ESCOLA DE ECONOMIA DE SÃO PAULO DA FUNDAÇÃO GETULIO … Acordo... · “The SPS Agreement recognizes the right of WTO Members to take measures necessary to protect human, animal

ESCOLA DE ECONOMIA DE SÃO PAULO DA FUNDAÇÃO GETULIO VARGAS

CENTRO DO COMÉRCIO GLOBAL E INVESTIMENTO

Coordenadoras

Vera Thorstensen

Luciana Maria de Oliveira

RELEITURA DOS ACORDOS DA OMC COMO INTERPRETADOS PELO ÓRGÃO DE APELAÇÃO:

Efeitos na aplicação das regras do comércio internacional

Acordo sobre a Aplicação de Medidas Sanitárias e Fitossanitárias

Organizador

Rodrigo C. A. Lima

Autores

Rodrigo C. A. Lima

Leonardo Rocha e Silva

Marina Amaral Egydio de Carvalho

Fábio Morosini

Isadora Telli

Maria Carolina Mendonça de Barros

2

INTRODUÇÃO

Análise do texto do Acordo sobre a Aplicação de Medidas Sanitárias e Fitossanitárias (SPS) e da

jurisprudência consolidada pelo Órgão de Solução de Controvérsias (DSB) da OMC

Acordo sobre a Aplicação de Medidas Sanitárias e Fitossanitárias

PREÂMBULO

Rodrigo C. A. Lima

IA. Texto do Preâmbulo em Inglês

Members,

Reaffirming that no Member should be prevented from adopting or enforcing measures necessary to

protect human, animal or plant life or health, subject to the requirement that these measures are not applied

in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between Members

where the same conditions prevail or a disguised restriction on international trade;

Desiring to improve the human health, animal health and phytosanitary situation in all Members;

Noting that sanitary and phytosanitary measures are often applied on the basis of bilateral

agreements or protocols;

Desiring the establishment of a multilateral framework of rules and disciplines to guide the

development, adoption and enforcement of sanitary and phytosanitary measures in order to minimize their

negative effects on trade;

Recognizing the important contribution that international standards, guidelines and recommendations

can make in this regard;

Desiring to further the use of harmonized sanitary and phytosanitary measures between Members, on

the basis of international standards, guidelines and recommendations developed by the relevant international

organizations, including the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the International Office of Epizootics, and the

relevant international and regional organizations operating within the framework of the International Plant

Protection Convention, without requiring Members to change their appropriate level of protection of human,

animal or plant life or health;

Recognizing that developing country Members may encounter special difficulties in complying with

the sanitary or phytosanitary measures of importing Members, and as a consequence in access to markets,

and also in the formulation and application of sanitary or phytosanitary measures in their own territories, and

desiring to assist them in their endeavours in this regard;

Desiring therefore to elaborate rules for the application of the provisions of GATT 1994 which relate

to the use of sanitary or phytosanitary measures, in particular the provisions of Article XX(b) (1);

Hereby agree as follows:

IB. Texto do Preâmbulo em Português

Os Membros,

3

Reafirmando que nenhum Membro deve ser impedido de adotar ou aplicar medidas necessárias à

proteção da vida ou da saúde humana, animal ou vegetal, desde que tais medidas não sejam aplicadas de

modo a constituir discriminação arbitrária ou injustificável entre Membros em situações em que prevaleçam

as mesmas condições, ou uma restrição velada ao comércio internacional;

Desejando melhorar a saúde humana, a saúde animal e a situação sanitária no território de todos os

Membros;

Tomando nota de que as medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias são frequentemente aplicadas com base

em acordos ou protocolos bilaterais;

Desejando o estabelecimento de um arcabouço multilateral de regras e disciplinas para orientar a

elaboração, adoção e aplicação de medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias com vistas a reduzir ao mínimo seus

efeitos negativos sobre o comércio;

Reconhecendo a importante contribuição que podem proporcionar a esse respeito normas, guias e

recomendações internacionais;

Desejando estimular o uso de medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias entre os Membros, com base em

normas, guias e recomendações internacionais elaboradas pelas organizações internacionais competentes,

entre elas a Comissão de Codex Alimentarius, o Escritório Internacional de Epizootias e as organizações

internacionais e regionais competentes que operam no contexto da Convenção Internacional sobre Proteção

Vegetal, sem que com isso se exija dos Membros que modifiquem seu nível adequado de proteção da vida e

saúde humana, animal ou vegetal;

Reconhecendo que os países em desenvolvimento Membros podem encontrar dificuldades especiais

para cumprir com medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias dos Membros importadores, e, como consequência,

para ter acesso a seus mercados, e também para formular e aplicar medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias em

seus próprios territórios, e desejando assistí-los em seus esforços em tal sentido;

Desejando, portanto, elaborar regras para a aplicação das disposições do GATT 1994 que se referem

ao uso de medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias, em especial as disposições do Artigo XX(b)1;

Acordam o seguinte:

Footnote 1: In this Agreement, reference to Article XX(b) includes also the chapeau of that Article.

(Decreto nº 1.355, de 30 de dezembro de 1994)

IC. Comentários sobre a Tradução

A tradução do preâmbulo é adequada. Alguns ajustes em função da experiência adquirida pela

implementação do Acordo: a expressão “nível adequado de proteção” é melhor traduzida como “nível

apropriado de proteção” (appropriate level of protection – ALOP). O Escritório Internacional de Epizootias

pode também ser chamado de Organização Mundial de Saúde Animal (OIE).

II. Interpretação e Aplicação do Preâmbulo

1. Parágrafo 1 do Preâmbulo

a) “Consistência na aplicação das medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias”

1 Neste Acordo, as referências ao Artigo XX(b) incluem também o caput daquele Artigo.

4

Relatório do Órgão de Apelação no caso Canada - Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC -

Hormones Dispute (Canada - Continued Suspension), Demandante: União Europeia, WT/DS321/AB/R,

para. 522

Ao analisar as medidas aplicadas pela União Europeia diante do Artigo 5.1 do Acordo SPS, o qual prevê

que as medidas devem considerar os riscos para a saúde humana, animal e vegetal, o parágrafo 522 do

Relatório do Órgão de Apelação reforçou a noção de que os países podem adotar medidas sanitárias e

fitossanitárias para proteger bens relevantes (vida e saúde humana, animal e vegetal), desde que sejam

consistentes com as regras do Acordo. Ressalta, no entanto, que a aplicação das medidas deve ser feita de

forma consistente com as obrigações previstas no Acordo, como, por exemplo, a existência de evidências

científicas, e a não criação de restrições disfarçadas ao comércio, como previsto no Artigo 2.3. Esse direito

de aplicar as medidas para proteger um objetivo como a saúde humana, animal ou vegetal é o grande

objetivo do Acordo, e a consistência das medidas aplicadas diante da existência de evidências científicas

ou da busca de informações que permitam aplicar medidas não discriminatórias é, como será visto a

seguir, o grande desafio do Acordo SPS.

Para. 522. “The SPS Agreement recognizes the right of WTO Members to take measures necessary to

protect human, animal or plant life or health. The right to take a protective measure must be exercised

consistently with a series of obligations that are set forth in that Agreement, and that seek to ensure that such

measures are properly justified.”

2. Parágrafos 5 e 6 do Preâmbulo

a) “Normas e padrões internacionais”

Esses parágrafos tratam da aplicação de medidas baseadas em normas, guias e recomendações internacionais

estabelecidos por organizações internacionais de referência, como o Codex Alimentarius, a Organização

Mundial de Saúde Animal e a Convenção Internacional sobre Proteção Vegetal.

Relatório do Órgão de Apelação no caso Canada - Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC -

Hormones Dispute (Canada - Continued Suspension), Demandante: União Europeia, WT/DS321/AB/R,

para. 532

O Órgão de Apelação destacou que a harmonização das medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias com normas,

guias e recomendações internacionais é um dos propósitos do Acordo, na medida em que esses padrões

são estabelecidos por organizações de referência e que tendem a não gerar restrições ao comércio.

Para. 532. “International standards are given a prominent role under the SPS Agreement, particularly in

furthering the objective of promoting the harmonization of sanitary and phytosanitary standards between

WTO Members. This is to be achieved by encouraging WTO Members to base their SPS measures on

international standards, guidelines or recommendations, where they exist. There is a rebuttable presumption

that SPS measures that conform to international standards, guidelines or recommendations are “necessary to

protect human, animal or plant life or health, and ... [are] consistent with the relevant provisions of this

Agreement and of GATT 1994”. While use of international standards is encouraged, the SPS

Agreement recognizes the right of WTO Members to introduce or maintain an SPS measure which results in

a higher level of protection than would be achieved by measures based on such international standards.

Where a Member exercises its right to adopt an SPS measure that results in a higher level of protection, that

right is qualified in that the SPS measure must comply with the other requirements of the SPS Agreement,

including the requirement to perform a risk assessment. However, the Appellate Body has found that the

adoption of an SPS measure that does not conform to an international standard and results in a higher level of

protection does not give rise to a more exacting burden of proof under the SPS Agreement: The presumption

of consistency with relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement that arises under Article 3.2 in respect of

measures that conform to international standards may well be an incentive for Members so to conform their

SPS measures with such standards. It is clear, however, that a decision of a Member not to conform a

5

particular measure with an international standard does not authorize imposition of a special or generalized

burden of proof upon that Member, which may, more often than not, amount to a penalty.”

III. Comentários

O Preâmbulo faz referência ao objetivo principal do Acordo SPS: incentivar que os Membros adotem

medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias a fim de proteger a vida e a saúde humana, animal e vegetal, sem criar

restrições desnecessárias ou disfarçadas ao comércio. Esse é o grande desafio do Acordo, pois é muito vasta

a habilidade dos Membros em criar medidas, sem que, necessariamente, sejam cruciais para atingir um dos

três objetivos centrais: a proteção da vida e da saúde humana, animal e vegetal.

Além disso, o Preâmbulo trata da criação de padrões internacionais que podem ser utilizados pelos Membros,

o que, na prática, é um desafio constante no universo das medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias. O

estabelecimento de padrões internacionais pelas irmãs do Acordo SPS - OIE, Codex Alimentarius e a

Convenção Internacional de Proteção Vegetal - é desejável na medida em que oferece padrões que permitem

assegurar níveis elevados de proteção à vida humana, animal e vegetal. No entanto, a prática mostra que os

países adotam medidas unilaterais, ora fundamentadas, ora questionáveis diante das regras do Acordo, como

será analisado a seguir.

A ideia de harmonizar as medidas com padrões internacionais é um objetivo importante do Acordo SPS,

principalmente quando os Membros não possuem medidas específicas. No entanto, os países podem adotar

medidas próprias que alcancem o nível apropriado de proteção, que entenderem ser adequada (ou

necessária), desde que, para tanto, tenham evidências científicas que fundamentem suas medidas.

Vale destacar, que o penúltimo parágrafo do Preâmbulo prevê que os Membros em desenvolvimento podem

ter dificuldade para cumprir as medidas exigidas por países desenvolvidos, ponto bastante presente tanto na

análise dos casos, quanto na implementação do Acordo.

A aplicação do Preâmbulo é recorrente nos casos, considerando-se que traz o conceito geral de liberdade

para aplicar medidas, desde que não sejam mais restritivas ao comércio do que o necessário para atingir um

objetivo previsto no Acordo. Este, na prática, é o grande desafio da implementação do Acordo SPS,

evitando-se a adoção de medidas protecionistas.

6

Artigo 1

Rodrigo C. A. Lima

IA. Texto do Artigo em Inglês

Article 1

General Provisions

1.1 This Agreement applies to all sanitary and phytosanitary measures which may, directly or indirectly,

affect international trade. Such measures shall be developed and applied in accordance with the

provisions of this Agreement.

1.2 For the purposes of this Agreement, the definitions provided in Annex A shall apply.

1.3 The annexes are an integral part of this Agreement.

1.4 Nothing in this Agreement shall affect the rights of Members under the Agreement on Technical

Barriers to Trade with respect to measures not within the scope of this Agreement.

IB. Texto do Artigo em Português

Artigo 1

Disposições Gerais

1.1 Este Acordo aplica-se a todas as medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias que possam direta ou

indiretamente afetar o comércio internacional. Tais medidas serão elaboradas e aplicadas de acordo

com as disposições do presente Acordo.

1.2 Para os propósitos do presente Acordo, as definições fornecidas no Anexo A devem aplicar-se.

1.3 Os Anexos constituem parte integral do presente Acordo.

1.4 Nada neste Acordo afetará os direitos dos Membros sob o Acordo sobre Barreiras Técnicas ao

Comércio no que se refere a medidas que não se encontrem no âmbito do presente Acordo.



Tradução adequada.

II. Interpretação e Aplicação do Artigo 1

1. Escopo do Acordo SPS, interpretação em razão da matéria

Relatório do Painel no caso Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones) (EC -

Hormones) (Canada), Demandante: Canadá, WT/DS48/AB/R, paras. 8.39 e 8.24-8.25

Como primeiro Painel julgado com base no Acordo SPS, o caso dos hormônios foi essencial para definir

pontos importantes no que diz respeito à interpretação do Acordo. O Relatório do Painel destacou que

existem dois requisitos fundamentais para uma medida ser caracterizada no contexto do Acordo SPS: (i)

deve ser uma medida que vise proteger a vida ou a saúde humana, animal ou vegetal e; (ii) deve causar

discriminação ao comércio.

Para. 8.39. “According to Article 1.1 of the SPS Agreement, two requirements need to be fulfilled for the

7

SPS Agreement to apply: (i) the measure in dispute is a sanitary or phytosanitary measure; and (ii) the

measure in dispute may, directly or indirectly, affect international trade.”

Para. 8.24 e 8.25. “With respect to the SPS Agreement, both parties agree that the EC measures in dispute

are sanitary measures in the sense of Paragraph 1(b) of Annex A of the SPS Agreement. Paragraph 1(b) of

Annex A defines a sanitary measure as ‘any measure applied to protect human or animal life or health within

the territory of the Member from risks arising from additives, contaminants, toxins or disease-causing

organisms in foods, beverages or feedstuffs’.”

2. As medidas afetam o comércio internacional

Relatório do Painel no caso European Communities - Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of

Biotech Products (EC - Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products), Demandante: EUA,

WT/DS291/R, paras. 7.434-7.435

Para. 7.434. “Article 1.1 of the SPS Agreement provides, inter alia, that the SPS Agreement ‘applies to all

[SPS] measures which may, directly or indirectly, affect international trade’. Thus, for an SPS measure to be

subject to the disciplines of the SPS Agreement, it must be capable of affecting international trade. (…)”

Para. 7.435. “In our view, it is not necessary to demonstrate that an SPS measure has an actual effect on

trade. Article 1.1 merely requires that an SPS measure ‘may, directly or indirectly, affect international trade.”

Relatório do Painel no caso United States - Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry from China

(US - Poultry), Demandante: China, WT/DS392/R, para. 7.87

Para. 7.87. “Even if a measure falls within the definition of an SPS measure in Annex A(1) of the SPS

Agreement, further to Article 1.1 of the SPS Agreement, such measure still needs to be a measure that

directly or indirectly affect[s] international trade to be covered by the disciplines of the SPS Agreement.”

III. Comentários

A caracterização de uma medida como sanitária ou fitossanitária é essencial para que se possa ponderar se

uma determinada medida, ou um conjunto de medidas, podem ser confrontadas diante das regras do Acordo

SPS. A jurisprudência do DSB denota que a determinação da medida ou das medidas em questão é

fundamental para que se possa acatar um caso com base no SPS (measure at issue).

Nesse sentido, o Anexo A do Acordo se mostra fundamental, na medida em que parte do objetivo central

ligado à proteção da vida e da saúde humana, animal e vegetal, voltadas a evitar: a entrada de doenças,

pragas e organismos patogênicos, a presença de aditivos, contaminantes, toxinas, entre outros. Ademais,

vincula essas medidas a leis, regulamentos, processos e métodos de produção, certificação, inspeção e outras

ações ligadas às políticas dos Membros.

8

Artigo 2

Rodrigo C. A. Lima


Article 2

Basic Rights and Obligations

2.1 Members have the right to take sanitary and phytosanitary measures necessary for the protection of

human, animal or plant life or health, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with the

provisions of this Agreement.

2.2 Members shall ensure that any sanitary or phytosanitary measure is applied only to the extent

necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health, is based on scientific principles and is not

maintained without sufficient scientific evidence, except as provided for in paragraph 7 of Article 5.

2.3 Members shall ensure that their sanitary and phytosanitary measures do not arbitrarily or

unjustifiably discriminate between Members where identical or similar conditions prevail, including

between their own territory and that of other Members. Sanitary and phytosanitary measures shall

not be applied in a manner which would constitute a disguised restriction on international trade.

2.4 Sanitary or phytosanitary measures which conform to the relevant provisions of this Agreement shall

be presumed to be in accordance with the obligations of the Members under the provisions of GATT

1994 which relate to the use of sanitary or phytosanitary measures, in particular the provisions of

Article XX(b).


Artigo 2

Direitos e Obrigações Básicas

2.1 Os Membros têm o direito de adotar medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias para a proteção da vida e da

saúde humana, animal ou vegetal, desde que tais medidas não sejam incompatíveis com as

disposições do presente Acordo.

2.2 Os Membros assegurarão que qualquer medida sanitária e fitossanitária seja aplicada apenas na

medida do necessário para proteger a vida ou a saúde humana, animal ou vegetal; seja baseada em

princípios científicos e não seja mantida sem evidência científica suficiente, à exceção do

determinado pelo parágrafo 7 do Artigo 5.

2.3 Os Membros garantirão que suas medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias não farão discriminação

arbitrária ou injustificada entre os Membros nos casos em que prevalecerem condições idênticas ou

similares, incluindo entre seu próprio território e o de outros Membros. As medidas sanitárias e

fitossanitárias não serão aplicadas de forma a constituir restrição velada ao comércio internacional.

