requirements of the separate general
exceptions clause of Article XX and its chapeau. 1067 In our view, the fact that, under the
GATT 1994, a Member's right to regulate is accommodated under Article XX, weighs heavily
against an interpretation of Articles I:1 and III:4 that requires an examination of whether the
detrimental impact of a measure on competitive opportunities for like imported products stems
exclusively from a legitimate regulatory distinct ion. In the light of the immediate contextual
differences between the TBT Agreement and the GA TT 1994, we do not consider that the legal

1061 Appellate Body Report, US – Clove Cigarettes, para. 91.
1062 Appellate Body Report, US – Clove Cigarettes, para. 100.
1063 Appellate Body Report, US – Clove Cigarettes, paras. 93-96.
1064 Appellate Body Reports, US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China), para. 570; and US –
Upland Cotton, paras. 549 and 550 (quoting Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Footwear (EC), para. 81 and
fn 72 thereto, in turn referring to Appellate Body Reports, Korea – Dairy, para. 81; US – Gasoline, p. 23,
DSR 1996:I, p. 21; Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II, p. 12, DSR 1996:I, p. 106; and India – Patents (US),
para. 45).
1065 Appellate Body Report, US – Clove Cigarettes, para. 95.
1066 Appellate Body Reports, US – COOL, para. 268 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Tuna II
(Mexico), para. 212).
1067 Beyond the general exceptions clause of Article XX, we note that the GATT 1994 also contains
specific exceptions, e.g. Article XXI and Article XXIV.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

standard for the non-discrimination obligation under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement applies
equally to claims under Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994.
5.126. We are also not persuaded by the Europe an Union's argument that accepting the Panel's
interpretation of Articles I:1 and III:4 would result in divergent outcomes under the
TBT Agreement and the GATT 1994 in respect of th e same measure, and would therefore render
Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement irrelevant. At the outset, we recall that we have reversed the
Panel's finding that the EU Seal Regime constitu tes a technical regulation under Annex 1.1 to the
TBT Agreement. Therefore, the asymmetrical ou tcomes that the European Union alleges could
result from the Panel's interpretation of Articles I:1 and III:4 do not arise in this case.
5.127. In any event, it seems to us that the European Union's argument is predicated on a
perceived imbalance between, on the one hand, the scope of a Member's right to regulate under
Article XX of the GATT 1994, and, on the other hand , the scope of that right under Article 2.1 of
the TBT Agreement. Yet, under the TBT Agreemen t, the balance between the desire to avoid
creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade under the fifth recital, and the recognition of
Members' right to regulate under the sixth recital, is not, in principle, different from the balance
set out in the GATT 1994, where obligations such as national treatment in Article III are qualified
by the general exceptions provision of Article XX.
1068
5.128. We further note that, beyond stating that the list of legitimate objectives that may factor
into an analysis under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement is open, in contrast to the closed list of
objectives enumerated under Article XX of the GATT 1994, the European Union has not pointed to
any concrete examples of a legitimate objective that could factor into an analysis under Article 2.1
of the TBT Agreement, but would not fall within the scope of Article XX of the GATT 1994.
1069
5.129. Finally, we note that our interpretation of the legal standards under Articles I:1 and III:4
of the GATT 1994, and Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreemen t, is based on the text of those provisions,
as understood in their context, and in the light of the object and purpose of the agreements in
which they appear, as is our mandate. If there is a perceived imbalance in the existing rights and
obligations under the TBT Agreement and the GATT 1994, the authority rests with the Members of
the WTO to address that imbalance.
1070
5.130. In the light of the foregoing considerations, we uphold the Panel's finding, at
paragraph 7.586 of its Reports, that the legal standard for the non-discrimination obligations
under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement does not apply equally to claims under Articles I:1
and III:4 of the GATT 1994. Consequently, we upho ld the Panel's conclusion, in paragraphs 7.600
and 8.3(a) of its Reports, that the measure at issue is inconsistent with Article I:1 because it does
not, "immediately and unconditionally", extend the same market access advantage to Canadian
and Norwegian seal products that it accords to seal products originating from Greenland.1071
5.3 Article XX of the GATT 1994
5.131. We address in the following three sections the claims and arguments of the participants
relating to the Panel's analysis under Article XX of the GATT 1994. First, we address the Panel's
identification of the objective of the EU Seal Regime. Second, we address the claims of Canada and
Norway that relate to the Panel's analysis of wh ether the EU Seal Regime is necessary to protect
public morals within the meaning of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994. Third, we address the claims

1068 Appellate Body Report, US – Clove Cigarettes, para. 96.
1069 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 307 (referring to Appellate Body Reports, US –
Clove Cigarettes, para. 255; US – Tuna II (Mexico), para. 286; and US – COOL, paras. 341-350).
1070 See supra, para. 5.127.
1071 At the oral hearing, the European Union confirmed that its appeal of the Panel's conclusion under
Article I:1 is based solely on its claim that the Panel erred in finding that the legal standard for the
non-discrimination obligation under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement does not apply equally to claims under
Article I:1. We note that the Panel concluded that the measure at issue is also inconsistent with Article III:4
because, while virtually all domestic seal products are likely to qualify for market access under the MRM
exception, the vast majority of seal products from Canada and Norway are excluded from the EU market under
the terms of the MRM exception. The Panel thus found that the measure at issue has a detrimental impact on
competitive conditions for like imported products from Canada and Norway. The European Union has not
appealed this finding.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

of Canada, Norway, and the European Union concerning the Panel's analysis under the chapeau of
Article XX of the GATT 1994.
5.132. We recall that we have declared moot and of no legal effect the Panel's conclusions under
Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. The Panel, however, relied on certain of its findings and
reasoning in the context of its analysis under the TBT Agreement when addressing claims and
arguments under Article XX of the GATT 1994. Where relevant, we refer to those findings and
reasoning below.
5.3.1 The objective of the EU Seal Regime
5.133. The Panel sought first to identify the "objective" of the EU Seal Regime in the context of its
analysis under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.
1072 The Panel relied on that assessment in its
analysis under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, as well as under Article XX of the GATT 1994. In
the context of Article XX, the Panel's characte rization of the objective of the measure has
implications both in respect of the analysis under subparagraph (a), as well as under the chapeau.
A c c o r d i n g l y , b e f o r e w e t u r n t o t h e c l a i m s o n a p p e a l d i r e c t e d a t t h e P a n e l ' s a n a l y s i s u n d e r
Article XX, we first address the Panel's characterization of the objective of the EU Seal Regime.
5.3.1.1 The Panel's findings
5.134. According to the Panel, the disagreement between the parties regarding the objective of
the EU Seal Regime was limited to two issues.
1073 First, although the parties did not dispute that
the EU Seal Regime is aimed at addressing public concerns regarding seal welfare, they disagreed
on whether the public concerns at issue are moral concerns for the EU public. Second, the parties
contested whether other interests addressed through the exceptions in the measure (i.e. the IC,
MRM, and Travellers exceptions) constitute objectives of the EU Seal Regime that are separate and
independent from the objective of addressing seal welfare concerns. Referring to prior Appellate
Body jurisprudence, the Panel stated that it would assess the objectives of the EU Seal Regime on
the basis of available evidence such as the texts of the statutes, the legislative history, and other
evidence regarding the structure and operation of the measure at issue.
1074 The Panel also recalled
the meaning and scope of "public morals" as discussed in prior disputes.1075
5.135. The Panel first reviewed the text of the measure and stated that it was able to discern
that, in designing the EU Seal Regime, the Europe an Union "sought to address the public concerns
on seal welfare" and, in doing so, "also took into account certain other interests (i.e. IC, MRM, and
Travellers interests)". 1076 The Panel also reviewed the legislative history of the measure,
concluding that, similar to the text of the EU Seal Regime, the legislative history "demonstrates
the existence of the EU public's concerns about seal welfare". 1077 The Panel went on to observe
that the EU public's concerns on seal welfare found in the evidence "are related to seal hunting in
general, and not to any particular type of hunting", and that public survey results submitted by the
European Union were also informative, although "to a limited extent", in demonstrating the
EU public's concerns.
1078

1072 Panel Reports, para. 7.372. Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement provides:
Members shall ensure that technical regulations are not prepared, adopted or applied with a view
to or with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade. For this purpose,
technical regulations shall not be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate
objective, taking account of the risks non-fulfilment would create. Such legitimate objectives are,
inter alia: national security requirements; the prevention of deceptive practices; protection of
human health or safety, animal or plant life or health, or the environment. In assessing such
risks, relevant elements of consideration are, inter alia: available scientific and technical
information, related processing technology or intended end-uses of products.
1073 Panel Reports, para. 7.377.
1074 Panel Reports, para. 7.378 and fn 627 thereto (referring, inter alia, to Appellate Body Report, US –
Tuna II (Mexico), para. 314).
1075 Panel Reports, paras. 7.379-7.383.
1076 Panel Reports, para. 7.389.
1077 Panel Reports, para. 7.398.
1078 Panel Reports, para. 7.398 and fns 652 and 653 thereto.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

5.136. The Panel further concluded that, "in drawing up the measure, the European Union
accommodated other interests or considerations" related to Inuit communities, marine
management, and the personal use of seal products by travellers.
1079 Although the Panel
recognized that a measure may have several objectives, it was not convinced – after reviewing the
text, legislative history, and structure and design of the measure – that the "aim", "target", or
"goal" was to protect the interests reflected in the exceptions to the EU Seal Regime. 1080 Rather,
the Panel found that "the principal objective of adopting a regulation on trade in seal products was
to address public concerns on seal welfare." 1081 In the Panel's view, "the interests that were
accommodated in the measure through the [IC, MRM, and Travellers] exceptions must be
distinguished from the main objective of the measure as a whole."
1082 The Panel considered that
the interests reflected in these exceptions were no t "grounded in the concerns of EU citizens", but
rather "appear to have been included in the course of the legislative process". 1083 For all of these
reasons, the Panel stated that it did not consider that such interests "form independent policy
objectives of the EU Seal Regime as a whole".
1084
5.137. Having concluded that the text and legislative history of the measure established the
existence of the EU public's concerns on seal we lfare, the Panel then turned to examine whether
these concerns fall within the scope of "public morals" in the European Union. 1085 The Panel
explained that, because it had found that IC and MRM interests do not constitute objectives of the
EU Seal Regime, it was "unnecessary to determine whether such interests are 'articulations of the
same standard of morality' governing the public concerns on seal welfare as claimed by the
European Union".
1086 The Panel thus defined its task as "confined to assessing whether the public
concerns on seal welfare are anchored in the morality of European societies".1087
5.138. The Panel considered the legislative history of the EU Seal Regime, as well as a range of
other evidence, including various actions taken by the European Union as well as EU member
States concerning animal welfare protection in general; various pieces of legislation and
conventions on animal welfare within the European Union and other countries, including Norway
and Canada; and various international instrument s. The Panel found that the evidence of the
European Union illustrates standards of right and wrong conduct maintained by or on behalf of the
European Union concerning seal welfare.
1088 Although the Panel did not consider that all evidence
makes an explicit link between seal or animal welfare and the morals of the EU public, it
nevertheless was persuaded that the evidence "as a whole sufficiently demonstrates that animal
welfare is an issue of ethical or moral nature in the European Union".
1089
5.139. The Panel concluded on the basis of its ex amination of the text and legislative history of
the EU Seal Regime, as well as other evidence pertaining to its design, structure, and operation,
that the objective of the EU Seal Regime is "to address the moral concerns of the EU public with
regard to the welfare of seals". 1090 The Panel elaborated that these concerns have two specific
aspects: (i) "the incidence of inhumane killing of seals"; and (ii) "EU citizens' 'individual and
collective participation as consumers in, and exposure to ("abetting"), the economic activity which
sustains the market for' seal products derived from inhumane hunts." 1091 The Panel further
concluded that, in the light of the evidence before it, "the EU public concerns on seal welfare
appear to be related to seal hunts in general, not any particular type of seal hunts".
1092 For this
reason, the Panel explained, the second aspect of the objective of the EU Seal Regime pertains to

1079 Panel Reports, para. 7.399.
1080 Panel Reports, paras. 7.400 and 7.401.
1081 Panel Reports, para. 7.401.
1082 Panel Reports, para. 7.402.
1083 Panel Reports, para. 7.402.
1084 Panel Reports, para. 7.402.
1085 Panel Reports, para. 7.404.
1086 Panel Reports, para. 7.404 (referring to European Union's opening statement at the second Panel
meeting, para. 44; and European Union's response to Panel question No. 104).
1087 Panel Reports, para. 7.404.
1088 Panel Reports, para. 7.409.
1089 Panel Reports, para. 7.409.
1090 Panel Reports, para. 7.410.
1091 Panel Reports, para. 7.410.
1092 Panel Reports, para. 7.410 (referring to European Union's response to Panel question No. 31, in turn
referring to Report of the Royal Commission, Seals and Sealing in Canada (1986), Vol. I, Chapter 11, "Public
Opinion on Sealing" (Panel Exhibit EU-48) (Royal Commission Report), p. 160).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

seal products derived from inhumane hunts rather than "commercially-hunted seal products" as
submitted by the European Union.1093
5.140. Turning to the legitimacy of the objective pursued, the Panel noted that the protection of
"public morals" is expressly included as a general exception to the GATT 1994 and the General
Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), which, in the Panel's view, demonstrated that
"WTO Members considered this objective to be particularly significant." 1094 The Panel considered
that, in the light of this, together with the second recital of the TBT Agreement, which states that
one of the objectives of the TBT Agreement is to further the objectives of the GATT 1994, the
protection of "public morals" falls within the scope of legitimate objectives under Article 2.2 of the
TBT Agreement.1095 Given its finding that the concerns of the EU public on animal welfare involved
standards of right and wrong within the Europe an Union as a community, the Panel found that
addressing public moral concerns on seal welfare is a "legitimate" objective within the meaning of
Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.1096
5.3.1.2 Identification of the objective pursued by the EU Seal Regime
5.141. Norway challenges the Panel's finding that the "sole objective" of the EU Seal Regime is to
address EU public moral concerns regarding seal welfare. 1097 I n N o r w a y ' s v i e w , t h e P a n e l
committed a number of legal and factual errors in reaching the conclusion that the EU Seal Regime
does not pursue objectives relating to the protection of IC interests and the promotion of
MRM interests. Norway explains that it does not "c ontest the existence of public concerns on seal
welfare", but rather maintains that the measure "also pursued other objectives". 1098 In particular,
Norway is critical of the Panel's analysis set out in paragraph 7.402 of its Reports, in which the
Panel rejected the inclusion of IC and other interests as part of the objective of the measure
because they were not "grounded in the concerns of EU citizens", but rather were "included in the
course of the legislative process", and therefore di d not "form independent policy objectives of the
EU Seal Regime as a whole".1099
5.142. The European Union maintains that the Pane l correctly found that the "principal" or "main"
objective of the EU Seal Regime is to address pub lic moral concerns with regard to the welfare of
seals.1100 The European Union explains that, as found by the Panel, the text of the
Basic Regulation, its drafting history, and its st ructure and design establish that the EU Seal
Regime was adopted in order to respond to EU public moral concerns with regard to the welfare of
seals. The European Union adds that, if the EU legislators' main objective had been "to protect the
interests of the Inuit and other indigenous communities or the objective that Norway ascribes to
the MRM exception, they would have refrained fr om adopting the EU Seal Regime in the first
place."
1101 The European Union further emphasizes that "[t]he IC exception does not seek to
promote exports of seal products by the Inuit and other indigenous communities, but rather to
mitigate the necessary adverse effects of the EU Seal Regime on those communities to the extent
compatible with the main objective of addressing the public moral concerns with regard to the
welfare of seals."1102
5.143. The European Union separately appeals the Panel's finding that "the IC distinction does not
bear a rational relationship to the objective of a ddressing the moral concerns of the public on seal
welfare".1103 In that context, the European Union is critical of the Panel's conclusion in
paragraph 7.404 of its Reports that, because the Pa nel did not consider that IC and MRM interests
constitute objectives of the EU Seal Regime, it was "unnecessary to determine whether such
interests are 'articulations of the same standard of morality' governing the public concerns on seal

1093 Panel Reports, para. 7.410 (quoting European Union's response to Panel question No. 9).
1094 Panel Reports, para. 7.418.
1095 Panel Reports, para. 7.418.
1096 Panel Reports, para. 7.419.
1097 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 44.
1098 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 67.
1099 Panel Reports, para. 7.402.
1100 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 138 (quoting Panel Reports, paras. 7.401 and 7.402).
1101 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 141.
1102 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 142.
1103 Panel Reports, para. 7.275.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

welfare as claimed by the European Union". 1104 In the European Union's view, the EU Seal Regime
reflects a moral standard of "animal welfarism" 1105, pursuant to which "humans ought not to inflict
suffering upon animals without a sufficient justification". 1106 With regard to the IC exception, the
European Union states that EU legislators considered that the subsistence of Inuit and other
indigenous communities and the preservation of their cultural identity "provide benefits to humans
which, from a moral point of view, outweigh the risk of suffering inflicted upon seals as a result of
the hunts conducted by those communities".
1107
5.144. As noted above, the Panel sought first to identify the objective of the EU Seal Regime
when assessing the claims under Article 2.2 of th e TBT Agreement. The Panel subsequently relied
on that assessment in its analysis under Article XX of the GATT 1994. In seeking to identify the
objective of a measure, a panel may be faced with conflicting arguments by the parties as to the
nature of the objective or the objectives purs ued by a responding party through its measure.
A panel should take into account the Member's articulation of the objective or the objectives it
pursues through its measure, but it is not bound by that Member's characterizations of such
objective(s).
1108 Indeed, the panel must take account of all evidence put before it in this regard,
including "the texts of statutes, legislative histor y, and other evidence regarding the structure and
operation" of the measure at issue. 1109 A panel's identification of the "objective" of a measure is a
matter of legal characterization subject to appellate review under Article 17.6 of the DSU.1110
5.145. Contrary to what Norway suggests, the Panel did not find that addressing EU public moral
concerns regarding seal welfare was the "sole ob jective" of the EU Seal Regime. Following its
review of the text of the EU Seal Regime, the Panel concluded that the European Union, in
designing the measure, "sought to address the public concerns on seal welfare".1111 The Panel also
surveyed the legislative history and considered that it " demonstrates the existence of the
EU public's concerns about seal welfare".1112 The Panel further found that the EU public's concerns
on seal welfare "are related to seal hunting in general, and not to any particular type of
hunting".1113 On this basis, the Panel concluded that " the principal objective of adopting a
regulation on trade in seal products was to address public concerns on seal welfare."1114
5.146. In the light of the Panel's conclusion that the "main" 1115 or "principal" 1116 element of the
objective consisted of addressing EU public co ncerns regarding seal welfare, the Panel then
proceeded to find that the IC and other interests had been "accommodated" in the measure. 1117
Thus, when the Panel stated that the other interests "must be distinguished from the main

1104 Panel Reports, para. 7.404 (referring to European Union's opening statement at the second Panel
meeting, para. 44; and European Union's response to Panel question No. 104).
1105 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 96 (referring to European Union's second
written submission to the Panel, paras. 139-146) and 110.
1106 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 110.
1107 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 98 (referring to European Union's first written
submission to the Panel, paras. 38-40; European Union's second written submission to the Panel, paras. 275
and 276; and European Union's response to Panel questions Nos. 10, 31, 104, 136).
1108 Appellate Body Report, US – Tuna II (Mexico), para. 314 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US –
Gambling, para. 304).
1109 Appellate Body Report, US – Tuna II (Mexico), para. 314.
1110 In China – Auto Parts, the Appellate Body stated:
The Appellate Body has explicitly stated that the municipal law of WTO Members may serve not
only as evidence of facts, but also as evidence of compliance or non-compliance with
international obligations. When a panel examines the municipal law of a WTO Member for
purposes of determining whether the Member has complied with its WTO obligations, that
determination is a legal characterization by a panel, and is therefore subject to appellate review
under Article 17.6 of the DSU.
(Appellate Body Reports, China – Auto Parts, para. 225 (referring to Appellate Body Reports, US – Section 211
Appropriations Act, para. 105; and India – Patents (US), paras. 65, 66, and 68) (fns omitted))
1113 Panel Reports, para. 7.398 (referring to COWI 2008 Report, pp. 124-127).
1114 Panel Reports, para. 7.401. (emphasis added) The Panel subsequently found that the overall
objective of the EU Seal Regime was to address public moral concerns on seal welfare in respect of two aspects
consisting of: (i) EU public participation as consumers in and exposure to products derived from inhumanely
killed seals; and (ii) the number of inhumanely killed seals. (See e.g. ibid., paras. 7.410 and 7.443)
1115 Panel Reports, para. 7.402.
1116 Panel Reports, para. 7.401.
1117 Panel Reports, paras. 7.399 and 7.402.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

objective of the measure as a whole", it was commenting on how the relative significance of the
policy interests played out in the measure, sugge sting that the IC and other interests were not
manifest in the objective of the measure in the same manner as concerns regarding seal
welfare.
1118 This is confirmed by the subsequent statem ent of the Panel that, "unlike the issue of
seal welfare", it saw no evidence that the IC and other interests were "grounded in the concerns of
EU citizens" and that these interests appear instead "to have been included in the course of the
legislative process".
1119 This was not a statement by the Panel that policy concerns only have
validity if they are grounded in the concerns of citizens, as opposed to being advanced by
legislators. Rather, we understand this to have been considered by the Panel as further evidence
supporting its conclusion that concerns regarding seal welfare were what principally motivated
adoption of the measure, and that the IC and other interests were also reflected in the design and
implementation of the measure in that they were accommodated so as to mitigate the impact of
the measure on those interests.
5.147. In addition, the Panel's statement that IC and other interests "do not … form independent
policy objectives of the EU Seal Regime as a whole"
1120 must be read together with the various
statements of the Panel confirming that the inte rests protected or promoted in the IC, MRM, and
Travellers exceptions are reflected in the measure itself. The Panel thus acknowledged the role of
these interests when it stated that, in designin g the EU Seal Regime, the European Union sought
to address concerns on seal welfare while " also [taking] into account " IC, MRM, and Travellers
interests.1121 The Panel also stated that, " in drawing up the measure , the European Union
accommodated other interests or considerations , such as the Inuit communities engaged in seal
hunting, seals hunted for marine management pu rposes, and seal products brought into the
European Union for personal use". 1122 The Panel noted, in particular, references in the legislative
history that "the interests of Inuit and indigeno us communities engaged in seal hunting should be
protected from possible trade regulations on seal products." 1123 Thus, although the Panel rejected
the contention that IC and other interests reflecte d independent objectives of the EU Seal Regime,
we do not understand the Panel to have excluded the role of IC and other interests in the design
and implementation of the measure.
5.148. Finally, we note that, although the Panel did not determine the moral content of IC and
MRM interests, either alone or as part of a single moral standard governing the concerns in respect
of seal welfare, the Panel also did not accept the European Union's contention that the benefits to
Inuit communities "outweighed" concerns in respect of seal welfare. 1124 Thus, the Panel concluded
that, while the EU public had moral concerns rega rding seal welfare in general, the Panel did not
consider that the evidence before it supported th e European Union's position that "the EU public
attributes a higher moral value to the protection of Inuit interests as compared to seal welfare".1125
In this regard, the Panel referred to its conclusion that the evidence before it indicated that

1118 Panel Reports, para. 7.402.
1119 Panel Reports, para. 7.402.
1120 Panel Reports, para. 7.402.
1123 Panel Reports, para. 7.401 (referring to Council Directive No. 83/129 of 28 March 1983 concerning
the importation into Member States of skins of certain seal pups and products derived therefrom, Official
Journal of the European Communities, L Series, No. 91 (9 April 1983), pp. 30-31 (Panel Exhibit CDA-12)
(EC Seal Pups Directive); European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the
Council concerning trade in seal products (23 July 2008) COM(2008) 469 final (Panel Exhibit JE-9)
(Commission Proposal), p. 5; Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, Report on the
proposal for regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning trade in seal products
(5 March 2009), A6-0118 (Panel Exhibit JE-4) (Parliament Report), p. 10 (Justification for Amendment 8)). The
Panel further stated:
The legislative history of the EU Seal Regime shows that exceptions for Inuit and indigenous
communities from the regulation on seal products, albeit varying in scope, were consistently a
consideration. The European Commission's proposed regulation, subsequent comments on the
regulation, and the parliament's proposal also indicate references to exempting imports of
occasional nature and for personal use.
(Ibid., fn 658 to para. 7.401 (referring to Commission Proposal, p. 5; and Parliament Report, p. 10))
1124 Panel Reports, para. 7.299 (referring to European Union's response to Panel question No. 31).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

EU public concerns on seal welfare appear to be related to seal hunts in general, and not to any
particular type of seal hunts.1126
5.149. Before we reach a conclusion regarding the objective of the EU Seal Regime, we first
examine whether, as Norway contends, the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in
its identification of the objective of the EU Seal Regime.1127
5.150. Article 11 of the DSU requires a panel to make "an objective assessment of the matter",
which includes an objective assessment of the facts of the case. We recall the standard articulated
in past Appellate Body reports for establishing a violation of Article 11 of the DSU. In accordance
with Article 11 of the DSU, a panel is required to "consider all the evidence presented to it, assess
its credibility, determine its weight, and ensure that its factual findings have a proper basis in that
evidence".
1128 In particular, "panels [may not] make affirmative findings that lack a basis in the
evidence contained in the panel record". 1129 Within these parameters, "it is generally within the
discretion of the Panel to decide which evidence it chooses to utilize in making findings". 1130 In this
regard, the Appellate Body has stated that it will not "interfere lightly" with a panel's fact-finding
authority but, rather, for a claim under Article 11 to succeed, the Appellate Body "must be satisfied
that the panel has exceeded its authority as the trier of facts". 1131 In other words, "not every error
allegedly committed by a panel amounts to a violation of Article 11 of the DSU"1132, but only those
that are so material that, "taken together or sing ly", they undermine the objectivity of the panel's
assessment of the matter before it. 1133 Accordingly, it is insufficient for an appellant simply to
disagree with a statement or to assert that it is not supported by evidence. Ultimately, the party
raising the claim bears the onus of explaining why the alleged error meets the standard of review
under Article 11.1134
5.151. Norway's contention that the Panel acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 11
of the DSU rests on several grounds. Norway first contends that the Panel disregarded evidence
provided by Norway allegedly showing that the legislative objectives of the EU Seal Regime
included protecting the economic and social interests of indigenous communities, and separately
promoting the sustainable management of marine resources. According to Norway, the Panel
undertook a "selective" and "unbalanced" review of the evidence of the legislative history,
dedicating most of its analysis to addressing evidence that supported the public morals objective
asserted by the European Union.
1135 By contrast, the Panel's "discussion and consideration of the
IC and [M]RM objectives asserted by Norway receive[d] a few cursory lines of commentary". 1136
According to Norway, the Panel made only the limited statement that it " noticed references in
certain evidence relating to the measure's legislative history that the interests of Inuit and
indigenous communities engaged in seal hunting should be protected from possible trade

1126 Panel Reports, para. 7.410 and fn 676 thereto.
1127 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 170.
1128 Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 185 (referring to Appellate Body Report,
EC – Hormones, paras. 132 and 133). See also Appellate Body Reports, Australia – Salmon, para. 266; EC –
Asbestos, para. 161; EC – Bed Linen (Article 21.5 – India), paras. 170, 177, and 181; EC – Sardines,
paras. 141 and 142; Korea – Alcoholic Beverages, paras. 161 and 162; Korea – Dairy, para. 138; US – Carbon
1129 Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel, para. 142 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US –
Wheat Gluten, paras. 161 and 162).
1130 Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 135. The Appellate Body has also stated that: a panel
has to base its findings on a sufficient evidentiary basis on the record (Appellate Body Report, EC – Fasteners
(China), para. 441); may not apply a double standard of proof (Appellate Body Report, US – Upland Cotton
(Article 21.5 – Brazil), para. 293); and its treatment of the evidence must not "lack even-handedness"
(Appellate Body Report, US – Upland Cotton (Article 21.5 – Brazil), para. 292).
1131 Appellate Body Report, US – Wheat Gluten, para. 151.
1132 Appellate Body Report, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 442.
1133 Appellate Body Report, EC and certain member States – Large Civil Aircraft, para. 1318.
1134 Appellate Body Report, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 442. (emphasis omitted)
1135 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 182.
1136 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 183.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

regulations on seal products". 1137 Norway emphasizes that an objective assessment of the facts
"requires substantially more than 'notice' by a panel."1138
5.152. Norway further asserts that the Panel' s "imbalanced treatment of the evidence is
highlighted by its selective reliance" 1139 on a proposal by the European Commission for a
regulation concerning trade in seal products 1140 (Commission Proposal). In this regard, Norway
notes that the Panel "referred to the Commission's Proposal to support the view that public
concerns regarding seal welfare were to be addressed in the measure, quoting two full paragraphs
of that Proposal".
1141 Yet, according to Norway, "the Panel failed to attribute equal (or for that
matter any) weight in its discussion to other objectives highlighted in that very same
document".1142 Norway argues that the evidence of th e legislative history does not support the
Panel's "ultimate conclusion that addressing public moral concerns about seal welfare was the sole
objective of the measure and that the protec tion of the IC and [M]RM interests are not
objectives".1143
5.153. As noted by the Panel, the Commission Proposal refers to the public concerns about "the
animal welfare aspects of the killing and skinning of seals and about trade occurring in products
possibly derived from seals that have been killed and skinned with avoidable pain, distress and
other forms of suffering".
1144 The Impact Assessment accompanying the Commission Proposal 1145
(Commission 2008 Impact Assessment) also describ es the main overarching objectives of the
initiative as "[p]rotect[ing] seals from acts that cause them avoidable pain, distress, fear and other
forms of suffering during the killing and skinning process", and "[a]ddress[ing] the concerns of the
general public with regard to the killing and skinning of seals".
1146 The Panel further observed that
"the Commission Proposal describes public concerns as relating to 'ethical' considerations." 1147 For
example, the Panel noted that the following expressions were used in the Commission Proposal:
"out of ethical reasons"; "citizens' deep indignation and repulsion regarding the trade in seal
products in such conditions"; "the public's growing awareness and sensitivity to ethical
considerations in how seal products are obtained".
1148 The Panel added that the Commission
Proposal stated:
For several years, many members of the public have been concerned about the animal
welfare aspects of the killing and skinning of seals and about trade occurring in
products possibly derived from seals that ha ve been killed and skinned with avoidable
pain, distress and other forms of suffering, which seals, as sentient mammals, are
capable of experiencing. Those concerns have therefore been expressed by members
of the public out of ethical reasons . The Commission received during the last years a
massive number of letters and petitions on the issue expressing citizens' deep
indignation and repulsion regarding the trade in seal products in such conditions.1149

1137 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 183 (quoting Panel Reports, para. 7.401). (emphasis added
by Norway)
1138 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 184. (emphasis omitted)
1139 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 188.
1140 European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council
concerning trade in seal products (23 July 2008) COM(2008) 469 final (Panel Exhibit JE-9).
1141 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 188 (referring to ibid., paras. 116 and 131).
1142 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 188 (referring to Commission Proposal, p. 5). (emphasis
original) Norway also claims that the Panel did not address "key reports and opinions, which reflected the
considerations expressed in relevant committees of the EU Parliament". (Norway's appellant's submission,
para. 189) These reports, Norway maintains, "provide key insights into why, and how, the IC and [M]RM
interests were important to EU legislators, and even highlighted how they contradicted the animal welfare
considerations under the EU Seal Regime". (Ibid.)
1143 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 196. (emphasis original)
1144 Panel Reports, para. 7.394 (referring to Commission Proposal, pp. 2-3, 8, and 11).
1145 European Commission, "Commission Staff Working Document accompanying document to the
Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the council concerning trade in seal products –
Impact Assessment on the potential impact of a ban of products derived from seal species" (23 July 2008),
COM(2008) 469 final (Panel Exhibit JE-16).
1146 Panel Reports, para. 7.394 (referring to Commission 2008 Impact Assessment, p. 23).
1147 Panel Reports, paras. 7.394 and 7.395 (referring to Commission Proposal, p. 2 (Explanatory
memorandum)).
1148 Panel Reports, para. 7.395 (quoting Commission Proposal, pp. 2-3 (Explanatory memorandum)).
1149 Panel Reports, para. 7.395 (quoting Commission Proposal, p. 2 (Explanatory memorandum)).
(emphasis added by the Panel)
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

