Facts:

The European Union (EU) introduced a regulation in 2009 that prohibited the import and sale
of seal products.
Canada and Norway challenged the ban before the WTO, claiming that it violated WTO
rules, including GATT and TBT.
The EU argued that the ban was necessary to protect animal welfare and public morality.

Issue:
Does the European Union's ban on the import and sale of seal products comply with its
obligations under the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements?

Rule:
Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) allows a member country
to adopt measures that violate the general obligations of the GATT, including the non-
discrimination principle, if such measures are necessary to protect public morals or the life or
health of humans, animals or plants. The burden of proof is on the country invoking Article
XX to demonstrate that the measure is necessary and not arbitrary or unjustifiable
discrimination. In addition, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) requires that
technical regulations be non-discriminatory and no more trade-restrictive than necessary to
fulfill a legitimate objective, and be based on relevant international standards, unless there is
a scientific justification for a deviation.

Analysis:
In the EC Seal Products case, Canada and Norway challenged the EU's ban on the import and
sale of seal products, arguing that it violated WTO rules. The panel and Appellate Body
agreed that the ban constituted a technical regulation under the TBT Agreement and that the
non-discrimination principle of the GATT was applicable.

The EU invoked Article XX(a) and (b) of the GATT as the basis for the ban. The panel and
Appellate Body accepted that the EU's concern for the welfare of seals was a moral objective
within the meaning of Article XX(a). However, the EU failed to demonstrate that the ban was
necessary to achieve that objective. The panel found that the EU had not shown that the seal
hunt, which was the primary target of the ban, posed a moral risk that justified the ban. The
Appellate Body agreed, noting that the EU's concern for animal welfare had to be balanced
against the right of indigenous communities to hunt seals as a means of subsistence.
The EU also argued that the ban was necessary to protect public morality under Article
XX(b). The panel and Appellate Body rejected this argument, finding that the EU had not
identified any public morality issue that was implicated by the trade in seal products.

the chapeau of Article XX prohibits the abuse of Article XX exceptions, including the public
morals exception, as a cover for arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or disguised
protectionism.

The Appellate Body determined that the EU Seal Regime does not meet the requirements of
the chapeau, because the IC exception operates in a way that amounts to "arbitrary or
unjustifiable discrimination.

The Appellate Body was concerned about inconsistency in the measure, given that the EU did
not seek to ameliorate the animal welfare conditions of indigenous hunts. The Appellate Body
also noted that ambiguities in the language of the IC exception mean that products from hunts
that should really be characterized as commercial could nevertheless slip in under the IC
exception. And the Appellate Body stated that Europe could have done more to facilitate
access of Canadian Inuit to the exception.

Finally, the EU claimed that the ban was based on relevant international standards within the
meaning of the TBT Agreement. The panel and Appellate Body found that the EU had not
demonstrated that the ban was based on relevant international standards or that there was a
scientific justification for the deviation from such standards.

Conclusion:
The EU's ban on the import and sale of seal products violated WTO rules because it was not
based on a sufficient demonstration of necessity to achieve its moral objectives, did not
protect a public morality issue, and was not based on relevant international standards. The
case highlights the importance of balancing the protection of moral values and animal welfare
with the rights of indigenous communities and the necessity of complying with international
trade obligations.