2.4 As medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias que estejam em conformidade com as disposições relevantes

do presente Acordo serão consideradas conformes às obrigações dos Membros sob as disposições do

GATT 1994 que se referem ao uso de medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias, em especial as disposições

do Artigo XX(b).




9


1. O Escopo do Acordo SPS, direitos e obrigações básicas


(US - Poultry), Demandante: China, WT/DS392/R, paras. 7.142-7.144

A relação entre os Artigos 2 e 5 do Acordo SPS é fundamental para a aplicação de uma medida sanitária

ou fitossanitária que siga as regras do Acordo. De um lado, há o direito de aplicar uma medida que

restrinja o comércio com o objetivo de proteger a vida ou a saúde humana, animal ou vegetal e, de outro,

existem requisitos mínimos que devem ser cumpridos, para que a medida esteja de acordo com os

preceitos do Acordo SPS.

Para. 7.142. “We note that Article 2 is entitled “Basic Rights and Obligations”. The overarching and

encompassing title of this Article, leads the Panel to conclude that the obligations in Article 2 inform all of

the SPS Agreement. We find support for our understanding in the prior decisions of panels and the Appellate

Body with respect to the relationship between Articles 2 and 5. In particular, the Appellate Body has

explained that the obligations in Article 2 and Article 5 should be constantly read together. The Appellate

Body stated that Article 2.2 informs and imparts meaning to Article 5.1, and that similarly, Article 2.3

informs Article 5.5. Further, the panel in Japan – Agricultural Products II stated that the more specific

language of Article 5.6 should be read in light of the more general language in the first requirement of

Article 2.2.”

Para. 7.143. Article 2.2 provides that: “Members shall ensure that any sanitary or phytosanitary measure is

applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health, is based on scientific

principles and is not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence, except as provided for in paragraph 7

of Article 5.”

Para. 7.144. “The panel in EC - Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products explained that Article 2.2

contains three separate requirements: (i) the requirement that SPS measures be applied only to the extent

necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health; (ii) the requirement that SPS measures be based on

scientific principles; and (iii) the requirement that SPS measures not be maintained without sufficient

scientific evidence. We note that China's claim relates only to the third requirement of Article 2.2 of the SPS

Agreement. Therefore, the Panel will only focus on whether this third requirement, is applicable to Section

727. We recall that the text of Article 2.2 plainly states that it applies to “any” SPS measure. We, thus see

nothing in the language of Article 2.2 that would somehow exempt an SPS measure from its scope. We have

found that Section 727 is an SPS measure, regardless of whether it relates to equivalence. Accordingly, we

conclude that the disciplines of Article 2.2 apply to Section 727 and China may pursue a claim on this basis.”

2. Requisitos essenciais para a aplicação das medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias



WT/DS291/R, para. 7.1424

O Artigo 2.2 trata do ponto mais relevante quando se pretende aplicar uma medida sanitária ou

fitossanitária em consonância com as regras do Acordo SPS. As medidas devem ser necessárias para

atingir o objetivo que se propõe (proteger a vida ou a saúde humana, animal ou vegetal); devem ser

fundamentadas cientificamente e não devem ser mantidas sem que exista um mínimo de evidências.

Para. 7.1424. “It is apparent from the text of Article 2.2 that this provision contains three separate

requirements: (i) the requirement that SPS measures be applied only to the extent necessary to protect

human, animal or plant life or health; (ii) the requirement that SPS measures be based on scientific

principles; and (iii) the requirement that SPS measures not be maintained without sufficient scientific

evidence.”

10

3. Medidas não devem ser mantidas sem evidências científicas e medidas suficientes



Nesse caso, o Painel entendeu que a existência de evidências científicas deve ter um nexo de causalidade

com a medida aplicada, de forma a justificá-la, a fim de demonstrar que sem a adoção da medida há um

risco da entrada ou disseminação de uma peste, doença ou outros efeitos relacionados à saúde humana,

animal e vegetal. A noção de suficiência de evidências, e a necessidade da medida diante de seu objetivo,

são elementos centrais da análise dos casos relativos ao Acordo SPS.

Para. 7.199. “We also recall that the Appellate Body explained that Articles 3.3, 5.1 and 5.7 provide relevant

context for understanding the extent of the obligation in Article 2.2 not to maintain a measure without

sufficient scientific evidence. We find relevant context in the reference in Article 3.3 to “scientific

justification” which is defined in the footnote to that Article as “examination and evaluation of available

scientific information in conformity with the relevant provisions of this Agreement.” It is our understanding,

pursuant to the Appellate Body's reasoning in EC – Hormones, that this language implies that “scientific

justification” is of the nature of a risk assessment required under Article 5.1. With respect to Article 5.7,

which permits provisional measures when there is “insufficient scientific evidence”, the Appellate Body has

reasoned that the relevant scientific evidence will be considered “insufficient” for purposes of Article 5.7 “if

the body of available scientific evidence does not allow, in quantitative or qualitative terms, the performance

of an adequate assessment of risks as required under Article 5.1 and as defined in Annex A to the SPS

Agreement.”

Para. 7.200. “Given the foregoing, it is the Panel's view that for the United States to maintain Section 727

with sufficient scientific evidence, the scientific evidence must bear a rational relationship to the measure, be

sufficient to demonstrate the existence of the risk which the measure is supposed to address, and be of the

kind necessary for a risk assessment.”

Para. 7.201. “As explained above, in paragraph 7.168, where an SPS measure is not based on a risk

assessment as required in Article 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement, this measure is presumed not to be

based on scientific principles and to be maintained without sufficient scientific evidence.”

Relatório do Painel no caso European Communities - Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products

(Hormones) (EC - Hormones), Demandante: Canadá, WT/DS48/AB/R, paras. 124 e 177

A ponderação quanto à existência de evidências científicas minimamente suficientes é recorrente nos

casos SPS, principalmente quando se trata de argumentos baseados no Artigo 5.7. Considerando a sua

relação com o Artigo 2, é relevante notar que o caso dos hormônios, como primeiro Painel julgado com

base no Acordo SPS, começou a definir a relação inerente entre os Artigos 2 e 5, pautada pela necessidade

de se buscar um mínimo de evidências para justificar uma medida ou uma restrição ao comércio.

Para. 124. “[A] Panel charged with determining, for instance, whether ‘sufficient scientific evidence’ exists

to warrant the maintenance by a Member of a particular SPS measure may, of course, and should, bear in

mind that responsible, representative governments commonly act from perspectives of prudence and

precaution where risks of irreversible, e.g. life terminating, damage to human health are concerned.”

Para. 177. “The requirements of a risk assessment under Article 5.1, as well as of “sufficient scientific

evidence” under Article 2.2, are essential for the maintenance of the delicate and carefully negotiated balance

in the SPS Agreement between the shared, but sometimes competing, interests of promoting international

trade and of protecting the life and health of human beings.”

Relatório do Órgão de Apelação no caso Japan - Measures Affecting Agricultural Products (Japan -

Agricultural Products II), Demandante: EUA, WT/DS76/AB/R, paras. 73 e 82

11

Nesse caso, o Órgão de Apelação entendeu que é fundamental existir uma relação entre a medida aplicada

e a evidência científica em questão. Além disso, o Órgão de Apelação reforçou a conexão entre a

existência de princípios e evidências científicas para fundamentar uma medida, e a avaliação dos riscos

como base para definir a medida – relação entre os Artigos 2 e 5 do Acordo SPS.

Para. 73. “The ordinary meaning of ‘sufficient’ is ‘of a quantity, extent, or scope adequate to a certain

purpose or object’. From this, we can conclude that ‘sufficiency’ is a relational concept. ‘Sufficiency’

requires the existence of a sufficient or adequate relationship between two elements, in casu, between the

SPS measure and the scientific evidence.”

Para. 82. “We do not agree with Japan’s proposition that direct application of Article 2.2 of the SPS

Agreement should be limited to situations in which the scientific evidence is ‘patently’ insufficient, and that

the issue raised in this dispute should have been dealt with under Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement. There is

nothing in the text of either Articles 2.2 or 5.1, or any other provision of the SPS Agreement, that requires or

sanctions such limitation of the scope of Article 2.2.”

Relatório do Órgão de Apelação no caso Japan - Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples (Japan -

Apples), Demandante: EUA, WT/DS245/AB/R, paras. 8.92-8.93 e 8.98

Nesse caso, o debate sobre a suficiência das evidências científicas foi denso por parte do Órgão de

Apelação. A relação das evidências com os riscos que justificam uma medida é necessária para que seja

possível analisar a necessidade de uma medida diante do objetivo que pretende proporcionar.

Para. 8.92. “We consider that … we must give full meaning to the term ‘scientific’ and conclude that, in the

context of Article 2.2, the evidence to be considered should be evidence gathered through scientific methods,

excluding by the same token information not acquired through a scientific method. We further note that

scientific evidence may include evidence that a particular risk may occur … as well as evidence that a

particular requirement may reduce or eliminate that risk (…).”

Para. 8.93. “Likewise, the use of the term ‘evidence’ must also be given full significance. Negotiators could

have used the term ‘information’, as in Article 5.7, if they considered that any material could be used. By

using the term ‘scientific evidence’, Article 2.2 excludes in essence not only insufficiently substantiated

information, but also such things as a non-demonstrated hypothesis. (…)”

Para. 8.98. “[R]equiring ‘scientific evidence’ does not limit the field of scientific evidence available to

Members to support their measures. ‘Direct’ or ‘indirect’ evidence may be equally considered. The only

difference is not one of scientific quality, but one of probative value within the legal meaning of the term,

since it is obvious that evidence which does not directly prove a fact might not have as much weight as

evidence directly proving it, if it is available.”

III. Comentários

A jurisprudência relativa ao Artigo 2 (direitos e obrigações básicas) do Acordo SPS é estritamente ligada ao

Artigo 5 (avaliação de risco e nível apropriado de proteção). O Artigo 2 prevê que os Membros podem adotar

medidas, e, inclusive nos casos de falta de evidências científicas, exige-se um mínimo de evidências que

permitam adotar uma medida restritiva.

A possibilidade de se adotar medidas temporárias que restrinjam o comércio pela falta de evidências, com

base no Artigo 5.7, mostra que o Acordo não é contra a adoção de medidas restritivas, mas exige o

cumprimento de um conjunto de requisitos que permitam justificar a necessidade da medida para atingir o

objetivo a que se propõe. Nesse sentido, os casos sobre medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias submetidos ao

DSB, a fim de que este pudesse ponderar a existência de justificativas científicas e o grau de aceitação das

medidas na comunidade científica internacional, reflete a formação de grupos de peritos que permitem trazer

o estado da arte em relação a uma determinada medida ou conjunto de medidas.

http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/analytic_index_e/sps_01_e.htm#article2A2



12

A discussão sobre medidas sanitárias ou fitossanitárias fundamentadas em evidências que justifiquem uma

determinada restrição ao comércio é o cerne do Acordo SPS. De um lado, o Acordo prevê que os Membros

podem adotar medidas restritivas, mas exige que exista ao menos uma base de dados, pesquisas, estudos,

evidências que permitam relacionar a medida a busca por evitar riscos relacionados à vida e à saúde humana,

animal e vegetal.

Medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias podem ser adotadas no tocante a aditivos, contaminantes, toxinas ou

organismos causadores de doenças presentes em alimentos; além de prevenir possíveis danos oriundos da

entrada, estabelecimento ou disseminação de pestes e doenças, dentre outras ações. Naturalmente, o debate

científico acerca da possibilidade de que um produto transmita uma peste ou doença, ou sobre tratamentos e

medidas que podem prevenir esse risco nem sempre existe ou é amplamente reconhecido pela comunidade

internacional. O debate sobre o princípio da precaução, ou o enfoque na precaução, ajuda a tornar tal debate

mais interessante, na medida em que é preciso ponderar as medidas e a existência ou não de evidências caso

a caso.

A adoção de medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias não deve ensejar discriminação injustificável entre Membros

onde prevaleçam as mesmas condições. Não pode, ainda, criar restrições disfarçadas ao comércio

internacional. As grandes dificuldades, quando se analisa casos de medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias, são:

ponderar sobre a existência de evidências, o que depende de um conhecimento científico sobre a medida em

questão, e avaliar se a medida é realmente necessária diante dos riscos alegados. Nesse sentido, a relação

entre os Artigos 2 e 5 do Acordo SPS é crucial para a análise dos casos.

13

Artigo 3


Rodrigo C. A. Lima


Article 3

Harmonization

3.1 To harmonize sanitary and phytosanitary measures on as wide a basis as possible, Members shall

base their sanitary or phytosanitary measures on international standards, guidelines or

recommendations, where they exist, except as otherwise provided for in this Agreement, and in

particular in paragraph 3.

3.2 Sanitary or phytosanitary measures which conform to international standards, guidelines or

recommendations shall be deemed to be necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health,

and presumed to be consistent with the relevant provisions of this Agreement and of GATT 1994.

3.3 Members may introduce or maintain sanitary or phytosanitary measures which result in a higher

level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection than would be achieved by measures based on the

relevant international standards, guidelines or recommendations, if there is a scientific justification,

or as a consequence of the level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection a Member determines to be

appropriate in accordance with the relevant provisions of paragraphs 1 through 8 of Article 5. (2)

Notwithstanding the above, all measures which result in a level of sanitary or phytosanitary

protection different from that which would be achieved by measures based on international

standards, guidelines or recommendations shall not be inconsistent with any other provision of this

Agreement. (grifos acrescidos)

3.4 Members shall play a full part, within the limits of their resources, in the relevant international

organizations and their subsidiary bodies, in particular the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the

International Office of Epizootics, and the international and regional organizations operating within

the framework of the International Plant Protection Convention, to promote within these

organizations the development and periodic review of standards, guidelines and recommendations

with respect to all aspects of sanitary and phytosanitary measures.

3.5 The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures provided for in paragraphs 1 and 4 of

Article 12 (referred to in this Agreement as the “Committee”) shall develop a procedure to monitor

the process of international harmonization and coordinate efforts in this regard with the relevant

international organizations.

Footnote 2: For the purposes of paragraph 3 of Article 3, there is a scientific justification if, on the basis of an examination and

evaluation of available scientific information in conformity with the relevant provisions of this Agreement, a Member determines that

the relevant international standards, guidelines or recommendations are not sufficient to achieve its appropriate level of sanitary or

phytosanitary protection.


Artigo 3

Harmonização

3.1 Com vistas a harmonizar as medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias da forma mais ampla possível, os

Membros basearão suas medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias em normas, guias e recomendações

internacionais, nos casos em que existirem, exceto se diferentemente previsto por este Acordo, e em

especial no parágrafo 3.

14

3.2 Presumir-se-ão como necessárias à proteção da vida ou da saúde humana, animal e vegetal, assim

como serão consideradas compatíveis com as disposições pertinentes do presente Acordo e do GATT

1994 as medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias que estejam em conformidade com normas, guias e

recomendações internacionais.

3.3 Os Membros podem introduzir ou manter medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias que resultem em nível

mais elevado de proteção sanitária ou fitossanitária do que se alcançaria com medidas baseadas em

normas, guias ou recomendações internacionais competentes, se houver uma justificação científica,

ou como consequência do nível de proteção sanitária ou fitossanitária que um Membro determine ser

apropriado, de acordo com as disposições relevantes dos parágrafos 1 a 8 do Artigo 5.2 Não obstante

o acima descrito, todas as medidas que resultem em nível de proteção sanitária ou fitossanitária

diferente daquele que seria alcançado pela utilização de medidas baseadas em normas, guias ou

recomendações internacionais não serão incompatíveis com qualquer outra disposição do presente

Acordo. (grifos acrescidos)

3.4 Os Membros terão participação plena, dentro dos limites de seus recursos, nas organizações

internacionais competentes e em seus órgãos subsidiários, em especial na Comissão do Codex

Alimentarius, no Escritório Internacional de Epizootias e em organizações internacionais e regionais

que operem no contexto da Convenção Internacional sobre Proteção Vegetal, para promover, em tais

organizações, a elaboração e revisão periódica de normas, guias e recomendações com respeito a

todos os aspectos das medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias.

3.5 O Comitê sobre Medidas Sanitárias e Fitossanitárias previsto nos parágrafos 1 a 4 do Artigo 12

(referido neste Acordo como o “Comitê”) elaborará um procedimento de acompanhamento do

processo de harmonização internacional e coordenará esforços nesse sentido com as organizações

internacionais competentes.



No item 3 do Artigo 3, o texto original afirma que: “all measures which result in a level of sanitary or

phytosanitary protection different from that which would be achieved by measures based on international

standards, guidelines or recommendations shall not be inconsistent with any other provision of this

Agreement”. No texto em português, o verbo “shall not be” foi traduzido de forma equivocada como “não

serão”.

A forma correta seria: todas as medidas que resultem em nível de proteção sanitária ou fitossanitária

diferente daquele que seria alcançado pela utilização de medidas baseadas em normas, guias ou

recomendações internacionais não deverão ser incompatíveis com qualquer outra disposição do presente

Acordo.


a) “Objetivo do Artigo”

O objetivo do Artigo 3 do SPS é regulamentar a aplicação de medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias de modo a

impedir o uso de práticas arbitrárias com o objetivo de restringir o comércio internacional, buscando

promover a harmonização entre as medidas adotadas pelos Membros.

2 Para os propósitos do parágrafo 3 do Artigo 3, há justificação científica se, com base num exame e avaliação da informação

científica disponível de conformidade com as disposições pertinentes deste Acordo, um Membro determina que as normas, guias e

recomendações internacionais pertinentes não são suficientes para alcançar seu nível apropriado de proteção sanitária ou

fitossanitária.

15


(Hormones) (EC - Hormones), Demandante: EUA, WT/DS26/R/USA, para. 8.86

Para. 8.86. “One purpose of the SPS Agreement, as explicitly recognized in the preamble, is to promote the

use of international standards, guidelines and recommendations. To that end, Article 3.1 imposes an

obligation on all Members to base their sanitary measures on international standards except as otherwise

provided for in the SPS Agreement, and in particular in Article 3.3 thereof. In this sense, Article 3.3 provides

an exception to the general obligation contained in Article 3.1. Article 3.2, in turn, specifies that the

complaining party has the burden of overcoming a presumption of consistency with the SPS Agreement in

the case of a measure based on international standards.”