5.154. The Panel concluded, therefore, that the Commission Proposal "provide[d] evidence that
the public concerns about seal welfare constitute a moral issue for EU citizens".1150
5.155. The Commission Proposal also notes that the "fundamental economic and social interests
of Inuit communities traditionally engaged in the hunting of seals should not be adversely
affected."1151 Norway's complaint appears to relate to the fact that the Panel did not attribute this
statement any weight in its discussion of other objectives highlighted in that same document. We
do not see, however, why the Panel's failure explicitly to address and rely upon this statement in
the Commission Proposal would have "a bearing on the objectivity of the panel's factual
assessment".
1152
5.156. We further note that this statement fr om the Commission Proposal cited by Norway is
immediately preceded by the following statements regarding seal welfare concerns, which also fall
under the heading "Grounds for and objectives of the proposal":
The various prohibitions provided for by this Regulation would respond to the animal
welfare concerns expressed by members of th e public as to the possible introduction
into the Community of seal products obtained from seals that might not have been
killed and skinned without causing avoi dable pain, distress and other forms of
suffering.
It should however be possible for trade in seal products to take place where the killing
and skinning methods used would be such as offering reasonable guarantees that the
killing and skinning occur without causing avoidable pain, distress and other forms of
suffering.
The regulatory framework so established wo uld therefore be designed so as giving
incentives to countries concerned to review and improve, where need be, their
legislation and practice concerning the meth ods to be complied with when killing and
skinning seals.
1153
5.157. Like the single sentence that Norway cl aims the Panel overlooked, the above observations
are also not quoted in the Panel Reports. Moreov er, we note that they all articulate concerns
regarding seal welfare, rather than concerns regarding the protection of indigenous communities.
5.158. To establish that the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU, it must be
established that the Panel exceeded the bounds of its discretion as the trier of fact, including in its
treatment of the evidence regarding the legislative history. As the Appellate Body noted in Korea –
Alcoholic Beverages, it is not an error of law under Article 11 of the DSU for a panel "to fail to
accord the weight to the evidence that one of the parties believes should be accorded to it".
1154 In
reviewing the Panel's findings regarding the legislative history, we consider that the Panel acted
within its discretion in ascribing weight to the evidence. As we noted, the Panel concluded that
EU public concerns regarding seal welfare were what principally motivated the adoption of the
EU Seal Regime. At the same time, although the Panel rejected the contention that IC and other
interests reflected independent objectives of the EU Seal Regime, it noted that these interests
were accommodated in the design and implementation of the measure. We are not persuaded that
the Panel undertook a "selective" and "unbalanced" review of the evidence of the legislative
history. Rather, it declined to attribute to certain aspects of the legislative history of the EU Seal
Regime the weight and significance that Norway considers it should have.
5.159. Regarding the text of the measure, Norway argues that the Panel erred by failing to take
into account its own findings. For example, according to Norway, the Panel found that the
preamble of the Basic Regulation "sets out three main considerations with equal prominence,
which included those relating to IC and [M]RM interests".
1155 According to Norway, the Panel's
failure to explain why, in the light of that finding, "it still gave prominence singularly to the seal

1150 Panel Reports, para. 7.396.
1151 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 653 (quoting Commission Proposal, p. 5).
1152 Appellate Body Report, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 442.
1153 Commission Proposal, pp. 4-5.
1154 Appellate Body Report, Korea – Alcoholic Beverages, para. 164.
1155 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 198. (emphasis original)
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

welfare concerns of the EU public, constitutes further error." 1156 Norway also maintains that,
despite the Panel's finding that the Implementing Regulation was necessary to the enforcement of
the EU Seal Regime, the Panel overlooked the re levance of the Implementing Regulation and its
enforcement provisions relating to the IC and MRM requirements.1157
5.160. Based on its analysis of the preamble of the Basic Regulation, the Panel found that:
[T]he Basic Regulation appears to address three main considerations: first, the need
to harmonize the regulations on seal products within the EU internal market
(recitals 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 15, 21); second, concerns about seal welfare issues (recitals 1,
4, 5, 10, 11); and, third, the need to preserve the economic and social interests of
Inuit communities engaged in seal hunting and to define the conditions for IC, MRM,
and Travellers exceptions (recitals 16 and 17).
1158
5.161. Contrary to what Norway suggests, we do not understand the Panel to have concluded that
these considerations were of "equal prominence". 1159 Nor are we persuaded that the Panel gave
"prominence singularly to the seal welfare concerns of the EU public". 1160 Rather, as we have said,
the EU Seal Regime pursued EU public moral concerns regarding seal welfare while at the same
time accommodating other interests so as to mitigate the impact of the measure on those
interests. Thus, in examining the text of the EU Seal Regime, the Panel found that "in designing
the Regime, the European Union sought to address the public concerns on seal welfare."
1161 The
Panel added that, in doing so, "the European Union also took into account certain other interests
(i.e. IC, MRM, and Travellers interests)."
1162
5.162. We therefore do not agree with Norway that the Panel somehow ignored its own findings
or other features of the text of the EU Seal Regime. Although Norway contends that the Panel
failed to take into account how the text of the measure "catered to the goals of Member States,
such as Sweden and Finland" to protect MRM interests and to the "desire to protect the interests of
the Inuit communities"
1163, we do not consider that the Panel committed legal error in failing to
attribute to evidence of these interests the meaning and significance Norway considers it should be
given. Moreover, we consider that, notwithsta nding the role played by the Implementing
Regulation in enforcing the EU Seal Regime, the Panel was acting within its discretion in stating
that it considered that the Implementing Regulation "does not in itself assist us in identifying the
objective of the measure".
1164
5.163. Norway recalls that the reasons given by the Panel for finding that IC and MRM interests
are not objectives of the EU Seal Regime were: (i) that the three interests pursued in the measure
"must be distinguished"; (ii) that the IC and MR M interests are not grounded "in the concerns of
EU citizens"; (iii) that the IC and MRM "exceptions" were "included in the [course of the] legislative
process"; and (iv) that the exception in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres was not argued to constitute an
"objective".1165 In Norway's view, "these reasons do not provide a coherent basis for the Panel's
conclusion."1166 Moreover, according to Norway, the Panel's reasoning fails to reconcile its finding
with "the considerable evidence showing that protection of the IC and MRM interests were
objectives of the measure."1167
5.164. We have addressed Norway's arguments concerning the reasons given by the Panel for
finding that protecting IC and MRM interests were not objectives of the EU Seal Regime in
paragraphs 5.146 and 5.147 of these Reports and have rejected Norway's arguments in that
context. We therefore see no grounds separately to consider these issues under Article 11 of
the DSU.

1156 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 198.
1157 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 201.
1158 Panel Reports, para. 7.387.
1159 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 198. (emphasis omitted)
1160 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 198.
1161 Panel Reports, para. 7.389.
1162 Panel Reports, para. 7.389.
1163 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 199.
1166 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 209 (referring to ibid., paras. 66-110).
1167 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 209.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

5.165. Regarding the expected operation of the me asure, Norway argues that the Panel failed to
consider and give probative weight to its own findings in other sections of its Reports. According to
Norway, these show that the EU Seal Regime will operate to allow into the EU market "all, or
virtually all"
1168 seal products from Greenland under the IC exception; and that seal products from
certain EU countries, including Sweden, would "likely qualify" 1169 under the MRM exception.
Norway posits that this evidence concerning the expected operation of the EU Seal Regime
"confirms that the goals expressed in the legislative history, and reflected in the text and hierarchy
of the measure, are implemented in the measure's operation to a considerable practical extent"1170
and that together "with the remaining evidence, these findings should have revealed to
the Panel that the EU Seal Regime pursues objectives relating to the protection of IC and
[M]RM interests."
1171
5.166. The Appellate Body has consistently recognized that panels enjoy a margin of discretion in
their assessment of the facts. This margin includes the discretion of the panel to decide which
evidence it chooses to utilize in making its findings
1172, and to determine how much weight to
attach to the various items of evidence placed before it by the parties to the case.1173 A panel does
not commit error simply because it declines to accord to the evidence the weight that one of the
parties believes should be accorded to it.
1174 Although the Panel could have provided more
reasoning to support its findings, we do not think that any shortcomings in the Panel's analysis of
the expected operation of the EU Seal Regime are so serious as to amount to a failure to make an
objective assessment of the matter before it. Nor do we see why the Panel's finding that the
EU Seal Regime will operate to allow into the EU market "all, or virtually all"
1175 seal products from
Greenland under the IC exception, and that seal products from certain EU countries, including
Sweden, would "likely qualify" 1176 under the MRM exception, would necessarily mean that the
protection of IC and MRM interests amount to separate objectives of the EU Seal Regime.
5.167. For the reasons stated above, we reject Norway's contentions that the Panel erred in its
characterization of the objective of the EU Seal Regime, and that the Panel failed to comply with
its duties under Article 11 of the DSU in its asse ssment of the evidence regarding the objective of
the EU Seal Regime. Having reviewed the Panel's findings and the participants' arguments on
appeal, we consider that the principal objective of the EU Seal Regime is to address EU public
moral concerns regarding seal welfare, while accommodating IC and other interests so as to
mitigate the impact of the measure on those interests.
5.3.2 Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994
5.168. Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 reads:
Article XX
General Exceptions
Subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner which
would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries
where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on international trade,
nothing in this Agreement shall be construe d to prevent the adoption or enforcement
by any Member of measures:
(a) necessary to protect public morals; …

1170 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 205.
1171 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 206.
1172 Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 135.
1173 Appellate Body Report, Korea – Dairy, para. 137.
1174 Appellate Body Reports, Australia – Salmon, para. 267; Japan – Apples, para. 221; and Korea –
Alcoholic Beverages, para. 164.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

5.169. As established in WTO jurisprudence, th e assessment of a claim of justification under
Article XX involves a two-tiered analysis in which a measure must first be provisionally justified
under one of the subparagraphs of Article XX, before it is subsequently appraised under the
chapeau of Article XX.
1177 As the Appellate Body has stated, provisional justification under one of
the subparagraphs requires that a challenged measure "address the particular interest specified in
that paragraph" and that "there be a sufficient nexus between the measure and the interest
protected".
1178 In the context of Article XX(a), this means that a Member wishing to justify its
measure must demonstrate that it has adopted or enforced a measure "to protect public morals",
and that the measure is "necessary" to protect such public morals. 1179 As the Appellate Body has
explained, a necessity analysis involves a process of "weighing and balancing" a series of factors,
including the importance of the objective, the cont ribution of the measure to that objective, and
the trade-restrictiveness of the measure. 1180 The Appellate Body has further explained that, in
most cases, a comparison between the challenged measure and possible alternatives should then
be undertaken.
1181 The burden of proving that a measure is "necessary to protect public morals"
within the meaning of Article XX(a) resides with the responding party, although a complaining
party must identify any alternative measures that, in its view, the responding party should have
taken.
1182
5.170. Canada and Norway each appeal the Panel's conclusion that the EU Seal Regime is
necessary to protect public morals within the meaning of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994. 1183 The
complainants present several challenges to the Panel's analysis in respect of Article XX(a). First,
Norway submits that the Panel erred by seeking to justify under Article XX(a) the EU Seal Regime
as a whole, instead of the aspects of the measure giving rise to WTO-inconsistency under
Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994. Thus, in section 5.3.2.2 below, we address the question of
what aspects of the EU Seal Regime must be justified under Article XX(a).
5.171. Second, Canada maintains that the Panel failed to establish that there was a risk to the
public morals of the European Union regarding animal welfare that is unique to seals. Canada's
appeal goes to the question of whether the Pane l properly found that the EU Seal Regime is a
measure taken "to protect public morals", and is addressed in section 5.3.2.3 below.
5.172. Third, Canada and Norway contend that the Panel failed to establish that the EU Seal
Regime makes a material contribution to the objective of addressing EU public moral concerns
regarding seal welfare. This claim implicates the Panel's assessment of whether the EU Seal
Regime is "necessary" to protect public morals. In addition, because the Panel's analysis under
Article XX(a) relies on findings it made in th e context of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement
1184,
Canada and Norway also incorporate by refe rence various arguments from their appeals
of the Panel's findings and analysis under Articl e 2.2 regarding the contribution of the EU Seal
Regime to the objective of the measure, as well as the alternative measure proposed by the

1177 Appellate Body Reports, US – Gasoline, p. 22, DSR 1996:I, p. 20; and US – Shrimp, paras. 119
and 120. See also Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling, para. 292.
1178 Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling, para. 292. Although the issue on appeal in US – Gambling
concerned Article XIV(a) of the GATS, the Appellate Body stated that the two-tier analysis set out in WTO
jurisprudence is contemplated under both Article XIV of the GATS and Article XX of the GATT 1994. (Ibid.)
1180 Appellate Body Reports, Korea – Various Measures on Beef, para. 164; US – Gambling, para. 306;
1181 Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling, para. 307 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Korea –
Various Measures on Beef, para. 166). See also Appellate Body Report, US – Tuna II (Mexico), para. 321
(referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling, para. 307). In the context of Article 2.2 of the
TBT Agreement, the Appellate Body stated that "[i]n most cases, a comparison of the challenged measure and
possible alternative measures should be undertaken". (Appellate Body Report, US – Tuna II (Mexico),
para. 322) The Appellate Body then proceeded to identify circumstances in which comparison with possible
alternative measures may not be required, for instance, when the challenged measure is not trade restrictive,
or when it makes no contribution to the objective. (Ibid., fn 647 to para. 322)
1182 Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling, paras. 309-311. The Appellate Body additionally noted that
a responding party need not identify the universe of less trade-restrictive alternative measures and then show
that none of those measures achieves the desired objective. The WTO agreements, the Appellate Body stated,
do not contemplate such an impracticable and impossible burden. (Ibid., para. 309)
1183 Panel Reports, para. 7.639.
1184 Panel Reports, paras. 7.638 and 7.639.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

complainants.1185 We address these claims concerning the Panel's "necessity" analysis in
sections 5.3.2.4 and 5.3.2.5 below.1186
5.173. Finally, we note that, in US – Shrimp , the Appellate Body stated that it would not "pass
upon the question of whether there is an implied jurisdictional limitation in Article XX(g), and if so,
the nature or extent of that limitation". 1187 The Appellate Body explained that, in the specific
circumstances of that case, there was "a sufficient nexus between the migratory and endangered
marine populations involved and the United States for purposes of Article XX(g)".
1188 As set out in
the preamble of the Basic Regulation, the EU Seal Regime is designed to address seal hunting
activities occurring "within and outside the Community" 1189 and the seal welfare concerns of
"citizens and consumers" in EU member States. 1190 The participants did not address this issue in
their submissions on appeal. 1191 Accordingly, while recognizing the systemic importance of the
question of whether there is an implied jurisdictional limitation in Article XX(a), and, if so, the
nature or extent of that limitation, we have decided in this case not to examine this question
further.
5.174. Before turning to each of Canada's and Norway's claims as set out above, we first recall
the Panel's findings under Article XX(a).
5.3.2.1 The Panel's findings on Article XX(a)
5.175. The Panel first addressed the issue of wh at aspects of the EU Seal Regime must be
justified under Article XX of the GATT 1994. Although the parties agreed that it is the aspect of a
measure infringing the GATT 1994 that must be justified under Article XX, the Panel stated that it
need not limit itself to considering that aspect of the measure in order to determine the measure's
justifiability under Article XX.
1192 Instead, the Panel observed that the aspects of a measure that
must be considered in an Article XX analysis are to be identified in the light of the specific
circumstances of a given dispute, including the natu re and characteristics of the measure at issue,
the manner in which the complainants present th eir claims, and the relationship between the
GATT 1994 and the other covered agreements that were also examined with respect to the given
measure.
1193

1185 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 407 and 408; Norway's appellant's submission,
paras. 858-867.
1186 There are certain claims raised by Canada and Norway in respect of Article 2.2 of the TBT
Agreement on which we need not rule by virtue of our mooting of the Panel's findings under the TBT
Agreement. (See supra, para. 5.132) For example, we do not rule on Canada's claim that the Panel failed
properly to assess the risks non-fulfilment would create, or to conduct a relational analysis taking into account
such risks of non-fulfilment, as required by Article 2.2. (Canada's Notice of Appeal, pp. 1-2) To the extent that
Canada contends that the Panel was required under Article XX(a) to reach a preliminary determination of
necessity before proceeding to compare the challenged measure with possible alternatives, we disagree. (See
infra, fn 1300) We also do not rule on Norway's claims that the Panel failed to address its contention that the
three contested conditions under the MRM requirements make no contribution to the measure's objective
(Norway's Notice of Appeal, para. 7, bullet point 3), and failed to address arbitrary or unjustifiable
discrimination in its analysis under Article 2.2 (ibid., para. 8). These claims are set out, respectively, in
sections IV.B.2.g and IV.B.3 of Norway's appellant's submission, which were not incorporated by reference in
its claims under Article XX(a). (Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 863 (referring to section IV.B.2.e), 864
(referring to section IV.B.2.f), and 867 (referring to sections IV.B.4.e and IV.B.4.f)) In addition, because we
have rendered moot the Panel's finding in respect of Article 2.2, the conditions for Norway's request that we
complete the legal analysis have not been satisfied. (Norway's Notice of Appeal, para. 11)
1187 Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp, para. 133.
1188 Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp, para. 133.
1189 Basic Regulation, preamble, recital 3.
1190 Basic Regulation, preamble, recital 5.
1191 In response to questioning at the oral hearing, the participants expressed their agreement that
there is a sufficient nexus between the public moral concerns and activities addressed by the measure, on the
one hand, and the European Union, on the other hand. The participants also indicated that, because the parties
did not dispute that there was a sufficient nexus, the Appellate Body need not explore this issue further.
(Participants' responses to questioning at the oral hearing)
1192 Panel Reports, para. 7.618.
1193 Panel Reports, para. 7.619.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

5.176. With respect to the nature and characteristics of the measure at issue in the present
disputes, the Panel was of the view that the tw o components comprising the EU Seal Regime
– i.e. the "ban" and the "exceptions" – are "close ly connected" to each other since the exceptions
cannot "operate in isolation" without the ban. 1194 The Panel compared this to the "similar factual
circumstances" in US – Gasoline , where, in the Panel's view, the Appellate Body "weighed and
considered the interrelationship of different comp onents of the measure" in the context of its
analysis under Article XX(g). 1195 The Panel saw no reason why the Appellate Body's approach in
the context of Article XX(g) was not relevant to its analysis under Article XX(a) and (b). 1196 The
Panel further noted that the IC and MRM exceptions have a "substantial" relationship with the ban
given that the exceptions cannot exist without the ban, and that the exceptions inform the scope
of the ban.
1197
5.177. Next, the Panel recalled its analysis of the EU Seal Regime under the TBT Agreement,
noting that the EU Seal Regime as a whole was found to constitute a "technical regulation". The
Panel further noted that the policy objective pursued by the EU Seal Regime was determined to be
"addressing the EU public moral concerns on seal welfare"
1198; that the EU Seal Regime as a whole
was examined for the necessity of its trade-rest rictiveness in fulfilling the identified policy
objective under Article 2.2; and that the justification of the detrimental impacts caused by the
regulatory distinctions embodied in the IC and MRM exceptions was examined under
Article 2.1.1199
5.178. Based on these observations, the Panel stated that:
[A]lthough it is the aspects of the EU Seal Regime infringing the GATT 1994 (i.e. the
IC and MRM exceptions) that must be justified under Article XX, our analysis under
paragraphs (a) and (b) should first focus on the EU Seal Regime as a whole; it is the
EU Seal Regime as a whole that pursues the European Union's identified objective,
rather than the exceptions on their own independently from the ban.
1200
The Panel considered that it must then examine "whether the EU Seal Regime, in particular the
distinctions drawn in the form of the IC and MRM exceptions, are applied in a manner consistent
with the requirements under the chapeau of Article XX".1201
5.179. The Panel then turned to assess whether, as claimed by the European Union, the EU Seal
Regime is "necessary to protect public morals" and whether it is, therefore, provisionally justified
under Article XX(a). The Panel began by considering whether the policy objective pursued through
the EU Seal Regime falls within the range of policies designed to protect public morals, as
prescribed in Article XX(a). In answering this question, the Panel recalled its intermediate finding
from its analysis under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agre ement that the objective of the EU Seal Regime
is to address EU public moral concerns regarding seal welfare. The Panel recalled that, in reaching
this finding, it had established the existence of EU public concerns on seal welfare, as well as their
moral nature. The Panel also recalled that it had re lied on past WTO jurisprudence on the scope of
"public morals" under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 and Article XIV(a) of the GATS in identifying
the objective of the EU Seal Regime. On this basis, the Panel found that the policy objective
pursued by the European Union, namely, addressing EU public moral concerns on seal welfare, fell
within the scope of Article XX(a) on the protection of public morals.
1202 The Panel also considered
that the protection of public moral concerns with regard to animal welfare is an "important value
or interest".1203

1194 Panel Reports, para. 7.620.
1195 Panel Reports, paras. 7.620 and 7.621.
1196 Panel Reports, para. 7.621.
1197 Panel Reports, para. 7.622.
1198 Panel Reports, para. 7.623.
1199 Panel Reports, para. 7.623.
1201 Panel Reports, para. 7.624.
1202 Panel Reports, para. 7.631.
1203 Panel Reports, para. 7.632 (referring to Panel Report, China – Publications and Audiovisual
Products, para. 7.817).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

5.180. Next, the Panel turned to assess the measure's contribution to the objective pursued under
Article XX of the GATT 1994 in the light of the Appellate Body's jurisprudence that such a
contribution exists when there is a "genuine relationship of ends and means between the objective
pursued and the measure at issue". 1204 The Panel also recalled the Appellate Body's jurisprudence
in the context of Article XX(b) that, when a meas ure produces restrictive effects on international
trade as severe as those resulting from an import ban, it would be difficult for a panel to find the
measure "necessary" unless it was satisfied that the measure was apt to make a material
contribution to the achievement of its objective.
1205 Based on this, the Panel considered that, for a
finding that the EU Seal Regime is "necessary" under Article XX(a), it must be shown that the
contribution made by the "ban" to the identified objective is at least "material", given the extent of
its trade-restrictiveness.
1206 The Panel stated that, following such an affirmative finding, the
EU Seal Regime could provisionally be deemed "necessary", unless it is demonstrated that the
European Union could have adopted a GATT-consistent or less trade-restrictive alternative.1207
5.181. Highlighting the "close relationship" be tween the GATT 1994 and the TBT Agreement, and
the need to interpret the two agreements consistently and harmoniously, the Panel considered that
its assessment of the EU Seal Regime's contribu tion to its objective under Article 2.2 of the
TBT Agreement was relevant for its analysis under Article XX. 1208 On this basis, the Panel drew
upon its Article 2.2 analysis to note that the actual degree of contribution by the ban must also be
assessed by taking account of the impact of the explicit and implicit exceptions thereto. 1209 With
respect to the ban, the Panel recalled its finding under Article 2.2 that the ban contributes to the
European Union's objective by reducing, to a cert ain extent, the global demand for seal products
and by helping the EU public avoid being expose d to seal products derived from seals killed
inhumanely. To the extent such seal products are prohibited from the EU market, therefore, the
Panel found that the "ban" makes a material contribution to the objective of the measure.
1210
5.182. The Panel recalled its finding that the IC and MRM exceptions, combined with the absence
of any mechanism under the measure to inform consumers of the presence of seal products on the
EU market, "reduced the effectiveness" of the ban by providing market access to certain seal
products.
1211 Similarly, the implicit exceptions also "undermine" the measure's fulfilment of the
objective.1212 Overall, however, the Panel recalled its finding that the EU Seal Regime as a whole
contributed "to a certain extent" to its objective of addressing EU public moral concerns on seal
welfare.
1213 With respect to a GATT-consistent or le ss trade-restrictive alternative, the Panel
recalled its earlier finding under Article 2.2 that the alternative measure proposed by the
complainants was not reasonably available to the European Union, given, inter alia, the animal
welfare risks and challenges that it had found to exist in seal hunts. Therefore, the Panel
concluded that the EU Seal Regime was provisionally justified under Article XX(a).1214
5.183. Finally, the Panel considered the European Union's argument that the EU Seal Regime is
also justified under Article XX(b) because it contributes to protecting the health of seals. However,
the Panel noted that the European Union never subm itted that the protection of seal welfare as
such was the objective of the EU Seal Regime. The Panel also recalled that the objective of the
measure, namely, to address EU public moral concerns on seal welfare, was found to fall within the
scope of Article XX(a). For these reasons, and co nsidering the limited extent of the European
Union's arguments under Article XX(b), the Panel found that the European Union failed to establish
a prima facie case for its defence under Article XX(b).
1215

1204 Panel Reports, para. 7.633 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres,
paras. 145-157).
1205 Panel Reports, para. 7.635 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, paras. 150
and 151).
1206 Panel Reports, para. 7.636.
1207 Panel Reports, para. 7.639.
1208 Panel Reports, para. 7.634 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Tuna II (Mexico), para. 317).
1209 Panel Reports, para. 7.636.
1210 Panel Reports, para. 7.637.
1211 Panel Reports, para. 7.638.
1212 Panel Reports, para. 7.638.
1213 Panel Reports, para. 7.638.
1214 Panel Reports, para. 7.639.
1215 Panel Reports, para. 7.640.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

5.3.2.2 The Panel's analysis of the aspects of the EU Seal Regime to be justified under
Article XX(a)
5.184. We first consider Norway's claim that th e Panel erred in seeking to justify the EU Seal
Regime as a whole under Article XX(a). 1216 According to Norway, it is the "particular aspect" of a
measure that is inconsistent with the GATT 1994 that must be justified under Article XX. 1217 In the
present disputes, since the Panel found the IC and MRM exceptions to be inconsistent with
Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994, Norway argu es, it is these specific aspects of the EU Seal
Regime that must be justified under Article XX(a), and not the EU Seal Regime as a whole.
1218
According to Norway, the Panel found that the EU Seal Regime "as a whole" was provisionally
justified on the basis of the positive contribution of the "ban". 1219 In Norway's view, the Panel's
approach "allowed aspects of the EU Seal Regime not found to be WTO-inconsistent, to shield from
scrutiny under Article XX(a) those aspects of the measure found to be WTO-inconsistent". 1220 The
European Union, on the other hand, submits that the "less favourable treatment" under the
EU Seal Regime results from the "interplay" between the ban and the IC and MRM exceptions, and
that the Panel was therefore correct in not limiting its analysis under Article XX(a) to the IC and
MRM exceptions alone.
1221
5.185. We begin by noting that the general except ions of Article XX apply to "measures" that are
to be analysed under the subparagraphs and chapeau, not to any inconsistency with the
GATT 1994 that might arise from such measures. In US – Gasoline , the Appellate Body clarified
that it is not a panel's legal conclusions of GATT-inconsistency that must be justified under
Article XX, but rather the provisions of a measure that are infringing the GATT 1994.
1222 Similarly,
in Thailand – Cigarettes (Philippines) , the Appellate Body observed that the analysis of the
Article XX(d) defence in that case should focus on the "differences in the regulation of imports and
of like domestic products" giving rise to the finding of less favourable treatment under
Article III:4.
1223 Thus, the aspects of a measure to be justified under the subparagraphs of
Article XX are those that give rise to the finding of inconsistency under the GATT 1994.
5.186. Turning to the specifics of this case, we recall the Panel's statement that:
[A]lthough it is the aspects of the EU Seal Regime infringing the GATT 1994 (i.e. the
IC and MRM exceptions) that must be justified under Article XX, our analysis under
paragraphs (a) and (b) should first focus on the EU Seal Regime as a whole; it is the
EU Seal Regime as a whole that pursues the European Union's identified objective,
rather than the exceptions on their own independently from the ban.
1224
5.187. The Panel stated that the EU Seal Regime "consists of both prohibitive and permissive
components".1225 The "prohibitive" component of the EU Se al Regime "operates as a ban on seal
products", while the "permissive" component fl ows from "an exception and two derogations,
forming three conditions prescribed in Article 3 of the Basic Regulation (i.e. seal products obtained
from IC hunts, MRM hunts, and those imported under the Travellers imports category)".
1226
As noted above, the IC exception refers to th e requirements under Article 3(1) of the Basic
Regulation and Article 3 of the Implementing Re gulation that must be met in order for seal
products derived from IC hunts to be placed on the EU market. Similarly, the term MRM exception
refers to the requirements under Article 3(2)(b) of the Basic Regulation and Article 5 of the

1216 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 775.
1217 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 779. (emphasis omitted)
1218 Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 779-787 (referring to Panel Reports, paras. 7.56, 7.173,
7.594, 7.600, 7.604, 7.618, and 7.624; and Norway Panel Report (DS401), para. 8.3(a) and (b)).
1219 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 795 (referring to Panel Reports, paras. 7.636 and 7.638).
1220 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 795.
1221 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 407.
1222 Appellate Body Report, US – Gasoline, pp. 13-14, DSR 1996:I, pp. 12-13. In that dispute, the
Appellate Body criticized the panel for designating what ought to have been justified under Article XX(g) in
terms such as "difference in treatment", "less favourable treatment", or "discrimination" for the purposes of its
analysis. (Ibid.)
1223 Appellate Body Report, Thailand – Cigarettes (Philippines), para. 177.
1225 Panel Reports, para. 7.54.
1226 Panel Reports, para. 7.56.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

Implementing Regulation that must be met in or der for seal products derived from MRM hunts to
be placed on the EU market.
5.188. With respect to the claims under Article I:1 of the GATT 1994, the Panel found that,
"in terms of its design, structure, and expected operation, the EU Seal Regime detrimentally
affects the conditions of competition on the market [for seal products] of Canadian and Norwegian
origin as compared to seal products of Greenlandic origin." 1227 As we see it, the existence of the
permissive component in the form of the IC exception alone cannot confer an advantage to seal
products of Greenlandic origin, unless it is compared to the treatment of seal products of Canadian
and Norwegian origin. It is only the combined operation of the permissive aspect of the EU Seal
Regime (i.e. the IC exception, which grants market access to seal products of Greenlandic origin),
together with the prohibitive aspect of the EU Seal Regime (i.e. the "ban" that restricts market
access for Canadian and Norwegian seal products), that leads to a finding of de facto
discrimination under Article I:1.
5.189. Similarly, in the context of the claims under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, we note that
the Panel's finding that the measure accords treatment to Canadian and Norwegian seal products
that is less favourable than the treatment accorded to EU seal products was based on an
examination of the combined operation of the permissive component of the EU Seal Regime
(i.e. the MRM exception, which allows the placing on the market of seal products of EU origin),
together with the prohibitive component (i.e. the "ban" that restricts market access for Canadian
and Norwegian seal products). As with the Panel's analysis of the IC exception under Article I:1,
the permissive aspect of the MRM exception and the requirements thereunder would not have led
to a finding of violation under Article III:4 in the absence of the "ban".
5.190. On the basis of these findings by the Pa nel, we disagree with Norway that the "precise
aspects" of the EU Seal Regime that violate th e provisions of the GATT 1994 are the IC exception
and the MRM exception.
1228 At the same time, it may not be accurate to state that the analysis
under Article XX(a) must focus on the EU Seal Regime "as a whole" insofar as the measure
consists of elements other than the prohibitive and permissive components of the EU Seal Regime.
In any event, although the Panel stated that its analysis should focus on the EU Seal Regime "as a
whole", it then made clear that it was referring to the components of the measure embodying the
"ban" and the "exceptions".
1229
5.191. Norway argues that the Panel erroneousl y relied on the Appellate Body's approach in US –
Gasoline to support its approach of using the aspect of the EU Seal Regime not found to be
WTO-inconsistent (i.e. the ban) to shield from scrutiny the aspects of the EU Seal Regime that
were found to be WTO-inconsistent (i.e. the IC and MRM exceptions).
1230 In US – Gasoline , a
challenge was brought against a measure enacted by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to ensure that pollution from ga soline combustion did not exceed 1990 levels. The
measure set out certain "baseline establishment rules" for domestic refiners, blenders, and
importers of foreign gasoline, but differentiated between more favourable "individual" baselines
(established by the entity itself) and less favourable "statutory" baselines (established by the EPA).
In findings that were not appealed, the panel foun d that most domestic refiners were not required
to meet the statutory baseline, whereas almost all importers of foreign gasoline were required to
do so.
1231 The panel thus found that "imported gasoline was treated less favourably than domestic
gasoline" resulting in an inconsistency under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.1232

1227 Panel Reports, para. 7.597. The Panel thus found that the EU Seal Regime is inconsistent with
Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 because it does not extend the same market access advantage on the EU market
to the complainants' imports as it does to imports originating from Greenland. (Ibid., para. 7.600)
1228 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 785 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.56). We note that,
in its request for panel establishment, Norway claimed that the EU Seal Regime gave rise to discrimination
under Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994 "[t]hrough the general prohibition and the exceptions set out
therein". (Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Norway, p. 2).
1229 The Panel stated that "it is the EU Seal Regime as a whole that pursues the European Union's
identified objective, rather than the exceptions on their own independently from the ban." (Panel Reports,
para. 7.624)
1230 Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 795 and 821. See also ibid., para. 816 (referring to Panel
Reports, para. 7.620).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

5.192. Norway appears to contend that the ba seline establishment rules, which the Appellate
Body found needed to be justified in US – Gasoline , were like the IC and MRM exceptions of the
EU Seal Regime in that they constituted the WTO-inconsistent aspect of the measure. 1233 We do
not agree with the analogy drawn by Norway be tween the baseline establishment rules and the
IC and MRM exceptions. Rather, we see the base line establishment rules as comparable to the
prohibitive and permissive aspects of the EU Seal Regime, which, taken together, resulted in the
differential treatment found to be inconsistent wi th the GATT 1994. The Appellate Body confirmed
this when it stated, in US – Gasoline , that it had to consider whether the "baseline establishment
rules, taken as a whole (that is, the provisions relating to establishment of baselines for domestic
refiners, along with the provisions relating to baselines for blenders and importers of gasoline)"
1234
were justified under Article XX(g).
5.193. At the same time, we do not consider that the Panel was correct to the extent that it
suggested that what it considered must be "justified" in this case was limited to the permissive
aspects flowing from the IC and MRM exceptions.
1235 Rather, what must be justified is, as we have
said, both the prohibitive and permissive components of the EU Seal Regime, taken together.
However, because the Panel, in determining what needed to be "analysed", ultimately considered
whether the prohibitive and permissive aspects of the EU Seal Regime together were "necessary to
protect public morals" within the meaning of Article XX(a), we find no error in the Panel's
approach. Accordingly, we reject Norway's claim, and find that the Panel did not err in concluding
that the analysis under Article XX(a) of th e GATT 1994 should examine the prohibitive and
permissive aspects of the EU Seal Regime.
5.3.2.3 The Panel's analysis of the protection of public morals under Article XX(a)
5.194. We next consider Canada's claim that the Panel failed to establish that there was a risk to
EU public morals consisting of concerns regarding animal welfare that are particular to seals.
Canada principally claims that the Panel erred in finding that the EU Seal Regime falls within the
scope of application of Article XX(a) without identifying a "risk" against which the measure seeks
to "protect". According to Canada, the Panel failed to determine the content of the relevant public
moral, consisting of the exact standard of right and wrong conduct, in the European Union.
1236
Relying on the panel report in EC – Asbestos , Canada argues that the use of the phrase "to
protect" in Article XX(a) requires the identification of a risk to public morals against which the
EU Seal Regime seeks to protect. Canada contends that a "risk" to public morals in the European
Union can be found to exist only if the evidence shows that "the commercial seal hunts targeted by
the ban exhibit a degree or incidence of animal suff ering that falls below the standard or norm of
right and wrong conduct in the context of animal welfare shown to prevail within the [European
Union]."
1237 In this regard, Canada recalls that it presented evidence to show that "EU policies and
practices with respect to animal welfare included a tolerance for a certain degree of animal
suffering, both for slaughterhouses and wildlife hunts."
1238 In Canada's view, the welfare risks
associated with commercial seal hunts are "commonplace" in situations that involve the killing of
animals, especially in the context of wildlife hunts, regardless of whether they take place inside or
outside the European Union.
1239 On this basis, Canada argues that the Panel failed to consider
whether the risks associated with commercial seal hunts "exceeded the accepted level of risk of
compromised animal welfare, as reflected in the [European Union's] policies and practices in this
field".1240 Canada also argues that the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU by

