Home
Current Issue
Developments
Archive
Table of Contents
Surveys
Book Reviews
Discussion Forum
Information
Reading Room
Links of Interest
Search
Join our email list
Translate this page
  

Decisions of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization

Japan - Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples

Download the Complete Survey (PDF Format) *

Table of ContentsNext Page

WTO Appellate Body Report: Japan - Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples, WT/DS245/AB/R, adopted 10 December 2003. Japan, Appellant/Appellee; US, Appellant/Appellee; Australia, Brazil, European Communities, New Zealand, and Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu, Third Participants. Division: Lockhart, Baptista and Sacerdoti. Major Topics Addressed by the Appellate Body: sufficient scientific evidence under Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement; provisional measures under Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement; based on a risk assessment under Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement.

1. Abstract

In this case, Japan, challenged a panel decision finding that its measures protecting against the spread of fire blight through apples violated the SPS Agreement. The Appellate Body upheld the panel decision. The Appellate Body examined the burden of establishing a prima facie case under Art. 2.2 of the SPS Agreement and distinguished this burden from the burden of proof. Under Art. 2.2, the sufficiency of scientific evidence is to be measured in respect of the measure actually applied and its application in the specific context and claim at issue, rather than more general risk. The Appellate Body accepted the panel's determination, under the facts of this particular case, that the sufficiency of evidence under Art. 2.2 requires that the measure not be disproportionate to the risk. Under Art. 11 of the DSU, there is no particular margin of deference to be accorded to national determinations; rather, the panel is to make an objective assessment of the facts. The Appellate Body upheld the panel's determination that the Japanese measure could not could not qualify as a provisional measure under Art. 5.7, as there already existed sufficient scientific evidence.

* The free viewer (Acrobat Reader) for PDF file is available at the Adobe Systems

Table of ContentsNext Page





Top of Page

© 1990-2004 European Journal of International Law
All comments and suggestions should be sent to webmaster
This site is part of the Academy of European Law online, a joint partnership of the Jean Monnet Center at NYU School of Law and the Academy of European Law at the European University Institute.
This file was last modified: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 07:58AM