Relatório do Órgão de Apelação no caso European Communities - Measures Concerning Meat and Meat

Products (Hormones) (EC - Hormones), Demandantes: EUA; Canadá, WT/DS26/R/USA;

WT/DS48/AB/R, paras. 104, 165 e 177

Para. 104. “It appears to us that the Panel has misconceived the relationship between Articles 3.1, 3.2 and

3.3, a relationship discussed below, which is qualitatively different from the relationship between, for

instance, Articles I or III and Article XX of the GATT 1994. Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement simply

excludes from its scope of application the kinds of situations covered by Article 3.3 of that Agreement, that

is, where a Member has projected for itself a higher level of sanitary protection than would be achieved by a

measure based on an international standard. Article 3.3 recognizes the autonomous right of a Member to

establish such higher level of protection, provided that that Member complies with certain requirements in

promulgating SPS measures to achieve that level.”

Para. 165. “That purpose, Article 3.1 states, is “[t]o harmonize [SPS] measures on as wide a basis as

possible ...”. The preamble of the SPS Agreement also records that the Members “[d]esir[e] to further the use

of harmonized [SPS] measures between Members on the basis of international standards, guidelines and

recommendations developed by the relevant international organizations (…)”. It is clear to us that

harmonization of SPS measures of Members on the basis of international standards is projected in the

Agreement, as a goal, yet to be realized in the future.”

Para. 177. “The ultimate goal of the harmonization of SPS measures is to prevent the use of such measures

for arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between Members or as a disguised restriction on international

trade, without preventing Members from adopting or enforcing measures which are both “necessary to

protect” human life or health and “based on scientific principles”, and without requiring them to change their

appropriate level of protection.”

b) “Hipóteses do Artigo 3”

O Artigo 3 prevê três hipóteses de aplicação de medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias. Essas medidas podem

estar de acordo com os padrões e recomendações internacionais criados pelas organizações reconhecidas no

âmbito do Acordo SPS (Organização Mundial de Saúde Animal – OIE, Codex Alimentarius e Convenção

Internacional de Proteção vegetal – CIPV), podem se basear nesses padrões, ou as medidas podem ser

estabelecidas pelos próprios Membros, desde que sejam apresentadas justificativas científicas plausíveis.


Products (Hormones) (EC - Hormones), Demandantes: EUA; Canadá, WT/DS26/R/USA;

WS/DS48/AB/R, paras. 170-172

Para. 170. “Under Article 3.2 of the SPS Agreement, a Member may decide to promulgate an SPS measure

that conforms to an international standard.”

Para. 171. “Under Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement, a Member may choose to establish an SPS measure

that is based on the existing relevant international standard, guideline or recommendation. Such a measure

may adopt some, not necessarily all, of the elements of the international standard. The Member imposing this

16

measure does not benefit from the presumption of consistency set up in Article 3.2; but, as earlier observed,

the Member is not penalized by exemption of a complaining Member from the normal burden of showing a

prima facie case of inconsistency with Article 3.1 or any other relevant article of the SPS Agreement or of

the GATT 1994.”

Para. 172. “Under Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement, a Member may decide to set for itself a level of

protection different from that implicit in the international standard, and to implement or embody that level of

protection in a measure not “based on” the international standard.”

c) “Existência de guias, normas ou recomendações internacionais”

O DSB afirmou que é preciso, em primeiro lugar, verificar a existência de padrões internacionais, e, em caso

de existência destes, deve-se examinar se as medidas adotadas se baseiam nestes padrões.



Para. 8.45. “According to Article 3.2 sanitary measures which conform to international standards, guidelines

or recommendations are presumed to be consistent with both the SPS Agreement and GATT. We shall

therefore, as a first step, examine whether there are international standards, guidelines or recommendations

with respect to the EC measures in dispute and, if so, whether the EC measures are based on these standards,

guidelines or recommendations in accordance with Article 3.1.”

d) “Normas Codex”



Para. 8.59. “The Codex Alimentarius Commission (“Codex”), an international body of which most WTO

Members (including the United States and the EC member States of the European Communities) are

members, establishes, inter alia, Acceptable Daily Intakes (“ADIs”), Maximum Residue Limits (“MRLs”)

and other recommendations for veterinary drugs. (…) However, once adopted Codex recommendations are,

according to the General Principles of Codex, not binding upon Codex members. They are only of an

advisory nature. The procedures to be followed to adopt a Codex recommendation have been outlined

above.”


(Hormones), Demandante: Canadá (WT/DS48/R/CAN).

Para. 8.60: “In line with Article 3.1, we consider that if such Codex Alimentarius Commission standards,

guidelines or recommendations (“Codex standards”) exist with respect to the administration of any of the six

hormones in dispute for growth promotion purposes, a sanitary measure taken by a Member should either be

based on these standards or be justified under Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement.”

e) “Medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias baseadas nos padrões internacionais existentes”



Para. 8.46. “If there are international standards, guidelines or recommendations and the European

Communities has not based its measures thereon, we will need, as a second step, to examine whether the

European Communities can justify its measures under Article 3.3 since Article 3.1, which imposes the

requirement to base sanitary measures on international standards explicitly refers to Article 3.3 as providing

for an exception to this requirement.”

17


(Hormones) (EC - Hormones), Demandante: Canadá, WT/DS48/R/CAN, paras. 8.47 e 8.72

Paras. 8.47. “Article 3.1 requires Members to base their sanitary measures on international standards,

guidelines or recommendations except as otherwise provided for in the SPS Agreement, and in particular in

Article 3.3. We note, therefore, that even if international standards may not, in their own right, be binding on

Members, Article 3.1 requires Members to base their sanitary measures on these standards.”

Para. 8.72. “Therefore, as a panel making a finding on whether or not a Member has an obligation to base its

sanitary measure on international standards in accordance with Article 3.1, we only need to determine

whether such international standards exist. For these purposes, we need not consider (i) whether the

standards reflect levels of protection or sanitary measures or the type of sanitary measure they recommend,

or (ii) whether these standards have been adopted by consensus or by a wide or narrow majority, or (iii)

whether the period during which they have been discussed or the date of their adoption was before or after

the entry into force of the SPS Agreement.”

f) “Significado de ‘based on’”

Não existe jurisprudência pacifica sobre o significado do termo “based on”. A análise do caso EC -

Hormones demonstra claramente a existência de interpretações distintas acerca do tema. De acordo com a

interpretação do Painel, os padrões e as recomendações internacionais possuem caráter vinculante quando

interpretados de acordo com a totalidade do instrumento normativo. Quanto ao sentido do termo “based on”,

o Painel afirmou que para que uma medida fosse considerada como baseada em outra, seria necessário que

essa alcançasse o mesmo nível de proteção. Já o Órgão de Apelação divergiu da interpretação do Painel e

afirmou que as normas já existentes não teriam efeito vinculante e, dessa forma, não seria necessário que as

recomendações alcançassem o mesmo nível de proteção.


(Hormones) (EC - Hormones), Demandante: EUA, WT/DS26/R/USA, paras. 8.44 e 8.72-8.73

Para. 8.44. “Article 3.1 requires Members to base their sanitary measures on international standards,

guidelines or recommendations except as otherwise provided for in the SPS Agreement, and in particular in

Article 3.3. We note, therefore, that even if international standards may not, in their own right, be binding on

Members, Article 3.1 requires Members to base their sanitary measures on these standards.”

Para. 8.72. “The SPS Agreement does not explicitly define the words based on as used in Article 3.1.

However, Article 3.2, which introduces a presumption of consistency with both the SPS Agreement and

GATT for sanitary measures which conform to international standards, equates measures based on

international standards with measures which conform to such standards. Article 3.3, in turn, explicitly relates

the definition of sanitary measures based on international standards to the level of sanitary protection

achieved by these measures. Article 3.3 stipulates the conditions to be met for a Member to enact or maintain

certain sanitary measures which are not based on international standards. It applies more specifically to

measures “which result in a higher level of sanitary ... protection than would be achieved by measures based

on the relevant international standards” or measures “which result in a level of sanitary ... protection different

from that which would be achieved by measures based on international standards”. One of the determining

factors in deciding whether a measure is based on an international standard is, therefore, the level of

protection that measure achieves. According to Article 3.3 all measures which are based on a given

international standard should in principle achieve the same level of sanitary protection. Therefore, if an

international standard reflects a specific level of sanitary protection and a sanitary measure implies a

different level, that measure cannot be considered to be based on the international standard.”

Para. 8.73: “We find, therefore, that for a sanitary measure to be based on an international standard in

accordance with Article 3.1, that measure needs to reflect the same level of sanitary protection as the

standard.”

18


Products (Hormones) (EC - Hormones), Demandante: EUA; Canadá, WT/DS26/R/USA;

WS/DS48/AB/R, paras. 162-165 e 168

Para. 162. “We read the Panel's interpretation that Article 3.2 “equates” measures “based on” international

standards with measures which “conform to” such standards, as signifying that “based on” and “conform to”

are identical in meaning. The Panel is thus saying that, henceforth, SPS measures of Members must

“conform to” Codex standards, guidelines and recommendations.”

Para. 163. “We are unable to accept this interpretation of the Panel. In the first place, the ordinary meaning

of “based on” is quite different from the plain or natural import of “conform to”. A thing is commonly said to

be “based on” another thing when the former “stands” or is “founded” or “built” upon or “is supported by”

the latter. In contrast, much more is required before one thing may be regarded as “conform[ing] to” another

(…) A measure that “conforms to” and incorporates a Codex standard is, of course, “based on” that standard.

A measure, however, based on the same standard might not conform to that standard, as where only some,

not all, of the elements of the standard are incorporated into the measure.”

Para. 164. “In the second place, “based on” and “conform to” are used in different articles, as well as in

differing paragraphs of the same article. Thus, Article 2.2 uses “based on”, while Article 2.4 employs

“conform to”. Article 3.1 requires the Members to “base” their SPS measures on international standards;

however, Article 3.2 speaks of measures which “conform to” international standards. Article 3.3 once again

refers to measures “based on” international standards.”

Para. 165. “To read Article 3.1 as requiring Members to harmonize their SPS measures by conforming those

measures with international standards, guidelines and recommendations, in the here and now, is, in effect, to

vest such international standards, guidelines and recommendations (which are by the terms of the Codex

recommendatory in form and nature 153) with obligatory force and effect. The Panel's interpretation of

Article 3.1 would, in other words, transform those standards, guidelines and recommendations into binding

norms.”

Para. 168. “It appears to us that the Panel reads much more into Article 3.3 than can be reasonably

supported by the actual text of Article 3.3. Moreover, the Panel's entire analysis rests on its flawed premise

that “based on”, as used in Articles 3.1 and 3.3, means the same thing as “conform to” as used in Article 3.2.

As already noted, we are compelled to reject this premise as an error in law. The correctness of the rest of the

Panel's intricate interpretation and examination of the consequences of the Panel's litmus test, however, have

to be left for another day and another case.”

g) “Inexistência de padrões internacionais. As medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias devem estar de

acordo com os Artigos 2 e 5”

Os Membros podem adotar medidas distintas de padrões internacionais a fim de alcançar o nível de proteção

que entendem ser apropriado, mas, para tanto, devem fazer análise de risco e buscar ter evidências

científicas.



Para. 8.47. “Finally, if there are no international standards, guidelines or recommendations with respect to

the EC measures in dispute, or to some of them, there would be no standards, guidelines or recommendations

for these measures to be based on in line with Article 3.1. However, even in that case the consistency of the

EC measures in dispute with Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS Agreement would still need to be examined.”


(Hormones) (EC - Hormones), Demandante: Canadá, WT/DS48/R/CAN, para. 8.86

19

Para. 8.86. “We find, therefore, that, whatever the difference might be between the two exceptions, a

sanitary measure can only be justified under Article 3.3 if it is consistent with the requirements contained in

Article 5. If we were to find that the EC measures in dispute are inconsistent with the requirements imposed

by Article 5, these measures cannot be justified under Article 3.3. However, even if we find that the EC

measures at issue are consistent with the requirements imposed by Article 5, this will still not be sufficient

for these measures to be justified under Article 3.3 since to reach that conclusion we also need to find that

the EC measures in dispute fulfil all provisions of the SPS Agreement other than Articles 3 and 5 (in casu

Article 2).”

Relatório do Painel no caso Australia - Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon (Australia - Salmon),

Demandado: Canadá, WT/DS18/R, para. 8.44

Para. 8.44. “Notwithstanding the above, all measures which result in a level of sanitary or phytosanitary

protection different from that which would be achieved by measures based on international standards,

guidelines or recommendations shall not be inconsistent with any other provision of this Agreement.”

h) “O ônus da prova”

De acordo com as hipóteses previstas no Artigo 3, um Membro não está obrigado a basear suas medidas

sanitárias e fitossanitárias em padrões e recomendações preexistentes. No entanto, tal fato não implica na

ampliação do ônus da prova, que incumbirá sempre ao Membro que questiona a medida adotada.


(Hormones) (EC - Hormones), Demandante: EUA, WT/DS26/R/USA, paras. 8.51, 8.54 e 8.87

Para. 8.51. “In addressing the burden of proof under the SPS Agreement, we consider that, as is the case in

most legal proceedings, the initial burden of proof rests on the complaining party in the sense that it bears the

burden of presenting a prima facie case of inconsistency with the SPS Agreement. It is, indeed, for the party

that initiated the dispute settlement proceedings to put forward factual and legal arguments in order to

substantiate its claim that a sanitary measure is inconsistent with the SPS Agreement.”

Para. 8.54. “Finally, we note that this assignment of burden of proof to the party imposing the measure is

also supported by Article 3.2 which introduces a presumption of consistency with the SPS Agreement for

sanitary measures which conform to international standards, guidelines or recommendations.”

Para. 8.87. “We find, therefore, that once the complaining party provides a prima facie case (i) that there is

an international standard with respect to the measure in dispute, and (ii) that the measure in dispute is not

based on this standard, the burden of proof under Article 3.3 shifts to the defending party.”


Products (Hormones) (EC - Hormones), Demandante: EUA, WT/DS26/R/USA, paras. 102 e 109

Para. 102. “The presumption of consistency with relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement that arises under

Article 3.2 in respect of measures that conform to international standards may well be an incentive for

Members so to conform their SPS measures with such standards. It is clear, however, that a decision of a

Member not to conform a particular measure with an international standard does not authorize imposition of

a special or generalized burden of proof upon that Member, which may, more often than not, amount to a

penalty.”

Para. 109. “In accordance with our ruling in United States - Shirts and Blouses70, the Panel should have

begun the analysis of each legal provision by examining whether the United States and Canada had presented

evidence and legal arguments sufficient to demonstrate that the EC measures were inconsistent with the

obligations assumed by the European Communities under each Article of the SPS Agreement addressed by

the Panel, i.e., Articles 3.1, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.5. Only after such a prima facie determination had been made by

20

the Panel may the onus be shifted to the European Communities to bring forward evidence and arguments to

disprove the complaining party's claim.”

i) “Direito de estabelecer medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias próprias”

Os Membros podem adotar medidas que sejam distintas dos padrões, normas e recomendações internacionais

desde que tenham fundamentação para tanto, ou busquem acessar informações científicas nesse sentido.


Products (Hormones) (EC - Hormones), Demandante: EUA, WT/DS26/R/USA, paras. 171-173 e 175

Para. 171. “The right of a Member to determine its own appropriate level of sanitary protection is an

important right. This is made clear in the sixth preambular paragraph of the SPS Agreement.”

Para. 172. “As noted earlier, this right of a Member to establish its own level of sanitary protection under

Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement is an autonomous right and not an “exception” from a “general obligation”

under Article 3.1.”

Para. 173. “The right of a Member to define its appropriate level of protection is not, however, an absolute

or unqualified right.”

Para. 175. “Article 3.3 is evidently not a model of clarity in drafting and communication. The use of the

disjunctive “or” does indicate that two situations are intended to be covered. These are the introduction or

maintenance of SPS measures which result in a higher level of protection: (a)”if there is a scientific

justification”; or (b)”as a consequence of the level of ... protection a Member determines to be appropriate in

accordance with the relevant provisions of paragraphs 1 through 8 of Article 5”.”

j) “Necessidade de justificativa científica”

Nesse caso o Órgão de Apelação reforçou o entendimento de que a adoção de medidas depende da relação

entre a medida e o objetivo que ela pretende proteger, e a existência de evidências que possam mostrar o

quanto mencionada medida é relevante a este contexto. É uma relação entre os Artigos 2, 3 e 5 do Acordo

SPS. A questão da necessidade da medida aplicada é central nos casos SPS, uma vez que a medida deve

ser tão restritiva o quanto necessário para atingir os seus objetivos. Além disso, o fato de os Membros

poderem adotar medidas baseadas em padrões próprios abre a possibilidade para que se adotem medidas

não fundamentadas cientificamente, e a própria discussão sobre a existência e a suficiência das evidências

científicas torna essa análise crucial para verificar se a medida segue as regras do Acordo SPS ou não.


Agricultural Products II), Demandante: EUA, WT/DS76/AB/R, para. 79

Para. 79. “As mentioned above, the context of the phrase “not maintained without sufficient scientific

evidence” in Article 2.2 also includes Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement. Pursuant to Article 3.3, Members

may introduce or maintain an SPS measure which results in a higher level of protection than would be

achieved by a measure based on a relevant international standard, inter alia, “if there is a scientific

justification” and the measure is not inconsistent with any other provision of the SPS Agreement. In

European Communities – Hormones, we stated: … the footnote to Article 3.3 … defines “scientific

justification” as an “examination and evaluation of available scientific information in conformity with

relevant provisions of this Agreement (…).

We also stated: [t]his examination and evaluation would appear to partake of the nature of the risk

assessment required in Article 5.1 and defined in paragraph 4 of Annex A of the SPS Agreement. In our

opinion, there is a “scientific justification” for an SPS measure, within the meaning of Article 3.3, if there is

a rational relationship between the SPS measure at issue and the available scientific information.”