1233 Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 818 and 821.
1234 Appellate Body Report, US – Gasoline, p. 19, DSR 1996:I, p. 17.
1235 Panel Reports, para. 7.624.
1236 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 394.
1237 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 396.
1238 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 395 (referring to Canada's first written submission to the
Panel, paras. 146-162 and 198-213; Canada's second written submission to the Panel, paras. 45-49; Canada's
opening statement at the second Panel meeting, paras. 44-50; Canada's response to Panel question No. 60,
paras. 248-250; and the following Exhibits submitted by Canada to the Panel: CDA-29; CDA-34, p. 453;
CDA-47; CDA-98; CDA-122; CDA-123, p. 14; CDA-124; JE-08; JE-17; and JE-22, p. 88 (see list of Panel
Exhibits on pp. 9-10)).
1239 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 395 and 396.
1240 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 397.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

failing to explain why it found the physical environmental conditions for seal hunts different from
other types of terrestrial wildlife hunts.1241
5.195. The European Union takes issue with Canada's assertion that a panel must first ascertain
the existence of a risk to public morals in order to determine that the measure falls within the
scope of Article XX(a). According to the European Union, in order for a measure to fall within the
scope of Article XX(a), it only needs to be shown that the measure is designed to protect public
morals.1242 In the European Union's view, Canada's interpretation would introduce a "strict
consistency test", requiring Members to prove that "the relevant standard of morality is
consistently applied by them in each and every situation involving similar risks." 1243 Given the
Panel's finding that the objective of the EU Seal Regime is to address the moral concerns of the
EU public with regard to the welfare of seals, a finding that has not been appealed by Canada, the
European Union submits that the Panel was entitled to conclude that the EU Seal Regime is
designed to protect public morals and, therefore, falls within the scope of Article XX(a) of the
GATT 1994.
1244 In response to Canada's claim under Article 11 of the DSU challenging the Panel's
assessment of evidence relating to terrestrial wi ldlife hunts, the European Union points out that
the Panel gave detailed reasons for its findings on the uniqueness and distinctiveness of the
welfare risks associated with seal hunts, and that these have not been challenged by Canada on
appeal.
1245
5.196. In our view, Canada's arguments are built around the notion of an identifiable "risk" that it
finds implicit in the phrase "to protect" in Article XX(a). According to Canada, identifying such a
"risk" requires the identification of a precise standard of animal welfare in the European Union, and
an assessment of the incidence of suffering in commercial seal hunts against that standard.
Central to Canada's position is its contention that the animal welfare risks in commercial seal hunts
are not unique to those types of hunts, and can be found in all forms of wildlife hunts, including
those conducted in the European Union.
1246 In other words, Canada argues that the Panel, upon
proper consideration of the evidence, should have concluded that the animal welfare risks
associated with seal hunts are not any higher than the animal welfare risks associated with
slaughterhouses and other terrestrial wildlife hunts, such as deer hunts, in the European Union. In
the absence of a higher risk associated with seal hunts, Canada asserts that the European Union
cannot justify its measure on public moral grounds.
5.197. Canada's claim asks us to consider whether the use of the phrase "to protect" in
Article XX(a) requires a panel to identify a risk against which the measure that is to be justified
seeks to protect. The ordinary meaning of the ve rb "protect" includes "defend or guard against
injury or danger; shield from attack or assault; support, assist …; keep safe, take care of …".
1247
The meaning of "to protect" in a given provision also requires taking into account the context in
which the phrase is used. The phrase "to protect" is used in three subparagraphs of Article XX that
concern the "protection" of different non-economic interests and concerns.1248 In EC – Asbestos, in
addressing the term "to protect" in Article XX(b), the panel noted that "the notion of 'protection' …
impl[ies] the existence of a health risk".1249 We note that Article XX(b) focuses on the protection of
"human, animal or plant life or health". It may be that the protection of human, animal, or plant
life or health implies a particular focus on the protection from or against certain dangers or risks.

1241 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 401 and 402.
1242 European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 343 and 344 (referring to Appellate Body Report,
Korea – Various Measures on Beef, para. 157).
1243 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 347.
1244 European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 345 and 346.
1245 European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 355 and 356 (referring to Panel Reports,
paras. 7.187, 7.188, 7.190, 7.204, 7.209, 7.214, 7.215, 7.217, 7.218, 7.221-7.223, and fns 300 and 339 to
paras. 7.206 and 7.218, respectively).
1246 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 369.
1247 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th edn, A. Stevenson (ed.) (Oxford University Press, 2007),
Vol. 2, p. 2376.
1248 Article XX(a) talks of measures "necessary to protect public morals". Article XX(b) is concerned with
measures "necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health". Finally, Article XX(f) talks of measures
"imposed for the protection of national treasures of artistic, historic or archaeological value".
1249 Panel Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 8.170. (emphasis omitted)
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

For example, the concepts of "risk" and "protection" are expressly reflected in the SPS Agreement,
which elaborates rules for the application of Article XX(b).1250
5.198. However, the notion of risk in the context of Article XX(b) is difficult to reconcile with the
subject matter of protection under Article XX(a), namely, public morals. While the focus on the
dangers or risks to human, animal, or plant life or health in the context of Article XX(b) may lend
itself to scientific or other methods of inquiry, such risk-assessment methods do not appear to be
of much assistance or relevance in identifying and assessing public morals. We therefore do not
consider that the term "to protect", when used in relation to "public morals" under Article XX(a),
required the Panel, as Canada contends, to identi fy the existence of a risk to EU public moral
concerns regarding seal welfare.
5.199. For this reason, we also have difficulty accepting Canada's argument that, for the purposes
of an analysis under Article XX(a), a panel is requ ired to identify the exact content of the public
morals standard at issue. The Panel accepted the definition of "public morals" developed by the
panel in US – Gambling , according to which "the term 'public morals' denotes 'standards of right
and wrong conduct maintained by or on behalf of a community or nation'".
1251 The Panel also
referred to the reasoning developed by the panel in US – Gambling that the content of public
morals can be characterized by a degree of variation, and that, for this reason, Members should be
given some scope to define and apply for themselves the concept of public morals according to
their own systems and scales of values. 1252 Canada does not challenge these propositions on
appeal. In addition, we note that, although Canada indirectly questions the existence of EU public
moral concerns regarding seal welfare by contending that the Panel ought to have considered the
similarity of animal welfare risks in both terrestrial wildlife hunts and seal hunts, Canada does not
directly challenge the Panel's finding that there are public moral concerns in relation to seal
welfare in the European Union.
5.200. Finally, by suggesting that the European Union must recognize the same level of animal
welfare risk in seal hunts as it does in its slaughterhouses and terrestrial wildlife hunts, Canada
appears to argue that a responding Member must regulate similar public moral concerns in similar
ways for the purposes of satisfying the requiremen t "to protect" public morals under Article XX(a).
In this regard, we note that the panel in US – Gambling underscored that Members have the right
to determine the level of protection that they consider appropriate
1253, which suggests that
Members may set different levels of protection even when responding to similar interests of moral
concern. Even if Canada were correct that the European Union has the same moral concerns
regarding seal welfare and the welfare of other animals, and must recognize the same level of
animal welfare risk in seal hunts as it does in its slaughterhouses and terrestrial wildlife hunts, we

1250 The preamble to the SPS Agreement states, in relevant part, "Desiring therefore to elaborate rules
for the application of the provisions of GATT 1994 which relate to the use of sanitary or phytosanitary
measures, in particular the provisions of Article XX(b)." Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement concerns the
"assessment of risk", taking into account risk assessment techniques developed by the relevant international
organizations. Article 5.2 further requires that, in the assessment of risks, Members shall take into account,
inter alia, relevant scientific evidence. Article 5.3 draws a link between "protection" and "risk" by stating that
"[i]n assessing the risk to animal or plant life or health and determining the measure to be applied for
achieving the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection from such risk, Members shall take into
account ….". (SPS Agreement, Article 5.3) Article 5.3 th erefore relates the concepts of "protection" and "risk"
by using the phrase "protection from such risk".
1253 Panel Report, US – Gambling, para. 6.461 (referring to Appellate Body Reports, Korea – Various
Measures on Beef, para. 176; and EC – Asbestos, para. 168). We note that the panel in EC – Asbestos took a
similar position in the context of Article XX(b) when it stated that, although it must examine the particular
health risk posed by chrysotile asbestos fibres, it was not required to assess France's choice to protect its
population against that risk. (Panel Report, EC – Asbestos, paras. 8.170 and 8.171)
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

do not consider that the European Union was required by Article XX(a), as Canada suggests, to
address such public moral concerns in the same way.1254
5.201. For these reasons, we reject Canada's argument that the Panel was required to assess
whether the seal welfare risks associated with seal hunts exceed the level of animal welfare risks
accepted by the European Union in other situations such as terrestrial wildlife hunts. We therefore
also do not consider it necessary to address Canada's claim under Article 11 of the DSU regarding
the same issue. Accordingly, we find that the Pane l did not err in concluding that the objective of
the EU Seal Regime falls within the scope of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994.1255
5.202. In addition, Canada claims that the Panel "misinterpreted" 1256 Canada's argument and
therefore erred under Article 11 of the DSU in finding that Canada did not dispute the importance
of public moral concerns regarding the protection of animal welfare. Canada points out that, while
it had acknowledged that "the protection of publ ic morals is, in principle, a highly important
interest or value"
1257, Canada "did not agree that the specific public moral concern in issue was
considered important or presented a serious risk". 1258 A l t h o u g h C a n a d a r a i s e s t h i s c l a i m i n t h e
context of the Panel's assessment of the importan ce of the objective in a necessity analysis,
Canada appears again to be advancing its central contention that the objective of the EU Seal
Regime is not as important as the European Union asserts. Canada maintained before the Panel
that there are "reasons to doubt the seriousness of the harm that might be expected to arise from
the presence of seal products on the [EU] market".1259
5.203. The Panel noted the European Union's position that moral concern regarding the protection
of animals is a value of high importance in the European Union. The Panel then stated:
"We consider, and the parties do not dispute, that the protection of such public moral concerns is
indeed an important value or interest." 1260 As we see it, the Panel was making a rather general
statement about the importance of public moral concerns regarding animal welfare. 1261 Moreover,
the Panel appears to have reached this conclusion on the basis of its own assessment, and
therefore did not rely solely on the position it attributed to the parties. We further note that the
Panel also alluded in this section to its prior assessment of the risks of non-fulfilment under
Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement
1262, where the Panel had concluded that it did not consider that
"the level of protection actually achieved by the measure is as high as the European Union claims
the measure initially aimed to achieve", and that it would "bear this in mind" in its assessment of
the alternative measure.
1263 Therefore, while the Panel did no t provide much elaboration of its
assessment of the importance of the objective in the context of its analysis under Article XX(a), we
do not consider that the general statement to which Canada refers shows that its position was
somehow misinterpreted or misrepresented by the Panel. Canada's views about the scope and

1254 The drafters of the WTO agreements have elsewhere explicitly addressed the question of
consistency in the setting of levels of protection. Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement reads, in relevant part:
With the objective of achieving consistency in the application of the concept of appropriate level
of sanitary or phytosanitary protection against risks to human life or health, or to animal and
plant life or health, each Member shall avoid arbitrary or unjustifiable distinctions in the levels it
considers to be appropriate in different situations, if such distinctions result in discrimination or a
disguised restriction on international trade.
1255 Panel Reports, para. 7.631.
1256 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 431 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.632).
1257 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 432 (quoting Canada's second written submission to the
Panel, para. 176).
1258 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 434 (referring to Canada's second written submission to the
Panel, para. 183).
1259 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 433 (quoting Canada's second written submission to the
Panel, para. 179).
1260 Panel Reports, para. 7.632 (referring to Panel Report, China – Publications and Audiovisual
Products, para. 7.817).
1261 The Panel also referred to the statement by the panel in China – Publications and Audiovisual
Products that the protection of public morals "ranks among the most important values or interests pursued by
members as a matter of public policy". (Panel Reports, fn 972 to 7.632 (quoting Panel Report, China –
1263 Panel Reports, para. 7.466 (referring to European Union's first written submission to the Panel,
para. 39). As we noted above at paragraph 5.172, the Panel relied on its findings under Article 2.2 of the
TBT Agreement in concluding that the EU Seal Regime was "necessary" within the meaning of Article XX(a) of
the GATT 1994.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

content of EU public moral concerns at issue in this case have been amply reviewed by the Panel in
these disputes and now on appeal. We therefore reject this claim under Article 11 of the DSU.
5.3.2.4 The Panel's analysis of the contribution of the EU Seal Regime to the objective
5.204. Next, we address Canada's and Norway's claims that the Panel erred in finding that the
EU Seal Regime is "necessary" within the meanin g of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994. In analysing
"necessity" under Article XX(a), the Panel considered that "an analysis of a measure's contribution
to an objective under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement is also relevant to such analysis under
Article XX of the GATT 1994."
1264 The Panel thus decided that it would "refer back to [its] relevant
analysis under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement to the extent necessary for the analysis of the
measure's contribution under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994". 1265 The Panel then recalled its
earlier findings in the context of its analysis und er Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement in addressing
the elements of the legal standard of "nec essity" under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994. 1266 The
Panel ultimately concluded that the EU Seal Regime is "necessary" within the meaning of
Article XX(a).
1267
5.205. We note that, in assessing the appeals by Canada and Norway, there are aspects of the
Panel's necessity analysis that have not been appealed and upon which we, therefore, need not
rule.
1268 For instance, the Panel found in its analysis under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement that
the EU Seal Regime "considered in its entirety, is trade restrictive because it does 'hav[e] a
limiting effect on trade' by prohibiting certain seal products, including those imported from Canada
and Norway, from accessing the EU market".
1269 The Panel also referred to the trade-
restrictiveness of the EU Seal Regime in the context of its analysis under Article XX(a). 1270 The
Panel's analysis and findings regarding trade-restrictiveness are not appealed by Canada or
Norway, either in the context of its analysis under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement or
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994.1271
5.206. Rather, the complainants challenge on appeal the Panel's analysis and findings in respect
of the contribution that the EU Seal Regime makes to its objective, and in respect of the
comparison of the EU Seal Regime with a less trade-restrictive alternative measure. In this
section, we address the Panel's contribution analysis. As noted above, because the Panel's analysis
under Article XX(a) relied on findings it made in the context of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement,
Canada and Norway also incorporate by reference many of the arguments made in the context of
their Article 2.2 claims in their appeals of the Panel's findings under Article XX(a).
1272
5.3.2.4.1 Whether the Panel was required to show that the EU Seal Regime makes a
"material" contribution to its objective
5.207. Canada and Norway argue that the Panel e rred by focusing only on the prohibitive aspect
of the measure, i.e. the "ban", when determining whether the EU Seal Regime made a "material"
contribution to its objective of addressing EU public moral concerns regarding seal welfare. 1273
Instead, they argue that, because the Panel sought to determine whether the EU Seal Regime "as
a whole" was provisionally justified under Article XX(a), it was required to consider whether the
contribution of the measure "as a whole", and not just the "ban", was "material". 1274 In addition,

1264 Panel Reports, para. 7.634.
1265 Panel Reports, para. 7.634.
1266 Panel Reports, paras. 7.637-7.639.
1267 Panel Reports, para. 7.639.
1268 We are mindful that there are differences in the text of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement and
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 that may have a bearing on the interpretation of these provisions.
1269 Panel Reports, para. 7.426 (referring to European Union's first written submission to the Panel,
paras. 357 and 586; and Appellate Body Reports, US – Tuna II (Mexico), para. 319; and US – COOL,
para. 375). In referring to the prohibition on the import of seal products "including those imported from
Canada and Norway", the Panel may have been referring not only to the restrictive impact of the ban, but also
to any restrictive discriminatory impact caused by trade diversion between imports of seal products originating
in different countries.
1270 Panel Reports, para. 7.636.
1271 Canada's and Norway's responses to questioning at the oral hearing.
1272 See supra, para. 5.172 (referring to Panel Reports, paras. 7.638 and 7.639).
1273 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 410 and 421; Norway's appellant's submission, para. 854.
1274 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 420; Norway's appellant's submission, para. 855.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

Canada and Norway contend that the Panel erred in finding that the EU Seal Regime made a
"material" contribution. According to Norway, the Panel's findings in the context of its analysis
under Article 2.2 of TBT Agreement do not demonstrate that the EU Seal Regime makes a
contribution, either "to a certain extent", as found by the Panel, or "materially", as required under
Article XX(a), to protecting EU public morals.
1275 Canada similarly asserts that the Panel erred in
characterizing "some contribution" and "makes a contribution to" the identified objective as
equivalent to making a "material" contribution.
1276
5.208. The European Union submits that the ar guments of Canada and Norway are based on a
misreading of the Appellate Body report in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres .1277 The European Union
considers that, in that case, the Appellate Body left open "the possibility that, exceptionally, an
import ban may be considered necessary even when the contribution is not 'material'".
1278
According to the European Union, following Canada 's and Norway's approach would contradict the
Appellate Body's approach in US – COOL , in the context of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, in
which "the Appellate Body rebuked the panel for having considered it necessary for the
COOL measure to meet some minimum level of fulfilment". 1279 In any event, the European Union
maintains that the Appellate Body in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres held that "a contribution should be
deemed 'material' provided that it is not 'marginal or insignificant'".1280 The European Union claims
that both the Panel's findings and the evidence on record "demonstrate that the contribution of the
E U S e a l R e g i m e i s c l e a r l y m o r e t h a n ' m a r g i n a l o r insignificant', even if it cannot be quantified
precisely".1281
5.209. We first address the question of whether the Panel was required to determine whether the
contribution of the measure was "material". The Panel stated that "the contribution made by the
'ban' to the identified objective must be shown to be at least material given the extent of its
trade-restrictiveness."
1282 Drawing on the Appellate Body's report in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , the
Panel stated that "when a measure produces restrictive effects on international trade as severe as
those resulting from an import ban, it would be difficult for a panel to find that measure necessary
unless it is satisfied that the measure is apt to make a material contribution to the achievement of
its objective".
1283 In a footnote, the Panel added that, in order for a measure to be considered
necessary within the meaning of Article XX(a), the measure's contribution to its objective must
reach a "certain minimum threshold such as a material or significant contribution".
1284 By contrast,
the Panel stated that no such threshold degree of contribution exists under Article 2.2 of the
TBT Agreement, which only requires an assessment of the degree of contribution of a measure.1285
5.210. In Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , the Appellate Body identified certain principles in evaluating
the contribution of a measure in the context of a necessity analysis under Article XX:
The selection of a methodology to assess a measure's contribution is a function of the
nature of the risk, the objective pursued, and the level of protection sought. It
ultimately also depends on the nature, quantity, and quality of evidence existing at
the time the analysis is made. Because the Panel, as the trier of the facts, is in a
position to evaluate these circumstances, it should enjoy a certain latitude in
designing the appropriate methodology to use and deciding how to structure or
organize the analysis of the contribution of the measure at issue to the realization of
the ends pursued by it. This latitude is not, however, boundless. Indeed, a panel must
analyze the contribution of the measure at issue to the realization of the ends pursued

1275 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 861.
1276 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 430.
1277 European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 421 and 422.
1278 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 423.
1279 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 424.
1280 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 429.
1281 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 429.
1282 Panel Reports, para. 7.636.
1283 Panel Reports, para. 7.635 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, paras. 150
and 151). (emphasis original)
1284 Panel Reports, fn 977 to para. 7.635. (emphasis original)
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

by it in accordance with the requirem ents of Article XX of the GATT 1994 and
Article 11 of the DSU.1286
5.211. The Appellate Body thus confirmed that a panel's approach is appropriately guided by the
particular circumstances of the case and the evidence at issue, and that a panel will have certain,
but not unbounded, discretion is designing that approach. The Appellate Body further confirmed
that a panel's contribution analysis "can be done either in quantitative or in qualitative terms".1287
5.212. The measure at issue in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , namely, a ban on imports of retreaded
tyres, was particular in at least two respects. First, the import ban formed part of a comprehensive
policy designed and implemented by Brazil to de al with the public health and environmental
consequences of waste tyres. As the Appellate Body recognized, "certain complex public health or
environmental problems may be tackled only with a comprehensive policy comprising a multiplicity
of interacting measures".
1288 Consequently, the Appellate Body noted, it may prove difficult in the
short term "to isolate the contribution to public health or environmental objectives of one specific
measure from those attributable to the other measures that are part of the same comprehensive
policy".
1289 Second, the Appellate Body considered that the results obtained from, for example,
certain preventive actions to reduce the incidence of diseases, "can only be evaluated with the
benefit of time".
1290 As the Appellate Body explained, the broader regulatory scheme was designed
to induce changes in the practices and behaviour of commercial actors in order to reduce the
number of waste tyres generated and, thereby, to reduce the risks to human, animal, and plant
life and health arising from the accumulation of waste tyres.1291
5.213. The Appellate Body in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres was thus confronted with the particular
challenge of assessing the contribution of a meas ure that formed part of a broader policy scheme,
and that was not yet having, or likely itself to produce, an immediately discernible impact on its
objective. The Appellate Body thus sought to determine whether the measure was "apt to make a
material contribution" to its objective. 1292 This reflected the Appellate Body's recognition that,
notwithstanding the particular features of the measure at issue in that dispute, it was nevertheless
possible to determine the level of contribution to be made by the measure, by assessing the extent
to which it was apt to do so at some point in the future. We further note that the Appellate Body
was careful not to suggest that its approach in that dispute was requiring the use of a generally
applicable threshold for a contribution analysis. Rather, the Appellate Body was making the more
limited statement that "when a measure produces restrictive effects on international trade as
severe as those resulting from an import ban, it appears to us that it would be difficult for a panel
to find that measure necessary unless it is satisfied that the measure is apt to make a material
contribution to the achievement of its objective".
1293 We therefore do not see that the Appellate
Body's approach in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres sets out a generally applicable standard requiring the
use of a pre-determined threshold of contribution in analysing the necessity of a measure under
Article XX of the GATT 1994.
5.214. This understanding is supported, in our view, by the other dimensions of a necessity
analysis. As we noted, the Appellate Body has explained in several disputes that a necessity
analysis involves a process of "weighing and balancing" a series of factors, including the
importance of the objective, the contribution of the measure to that objective, and the
trade-restrictiveness of the measure.
1294 The Appellate Body has further explained that, in most
cases, a comparison between the challenged meas ure and possible alternatives should then be
undertaken.1295 As the Appellate Body has stated, "[i]t is on the basis of this 'weighing and
balancing' and comparison of measures, taking into account the interests or values at stake, that a
panel determines whether a measure is 'necessary' or, alternatively, whether another,

1286 Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 145.
1287 Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 146.
1288 Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 151.
1289 Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 151.
1290 Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 151. The Appellate Body accepted that a
measure could be considered "necessary" even if the contribution of the measure "is not immediately
observable". (Ibid., para. 151)
1291 Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 154.
1292 Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 150.
1293 Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 150. (emphasis added)
1294 See supra, para. 5.169.
1295 See supra, para. 5.169.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

WTO-consistent measure is 'reasonably available'". 1296 Such an analysis, the Appellate Body has
observed, involves a "holistic" weighing and balancing exercise "that involves putting all the
variables of the equation together and evaluating them in relation to each other after having
examined them individually, in order to reach an overall judgement".
1297
5.215. A measure's contribution is thus only one component of the necessity calculus under
Article XX. This means that whether a measure is "necessary" cannot be determined by the level
of contribution alone, but will depend on the manner in which the other factors of the necessity
analysis, including a consideration of potential alternative measures, inform the analysis. It will
also depend on the nature, quantity, and quality of evidence, and whether a panel's analysis is
performed in quantitative or qualitative terms. 1298 Indeed, the very utility of examining the
interaction between the various factors of the necessity analysis, and conducting a comparison
with potential alternative measures, is that it provides a means of testing these factors as part of a
holistic weighing and balancing exercise, whether quantitative or qualitative in nature. 1299 The
flexibility of such an exercise does not allow for the setting of pre-determined thresholds in respect
of any particular factor. If the level of contribution alone cannot determine whether a measure is
necessary or not, we do not see that mandating in advance a pre-determined threshold level of
contribution would be instructive or warranted in a necessity analysis. 1300 The Appellate Body's
approach in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres is consonant with an assessment of the contribution of a
measure as one element of a holistic necessity analys is under Article XX. It is also consistent with
our understanding that the EU Seal Regime, even if it were highly trade-restrictive in nature, could
still be found to be "necessary" within the mean ing of Article XX(a), subject to the result of a
weighing and balancing exercise under the specific circumstances of the case and in the light of
the particular nature of the measure at issue.
5.216. For these reasons, we reject the contention of Canada and Norway that the Panel was
required to apply a standard of "materiality" as a generally applicable pre-determined threshold in
its contribution analysis. We also consider that the Panel erred to the extent that it relied on such
a standard in these portions of its analysis.
1301
5.217. The Panel then proceeded to examine the contribution of the EU Seal Regime in the
context of Article XX(a) by recalling, and relying upon, its analysis conducted in the context of
Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.
1302 As we have explained, it is evident from the Panel's analysis
that it was examining the contribution of both the prohibitive and permissive aspects of the
EU Seal Regime.1303 Because the Panel properly conducted its contribution analysis in respect of
both of these aspects of the measure, we need not rule on Canada's and Norway's claims that the
Panel also erred in focusing exclusively on the ban, and not the ban together with the exceptions,
in this part of its analysis. We turn now to address Canada's and Norway's appeals of the Panel's

1296 Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling, para. 307 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Korea –
1297 Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 182.
1298 Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, paras. 145 and 146.
1299 While there may be circumstances in which a weighing and balancing exercise would not require
that a panel proceed to evaluate alternative measures (see supra, fn 1182), we also do not consider that such
an exercise mandates a preliminary determination of the necessity of the challenged measure before
proceeding to assess those alternatives. (See Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling, paras. 306 and 307. See
also Appellate Body Reports, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, paras. 156 and 178; and China – Publications and
Audiovisual Products, para. 241 (stating that if a panel reaches a preliminary conclusion that a measure is
necessary, this result must be confirmed by comparing the measure with possible alternatives)) We therefore
disagree with Canada's assertion that a preliminary determination of necessity is required before proceeding to
compare the challenged measure with possible alternatives. (Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 310
and 318)
1300 We also note the Appellate Body's statements that the term "necessary" refers to a range of
degrees of necessity, but that a "necessary" measure would be located significantly closer to the pole of
"indispensable" than to the opposite pole of simply "making a contribution to". (Appellate Body Report, Korea –
Various Measures on Beef, para. 161; Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling, para. 310) It is conceptually
useful to distinguish the degree of contribution that informs the weighing and balancing exercise, from the
question of where on the continuum the necessity of that measure lies following such a weighing and balancing
exercise. The Appellate Body's above statements can be understood in this context to refer to the latter
question.
1301 Panel Reports, paras. 7.635-7.637.
1302 See supra, para. 5.172 (referring to Panel Reports, paras. 7.638 and 7.639).
1303 See supra, para. 5.193.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

conclusions under Article XX(a) on the basis of their contentions that the Panel erred in the
contribution analysis it conducted in the context of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.
5.3.2.4.2 Whether the Panel properly articulated its findings on contribution
5.218. In the context of its analysis under Arti cle XX(a), the Panel recalled its finding that the
EU Seal Regime "contributed to a certain extent to its objective of addressing the EU public moral
concerns on seal welfare". 1304 This was based on the Panel's prior conclusion in the context of
Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement that "the EU Seal Regime is capable of making and does make
some contribution to its stated objective of addressing the public moral concerns". 1305 The
complainants do not take issue with the Panel's characterization of the legal standard for
determining contribution, but rather challenge the Panel's application of that legal standard to the
facts of this case.
5.219. Canada and Norway argue that the Panel failed to articulate the "degree" or "extent" of the
contribution made by the prohibitive and permissi ve parts of the EU Seal Regime. This criticism
has several facets. The complainants contend that the Panel reached indeterminate conclusions
regarding the positive and negative contributions made by different elements of the measure, and
that the Panel therefore had no basis to reach, and in fact did not reach, an overall conclusion on
the net contribution of the measure.
1306 The complainants also fault the Panel for reaching findings
indicating a capability or possibility of a contribution, rather than the actual contribution.1307 The
complainants argue that the Panel failed to make "clear and precise" findings regarding the
contribution of the EU Seal Regime to the identified objective, and that such findings were required
in order to establish the benchmark against which alternative measures could be compared.
1308
Norway also challenges aspects of the Panel's analysis under Article 11 of the DSU.1309
5.220. The European Union submits that the complainants' arguments are "unfounded". 1310
According to the European Union, the WTO agreements do not prescribe the manner in which a
measure's contribution to the fulfilment of its ob jective should be assessed, nor how specific that
assessment should be. The European Union maintains that the Panel's analysis is in line with
WTO jurisprudence, and that, because the quantitative evidence available did not permit a precise
quantification of the contribution, "the Panel had no alternative but to resort to qualitative
reasoning".
1311 The European Union further contends that the Panel's findings were no less specific
than those reached by other panels examining a necessity test.1312
5.221. We recall that, in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , the Appellate Body stated that a panel enjoys
certain latitude in setting out its approach to determine contribution; that such an approach may
be performed in qualitative or quantitative terms; and that it ultimately depends on the nature,
quantity, and quality of evidence existing at the time the analysis is made.
1313 In the present
disputes, the Panel opted for a qualitative analysis that focused mainly on the design and expected
operation of the measure. During the panel proceedings, the Panel had only limited information on
how certain aspects of the measure would operate in practice. While the Panel could perhaps more
easily perceive how the prohibitive aspect of the measure would operate in practice, the
permissive aspects were still in a relatively nascent stage of implementation. By the time the Panel

1304 Panel Reports, para. 7.638.
1305 Panel Reports, para. 7.460.
1306 See e.g. Canada's appellant's submission, para. 150; and Norway's appellant's submission,
para. 315.
1307 See e.g. Canada's appellant's submission, para. 166; and Norway's appellant's submission,
para. 284.
1308 See e.g. Canada's appellant's submission, para. 158; and Norway's appellant's submission,
para. 257.
1309 Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 398-409.
1310 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 165.
1311 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 170.
1312 European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 171-175 (referring to Appellate Body Reports,
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres; US – Tuna II (Mexico); US – Gambling; and US – COOL).
1313 Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, paras. 145 and 146.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

held its second substantive meeting in April 2013, Greenlandic and Swedish recognized bodies had
only recently been approved for the issuance of attesting documentation under the exceptions.1314
5.222. Moreover, although the parties had su bmitted substantial evidence regarding the
EU market for seal products, that information appears to have been incomplete and subject to a
number of limitations. As the Panel remarked, the "data provided by the parties are incomplete in
terms of product types and import/export countries".1315 For example, EU trade data was available
only for those categories of seal products for which the tariff classification consisted exclusively of
seal or seal-containing products. 1316 The EU trade data therefore did not reflect imports of seal
products other than seal skins, and did not reflec t imports of raw seal skins after 2006, when the
European Union no longer maintained a separate tariff classification covering only raw seal
skins.
1317 These limitations were particularly significant given that the Panel recognized that seal
skins have historically constituted the majority of traded seal products. 1318 In the light of these
factors, the Panel stated that it was "not in a position to draw any concrete conclusions" based on
the data before it.
1319 Additionally, the Panel stated that, although the data "show a general trend
that seal product imports from the complainants into the EU market have decreased significantly
over the last few years"1320, "the extent of the connection between the ban aspect of the measure
and the reduction in the number of seals killed is not clearly discernible". 1321 Therefore, we do not
consider that the Panel's decision to focus largely on a qualitative assessment of the measure was
improper.
5.223. In analysing the contribution made by the EU Seal Regime to the first aspect of the
objective – i.e. addressing public moral concerns relating to the EU public's participation as
consumers in the market for products derived from inhumanely killed seals – the Panel focused
exclusively on an assessment of the measure itself. Indeed, in its intermediate finding, the Panel
expressly stated that its conclusion was based on the "design and expected operation" of the
measure.
1322 This approach would also seem to have implications for the way in which the Panel
framed its findings. The complainants argue that, by concluding that the ban was "capable of
making a contribution"
1323, the Panel was identifying a possible, instead of an actual, contribution.
We recognize that the Panel's language could be read to suggest that the Panel found only a
possibility that the ban contributed to the object ive. On the other hand, because the Panel made
clear that it was focusing on the design and expected operation of the measure, we understand the
Panel to have been projecting what the impact of the prohibitive aspect of the measure would be.
5.224. This approach bears similarities with the analysis in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , where the
panel concluded that the measure at issue was "capable of making a contribution to the
objective".
1324 The European Communities argued on appe al that this represented an erroneous
legal standard, and that the panel should instead have assessed the actual contribution of the
measure to its stated objective, and measured the importance of the contribution to the objective
achieved by the measure.
1325 The Appellate Body ultimately dismissed this ground of appeal. 1326
As we noted, the Appellate Body further found that the impact of the measure was not yet
realized, but that it was "apt to" induce change s over time in the behaviour and practices of

