European pilchardus sort. As indicated in terms

Communities – Trade Description of Sardines (WTO Dispute Settlement Body, 29
May 2002

·       Complaint
by: Peru

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

·       Complaint
against: EU

·       Third
parties:  Canada – Chile – Colombia – Ecuador – United States – Venezuela

of case



The European Communities advances from specific issues
of law and legitimate translations in the Panel Report, European Communities –
Trade Description of Sardines (the “Board Report”).

This debate concerns the name under which certain
types of fish might be showcased in the European Communities. The measure at
issue is Council Regulation (EEC) 2136/89 (the “EC Regulation”),
which was embraced by the Council of the European Communities on 21 June 1989
and ended up plainly relevant on 1 January 1990. The EC Regulation puts forward
regular promoting principles for safeguarded sardines.


An European Communities (EC) direction stipulated that
the Sardines could be utilized on fish that is preserved just for the family

Sardina pilchardus. The wide basis guaranteed for this
measure was to avoid customer Confusion. Professedly European buyers related
the sobriquet “Sardines” with the pilchardus sort.

As indicated in terms of professional trade sources,
the dispute settlement board report (European Communities – Trade Description
of Sardines WT/DS231/R) indicates Peru in its conflict that the EU banned was
infringing upon worldwide exchange rules. The debate emerged when the EC
disallowed the utilization of the expression “Peruvian sardines” on
tins containing sardine-like fish species got off the Peruvian drift. In mid
2001, Peru asked for discussions with the European Communities following the entry
of EC Council Regulation (EEC No. 2136/89) that indicated to set down basic
market models for exchange saved sardines. Peru battled that the Regulation was
conflicting with Articles 2 and 12 of the Technical Barriers to Trade
Agreement, Article XI: 1 of the GATT 1994 and the guideline of non-separation
under Articles I and III of the GATT 1994. Peru asked for the foundation of a
board to look at the WTO consistency of the EC Regulation on 2 June 2001. The
board was built up on 24 July 2001.

At issue were the trade portrayals of two small fish
species – Sardina pilchardus and Sardinops sagax. Sardina pilchardus is
discovered predominantly around the shorelines of the Eastern North Atlantic,
in the Mediterranean Sea and operating at a profit Sea, while Sardinops sagax is
discovered for the most part in the Eastern Pacific along the banks of Peru and
Chile. The two spices in this dispute were in understanding that while the two-species
showed a few contrasts, they likewise were altogether comparative in their
natural qualities and propensities. Both fish are utilized as a part of the
planning of protected and canned fish items. Article 2 of the EC Regulation
gives, entomb alia, that exclusive items arranged from Sardina pilchardus might
be advertised as safeguarded sardines. At the end of the day, just results of
this species may have “sardines” as a feature of the name on the

In the research, the board alluded to Codex Stan 94
Article 2.1, which gives that canned sardines or sardine-type items are set up
from crisp or fish that is frozen from a rundown of 21 animal groups, including
Sardina pilchardus and Sardina sagax. Article 6 of Codex Stan 94 puts forward marking
arrangements for these items. The board found that this standard was not
utilized as a reason for the EC Regulation and that the standard was not
“inadequate or wrong” sought after by the EC Regulation. It along
these lines found that the EC Regulation was conflicting with Article 2.4 of
the TBT Agreement. In its report, the board expressed that “Article 2.4 of
the TBT Agreement forces a progressing commitment on Members to reassess their
current specialized directions in light of the selection of new worldwide
gauges or the update of existing universal principles.”


Further to Peru’s appeal for, the DSB built up a Panel
at its gathering on 24 July 2001. Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela
and the US saved their outsider rights. On 31 August 2001, Peru asked for the
Director-General to decide the discussion of the Panel. On 11 September 2001,
the Panel was made. On 11 March 2002, the Panel educated the DSB that it would
not have the capacity to issue its report inside a half year, because of the
multifaceted nature of the issue and scheduling imperatives. The Panel hopes to
finish its work by end of April 2002. On 3 May 2002, the gatherings to the
debate asked for the Panel to suspend its procedures, in accordance with
Article 12.12 of the DSU, until the point that 21 May 2002. On 6 May 2002, the
Panel consented to this demand.

On 28 June 2002, the EC informed its judgement to
engage the Appellate Body certain issues of law shrouded in the in the Panel
report and certain lawful understandings created by the Panel.


On 26 September 2002 the report of the Appellate Body
was in action. The Appellate Body:



The panel decided that it has not been shown that
Codex Stan 94 would be an incapable or improper means for the satisfaction of
the honest to goodness destinations sought after by the EC Regulation, i.e.,
buyer assurance, showcase straightforwardness and reasonable rivalry. the panel
presume that Peru has showed adequate confirmation and lawful contentions to
exhibit that Codex Stan 94 isn’t inadequate or wrong to satisfy the real
targets sought after by the EC Regulation. (7.138)

Board reasoned that “Peru has showed adequate
proof and lawful contentions to show that Codex Stan 94 isn’t insufficient or
improper to satisfy the genuine goals sought after by the EC Regulation.” The
Panel made the real finding that “it has not been set up that buyers in
most part States of the European Communities have dependably related the basic
name ‘sardines’ only with Sardina pilchardus”.