21

III. Comentários

O Acordo SPS foi negociado em conjunto com o Acordo sobre Agricultura, e tinha o objetivo primordial de

assegurar o comércio internacional e inibir o uso de regulamentos sanitários e fitossanitários com objetivos

protecionistas. Dessa forma, o Artigo 3 visa a promover o uso de guias, normas e recomendações

internacionais padronizadas, de modo a evitar restrições arbitrárias por parte dos Membros. No entanto,

ressalva-se o direito dos Membros de adotarem medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias próprias.

O Artigo 3 admite as seguintes hipóteses: medidas que estão de acordo com os padrões internacionalmente

estabelecidos; medidas baseadas nos padrões internacionais; e, medidas estabelecidas pelos próprios

Membros, desde que cientificamente justificáveis. Caso existam padrões ou recomendações internacionais, o

Membro deve basear-se nesses padrões ou justificar a necessidade de um padrão sanitário ou fitossanitário

próprio, com fundamento no Artigo 3.3. Ainda não existe jurisprudência pacífica sobre o significado do

termo “based on”. De acordo com o Relatório do Painel no caso EC - Hormones, o fato de uma medida

sanitária ser baseada em padrões internacionais, implicaria necessariamente no mesmo grau de proteção

sanitária e fitossanitária.

Tal entendimento foi posteriormente modificado pelo Órgão de Apelação, sob o argumento de que a

interpretação do Painel conferiria eficácia vinculativa aos padrões e às recomendações internacionais, o que

ultrapassaria o âmbito normativo de aplicação do Acordo SPS.

Dessa forma, caso o Membro escolha basear sua medida em padrões ou recomendações internacionais

existentes, esse não deve necessariamente incorporar todos os elementos desse padrão, pois caso assim o

fosse, o padrão internacional se tornaria uma norma vinculante, o que, em momento algum, configurou o

objetivo do Acordo, no entendimento do Órgão de Apelação.

O Artigo 3 permite também a adoção de medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias estabelecidas pelos próprios

Membros. Um governo não está obrigado a adotar um padrão internacional que leve a um nível de proteção à

saúde menor do que ele acredita ser apropriado, desde que tal medida não seja uma forma de discriminação

arbitrária e injustificada entre os Membros. No entanto, tais medidas devem ser aplicadas somente na medida

do necessário, sempre respeitando o princípio da proporcionalidade, e devem ser justificadas cientificamente.

A justificação das medidas é, na prática, o grande desafio a ser analisado nos Painéis ligados ao Acordo SPS,

e o papel dos grupos de perito é essencial nesse sentido.

Reiteradamente, o DSB tem reconhecido o direito dos Membros de definir os padrões adequados de

proteção, pois os padrões previamente estabelecidos pela comunidade internacional não teriam caráter

vinculativo. Caso contrário, essas medidas poderiam ser utilizadas de maneira discriminatória, visando

limitar a atuação comercial de Membros em desenvolvimento, que não dispõem dos recursos necessários

para a implementação dessas medidas.

Deve-se levar sempre em consideração que as medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias variam bastante entre os

Membros, tendo em vista as características específicas de cada nação, como condições climáticas e

geográficas, e nível de desenvolvimento tecnológico. Independentemente da categoria na qual a restrição se

enquadra, essa deve estar necessariamente de acordo com os outros dispositivos do Acordo SPS.

Se, por um lado, o objetivo do Artigo 3 do Acordo SPS parece ser o de incentivar os Membros a utilizarem

as normas e guias internacionais, visando a harmonização de medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias, e a redução

das barreiras ao comércio, é possível observar da análise dos casos julgados até aqui que a ressalva feita ao

direito dos Membros de escolherem os seus próprios níveis de proteção abre espaço para medidas

protecionistas, que são de difícil repressão por parte do DSB. Até aqui o Órgão de Apelação deixou de

produzir decisões, interpretando o Acordo SPS, que servissem para impedir a adoção de medidas

protecionistas.

22

Artigo 4

Maria Carolina Mendonça de Barros


Rodrigo C. A. Lima


Article 4

Equivalence

4.1 Members shall accept the sanitary or phytosanitary measures of other Members as equivalent, even if

these measures differ from their own or from those used by other Members trading in the same

product, if the exporting Member objectively demonstrates to the importing Member that its

measures achieve the importing Member’s appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary

protection. For this purpose, reasonable access shall be given, upon request, to the importing

Member for inspection, testing and other relevant procedures.

4.2 Members shall, upon request, enter into consultations with the aim of achieving bilateral and

multilateral agreements on recognition of the equivalence of specified sanitary or phytosanitary

measures.


Artigo 4

Equivalência

4.1 Os Membros aceitarão as medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias de outros Membros como equivalentes,

mesmo se tais medidas diferirem de suas próprias medidas ou de medidas usadas por outros

Membros que comercializem o mesmo produto, se o Membro exportador demonstrar objetivamente

ao Membro importador que suas medidas alcançam o nível adequado de proteção sanitária e

fitossanitária do Membro importador. Para tal fim, acesso razoável deve ser concedido, quando se

solicite, ao Membro importador, com vistas a inspeção, teste e outros procedimentos relevantes.

4.2 Os Membros, quando se solicitem, realizarão consultas com o objetivo de alcançar acordos bilaterais

e multilaterais para reconhecimento da equivalência das medidas sanitárias ou fitossanitárias

específicas.



A parte final do item 2 deveria ser traduzida como: “para reconhecimento da equivalência de medidas

sanitárias ou fitossanitárias específicas”, e não como: “para reconhecimento da equivalência das medidas

sanitárias ou fitossanitárias específicas.”


1. Decisão de equivalência – G/SPS/19

Em 26.10.01, o Comitê de SPS ao interpretar o Artigo 4 adotou a chamada “decisão de equivalência”. Nessa

decisão, o Comitê de SPS definiu o conceito de equivalência no âmbito de aplicação do Artigo 4.

a) “Conceito de equivalência”

Preâmbulo. “Noting that equivalence of sanitary or phytosanitary measures does not require duplication or

sameness of measures, but the acceptance of alternative measures that meet an importing Member's

appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection;”

23

b) “Orientações para o reconhecimento da equivalência”

O Artigo 4.1 estabelece orientações para o reconhecimento da equivalência de medidas sanitárias e

fitossanitárias. De acordo com decisão proferida pelo Painel no caso US - Poultry, o Membro importador

deverá explicar o objetivo de sua medida e os riscos relacionados. Posteriormente, o Membro exportador

deverá fornecer dados científicos que comprovem a equivalência das medidas. É importante destacar que o

reconhecimento da equivalência entre medidas sanitárias ou fitossanitárias aplicadas por dois ou mais

Membros pode significar, na prática, a aplicação de medidas que visem proteger a vida e a saúde humana,

animal e vegetal, sem que isso gere restrições ao comércio.



Para. 7.135. “The Decision sets out guidelines for any Member who requests the recognition of equivalence

of their SPS measures and for the importing Member who is the addressee of such request. As contemplated

in the Decision, upon a request for equivalence, the importing Member should explain the objective and

rationale of the SPS measure and identify clearly the risks that the relevant measure is intended to address.

The Decision further explains that the importing Member should indicate the ALOP which its SPS measure

is designed to achieve. Such an explanation should be accompanied by a copy of the risk assessment on

which the SPS measure is based or a technical justification based on a relevant international standard,

guideline or recommendation. The exporting Member should then provide appropriate science-based and

technical information to support its objective demonstration that its measure achieves the ALOP identified

by the importing Member. The importing Member should analyse such information with a view to

determining whether the exporting Member's SPS measure achieves the ALOP provided by its own relevant

SPS measure.”

Para. 7.136. “In fact, the Decision states that the importing Member should explain its SPS measures by

identifying the risk and provide a copy of the risk assessment or technical standard on which the measure is

based. Further, it requires the importing Member to analyse the science-based and technical information

provided by the exporting Member with respect to that Member's own SPS measure(s) to examine if the

measure achieves the importing Member's ALOP.”

c) “Decisão de equivalência” (G/SPS/19)

Para. 2. “In the context of facilitating the implementation of Article 4, on request of the exporting Member,

the importing Member should explain the objective and rationale of the sanitary or phytosanitary measure

and identify clearly the risks that the relevant measure is intended to address. The importing Member should

indicate the appropriate level of protection which its sanitary or phytosanitary measure is designed to

achieve. (3) The explanation should be accompanied by a copy of the risk assessment on which the sanitary

or phytosanitary measure is based or a technical justification based on a relevant international standard,

guideline or recommendation. The importing Member should also provide any additional information which

may assist the exporting Member to provide an objective demonstration of the equivalence of its own

measure.” Para. 4. “The exporting Member shall provide appropriate science-based and technical information to

support its objective demonstration that its measure achieves the appropriate level of protection identified by

the importing Member. This information may include, inter alia, reference to relevant international

standards, or to relevant risk assessments undertaken by the importing Member or by another Member. In

addition, the exporting Member shall provide reasonable access, upon request, to the importing Member for

inspection, testing and other relevant procedures for the recognition of equivalence.”

d) “Não interrupção ou suspensão das importações”

A solicitação de equivalência de medidas referentes a um produto não tem o condão de interromper ou

suspender as importações de um determinado produto. No entanto, é válido ressaltar que atrasos ou demoras

injustificadas (undue delays) ligadas à análise de documentos, análises de risco, realização de missões

24

sanitárias, dentre outros procedimentos administrativos relacionados com o reconhecimento da equivalência,

podem restringir a importação.

e) “Decisão de equivalência” (G/SPS/19)

Para. 6. “The consideration by an importing Member of a request by an exporting Member for recognition

of the equivalence of its measures with regard to a specific product shall not be in itself a reason to disrupt or

suspend on-going imports from that Member of the product in question.”

2. Assistência a Membros em desenvolvimento

a) “Decisão de equivalência” (G/SPS/19)

Para. 8. “In accordance with Article 9 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary

Measures, a Member shall give full consideration to requests by another Member, especially a developing

country Member, for appropriate technical assistance to facilitate the implementation of Article 4. This

assistance may, inter alia, be to help an exporting Member identify and implement measures which can be

recognized as equivalent, or to otherwise enhance market access opportunities. Such assistance may also be

with regard to the development and provision of the appropriate science-based and technical information

referred to in paragraph 4, above.”

III. Comentários

A multiplicidade de padrões sanitários e fitossanitários tem um impacto negativo no comércio internacional.

Tal impacto pode ser reduzido por meio da harmonização de medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias diversas. De

modo a evitar a variedade de medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias e a aplicação inadequada de tais padrões de

proteção, o Artigo 4.1 obriga os Membros a aceitarem medidas como equivalentes, desde que o Membro

exportador demonstre objetivamente que a sua medida alcança o mesmo nível apropriado de proteção.

O objetivo do Artigo 4.1 é exatamente o de promover a harmonização das medidas sanitárias e

fitossanitárias, obrigando os Membros a aceitar medidas que alcancem o mesmo grau de proteção como

equivalentes. O Artigo 4 estabelece que, para que as medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias sejam aceitas como

equivalentes, o Membro importador deve fornecer elementos suficientes para explicar a necessidade da

adoção de tal medida, e seus fundamentos científicos. Posteriormente, caberá ao Membro exportador

demonstrar objetivamente que sua medida alcança um nível equivalente de proteção. Na prática, o

reconhecimento da equivalência pode ser negociado e incorporado em acordos bilaterais, regionais ou

multilaterais, mas não existe nenhuma obrigação de se firmar tais acordos.

Ao reconhecer que várias medidas podem alcançar o mesmo nível de proteção, os Membros da OMC

ampliaram o acesso ao mercado internacional de produtos agrícolas e alimentícios produzidos por países em

desenvolvimento. No entanto, os países em desenvolvimento ainda alegam que muitas vezes os países

desenvolvidos equiparam o conceito de equivalência ao de identidade, o que esvazia o conteúdo normativo

do Artigo 4. É preciso que o Comitê de SPS e também os Painéis e o Órgão de Apelação fiquem cada vez

mais atentos à utilização das medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias como instrumentos de protecionismo. Como

visto, as decisões proferidas até aqui não são suficientemente claras para impedir o uso de tais medidas com

fins protecionistas. Cabe, portanto, aos Membros a constante vigilância, no que diz respeito à adoção de

medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias pelos Membros importadores de produtos agrícolas.

FOOTNOTE:

Footnote 3: In doing so, Members should take into account the Guidelines to Further the Practical Implementation of Article 5.5

adopted by the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures at its meeting of 21-22 June 2000 (document G/SPS/15, dated 18

July 2000).

25

Artigo 5

Marina Amaral Egydio de Carvalho

Rodrigo C. A. Lima

Fábio Morosini

Isadora Telli


Article 5

Assessment of Risk and Determination of the Appropriate Level

of Sanitary or Phytosanitary Protection

5.1 Members shall ensure that their sanitary or phytosanitary measures are based on an assessment, as

appropriate to the circumstances, of the risks to human, animal or plant life or health, taking into

account risk assessment techniques developed by the relevant international organizations.

5.2 In the assessment of risks, Members shall take into account available scientific evidence; relevant

processes and production methods; relevant inspection, sampling and testing methods; prevalence of

specific diseases or pests; existence of pest- or disease-free areas; relevant ecological and

environmental conditions; and quarantine or other treatment.

5.3 In assessing the risk to animal or plant life or health and determining the measure to be applied for

achieving the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection from such risk, Members shall

take into account as relevant economic factors: the potential damage in terms of loss of production or

sales in the event of the entry, establishment or spread of a pest or disease; the costs of control or

eradication in the territory of the importing Member; and the relative cost-effectiveness of alternative

approaches to limiting risks.

5.4 Members should, when determining the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection,

take into account the objective of minimizing negative trade effects.

5.5 With the objective of achieving consistency in the application of the concept of appropriate level of

sanitary or phytosanitary protection against risks to human life or health, or to animal and plant life

or health, each Member shall avoid arbitrary or unjustifiable distinctions in the levels it considers to

be appropriate in different situations, if such distinctions result in discrimination or a disguised

restriction on international trade. Members shall cooperate in the Committee, in accordance with

paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 12, to develop guidelines to further the practical implementation of

this provision. In developing the guidelines, the Committee shall take into account all relevant

factors, including the exceptional character of human health risks to which people voluntarily expose

themselves.

5.6 Without prejudice to paragraph 2 of Article 3, when establishing or maintaining sanitary or

phytosanitary measures to achieve the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection,

Members shall ensure that such measures are not more trade-restrictive than required to achieve their

appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection, taking into account technical and economic

feasibility. (4)

5.7 In cases where relevant scientific evidence is insufficient, a Member may provisionally adopt

sanitary or phytosanitary measures on the basis of available pertinent information, including that

from the relevant international organizations as well as from sanitary or phytosanitary measures

applied by other Members. In such circumstances, Members shall seek to obtain the additional

information necessary for a more objective assessment of risk and review the sanitary or

phytosanitary measure accordingly within a reasonable period of time.

26

5.8 When a Member has reason to believe that a specific sanitary or phytosanitary measure introduced or

maintained by another Member is constraining, or has the potential to constrain, its exports and the

measure is not based on the relevant international standards, guidelines or recommendations, or such

standards, guidelines or recommendations do not exist, an explanation of the reasons for such

sanitary or phytosanitary measure may be requested and shall be provided by the Member

maintaining the measures.

Footnote 4: For purposes of paragraph 6 of Article 5, a measure is not more trade-restrictive than required unless there is another

measure, reasonably available taking into account technical and economic feasibility, that achieves the appropriate level of sanitary

or phytosanitary protection and is significantly less restrictive to trade.


Artigo 5

Avaliação do Risco e Determinação do Nível Adequado da Proteção Sanitária e

Fitossanitária

5.1 Os Membros assegurarão que suas medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias são baseadas em uma

avaliação, adequada às circunstâncias, dos riscos à vida ou à saúde humana, animal ou vegetal,

tomando em consideração as técnicas para avaliação de risco elaboradas pelas organizações

internacionais competentes.

5.2 Na avaliação de riscos, os Membros levarão em consideração a evidência científica disponível; os

processos e métodos de produção pertinentes; os métodos para teste, amostragem e inspeção

pertinentes; a prevalência de pragas e doenças específicas; a existência de áreas livres de pragas ou

doenças; condições ambientais e ecológicas pertinentes; e regimes de quarentena ou outros.

5.3 Ao avaliar o risco para a vida ou a saúde humana, animal ou vegetal, e ao determinar a medida a ser

aplicada para se alcançar o nível adequado de proteção sanitária e fitossanitária para tal risco, os

Membros levarão em consideração como fatores econômicos relevantes: o dano potencial em termos

de perda de produção ou de vendas no caso de entrada, estabelecimento e disseminação de uma peste

ou doença; os custos de controle e de erradicação no território do Membro importador; e da relação

custo-benefício de enfoques alternativos para limitar os riscos.

5.4 Os Membros devem, ao determinar o nível adequado de proteção sanitária e fitossanitária, levar em

consideração o objetivo de reduzir ao mínimo os efeitos negativos ao comércio.

5.5 Com vistas a se alcançar consistência na aplicação do conceito de nível adequado de proteção

sanitária ou fitossanitária contra riscos à vida ou saúde humana ou à vida ou saúde animal, cada

Membro evitará distinções arbitrárias ou injustificáveis nos níveis que considera apropriados em

diferentes situações, se tais distinções resultam em discriminação ou em uma restrição velada ao

comércio internacional. Os Membros auxiliarão o Comitê, de acordo com os parágrafos 1, 2 e 3 do

Artigo 12, a elaborar diretrizes para disseminar a implementação prática desta disposição. Ao

elaborar as diretrizes, o Comitê levará em consideração todos os fatores pertinentes, inclusive o

caráter excepcional dos riscos à saúde humana aos quais indivíduos se expõem voluntariamente.