1314 Recognized bodies were approved by the Commission for seal products from Sweden on
18 December 2012, and for Greenland on 25 April 2013. (Panel Reports, fns 220 and 221 to paras. 7.164
and 7.166, respectively) The Panel also noted that, prior to the Greenlandic entity obtaining recognized body
status, Danish customs authorities had processed imports based on certificates issued by Greenlandic
1315 Panel Reports, para. 7.456 and fn 729 thereto.
1317 Panel Reports, fn 729 to para. 7.456. The Panel also noted that Canada does not maintain discrete
data for exports of tanned skins because such products are combined with those derived from other animals.
(Ibid.)
1319 Panel Reports, para. 7.456.
1321 Panel Reports, para. 7.458.
1322 Panel Reports, para. 7.448.
1323 Panel Reports, para. 7.448.
1324 Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 136 (quoting Panel Report, Brazil –
Retreaded Tyres, para. 7.148).
1325 Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 137.
1326 Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 155.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

commercial actors in a manner contributing to the objective. 1327 Such changes, however, were not
measurable at the time of the proceedings, at least not in quantifiable terms. We therefore do not
see that a panel falls into error by projecting what contribution will be brought about by the
measure.
5.225. With regard to the second aspect of the objective – i.e. addressing public moral concerns
relating to the number of inhumanely killed seals – the Panel concluded that the prohibitive aspect
of the EU Seal Regime "makes a contribution" to reducing the demand for seal products within the
European Union, and contributes "to a certain extent" to reducing global demand.
1328 The Panel
then further stated that its observation regarding the downward trend in seal products trade also
suggests that the measure "may have co ntributed" to reducing EU demand.
1329 W e n o t e t h a t ,
although this further characterization conveys a less certain conclusion with respect to
contribution, it pertains to the Panel's review of data about which it signalled its prior reservations
that we referred to above. It is thus not surpri sing that the Panel conveyed a qualified conclusion
with respect to this additional, quantitative element of its analysis.
5.226. The complainants also criticize the Panel's overall conclusion that "the EU Seal Regime is
capable of making and does make some contribution to its stated objective of addressing the
public moral concerns."
1330 Again, the complainants consider that this finding is not sufficiently
clear and precise. We read this sentence to reflect the combination of the Panel's assessment of
the contribution in respect of both aspects of the objective. Since the Panel concluded that the
EU Seal Regime was "capable of making a contribution" to addressing public moral concerns
relating to the EU public's participation as consumers in the market for products derived from
inhumanely killed seals, and "makes a contribution " to reducing EU and global demand for seal
products, the conclusion set out in the first sentence of paragraph 7.460 can be understood as
simply reflecting an aggregation of those two conclusions. What follows in the remaining sentences
of paragraph 7.460 thus consists of the Panel's recapitulation of its prior intermediate findings in
respect of both the prohibitive and permissive aspects of the measure.
5.227. Finally, we take note of the fact that, in its analysis under Article XX of the GATT 1994, the
Panel recalled its finding under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement that the EU Seal Regime
"contributed to a certain extent to its objective of addressing the EU public moral concerns on seal
welfare".
1331 Although it is not apparent why the Panel framed its conclusion differently in these
two sections, we do not see any appreciable difference between a finding that a measure "makes a
contribution" and a finding that it "contributes to a certain extent".
5.228. The complainants further contend that the Panel failed to identify how the positive and
negative contributions of the different elements of the measure resulted in a net overall
contribution to the identified objective. The complainants add that the Panel's failure to identify the
degree of contribution in respect of each aspect of the objective meant that the Panel was not able
to reach a sufficiently clear and precise conclusion with regard to the contribution of the EU Seal
Regime to the stated objective. To be sure, the Panel's finding is not very detailed. The conclusion
that the EU Seal Regime "is capable of making and does make some contribution" 1332 does not
provide much information as to the precise degree or extent of the contribution. At the same time,
however, it is not clear what greater clarity or precision the Panel could have achieved in the
circumstances of this case. We recall the Appellate Body's guidance in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres
that a Panel's inquiry ultimately depends on "the nature, quantity, and quality of evidence existing
at the time the analysis is made". 1333 In these disputes, the Panel faced significant limitations in
examining aspects of the measure other than through its design, structure, and expected
operation. Principally, the Panel recognized, correctly in our view, that there was limited and

1327 The Appellate Body stated: "Over time, this comprehensive regulatory scheme is apt to induce
sustainable changes in the practices and behaviour of the domestic retreaders, as well as other actors, and
result in an increase in the number of retreadable tyres in Brazil and a higher rate of retreading of domestic
casings in Brazil." (Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 154)
1328 Panel Reports, para. 7.459.
1329 Panel Reports, para. 7.459.
1330 Panel Reports, para. 7.460.
1331 Panel Reports, para. 7.638. (emphasis added) The Panel used similar language in the conclusions
and recommendations section of the Panel Reports. (Canada Panel Report (DS400), para. 8.2(c); Norway Panel
Report (DS401), para. 8.2(b))
1332 Panel Reports, para. 7.460.
1333 Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 145.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

uneven information relating to the actual operation of the measure on the Panel record, in
particular relating to the actual operation of the exceptions, and the actual impact the measure
had on the EU seal product market. Given the particular nature of the measure at issue, and the
specific circumstances of these disputes, it is not clear that the Panel could have done more. In
sum, we do not consider that the Panel erred in concluding that the EU Seal Regime "is capable of
making and does make some contribution"
1334 to its objective, or that it makes a contribution "to a
certain extent".1335
5.229. Norway asserts a claim under Article 11 of the DSU that mirrors aspects of its claim that
the Panel erred in the application of the legal standard. Norway argues, for instance, that the
imprecision of the Panel's contribution analysis means that "the Panel provides an inadequate
statement on how it weighed, balanced, and reconciled the competing evidence of positive and
negative contributions."
1336 Norway adds that "as the Panel failed to explain and reconcile the
evidence in arriving at its conclusion, including in making its intermediate factual findings, there is
no objective basis to comprehend how it arrived at its net overall conclusion."
1337 Similarly,
Norway charges that the Panel failed to make an objective assessment in reaching its net overall
conclusion as to the contribution of the EU Seal Regime to its objective. According to Norway, "it is
impossible to comprehend the basis on which the Panel found that the overall netting process
leaves a positive contribution." 1338 Norway adds that the Panel's overall conclusion is thus "bereft
of any objective and coherent basis".1339
5.230. To the extent that we have reviewed the Panel's reasoning, and the clarity and precision of
its findings, in our assessment of Norway's claim that the Panel erred in its contribution analysis,
we have also addressed the substance of Norway's criticism that the nature and quality of the
Panel's reasoning was inconsistent with an objective assessment under Article 11 of the DSU. We
therefore see no grounds separately to consider th ese issues under Article 11. In the next section,
we address Norway's other claims, including its claims under Article 11 of the DSU, as they relate
to whether the Panel's conclusions were properly substantiated.
5.3.2.4.3 Whether the Panel's findings regarding the contribution of the EU Seal Regime
to its objective were properly substantiated
5.231. In addition to claiming that the Panel's finding failed properly to establish the degree to
which the EU Seal Regime contributes to its objective, the complainants assert distinct claims that
various aspects of the Panel's findings were unsubstantiated. Norway identifies various points that
it considers the Panel either undervalued or ov ervalued in assessing the contribution of the
EU Seal Regime to the public morals objective.
1340 Separately, Canada and Norway both maintain
that the Panel failed to substantiate its conclusion that the EU Seal Regime contributes to reducing
EU and global demand for seal products and the incidence of inhumanely killed seals.1341
5.232. We note that certain of the claims by Canada and Norway present overlapping challenges
concerning the Panel's application of the law to the facts, as well as the Panel's assessment of the
facts under Article 11 of the DSU. The Appellate Body has recognized the difficulty of
distinguishing "clearly between issues that are purely legal or purely factual, or are mixed issues of
law and fact", and has stated that "{i}n most cases … an issue will either be one of application of
the law to the facts or an issue of the objective assessment of facts, and not both."
1342 The
Appellate Body has found that allegations implicating a panel's assessment of the facts and

1334 Panel Reports, para. 7.460.
1335 Panel Reports, para. 7.638; Canada Panel Report (DS400), para. 8.2(c); Norway Panel Report
(DS401), para. 8.2(b).
1336 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 415. (emphasis original)
1337 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 418.
1338 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 460.
1339 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 465.
1340 Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 316-397.
1341 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 176-208; Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 381-394,
and 420-451.
1342 Appellate Body Report, US – Large Civil Aircraft (2nd complaint), para. 955 (referring to EC and
certain member States – Large Civil Aircraft, para. 872 (emphasis original)).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

evidence fall under Article 11 of the DSU. 1343 By contrast, "[t]he consistency or inconsistency of a
given fact or set of facts with the requirements of a given treaty provision is … a legal
characterization issue" and therefore a legal question.
1344 We examine, where relevant below,
whether certain of the complainants' claims are properly considered as claims of legal application
under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, or as claims relating to the Panel's objective assessment of
the facts within the meaning of Article 11 of the DSU.
5.233. We have structured our analysis to address the issues raised by the complainants in the
following three subsections. First, we examine Cana da's and Norway's contention that the EU Seal
Regime fails to contribute to the objective in various respects because it leads to worse seal
welfare outcomes. Next, we assess the complainants' claims in respect of the Panel's finding that
the EU Seal Regime contributes to reducing EU and global demand for seal products and the
incidence of inhumanely killed seals. Finally, we consider several remaining claims as they relate to
the Panel's analysis.
5.3.2.4.3.1 Whether the EU Seal Regime leads to worse seal welfare outcomes
5.234. Several of the arguments advanced by the complainants in respect of the Panel's
contribution analysis are premised on the view that the EU Seal Regime could or does lead to
greater numbers of imports of seal products de rived from seal hunts with poor seal welfare
outcomes. Norway specifically addresses this matter in relation to several issues that it considers
the Panel undervalued in assessing the contribution of the EU Seal Regime
1345, as well as in
challenging the Panel's analysis under Article 11 of the DSU. 1346 Canada does so to a more limited
extent in its criticism of the Panel for failing to assess whether the EU Seal Regime makes a net
positive contribution.1347
5.235. The complainants' premise that the EU Seal Regime leads to worse seal welfare outcomes
consists of two elements: (i) that the EU Seal Regime will have the effect of replacing imports from
commercial hunts with those from IC and MRM hunts; and (ii) that IC and MRM hunts lead to
higher rates of inhumanely killed seals as compared to commercial hunts. Both elements are
required to sustain the premise upon which the complainants rely. Only if seal products derived
from IC and MRM hunts replace seal products from commercial hunts would any alleged effect of
worse seal welfare outcomes in the former hunts lead to an increase of seal product imports
derived from inhumanely killed seals.
5.236. Canada and Norway identify factors that, in their view, cumulatively confirm the existence
of a replacement effect. Norway refers to the Panel's finding that virtually all seal products from
Greenland and the European Union are likely to be placed on the EU market by virtue of the IC and
MRM exceptions, whereas the vast majority of Cana dian and Norwegian seal products do not meet
the requirements of either of these exceptions.
1348 Norway considers that the Panel's findings also
demonstrate that seal products may be sold on the EU market under the IC and MRM exceptions
regardless of whether they derive from seals killed humanely, and that these exceptions do not
impose any quantitative limits on the number of qualifying seal products that may be admitted to
the EU market.
1349 Canada makes similar arguments when it refers to the Panel's findings that the

1343 This includes claims that a panel: exceeded its authority as a trier of facts (Appellate Body Report,
US – Wheat Gluten, para. 151); disregarded evidence or did not have a sufficient evidentiary basis on the
record for its finding (Appellate Body Report, US – Continued Zeroing, para. 338); lacked even-handedness in
the treatment of evidence (Appellate Body Report, US – Upland Cotton (Article 21.5 – Brazil), para. 292);
failed to provide reasoned and adequate explanations for its findings (Appellate Body Report, US – Softwood
Lumber VI (Article 21.5 – Canada), para. 97); or failed to provide coherent reasoning (Appellate Body Report,
US – Upland Cotton (Article 21.5 – Brazil), para. 293 and fn 618 thereto, and para. 294).
1344 Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 132.
1345 Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 324-360.
1346 Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 472-474.
1347 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 169-175.
1348 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 328 (referring to Panel Reports, paras. 7.164 and 7.608).
1349 Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 325-327 (referring to, inter alia, Panel Reports,
para. 7.447).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

only beneficiary under the IC exception is Greenland, and that all or virtually all seal products from
Greenland are eligible to access the EU market under the IC exception.1350
5.237. Canada and Norway also point to Panel find ings and evidence in the Panel record that, in
their view, support the conclusion that the EU Seal Regime would lead to the replacement by
Greenlandic seal products of imports previously derived from commercial hunts in Canada and
Norway. The complainants assert that these findings and evidence demonstrate that Greenlandic
trade could by itself satisfy EU demand.
1351 First, the complainants note the Panel's conclusion that
"all, or virtually all, seal products from Greenland are eligible to access the EU market under the
IC exception".1352 Second, the complainants cite the Panel's statement that Greenland, for the
period from 1993 to 2009, always caught over 163,000 seals annually, half the skins of which
were normally traded.
1353 Norway compares the over 80,000 skins estimated to be annually traded
by Greenland with an estimation of, on average, 20,000 skins imported annually from Canada and
Norway into the European Union between 2002 and 2008. 1354 The complainants also point to the
Panel's observation that "Greenland has stored ar ound 300,000 sealskins since the introduction of
the EU Seal Regime".1355 Finally, we note that the complainants repeatedly refer to a statement in
the COWI 2010 Report, not cited by the Panel, that "Greenlandic trade is more than enough to
cover the EU demand by itself".1356
5.238. The European Union contends that the ev idence on which Canada and Norway rely is
unsupported and contradicted by other facts. The European Union argues that the complainants'
main piece of evidence contained in the COWI 2 010 Report "is not supported by any evidence or
reasoning and it is not possible to know on what basis COWI came to that view".
1357 The European
Union identifies other facts that, in the European Union's view, contradict the appellants' position:
(i) the number of seals hunted in Canada and Norway has traditionally exceeded the number of
catches in Greenland; (ii) unlike in Canada and Norway, a large part of the seal skins in Greenland
are consumed domestically rather than traded internationally; (iii) a large part of the seal skins
are exported from Greenland to markets outside the European Union; (iv) there are Inuit
exceptions under other countries' bans that would absorb exports of seal skins traded by
Greenland; (v) global demand for seal products may not remain unchanged at currently depressed
levels; (vi) the IC exception is subject to conditions that constrain Greenland's ability to expand
supply more than traditional levels; (vii) Greenland's supply capacity is declining; and
(viii) Greenlandic export data shows stable or declining exports to the European Union.
1358
5.239. The European Union further contends that this evidence demonstrates that, due to
depressed global demand and prices resulting in part from the EU Seal Regime, imports from
Greenland "have not even returned to their usual level" 1359 before seal product bans were first
introduced in the European Union in 2007. The European Union also maintains that Norway's
assertion that Greenland's supply of 80,000 seal skins per year can easily supply the
European Union's average imports of 20,000 skins is flawed.
1360 This data, the European Union
argues, only covers tanned skins, whereas Canada's principal exports to the European Union
consisted of raw skins. Noting that Canada exported more than 100,000 raw skins to the
European Union in 2006, the European Union asserts that Norway's own estimates show that
"Greenland could not supply that volume on its own, even if it were to discontinue its exports to all
other countries."
1361 Norway responded at the oral hearing that the European Union had itself
acknowledged before the Panel that the Canadian export data include transit goods that do not
enter the EU market and therefore overstate the level of EU imports from Canada. Norway added

1350 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 170 (referring to Panel Reports, paras. 7.164, 7.314,
and 7.315).
1351 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 172; Norway's appellant's submission, para. 356.
1352 Panel Reports, para. 7.164.
1353 Panel Reports, para. 7.310.
1354 Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 352-355 (calculated on the basis of data set out at
paragraphs 7.310 and 7.456 of the Panel Reports).
1355 Panel Reports, para. 7.310.
1356 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 6 and 171; Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 3, 205,
356, 382, and 470 (both quoting COWI 2010 Report, p. 84). The Panel referred to this page of the COWI 2010
Report in support of a different proposition. (Panel Reports, para. 7.315)
1357 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 184.
1358 European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 185-196.
1359 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 196.
1360 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 199.
1361 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 199.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

that the European Union's own data show that the level of imports from Canada in 2006 comprised
less than 11,000 skins.1362
5.240. Canada and Norway also identify factors that, in their view, support the existence of worse
seal welfare outcomes in Greenlandic as oppose d to commercial hunts. As a preliminary matter,
Norway refers to the Panel's conclusion that EU public concerns on seal welfare appear to be
related to seal hunts in general, not to particular types of seal hunts. 1363 Norway maintains that
this shows that the moral standard applies equally to IC and MRM hunts as it does to hunts
conducted in Greenland and the European Union. 1364 The complainants both assert that the Panel
failed to take proper account of findings made elsewhere in its Reports that establish that IC and
MRM hunts lead to poorer seal welfare outcomes th an commercial hunts. Specifically, they refer to
several of the Panel's findings that, when taken together, in their view support a finding that
Greenlandic Inuit rely mainly on open-water hunting and trapping and netting, and that these
methods lead to higher rates of inhumanely killed seals. The complainants note, for instance, the
Panel's statement that "the use of rifles from boats in 'open water hunting' or trapping and netting
appear to be the main hunting methods for Greenlandic Inuit".
1365 With regard to hunting with
rifles from boats in open water, the Panel referred to evidence showing that shooting seals in open
water can contribute to struck and lost rates, and that there was anecdotal evidence showing
higher struck and lost rates in Greenlandic hunts than in commercial hunts.
1366 Regarding trapping
and netting, the Panel also pointed to evidence that such hunting practices lead to severe seal
welfare concerns, and that the use of nets is not allowed in Canadian and Norwegian commercial
seal hunts.
1367 The complainants also pointed to differences observed by the Panel in compliance
monitoring efforts as between Greenland, and Canada and Norway.1368
5.241. We note that other findings in the Panel Reports either highlight the particular seal welfare
risks associated with both Inuit and commercial hunts, or indicate that such risks are equivalent.
Thus, the Panel found that the existence of comm ercial motives leads to killing a greater number
of seals in hunts conducted within a limited period of time, and that this "may additionally
contribute to subjecting seals to the animal welf are risks identified above with respect to seal
hunts in general".
1369 Moreover, the Panel noted that "similar challenges to effecting humane
killing of seals exist in IC hunts" 1370, and that "the same animal welfare concerns as those arising
from seal hunting in general also exist in IC hunts". 1371 The Panel thus refrained from making a
finding that seal welfare outcomes were worse in IC or MRM hunts, as compared to those in
commercial hunts, and instead limited itself to the more general finding that the risks of inhumane
killing of seals are present in each of commercial, IC, and MRM hunts.1372
5.242. Canada and Norway frame many of the above arguments in a manner suggesting that they
concern the Panel's legal characterization of the facts, and therefore constitute claims of error
regarding the Panel's application of law. 1373 We note that Norway has also presented certain of
these matters as errors under Article 11 of the DSU. 1374 The premise that the EU Seal Regime
could or does lead to worse welfare outcomes due to a replacement effect appears to have been
highly contested by the parties in these disputes. We further note that the Panel did not reach the
findings sought by Canada and Norway, and, in the light of the contested nature of these facts
between the parties, appears to have had reasonable grounds for not doing so. Thus, even if there

1362 Norway's opening statement at the oral hearing.
1363 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 333 (referring, inter alia, to Panel Reports, para. 7.410).
1364 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 334.
1365 Panel Reports, para. 7.268.
1366 Panel Reports, paras. 7.215, 7.216, and fns 324-331 thereto.
1368 Panel Reports, paras. 7.220 and 7.269.
1369 Panel Reports, para. 7.245.
1370 Panel Reports, para. 7.273.
1371 Panel Reports, para. 7.275.
1372 Panel Reports, paras. 7.245 (commercial), 7.275 (IC), and 7.337 (MRM). Norway confirms this point
in stating that "the Panel failed to make any assessment of the animal welfare risks presented by the
Greenlandic hunt in relation to the banned hunts". (Norway's appellant's submission, para. 344)
1373 Canada contends that the Panel's failure properly to articulate the degree of contribution of the
measure to the objective constitutes legal error. (See e.g. Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 168-175)
Norway considers that, in matters concerning the Panel's task of determining the contribution of the measure
to its public morals objective, the Panel's errors constitute errors in the legal characterization of the facts. (See
e.g. Norway's appellant's submission, para. 317)
1374 See e.g. Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 468-475.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

were particular findings of the Panel that, when read in isolation, could be viewed as possibly
supporting a differentiation between welfare outcomes in different types of hunts, the Panel was
not of the view that such differentiation was clearly supported by the Panel record. Likewise, with
respect to the replacement effect, the Panel identifi ed the difficulties it had in examining data due
to significant gaps and limitations with the trad e data concerning the EU seal product market,
particularly given that the data was incomplete with regard to product types and import and export
countries. If the Panel was "not in a position to draw any concrete conclusions"
1375 concerning the
data for purposes of determining seal product demand, it does not seem unwarranted for the Panel
to have refrained from relying on that same data to reach a finding that the EU Seal Regime could
or does have the effect of replacing imports from commercial hunts with those from IC and
MRM hunts.
5.243. On the basis of the foregoing, we consider that the premise that the complainants believe
is supported by the Panel record is primarily factual in nature, and therefore relates to the Panel's
weighing and appreciation of the evidence. We ther efore consider that these claims of Canada and
Norway are more properly addressed under Article 11 of the DSU as challenges to the Panel's
objective assessment of the facts. Even in respect of aspects of the Panel's analysis where Canada
and Norway have presented solely claims of error in the Panel's application of law to fact, we
consider that their arguments would have been more properly characterized as ones concerning
the Panel's failure properly to evaluate the evidence on the Panel record, or to rely on other Panel
findings, to reach a factual determination as to whether the EU Seal Regime could or does lead to
worse seal welfare outcomes. We recall, in this re gard, our view that the record before the Panel
provided it with reasonable grounds for not concluding that: (i) IC and MRM hunts lead to poorer
seal welfare outcomes than commercial hunts; and (ii) the EU Seal Regime resulted in the
replacement of seal product imports from commercial hunts with such products from IC and
MRM hunts. Moreover, even where specific allegation s of error were raised under Article 11 of the
DSU, we consider that our analysis is dispositive of those arguments as well.
1376 Accordingly, we
see no grounds under Article 11 of the DSU to disturb the Panel's findings, and we therefore reject
the claims of Canada and Norway as they relate to this aspect of the Panel's contribution analysis.
5.3.2.4.3.2 Whether the EU Seal Regime cont ributed to reducing EU and global demand
for seal products and the incidence of inhumanely killed seals.
5.244. Canada and Norway further claim that the Pa nel erred in its analysis of the contribution of
the EU Seal Regime to the second aspect of the identified objective, namely, reducing the number
of inhumanely killed seals. 1377 Canada contends that the Panel relied on a proxy objective of
reducing demand for seal products in the EU an d globally without assessing whether this then
contributed to a reduction in the number of inhumanely killed seals. 1378 Canada and Norway also
maintain that there is no support for the Panel's conclusion that a reduction in EU or global
demand for seal products would result in a reduction in the number of inhumanely killed seals.
1379
Norway further argues that the rationale and evidence relied on by the Panel do not substantiate

1375 Panel Reports, para. 7.456.
1376 For instance, Norway notes that, despite numerous occasions on which the Panel relied on the
COWI 2010 Report, the Panel nevertheless overlooked the statement in that report that "Greenlandic trade is
more than enough to cover EU demand by itself". (Norway's appellant's submission, para. 470 (quoting
COWI 2010 Report, p. xi) Norway refers to this as "a particularly revealing example of the Panel's selective
treatment of the evidence". (Norway's appellant's submission, para. 469) Canada also notes that the Panel did
not identify this statement from the COWI 2010 Report. (Canada's appellant's submission, para. 171) We have
observed that there were significant, substantive disagreements between the parties on the issue of whether
the EU Seal Regime could or does have the effect of replacing imports from commercial hunts with those from
IC and MRM hunts, and that the Panel had reasonable grounds for not reaching such a finding. In these
circumstances, we cannot fault the Panel for failing to attribute to this particular evidence the significance
sought by Canada and Norway.
1377 Canada also argues that the Panel confused matters by referring alternatively to the "incidence" and
the "number" of inhumanely killed seals. (Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 193-195) The European
Union maintains that neither it nor the Panel ever sought, in referring to the "incidence" of inhumane killing of
seals, to ascribe any meaning to that term other than that relating to the number of such inhumanely killed
seals. (European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 224 and 225) To the extent these terms can be seen as
referring to different concepts, we note that the Panel makes clear, at paragraphs 7.443 and 7.449 of its
Reports, that it understood the second aspect of the EU public morals objective for purposes of its analysis as
relating to the "number" of seals killed inhumanely.
1378 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 177.
1379 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 189; Norway's appellant's submission, para. 394.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

its conclusion that the measure affected the demand for seal products. 1380 Finally, Canada and
Norway contend that these shortcomings demonstrate that the Panel acted inconsistently with its
duty to make an objective assessment within the meaning of Article 11 of the DSU.
1381
5.245. The European Union responds that the Panel properly found that the EU Seal Regime
contributes to reducing EU and global demand fo r seal products. As the European Union observes,
the complainants acknowledge that there has been a significant decrease in seal product trade
from Canada and Norway into the European Union. 1382 The European Union further argues that,
although the statistics relied on by the Panel were incomplete because they do not track separately
all categories of seal products, "this does not mean that those statistics are unreliable".1383 Instead
of disputing that such imports have declined, the European Union adds, the complainants rely on
the "speculative prediction" that imports from Ca nada and Norway will be replaced by imports
from Greenland.
1384 The European Union further maintains that, because EU demand for seal
products is a component of the global demand for such products, reducing EU demand also
contributes to reducing global demand.
1385 The European Union adds that this is supported by the
fact that the EU seal product market has traditionally "occupied a central position within the global
market"1386, and that trade statistics show a decline in Canada's exports and a "precipitous
reduction in the number of seals hunted". 1387 Finally, the European Union argues that the Panel
"was entitled to assume that a reduction in the number of seals killed would entail necessarily a
reduction of the number of seals being killed inhumanely" on the basis of its factual findings
regarding the welfare risks inherent in all seal hunts.
1388
5.246. Before the Panel, the European Union argued that the ban makes a partial contribution to
addressing public moral concerns regarding seal welfare "by reducing global demand for seal
products resulting from commercial hunts, with the consequence that less seals are killed in an
inhumane way".
1389 Thus, by focusing on whether the ban reduces demand for seal products, the
Panel appears to have accepted the proposition th at reducing such demand would lead to fewer
inhumanely killed seals. The complainants contend that: (i) the evidence does not support the
Panel's finding that the EU Seal Regime led to a reduction in demand for seal products; and (ii) the
Panel never demonstrated that reducing demand leads to fewer inhumanely killed seals.
5.247. Taking the second point first, we note Canada and Norway's argument that the Panel
omitted a critical step in its analysis by failing to assess whether a reduction in demand for seal
products would actually contribute to a reduction in the number of inhumanely killed seals.
1390 The
Panel did not seek to establish that a reduction in demand would lead to fewer inhumanely killed
seals. However, in our view, it was not unreasonable for the Panel to assume that a decrease in
demand, and hence a contraction of the seal prod uct market, would have the effect of reducing
the number of seals killed, and thus the number of inhumanely killed seals. We therefore see
nothing improper in the Panel's logic when it referred to the effect of the ban as one of "reducing
the overall demand for seal products within the European Union and consequently the number of
seals that may be killed inhumanely in these hunts".
1391
5.248. The complainants further argue that seal products derived from Greenlandic hunts could
fully satisfy EU demand, and that the ban could or does lead to an increase in the number of seals
killed inhumanely.
1392 We discussed in the preceding section that this argument rests on a factual
premise that seems to have been highly conteste d by the parties, was not uniformly supported by
the Panel record, and, in any event, was not found to exist by the Panel. We also considered that

1380 Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 381-394.
1381 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 198-208; Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 420-451.
1382 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 211 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.456 and
fn 731 thereto).
1383 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 209.
1384 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 212.
1385 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 213.
1386 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 216.
1387 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 219.
1388 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 226.
1389 Panel Reports, para. 7.449.
1390 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 177; Norway's appellant's submission, para. 394.
1392 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 189 and 205-207; Norway's appellant's submission,
paras. 382 and 394.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

this premise is primarily factual in nature, and therefore relates to the Panel's weighing and
appreciation of the supporting evidence. We theref ore view this issue as properly relating to a
challenge under Article 11 of the DSU regarding the Panel's objective assessment of the facts. In
the light of uncertainty about whether the Panel record ever evinced a more definite depiction of
this aspect of the EU seal product market, much less the depiction sought by the complainants, we
do not see sufficient grounds on which to sustain arguments that the Panel erred in assuming that
reducing demand leads to fewer inhumanely killed seals. Accordingly, because we consider that it
was reasonable for the Panel to rely on this assumption, we also reject Canada's and Norway's
claims that the basis for such an assumption lacked a proper evidentiary foundation in violation of
the Panel's duties under Article 11 of the DSU.
5.249. We next turn to the remaining questions as to whether the Panel's finding that the EU Seal
Regime led to a reduction in demand for seal products was properly substantiated. We note the
Panel's reference to statements in the COWI 2010 Report indicating that the EU Seal Regime has
created uncertainty in the EU market, and that, as a result, trade numbers have decreased
substantially and the market price of raw skin has been cut in half.
1393 The Panel also pointed to
evidence that the EU Seal Regime has "halted" European markets for seal oil and had a generally
negative influence on the EU seal product market. 1394 Canada and Norway contend that this
evidence is unavailing because the prohibitive aspect of the EU Seal Regime affects the supply, not
the demand, for seal products.1395
5.250. The evidence cited by the Panel does not refer to demand per se but rather to observations
about trade impacts experienced by the EU seal product market as a whole. Such observations,
however, are descriptive of a market dynamic that necessarily reflects both supply-side and
demand-side considerations. Taking the statement about market price, for example, we observe
that, generally speaking, a decrease in supply without a change in demand would lead to higher
prices. Consequently, it would seem reasonable to infer from an observation about decreases in
the market price that demand for seal products had also been adversely affected. Likewise, it does
not seem unreasonable for the Panel to have considered that the "halting" of the seal oil market in
certain EU countries was due at least in part to an impact on demand occasioned by the impact of
the EU Seal Regime.
1396 We therefore consider that the references to market uncertainty and
decreases in trade numbers and market prices are all elements of a market dynamic that is at
least partly informed by demand-side considerations, and that the Panel therefore had a
reasonable basis to conclude that the evidence that it cited provided at least some support for the
view that the measure reduced EU demand for seal products. In our view, the presence of these
demand-side considerations in the evidence relied upon by the Panel also addresses specific
allegations of error that the Panel acted inconsistently with its duties under Article 11 of the DSU
in its treatment of the evidence.1397

1393 Panel Reports, para. 7.450.
1394 Panel Reports, para. 7.450.
1395 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 183; Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 386, 423,
and 424.
1396 The Panel referred to Norway's recognition that "the mere expectation of the adoption of the
EU Seal Regime hampered trade", which could be understood as reflecting at least in part downward shifts in
demand. (Panel Reports, para. 7.450 (quoting Norway's first written submission to the Panel, paras. 673
and 674, in turn referring to COWI 2010 Report, Annex 5, Briefing note of 2009)) Canada also stated before
the Panel that the EU Seal Regime adversely affected market demand. (Canada's first written submission to
the Panel, para. 81 ("The 2007 Belgian and the Dutch prohibitions and the 2009 EU Seal Regime have had
significant negative impacts on the Canadian industry's ability to export seal products by decreasing the
demand for such products."))
1397 For instance, Norway directs a specific allegation of error at the Panel for citing the COWI 2008
Report for a statement that restrictions on market access will have trade impacts, yet neglecting to include a
statement from the same passage of the Report that highlights supply-side impacts on various groups involved
in the seal product trade. (Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 428-430 (referring to COWI 2008 Report))
Norway asserts that "this selective treatment of the evidence, inferring a lack of even-handedness and
coherence in the treatment of the evidence, demonstrates a lack of objectivity." (Norway's appellant's
submission, para. 430) Although the passage refers to various supply-side factors, it also refers to disruptions
caused by the EU Seal Regime in the form of "income and production losses" by "importers and seal product
manufacturers on the Community territory". (COWI 2008 Report, p. 102) We therefore see at least some
support in this passage for a forecast of market uncertainty and the prospect of a contracting EU market for
seal products with attendant consequences for the demand for seal products in the EU market.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

