This summary has been prepared by the Secretariat under its own responsibility. The summary is for general information only and is not intended to affect the rights and obligations of Members.
back to top
back to top
back to top
Summary of the dispute to date
The summary below was up-to-date at
Complaint by Norway.
On 1 March 2005, Norway requested consultations with the European Communities regarding the latter’s definitive safeguard measure against imports of farmed salmon imposed through Commission Regulation (EC) No. 206/2005, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 5 February 2005. The measure consists of:
- A system of tariff quotas beyond which an additional duty will be
applied to imports of the products in question;
- A minimum price applied to all imports both within and beyond the
tariff quota; and,
- A security to be provided on importation payable by all importers.
Norway states in its request for consultations that the definitive safeguard measure concerned is inconsistent with the EC’s obligations under the WTO, because inter alia:
- There were no “unforeseen developments”
that resulted in an increase in imports as required by GATT 1994;
- There has not been an increase in imports
recent enough, sudden enough, sharp enough, nor significant enough, so
as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the domestic industry
as required by GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards;
- The competent authorities’ determination of
the scope of the domestic industry is not consistent with the Safeguards
- In determining on serious injury, the
competent authorities failed adequately to evaluate all relevant factors
of an objective and quantifiable nature having a bearing on the
situation of the domestic industry, as required by Safeguards Agreement.
Furthermore, there was no “significant overall impairment” in the
position of the domestic industry that justified the determination of
serious injury as required by the Safeguards Agreement;
- The determination fails to establish the
necessary causal link between the increased imports and the finding of
serious injury, as required by the Safeguards Agreement. The
determination also fails to adequately distinguish between the injurious
effects of the increase in imports and those of other factors causing
injury to the domestic industry, and fails to ensure that injury caused
by other factors has not been attributed to increased imports;
- The competent authorities’ determination in
February 2005 was not based on sufficiently recent data and thus is
inconsistent with GATT 1994 and the Safeguards Agreement, given that the
period of investigation was terminated in December 2003;
- The competent authorities did not set forth
adequately the findings and reasoned conclusions on all pertinent issues
of fact and law, and did not provide a detailed analysis of the case, as
required by the Agreement;
- The competent authorities have failed to
comply with the obligations under the Safeguards Agreement to provide
all interested parties with an adequate opportunity to present their
views and to respond to the presentations of other parties;
- The definitive safeguard measure imposed is
inconsistent with the Safeguards Agreement because it exceeds the extent
necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury caused by increased
imports and to facilitate adjustment;
- The EC Regulation is inconsistent with the
Safeguards Agreement in so far as it imposes a minimum price control
mechanism which monitors import prices.
- The EC Regulation is inconsistent with the Safeguard Agreement because it does not include any basis for a progressive liberalization of the minimum price and the security to be provided on importation.
In light of the above considerations, Norway considers the definitive safeguard measure concerned to be inconsistent with various WTO provisions including Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 11 of the Safeguards Agreement and Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994.
On 8 March 2005, Chile requested to join the consultations. On 17 March 2005, the European Communities accepted the request of Chile to join the consultations.
Follow this dispute
Problems viewing this page? If so, please contact email@example.com giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.