5.6 Sem prejuízo do parágrafo 2 do Artigo 3, ao estabelecerem ou manterem medidas sanitárias e

fitossanitárias para alcançar o nível adequado de proteção sanitária e fitossanitária, os Membros

garantirão que tais medidas não são mais restritivas ao comércio do que o necessário para alcançar

seu nível adequado de proteção sanitária e fitossanitária, levando-se em consideração a

exequibilidade econômica e técnica.3

5.7 Nos casos em que a evidência científica for insuficiente, um Membro pode provisoriamente adotar

medidas sanitárias ou fitossanitárias com base em informação pertinente que esteja disponível,

3 Para os propósitos do parágrafo 3 do Artigo 5, uma medida não é mais restritiva do que o necessário a não ser que haja outra

medida, razoavelmente disponível levando em conta a exequibilidade econômica e técnica, que alcance o nível apropriado de

proteção sanitária ou fitossanitária e seja significativamente menos restritiva ao comércio.

27

incluindo-se informação oriunda de organizações internacionais relevantes, assim como de medidas

sanitárias ou fitossanitárias aplicadas por outros Membros. Em tais circunstâncias, os Membros

buscarão obter a informação adicional necessária para uma avaliação mais objetiva de risco e

revisarão, em consequência, a medida sanitária ou fitossanitária em um prazo razoável.

5.8 Quando um Membro tiver razão para crer que uma medida sanitária ou fitossanitária introduzida ou

mantida por um outro Membro é restritiva ou tem o potencial de restringir suas exportações e que a

medida não está baseada em normas, guias ou recomendações internacionais pertinentes, ou que tais

normas guias ou recomendações não existem, poderá solicitar – e o Membro que mantém a medida

terá que fornecer – uma explicação das razões para a existência de tal medida sanitária ou

fitossanitária.


IA. Texto da Decisão G/SPS/15 em Inglês

Decision G/SPS/15

Guidelines to Further the Practical Implementation of Article 5.5

A. APPLICATION OF THE CONCEPT OF THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF PROTECTION

A.1. A Member should indicate the level of protection which it considers to be appropriate with respect to

risks to human life or health, to animal life or health or to plant life or health in a sufficiently clear

manner so as to permit examination of the extent to which any sanitary or phytosanitary measure

achieves that level.

A.2. A Member should, when determining an appropriate level of protection, either as an overall policy

objective or for a specific situation, consider:

Whether there is a difference between the level of protection under consideration and levels

already determined by the Member in different situations and, if so,

Whether these differences are arbitrary or unjustifiable, and, if so,

Whether they may result in discrimination or in a disguised restriction on international trade.

A.3. A Member should establish clear and effective communication and information flows within and

between the authorities responsible for the determination of appropriate levels of protection.

A.4. To avoid arbitrary or unjustifiable differences in the level of protection a Member considers to be

appropriate in different situations, a Member should compare any proposed decision on the level of

protection in a particular situation with the level it has previously considered or is considering to be

appropriate in situations which contain sufficient common elements so as to render them comparable

with regard to human life or health, to animal life or health, or to plant life or health.

A.5. In determining a new or modified appropriate level of protection, a Member should review its

previous decisions regarding appropriate levels of protection in the light of the objectives and

obligations of Article 5.5, taking into account current decisions and developments.

A.6. In determining a new or modified appropriate level of protection a Member may find it helpful to

examine any relevant international standards, guidelines or recommendations, or decisions taken by

other Members facing similar risks and situations.

A.7. A Member may consider seeking expert advice to contribute to its decision-making process with

regard to the determination of a new or modified appropriate level of protection.

28

A.8. A Member should clearly identify those situations which it considers justify its acceptance

exceptionally of a lower level of protection for human health specifically with respect to risks to

which people voluntarily expose themselves.

B. PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONCEPT OF AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF

PROTECTION

B.1. A Member should establish clear and effective communication and information flows within and

between the authorities responsible for the determination of appropriate levels of protection, and

those responsible for the selection and implementation of sanitary or phytosanitary measures

designed to achieve the appropriate level of protection. A Member should establish common

approaches or consistent procedures for use by the authorities assessing risks and evaluating the

measures which might be applied to achieve the desired levels of protection. In particular, a common

approach should be developed with respect to risks affecting human life or health, a common

approach for consideration of risks to animal life or health, and a common approach for risks to plant

life or health.

B.2. A Member should establish common approaches or consistent procedures for use by the authorities

assessing risks and evaluating the measures which might be applied to achieve the desired levels of

protection. In particular, a common approach should be developed with respect to risks affecting

human life or health, a common approach for consideration of risks to animal life or health, and a

common approach for risks to plant life or health.

B.3. A Member should compare any proposed measure intended to achieve the appropriate level of

protection in a particular situation with other sanitary or phytosanitary measures it has taken, or is

considering, with regard to human life or health, to animal life or health, and plant life or health in

situations which present sufficient common elements so as to render them comparable.

B.4. A Member should routinely review existing measures applied to achieve its appropriate level of

protection in accordance with the objectives of guideline A.5, taking also into account current

decisions and developments.

B.5. In considering a measure to achieve an appropriate level of protection in a particular situation, a

Member should determine whether a relevant international standard, guideline or recommendation

exists, and if it does, whether adoption of it would achieve the Member's appropriate level of

protection.

B.6. In considering a proposed measure to achieve its appropriate level of protection in a particular

situation, a Member may find it helpful to examine measures applied by other Members facing

similar risks and situations.

B.7. A Member may consider seeking expert advice on the selection and implementation of sanitary and

phytosanitary measures to achieve its appropriate level of protection.


Segue abaixo sugestão de redação em português:

No trecho: “Os Membros devem assegurar que suas medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias sejam baseadas em

avaliação, adequada às circunstâncias, dos riscos à vida ou à saúde humana, animal ou vegetal, levando em

consideração as técnicas para avaliação de risco, elaboradas pelas organizações internacionais competentes.”,

considera-se mais adequado incluir a expressão “devem assegurar”, ao invés de “assegurarão”, como

tradução de “shall ensure”, de modo a enfatizar a obrigação dos Membros. No entanto, entende-se que o

emprego do futuro simples não exime os Membros de cumprirem tal obrigação. Além disso, sugere-se

correção gramatical do verbo “ser” e a substituição de “tomando” por “levando”.

29

A expressão “nível adequado de proteção” poderia ter sido traduzida como “nível apropriado de proteção”.

A tradução de “risks to human life or health, or to animal and plant life or health” deveria ter incluído saúde

das plantas. Na tradução para português, o primeiro parágrafo do preâmbulo do Acordo SPS usa a expressão

“proteção da vida ou da saúde humana, animal ou vegetal”.

Já no segundo parágrafo, quando se traduz “Desiring to improve the human health, animal health and

phytosanitary situation in all Members” por “desejando melhorar a saúde humana, a saúde animal e a

situação sanitária no território de todos os Membros”, há um erro no tocante as questões fitossanitárias, que

possuem relação com as plantas. Medidas sanitárias possuem relação com a saúde humana e animal,

enquanto medidas fitossanitárias com a saúde das plantas, o que normalmente gera confusão no âmbito do

Acordo SPS. A tradução do Artigo 5.5 seria correta caso tratasse de “riscos à vida ou saúde humana, animal

ou vegetal”.


1. Standard of Review

Em diversos casos, o Órgão de Apelação se pronunciou acerca do standard de revisão (standard of review)

utilizado na apreciação da avaliação de risco ou de opiniões científicas que fundamentam a implementação

de medidas de SPS. Estabeleceu-se uma diferença entre o standard “de novo” e o standard “objetivo”, e

apontou-se o standard correto a ser adotado. Em EC - Hormones, analisou-se a proibição imposta pelas

Comunidades Europeias sobre a comercialização e a importação de carne e produtos derivados de carne

tratados com determinados hormônios.


Products (Hormones) (EC - Hormones), Demandantes: EUA, WT/DS26/R/USA; Canadá,

WT/DS48/AB/R, paras. 115-117

Para. 115. “The standard of review appropriately applicable in proceedings under the SPS Agreement, of

course, must reflect the balance established in that Agreement between the jurisdictional competences

conceded by the Members to the WTO and the jurisdictional competences retained by the Members for

themselves. To adopt a standard of review not clearly rooted in the text of the SPS Agreement itself, may

well amount to changing that finely drawn balance; and neither a panel nor the Appellate Body is authorized

to do that.”

Para. 116. “We do not mean, however, to suggest that there is at present no standard of review applicable to

the determination and assessment of the facts in proceedings under the SPS Agreement or under other

covered agreements. In our view, Article 11 of the DSU bears directly on this matter and, in effect,

articulates with great succinctness but with sufficient clarity the appropriate standard of review for panels in

respect of both the ascertainment of facts and the legal characterization of such facts under the relevant

agreements.” Article 11 reads thus: (citation omitted)

Para. 117. “So far as fact-finding by panels is concerned, their activities are always constrained by the

mandate of Article 11 of the DSU: the applicable standard is neither de novo review as such, nor “total

deference”, but rather the “objective assessment of the facts”. Many panels have in the past refused to

undertake de novo review, wisely, since under current practice and systems, they are in any case poorly

suited to engage in such a review. On the other hand, “total deference to the findings of the national

authorities”, it has been well said, “could not ensure an 'objective assessment' as foreseen by Article 11 of the

DSU”.”

Relatório do Órgão de Apelação no caso United States/Canada - Continued Suspension of Obligations in

the EC - Hormones Dispute (US - Continued Suspension), WT/DS320/AB/R; (Canadá - Continued

Suspension), WT/DS321/AB/R, Demandante: Comunidades Europeias, para. 590

30

Na disputa US/Canada - Hormones Continued Suspension, os EUA e o Canadá foram questionados por

manterem a suspensão de concessões e outras obrigações após as Comunidades Europeias terem retirado as

medidas consideradas inconsistentes com as regras da OMC, no caso EC - Hormones.

Para. 590. “A panel reviewing the consistency of an SPS measure with Article 5.1 must determine whether

that SPS measure is “based on” a risk assessment. It is the WTO Member's task to perform the risk

assessment. The panel's task is to review that risk assessment. Where a panel goes beyond this limited

mandate and acts as a risk assessor, it would be substituting its own scientific judgement for that of the risk

assessor and making a de novo review and, consequently, would exceed its functions under Article 11 of the

DSU. Therefore, the review power of a panel is not to determine whether the risk assessment undertaken by

a WTO Member is correct, but rather to determine whether that risk assessment is supported by coherent

reasoning and respectable scientific evidence and is, in this sense, objectively justifiable.”


Demandante: Canadá, WT/DS18/R, para. 8.41

No caso Australia - Salmon alegou-se que uma regulação de quarentena proibindo a importação de salmão

violava diversos dispositivos do Acordo de SPS, entre eles o Artigo 5.1.

Para. 8.41. “In this respect - and especially following comments made by Australia at the interim review

stage that our legal reasoning and findings do not reflect an objective assessment of the matter before us,

undertake a de novo risk assessment and are based on motives or intent - we stress that in examining this

case we did not attempt (nor are we, in our view, allowed) to conduct our own risk assessment or to impose

any scientific opinion on Australia. We only examined and evaluated the evidence - including the

information we received from the experts advising the Panel - and arguments put before us in light of the

relevant WTO provisions and, following the rules on burden of proof set out above, based our findings on

this evidence and these arguments.”

Relatório do Órgão de Apelação no caso Australia - Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples from

New Zealand (Australia - Apples), Demandante: Nova Zelândia, WT/DS367/AB/R, para. 215

Ainda, no caso Australia - Apples discutiu-se a provável inconsistência de dezesseis medidas de SPS que

baniram a importação de maçãs da Nova Zelândia. A seguir, a análise do Órgão de Apelação sobre este

Artigo.

Para. 215. “Thus, in its discussion of the standard of review that applies to a panel reviewing a risk

assessment under Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement, the Appellate Body identified two aspects of a panel's

scrutiny of a risk assessment, namely, scrutiny of the underlying scientific basis and scrutiny of the reasoning

of the risk assessor based upon such underlying science. With respect to the first aspect, the Appellate Body

saw the panel's role as limited to reviewing whether the scientific basis constitutes “legitimate science

according to the standards of the relevant scientific community”. The Appellate Body perceived the second

aspect of a panel's review as involving an assessment of whether the reasoning of the risk assessor is

objective and coherent, that is, whether the conclusions find sufficient support in the scientific evidence

relied upon. Having done so, the panel must determine whether the results of the risk assessment sufficiently

warrant the challenged SPS measures. We consider that this reasoning of the Appellate Body is consistent

with the overarching requirement in Article 2.2 and reflected in Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement

that there be a “rational or objective relationship” between the SPS measures and the scientific evidence.”

2. Artigo 5.1

a) “Geral”


Products (Hormones) (EC - Hormones), Demandantes: EUA, WT/DS26/R/USA; Canadá

31

WS/DS48/AB/R, para. 250

Em função da relação direta do Artigo 5.1 com o Artigo 2.2 do Acordo SPS, o Órgão de Apelação manteve a

decisão do Painel no caso EC - Hormones, no sentido de exercer economia judicial e, uma vez encontrada

violação ao Artigo 5.1, concluir pela desnecessidade em avaliar possível violação ao Artigo 2.2.

Para. 250. “We agree with the Panel’s application of the notion of judicial economy. We have affirmed the

Panel’s conclusion that the EC measures are inconsistent with Article 5.1 in view of the failure of the

European Communities to provide a risk assessment that reasonably supports such measures. Under the

circumstances, the necessity or propriety of proceeding to determine whether Article 2.2 of the SPS

Agreement has also been violated is not at all clear to us. (…)”

b) “Based on an assessment”

(i) procedural and substantive aspect

O Painel no caso EC - Hormones entendeu que o Artigo 5.1 possui um aspecto processual e um material. O

primeiro requer um procedimento mínimo de consideração da avaliação de risco para a implementação da

medida de SPS. O segundo, um procedimento mínimo para verificar se as conclusões científicas dessa

avaliação estão em conformidade com as conclusões científicas refletidas na medida de SPS. O Órgão de

Apelação, porém, reverteu este entendimento e determinou que a expressão correta para análise do Artigo

5.1 é “based on”, e entendeu que a interpretação construtiva do Painel, dividida em dois aspectos, constitui

um erro de direito.



WS/DS48/AB/R, paras. 189-190

Para. 189. “We are bound to note that, as the Panel itself acknowledges, no textual basis exists in Article 5

of the SPS Agreement for such a “minimum procedural requirement”. The term “based on”, when applied as

a “minimum procedural requirement” by the Panel, may be seen to refer to a human action, such as particular

human individuals “taking into account” a document described as a risk assessment. Thus, “take into

account” is apparently used by the Panel to refer to some subjectivity which, at some time, may be present in

particular individuals but that, in the end, may be totally rejected by those individuals. We believe that

“based on” is appropriately taken to refer to a certain objective relationship between two elements, that is to

say, to an objective situation that persists and is observable between an SPS measure and a risk assessment.

Such a reference is certainly embraced in the ordinary meaning of the words “based on” and, when

considered in context and in the light of the object and purpose of Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement, may be

seen to be more appropriate than “taking into account”. We do not share the Panel's interpretative

construction and believe it is unnecessary and an error of law as well.”

Para. 190. “Article 5…. only requires that the SPS measures be ‘based on an assessment, as appropriate for

the circumstances …’. The ‘minimum procedural requirement’ constructed by the Panel, could well lead to

the elimination or disregard of available scientific evidence that rationally supports the SPS measure being

examined. This risk of exclusion of available scientific evidence may be particularly significant for the bulk

of SPS measures which were put in place before the effective date of the WTO Agreement and that have been

simply maintained thereafter.”

(ii) rational relationship between the SPS measure and the risk assessment

No caso EC - Hormones, o Órgão de Apelação decidiu que a avaliação de risco deve prover suporte razoável

para a medida de SPS em questão. Ademais, afirmou que opiniões divergentes na avaliação de risco não

maculam a relação racional entre a avaliação e a medida de SPS.

32




Para. 193. “We consider that, in principle, the Panel's approach of examining the scientific conclusions

implicit in the SPS measure under consideration and the scientific conclusion yielded by a risk assessment is

a useful approach. The relationship between those two sets of conclusions is certainly relevant; they cannot,

however, be assigned relevance to the exclusion of everything else. We believe that Article 5.1, when

contextually read as it should be, in conjunction with and as informed by Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement,

requires that the results of the risk assessment must sufficiently warrant - that is to say, reasonably support -

the SPS measure at stake. The requirement that an SPS measure be “based on” a risk assessment is a

substantive requirement that there be a rational relationship between the measure and the risk assessment.”

Para. 194. “We do not believe that a risk assessment has to come to a monolithic conclusion that coincides

with the scientific conclusion or view implicit in the SPS measure. The risk assessment could set out both the

prevailing view representing the “mainstream” of scientific opinion, as well as the opinions of scientists

taking a divergent view. Article 5.1 does not require that the risk assessment must necessarily embody only

the view of a majority of the relevant scientific community. (…) In most cases, responsible and

representative governments tend to base their legislative and administrative measures on “mainstream”

scientific opinion. In other cases, equally responsible and representative governments may act in good faith

on the basis of what, at a given time, may be a divergent opinion coming from qualified and respected

sources. By itself, this does not necessarily signal the absence of a reasonable relationship between the SPS

measure and the risk assessment, especially where the risk involved is life-threatening in character and is

perceived to constitute a clear and imminent threat to public health and safety. (…)”

Relatório do Órgão de Apelação no caso United States/Canada - Continued Suspension of Obligations in

the EC - Hormones Dispute (US/Canadá - Continued Suspension), Demandante: Comunidades

Europeias, WT/DS320/AB/R; WT/DS321/AB/R, para. 591

Por sua vez, na disputa US/Canadá - Continued Suspension o Órgão de Apelação concluiu que é aceitável

que uma medida de SPS seja baseada em opinião minoritária, contanto que esta seja exposta na avaliação de

risco.