5.251. Norway further argues that the Panel's finding regarding the impact of the EU Seal Regime
on global demand is even more untenable since it lacks any supporting reasoning or evidence. 1398
In the analysis that precedes the Panel's finding that the EU Seal Regime contributes, "to a certain
extent, to reducing a global demand"
1399, the Panel evaluated two aspects potentially having a
bearing on global demand for seal products. First, as discussed above, the Panel reached the
conclusion that the ban aspect of the measure led to a reduction of the demand for seal products
within the European Union.
1400 The Panel therefore may have considered that, because EU demand
for seal products is a component of the global demand for such products, reducing EU demand also
contributes to reducing global demand. As the European Union argues, although various factors
may contribute to reducing global demand, "the reduction in EU demand would still entail a
reduction in potential global demand."
1401 T h i s v i e w i s s u p p o r t e d b y t h e f a c t t h a t t h e P a n e l ' s
conclusion in respect of global demand was, as it stated, based on the design, structure, and
expected operation of the measure. We also note th e Panel's finding that the measure contributed
to reducing global demand only "to a certain extent".1402
5.252. Second, the Panel also evaluated data relating to the " actual operation" 1403 of the
measure. There, as we have noted, the Panel made several observations regarding the data
presented by the parties, ultimately concluding that, while it observed certain downward trends in
seal product imports into the EU market, it was nevertheless "not in a position to draw any
concrete conclusions".
1404 The Panel moreover noted that it was unable to discern "the extent of
the connection between the ban aspect of the me asure and the reduction in the number of seals
killed".1405 We do not see that the Panel drew much support from this data for its conclusion in
respect of demand for EU seal products, whether in the European Union or globally. Indeed, the
Panel stated that its ultimate findings in that regard were based on the measure's "design,
structure, and expected operation"
1406, which does not suggest much reliance on the limited
observations the Panel previously made regarding the data in relation to the "actual operation" of
the measure.
5.253. The Panel appears to have based its conclusions in respect of global demand largely on its
conclusions regarding the effect of the EU Seal Regime on EU demand. We further point out that
any conclusions that the Panel reached regarding the effect of EU demand on global demand were
further qualified by its observations about continuing imports for subsequent export under the
inward processing exception.
1407 Although the basis for these findings appears quite tenuous, we
recall again the difficulties faced by the Panel in conducting any sort of quantitative analysis on the
basis of the Panel record, which rendered the Panel's analysis necessarily qualitative in nature. We
further note that the Panel's ultimate finding in respect of the contribution of the measure to
reducing demand for seal products, and consequent ly the number of inhumanely killed seals, is
qualified by the Panel's statement that the EU Seal Regime " appears to be negatively affecting the
demand for seal products within the European Union and globally".
1408
5.254. Each of these issues regarding the Panel's finding that the EU Seal Regime results in
reduced EU and global demand for seal products relate, in our view, to the question of whether the
Panel properly reasoned and substantiated that fi nding. Although the complainants assert that
certain aspects of the Panel's analysis constitute an error of legal application by the Panel, we
consider that this issue relates principally to the Panel's weighing and appreciation of the evidence.
We therefore consider that these claims are more properly entertained under Article 11 of the DSU
as challenges to the Panel's objective assessment of the facts. We have examined the alleged
shortcomings identified by the complainants in the Panel's reasoning or evidentiary support for
findings that it reached. We consider that the Panel has, within the constraints imposed by the
evidence before it in these disputes, declined to attribute to certain arguments and evidence the
weight and significance that the complainants would have liked. It is not an error under Article 11

1398 Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 389 and 444.
1399 Panel Reports, para. 7.459.
1400 Panel Reports, para. 7.450.
1401 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 214. (emphasis original)
1404 Panel Reports, para. 7.456.
1405 Panel Reports, para. 7.458.
1406 Panel Reports, para. 7.459.
1407 Panel Reports, paras. 7.453-7.455.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

of the DSU for a panel "to fail to accord the weight to the evidence that one of the parties believes
should be accorded to it". 1409 The fact that the complainants may not agree with a conclusion the
Panel reached, or considered itself unable to reach, does not mean that the Panel committed an
error amounting to a violation of Article 11 of the DSU. Accordingly, we do not consider that any
alleged limitations identified by the complainants in respect of the Panel's finding that the EU Seal
Regime led to a reduction in demand for seal products amount to a violation of Article 11 of the
DSU, and we therefore reject the claims of Canada and Norway as they relate to this aspect of the
Panel's contribution analysis.
5.3.2.4.3.3 Whether the Panel erred in other aspects of its contribution analysis
5.255. Finally, we address Norway's claims that the Panel undervalued two additional aspects in
assessing the contribution of the EU Seal Regime to the public morals objective.
5.256. Norway argues that the Panel failed to take proper account of the negative contribution
made by the implicit exceptions in its contribution analysis. Norway maintains that, despite the
Panel's observations about the commercial importance of the implicit exceptions, the "significance"
of these exceptions "is nowhere properly taken into account or characterized by the Panel in
arriving at its overall conclusion".
1410 Although Norway may have wished that the Panel attribute
greater significance to this factor than it did, we are not persuaded by Norway's complaint given
that the Panel explicitly discussed the impact of inward processing on the EU market in the context
its contribution analysis.1411 In doing so, the Panel referred to the incoherency of a measure that
prohibits seal product imports based on the potential incidence of inhumanely killed seals, yet
allows processing activities within the European Union in respect of those very same products. The
Panel went on to conclude that the inward processing exception "further reduces the contribution
of the measure to the reduction of the global demand for seal products derived from inhumane
killing".
1412 Moreover, in the absence of a finding or evidence that seal product imports into the
EU market increased under the inward processing or other implicit exceptions 1413, we do not see
how this would necessarily have a bearing on the extent to which the prohibitive aspect of the
measure contributes to the objective. Given the above, we reject Norway's argument that the
significance of the implicit exceptions "is nowhere properly taken into account or characterized by
the Panel in arriving at its overall conclusion".
1414
5.257. Norway further argues that the Panel wrongly concluded that indigenous communities have
not been able to benefit from the IC exception, a factor that the Panel considered to limit the
negative impact of the exceptions. 1415 Specifically, Norway points to the Panel's conclusion that,
although Inuit and other indigenous communities could potentially qualify and export seal products
under the IC exception, "they have not been able to benefit from the exception".
1416 Norway
considers that the Panel's finding is "disingenuous" 1417 because no Greenlandic imports were
possible under the IC exception until a Greenlandic body to certify imports was approved on
25 April 2013, four days before the second Panel meeting, and that the Panel was nevertheless
compelled to consider the expected operation of the measure after that date. 1418 Norway also
argues that the Panel's conclusion demonstrates a selective treatment of the evidence, and a
failure to refer to or reconcile its findings, in violation of Article 11 of the DSU.1419

1409 Appellate Body Report, Korea – Alcoholic Beverages, para. 164.
1410 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 374.
1411 Panel Reports, paras. 7.453-7.455.
1412 Panel Reports, para. 7.455.
1413 We note the Panel's observation that, while seal skins have been exported from the European Union
following the adoption of the EU Seal Regime possibly resulting from inward processing activities, these
activities have occurred at reduced levels from previous years. (Panel Reports, fn 721 to para. 7.453)
1414 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 374.
1415 Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 361-371 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.452). Norway
also challenges this Panel finding under Article 11 of the DSU. (Norway's appellant's submission,
paras. 452-458)
1416 Panel Reports, para. 7.452.
1418 Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 369 and 370. See also ibid., para. 456.
1419 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 453.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

5.258. The European Union responds that the Panel record supports the Panel's finding that the
Inuit have been adversely affected by the EU Se al Regime and have not always been able to
benefit from the IC exception. In the European Union's view, the EU Seal Regime has a depressing
effect on global prices and demand, including on seal products from IC hunts. 1420 The European
Union also rejects as "thoroughly misguided" 1421 Norway's assertion that the only reason the
indigenous communities have not been able to benefit from the IC exception is because Greenland
did not have an established recognized body at the time of the Panel proceedings. The European
Union maintains that the Panel was "well aware th at Greenland had benefitted effectively from the
IC exception since 2010", and must be understood as referring to the difficulties faced by
indigenous communities in Canada, not Greenland.
1422
5.259. We do not consider that the Panel was, as Norway argues, referring exclusively to the fact
that Greenlandic imports were not legally permitted before 25 April 2013 as the basis for its
statement. Given the Panel's recognition that Greenlandic imports had already been introduced
into the EU market prior to that date, we consider it unlikely that the Panel would have been
referring to difficulties faced by indigenous communities in Greenland.
1423 In addition, the Panel
elsewhere noted that Canadian Inuit face certain obstacles in taking advantage of the
IC exception.
1424 Moreover, we observe that the Panel's conclusion in this paragraph also refers to
evidence indicating that Inuit communities have been adversely affected by, in particular, the
prohibitive aspect of the EU Seal Regime, wh ich suggests an adverse impact on marketing
opportunities for Inuit communities created by the restrictive impact of the ban. 1425 This points to
another reason supporting the Panel's view that the interplay between the ban and the
IC exception may limit the negative impact of the exception. In the light of these considerations,
we do not consider that the Panel placed undue emphasis on factors concerning the eligibility of
Greenlandic imports in reaching its conclusion. In our view, Norway's claim relates to a decidedly
factual question of whether the Panel properly concluded that Inuit communities have not been
able to benefit from the IC exception. Becaus e this question relates solely to the Panel's
assessment of the evidence, we consider that it is more properly considered under Article 11 of the
DSU. In any event, for the reasons set out above, we reject Norway's claim that the Panel failed to
conduct an objective assessment under Article 11 of the DSU.
5.3.2.5 The Panel's analysis of the reasonable availability of the alternative measure
5.260. We now turn to assess Canada's and Norway's claims relating to the Panel's finding that
the alternative measure was not reasonably available.
5.261. We recall the Appellate Body's view that the weighing and balancing exercise under the
necessity analysis contemplates a determination as to "whether a WTO-consistent alternative
measure which the Member concerned could 'reasonably be expected to employ' is available, or
whether a less WTO-inconsistent measure is 'reasonably available'."
1426 An alternative measure
may be found not to be reasonably available where it is "merely theoretical in nature, for instance,
where the responding Member is not capable of taking it, or where the measure imposes an undue
burden on that Member, such as prohibitive costs or substantial technical difficulties." 1427
Furthermore, in order to qualify as a "genuine alternative", the proposed measure must be not
only less trade restrictive than the original measure at issue, but should also "preserve for the
responding Member its right to achieve its desired level of protection with respect to the objective

1420 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 205.
1421 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 206.
1422 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 206.
1424 Panel Reports, paras. 7.162 and 7.315 (referring to Canada's explanation that Canadian Inuit would
have difficulty taking advantage of the IC exception because they have limited access to the distribution
networks, processing facilities, and marketing opportunities needed to export their seal products to the
European Union).
1425 Canada and the European Union acknowledge evidence on the Panel record showing that Inuit
communities were opposed to the EU Seal Regime because it would have a negative impact on the market for
all seal products. (Canada's appellant's submission, para. 91; European Union's appellee's submission,
paras. 98, 141, 142, and 202-204)
1426 Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef, para. 166.
1427 Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 156 (quoting Appellate Body Report, US –
Gambling, para. 308).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

pursued."1428 The complaining Member bears the burden of identifying possible alternatives to the
measure at issue that the responding Member could have taken.1429
5.262. In these disputes, the proposed alternative measure consisted of market access for seal
products that would be conditioned on compliance with animal welfare standards, and certification
and labelling requirements. 1430 The Panel found that the alternative measure is less trade
restrictive than the EU Seal Regime. 1431 This finding is not challenged on appeal. Instead, Canada
and Norway request us to reverse the Panel's finding that the proposed alternative measure is not
reasonably available. 1432 The complainants principally argue that the Panel failed to assess the
alternative measure against the actual contribution of the EU Seal Regime, but rather did so
against a standard of complete fulfilment of the objective. The complainants argue that, since
complete fulfilment of the objective is a higher degree of contribution than what was found under
the EU Seal Regime, the Panel erred in finding that the alternative measure is not reasonably
available.1433 The complainants point to various statements by the Panel that, in their view,
demonstrate the Panel's error. 1434 In addition, they assert that the Panel misapplied
WTO jurisprudence. In particular, Canada and Norway submit that the significance of costs and
technical difficulties relates to those borne by WTO Members, not by the relevant industry.1435
5.263. The European Union responds that the co mplainants' allegations that the Panel assessed
the contribution made by the alternative measure against the wrong benchmark "misrepresent the
analysis conducted by the Panel and are unfounded". 1436 The European Union contends that the
Panel did not ignore its findings regarding the ex ceptions, and that, even if it did not expressly
repeat its findings with regard to the exceptions, "those findings are reflected in the Panel's overall
assessment of the contribution".1437 The European Union maintains that, because the complainants
failed to articulate a sufficiently precise alternative measure, the Panel "had to assess instead the
degree of contribution and the reasonable availabili ty of two distinct hypothetical regimes within
the scope of the broad [less trade-restrictive alternative] proposed by the Complainants".
1438 The
European Union maintains that, although the complainants sought to establish that a more lenient
regime was possible, they "failed to specify the co ntent of such a 'more lenient regime' before the
Panel, let alone provide any meaningful assessment of its contribution to the measure's
objective".
1439
5.264. We turn first to evaluate the claims on appeal by Canada and Norway that the Panel erred
in finding that the proposed alternative measure was not reasonably available, before turning to
address the claims under Article 11 of the DSU.

1428 Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 156 (quoting Appellate Body Report, US –
Gambling, para. 308).
1429 Appellate Body Reports, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 156; and US – Gambling, para. 311.
1430 Panel Reports, para. 7.468 (referring to Canada's first written submission to the Panel,
paras. 556-560; and Norway's first written submission to the Panel, paras. 779 and 793).
1431 Panel Reports, para. 7.472.
1432 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 299; Norway's appellant's submission, para. 580.
1433 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 261; Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 554 and 579.
1434 See Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 234-277; and Norway's appellant's submission,
paras. 582-612. Canada also maintains that the Panel erred by disregarding measures applied by the
European Union in regulating wildlife hunts and abattoirs. (Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 278-290)
1435 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 291-298; Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 613-617.
1436 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 245.
1437 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 249.
1438 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 260.
1439 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 261.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

5.3.2.5.1 Whether the Panel erred in finding that the proposed alternative measure was
not reasonably available
5.265. Canada and Norway point to key passages of the Panel's analysis that they believe
evidence its use of an inappropriately high benchmark of contribution for the EU Seal Regime. 1440
The complainants refer, for instance, to the Panel's assessment of the contribution of the
alternative measure to preventing or reducing expo sure of the EU public to products raising moral
concerns. They take issue, in particular, with the Panel's statement that, "even if the alternative
measure succeeded in limiting market access to exclusively those products derived from humanely
killed seals, such products would originate in hunts that may have caused poor animal welfare
outcomes for some other number of seals."
1441 In Canada's and Norway's view, by requiring that
the alternative measure limit market access to only those seal products that were derived from
humanely killed seals, the Panel holds the alternative measure to a higher standard that the
EU Seal Regime could not meet.
5.266. Similarly, in assessing the contribution of the alternative measure to reducing the number
of seals killed, the complainants note the Panel's statement that the alternative measure would
potentially afford market access to seal products from commercial hunts that are currently
prohibited under the EU Seal Regime. As the Panel stated, this "may in turn contribute to
sustaining or increasing the overall number of seals killed, which would have the consequence of
subjecting a greater number of seals to the animal welfare risks incidental to seal hunting".
1442
Canada argues that the Panel did not reconcile this statement with its observation that the
alternative measure could potentially introduce an economic incentive for sealing countries to
adopt and enforce animal welfare standards.
1443 Norway contends that the Panel's citation to a
European Parliament report that favoured a comprehensive ban without a derogation for seal
products meeting animal welfare standards confirmed that the Panel held the alternative measure
to a standard that exceeded the actual contribution of the EU Seal Regime.
1444
5.267. The essence of the complainants' contention is that it was improper for the Panel to have
entertained scenarios in which an alternative measure would limit market access only to humanely
killed seals, or would increase overall market acce ss, since that is not reflective of the level of
contribution actually achieved by the EU Seal Re gime. We agree that several of the hypothetical
outcomes considered by the Panel in its assessm ent of the alternative measure contemplate the
consequences of a certification system that would operate to exclude all inhumanely killed seals
from, and include all humanely killed seals into, the EU market, or that would potentially lead to
increased EU market access for seal products. In our view, however, the Panel's analysis was
inconclusive at this stage of its assessment. The Panel was at this point in its analysis simply
assessing what possible scenarios might result from adoption of a certification system.
Indeed, we do not see that the Panel ever reache d a definitive conclusion with respect to the
contribution of such a system vis-à-vis the EU Seal Regime. Rather, because it considered that the
impacts of the alternative measure were "closely related to the type of animal welfare
requirements to be imposed, the feasibility of enforcement of such requirements, and the
attendant risks of inhumane killing in seal hunts"
1445, the Panel found that there was an
"inextricable link between the contribution of the alternative measure to the objective and the

1440 Canada also argues that the Panel erred in its assessment of the alternative measure by recalling
only the contribution of the prohibitive aspect of the EU Seal Regime. (Canada's appellant's submission,
paras. 237-244 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.478)) While it is true that the Panel did not expressly refer
to its assessment of the impact of the exceptions, it implicitly did so by accurately characterizing its overall
finding in that same paragraph that the EU Seal Regime "is capable of making and does actually make a
contribution to the achievement of its stated objective of addressing the public moral concerns". (Panel
Reports, para. 7.478)
1441 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 240; Norway's appellant's submission, para. 593 (both
referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.480). Canada also refers to the statement in that same passage that, to the
extent that the alternative measure could effectively distinguish and label products from humanely and
inhumanely killed seals, "the direct participation of EU consumers in the market for seal products would
theoretically be confined to products that conform to the animal welfare concerns of the EU public". (Canada's
1442 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 254; Norway's appellant's submission, para. 596 (both
1443 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 255-257 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.483).
1444 Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 596-599.
1445 Panel Reports, para. 7.484.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

feasibility of its implementation". 1446 Thus, having identified certain conceptual limitations of any
certification system in fulfilling the objective of addressing EU public moral concerns regarding seal
welfare, the Panel expressly refrained from making a finding regarding the contribution of the
alternative measure until it could also evaluate the reasonable availability of the alternative
measure. We therefore do not agree with Canada and Norway that these statements of the Panel
demonstrate that it erroneously considered the E U S e a l R e g i m e t o h a v e a c h i e v e d c o m p l e t e
fulfilment of the objective, and then to have measured the alternative measure against such an
inflated benchmark.
5.268. Canada and Norway also consider that the Panel, in assessing the reasonable availability of
the alternative measure, compared that measure against a higher degree of contribution than
what was found in respect of the EU Seal Regime.
1447 The complainants refer, for instance, to the
Panel's statement that "in order to genuinely assuage [animal welfare] concerns there would need
to be a mechanism to verify that the requirements were actually satisfied for seals used to
generate products".
1448 This statement, they contend, demonstrates that the Panel compared the
alternative measure against stringent animal welfare requirements including seal-by-seal
certification, a standard that the EU Seal Regime does not meet. 1449 The complainants further
argue that the Panel also wrongly concluded that certification at the country or hunter level is
insufficient because it would fail to convey accurate information in respect of seal welfare, a
standard that the EU Seal Regime also does not meet.1450
5.269. As we see it, in addressing whether the alternative measure was reasonably available, the
Panel was exploring the hypothetical implications for the European Union's ability to achieve its
objective of addressing seal welfare concerns. There were several recurring elements in its
analysis. We note, for instance, the Panel's explanation that it was undertaking an analytical
exercise in which the contours of the animal welf are standards required as part of the alternative
measure were not clearly defined, and that this had a bearing on the range of hypothetical
versions of the alternative measure that the Pa nel was being asked to examine. As the Panel
stated: "Based on the differing views on what wo uld constitute adequate welfare standards, and
absent a clearly articulated standard from the complainants, the requirements under the
alternative measure could possibly span a range of different levels of stringency or leniency."
1451
5.270. We further note that the Panel appeared quite sceptical that a certification system, even if
it were to adopt the most stringent animal welfare requirements, would be able effectively to
address EU public moral concerns regarding seal welfare. For instance, the Panel considered that
adopting a certification system to enforce stringent animal welfare requirements would create
significant difficulties in terms of monitoring and compliance. Any such system, the Panel argued,
would require "accurate differentiation"
1452 between humanely and inhumanely killed seals, and
the more stringent the regime, the larger the "costs and/or logistical demands on those
participating in the hunt and subsequent marketing of products".
1453 The concern in part stems
from the Panel's assessment that hunters would have difficulty conforming to a certification
system imposing stringent animal welfare requirem ents in the light of the conditions under which
seal hunts take place. The Panel suggested that this is a practical concern in terms of both the
ability and willingness of seal hunters to conform to such requirements.
1454 Additionally, however,
the Panel's concern is broader in that it extends to the implications for those involved in
subsequent stages of the production and sale of seal products, and those who would be required to
enforce it. In particular, the Panel noted the persistent difficulties that arise regardless of whether
the regime relies on hunter licensing, or requires country or seal-by-seal certification.
1455

1446 Panel Reports, para. 7.485.
1447 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 261; Norway's appellant's submission, para. 600.
1448 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 224 and 263; Norway's appellant's submission, para. 601
(both referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.496).
1449 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 263 and 264; Norway's appellant's submission,
paras. 601-603.
1450 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 267; Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 605-608.
1451 Panel Reports, para. 7.496.
1452 Panel Reports, para. 7.496.
1453 Panel Reports, para. 7.497.
1454 Panel Reports, para. 7.496 and fn 798 thereto.
1455 Panel Reports, para. 7.498.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

5.271. The Panel also expressed the concern that a certification system that sought to impose
stringent welfare requirements would have consequences that would effectively undercut any
potential contribution to EU public moral concerns. In other words, the Panel considered that a
certification system would create an outcome in which the desire to conform to stringent
certification requirements would lead to greater numbers of seals killed, and, consequently, a
greater number of seals killed inhumanely. The Panel reasoned that this result would be
particularly acute in larger scale hunts where an effort to harvest a number of properly certified
seals would lead to even greater numbers of seal killings with an attendant increase in the number
of inhumanely killed seals.
1456 The Panel also considered that a certification system would have the
effect of restoring or expanding the market for se al products that had been diminished due to the
ban, and that this would also lead to an increased number of seals being killed, and, consequently,
a greater number of inhumanely killed seals.1457
5.272. We do not consider the Panel's reference to more stringent hypothesized regimes as
somehow suggesting that it was comparing the alternative measure against a benchmark of
complete fulfilment of the objective. Rather, we understand the Panel to have suggested that even
the more stringent certification systems presented significant difficulties in terms of both their
reasonable availability and their contribution to the objective. As the Panel stated, more stringent
certification systems would likely present difficulties in terms of ensuring adequate animal welfare
standards and accurately distinguishing between humanely and inhumanely killed seals, and lead
to increased market access accompanied by more seal killings, and, consequently, more
inhumanely killed seals. Indeed, the Panel did not suggest that the stringent alternative measure
achieved complete fulfilment, but rather that it would be difficult to implement and enforce, and
would lead to increased numbers of inhumanely killed seals. Alternatively, the Panel noted, a more
lenient regime might very well attenuate some of these limitations, but then would have the
consequence – by more weakly enforcing animal welfare standards and any distinctions drawn
between humanely and inhumanely killed seals – of achieving a weak contribution in respect of
EU public moral concerns regarding seal welfare. The fact that the Panel entertained, and
compared, the possibility of stringent versus lenient versions of a certification system, in order to
consider how a loosely defined alternative measure might contribute to the identified objective,
confirms in our view that the Panel was undertaking considerable efforts to understand how such
variations of the alternative measure might operate. We understand the Panel to have concluded
that, irrespective of the level of stringency, a certification system would be beset by difficulties in
addressing EU public moral concerns regarding seal welfare.
5.273. We also reject the complainants' contention that the Panel erred in relying on "the
Appellate Body's guidance that a responding Member cannot be reasonably expected to employ an
alternative measure that involves a continuation of the very risk that the challenged measure
seeks to halt".
1458 Canada and Norway argue that, by referring to the challenged measure as
"halting" a "risk", the Panel was holding the alternative measure up to a higher standard of
achievement than what the EU Seal Regime itself met.1459 We do not agree that the Panel attached
to this statement the significance that Canada and Norway claim it did. The reference
in EC – Asbestos immediately follows the Panel's stated concern that the alternative measure
would lead to "restored market opportunities".
1460 Given the Panel's prior finding that the EU Seal
Regime appears to reduce the market for seal products, this suggests that such restored
opportunities would have the potential to increase exposure of the EU public to inhumanely killed
seals. In that context, we read the Panel to be referencing the Appellate Body's statement
in EC – Asbestos only as support for the proposition that a responding Member cannot be expected
to accept an alternative measure that makes less of a contribution to its objective than the
challenged measure. For the above reasons, we do not agree that the Panel was comparing the
alternative measure against a standard of complete fulfilment.

1456 Panel Reports, paras. 7.480, 7.496, and 7.498.
1457 Panel Reports, paras. 7.482, 7.484, and 7.502.
1458 Panel Reports, para. 7.502 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 174).
1459 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 270-277; Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 611
and 612. Canada asserts that the Panel's reference to EC – Asbestos "illustrates it[s] misinterpretation and
misapplication of the 'reasonably available' requirement for an alternative measure when carrying out the
necessity test". (Canada's appellant's submission, para. 271)
1460 Panel Reports, para. 7.502.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

5.274. Canada and Norway further submit that the Panel erred in considering the costs and
logistical demands on hunters and marketers of seal products if a strict certification scheme were
to be adopted by the European Union. According to the complainants, the Appellate Body report in
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres stands for the proposition that it is the burdens and costs imposed on the
responding WTO Member, not on the industry, th at are relevant for a finding on whether the
alternative measure is reasonably available.
1461
5.275. According to the European Union, the Appellate Body report in Brazil – Retreaded Tyres
simply identifies an example of a situation where the proposed alternative would not be reasonably
available, but that there "can be other circum stances where a measure would not be available
because it would be 'merely theoretical in nature'". 1462 The European Union further notes that,
despite the Panel's conclusion regarding the gr eater expenditure and practical challenges of
implementation, the costs of such a regime was "j ust one of the obstacles mentioned by the Panel
and, by no means, the most important".1463
5.276. In Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, the Appellate Body stated as follows:
As the Appellate Body indicated in US – Gambling, "[a]n alternative measure may be
found not to be 'reasonably available' ... wher e it is merely theoretical in nature, for
instance, where the responding Member is not capable of taking it, or where the
measure imposes an undue burden on that Member, such as prohibitive costs or
substantial technical difficulties."1464
5.277. This passage suggests that the "prohibitive costs or substantial technical difficulties" are
indeed those associated with the burden placed on a Member. At the same time, however, this
language does not foreclose the possibility that there may be other indications that the alternative
measure is "merely theoretical in nature". As we see it, if there are reasons why the prospect of
imposing an alternative measure faces significant, even prohibitive, obstacles, it may be that such
a measure cannot be considered "reasonably available". We would not exclude a priori the
possibility that an alternative measure may be deemed not reasonably available due to significant
costs or difficulties faced by the affected industry, in particular where such costs or difficulties
could affect the ability or willingness of the indu stry to comply with the requirements of that
measure. We therefore consider that an assessment of the reasonable availability of an alternative
measure could potentially include the burden on the industries concerned.
1465
5.278. We also are not persuaded that the Panel erred in concluding that the situations in which
other measures are applied are not sufficiently similar to the circumstances of the seal hunt to
assist in determining the availability of alternative measures.1466 Indeed, although it acknowledged
that the examination of measures applied to other product areas may provide useful input in
determining whether an alternative measure is reasonably available, the Panel also recalled the
following: its findings regarding the particular characteristics, risks, and challenges of seal hunting;
that the evidence did not establish comparable effective stunning rates in seal hunts and
commercial abattoirs; and "in any case that the two situations differ significantly in areas of great
relevance to the application of humane killing methods".
1467 In our view, the Panel provided a
reasonable explanation as to why it did not consider regimes applicable in other situations helpful
in determining the reasonable availability of the alternative measure.
5.279. In sum, having reviewed the Panel's reasoning and findings in respect of the alternative
measure, we do not consider that the Panel erred in concluding that "the alternative measure is
not reasonably available".
1468 In our view, the Panel undertook considerable efforts to understand
what impact hypothetical variations of the alternative measure might have on the objective of the
EU Seal Regime. The Panel considered that, whether focusing on addressing the EU public's

1461 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 291-298; Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 613-617.
1462 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 279.
1463 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 281.
1464 Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 156 (quoting Appellate Body Reports, US –
Gambling, para. 308). See also Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, paras. 172-174.
1465 See Appellate Body Report, EC – Asbestos, para. 174.
1466 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 278-290 (referring to Panel Reports, fn 815 to para. 7.504).
1467 Panel Reports, fn 815 to para. 7.504 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures
on Beef, para. 170).
1468 Panel Reports, para. 7.504.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

participation in the market for products derived from inhumanely killed seals, or the overall
number of inhumanely killed seals, even the most stringent certification system would be difficult
to implement and enforce, and would lead to in creased numbers of inhumanely killed seals. The
Panel further considered that making the welfare standards or the certification and labelling
requirements more lenient would make the alte rnative measure more reasonably available but
would not meaningfully contribute to addressing EU public moral concerns regarding seal welfare.
We therefore understand the Panel to have conclude d that, irrespective of the level of stringency,
a certification system would be beset by difficul ties in addressing EU public moral concerns
regarding seal welfare. The Panel thus was not persuaded that such a hypothetical regime
constituted an alternative that is reasonably available.
5.280. Finally, we note the Panel's finding that, al though the contribution of the EU Seal Regime
to the fulfilment of its objective is lowered by the implicit and explicit exceptions of the measure,
"the complainants have not clearly defined an alternative measure in respect of its separate
components and their cumulative capability to address the moral concerns of the EU public".
1469
Under the circumstances of this case, it is not clear to us how much more could have been
required of the complainants in articulating the nature and scope of the alternative measure. We
have certain doubts about the Panel's criticism, particularly given what seems to be substantial
engagement between the Panel and the parties regarding the features of such a certification
scheme and its ability to contribute to the object ive. In any event, however, our concerns are
particular to the circumstances of this case, and do not alter our assessment of the Panel's overall
finding.
5.3.2.5.2 Article 11 of the DSU
5.281. Finally, we consider two claims brought respectively by Canada and Norway under
Article 11 of the DSU relating to the reasonable availability of the alternative measure.
5.282. Canada asserts a claim under Article 11 of the DSU regarding the Panel's finding that the
alternative measure could result in an increase in the number of seals killed inhumanely. In
particular, Canada argues that the Panel's finding is based on an assertion by the European Union
that is itself a restatement of an unsupported assertion made in an amicus curiae submission.
According to Canada, the Panel thus found "that a stringent animal welfare standard would lead to
more seals being killed inhumanely … without any evidentiary support".
1470
5.283. The European Union disagrees with Canada that the Panel failed to make an objective
assessment under Article 11 of the DSU by finding th at the alternative measure could result in an
increase in the number of inhumanely killed seals. The European Union contends that the Panel's
finding "can be reasonably inferred from the Panel's findings regarding the inevitability of certain
risks of inhumane killing arising from the conditions and circumstances of the seal hunts".
1471
5.284. Canada is correct that the Panel – in stating that strict certification requirements "could
give rise to infliction of significant suffering in larger scale hunts in order to kill other seals in
accordance with the higher standards of welfare"1472 – cited in footnote 799 of its Reports only the
European Union's second written submission and the corresponding amicus curiae submission.1473
The European Union notes, however, that the Panel itself stated that this was "[a]ssessed against
the backdrop of the welfare risks of seal hunting".
1474 The European Union adds that the argument
relates to its position that there are inherent obstacles that make it impossible to kill seals
humanely on a consistent basis, and that the European Union "submitted extensive scientific
evidence and argument to the Panel in order to substantiate that position".
1475 Based on the
evidence and argument to which the European Union refers, the Panel had been presented with
more information relating to this argument than what it referred to in footnote 799 of its Reports.
We do not consider that a panel falls into error under Article 11 of the DSU for failing to cite all of

