Source: https://ru.scribd.com/document/105395958/europe-beef-meat-hormone
Timestamp: 2019-12-16 12:22:21
Document Index: 69236205

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 3', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 11', 'Art. 11', 'Art. 11', 'Art. 17', 'Art. 11', 'Art. 11', 'Art. 28', 'Art. 11', 'Art. 9']

europe beef meat hormone | Standard Of Review | Public Law
сохранитьСохранить «europe beef meat hormone» для последующего чтения
eC hormoNeS1
(DS26, DS48)
Parties United States, Canada SPS Arts. 3 and 5 Respondent European Communities agreement timeline of the DisPute Establishment of Panel Circulation of Panel Report Circulation of AB Report Adoption 20 May 1996 (United States) 16 October 1996 (Canada) 18 August 1997 16 January 1998 13 February 1998
Measure at issue: EC prohibition on the placing on the market and the importation of meat and meat products treated with certain hormones. Product at issue: Meat and meat products treated with hormones for growth purposes.
2. SUmmAry oF key pANel/Ab FiNDiNGS
SPS Art. 3.1 (international standards): The Appellate Body rejected the Panel's interpretation and said that the requirement that SPS measures be "based on" international standards, guidelines or recommendations under Art. 3.1 does not mean that SPS measures must "conform to" such standards. Relationship between SPS Arts. 3.1 / 3.2 and 3.3 (harmonization): The Appellate Body rejected the Panel's interpretation that Art. 3.3 is the exception to Arts. 3.1 and 3.2 assimilated together and found that Arts. 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 apply together, each addressing a separate situation. Accordingly, it reversed the Panel's finding that the burden of proof for the violation under Art. 3.3, as a provision providing the exception, shifts to the responding party. SPS Art. 5.1 (risk assessment): While upholding the Panel's ultimate conclusion that the EC measure violated Art. 5.1 (and thus Art. 3.3) because it was not based on a risk assessment, the Appellate Body reversed the Panel's interpretation, considering that Art. 5.1 requires that there be a "rational relationship" between the measure at issue and the risk assessment. SPS Art. 5.5 (prohibition on discrimination and disguised restriction on international trade): The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding that the EC measure, through arbitrary or unjustifiable distinctions, resulted in "discrimination or a disguised restriction of international trade" in violation of Art. 5.5, noting: (i) the evidence showed that there were genuine anxieties concerning the safety of the hormones; (ii) the necessity for harmonizing measures was part of the effort to establish a common internal market for beef; and (iii) the Panel's finding was not supported by the "architecture and structure" of the measures.
3. other iSSUeS2
Burden of proof (SPS Agreement): The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding that the SPS Agreement allocates the "evidentiary burden" to the Member imposing an SPS measure. Standard of review (DSU Art. 11): The Appellate Body noted that the issue of whether a panel has made an objective assessment of the facts under Standard of review - objective assessments of facts (DSU Art. 11) Art. 11 is a "legal question" that falls within the scope of appellate review under DSU Art. 17.6. The Appellate Body further said that the duty to make an objective assessment of facts is an "obligation to consider the evidence presented to a panel and to make factual findings on the basis of that evidence." The Appellate Body found that the Panel did comply with the DSU Art. 11 obligation because although the Panel sometimes misinterpreted some of the evidence before it, these mistakes did not rise to the level of "deliberate disregard" or "wilful distortion" of the evidence. Claims vs arguments: The Appellate Body held that while a panel is prohibited from addressing legal claims not within its terms of reference, a panel is permitted to examine any legal argument submitted by a party or "to develop its own legal reasoning".
1 European Communities Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products 2 Other issues addressed: standard of review (DSU Art. 11); precautionary principle; retroactivity of treaties (VCLT Art. 28); objective assessment (DSU Art. 11); expert consultation; additional third party rights to the United States and Canada (DSU Art. 9.3); judicial economy.
Документы, похожие на «europe beef meat hormone»
Fu v. Yan BKA
Lupangco v. CA
Tao v. Holder, Jr., 10th Cir. (2010)
United States v. Worrell, 4th Cir. (2005)
Warner v. Phx Board, Ariz. Ct. App. (2017)
United States v. Davis, C.A.A.F. (2017)
United States v. Charles McDonald, 4th Cir. (2015)
Kenny Tentative Ruling
United States v. Haines, 4th Cir. (2006)
154952 - Appeal of Omb Decision, Double Compensation
1. Vda. de Villanueva vs. Juico
Yun Kwan Bung v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp.
People v. Bindoy 56 PHIL 15
0000-00-00 Israeli Supreme Court - Index of Records: Appointment of clerks, registration, certification of records, etc // בית המשפט העליון - רשימת כתבים: מינוי מזכירים, רישום ואישור הכתבים, וכו'
Indoyon v CA