Para. 591. “The Appellate Body has observed that a WTO Member may properly base an SPS measure on

divergent or minority views, as long as these views are from qualified and respected sources. This must be

taken into account in defining a panel's standard of review. Accordingly, a panel reviewing the consistency

of an SPS measure with Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement must, first, identify the scientific basis upon which

the SPS measure was adopted. This scientific basis need not reflect the majority view within the scientific

community but may reflect divergent or minority views. Having identified the scientific basis underlying the

SPS measure, the panel must then verify that the scientific basis comes from a respected and qualified

source. Although the scientific basis need not represent the majority view within the scientific community, it

must nevertheless have the necessary scientific and methodological rigour to be considered reputable

science. In other words, while the correctness of the views need not have been accepted by the broader

scientific community, the views must be considered to be legitimate science according to the standards of the

relevant scientific community. A panel should also assess whether the reasoning articulated on the basis of

the scientific evidence is objective and coherent. In other words, a panel should review whether the particular

conclusions drawn by the Member assessing the risk find sufficient support in the scientific evidence relied

upon. Finally, the panel must determine whether the results of the risk assessment “sufficiently warrant” the

SPS measure at issue. Here, again, the scientific basis cited as warranting the SPS measure need not reflect

the majority view of the scientific community provided that it comes from a qualified and respected source”.


Products (Hormones) (EC - Hormones), Demandante: EUA, WT/DS26/R/USA; Canadá,

WT/DS48/AB/R, para. 194

33

Em EC - Hormones, o Órgão de Apelação determinou que a análise da relação racional entre a avaliação de

risco e a medida de SPS mencionada no item acima deve ser verificada caso a caso.

Para. 194. “(...) Determination of the presence or absence of that relationship can only be done on a case-to-

case basis, after account is taken of all considerations rationally bearing upon the issue of potential adverse

health effects.”

c) “risk assessment”


Products (Hormones) (EC - Hormones), Demandante: EUA, WT/DS26/R/USA; Canadá,


O Órgão de Apelação, em diferentes disputas, observou que a obrigação de realizar uma avaliação do risco é

essencial para manter o equilíbrio entre os interesses protegidos pelo Acordo de SPS e o livre comércio. O

Órgão de Apelação analisou também o conceito de avaliação de risco e os tipos de avaliação que o Artigo

5.1 pressupõe a fim de analisar a medida de SPS.

Para. 177. “(…)The requirements of a risk assessment under Article 5.1, as well as of “sufficient scientific

evidence” under Article 2.2, are essential for the maintenance of the delicate and carefully negotiated balance

in the SPS Agreement between the shared, but sometimes competing, interests of promoting international

trade and of protecting the life and health of human beings (…).”

Relatório do Órgão de Apelação no caso Australia - Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon

(Australia - Salmon), Demandante: Canadá, WT/DS18/AB/R, para. 125

Para. 125: “The Panel adds to these considerations, the following statement:

(...) [W]e consider that a risk assessment, on which to base an

import prohibition in accordance with Article 5.1, cannot be

premised on the concept of “zero risk”. Otherwise, all import

prohibitions would be based on a risk assessment since there is

a risk (i.e., a possibility of an adverse event occurring),

however remote, associated with most (if not all) imports

(…).”


Apples), Demandante: EUA, WT/DS245/AB/R, para. 208

No caso Japan - Apples, foram estudadas alegações de violações a diversos Artigos do Acordo de SPS, entre

eles o Artigo 5.1, em razão do sistema de quarentena mantido pelo Japão na importação de maçãs.

Para. 208. “The definition of “risk assessment” in the SPS Agreement requires that the evaluation of the

entry, establishment or spread of a disease be conducted “according to the sanitary or phytosanitary measures

which might be applied”. We agree with the Panel that this phrase “refers to the measures which might be

applied, not merely to the measures which are being applied.” The phrase “which might be applied” is used

in the conditional tense. In this sense, “might” means: “were or would be or have been able to, were or would

be or have been allowed to, were or would perhaps”. We understand this phrase to imply that a risk

assessment should not be limited to an examination of the measure already in place or favoured by the

importing Member. In other words, the evaluation contemplated in paragraph 4 of Annex A to the SPS

Agreement should not be distorted by preconceived views on the nature and the content of the measure to be

taken; nor should it develop into an exercise tailored to and carried out for the purpose of justifying decisions

ex post facto.”


34

(US - Poultry) (China), Demandante: China, WT/DS392/R, paras. 7.176-7.177

Em US - Poultry, o Painel foi constituído para analisar possíveis violações a diversos Artigos do Acordo de

SPS, em razão de determinadas medidas impostas pelos EUA afetando a importação de produtos de frango.

A decisão do Painel não foi objeto de apelação por nenhuma das Partes.

Para. 7.176. “Annex A(4) therefore provides for two different types of risk assessment depending on

whether the imposing Member is analysing the “likelihood” of entry, establishment or spread of a pest or

disease” or rather analysing “the potential for adverse effects on human or animal health arising from the

presence of additives, contaminants, toxins, or disease-causing organisms in food, beverages or feedstuffs”.”

Para. 7.177. “As noted in Section VII.C above, Section 727 satisfies the definition of an SPS measure under

Annex A(1)(b) of the SPS Agreement. It would seem that SPS measures under Annex A(1)(a) and (c) would

require risk assessments conducted pursuant to the definition under the first sentence of Annex A(4), while

those which satisfy the definition of an SPS measure under Annex A(1)(b) would require that the risk

assessment be conducted pursuant to the second sentence of Annex A(4).”

d) “risk assessment versus risk management”


Products (Hormones), Demandante: EUA, WT/DS26/R/USA; Canadá, WT/DS48/AB/R, para. 181

O Painel no caso EC - Hormones traçou uma diferença entre avaliação de risco e gerenciamento de risco. O

Órgão de Apelação, no entanto, afastou o emprego da expressão gerenciamento de risco.

Para. 181. “The Panel observed that an assessment of risk is, at least with respect to risks to human life and

health, a “scientific” examination of data and factual studies; it is not, in the view of the Panel, a “policy”

exercise involving social value judgments made by political bodies. The Panel describes the latter as “non-

scientific” and as pertaining to “risk management” rather than to “risk assessment”. We must stress, in this

connection, that Article 5 and Annex A of the SPS Agreement speak of “risk assessment” only and that the

term “risk management” is not to be found either in Article 5 or in any other provision of the SPS Agreement.

Thus, the Panel's distinction, which it apparently employs to achieve or support what appears to be a

restrictive notion of risk assessment, has no textual basis. The fundamental rule of treaty interpretation

requires a treaty interpreter to read and interpret the words actually used by the agreement under

examination, and not words which the interpreter may feel should have been used.”

e) “Aspectos necessários no risk assessment”

(i) Geral



O Órgão de Apelação identificou, de acordo com a medida de SPS, os aspectos imprescindíveis em cada um

dos dois tipos de análise de risco (risk assessment).

Para. 121. “On the basis of this definition, we consider that, in this case, a risk assessment within the

meaning of Article 5.1 must:

(1) identify the diseases whose entry, establishment or spread a Member wants to

prevent within its territory, as well as the potential biological and economic

consequences associated with the entry, establishment or spread of these diseases;

(2) evaluate the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of these diseases, as well

as the associated potential biological and economic consequences; and

(3) evaluate the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of these diseases

according to the SPS measures which might be applied.”

35



No caso Japan - Agricultural Products II, uma lei de proteção a plantas (Plant Protection Law) foi

questionada por dar base legal à proibição, por meio de ordens administrativas, da importação de

determinadas plantas devido ao risco de serem hospedeiras de peste não encontrada no Japão.

Para. 112. “We consider it appropriate for us to complete the legal analysis and examine whether the varietal

testing requirement as it applies to apricots, pears, plums and quince is consistent with Article 5.1. As

already noted above, Article 5.1 requires that an SPS measure be based on a risk assessment. In our Report

in Australia – Salmon, we stated with regard to the type of risk assessment required in this case:

(…) a risk assessment within the meaning of Article 5.1 must:

(1) identify the diseases whose entry, establishment or spread a Member wants

to prevent within its territory, as well as the potential biological and economic

consequences associated with the entry, establishment or spread of these

diseases;

(2) evaluate the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of these diseases,

as well as the associated potential biological and economic consequences;

and

(3) evaluate the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of these diseases

according to the SPS measures which might be applied.”

Relatório do Painel no caso United States - Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry from China,

(US - Poultry) (China), Demandante: China, WT/DS392/R, para. 7.178

Para. 7.178. “With respect to the second sentence of Annex A(4) of the SPS Agreement, the panels in

US/Canada - Continued Suspension held that such a risk assessment required the imposing Member to: (i)

identify the additives, contaminants, toxins or disease-causing organisms in food, beverages or feedstuffs at

issue (if any); (ii) identify any possible adverse effect on human or animal health; and (iii) evaluate the

potential for that adverse effect to arise from the presence of the identified additives, contaminants, toxins or

disease-causing organisms in food, beverages or feedstuffs.”




Para. 183. “Interpreting [paragraph 4 of Annex A of the SPS Agreement], the Panel elaborates risk

assessment as a two-step process that “should (i) identify the adverse effects on human health (if any) arising

from the presence of the hormones at issue when used as growth promoters in meat (…) and (ii) if any such

adverse effects exist, evaluate the potential or probability of occurrence of such effects.”

Para. 184. “(…) Although the utility of a two-step analysis may be debated, it does not appear to us to be

substantially wrong. What needs to be pointed out at this stage is that the Panel’s use of “probability” as an

alternative term for “potential” creates a significant concern. The ordinary meaning of “potential” relates to

“possibility” and is different from the ordinary meaning of “probability”. “Probability” implies a higher

degree or a threshold of potentiality or possibility. It thus appears that here the Panel introduces a

quantitative dimension to the notion of risk.”

f) “Estudos ‘não suficientemente específicos para o caso’”

Em diferentes ocasiões, o Órgão de Apelação esclareceu que avaliações gerais de risco, apesar de relevantes,

não são satisfatórias. Determinou-se que a avaliação de risco correta deve ser suficientemente específica para

o caso.


36



Para. 200. “(…) The 1987 IARC Monographs and the articles and opinions of individual scientists

submitted by the European Communities constitute general studies which do indeed show the existence of a

general risk of cancer; but they do not focus on and do not address the particular kind of risk here at stake -

the carcinogenic or genotoxic potential of the residues of those hormones found in meat derived from cattle

to which the hormones had been administered for growth promotion purposes - as is required by paragraph 4

of Annex A of the SPS Agreement. Those general studies, are in other words, relevant but do not appear to be

sufficiently specific to the case at hand.”



Para. 202. “(…) Under the SPS Agreement, the obligation to conduct an assessment of “risk” is not satisfied

merely by a general discussion of the disease sought to be avoided by the imposition of a phytosanitary

measure. The Appellate Body found the risk assessment at issue in EC - Hormones not to be “sufficiently

specific” even though the scientific Articles cited by the importing Member had evaluated the “carcinogenic

potential of entire categories of hormones, or of the hormones at issue in general.” In order to constitute a

“risk assessment” as defined in the SPS Agreement, the Appellate Body concluded, the risk assessment

should have reviewed the carcinogenic potential, not of the relevant hormones in general, but of “residues of

those hormones found in meat derived from cattle to which the hormones had been administered for growth

promotion purposes”. Therefore, when discussing the risk to be specified in the risk assessment in EC -

Hormones, the Appellate Body referred in general to the harm concerned (cancer or genetic damage) as well

as to the precise agent that may possibly cause the harm (that is, the specific hormones when used in a

specific manner and for specific purposes).”

g) “Escopo do risk assessment”

O Órgão de Apelação esclareceu, outrossim, que a avaliação de risco deve ser feita em relação a cada

substância de risco, mas que as conclusões da avaliação podem ser aproveitadas para outras categorias de

produtos.


(Hormones) (EC - Hormones), Demandantes: EUA, WT/DS26/R/USA; Canadá, WT/DS48/AB/R, para.

8.257

Para. 8.257. “We note, however, that with respect to all five other hormones in dispute, JECFA, Codex and

the European Communities itself have conducted or invoked risk assessments for each individual substance.

We further note that one of the basic principles of a risk assessment appears to be that it needs to be carried

out for each individual substance.”



Para. 8.58. “We do, however, agree with Australia that some of the evidence, assessments and conclusions

contained in the 1996 Final Report might be relevant for the risk assessment to be carried out (or relied upon)

for the other categories of salmon products and that, therefore, a completely new risk assessment for these

other categories of salmon products might not be necessary.”

h) “carry out the risk assessment”




37

O Órgão de Apelação, no caso EC - Hormones, entendeu que a obrigação referente ao Artigo 5.1 é de que a

medida de SPS seja baseada em uma avaliação de risco e não na condução por um Membro de uma avaliação

de risco. Dessa forma, um Membro pode basear suas medidas em avaliações de risco realizadas por outros

Membros.

Para. 190. “Article 5.1 does not insist that a Member that adopts a sanitary measure shall have carried out its

own risk assessment. It only requires that the SPS measures be “based on an assessment, as appropriate for

the circumstances ...”. The SPS measure might well find its objective justification in a risk assessment

carried out by another Member, or an international organization.”

i) “Relevância do ‘tempo de publicação’” do risk assessment


(Hormones) (EC - Hormones), Demandantes: EUA, WT/DS26/R; Canadá, WT/DS48/R, para. 8.99

O Painel, em EC - Hormones, decidiu que o Acordo de SPS e a obrigação de que uma medida de SPS seja

baseada em uma avaliação de risco, aplicam-se às medidas que entraram em vigor antes do Acordo em si.

Para. 8.99. “Article 5.1 provides in general terms, without any limitation in time, that “Members shall

ensure that their sanitary or phytosanitary measures are based on an assessment, as appropriate to the

circumstances, of the risks ...”. It does not prevent that with respect to a sanitary measure enacted before the

entry into force of the SPS Agreement, the risk assessment is carried out or invoked after the entry into force

of that Agreement (and thus after the enactment of the sanitary measure in question). However, the fact that

a sanitary measure may be enacted before the entry into force of the SPS Agreement does not mean that,

once the SPS Agreement entered into force, there is no obligation for the Member in question to base that

measure on a risk assessment. Moreover, the more general obligation contained in Article 2.2 of the SPS

Agreement explicitly provides that “Members shall ensure that any sanitary or phytosanitary measure ... is

based on scientific principles and is not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence (...).” (emphasis

added)

j) “Identificação de uma ‘SPS measure’”


(Australia - Salmon), Demandante: Canadá, WT/DS18/AB/R, paras. 103-104

No caso Australia - Salmon, o Órgão de Apelação esclareceu que a medida de SPS deve ser identificada de

acordo com o produto ao qual ela é destinada.

Para. 103. “(...) In our view, the SPS measure at issue in this dispute can only be the measure which is

actually applied to the product at issue. (…)”

Para. 104. “We also do not share the Panel's view that the import prohibition and the heat-treatment

requirement are “two sides of the same coin”. Smoked salmon and fresh, chilled or frozen salmon are

different products and the SPS measures applied to each are not “two sides of the same coin”. We agree with

Australia that it is not a consequence of the requirement that smoked salmon be heat- treated that imports of

fresh, chilled or frozen salmon are prohibited. Imports of fresh, chilled or frozen salmon are prohibited as a

direct consequence of the application of QP86A, and this prohibition has not been revoked, but has, in fact,

been continuously maintained since 1975. We likewise do not share the Panel's view that the 1996

Requirements apply to fresh, chilled or frozen salmon. These requirements clearly apply only to imports of

small amounts of smoked salmon.”

l) “scientifically identified risk” e “identifiable risk”


38



O Painel, no caso EC - Hormones, utilizou as expressões ‘scientifically identified risk’ e ‘identifiable risk’ ao

referir-se à avaliação de risco. Contudo, o Órgão de Apelação afastou essas expressões determinando que a

análise deve verificar somente se a medida de SPS é baseada em um avaliação de risco e esclareceu que não

existe um nível mínimo a ser identificado nesta avaliação.

Para. 186. “It is not clear in what sense the Panel uses the term “scientifically identified risk”. The Panel

also frequently uses the term “identifiable risk”, and does not define this term either. The Panel might

arguably have used the terms “scientifically identified risk” and “identifiable risk” simply to refer to an

ascertainable risk: if a risk is not ascertainable, how does a Member ever know or demonstrate that it exists?

In one part of its Reports, the Panel opposes a requirement of an “identifiable risk” to the uncertainty that

theoretically always remains since science can never provide absolute certainty that a given substance will

not ever have adverse health effects. We agree with the Panel that this theoretical uncertainty is not the kind

of risk which, under Article 5.1, is to be assessed. In another part of its Reports, however, the Panel appeared

to be using the term “scientifically identified risk” to prescribe implicitly that a certain magnitude or

threshold level of risk be demonstrated in a risk assessment if an SPS measure based thereon is to be

regarded as consistent with Article 5.1.To the extent that the Panel purported to require a risk assessment to

establish a minimum magnitude of risk, we must note that imposition of such a quantitative requirement

finds no basis in the SPS Agreement. A panel is authorized only to determine whether a given SPS measure

is “based on” a risk assessment. As will be elaborated below, this means that a panel has to determine

whether an SPS measure is sufficiently supported or reasonably warranted by the risk assessment.”

m) “sufficient scientific evidence”

A expressão “sufficient scientific evidence” prevista no Artigo 2.2 foi entendida pelo Órgão de Apelação

como compreendendo a avaliação de risco requerida pelo Artigo 5.1.


Agricultural Products II), Demandante: EUA, WT/DS76/AB/R, paras. 73-74

Para. 73. “(…) The ordinary meaning of “sufficient” is “of a quantity, extent, or scope adequate to a certain

purpose or object”. From this, we can conclude that “sufficiency” is a relational concept. “Sufficiency”

requires the existence of a sufficient or adequate relationship between two elements, in casu, between the

SPS measure and the scientific evidence.”

Para. 74. “The context of the word “sufficient” or, more generally, the phrase “maintained without sufficient

scientific evidence” in Article 2.2, includes Article 5.1 as well as Articles 3.3 and 5.7 of the SPS Agreement.”