1469 Panel Reports, para. 7.503.
1470 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 334.
1471 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 291.
1472 Panel Reports, para. 7.496.
1474 Panel Reports, para. 7.496.
1475 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 286 (referring to European Union's response to Panel
question No. 148; and Panel Reports, paras. 7.202, 7.206, 7.207, 7.209, 7.213, and 7.214).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

the arguments and evidence supporting a particul ar proposition. Even if the Panel made the
reference it did to identify the source of the argument, this does not mean that there were no
further arguments and evidence on the Panel record that informed the Panel's statement.
Moreover, the Panel implicitly referred to the exte nsive information on the Panel record regarding
the "welfare risks of seal hunting" in stating that it "assessed" the argument against the
"backdrop" of those risks. This further indicates that the Panel's statement was substantiated.
We therefore do not consider that this statemen t by the Panel evidences a failure to conduct an
objective assessment under Article 11 of the DSU.
5.285. Norway submits that the Panel acted in violation of Article 11 of the DSU by ignoring two
further alternative measures it had proposed duri ng the course of the Panel proceedings. First,
Norway proposed an alternative that consisted of the removal of the restrictive conditions of the
EU Seal Regime. Under this alternative, trade would be permitted from hunts that, under the
measure at issue, could not meet the conditions for market access under the IC, MRM, or
Travellers exceptions.
1476 The second alternative was the removal of three of the conditions for
access to the MRM exception, namely, the not-for-profit, non-systematic, and sole purpose
conditions, leaving all the other elements of the EU Seal Regime undisturbed. Norway maintains
that this alternative could include animal welf are, certification, and labelling requirements.
1477
According to Norway, "these alternatives were completely ignored by the Panel". 1478 In Norway's
view, the Panel's failure to address the second alternative was "egregious" 1479 since the three
conditions were found to restrict access to the EU market. Norway considers "manifestly
inadequate" the Panel's failure to assess whether Norway's proposed alternative – which excludes
these three restrictive conditions, but adds anim al welfare requirements and labelling – could
make an equivalent contribution to the public morals objective.
1480
5.286. The European Union disagrees with Norway, noting that one of these proposed alternative
measures consisted of removing all of the requ irements of the EU Seal Regime, and "amounted
effectively to repealing the EU Seal Regime". 1481 Because Norway's proposal was premised on the
assumption that the EU Seal Regime made no contribution to its objective, the European Union
argues, the Panel implicitly rejected this claim. The European Union argues that, although the
Panel did not expressly address the second alternat ive measure proposed by Norway, it is clearly
implicit in the Panel's reasoning and findings that this alternative measure would also fail to make
an equivalent contribution to the objective of the EU Seal Regime.
1482
5.287. The first alternative to which Norway refers appears, as the European Union maintains, to
amount to the removal of the EU Seal Regime. This alternative rests on the factual premise that
the EU Seal Regime could or does lead to worse seal welfare outcomes than those existing prior to
the adoption of the measure. As we have explai ned, this premise was highly contested by the
parties, was not uniformly supported by the Pane l record, and, in any event, was not found to
exist by the Panel. The second alternative proposes removal of three of the restrictive conditions of
the MRM exception – that is, the not-for-profit, non-systematic, and sole purpose conditions – to
be replaced by certain animal welfare, certification, and labelling requirements. We note that the
substitution of other requirements for the existing MRM exception is critical to Norway's proposed
alternative because, otherwise, removal of the re strictive conditions of the MRM exception would
lead to an increase in the trade of seal produc ts with attendant consequences for the number of
inhumanely killed seals. Norway acknowledged this point during the Panel proceedings when it
suggested that such requirements could be added.
1483 In that respect, what Norway proposes
consists in part of a set of requirements similar to what the Panel actually analysed in its Reports.
Thus, any conclusions the Panel reached regarding the likely limitations of the certification system

1476 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 621.
1477 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 622.
1478 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 623. (emphasis original)
1479 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 624.
1480 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 625.
1481 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 306.
1482 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 307.
1483 See Norway's oral statement at the second Panel meeting, para. 77: "Norway thus disagrees that
'enlarging' the scope of the [M]RM requirements by removing the unnecessary conditions would undermine the
EU's animal welfare objective. In any event, if the EU wishes to ensure that the [M]RM requirements do not
undermine animal welfare, it could – as a modified version of this [M]RM alternative – allow seal products from
[M]RM hunts that additionally meet minimum animal welfare standards." (emphasis original)
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

it analysed would equally apply to a version of that system that would apply only in respect of seal
products from MRM hunts.
5.288. We emphasize that a panel must consider the claims and arguments of parties in a dispute
so as to conform with the obligation under Article 11 of the DSU to make an objective assessment
of the matter before it. At the same time, the Appellate Body has clarified that a panel need not
"refer explicitly to every argument made by the parties" 1484 or "consider each and every argument
put forward by the parties in support of their respective cases, so long as it completes an objective
assessment".1485 We consider that, in the circumstances of this case, the additional alternatives to
which Norway refers were in fact implicitly addressed by the Panel. With regard to the first
additional alternative, we have noted that the Pa nel had grounds for not finding that the EU Seal
Regime could or does lead to worse seal welfare outcomes than existed prior to the adoption of the
measure. With regard to the second additional alternative, it is implicit in the Panel's reasoning
and findings that this alternative would have failed on the same grounds as the alternative
measure explicitly addressed by the Panel. Had th e Panel explicitly addressed these two additional
proposals by Norway, we do not see that it woul d have altered the Panel's assessment of whether
there was a reasonably available alternative measure.
1486 The Panel's analysis in our view
contained an implicit rejection of these additional alternatives, and we therefore do not consider
that the Panel's failure to mention these two alternatives undermined the objectivity of the Panel's
assessment under Article 11 of the DSU.
5.3.2.6 Conclusion
5.289. The foregoing discussion has entailed an ex tensive assessment of the Panel's analysis of
whether the EU Seal Regime is necessary to protect public morals within the meaning of
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994. We have also been called upon to consider claims and arguments
by Canada and Norway that were related to the Panel's contribution analysis in the context of
Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, but which the Pa nel relied on in reaching its findings under
Article XX(a). The Panel correctly focused its analysis on the question of whether the prohibitive
and permissive components of the EU Seal Regi me are necessary to protect EU public moral
concerns. The Panel then conducted a relational analysis in which it evaluated the importance of
the objective of addressing EU public moral concerns regarding seal welfare, the
trade-restrictiveness of the EU Seal Regime, th e contribution of the EU Seal Regime to the
objective, and whether the alternative measure proposed by the complainants was reasonably
available.
1487 In that context, having focused on and assessed the specific claims of error advanced
by Canada and Norway, we consider that the Panel did not err in concluding that the EU Seal
Regime "is capable of making and does make some contribution" to its objective, or that it does so
"to a certain extent". We further consider that the Panel did not err in concluding that, although
the alternative measure was less trade restrictive than the EU Seal Regime, it was not reasonably
available given inter alia the inherent animal welfare risks and challenges found to exist in seal
hunting. Overall, in the light of the specific circum stances of this case, and the particular nature of
the measure at issue, we have endorsed the Panel's analysis of the EU Seal Regime under
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994.
5.290. Accordingly, having rejected the claims on appeal by Canada and Norway as they relate to
Article XX(a), we uphold the Panel's finding at pa ragraph 7.639 of its Reports that "the EU Seal
Regime is provisionally deemed necessary within the meaning of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994".
Since we have upheld the Panel's finding that the EU Seal Regime is provisionally justified under
Article XX(a), we are not called upon to address the European Union's conditional other appeal
with respect to Article XX(b).1488

1484 Appellate Body Report, US – Upland Cotton, para. 446.
1485 Appellate Body Report, Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes, para. 125.
1486 In EC – Fasteners (China), the Appellate Body noted that a participant must explain why evidence
"is so material to its case that the panel's failure explicitly to address and rely upon [it] has a bearing on the
objectivity of the panel's assessment." (Appellate Body Report, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 442) See also
Appellate Body Report, EC and certain member States – Large Civil Aircraft, para. 1318.
1487 See Panel Reports, section 7.4.4.3.2.
1488 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 320 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.640).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

5.3.3 The chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994
5.291. Having upheld the Panel's finding that the EU Seal Regime is "necessary to protect public
morals" within the meaning of Article XX(a) of th e GATT 1994, we now turn to review the Panel's
analysis as it pertains to the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994.
5.292. Article XX of the GATT 1994 reads in relevant part:
General Exceptions
Subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner which
would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries
where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on international trade,
nothing in this Agreement shall be construe d to prevent the adoption or enforcement
by any Member of measures:
(a) necessary to protect public morals; …
5.293. The Panel determined that discrimination in the application of the EU Seal Regime within
the meaning of the chapeau "results from th e discriminatory impact found in the IC and
MRM exceptions under Articles I:1 and III:4".
1489 In its assessment of whether this discrimination
is "arbitrary" or "unjustifiable" within the meaning of the chapeau of Article XX, the Panel recalled
its analysis of the EU Seal Regime, in particular the distinctions drawn in the IC and
MRM exceptions, under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement.
1490 Given its findings under Article 2.1 of
the TBT Agreement that these exceptions are not designed and applied in an even-handed
manner, the Panel found that they also do not meet the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX
of the GATT 1994.
1491
5.294. While Canada and Norway agree with the Panel's conclusion that the EU Seal Regime does
not meet the requirements of the chapeau of Ar ticle XX, they appeal the Panel's reasoning in
reaching that conclusion. In particular, they allege that the Panel erred in applying the same test
to determine the existence of arbitrary or unjus tifiable discrimination under the chapeau of
Article XX as it had applied in determining whether the measure was inconsistent with Article 2.1
of the TBT Agreement.
1492 In addition, Canada requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's
intermediate finding that the distinction between commercial and IC hunts is "justifiable" 1493, to
complete the analysis on this specific point 1494, and to find that the discrimination between
Canadian commercial seal products and IC seal products arising from the application of the
EU Seal Regime is arbitrary and unjustifiable.
1495 By contrast, the European Union requests the
Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's conclusion that the IC exception does not meet the
requirements of the chapeau, to complete the anal ysis, and to find instead that the IC exception
meets the requirements of Article XX(a), including the chapeau.1496
5.295. We will begin by reviewing the requirem ents of the chapeau in the light of relevant
WTO jurisprudence. Thereafter, we will address the claims on appeal in the light of our
interpretation of the chapeau of Article XX.
5.3.3.1 Interpretation of the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994
5.296. The chapeau of Article XX imposes additional disciplines on measures that have been found
to violate an obligation under the GATT 1994, but that have also been found to be provisionally
justified under one of the exceptions set forth in the subparagraphs of Article XX. The chapeau
does so by requiring that measures not be "applied in a manner which would constitute a means of

1489 Panel Reports, para. 7.648.
1490 Panel Reports, para. 7.649.
1491 Panel Reports, para. 7.650 (referring to Panel Reports, sections 7.3.2.3.3 and 7.3.2.3.4).
1492 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 447-454; Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 894-898.
1493 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 460-466. See also Panel Reports, para. 7.650.
1494 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 468.
1495 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 455-466 and 468.
1496 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 316-319.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, or
a disguised restriction on international trade".
5.297. The function of the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994 is to prevent the abuse or
misuse of a Member's right to invoke the exce ptions contained in the subparagraphs of that
Article.1497 In that way, the chapeau operates to preserve the balance between a Member's right to
invoke the exceptions of Article XX, and the rights of other Members to be protected from conduct
proscribed under the GATT 1994.
1498 Achieving this equilibrium is called for "so that neither of the
competing rights will cancel out the other and thereby distort and nullify or impair the balance of
rights and obligations constructed by the Members themselves". 1499 As the Appellate Body stated
in US – Gasoline, the burden of demonstrating that a measure provisionally justified under one of
the exceptions of Article XX does not constitute an abuse of such an exception under the chapeau
rests with the party invoking the exception.1500 The Appellate Body explained that this is "a heavier
task than that involved in showing that an exception … encompasses the measure at issue." 1501
5.298. With respect to the type of "discriminat ion" that is at issue under the chapeau, the
Appellate Body noted in US – Gasoline that "[t]he provisions of the chapeau cannot logically refer
to the same standard(s) by which a violation of a substantive rule has been determined to have
occurred".
1502 A finding that a measure is inconsistent with one of the non-discrimination
obligations of the GATT 1994, such as those contained in Articles I and III, is thus not dispositive
of the question of whether the measure gives rise to "arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination
between countries where the same conditions prev ail" under the chapeau of Article XX of the
GATT 1994. Moreover, "the nature and quality of this discrimination is different from the
discrimination in the treatment of products which was already found to be inconsistent with one of
the substantive obligations of the GATT 1994".
1503 This does not mean, however, that the
circumstances that bring about the discrimination that is to be examined under the chapeau
cannot be the same as those that led to the finding of a violation of a substantive provision of the
GATT 1994.1504
5.299. The examination of whether a measure is applied in a manner that would constitute a
means of "arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions
prevail" necessitates an assessment of whether the "conditions" prevailing in the countries
between which the measure allegedly discriminates are "the same". We note that the term
"condition" has a number of meanings, including "a way of living or existing"; "the state of
something"; "the physical state of something"; and "the physical or mental state of a person or
thing".
1505 The term "conditions" could thus potentially encompass a number of circumstances
facing a country. In order further to define and circumscribe the meaning of the term "conditions",
the treaty interpreter should therefore seek guidan ce from the specific context in which that term
appears in the chapeau. As we see it, only "conditions" that are relevant for the purpose of
establishing arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination in the light of the specific character of the

1497 Appellate Body Report, US – Gasoline, p. 22, DSR 1996:I, pp. 20-21.
1498 Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp, para. 156.
1499 The Appellate Body, in US – Shrimp, stated that:
The task of interpreting and applying the chapeau is, hence, essentially the delicate one of
locating and marking out a line of equilibrium between the right of a Member to invoke an
exception under Article XX and the rights of the other Members under varying substantive
provisions (e.g., Article XI) of the GATT 1994, so that neither of the competing rights will cancel
out the other and thereby distort and nullify or impair the balance of rights and obligations
constructed by the Members themselves in that Agreement.
(Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp, para. 159)
1500 Appellate Body Report, US – Gasoline, pp. 22-23, DSR 1996:I, p. 21.
1501 Appellate Body Report, US – Gasoline, p. 23, DSR 1996:I, p. 21.
1502 Appellate Body Report, US – Gasoline, p. 23, DSR 1996:I, p. 21. See also Appellate Body Report,
US – Shrimp, para. 150.
1503 Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp, para. 150 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Gasoline,
p. 23, DSR 1996:I, p. 21).
1504 In US – Gasoline, the Appellate Body concluded that the baseline establishment rules, which the
panel in that dispute had found to be discriminatory under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, also resulted in
"unjustifiable discrimination", since certain omissions by the United States went "well beyond what was
necessary for the Panel to determine that a violation of Article III:4 had occurred in the first place". (Appellate
Body Report, US – Gasoline, pp. 28-29, DSR 1996:I, p. 27)
1505 Merriam-Webster, available at <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condition> (accessed
28 April 2014).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

measure at issue and the circumstances of a particular case should be considered under the
chapeau.1506 The question is thus whether the conditions prevailing in different countries are
relevantly "the same".
5.300. We consider that, in determining which "conditions" prevailing in different countries are
relevant in the context of the chapeau, the subpa ragraphs of Article XX, and in particular the
subparagraph under which a measure has been provis ionally justified, provide pertinent context.
In other words, "conditions" relating to the particular policy objective under the applicable
subparagraph are relevant for the analysis under the chapeau. Subject to the particular nature of
the measure and the specific circumstances of the case, the provisions of the GATT 1994 with
which a measure has been found to be inconsistent may also provide useful guidance on the
question of which "conditions" prevailing in different countries are relevant in the context of the
chapeau. In particular, the type or cause of the violation that has been found to exist may inform
the determination of which countries should be compared with respect to the conditions that
prevail in them.
1507
5.301. We recall that the function of the chap eau is to maintain the equilibrium between the
obligations under the GATT 1994 and the except ions provided under each subparagraph of
Article XX. This also lends support to our view that the identification of the relevant "conditions"
under the chapeau should be understood by reference to the applicable subparagraph of Article XX
under which the measure was provisionally justified and the substantive obligations under the
GATT 1994 with which a violation has been found. If a respondent considers that the conditions
prevailing in different countries are not "the same" in relevant respects, it bears the burden of
proving that claim.
5.302. By its terms, the chapeau of Article XX is concerned with the "manner" in which a measure
that falls under one of the subparagraphs of Article XX is "applied".
1508 Although this suggests that
the focus of the inquiry is on the manner in which the measure is applied, the Appellate Body has
noted that whether a measure is applied in a particular manner "can most often be discerned from
the design, the architecture, and the revealing structure of a measure". 1509 It is thus relevant to
consider the design, architecture, and revealing structure of a measure in order to establish
whether the measure, in its actual or expected application, constitutes a means of arbitrary or
unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail. This involves a
consideration of "both substantive and procedural requirements" under the measure at issue.
1510
5.303. We recall that the Appellate Body has already observed, in US – Shrimp , that
discrimination within the meaning of the chapeau of Article XX "results … when countries in which
the same conditions prevail are differently treated".
1511 Where this is the case, a panel should
analyse whether the resulting discrimination is "arbitrary or unjustifiable". The Appellate Body has
explained that the analysis of whether discrimination is arbitrary or unjustifiable within the
meaning of the chapeau "should focus on the caus e of the discrimination, or the rationale put
forward to explain its existence".
1512
5.304. In US – Gasoline , the Appellate Body assessed the two explanations provided by the
United States for the discrimination resulting from the application of the baseline establishment
rules at issue.
1513 The first explanation provided by the Un ited States for such discrimination was
the impracticability of verification and enforcem ent of individual baselines for foreign refiners.
While the Appellate Body accepted that the anticipated difficulties concerning verification and

1506 See also the Appellate Body report in US – Shrimp, where the Appellate Body noted that the
"standards established in the chapeau are … necessarily broad in scope an d reach", and that, "[w]hen applied
in a particular case, the actual contours and contents of these standards will vary as the kind of measure under
examination varies." (Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp, para. 120)
1507 See Appellate Body Report, US – Gasoline, p. 23-24, DSR 1996:I, pp. 21-22; and Appellate Body
Report, US – Shrimp, para. 150.
1508 See also Appellate Body Reports, US – Gasoline, p. 22, DSR 1996:I, p. 20; US – Shrimp, para. 115;
1509 Appellate Body Report, Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II, p. 29, DSR 1996:I, p. 120.
1510 Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp, para. 160.
1511 Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp, para. 165.
1512 Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 226 (referring to Appellate Body Reports,
US – Gasoline; US – Shrimp; and US – Shrimp (Article 21.5 – Malaysia)).
1513 See supra, para. 5.191 for background on the US – Gasoline dispute.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

enforcement with respect to foreign refiners were "doubtless real to some degree" 1514, it noted
that the United States "had not pursued the possibi lity of entering into cooperative arrangements
with the governments of Venezuela and Brazil or, if it had, not to the point where it encountered
governments that were unwilling to cooperate". 1515 Second, the United States explained that
imposing the statutory baseline requirement on domestic refiners was not an option either,
because it was not feasible to require domestic refiners to incur the physical and financial costs
and burdens entailed by immediate compliance with a statutory baseline. The Appellate Body
observed that, while the United States counted the costs for its domestic refiners, there was
"nothing in the record to indicate that it did other than disregard that kind of consideration when it
came to foreign refiners".
1516
5.305. In US – Shrimp , the Appellate Body relied on a number of factors in finding that the
measure at issue resulted in arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination.1517 These factors included the
fact that the discrimination resulted from: (i) a "rigid and unbending requirement" that countries
exporting shrimp into the United States must adopt a regulatory programme that is essentially the
same as the United States' programme
1518; (ii) the fact that the discrimination resulted from the
failure to take into account different circumstances that may occur in the territories of other
WTO Members, in particular, specific policies and measures other than those applied by the
United States that might have been adopted by an exporting country for the protection and
conservation of sea turtles
1519; and (iii) the fact that, while the United States negotiated seriously
with some WTO Members exporting shrimp into the United States for the purpose of concluding
international agreements for the protection and conservation of sea turtles, it did not do so with
other WTO Members.
1520 A s t h e A p p e l l a t e B o d y s t a t e d i n Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , "[t]he
assessment of these factors … was part of an analysis that was directed at the cause, or the
rationale, of the discrimination."
1521
5.306. One of the most important factors in the assessment of arbitrary or unjustifiable
discrimination is the question of whether the discrimination can be reconciled with, or is rationally
related to, the policy objective with respect to which the measure has been provisionally justified
under one of the subparagraphs of Article XX.
1522 In Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , the Appellate Body
considered this factor particularly relevant in assessing the merits of the explanations provided by
the respondent as to the cause of the discrimin ation. As the Appellate Body stated, it had
"difficulty understanding how discrimination might be viewed as complying with the chapeau of
Article XX when the alleged rationale for discriminating does not relate to the pursuit of or would
go against the objective that was provisionally found to justify a measure under a paragraph of
Article XX".
1523 In US – Shrimp , the Appellate Body considered this factor as one element in a
"cumulative" assessment of "unjustifiable discrimination".1524

1514 Appellate Body Report, US – Gasoline, p. 26, DSR 1996:I, p. 24.
1515 Appellate Body Report, US – Gasoline, p. 27, DSR 1996:I, pp. 25-26.
1516 Appellate Body Report, US – Gasoline, p. 28, DSR 1996:I, p. 27.
1517 See also Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 225: "In US – Shrimp, the Appellate
Body relied on a number of factors in finding that the measure at issue resulted in arbitrary or unjustifiable
discrimination."
1519 Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp, paras. 163 and 164.
1520 Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp, paras. 166 and 172.
1521 Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 225 (referring to Appellate Body Report,
US – Shrimp, paras. 163-166, 172, and 177).
1522 See Appellate Body Reports, US – Shrimp, para. 165; and Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, paras. 227,
228, and 232.
1523 Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 227.
1524 Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp, para. 176. The Appellate Body highlighted that the measure
treated "shrimp caught using methods identical to those employed in the United States" differently from
shrimp caught in the United States or other certified countries "solely because they have been caught in waters
of countries that have not been certified by the United States" – a situation that the Appellate Body found
"difficult to reconcile with the declared policy objective of protecting and conserving sea turtles". (Ibid.,
para. 165 (emphasis original)) See also Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Retreaded Tyres, para. 225 and fn 431
thereto.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

5.3.3.2 Canada's and Norway's claims on appeal regarding the Panel's reasoning under
the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994
5.307. We recall that, in determining whether the discrimination under the EU Seal Regime is
"arbitrary" or "unjustifiable" within the meaning of the chapeau of Article XX, the Panel relied on
its findings under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement. 1525 Based on its findings under Article 2.1 of
the TBT Agreement that the IC and MRM exceptions under the EU Seal Regime are not designed
and applied in an even-handed manner, the Pa nel found that they also do not meet the
requirements of the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994.1526
5.308. Neither Canada nor Norway appeal the Panel's ultimate conclusion under the chapeau of
Article XX that the "IC exception and the MRM exception … fail to meet the requirements under the
chapeau".
1527 Instead, Canada and Norway take issue wi th the Panel's reasoning in reaching this
conclusion.1528 In particular, they allege that the Panel erred in applying the same test to
determine the existence of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination under the chapeau of Article XX
as it applied in determining whether the measure was inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the
TBT Agreement.1529 Canada and Norway submit that the sco pe, content, and text of the chapeau
of Article XX of the GATT 1994 and Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement (read together with the sixth
preambular recital thereto) are not the same. Cana da argues that the Panel "failed to adequately
explain" why its analysis under Article 2.1 was relevant and applicable to its assessment of the
legal standard under the chapeau of Article XX. 1530 Norway similarly asserts that "a panel must be
faithful to the independence of the analysis to be conducted under each Agreement." 1531 Second,
according to the complainants, the Panel's "three-step test" in the context of its "legitimate
regulatory distinction" analysis under Article 2.1 1532 i s a t o d d s w i t h t h e t e x t o f t h e c h a p e a u o f
Article XX, as well as with well-accepted jurisprudence regarding the proper analysis of "arbitrary
or unjustifiable discrimination" under the chapeau.
1533 Specifically, both complainants take issue
with the Panel's substitution of its three-step "legitimate regulatory distinction" test under
Article 2.1 for the proper test under the chapeau of Article XX developed by the Appellate Body in
Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , which, the complainants assert, requires an assessment of whether the
discrimination at issue is "rationally connected" to the objective of the measure.
1534
5.309. The European Union responds that the requirement that the reasons for discrimination be
rationally connected to the policy objective of th e measure is not reflected in the text of the
chapeau or in past Appellate Body jurisprudence. 1535 While the European Union agrees that
determining whether the discrimination at issue is "arbitrary or unjustifiable" usually involves an
investigation of the reason underlying the discrimination, in its view, investigating the cause
underlying the discrimination is not necessarily limited to determining whether such cause is
rationally connected to the objective of measure, and, as reflected in prior Appellate Body
jurisprudence, may involve the consideration of other factors.
1536 According to the European Union,
this is supported by Brazil – Retreaded Tyres , as, in that case, the Appellate Body merely found

1525 Panel Reports, paras. 7.649 and 7.650.
1526 Panel Reports, para. 7.650 (referring to ibid., sections 7.3.2.3.3 and 7.3.2.3.4).
1528 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 436; Norway's appellant's submission, para. 892.
1529 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 447-454; Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 894-898.
1530 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 450 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.649).
1531 Norway's appellant's submission, para. 897.
1532 See Panel Reports, para. 7.259. The Panel found that:
[T]he legitimacy of the regulatory distinction between commercial hunts and IC hunts should be
determined by examining the following questions: first, is the distinction rationally connected to
the objective of the EU Seal Regime; second, if not, is there any cause or rationale that can
justify the distinction (i.e. "explain the existence of the distinction") despite the absence of the
connection to the objective of the Regime, taking into account the particular circumstances of the
current dispute; and, third, is the distinction concerned, as reflected in the measure, "designed
or applied in a manner that constitutes arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination" such that it lacks
"even-handedness".
(Ibid. (fns omitted))
1533 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 452, 453, and 457; Norway's appellant's submission,
paras. 898 and 905-926.
1534 Canada's appellant's submission, paras. 437, and 455-459; Norway's appellant's submission,
paras. 904-927.
1535 European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 443-447.
1536 European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 448-456.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

that, under the specific circumstances of that individual case, the MERCOSUR arbitral ruling was
"not an acceptable rationale for the discrimination, because it bears no relationship to the
legitimate objective pursued by the Import Ban th at falls within the purview of Article XX(b), and
even goes against this objective".
1537
5.310. We consider that the Panel should have provided more explanation as to why and how its
analysis under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement was "relevant and applicable" to the analysis
under the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994. 1538 We recognize that there are important
parallels between the analyses under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement and the chapeau of
Article XX. In particular, we note that the concepts of "arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination
between countries where the same conditions prevail" and of a "disguised restriction on trade" are
found both in the chapeau of Article XX of the GA TT 1994 and in the sixth recital of the preamble
of the TBT Agreement, which the Appellate Body has recognized as providing relevant context for
Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement.
1539 Moreover, both Article 2.1 and the chapeau of Article XX do
not "operate to prohibit a priori any obstacle to international trade". 1540 Instead, as interpreted by
the Appellate Body, Article 2.1 "permit[s] detrim ental impact on competitive opportunities for
imports that stems exclusively from legitimate regulatory distinctions" 1541, while under the
chapeau of Article XX, discrimination is permitted if it is not arbitrary or unjustifiable.
5.311. However, there are significant differences between the analyses under Article 2.1 of the
TBT Agreement and the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994. First, the legal standards
applicable under the two provisions differ. Under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, a panel has to
examine whether the detrimental impact that a measure has on imported products stems
exclusively from a legitimate regulatory distinction rather than reflecting discrimination against the
group of imported products. 1542 Under the chapeau of Article XX, by contrast, the question is
whether a measure is applied in a manner that would constitute a means of arbitrary or
unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail.1543
5.312. Another important difference between Article 2.1 and the chapeau of Article XX relates to
their main function and scope. Article 2.1 is a non-discrimination provision in respect of technical
regulations. Consequently, in the context of Article 2.1, it is only the regulatory distinction that
accounts for the detrimental impact on imported products that is to be examined to determine
whether it is "a legitimate regulatory distinction".
1544 By contrast, the function of the chapeau of
Article XX is to maintain a balance between a Member's right to invoke the exceptions under the
subparagraphs of Article XX and the substantive rights of the other Members under the various
other provisions of the GATT 1994. 1545 Indeed, a measure can be found to be applied in a manner
that would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination under the chapeau on
grounds that are not necessarily the same in their "nature and quality" as the discrimination which
was found to be inconsistent with the non-discr imination obligations of the GATT 1994, such as
Articles I and III.1546
5.313. Given these differences between the inquir ies under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement and
the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994, we find that the Panel erred in applying the same
legal test to the chapeau of Article XX as it applied under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, instead
of conducting an independent analysis of the cons istency of the EU Seal Regime with the specific
terms and requirements of the chapeau. 1547 We therefore reverse the Panel's finding, in
paragraph 7.651 of the Panel Reports, that the European Union has failed to establish that the

1537 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 451 (quoting Appellate Body Report, Brazil –
Retreaded Tyres, para. 228).
1538 See Panel Reports, para. 7.649.
1539 Appellate Body Reports, US – Clove Cigarettes, para. 173; and US – Tuna II (Mexico), para. 213.
1540 Appellate Body Report, US – Clove Cigarettes, para. 171.
1541 Appellate Body Report, US – Clove Cigarettes, para. 175.
1542 Appellate Body Report, US – Clove Cigarettes, paras. 182 and 215.
1543 We note the Appellate Body's statement, in US – COOL, that a regulatory distinction that is designed
or applied in a manner that constitutes a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination cannot be
considered "legitimate", and that any detrimental impact stemming from such a distinction will hence reflect
discrimination prohibited under Article 2.1. (Appellate Body Reports, US – COOL, para. 271)
1544 Appellate Body Report, US – Tuna II (Mexico), paras. 284 and 286.
1545 Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp, para. 156.
1546 Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp, para. 150 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Gasoline,
p. 23, DSR 1996:I, p. 21).
1547 Panel Reports, para. 7.649.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

discriminatory impact found in the IC and MRM exceptions under the EU Seal Regime is justified
under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994. We also reverse the intermediate legal findings that the
Panel made in the context of the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994 on the basis of its
analysis under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, given that the Panel reached these intermediate
findings on the basis of a legal test that it should not have applied under the chapeau of
Article XX.1548
5.314. It follows that we do not need to address the arguments on appeal as far as they relate to
these findings. In particular, we do not need to address the European Union's appeal of the Panel's
finding that "the IC distinction does not bear a rational relationship to the objective of addressing
the moral concerns of the public on seal welfare"
1549, nor the related claim under Article 11 of the
DSU, given that the Panel made this finding in th e context of its analysis under Article 2.1 of the
TBT Agreement. For the same reasons, we do not need to address Canada's appeal of the Panel's
finding that the distinction between commercial and IC hunts is nevertheless justified, nor
Canada's related claim under Article 11 of the DSU.
1550
5.315. In the following, we complete the analysis under the chapeau of Article XX of the
GATT 1994 to the extent that we are able to do so on the basis of factual findings by the Panel and
uncontested facts on the Panel record.
5.3.3.3 Whether the EU Seal Regime m eets the requirements of the chapeau of
Article XX of the GATT 1994
5.316. The discrimination that the Panel found und er Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 arises from the
different regulatory treatment that the measure accords to seal products derived from
"commercial" hunts, on the one hand, as compared to seal products derived from IC hunts, on the
other hand, in combination with the fact that seal hunts in Canada and Norway are primarily
"commercial" hunts, whereas seal hunts in Greenland are predominantly IC hunts.
1551 As noted
above, the circumstances that bring about the discrimination within the meaning of the chapeau
may include, but are not limited to, the circumstances that led to the finding of a violation of a
substantive provision of the GATT 1994. In completing the analysis under the chapeau, we will first
examine whether the different regulatory treatmen t that the EU Seal Regime accords to seal
products derived from IC hunts as compared to "commercial" hunts constitutes "arbitrary or
unjustifiable discrimination". In addition, we will analyse whether the measure has any
discriminatory effects on different indigenous communities and whether any such effects amount
to arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination.
5.317. As noted above, the analysis under the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994 entails an
assessment of whether the "conditions" prevailing in the countries between which the measure
allegedly discriminates are "the same". We furthe r found that, in conducting this assessment, the
subparagraph under which a measure has been provisionally justified, as well as the provision of
the GATT with which a measure has been found to be inconsistent, provide important context. In
the circumstances of the present case, we do not consider that the European Union has shown that
the "conditions" prevailing in Canada and Norw ay, on the one hand, and Greenland, on the other
hand, are relevantly different. In particular, the European Union does not appear to contest
Norway's claim that "the same animal welfare conditions prevail in all countries where seals are
hunted"
1552, nor has the European Union appealed the Panel's finding that "the same animal
welfare concerns as those arising from seal hunting in general also exist in IC hunts". 1553 We also
do not understand the European Union to have argued that the differences in the identity of the
hunter or in the purpose of seal hunts that the Panel found to exist between "commercial" and
IC hunts would render the conditions in Canada and Norway, on the one hand, and Greenland, on
the other hand, relevantly different. Finally, while the European Union has pointed to "the different

1548 Panel Reports, para. 7.650.
1549 Panel Reports, para. 7.275.
1550 Panel Reports, para. 7.300.
1551 Panel Reports, paras. 7.159-7.164, 7.170, and 7.600.
1552 Panel Reports, fn 442 to para. 7.276 (referring to Norway's first written submission to the Panel,
para. 680 and fn 980 thereto, in turn referring to European Food Safety Authority, "Scientific Opinion of the
Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission on the Animal Welfare aspects of the
killing and skinning of seals", The EFSA Journal (2007), No. 610, pp. 1-122 (Panel Exhibit JE-22) (EFSA
Scientific Opinion), p. 13).
1553 Panel Reports, para. 7.275.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

level of development in the organisation of th e marketing structures achieved by the Inuit
communities in Greenland as compared to the Canadian Inuit communities" 1554, the
European Union has not, in our view, sufficiently explained how these differences would render the
conditions prevailing in Canada and Greenland different in a respect that would be relevant under
the chapeau. Given that the European Union has not shown that the conditions prevailing in
Canada and Norway, on the one hand, and Greenland, on the other hand, are relevantly different,
we proceed on the basis that the conditions prevailing in these countries are "the same" for the
purposes of the chapeau.
5.318. We consider that, in the present case, th e causes of the "discrimination" found to exist
under Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 are the same as those to be examined under the chapeau. We
also note that this is not disputed by the participants. We therefore turn to examine whether such
discrimination is "arbitrary or unjustifiable" within the meaning of the chapeau. As noted above,
one of the most important factors in the assessment of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination is
the question of whether the discrimination can be reconciled with, or is rationally related to, the
policy objective with respect to which the measure has been provisionally justified under one of
the subparagraphs of Article XX. We therefore be gin our analysis with Canada's and Norway's
claim that the EU Seal Regime results in arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination because it
discriminates on a basis that does not have a "rational relationship" with the objective of the
measure or goes against that objective.
1555
5.319. We recall that the objective of the EU Seal Regime is to address EU public moral concerns
regarding seal welfare. 1556 In pursuit of this objective, the EU Seal Regime bans the importation
and placing on the market of seal products derive d from "commercial" hunts, while it allows the
importation of seal products derived from hunts that satisfy certain criteria relating to the identity
of the hunter, the purpose of the hunt, and the use of by-products from the hunt. The
complainants allege, and the European Union does not dispute, that these criteria are not related
to the welfare of seals. The complainants theref ore submit that there is a rational disconnect
between the IC exception and the objective of the EU Seal Regime, and that the IC exception even
goes against that objective.
1557 Essentially, the complainants' arguments go to the manner in
which the EU Seal Regime pursues its objective in the context of IC hunts as compared to
"commercial" hunts. In response, the European Union submits that it exempts seal products
derived from hunts conducted by Inuit and other indigenous peoples from the ban on the
importation and placing on the market of seal products in order to mitigate the adverse effects on
those communities resulting from the EU Seal Re gime to the extent compatible with the main
objective of addressing the public moral concerns with regard to the welfare of seals.
1558
5.320. The first relevant question before us is thus whether the European Union has sufficiently
explained how the manner in which the EU Seal Regime treats IC hunts as compared to
"commercial" hunts can be reconciled with, or is related to, the policy objective of addressing
EU public moral concerns regarding seal welfare. We note that the different regulatory treatment
of IC hunts, as compared to "commercial" hunts, takes the form of a significant carve-out of the
former from the measure's ban on seal products. The European Union has sought to explain why it
decided not to impose the ban on the importation and placing on the market of seal products
derived from IC hunts. Yet, the European Union has failed to demonstrate, in our view, how the
discrimination resulting from the manner in which the EU Seal Regime treats IC hunts as
compared to "commercial" hunts can be reconciled with, or is related to, the policy objective of
addressing EU public moral concerns regarding seal welfare. In this connection, we note that the
European Union has not established, for example, why the need to protect the economic and social
interests of the Inuit and other indigenous peoples necessarily implies that the European Union
cannot do anything further to ensure that the welfare of seals is addressed in the context of

1554 European Union's appellant's submission, para. 203.
1555 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 468; Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 904, 929, 930,
and 932. We note that Canada advances this claim in the context of its appeal under Article 2.1 of the
TBT Agreement and the chapeau of Article XX, while Norway makes this argument in the context of its appeal
under the chapeau of Article XX.
1556 In section 5.3.1 above, we considered that the principal objective of the EU Seal Regime is to
address EU public moral concerns regarding seal welfare, while accommodating IC and other interests so as to
mitigate the impact of the measure on those interests.
1557 Canada's appellant's submission, para. 468; Norway's appellant's submission, paras. 904, 929, 930,
and 932.
1558 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 142.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

IC hunts, given that "IC hunts can cause the very pain and suffering for seals that the EU public is
concerned about."1559
5.321. As noted above, the relationship of the discrimination to the objective of a measure is one
of the most important factors, but not the sole test , that is relevant to the assessment of arbitrary
or unjustifiable discrimination.1560 In other words, depending on the nature of the measure at issue
and the circumstances of the case at hand, there could be additional factors that may also be
relevant to that overall assessment. In this connection, we note that the European Union argues
that only seal products derived from hunts conducted by Inuit communities for subsistence
purposes can benefit from the exception.
1561 We therefore now turn to examine whether the
specific criteria of the IC exception are designed and applied in a manner that would render
arbitrary or unjustifiable the different regulatory treatment of seal products derived from IC hunts
as compared to seal products derived from "commercial" hunts.
5.322. We recall that the IC exception is set out in Article 3(1) of the Basic Regulation, which
provides that "[t]he placing on the market of se al products shall be allowed only where the seal
products result from hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities and
contribute to their subsistence. These conditions shall apply at the time or point of import for
imported products". This provision is implemented by Article 3(1) of the Implementing Regulation,
which requires that, in order to qualify for the IC hunts category, seal products must originate
from seal hunts that satisfy the following three conditions:
a. seal hunts conducted by Inuit or other indigenous communities which have a tradition of
seal hunting in the community and in the geographical region;
b. seal hunts the products of which are at least partly used, consumed or processed within
the communities according to their traditions; and
c. seal hunts which contribute to the subsistence of the community.
5.323. With respect to these criteria, we note the Panel's finding that:
[T]he requirements of the IC exception are generally linked to the characteristics of
IC hunts as discussed above, particularly in terms of the identity of the hunter with a
tradition of seal hunting, the use of by-products from the hunted seals, and the
contribution of the hunts to the subsistence of the community.
1562
5.324. The Panel also noted, however, that the "scope and meaning of the 'subsistence' criterion"
of the IC requirements "is not defined under the measure". 1563 The Panel had earlier found that
"the subsistence purpose of IC hunts encompasses not only direct use and consumption of
by-products of the hunted seals as part of their culture and tradition, but also a commercial
component, to the extent that Inuit or indigenous communities also exchange some by-products of
the hunted seals for economic gain."
1564 The Panel further found this commercial aspect of
IC hunts to be related more to the "need [of Inuit communities] to adjust to modern society rather
than to continuing their cultural heritage of bartering".
1565 For the Panel, the commercial aspect of
IC hunts "resembles the purpose of commercial hunts, which is to earn income (and make profits)

1559 Panel Reports, para. 7.275. We note that the European Union submitted before the Panel that "[t]he
Complainants have not offered any indication of how animal welfare could be improved in the hunts within the
scope of the IC exception without at the same time endangering the subsistence of the Inuit and the
preservation of their cultural identity." (European Union's response to Panel question No. 8, para. 24) Canada
responded that "the onus is not on the complainants to offer solutions to enable Greenlandic sealers to improve
animal welfare standards without putting at risk the subsistence of the Inuit and the preservation of their
cultural identity." (Panel Reports, para. 7.294 (quoting Canada's second written submission to the Panel,
para. 251))
1560 We recall again that, in US – Shrimp, the Appellate Body considered this factor as one element in a
"cumulative" assessment of "unjustifiable discrimination". (Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp, paras. 165
and 176)
1561 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 182 and 188.
1562 Panel Reports, para. 7.308.
1563 Panel Reports, para. 7.308. See also ibid., paras. 7.283-7.289.
1564 Panel Reports, para. 7.288.
1565 Panel Reports, para. 7.287.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

by selling by-products of the hunted seals". 1566 The Panel thus identified a degree of overlap
between the purposes of "commercial" and IC hunts, while at the same time maintaining that
"[t]he commercial aspect of IC hunts is … not the same in its extent as that associated with
commercial hunts".
1567 The European Union has not contested that IC hunts also have a
commercial aspect. As we see it, the lack of a precise definition of the subsistence criterion
introduces a degree of ambiguity into the requir ements for the IC exception under the EU Seal
Regime.
5.325. We see similar ambiguities with respect to the "partial use" criterion, pursuant to which
seal products must be "at least partly used, consumed or processed within the communities
according to their traditions". The assessment of whether this criterion is fulfilled may be
straightforward when it comes to the products of a single hunt, or where there are relatively stable
patterns in the use of seal products, as appears to be the case in Greenland, where skins are the
only parts of the seal that are currently traded on a significant scale. However, the ambiguity in
the notion of "partial use" arises when it is applied on an aggregate basis. In response to
questioning at the oral hearing, the European Union could not confirm whether the "partial use"
criterion is administered and enforced with respect to each individual seal, with respect to each
seal hunt, or with respect to the catch of an entire season.
1568 It is therefore not clear with respect
to what benchmark the requirement that seal products be at least partly used, consumed, or
processed in the community, is to be understood. We are concerned that, where conformity with
the "partial use" criterion is not assessed with respect to individual seals but rather with respect to
individual hunters over an extended period of ti me (e.g. through licensing conditions), or with
respect to all hunters active in a particular area or even all members of an Inuit community, a
substantial proportion of seal products that, wh en considered individually, might not conform to
the "partial use" criterion (either because the hunter has commercialized the entire seal or
because the non-commercialized parts of the seal have been disposed of rather than used) could
potentially qualify for the IC exception. We consider that the ambiguity in the notion of "partial
use" compounds the ambiguity of the "subsistence" criterion, with which it applies cumulatively,
and thereby aggravates the overall vagueness of the IC requirements.
5.326. Given these significant ambiguities and the broad discretion in the application of the
IC requirements, we are troubled by the European Union's position that, once a seal hunt has been
classified as an IC hunt, the degree of commercialization is "irrelevant".
1569 I n p a r t i c u l a r w i t h
regard to borderline cases, the "subsistence" and "partial use" criteria would appear to call for, if
not continuous, at least regular reassessments, at a sufficiently disaggregated level, of whether
the requirements of the IC exception are fulfilled.
1570 We note in this regard that the evaluation of
whether a given seal product complies with the requirements of the IC exception is left entirely to
the "recognized bodies" designated pursuant to Article 6 of the Implementing Regulation. Given
the ambiguities that can arise with respect to at least two elements of the IC requirements, the
recognized bodies would appear to enjoy broad discretion in applying the IC requirements, which
could allow for instances of abuse of the IC exception, even where the recognized body is acting in
good faith. Depending on how strictly the IC requirements are applied, seal products derived from
what should in fact be properly characterized as "commercial" hunts could thus enter the
EU market under the IC exception in some instances. As we see it, the European Union has not
sufficiently explained how such instances can be prevented in the application of the IC exception.
5.327. It appears to us, in particular, that the criteria for recognized body status set out in
Article 6 of the Implementing Regulation are not sufficiently precise to ensure that the "partial use"

1566 Panel Reports, para. 7.287.
1567 Panel Reports, para. 7.288.
1568 At the oral hearing, the European Union pointed out that this assessment would be left to the
"recognized body" designated pursuant to Article 6 of the Implementing Regulation. The European Union
highlighted that the Implementing Regulation provides for the auditing of "recognized bodies". (European
Union's responses to questioning at the oral hearing)
1569 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 207 and 208; European Union's appellee's
submission, para. 103.
1570 It appears to us that, in certain cases, the only requirement of the IC exception that is effectively
enforced might be the requirement regarding the identity of the hunter, whereas the other two requirements
would be presumed to be fulfilled where the hunter is an Inuit, even if the hunt was highly commercialized.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

criterion is assessed at a sufficiently disaggregated level. 1571 Moreover, while the recognized body
is subject to "independent third party audit" pu rsuant to Article 6(1)(g) of the Implementing
Regulation, it is not clear how the auditor would be able reliably to assess whether the recognized
body has diligently applied the criteria of the IC exception, especially given the ambiguities that
can arise with respect to at least two of them, that is, the "subsistence" and "partial use"
requirements. We note, in this regard, that the MRM and Travellers exceptions contain
anti-circumvention clauses that would allow the denial of entry of seal products that, while
formally compliant with the exception, appear to be outside the scope of the exception.
1572 The
IC exception contains no such anti-circumvention clause. We recall in this respect that the primary
purpose of the chapeau of Article XX is to preven t the abuse or misuse of the exceptions in the
subparagraphs of Article XX.
1573 We note that the Appellate Body in US – Shrimp criticised the
certification processes followed by the United States as being "singularly informal and casual", and
as being "conducted in a manner such that these processes could result in the negation of rights of
Members".
1574
5.328. In US – Shrimp, the Appellate Body was concerned that there appeared to be "no way that
exporting Members can be certain" whether the relevant provisions and guidelines were "being
applied in a fair and just manner by the appropriate governmental agencies of the
United States".
1575 We have similar concerns with regard to the process for the issuing of attesting
documents by recognized bodies pursuant to Articles 6, 7 1576, and 9 1577 of the Implementing

1571 Article 6 of the Implementing Regulation reads, in relevant part:
Article 6
1. An entity shall be included in a list of recognised bodies where it demonstrates that it fulfils
the following requirements:
(a) it has legal personality;
(b) it has the capacity to ascertain that the requirements of Article 3 or 5 are met;
(c) it has the capacity to issue and manage attesting documents referred to in Article 7(1), as
well as process and archive records;
(d) it has the ability to carry out its functions in a manner that avoids conflict of interest;
(e) it has the ability to monitor compliance with the requirements set out in Articles 3 and 5;
(f) it has the capacity to withdraw attesting documents referred to in Article 7(1) or suspend
their validity in case of non- compliance with the requirements of this Regulation, and to take
measures to inform competent authorities and customs authorities of Member States thereof;
(g) it is subject to an independent third party audit;
(h) it operates at national or regional level.
1572 See Basic Regulation, Article 3(2), which stipulates that the "nature and quantity" of seal products
that are imported or place on the market under the Travellers and MRM exceptions "shall not be such as to
indicate that they are" imported or placed on the market "for commercial reasons". Article 3(2) further
stipulates that "[t]he application of this paragraph shall not undermine the achievement of the objective of this
Regulation".
1573 See supra, para. 5.297.
1574 Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp, para. 181.
1575 Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp, para. 181.
1576 Article 7 of the Implementing Regulation reads, in relevant part:
Article 7
1. Upon request, where the requirements for placing on the market set out in Article 3(1) or 5(1)
are met, a recognised body shall issue an attesting document conforming to the models set out
in the Annex.
2. The recognised body shall deliver the attesting document to the applicant and shall keep a
copy for three years for record-keeping purposes.
…
7. In case of doubts relating to the authenticity or correctness of an attesting document issued in
accordance with paragraph 1 as well as when further advice is required, the customs authorities
and other enforcement officers shall contact the competent authorities designated by the
Member State concerned in accordance with Article 9. The competent authorities shall decide on
the measures to be taken.
1577 Article 9 of the Implementing Regulation reads, in relevant part:
Article 9
1. Each Member State shall designate one or several competent authorities responsible for the
following tasks:
(a) verification upon request of the customs authorities pursuant to Article 7(7) of attesting
documents for imported seal products;
(b) control of the issuing of attesting documents by recognised bodies established and active in
that Member State;
(c) preservation of a copy of attesting documents issued for seal products originating from seal
hunts in that Member State.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

Regulation. Given the ambiguities in the criteria of the IC exception and the broad discretion that
the recognized bodies consequently enjoy in applying these criteria, we consider that seal products
derived from what should in fact be properly characterized as "commercial" hunts could potentially
enter the EU market under the IC exception. Thus, pursuant to its design, the EU Seal Regime
could be applied in a manner that would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable
discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail.
5.329. We now turn to the question of whether the manner in which the IC exception affects Inuit
communities in different countries amounts to "arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination". We note,
in this respect, the Panel's findings that "the IC exception is available de facto exclusively to
Greenland", and that this outcome is "directly attributable to the regime itself and not to the
actions of the operators in countries like Canada".
1578 The European Union challenges these
findings on appeal both as an error of law 1579 and, in the alternative, as a failure of the Panel to
make an objective assessment of the facts, as required by Article 11 of the DSU. 1580 In the
following, we will address the European Union's arguments, and Canada's and Norway's responses,
to the extent that they are pertinent in the context of the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994.
5.330. The European Union notes that any entity within the Inuit communities in Canada or
elsewhere can meet the requirements to become a recognized body for the purposes of assessing
conformity with the IC exception. 1581 The European Union submits that the fact that, so far, only
an entity in Greenland has become a recognized body results from the decisions of the relevant
authorities and operators in other countries, and cannot be attributed to the EU Seal Regime. 1582
The European Union argues that, contrary to what the Panel found, there is no "inherent flaw" or
permanent defect in the IC exception that prevents Inuit communities, other than those in
Greenland, from taking advantage of it. 1583 The European Union further submits that the Panel
wrongly assessed the even-handedness of the IC exception by looking at the effects of the
measure in a particular period of time.1584 The European Union underscores that, while Canada and
its Inuit communities have not taken any steps to benefit from the IC exception despite numerous
efforts made by the EU authorities
1585, they could do so at any time in the future, if and when they
so wish, based on their assessment of whether exports to the European Union are desirable. 1586 In
the European Union's view, the fact that the Canadian authorities purchase Inuit products under a
targeted programme means that they have, in principle, a convenient and easy means to identify
the seal products qualifying for the IC exception.
1587
5.331. Canada alleges that the European Union has misunderstood the thrust of the Panel's
reasoning. According to Canada, the Panel's concerns about the design and application of the
IC exception did not relate to whether Canadian I nuit seal products formally qualified for market
access under the IC exception, but rather to the qu estion of whether they could benefit from it in
practice. As Canada sees it, the Panel concluded that they could not because the IC exception was
designed and applied in such a way that only large-scale, commercially oriented seal hunting
operations possess the wherewithal to do so.
1588 Canada highlights the Panel's reference to a
statement by the Canadian Inuit that their hunt is too small to "generate market interest alone on
an international scale"
1589, and that "market realities are ꞌmajor factors contributing to the
ineffectiveness of the Inuit exemption to the EU seal ban ꞌ".1590 According to Canada, the Panel
agreed that there is "little point" in Canadian Inuit applying for the IC exception if, due to its

1578 Panel Reports, paras. 7.317 and 7.318.
1579 The European Union presents its arguments in the context of Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement.
(European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 124-277) However, the European Union also requests
the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's finding under the chapeau on the same grounds. (Ibid., para. 318)
1580 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 217.
1581 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 182 and 191.
1582 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 182 and 192.
1583 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 193.
1584 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 195.
1585 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 196, 201, and 202.
1586 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 203.
1587 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 203.
1588 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 132.
1589 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 133 (quoting Panel Reports, fn 219 to para. 7.162).
1590 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 133 (quoting Panel Reports, fn 219 to para. 7.162, in turn
quoting Nunavut Department of Environment, Fisheries and Sealing Division, Report on the Impacts of the
European Union Seal Ban, (EC) No. 1007/2009, in Nunavut (2012) (Panel Exhibit JE-30) (Nunavut 2012
Report), p. 9).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

design and application, they are unable to take advantage of it. 1591 Canada alleges that, more
generally, the actions of a WTO Member or private actors, in responding to a discriminatory
measure, should not form the basis for an assessment of whether that measure discriminates
against that WTO Member.
1592
5.332. Norway argues that the Panel did not err in relying on its finding that the IC exception is
de facto only available to Greenland. According to Norway, "the Panel explicitly acknowledged that
the fact that Greenland has so far been the only beneficiary of the IC requirements was not …
sufficient to establish arbitrariness in the design or application of the IC requirements", but
"merely 'an indication' that had to be considered with other factors". 1593 Norway further submits
that "the Panel adequately examined the implications" of the actions and omissions of the
Canadian authorities and operators.
1594 Norway highlights the Panel's observation that "it is not
cost effective under the current circumstances to segregate [Canadian] Inuit products from other
products".1595 Norway also underscores the Panel's suggestion that this result had been anticipated
by the EU legislator. 1596 Norway submits that the European Union cannot claim that the
requirements of the IC exception do not discriminate against Canadian Inuit when the EU legislator
in fact knew that this would be the case.1597 According to Norway, it is because of the terms of the
measure that Canadian Inuit, who truly pursue a subsistence hunt, are effectively denied the
choice to benefit from the IC exception. Norway asserts that the European Union is, therefore,
w r o n g w h e n i t a r g u e s t h a t " t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e C a n a d i a n I n u i t t o de facto qualify under the
IC requirements cannot be 'attributed' to the EU Seal Regime, or the European Union".1598
5.333. We consider that, to the extent that the IC exception is designed and applied so as to be
de facto only available to Greenland, the EU Seal Regime would treat seal products derived from
IC hunts in Greenland and Canada differently and, in this respect, result in discrimination between
countries where the same conditions prevail. It is undisputed that the Inuit in Greenland are
currently the only beneficiaries of the IC exception. The European Union contests, however, that
this outcome can be attributed to the EU Seal Regime, suggesting that there is no "genuine
relationship"
1599 between the current de facto exclusivity of the IC exception and the design and
application of the IC exception, such that this ou tcome would not be "attributable" to the EU Seal
Regime.1600
5.334. We note that, while the Panel found that the fact that only Greenland has been able to
benefit from the IC exception "is directly attributab le to the regime itself and not to the actions of
the operators in countries like Canada" 1601, it did not point to any aspect of the IC exception itself
that prevents indigenous communities in Canada from taking advantage of it. The Panel also did
not explain how it accounted for the failure of the Canadian authorities to apply for recognized
body status in reaching its conclusion. Canada, in turn, does not argue that the fact that the
Canadian indigenous communities have not taken advantage of the IC exception is due to the
design and application of the IC exception. Rather , Canada's explanation is based on the fact that
the EU Seal Regime bans seal products derived from commercial hunts, and that the Canadian
Inuit had allegedly relied on synergies with "southern producers" in order to export their seal
products to the European Union.
1602 According to Canada's own explanation, the reason that Inuit
communities in Canada do not have an incentive to take advantage of the IC exception is related

1591 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 136.
1592 Canada's appellee's submission, para. 137.
1593 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 394 (quoting Panel Reports, para. 7.306). (emphasis omitted)
1594 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 395.
1596 Norway's appellee's submission, paras. 398 and 399.
1597 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 400.
1598 Norway's appellee's submission, para. 402.
1599 Appellate Body Report, Thailand – Cigarettes (Philippines), para. 134.
1600 See also Appellate Body Report, US – Clove Cigarettes, fn 372 to para. 179.
1601 Panel Reports, para. 7.318.
1602 See Panel Reports, para. 7.315 ("Canada also explains that it is not economically feasible for
Canadian Inuit to develop their own processing and distribution chains, given that the Inuit have relied on
synergies with southern producers; as those networks may no longer be viable because of the EU Seal Regime,
considerable investment would be needed to develop a new processing and distribution centre.")
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

to the incidental effects of the ban on seal products derived from commercial hunts1603, rather than
any aspect of the "text", "legislative history", or "actual application of the IC exception", as the
Panel suggests.
1604
5.335. We further note that, while the Panel cited Canada's explanation and certain statements
from the COWI Reports, it never made an affirmative finding that the ban on seal products derived
from commercial hunts prevents the Canadian Inuit from taking advantage of the IC exception. In
any event, the European Union submits that the Pa nel ignored the fact that the relevant Canadian
authorities and entities have not shown any interest in benefiting from the IC exception. 1605 The
European Union cites Canada's response to a Panel question to the effect that Inuit communities in
Canada have "deliberately decided to focus on the development of the local (i.e. Nunavut)
market".
1606 The European Union further argues that the Canadian Inuit could benefit from the
IC exception "at any time in the future if and when they so wish, based on their assessment of
whether exports to the EU are desirable". 1607 The European Union submits that "the fact that the
Canadian authorities purchase Inuit products under a targeted programme means that they have,
in principle, a convenient and easy means to identify and manage the relevant products qualifying
for the IC exception".1608
5.336. We recall that the question before us is whether the European Union has met its burden of
showing that the current de facto exclusivity of the IC exception cannot be attributed to the
EU Seal Regime. The European Union argues that the fact that Canadian Inuit have so far not
taken advantage of the IC exception is explained by the inaction of the Canadian authorities and
market actors. We consider that, if the current de facto exclusivity of the IC exception could be
attributed entirely to private choice, there would be no "genuine relationship" between this
exclusivity and the EU Seal Regime. We recall, in this respect, that the non-discrimination
obligations in the covered agreements are only concerned with " governmental intervention that
affects the conditions under which like goods, domestic and imported, compete in the market
within a Member's territory".
1609 We also recognize that, to the extent that the EU Seal Regime has
an adverse effect on the Canadian Inuit by depressing the international market for seal products,
this adverse effect would be experienced by the Greenlandic Inuit as well and thus would not affect
the conditions of competition between Canadian and Greenlandic Inuit.1610
5.337. Nevertheless, we are not persuaded that the European Union has made "comparable
efforts"1611 to facilitate the access of the Canadian Inuit to the IC exception as it did with respect
to the Greenlandic Inuit. For example, the Danish customs authorities processed imports based on
certificates by the Greenlandic authorities prior to the Greenlandic entity obtaining recognized

1603 See Panel Reports, fn 499 to para. 7.315 (referring to Canada's first written submission to the
Panel, paras. 37-48; and Canada's response to Panel question No. 84). ("Canada further submits that the
Government of Nunavut has indicated that there has been no demand for Canadian Inuit products from
European Union buyers since the coming-into-force of the ban. Therefore there has not been much incentive to
pursue the marketing of seal products under the IC category.")
1604 Panel Reports, para. 7.317.
1605 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 201.
1606 European Union's other appellant's submission, fn 251 to para. 203 (quoting Canada's response to
Panel question No. 71, para. 304). The European Union also quoted the following excerpt from a report by the
government of Nunavut that the complainants put before the Panel:
Due to logistics and the high cost of transporting seal pelts to market, the Government of
Nunavut purchases sealskins from Inuit seal hunters, and then transport the skins for marketing
to national and international buyers at no cost to the hunter. This program applies exclusively to
ringed seals and terrestrial furbearers, with all pelts being sold at the Fur Harvesters Auction Inc.
(FHA) bi-annual auction in North Bay, Ontario, Canada. Buyers and brokers from around the
world attend these auctions to bid on a wide selection of wild fur species[.]
(European Union's other appellant's submission, fn 254 to para. 203 (quoting Nunavut 2012 Report, p. 2))
1607 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 203.
1608 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 203.
1609 Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef, para. 149. (emphasis original) See also
Appellate Body Report, US – Tuna II (Mexico), para. 236.
1610 The European Union argues that "the Panel disregarded the fact that the challenges for Inuit
communities engaged in seal hunting for subsistence purposes are similar anywhere, including Canada and
Greenland". (European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 203)
1611 See Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp (Article 21.5 – Malaysia), para. 122.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

body status within the meaning of the Implementing Regulation.1612 While the European Union has
argued that it had "engaged in 'multiple efforts' to assist the Inuit in Canada to benefit from the
IC exception"
1613, the European Union also observes that "the relevant Canadian Inuit authorities
wrongly interpret the EU Seal Regime as requiring the Inuit communities to process their own
sealskin products to fall under the IC exception". 1614 It would appear that the European Union has
not pursued cooperative arrangements to facilitate the access of Canadian Inuit to the
IC exception.
1615 We recall, in this regard, that a measure may result in arbitrary or unjustifiable
discrimination "when the application of the measure at issue does not allow for any inquiry into the
appropriateness of the regulatory program for the conditions prevailing in those exporting
countries."1616 For example, it appears to us that setting up a "recognized body" that fulfils all the
requirements of Article 6 of the Implementing Re gulation may entail significant burdens in some
instances. Overall, we are not persuaded that the European Union has established that it has
designed and implemented the EU Seal Regime in a manner that is not arbitrary or
unjustifiable.
1617
5.338. In sum, we have identified several features of the EU Seal Regime that indicate that the
regime is applied in a manner that constitutes a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination
between countries where the same conditions prevail, in particular with respect to the
IC exception. First, we found that the European Union did not show that the manner in which the
EU Seal Regime treats seal products derived from IC hunts as compared to seal products derived
from "commercial" hunts can be reconciled with the objective of addressing EU public moral
concerns regarding seal welfare. Second, we found considerable ambiguity in the "subsistence"
and "partial use" criteria of the IC exception. Given the ambiguity of these criteria and the broad
discretion that the recognized bodies consequently enjoy in applying them, seal products derived
from what should in fact be properly characterized as "commercial" hunts could potentially enter
the EU market under the IC exception. We di d not consider that the European Union has
sufficiently explained how such instances can be pr evented in the application of the IC exception.
Finally, we were not persuaded that the European Union has made "comparable efforts" to
facilitate the access of the Canadian Inuit to the IC exception as it did with respect to the
Greenlandic Inuit. We also noted that setting up a "recognized body" that fulfils all the
requirements of Article 6 of the Implementing Re gulation may entail significant burdens in some
instances.
5.339. For these reasons, we find that the European Union has not demonstrated that the EU Seal
Regime, in particular with respect to the IC exception, is designed and applied in a manner that
meets the requirements of the chapeau of Arti cle XX of the GATT 1994. It follows that the
European Union has not justified the EU Seal Regime under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994.

1612 Panel Reports, fn 220 to para. 7.164, and para. 7.316. We note that there is no evidence that
Canadian Inuit communities have attempted to export seal products to the European Union since the entry into
force of the EU Seal Regime.
1613 Panel Reports, para. 7.162 and fn 218 thereto (referring to European Union's response to Panel
question No. 116 and "European Commission representative visits Iqaluit on good-will trip", Nunatsiaq Online,
23 April 2013 (Panel Exhibit EU-145)). The European Union also submits that "the EU authorities issued explicit
invitations and made substantial efforts so that entities in Canada could also become recognised bodies and the
Canadian Inuit communities could benefit from the IC exception". (European Union's other appellant's
1614 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 200.
1615 We note that, in US – Gasoline, the Appellate Body found it relevant that the United States had not
pursued cooperative arrangements "to the point where it encountered governments that were unwilling to
cooperate". (Appellate Body Report, US – Gasoline, p. 27, DSR 1996:I, pp. 25-26)
1616 Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp, para. 165.
1617 We consider that our findings are not affected by the European Union's claims on this issue under
Article 11 of the DSU. We therefore do not find it necessary to address those claims.

- CAN-191 -

6 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE APPELLATE BODY REPORT WT/DS400/AB/R
6.1. In the appeal of the Panel Report, European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the
Importation and Marketing of Seal Products (WT/DS400/R) (Canada Panel Report), for the reasons
set out in this Report, the Appellate Body:
a. reverses the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.125 and 8.2(a) of the Canada Panel Report,
that the EU Seal Regime constitutes a "technical regulation" within the meaning of
Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement; and consequently, declares moot and of no legal effect
the Panel's conclusions under:
i. Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, in pa ragraphs 7.319, 7.353, and 8.2(b) of the
Canada Panel Report;
ii. Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, in pa ragraphs 7.505 and 8.2(c) of the Canada
Panel Report;
iii. Article 5.1.2 of the TBT Agreement, in paragraphs 7.528, 7.547, and 8.2(d) of the
Canada Panel Report; and
iv. Article 5.2.1 of the TBT Agreement, in pa ragraphs 7.580 and 8.2(e) of the Canada
Panel Report;
b. with respect to the Panel's analysis under Article I:1 and Article III:4 of the GATT 1994:
i. upholds the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.586 of the Canada Panel Report, that
the legal standard of the non-discrimination obligations under Article 2.1 of the
TBT Agreement does not apply equally to claims under Articles I:1 and III:4 of the
GATT 1994; and
ii. upholds the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.600 and 8.3(a) of the Canada Panel
Report, that the EU Seal Regime is inconsistent with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994
because it does not "immediately and unconditionally" extend the same advantage
accorded to seal products of Greenlandic origin to like seal products of Canadian
origin;
c. with respect to the Panel's analysis under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994:
i. finds that the Panel did not err in concluding, in paragraph 7.624 of the Canada
Panel Report, that the analysis under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 should examine
the prohibitive and permissive aspects of the EU Seal Regime;
ii. finds that the Panel did not err in concluding, in paragraph 7.631 of the Canada
Panel Report, that the objective of the EU Seal Regime falls within the scope of
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994;
iii. upholds the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.639 of the Canada Panel Report, that "the
EU Seal Regime is provisionally deemed necessary within the meaning of
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994";
d. with respect to the Panel's analysis under the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994:
i. reverses the Panel's findings under the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994, in
paragraphs 7.649, 7.650, 7.651, and 8.3(d) of the Canada Panel Report, on the
basis that the Panel applied an incorrect legal test;
ii. completes the analysis and finds that the European Union has not demonstrated that
the EU Seal Regime, in particular with respect to the IC exception, is designed and
applied in a manner that meets the requiremen ts of the chapeau of Article XX of the
GATT 1994; and, therefore,

- NOR-193 -

6 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE APPELLATE BODY REPORT WT/DS401/AB/R
6.1. In the appeal of the Panel Report, European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the
Importation and Marketing of Seal Products (WT/DS401/R) (Norway Panel Report), for the reasons
set out in this Report, the Appellate Body:
a. reverses the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.125 and 8.2(a) of the Norway Panel Report,
that the EU Seal Regime constitutes a "technical regulation" within the meaning of
Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement; and consequently, declares moot and of no legal effect
the Panel's conclusions under:
i. Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, in pa ragraphs 7.505 and 8.2(b) of the Norway
Panel Report;
ii. Article 5.1.2 of the TBT Agreement, in pa ragraphs 7.528, 7.547, and 8.2(c) of the
Norway Panel Report; and
iii. Article 5.2.1 of the TBT Agreement, in pa ragraphs 7.580 and 8.2(d) of the Norway
Panel Report;
b. with respect to the Panel's analysis under Article I:1 and Article III:4 of the GATT 1994:
i. upholds the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.586 of the Norway Panel Report, that the
legal standard of the non-discrimination obligations under Article 2.1 of the
TBT Agreement does not apply equally to claims under Articles I:1 and III:4 of the
GATT 1994; and
ii. upholds the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.600 and 8.3(a) of the Norway Panel
Report, that the EU Seal Regime is inconsistent with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994
because it does not "immediately and unconditionally" extend the same advantage
a c c o r d ed t o s e a l p r o d u c ts o f G r e e n la n d ic o r ig i n t o l ike s e a l p r o d u c t s o f No r we g ia n
origin;
c. with respect to the Panel's analysis under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994:
i. finds that the Panel did not err in concluding, in paragraph 7.624 of the Norway
Panel Report, that the analysis under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 should examine
the prohibitive and permissive aspects of the EU Seal Regime;
ii. finds that the Panel did not err in concluding, in paragraph 7.631 of the Norway
Panel Report, that the objective of the EU Seal Regime falls within the scope of
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994;
iii. upholds the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.639 of the Norway Panel Report, that
"the EU Seal Regime is provisionally deemed necessary within the meaning of
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994";
d. with respect to the Panel's analysis under the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994:
i. reverses the Panel's findings under the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994, in
paragraphs 7.649, 7.650, 7.651, and 8.3(d) of the Norway Panel Report, on the
basis that the Panel applied an incorrect legal test;
ii. completes the analysis and finds that the European Union has not demonstrated that
the EU Seal Regime, in particular with respect to the IC exception, is designed and
applied in a manner that meets the requiremen ts of the chapeau of Article XX of the
GATT 1994; and, therefore,
iii. finds that the European Union has not justified the EU Seal Regime under
Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994; and
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

ANNEX 1

29 January 2014
(14-0510) Page: 1/2

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – MEASURES PROHIBITING THE IMPORTATION AND
MARKETING OF SEAL PRODUCTS
NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY CANADA
UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES
AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU),
AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
 The following notification, dated 24 January 2014, from the Delegation of Canada, is being
circulated to Members.