Products (Hormones) (EC – Hormones), Demandantes: EUA, WT/DS26/R/USA; Canadá,


Para. 177. “(…) The requirements of a risk assessment under Article 5.1, as well as of “sufficient scientific

evidence” under Article 2.2, are essential for the maintenance of the carefully negotiated balance achieved in

the SPS Agreement between the shared, but sometimes competing, interests of promoting international trade

and protecting the health of human beings. (…)”

n) “scientific prudence”



39

O Órgão de Apelação manteve o entendimento do Painel no caso Japan - Apples de que a prudência

científica não deve ser completamente associada à incerteza teórica. A prudência científica foi considerada

em EC - Hormones adicional aos riscos a serem objeto de uma medida de SPS.

Para. 241. “The Appellate Body indicated that Article 5.1 does not address theoretical uncertainty, that is to

say, “uncertainty that theoretically always remains since science can never provide absolute certainty that a

given substance will not ever have adverse health effects.” We understand that the “scientific prudence”

displayed by the experts in this case related to the risks that might arise from radical changes in Japan's

current system of phytosanitary controls, taking into account Japan's island environment and climate. The

scientific prudence displayed by the experts did not relate to the “theoretical uncertainty” that is inherent in

the scientific method and which stems from the intrinsic limits of experiments, methodologies, or

instruments deployed by scientists to explain a given phenomenon. Therefore, we agree with the Panel that

the scientific prudence displayed by the experts should not be “completely assimilated” to the “theoretical

uncertainty” that the Appellate Body discussed in EC – Hormones as being beyond the purview of risks to

be addressed by measures subject to the SPS Agreement (…).”

o) “as appropriate to the circumstances”

(i) flexibilidade

O Órgão de Apelação no caso EC - Hormones previu flexibilidade na obrigação de que a medida de SPS seja

baseada em uma avaliação de risco, principalmente no que diz respeito a medidas implementadas antes da

vigência do Acordo de SPS.




Para. 129. “We are aware that the applicability, as from 1 January 1995, of the requirement that an SPS

measure be based on a risk assessment to the many SPS measures already in existence on that date, may

impose burdens on Members. It is pertinent here to note that Article 5.1 stipulates that SPS measures must be

based on a risk assessment, as appropriate to the circumstances, and this makes clear that the Members have

a certain degree of flexibility in meeting the requirements of Article 5.1.”

p) “cannot…annul or supersede the substantive obligation”



Em que pese a flexibilidade mencionada acima, o Painel no caso Australia - Salmon esclareceu que a

expressão ‘as approriate to the circumstances’ não exime a medida de ser baseada em uma avaliação de

risco.

Para. 8.57. “As to the product coverage of Article 5.1, the reference contained in Article 5.1 to base sanitary

measures on an assessment “as appropriate to the circumstances” cannot, in our view, annul or supersede the

substantive obligation resting on Australia to base the sanitary measure in dispute (irrespective of the

products that measure may cover) on a risk assessment. We consider that the reference “as appropriate to the

circumstances” relates, rather, to the way in which such risk assessment has to be carried out. Only Article

5.7 allows for an exception to the obligation to base sanitary measures on a risk assessment, namely “in cases

where relevant scientific evidence is insufficient”.”

3. Relação com demais Parágrafos do SPS

a) “relação com o parágrafo 5.2”

40

Diversos Painéis trataram da relação entre os Artigos 5.1 e 5.2. O Órgão de Apelação em Australia - Apples

se pronunciou a respeito. No entanto, não de forma direta sobre a relação entre os dois Artigos.

Relatório do Painel no caso Australia - Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon (Australia – Salmon),


Para. 8.52. “For these reasons, we consider, more particularly, that Articles 5.1 and 5.2 - in the words of the

Appellate Body in EC - Hormones when dealing with the relationship between Articles 2.3 and 5.5 - “may

be seen to be marking out and elaborating a particular route leading to the same destination set out in”

Article 2.2. Indeed, in the event a sanitary measure is not based on a risk assessment as required in Articles

5.1 and 5.2, this measure can be presumed, more generally, not to be based on scientific principles or to be

maintained without sufficient scientific evidence. We conclude, therefore, that if we find a violation of the

more specific Article 5.1 or 5.2 such finding can be presumed to imply a violation of the more general

provisions of Article 2.2. We do recognize, at the same time, that given the more general character of Article

2.2 not all violations of Article 2.2 are covered by Articles 5.1 and 5.2.”

Relatório do Painel no caso Japan - Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples (Japan - Apples),

Demandante: EUA, *WT/DS245/R, paras. 8.230-8.232

Para. 8.230. “These provisions directly inform each other, in that paragraph 2 sheds light on the elements

that are of relevance in the assessment of risks foreseen in paragraph 1. In addition, the notion of risk

assessment is defined in Annex A of the SPS Agreement. The relevant part of paragraph 4 of Annex A reads

as follows: 4. Risk assessment – The evaluation of the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of a pest

or disease within the territory of an importing Member according to the sanitary or phytosanitary measures

which might be applied, and of the associated potential biological and economic consequences; (...)”

Para. 8.231. “We also recall the Appellate Body's observation that Article 2.2 informs Article 5.1 and that

they should “constantly be read together”. We will therefore examine the US claims under Article 5

paragraphs 1 and 2 in light of each other, bearing in mind also, to the extent relevant, our analysis under

Article 2.2 above.”

Para. 8.232. “We will first turn to Article 5.1, which contains the general requirement for Members to base

their measures on a risk assessment. However, because Article 5.2 imparts meaning to the general obligation

contained in paragraph 1 to base measures on an “assessment (...) of risks”, we may also consider elements

contained in Article 5.2 in the course of our analysis under Article 5.1”.

Relatório do Painel no caso United States - Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry from China,

(US - Poultry) (China), Demandante: China, WT/DS392/R, paras. 7.172-7.173

Para. 7.172. “The panel in Japan – Apples noted that Article 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement “directly

inform each other, in that paragraph 2 sheds light on the elements that are of relevance in the assessment of

risks foreseen in paragraph 1”. Therefore, because Article 5.2 imparts meaning to the general obligation

contained in paragraph 1 to base measures on an “assessment...of risks”, we may also consider elements

contained in Article 5.2 in the course of our analysis under Article 5.1.”

Para. 7.173. “Accordingly, an analysis under Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement would consist of answering

two fundamental questions: first, was a risk assessment, appropriate to the circumstances, taking into account

risk assessment techniques developed by the relevant international organizations and the elements listed in

Article 5.2, conducted? Second, is the SPS measure based on that risk assessment?”


New Zealand (Australia – Apples), Demandante: Nova Zelândia, WT/DS367/AB/R, para. 208

Para. 208. “Thus, Article 5.2 requires a risk assessor to take into account the available scientific evidence,

together with other factors. Whether a risk assessor has taken into account the available scientific evidence in

41

accordance with Article 5.2 of the SPS Agreement and whether its risk assessment is a proper risk

assessment within the meaning of Article 5.1 and Annex A(4) must be determined by assessing the

relationship between the conclusions of the risk assessor and the relevant available scientific evidence.”

b) “relação com o parágrafo 5.5”

O Painel no caso Australia - Salmon estabeleceu que as obrigações contidas no Artigo 5.1 e 5.5 são

complementares. A decisão de que a Austrália violou o Artigo 5.5 foi objeto de apelação, ocasião em que o

Órgão de Apelação entendeu que a inconsistência com o Artigo 5.1 é um sinal de alerta para o terceiro

elemento de análise do Artigo 5.5.



Para. 8.126. “Second, the obligations contained in Article 5.1 (risk assessment) and Article 5.5 are

complementary, not mutually exclusive. We consider, therefore, that a WTO Member cannot justify the

inconsistency with one Article on the ground that such inconsistency avoids an additional inconsistency with

another Article.”



Para. 166. “Australia objects to the use of this inconsistency as a warning signal in the context of the third

element of Article 5.5. It argues that inconsistency with Article 5.1 cannot “presume” or pre-empt a finding

under Article 5.5. We note that a finding that an SPS measure is not based on an assessment of the risks to

human, animal or plant life or health - either because there was no risk assessment at all or because there is

an insufficient risk assessment - is a strong indication that this measure is not really concerned with the

protection of human, animal or plant life or health but is instead a trade- restrictive measure taken in the

guise of an SPS measure, i.e., a “disguised restriction on international trade”. We, therefore, consider that the

finding of inconsistency with Article 5.1 is an appropriate warning signal for a “disguised restriction on

international trade.”

c) “relação com o parágrafo 5.7”

O Painel no caso EC - Biotech enfrentou o questionamento à legitimidade do sistema de moratória e

aprovação de importação de produtos geneticamente modificados mantido pelas Comunidades Europeias,

bem como de medidas de salvaguarda de nível nacional que proibiam a importação e comercialização desses

produtos nos mercado dos Membros. No que diz respeito à relação dos Artigos 5.1 e 5.7, emitiu o seguinte

entendimento:


Biotech Product (EC - Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products), Demandantes: EUA,

WT/DS291/R; Canadá, WT/DS292/R; Argentina: WT/DS293/R, paras. 7.2997-7.2998

Para. 7.2997. “From our analysis above, it is clear that the general test stated by the Appellate Body in EC –

Tariff Preferences can be applied also to the relationship between Article 5.1 and Article 5.7. Our application

of that test has shown that this relationship meets all the elements which according to the Appellate ody

support characterizing Article 5.7 as a right vis- -vis Article 5.1. Furthermore, we think it would be

incongruous to reach the conclusion that Article 5.7 is a right vis- -vis Article 2.2, but an exception vis- -vis

Article 5.1. For these reasons, we conclude that Article 5.7 should be characterized as a right also in relation

to Article 5.1, rather than as an exception from a “general obligation” under Article 5.1. In our view, Article

5.7 operates as a qualified exemption from the obligation under Article 5.1 to base SPS measures on a risk

assessment.”

42

Para. 7.2998. “We have already stated the main implications of characterizing Article 5.7 as a qualified right

rather than as an exception in our discussion of the relationship between Article 2.2 and Article 5.7.

Nonetheless, for clarity, it is useful to do so again given that we are concerned here with the relationship

between Article 5.1 and Article 5.7. Thus, in terms of applicability of Article 5.1, characterizing Article 5.7

as a right means that if a challenged SPS measure was adopted and is maintained consistently with the four

cumulative requirements of Article 5.7, the obligation in Article 5.1 to base SPS measures on a risk

assessment is not applicable to the challenged measure. Conversely, if a challenged SPS measure is not

consistent with one of the four requirements of Article 5.7, the aforementioned obligation in Article 5.1 is

applicable to that measure, provided there are no other elements which render Article 5.1 inapplicable.”

d) “com outros Artigos do SPS”

(i) 5.1 com 2.2

Em diferentes casos foi adotado o entendimento do Órgão de Apelação de que o Artigo 5.1 permite uma

aplicação mais específica das obrigações gerais estabelecidas pelo Artigo 2.2.


Products (Hormones) (EC - Hormones), Demandantes: EUA, WT/DS26/AB/R/USA; Canadá,


Para. 180. “At the outset, two preliminary considerations need to be brought out. The first is that the Panel

considered that Article 5.1 may be viewed as a specific application of the basic obligations contained in

Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement, which reads as follows:

Members shall ensure that any sanitary or phytosanitary measure is applied only to

the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health, is based on

scientific principles and is not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence, except

as provided for in paragraph 7 of Article 5. We agree with this general consideration

and would also stress that Articles 2.2 and 5.1 should constantly be read together.

Article 2.2 informs Article 5.1: the elements that define the basic obligation set out in

Article 2.2 impart meaning to Article 5.1.”



Para. 7.167. “We note that Articles 2.2, 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement are provisions that deal with the

scientific foundation of SPS measures. We note that the Appellate Body has ruled that Articles 2.2 and 5.1 of

the SPS Agreement should “constantly be read together”, because Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement may be

viewed as a specific application of the basic obligations contained in Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.

Therefore, according to the Appellate Body, Article 2.2 informs Article 5.1 and thus the elements that define

the basic obligation set out in Article 2.2 impart meaning to Article 5.1.”



Para. 130. “We might add that the existence of unknown and uncertain elements does not justify a departure

from the requirements of Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3, read together with paragraph 4 of Annex A, for a risk

assessment. We recall that Article 5.2 requires that “in the assessment of risk, Members shall take into

account available scientific evidence”. We further recall that Article 2, entitled “Basic Rights and

Obligations”, requires in paragraph 2 that “Members shall ensure that any sanitary … measure … is based on

scientific principles and is not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence, except as provided for in

paragraph 7 of Article 5.” As we stated in European Communities – Hormones, “Articles 2.2 and 5.1 should

constantly be read together. Article 2.2 informs Article 5.1: the elements that define the basic obligation set

out in Article 2.2 impart meaning to Article 5.1.”

43

4. Outros casos

Em Australia - Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (Demandante: Filipinas, DS270), um sistema de quarentena

afetando a importação de certos produtos na Austrália também foi objeto de reclamações. Um Painel foi

estabelecido para analisar o caso em 2003, porém não houve desenvolvimentos.

Em 2003, a Nicarágua solicitou uma consulta com o México a respeito de determinadas medidas que

impediam a importação de feijão preto neste país (DS284). O caso foi encerrado em 2004 com uma solução

mutuamente satisfatória.

No caso Australia - Quarantine Regime, as Comunidades Europeias estabeleceram consultas com a Austrália

devido ao regime de quarentena mantido por este Membro em diversos casos. A medida foi questionada “as

such” e “as applied”. Entretanto, após quatro anos o DSB foi notificado que as Partes haviam encontrado

uma solução mutuamente satisfatória.

Em 2003, a Hungria entrou em consulta com a Croácia acerca de uma medida sanitária implementada por

este Membro, afetando a importação de animais vivos e carne (DS297). O caso foi encerrado com uma

solução mutuamente satisfatória.

Em Korea - Bovine Meat (Demandante: Canadá, DS391) os Membros passaram pela fase de consulta e um

Painel foi instituído para analisar a alegação de que determinadas medidas que afetavam a importação de

carne bovina e produtos de carne violavam o Acordo de SPS. No entanto, após iniciada a fase de Painel, o

Canadá solicitou que os procedimentos fossem suspensos e a Coreia comunicou sua concordância. Assim,

neste caso não houve conclusões acerca de uma possível violação ao Artigo 5.1.

5. Artigo 5.5

O objetivo do Artigo 5.5 é requerer que, ao aplicar medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias apropriadas aos seus

objetivos - proteção da vida e da saúde humana, animal e das plantas -, os Membros evitem criar restrições

arbitrárias ou indiscriminadas. A expressão “appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection against

risks to human life or health, or to animal and plant life or health” é extremamente relevante na análise dos

casos SPS, uma vez que mesmo existindo padrões internacionais (Artigos 3.1 e 3.2), uma medida pode ser

fundamentada em padrões próprios, como prevê o Artigo 3.3. Medidas distintas visam justificar níveis

apropriados de proteção, e essa é a primeira parte do Artigo 5.5 que merece atenção nos Painéis. Vale citar

que o Anexo A (5) traz o conceito de nível apropriado de proteção: “nível de proteção que um Membro

julgue adequado para estabelecer uma medida sanitária ou fitossanitária para proteger a vida ou saúde

humana, animal ou vegetal em seu território”. A nota a esse conceito prevê que “muitos países referem-se a

tal conceito utilizando-se a expressão “nível aceitável de risco”. O quanto uma medida apropriada para um

Membro segue ou não as regras do Acordo é o grande desafio a ser enfrentado pelos Painéis, e o papel do

Artigo 2.2 e Artigo 5.7 são essenciais, pois tratam da relação com evidências científicas, sua suficiência para

justificar uma medida, ou a inexistência de evidências concretas que motivam e, dependendo do caso,

legitimam uma medida.

As distinções arbitrárias ou injustificáveis nos níveis que os Membros consideram apropriados é a segunda

parte do Artigo 5.5. A terceira parte do Artigo 5.5 que deve ser analisada é a possibilidade de uma medida

causar discriminação ou restrição velada ao comércio internacional. A análise de uma medida (measure at

issue) diante das três partes do Artigo 5.5 é essencial para analisar o cumprimento do Acordo SPS: (i)

medidas distintas visam justificar níveis apropriados de proteção; (ii) distinções arbitrárias ou injustificáveis

nos níveis que os Membros consideram apropriados; e (iii) a possibilidade de uma medida causar

discriminação ou restrição velada ao comércio internacional.


Products (Hormones) (EC - Hormones), Demandante: Canadá, WT/DS48/AB/R, paras. 214-215, 240 e

245-246

44

Para. 214. “Close inspection of Article 5.5 indicates that a complaint of violation of this Article must show

the presence of three distinct elements. The first element is that the Member imposing the measure

complained of has adopted its own appropriate levels of sanitary protection against risks to human life or

health in several different situations. The second element to be shown is that those levels of protection

exhibit arbitrary or unjustifiable differences (“distinctions” in the language of Article 5.5) in their treatment

of different situations. The last element requires that the arbitrary or unjustifiable differences result in

discrimination or a disguised restriction of international trade. We understand the last element to be referring

to the measure embodying or implementing a particular level of protection as resulting, in its application, in

discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade.”

Para. 215. “We consider the above three elements of Article 5.5 to be cumulative in nature; all of them must

be demonstrated to be present if violation of Article 5.5 is to be found. In particular, both the second and

third elements must be found. The second element alone would not suffice. The third element must also be

demonstrably present: the implementing measure must be shown to be applied in such a manner as to result

in discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade. The presence of the second element - the

arbitrary or unjustifiable character of differences in levels of protection considered by a Member as

appropriate in differing situations - may in practical effect operate as a “warning” signal that the

implementing measure in its application might be a discriminatory measure or might be a restriction on

international trade disguised as an SPS measure for the protection of human life or health. Nevertheless, the

measure itself needs to be examined and appraised and, in the context of the differing levels of protection,

shown to result in discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade.”