 Pursuant to Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate
Review, Canada notifies its appeal of certain issues of law in the Report of the Panel in European
Communities – Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products
(WT/DS400/R) and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel in this Report.
First, Canada seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's findings and conclusions
with respect to the legitimate regulatory distinction test in Article 2.1 of the Agreement on
Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement). Specifically, the Panel erred in its intermediate
finding that the distinction between commercial and IC 1 hunts based on the purpose of the hunt is
justifiable.2 The Panel erred by formulating and applyi ng the wrong legal test, and in doing so,
failed to take into account relevant information about the negative impact of the IC exception on
the identified objective of the EU Seal Regime.
3
Canada also requests the Appellate Body to find that the Panel acted inconsistently with
Article 11 of the DSU by failing to make an objective assessment of the facts pertinent to its
findings under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement with respect to the distinctions between
commercial and IC hunts.
4
Second, Canada seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's findings and conclusion
that the EU Seal Regime is not inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. This conclusion
is incorrect as a matter of law, and is based on erroneous intermediate findings on issues of law
and legal interpretation including the Panel's reasoning and findings with respect to whether the

1 IC refers to "Inuit or other indigenous communities".
2 See e.g. Panel Report, EC – Seal Products, paras. 7.283-7.300.
3 The EU Seal Regime includes the Basic Regulation and the Implementing Regulation as set out in
ibid. paras. 7.7-7.24.
4 See e.g. ibid. paras. 7.227-7.245 and 7.261-7.271.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

EU Seal Regime contributes to the identified objective,5 the relational analysis under the "weighing
and balancing" exercise, and its reasoning and findings as to whether the alternative measure
proposed by Canada is reasonably available.
6 Specifically, in relation to the "contribution" element,
the Panel erred in finding that the EU Seal Regime as a whole contributes to the identified
objective by applying the wrong legal test and failing to articulate with sufficient specificity the
extent of the contribution. 7 The Panel also failed to properly assess the risks non-fulfilment would
create, or to conduct a relational analysis.8 In relation to its reasoning and findings with respect to
the reasonable availability of the alternative measure advanced by Canada, the Panel erred by
comparing the wrong aspects of the EU Seal Regime with the alternative measure, 9 by
disregarding measures applied by the European Union in comparable situations or similar product
areas,
10 and by mis-interpreting and mis-applying Appellate Body jurisprudence.11
Canada also requests the Appellate Body to find that the Panel acted inconsistently with
Article 11 of the DSU by failing to make an objective assessment of the facts pertinent to the
above-referenced intermediate findings with respect to Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, including
its consideration and assessment of facts and evidence pertinent to the question of whether the EU
Seal Regime contributes to the identified objective, and has negatively impacted demand in the
European Union.
 Third, Canada seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's findings and conclusion with
respect to Article XX of the GATT 1994. Canada subm its that the Panel erred in finding that the EU
Seal Regime is provisionally justified under Article XX(a). Specifically, the Panel failed to interpret
and apply the first element
12 of Article XX(a) correctly, by ignoring the words "to protect", and
thereby omitting to determine whether the sale in the European Union of products derived from
commercial seal hunts created a risk to an EU public moral. 13 It also erred in its interpretation and
application of the necessity test under Article XX(a) with respect to the issues of the contribution
of the EU Seal Regime to the identified objective, and with respect to the reasonable availability of
the alternative measure advanced by Canada already noted above in the context of Canada's
request for review under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.
14 In addition, although it came to the
correct conclusion that the EU Seal Regime is no t consistent with the requirements of the chapeau
of Article XX, the Panel erred in its reasoning in coming to this conclusion.15
 Canada also requests the Appellate Body to find that the Panel acted inconsistently with
Article 11 of the DSU in relation to its findings under Article XX(a) by failing to make an objective
assessment of the facts by not taking into account evidence relating to animal welfare standards in
the European Union, including standards applied to other wild animal hunts and commercial
abattoirs.
16

WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

ANNEX 2

29 January 2014
(14-0508) Page: 1/4

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – MEASURES PROHIBITING THE IMPORTATION AND
MARKETING OF SEAL PRODUCTS
NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY NORWAY
UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES
AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU),
AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
 The following notification, dated 24 January 2014, from the Delegation of Norway, is being
circulated to Members.

Settlement Body (“DSB”) of its decision to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations in
the Panel Report in European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing
of Seal Products (WT/DS401) (“Panel Report”).
2. Pursuant to Rules 20(1) and 21(1) of the Working Procedures, Norway files this Notice of
Appeal together with its Appellant’s Submission with the Appellate Body Secretariat.
3. Pursuant to Rule 20(2)(d)(iii) of the Working Procedures, this Notice of Appeal includes an
indicative list of the paragraphs of the Panel Report containing the alleged errors, without
prejudice to Norway’s ability to rely on other paragraphs of the Panel Report in its appeal.

4. Norway seeks review by the Appellate Body of the following errors of law and legal
interpretation by the Panel in its Report, and requests the following findings by the Appellate Body.
I. REVIEW OF THE PANEL’S FINDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 2.2 OF THE TBT AGREEMENT
1. With respect to the Panel’s identification of the objective of the EU Seal
Regime:1
5. The Panel erred in interpreting and applying Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, and failed to
make an objective assessment of the facts as requ ired under Article 11 of the DSU, when it found

1 Panel Report, paras. 7.410 and 8.2(b).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

that the objectives of the EU Seal Regime do not include protecting the interests of indigenous
communities (“IC”), as reflected in the “IC requirements”2 under the measure, and promoting the
sustainable management of marine resources (“SR M”), as reflected in the “SRM requirements” 3
under the measure; and rather found that the EU Seal Regime pursues a sole “objective” of
a d d r e s s i n g “ t h e m o r a l c o n c e r n s o f t h e E U p u b l i c w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e w e l f a r e o f s e a l s ” .4 I n
particular, the Panel erred because:
 it failed properly to consider the text, legislat ive history, structure, design and operation of
the EU Seal Regime in identifying the objectiv es of the EU Seal Regime, as required under
Article 2.2;5
 in its assessment of the evidence regarding the objectives of the EU Seal Regime, the Panel
failed to make an objective assessment of th e facts, as required under Article 11 of the
DSU;6 and
 assuming it did properly assess the text, legisl ative history, structure, design and operation
of the EU Seal Regime ( quod non), the Panel erred under Article 2.2 in finding that the IC
and SRM interests reflected in the IC and SRM requirements do not qualify as objectives.7
6. For the reasons provided in paragraph 5 above, Norway requests that the Appellate Body
reverse the Panel’s finding that the objectives of the EU do not include protecting IC interests and
promoting SRM interests, and that the EU Seal Regime’s sole objective is to address “the moral
concerns of the EU public with regard to the welfare of seals”. As a result, the Appellate Body
should also reverse the Panel’s ultimate finding, in paragraph 8.2(b) of the Panel Report, that the
EU Seal Regime is not inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.
2. With respect to the Panel’s finding the E U S e a l R e g i m e i s “ n o t m o r e t r a d e
restrictive than necessary to fulfil” its objective:8
7. The Panel erred in interpreting and applying Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, and failed to
make an objective assessment of the facts as requ ired under Article 11 of the DSU, in finding that
the EU Seal Regime is capable of making, and do es make, some contribution to the identified
objective of addressing EU public moral concerns.9 In particular, the Panel erred because:
 it failed properly to interpret and apply Article 2.2, by failing to articulate with sufficient
clarity and precision the degree or extent of the contribution made by the EU Seal Regime to
its objective, and by concluding that the EU Seal Regime is capable of making, and does
make, some contribution to EU public moral concerns;
10 and
 it failed to make an objective assessment of the facts, as required under Article 11 of the
DSU, in finding that the EU Seal Regime is capable of making, and does make, some
contribution to the identified objective of addressing EU public moral concerns;
11 and

2 See, e.g., Basic Seal Regulation, Exhibit JE-1, Article 3(1); Implementing Regulation, Exhibit JE-2,
Article 3(1).
3 See, e.g., Basic Seal Regulation, Exhibit JE-1, Article 3(2)(b); Implementing Regulation, Exhibit JE-2,
Article 5(1).
4 Panel Report, para. 7.410.
5 Panel Report, paras. 7.372-7.411.
6 Panel Report, paras. 7.372-7.411.
7 Panel Report, para. 7.402. See also Panel Report, paras. 7.399 and 7.401.
8 Panel Report, paras. 7.505 and 8.2(b).
9 Panel Report, para. 7.460.
10 Panel Report, paras. 7.441-7.461.
11 Panel Report, paras. 7.441-7.461.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

 the Panel also failed to make an objective assessment of the matter under Article 11 of the
DSU by failing to address Norway’s claim and argument that three contested conditions
under the SRM requirement – that is, the “s ole purpose”, “not-for-profit”, and “non-
systematic” requirements
12 (the “three contested conditions”) – make no contribution to the
measure’s objectives.
8. The Panel erred in interpreting and applying Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, and failed to
make an objective assessment of the matter, as required under Article 11 of the DSU, by failing to
establish whether the EU Seal Regime gives rise to “arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination”, as
required by Article 2.2, read in light of the sixth recital of the preamble of the TBT Agreement;
9. The Panel erred in interpreting and applying Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, and failed to
make an objective assessment of the matter as re quired under Article 11 of the DSU, in finding
that one of the less trade-restrictive alternative measures proposed by Norway was not reasonably
available to the European Union, having regard to the level of contribution of the alternative. 13 In
particular, the Panel erred because:
 it held the alternative measure up to a benchmark level of contribution that was much
higher than the degree of contribution it ha d found was achieved by the EU Seal Regime,
contrary to Article 2.2;14 and
 it failed to make an objective assessment of the facts under Article 11 of the DSU, by not
addressing or making any findings with respect to other less trade-restrictive alternatives
put forward by Norway.
10. For the reasons provided in paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 above, Norway requests that the
Appellate Body reverse the Panel’s finding that the EU Seal Regime is not more trade-restrictive
than necessary to fulfil the legitimate objective. 15 As a result, the Appellate Body should also
reverse the Panel’s ultimate finding, in paragrap h 8.2(b) of the Panel Report, that the EU Seal
Regime is not inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement.
II. REQUEST FOR LIMITED COMPLETION OF THE ANALYSIS UNDER ARTICLE 2.2 OF
THE TBT AGREEMENT
11. If, as requested by Norway above, the Appella te Body reverses, for any reason, the Panel’s
findings under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, Norway requests the Appellate Body to complete
the legal analysis under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement and make the following limited findings:
 that, in addition to pursuing the EU public morals objective, the objectives of the EU Seal
Regime also include protecting the interests of indigenous communities and promoting
sustainable marine resource management;
 that promoting sustainable marine resource management is a legitimate objective; and
 that, by virtue of the three contested SRM conditions, the EU Seal Regime is more trade-
restrictive than necessary to fulfil its legitimate objectives.

12 See, e.g., Basic Seal Regulation, Exhibit JE-1, Article 3(2)(b); Implementing Regulation, Exhibit JE-2,
Articles 5(1) and 5(1)(c).
13 Panel Report, para. 7.504.
14 Panel Report, paras. 7.467, 7.478-7.485 and 7.493-7.505.
15 Panel Report, para. 7.505.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

III. REVIEW OF THE PANEL’S FINDINGS UNDER ARTICLE XX OF THE GENERAL
AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE (“GATT 1994”) AND REQUEST FOR
COMPLETION OF THE ANALYSIS UNDER ARTICLE XX OF THE GATT 1994
1. With respect to the Panel’s finding that the EU Seal Regime is provisionally
justified under sub-paragraph (a) of Article XX of the GATT 1994:16
12. The Panel erred in interpreting and applying sub-paragraph (a) of Article XX because it
examined whether the EU Seal Regime as a whole was provisionally justified under that provision,
whereas it was required, but failed, to consider whether the specific aspects of the measure that
give rise to violations of substantive provis ions of the GATT 1994 could fall under, and be
provisionally justified by, sub-paragraph (a).
17 Norway, therefore, requests that the Appellate
Body reverse the Panel’s findings at paragraphs 7.639 and 8.3(d) that the EU Seal Regime falls
under, and is provisionally justified by, sub-paragraph (a).
13. Norway also requests that the Appellate Body complete the analysis and find that the
specific aspects of the measure that give rise to violations of the GATT 1994 do not fall under, and
are not provisionally justified by, sub-paragraph (a) of Article XX.
14. If the Appellate Body disagrees with Norway’s requests under paragraphs 12 and 13 above,
Norway further considers that the Panel erred in interpreting and applying sub-paragraph (a) of
Article XX, and failed to make an objective asse ssment of the matter, as required under Article 11
of the DSU. In particular, the Panel erred because:
 it failed properly to interpret and apply subparagraph (a) of Article XX by finding that the EU
Seal Regime as a whole contributes “to a certain extent” to the measure’s objective;18
 it failed to make an objective assessment of the facts, as required under Article 11 of the
DSU, in finding that the EU Seal Regime as a whole contributes “to a certain extent” to the
measure’s objective;19
 it failed to apply the proper legal standard under sub-paragraph (a) of Article XX as regards
a less trade-restrictive alternative measure because it held the alternative measure up to a
benchmark level of contribution that was much higher than the degree of contribution it had
found was achieved by the EU Seal Regime;
20 and
 it failed to make an objective assessment of the facts, as required under Article 11 of the
DSU, by not addressing or making any findings with respect to other less trade-restrictive
alternatives put forward by Norway.
15. As a result of the errors identified in paragraph 14 above, Norway requests that the
Appellate Body reverse the Panel’s ultimate finding at paragraphs 7.639 and 8.3(d).
2. With respect to the Panel’s finding that the EU Seal Regime reflects arbitrary
and unjustifiable discrimination under the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT
1994:21
16. The Panel erred in interpreting and applying the chapeau of Article XX because, in
determining whether the IC and SRM requirements are applied in a manner that reflect “arbitrary

16 Panel Report, paras. 7.639 and 8.3(d).
17 Panel Report, paras. 7.618-7.624.
18 Panel Report, paras. 7.630-7.639.
19 Panel Report, paras. 7.630-7.639.
20 Panel Report, para. 7.639.
21 Panel Report, paras. 7.651 and 8.3(d).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

or unjustifiable discrimination”, it failed to end its analysis upon finding that the IC and SRM
requirements are not “rationally connected” to the EU public moral concerns.22
17. If the Appellate Body disagrees with Norway’s requests under paragraphs 12 and 13 above,
Norway requests that the Appellate Body modify the reasoning underpinning the Panel’s finding at
paragraphs 7.651 and 8.3(d) that the measure is not consistent with the requirements of the
chapeau to Article XX, and uphold that finding, albeit for reasons different than those given by the
Panel.

WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

ANNEX 3

31 January 2014
(14-0537) Page: 1/4
 Original: English

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – MEASURES PROHIBITING THE IMPORTATION
AND MARKETING OF SEAL PRODUCTS
NOTIFICATION OF AN OTHER APPEAL BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES
AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU),
AND UNDER RULE 23(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
 The following notification, dated 29 January 2014, from the Delegation of the European
Union, is being circulated to Members.

Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and Rule 23 of the Working Procedures for Appellate
Review, the European Union hereby notifies its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain
issues of law and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel in European Communities –
Measures prohibiting the importation and Marketing of Seal Products (WT/DS400/R, WT/DS401/R)
(Panel Report).
1. THE PANEL ERRED BY FINDING THAT THE EU SEAL REGIME IS A TECHNICAL
REGULATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TBT AGREEMENT
2. The European Union appeals the Panel's conclusion that the EU Seal Regime is a technical
regulation within the meaning of Annex 1.1 of the TBT Agreement.
1
3. This conclusion is in error for the following reasons: 1) the Panel wrongly interpreted the
terms "applicable administrative provisions" and wrongly concluded that the exceptions under the
EU Seal Regime constitute applicable administrative provisions; 2 2) the Panel wrongly established
the scope of products characteristics under Annex 1:1 of the TBT Agreement, which led it to
erroneously conclude that the criteria under the exceptions lay down product characteristics
3;
and 3) the Panel failed to make a holistic assessment of the measure at issue 4 and, thus, wrongly
found that the measure as a whole is a "technical regulation" within the meaning of Annex 1:1 of
the TBT Agreement.
5

1 See e.g. Panel report, para. 7.111. See also the conclusion under para. 8.2.a) of both reports.
2 Panel report, para. 7.108.
3 Panel report, para. 7.110.
4 Panel report, para. 7.100, 7.106, footnote 153.
5 Panel report, paras. 7.111, 7.125.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

4. Reversal of the Panel's conclusion that the EU Seal Regime is a technical regulation would
dispose of Canada's and Norway's claims under the TBT Agreement. Accordingly, the European
Union requests the Appellate Body to find that th e Panel's findings and conclusions with regards to
Articles 2.1, 2.2, 5.1.2 and 5.2.1 of the TBT Agreement are moot and of no legal effect.
2. THE PANEL ERRED BY FINDING THAT THE IC EXCEPTION BEARS NO "RATIONAL
RELATIONSHIP" TO THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF THE EU SEAL REGIME
5. The European Union also appeals the Panel's finding, as part of its analysis under
Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the TBT Agreement and under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, that "the IC
exception does not bear a rational relationship to the objective of addressing the moral concerns of
the public on seal welfare".
6
6. This finding is in error because it is based on an incorrect interpretation of the notion of
"public morals", according to which a Member invoking that a measure pursues a public morals
objective would have to show that such measure is supported by a majority of its population.
7. Furthermore, the European Union submits in the alternative that, in reaching its conclusion
that the EU public does not support the IC ex ception the Panel failed to make an objective
assessment of the evidence before it, as required by Article 11 DSU. Specifically, the Panel relied
upon the following factual evidence: 1) the results of two opinion polls analysed in Canada's Royal
Commission Report on Sealing7; and 2) the results of a public consultation conducted by the EU
Commission as part of the preparation of its proposal to the EU legislators.
8 Yet this evidence lends
no support to the Panel's appealed finding.
8. In view of these errors, the European Union requests the Appellate Body to reverse this
finding.
3. THE PANEL ERRED BY FINDING THAT TH E EU SEAL REGIME IS INCONSISTENT
WITH ARTICLE 2.1 TBT AGREEMENT BE CAUSE THE IC EXCEPTION IS NOT
DESIGNED AND APPLIED EVEN-HANDEDLY
9. The European Union also appeals the Panel's finding that the IC exception "is not designed
and applied in an even-handed ma nner" and that, consequently, "the IC exception of the EU Seal
Regime is inconsistent with the European Union's obligations under Article 2.1 of the TBT
Agreement as the European Union has failed to de monstrate that the detrimental impact caused
by the IC exception on Canadian seal products stems exclusively from a legitimate distinction".9
10. This finding is in error because the Panel misinterpreted and misapplied Article 2.1 of the
TBT Agreement when examining the even-handedne ss in the design and application of the IC
exception.10 Rather than considering whether the IC exception was designed and applied in a
reasonable, impartial and harmonious manner, having regard to its objective (i.e., the protection
of the interest of the Inuit and other indigenous communities traditionally engaged in seal hunting
for subsistence purposes), the Panel determined that the IC exception was available de facto
exclusively to Greenland without examining the acti ons (and omissions) of the relevant Canadian
(and Canadian Inuit) authorities and operators. The Panel also wrongly focused on the alleged
similarities of Greenland's hunts to the commercial hunts. Those similarities, however, were
irrelevant for assessing even-handedness, in view of the Panel's earlier finding that the Inuit hunts
are conducted primarily for subsistence purposes and can be legitimately distinguished from the
commercial hunts.
11
11. Furthermore, the European Union submits in the alternative that this finding was based on
several material inaccuracies leading to erroneous factual determinations as well as incoherent

6 See e.g. Panel report, para. 7.275.
7 See e.g. Panel report, footnote 676.
8 See e.g. Panel report, footnotes 652 and 676.
9 See e.g. Panel Report, para. 7.319.
10 Panel Report, para. 7.317.
11 Panel Report, paras. 7.288 and 7.289.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

reasoning, contrary to the Panel's duties under Article 11 of the DSU. Specifically, the European
Union challenges the Panel's finding that "the IC exception is available de facto exclusively to
Greenland"12 based on "the text of the IC exception, its legislative history, and the actual
application of the IC exception". 13 The European Union also challenges the Panel's findings that
"the degree of the commercial aspect of [Greenland's] hunts is comparable to that of the
commercial hunts",14 and that "the Inuit hunt [in Greenland] bears the greatest similarities to the
commercial characteristics of commercial hunts". 15 The European Union submits that these errors
are material. Consequently, the European Union requests the Appellate Body to find that the Panel
failed to make an objective assessment of the matter, contrary to Article 11 of the DSU, when
finding that the IC exception was not currently designed and applied in an even-handed manner.
16
12. In view of these fundamental errors, or an y combination thereof, the European Union
requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's finding that the distinction made by the IC
exception between IC and commercial hunts based on the purpose of the hunt "is not designed
and applied in an even-handed manner" and, thus, that "the IC exception of the EU Seal Regime is
inconsistent with the European Union's obligations under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement as the
European Union has failed to demonstrate that th e detrimental impact caused by the IC exception
on Canadian seal products stems exclusively from a legitimate distinction".17
4. THE PANEL ERRED BY FINDING THAT THE IC EXCEPTION DIMINISHES THE
CONTRIBUTION OF THE EU SEAL REGIME TO ITS PUBLIC MORALS OBJECTIVE
13. The European Union appeals the Panel's finding, as part of its analysis under Article 2.2 of
the TBT Agreement and Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, that the IC exception "diminishes" the
contribution of the EU Seal Regime to its public morals objective.18
14. This finding is in error because it is premised on the Panel's earlier erroneous finding that
the IC exception bears no "rational relationship" to the public morals objective pursued by the EU
Seal Regime. Accordingly, the European Union requests the Appellate Body to reverse this finding.
5. THE PANEL MADE AN ERRONEOUS INTERP RETATION OF ARTICLES I:1 AND III:4
OF THE GATT 1994
15. The European Union appeals the Panel's finding that it "do[es] not consider that the legal
standard with respect to the non-discrimination ob ligation under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement
'equally applies' to claims under Articles I:1 and III:4 of the GATT 1994" 19. The European Union
submits that the Panel's finding constitutes an erro neous interpretation of Articles I.1 and III:4 of
the GATT 1994. Therefore, the European Union re quests the Appellate Body to reverse that
finding.

12 Panel Report, paras. 7.314 – 7.317.
13 Panel Report, para. 7.317.
14 Panel Report, para. 7.313.
15 See e.g. Panel Report, para. 7.317.
16 See e.g. Panel Report, paras. 7.317 and 7.319.
17 Panel Report, para. 7.319. See also the conclusion under paragraph 8.2 (b) with regard to the
complaint by Canada (DS 400).
18 See e.g. Panel report, para. 7.460. See also Panel report, paras. 7.447-7.448, 7.451-7.452, 7.466
and 7.638.
19 See e.g. Panel Report, para. 7.586.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

6. THE PANEL'S FINDING THAT THE EU SEAL REGIME IS INCONSISTENT WITH
ARTICLE I:1 OF THE GATT IS IN ERROR BECAUSE THE PANEL FAILED TO CONSIDER
WHETHER THE IC EXCEPTION INVOLV ES A LEGITIMATE REGULATORY
DISTINCTION
16. The European Union also appeals the Panel's application of its erroneous interpretation of
Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 in reaching its finding that the EU Seal Regime is inconsistent with
Article I:1 of the GATT 1994.
20 Accordingly the European Union requests the Appellate Body to
reverse that finding.
7. SUBSIDIARILY, THE PANEL ERRED BY FI NDING THAT THE IC EXCEPTION IS NOT
JUSTIFIED UNDER ARTICLE XX(A) GATT BECAUSE IT FAILS TO MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CHAPEAU
17. Were the Appellate Body to uphold the Panel's finding that the IC exception is inconsistent
with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994, the European Union appeals the Panel's finding that the IC
exception is not justified under Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 because it fails to meet the
requirements of the chapeau.
21
18. The Panel's analysis of the even-handedness of the IC exception under Article 2.1 of the TBT
Agreement contained several legal errors. 22 Should the Appellate Body reverse the Panel's finding
that the IC exception "is not designed and applied in an even-handed manner" and, thus, that "the
IC exception of the EU Seal Regime is inconsistent with the European Union's obligations under
Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement as the Europe an Union has failed to demonstrate that the
detrimental impact caused by the IC exception on Canadian seal products stems exclusively from a
legitimate distinction",
23 the European Union requests the Appellate Body to also reverse the
Panel's finding under the chapeau of Article XX( a) of the GATT 1994. The European Union further
requests the Appellate Body to complete the analysis under the chapeau of Article XX(a) of the
GATT 1994 and find, on the basis of the considerations made before, that the IC exception is not
"applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination
between countries where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on international
trade" and, accordingly, that the IC exception meets the requirements under Article XX(a) of the
GATT 1994, including its chapeau.
8. SUBSIDIARILY, THE PANEL ERRED BY FINDING THAT THE EUROPEAN UNION HAD
FAILED TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR ITS CLAIM THAT THE IC
EXCEPTION IS JUSTIFIED UNDER ARTICLE XX(B) GATT
19. Finally, in the event that the Appellate Body were to 1) uphold the Panel's finding that the
EU Seal Regime is inconsistent with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994; and 2) reverse the Panel's
finding that the EU Seal Regime falls within the scope of GATT Article XX(a), the European Union
appeals the Panel's finding that "the European Union has failed to establish a prima facie case for
its claim under Article XX(b) [of the GATT]".
24 The European Union submits that in reaching this
conclusion the Panel failed to fulfil its duty to conduct an objective assessment of the matter as
required by Article 11 of the DSU. Accordingly, the European Union requests the Appellate Body:
1) to reverse the Panel's finding that the European Union failed to establish a prima facie case
under GATT Article XX(b); and 2) to complete the analysis under GATT Article XX(b) and find that
the EU Seal Regime is justified under that provision.
WT/DS400 R and WTDS401/R.
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

ANNEX 4

 ORGANISATION MONDIALE ORGANIZACIÓN MUNDIAL
 DU COMMERCE DEL COMERCIO

APPELLATE BODY

Procedural Ruling

1. On 29 January 2014, we received a joint communication from Canada and Norway in the
above proceedings. In that letter, Canada and Norw ay request that the oral hearing in this appeal
be opened to public observation. Specifically, Canada and Norway request that the Division allow
public observation of the statements and answers to questions of the participants, as well as those
of third participants who agree to make their statements and responses to questions public. They
propose that public observation be permitted via simultaneous closed-circuit television
broadcasting with the option for the transmission to be turned off should a third participant
indicate that it wishes to keep its oral statem ent confidential. Canada and Norway further request
and that the Division adopt additional procedures to ensure the security and orderly conduct of the
proceedings. On that same date, we also received an email communication from the
European Union, the Other Appellant in these proceedings, stating that it joins Canada's and
Norway's request for observation by the public of the hearing, and has no objections to the
proposed additional security arrangements.
2. On 30 January 2014, we invited the third partie s to comment in writing on the request by
noon, on 3 February 2014. By that deadline, we received responses from Japan, Mexico, and the
United States. Japan provided an email communication indicating that it has no objection to
Canada and Norway's request regarding public observation and logistical arrangements for the oral
hearing. Mexico also indicated that it does not object to the request of Canada and Norway, but
that its position is without prejudice to its systemic views on the public observation of oral
hearings. The United States indicated its support for the request of the participants regarding the
public observation of the hearing, and suggested that the Division accommodate the logistical
requests of Canada and Norway to the extent possible to ensure that the participants are
comfortable opening the hearing to the public.
3. We recall that requests to allow public observation of the oral hearing have been made, and
have been authorized, in 10 previous appeals.
1 In its rulings, the Appellate Body has held that it

1 These proceedings are:
 United States / Canada – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – Hormones Dispute
(WT/DS320/AB/R / WT/DS321/AB/R);
 European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas – Second
Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Ecuador (WT/DS27/AB/RW2/ECU) and Recourse to
Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States (WT/DS27/AB/RW/USA);
 United States – Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing Methodology (WT/DS350/AB/R);
 United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins ("Zeroing") –
Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities (WT/DS294/AB/RW);
 United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the
DSU by Japan (WT/DS322/AB/RW);
 Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples from New Zealand (WT/DS367/AB/R);
 European Communities and Certain Member States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil
Aircraft (WT/DS316/AB/R);
 United States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (Second Complaint)
(WT/DS353/AB/R);
 United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling Requirement (WT/DS384/AB/R /
WT/DS386/AB/R); and
 Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable Energy Generation Sector (WT/DS412/AB/R) /
Canada – Measures Relating to the Feed-in Tariff Program (WT/DS4126/AB/R).
WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

has the power to authorize such requests by the participants, provided that this does not affect the
confidentiality in the relationship between the third participants and the Appellate Body, or impair
the integrity of the appellate process. We concur with the reasons previously expressed by the
Appellate Body, and its interpretation of Article 17.10 of the DSU, in this regard, and consider that
it applies equally in circumstances such as those prevailing in these appellate proceedings.
4. In this appeal, Canada and Norway have requested that the Appellate Body allow
observation by the public of the oral hearing by means of simultaneous closed-circuit television
broadcasting, with the option for the transmission to be turned off should a third participant
indicate that it wishes to keep its oral statement confidential. We agree that such modalities would
operate to protect confidential information in the context of a hearing that is open to public
observation, and would not have an adverse impact on the integrity of the adjudicative function
performed by the Appellate Body. We also consider that during public observation in previous
appeals, the rights of those third participants that did not wish to have their oral statements made
subject to public observation have been fully protected.
5. For these reasons, the Appellate Body Division in these appellate proceedings authorizes the
public observation of the oral hearing on the terms set out below. Accordingly, pursuant to
Rule 16(1) of the Working Procedures for Appella te Review, we adopt the following additional
procedures for the purpose of these appellate proceedings:
a. The oral hearing will be open to public observation by means of simultaneous
closed-circuit television broadcast, shown in a separate room to which duly registered
delegates of WTO Members and members of the general public will have access.
b. Third participants wishing to maintain the confidentiality of their oral statements and
responses to questions will not be subject to public observation.
c. Any request by a third participant wishing to maintain the confidentiality of its oral
statements and responses to questions shou ld be received by the Appellate Body
Secretariat no later than 17:00 p.m. Geneva time on Monday, 10 March.
d. An appropriate number of seats will be reserved for delegates of WTO Members that are
not participants or third participants in these proceedings in the separate room where
the closed-circuit television broadcast will be shown. WTO delegates wishing to observe
the oral hearing are requested to register in advance with the Appellate Body
Secretariat.
e. Notice of the oral hearing will be provided to the general public on the WTO website.
Members of the general public wishing to observe the oral hearing will be required to
register in advance with the Appellate Bo dy Secretariat, in accordance with the
instructions set out in the WTO website notice.
6. Further details regarding the logistical arrangements for the oral hearing will be provided
separately to the participants and third participants.
Geneva, 5 February 2014

WT/DS400/AB/R • WT/DS401/AB/R

ANNEX 5

 ORGANISATION MONDIALE ORGANIZACIÓN MUNDIAL
 DU COMMERCE DEL COMERCIO

APPELLATE BODY

Procedural Ruling
1. On 30 January 2014, we received letters from Canada, Norway, and the European Union
requesting that we postpone the date for the oral hearing in the above appellate proceedings due
to certain logistical difficulties faced by the parties in securing reasonable hotel accommodation in
Geneva during the week of 3 March 2014. Norway and the European Union confirmed that they
would be available for a hearing as of the week of 17 March. Canada requested that the hearing be
postponed until 19 March to allow its legal team to arrive a few days prior.
2. On 31 January 2014, we invited the third parties to comment in writing on the request
by 12 noon on 4 February 2014. By that deadline, we received responses from Japan, Mexico, and
the United States. Japan and Mexico indicated that they have no objections to the participants'
requests. The United States supported the participants' requests, and considered that their
requests to change the date of the oral hearing would also satisfy Rule 16(2) of the Working
Procedures for Appellate Review.
3. The Division has carefully considered the part icipants' requests and the comments provided
by the third parties. In light of the difficulties raised and the reasons given by the participants, and
having also considered the size and complexity of the appeals, the Division has scheduled the oral
hearing for Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, 17 to 19 March 2014, in Centre William Rappard,
154 rue de Lausanne, Geneva.
4. Attached is an updated Working Schedule for Appeal, which includes the revised dates for
the oral hearing. Further details regarding the or al hearing and the date of circulation of the
Appellate Body reports will be provided to the participants and the third participants in due course.
Geneva, 5 February 2014