Para. 240. “In our view, the degree of difference, or the extent of the discrepancy, in the levels of protection,

is only one kind of factor which, along with others, may cumulatively lead to the conclusion that

discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade in fact results from the application of a

measure or measures embodying one or more of those different levels of protection. Thus, we do not think

that the difference between a “no residues” level and “unlimited residues” level is, together with a finding of

an arbitrary or unjustifiable difference, sufficient to demonstrate that the third, and most important,

requirement of Article 5.5 has been met. It is well to bear in mind that, after all, the difference in levels of

protection that is characterizable as arbitrary or unjustifiable is only an element of (indirect) proof that a

Member may actually be applying an SPS measure in a manner that discriminates between Members or

constitutes a disguised restriction on international trade, prohibited by the basic obligations set out in Article

2.3 of the SPS Agreement. Evidently, the answer to the question whether arbitrary or unjustifiable

differences or distinctions in levels of protection established by a Member do in fact result in discrimination

or a disguised restriction on international trade must be sought in the circumstances of each individual case.”

Para. 245. “We do not attribute the same importance as the Panel to the supposed multiple objectives of the

European Communities in enacting the EC Directives that set forth the EC measures at issue. The

documentation that preceded or accompanied the enactment of the prohibition of the use of hormones for

growth promotion and that formed part of the record of the Panel makes clear the depth and extent of the

anxieties experienced within the European Communities concerning the results of the general scientific

studies (showing the carcinogenicity of hormones), the dangers of abuse (highlighted by scandals relating to

black-marketing and smuggling of prohibited veterinary drugs in the European Communities) of hormones

and other substances used for growth promotion and the intense concern of consumers within the European

Communities over the quality and drug-free character of the meat available in its internal market. A major

problem addressed in the legislative process of the European Communities related to the differences in the

internal regulations of various Member States of the European Union (four or five of which permitted, while

the rest prohibited, the use for growth promotion of certain hormones), the resulting distortions in

competitive conditions in and the existence of barriers to intracommunity trade. The necessity for

harmonizing the internal regulations of its Member States was a consequence of the European Communities'

mandate to establish a common (internal) market in beef. Reduction of any beef surplus through an increase

in the consumption of beef within the European Communities, is not only in the interests of EC farmers, but

also of non-hormone using farmers in exporting countries. We are unable to share the inference that the

Panel apparently draws that the import ban on treated meat and the Community-wide prohibition of the use

of the hormones here in dispute for growth promotion purposes in the beef sector were not really designed to

45

protect its population from the risk of cancer, but rather to keep out US and Canadian hormone-treated beef

and thereby to protect the domestic beef producers in the European Communities.”

Para. 246. “Our conclusion, therefore, is that the Panel's finding that the “arbitrary or unjustifiable”

difference in the EC levels of protection in respect of the hormones at issue on the one hand and in respect of

carbadox and olaquindox on the other hand, “result in discrimination or a disguised restriction on

international trade”, is not supported either by the architecture and structure of the EC Directives here at

stake or of the subsequent Directive on carbadox and olaquindox, or by the evidence submitted by the United

States and Canada to the Panel. The Panel's finding is itself unjustified and erroneous as a matter of law.

Accordingly, we reverse the conclusion of the Panel that the European Communities has acted inconsistently

with the requirements set out in Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement.”


(Australia - Salmon), Demandante: Canadá, WT/DS18/AB/R, paras. 141-142, 145-146, 152, 155-158,

176-177 e 206

Para. 141. “The Panel found that all three conditions are fulfilled and therefore concluded that: Since all

three elements of Article 5.5 are present in this case, we find that Australia, by maintaining the measure at

issue, acts inconsistently with its obligations under Article 5.5. Given our earlier finding - that a violation of

the more specific Article 5.5 can be presumed to imply a violation of the more general Article 2.3 - we find

that Australia, to that extent, also acts inconsistently with Article 2.3. (Panel Report, para. 8.160)”

Para. 142. “Australia appeals from this finding of inconsistency with Article 5.5 and, by implication, Article

2.3 of the SPS Agreement. Without challenging the Panel's three-step legal test for inconsistency with Article

5.5 as such, Australia contends that the Panel has made a series of errors of law in the interpretation and

application of the test. Australia argues that the Panel, in its application of Article 5.5, exceeded its terms of

reference, erred in the allocation and application of the burden of proof, failed to make an objective

assessment of the matter as required by Article 11 of the DSU and made a number of substantive errors in its

interpretation and application of Article 5.5. The first of these claims has already been dealt with in Part IV

of our Report; the second and third claims are dealt with in Sections A and B of Part VI. In this section we

focus exclusively on the substantive errors of law Australia claims the Panel made in its interpretation and

application of each of the three elements of Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement.”

Para. 145. “Australia argues that the Panel erred by considering that situations are “different”, i.e.,

“comparable”, if these situations involve either a risk of entry, establishment or spread of the same or a

similar disease, or a risk of the same or similar “associated potential biological and economic consequences”.

Australia contends that the Panel has imputed a meaning to the term “risk” which conflicts with the ordinary

meaning of the term as used in its context and in the light of the object and purpose of the SPS Agreement.

According to Australia, the “risk” to be examined is the risk evaluated in the risk assessment, namely, the

risk of entry, establishment or spread of several different diseases and of the associated potential biological

and economic consequences.”

Para. 146. “Situations which involve a risk of entry, establishment or spread of the same or a similar disease

have some common elements sufficient to render them comparable under Article 5.5. Likewise, situations

with a risk of the same or similar associated potential biological and economic consequences also have some

common elements sufficient to render them comparable under Article 5.5. We, therefore, consider that for

“different” situations to be comparable under Article 5.5, there is no need for both the disease and the

biological and economic consequences to be the same or similar. We recognize that, as pointed out by

Australia, the risk which needs to be examined in a risk assessment, pursuant to Article 5.1 and the first

definition of risk assessment of paragraph 4 of Annex A, is the risk of both the entry, establishment or spread

of a disease and the associated potential biological and economic consequences. However, we fail to see how

this can be of relevance to the question of comparability of different situations under Article 5.5 which is the

issue addressed by the Panel. We, therefore, conclude that the Panel was correct in stating that situations can

be compared under Article 5.5 if these situations involve either a risk of entry, establishment or spread of the

46

same or a similar disease, or a risk of the same or similar “associated potential biological and economic

consequences”.”

Para. 152. “In addition, we believe that for situations to be comparable under Article 5.5, it is sufficient for

these situations to have in common a risk of entry, establishment or spread of one disease of concern. There

is no need for these situations to have in common a risk of entry, establishment or spread of all diseases of

concern. Therefore, even if the Panel had excluded from its examination some diseases of concern not

positively detected in fresh, chilled or frozen ocean-caught Pacific salmon, this would not invalidate its

finding in paragraph 8.121 on comparable situations under Article 5.5.”

Para. 155. “The Panel, therefore, found that, on the basis of the evidence before it, the distinctions in levels

of sanitary protection reflected in Australia's treatment of, on the one hand, ocean-caught Pacific salmon and,

on the other, herring used as bait and live ornamental finfish, are “arbitrary or unjustifiable” in the sense of

the second element of Article 5.5.”

Para. 156. “Australia argues that the Panel erred in determining that its examination under Article 5.5,

second element, must be limited solely to those disease agents positively detected in ocean-caught Pacific

salmon. Australia raises the same objections to this limitation as it did in the context of the first element

discussed above.”

Para. 157. “We do not agree with Australia that the Panel excluded diseases of concern which have not been

positively detected in ocean-caught Pacific salmon from its examination under Article 5.5. The Panel

explicitly took into account diseases which have not been positively detected in ocean-caught Pacific salmon

but had been detected in herring used as bait and live ornamental finfish. In addition, we observe that the

inclusion in the examination under Article 5.5, second element, of all diseases of concern which have not

been positively detected in ocean-caught Pacific salmon would logically have led to the inclusion of all

diseases of concern which have not been positively detected in herring used as bait and live ornamental

finfish. Due to the lack of reliable scientific information, this exercise would have become highly speculative

and, moreover, would probably not have changed the Panel's finding in paragraph 8.141 on the “arbitrary or

unjustifiable” character of the distinctions in the levels of protection.”

Para. 158. “Australia determined explicitly that its appropriate level of protection with respect to ocean-

caught Pacific salmon is “a high or 'very conservative' level of sanitary protection aimed at reducing risk to

'very low levels', 'while not based on a zero-risk approach'.” The level of protection reflected in Australia's

treatment of herring used as bait and live ornamental finfish is definitely lower. We note the Panel's factual

finding that herring used as bait and live ornamental finfish can be presumed to represent at least as high a

risk - if not a higher risk - than the risk associated with ocean-caught Pacific salmon. Therefore, we uphold

the Panel's finding in paragraph 8.141 of its Report to the extent that the Panel found that the second element

of Article 5.5 is fulfilled.”

Para. 176. “We note that, as acknowledged by Australia, the Panel did not conclude that the alleged absence

of internal controls constituted a violation of Article 5.5 or any other provision of the SPS Agreement. The

Panel merely stated its doubts on whether Australia applies similarly strict sanitary standards on the internal

movement of salmon products within Australia as it does on the importation of salmon products and

considered that as a factor which can be taken into account in the examination under the third element of

Article 5.5. We consider that these doubts do not carry much weight, but we agree with the Panel that they

can nevertheless be taken into consideration.”

Para. 177. “In the above analysis, we have upheld the Panel's findings on the first, second and third

“warning signals” as well as its findings on the second and third “additional factors”. We have only reversed

the Panel's finding on the first “additional factor”. We consider, however, that this reversal does not affect

the validity of the Panel's conclusion in paragraph 8.159 of its Report, that the “warning signals” and “other

factors”, considered cumulatively, lead to the conclusion that the distinctions in the levels of protection

imposed by Australia result in a disguised restriction on international trade.”

47

Para. 206. “We thus believe that the SPS Agreement contains an implicit obligation to determine the

appropriate level of protection. We do not believe that there is an obligation to determine the appropriate

level of protection in quantitative terms. This does not mean, however, that an importing Member is free to

determine its level of protection with such vagueness or equivocation that the application of the relevant

provisions of the SPS Agreement, such as Article 5.6, becomes impossible. It would obviously be wrong to

interpret the SPS Agreement in a way that would render nugatory entire articles or paragraphs of articles of

this Agreement and allow Members to escape from their obligations under this Agreement.”


(US - Poultry) (China), Demandante: China, WT/DS392/R, paras. 7.244, 7.268-7.269 e 2.294

Para. 7.244. “The Panel recognizes that the United States is free to decide its own ALOP and thus accepts

that the United States' ALOP for poultry, in general, is embodied in Section 466 of the PPIA. This however

does not mean that we will not examine whether the ALOP actually being applied by the United States to

poultry products from China differs from that in the PPIA. We note that the Appellate Body in Australia –

Salmon explained that a panel may deduce an unexpressed ALOP from the measure being applied. In our

view, even in a case where a Member has expressed a particular ALOP, a panel should nevertheless examine

the measure in question to determine whether that ALOP is the one actually being applied via that measure.

To ignore the measure and rely solely on a Member's declared ALOP could permit a Member to evade the

disciplines of Article 5.5 by simply declaring one generic ALOP for all SPS-related matters.”

Para. 7.268. “Because Section 727 is not based on a risk assessment and was maintained without sufficient

scientific evidence, we can only conclude that there is no justification based on scientific principles and

founded in scientific evidence for the distinction in ALOPs, as reflected in the differences between the

measures used to tackle the risk of potentially unsafe poultry – Section 727 for poultry products from China

and the FSIS procedures for poultry products from other WTO Members.”

Para. 7.269. “We therefore find that the distinction in ALOPs for poultry products for China and for poultry

products from other WTO members is “arbitrary or unjustifiable” within the terms of Article 5.5 of the SPS

Agreement. We thus conclude that the second element of Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement is satisfied, with

respect to the importation of Chinese poultry products vis-à-vis that of poultry products from other WTO

members.”

Para. 7.294. “Having found that the importation of poultry products from China and that of poultry products

from other WTO Members are different yet comparable situations and that the United States is applying

different ALOPs to such situations; that the distinction in ALOPs for poultry products from China and for

poultry products from other WTO Members is “arbitrary or unjustifiable”; and that this arbitrary or

unjustifiable distinction in ALOPs results in “discrimination “ against China, we conclude that the three

elements of Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement are present. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Section 727 is

inconsistent with Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement.”

6. As duas partes do Artigo 5.7

Para que seja possível analisar se uma medida segue o Artigo 5.7, é fundamental destacar que existem duas

partes do Artigo: 1ª parte: um Membro pode adotar medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias provisionais desde

que o faça em respeito a uma situação na qual as evidências científicas sejam insuficientes, e leve em conta

as informações disponíveis; 2ª parte: cumpridos os requisitos da 1ª parte, o Membro deve obrigatoriamente

procurar obter informações adicionais necessárias para alcançar uma verificação mais objetiva dos riscos, e

deve revisar a medida dentro de um período razoável de tempo.

Relatório do Painel no caso Japan - Measures Affecting Agricultural Products (Japan - Agricultural

Products II), Demandante: EUA, WT/DS76/R, paras. 8.54-8.59

Para. 8.54. “In our view, the first sentence of Article 5.7 allows Members to provisionally adopt

phytosanitary measures if two elements, cumulative in nature, are met:

48

i) the measure is imposed in respect of a situation where “relevant scientific

information is insufficient”; and

ii) the measure is adopted “on the basis of available pertinent information”.

However, even if a measure meets both of these elements, the second sentence of

Article 5.7 imposes additional obligations on the Member provisionally adopting the

measure, namely the obligation to

iii) seek to obtain the additional information necessary for a more objective

assessment of risk; and

iv) review the … phytosanitary measure accordingly within a reasonable period of

time”

Para. 8.55. “Therefore, even if we were to assume that the varietal testing requirement is a phytosanitary

measure provisionally adopted in accordance with the first sentence of Article 5.7, i.e., even if we were to

assume that in this case “relevant scientific information is insufficient” and there is “available pertinent

information” before the Panel on which Japan can base the varietal testing requirement, the second sentence

of Article 5.7 obliges Japan to “seek to obtain the additional information necessary for a more objective

assessment of risk” and to “review the … phytosanitary measure accordingly within a reasonable period of

time.”

Para. 8.56. “As to the obligation imposed on Japan to “seek to obtain the additional information necessary for

a more objective assessment of risk”, Japan refers to the fact that exporting countries provide additional

information when they apply for access. We note, however, that the studies these countries provide are

designed and carried out to comply with the varietal testing requirement. They do not examine the

appropriateness of the requirement itself. This is also the case for the two reports before the Panel which were

carried out by MAFF's Research Division. No further information or evidence was submitted to us. As pointed

out earlier, not a single study before the Panel actually addresses the specific issue as to whether varietal

characteristics cause a divergency in quarantine efficacy. The requirement that the information necessary to

review an SPS measure must be specific enough, was referred to by the Appellate Body in EC - Hormones. In

this respect, we further recall that the experts advising the Panel stated that a study or research project to

determine whether varietal differences do matter for quarantine efficacy - which would mainly involve sorption

tests – could be carried out relatively easily.”

Para. 8.57. “Moreover, with respect to the obligation imposed on Japan to “review the … phytosanitary

measure accordingly within a reasonable period of time”, we note that, according to Japan, testing variety-by-

variety for lifting the import ban imposed in the Plant Protection Law, was first applied in 1969 when the ban

was lifted for Hawaiian papayas of the Solo variety, i.e., on a variety basis. For the US products at issue, hosts

of codling moth, the import ban was first lifted in 1978. The issue of varietal testing, and the question as to

whether it can be scientifically justified, has thus been around for almost 30 years and, with respect to the

specific products and pest at issue, for 20 years. During this period of time Japan has been in a position to

obtain further information on varietal differences and their relevance to quarantine efficacy. Moreover, since

the entry into force of the SPS Agreement on 1 January 1995, Japan has been under an explicit obligation to

collect additional information to enable it to more objectively review the appropriateness of the varietal testing

requirement.”

Para. 8.58. “On these grounds, we consider that there is no evidence before us which indicates that Japan

sought to “obtain the information necessary for a more objective assessment of risk” and reviewed the varietal

testing requirement accordingly “within a reasonable period of time”. We consider, therefore, that the United

States has established a presumption that Japan did not comply with the requirements in the second sentence of

Article 5.7. We also consider that Japan has not been able to rebut this presumption.”

Para. 8.59. “Following the rules on burden of proof we set out earlier, we thus find that even if the varietal

testing requirement were considered as a provisional measure adopted in accordance with the first sentence of

Article 5.7, Japan has not fulfilled the requirements contained in the second sentence of Article 5.7.”

49

7. Exceção qualificada x direito autônomo – relação com o Artigo 2.2



No caso em questão, o Órgão de Apelação entendeu que o Artigo 5.7 é uma exceção à obrigação do Artigo

2.2, de não manter medidas sem evidências científicas que as justifiquem. Ao criar uma exceção, o Artigo

5.7 abre espaço para que os Membros apliquem medidas que restrinjam o comércio sem que tenham

evidências concretas, mas exige, no entanto, o cumprimento de alguns requisitos. É importante destacar que

o entendimento sobre o Artigo 5.7 é essencial no âmbito dos casos SPS.

Para. 80. “(…) Article 5.7 operates as a qualified exemption from the obligation under Article 2.2 not to

maintain SPS measures without sufficient scientific evidence. An overly broad and flexible interpretation of

that obligation would render Article 5.7 meaningless.”


Biotech Products (EC - Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products), Demandantes: EUA,

WT/DS291/R; Canadá, WT/DS292/R; Argentina: WT/DS293/R, para. 7.2962

Nesse caso, o Painel entendeu que o Artigo 5.7 deve ser considerado um direito dos Membros, de aplicar

medidas sem que necessariamente tenham evidências científicas suficientes ou concretas. Traz

consequências importantes para o ônus da prova, que na prática recai sobre o Membro que aplica a medida

questionada.

Para. 7.2962. “(…) Article 5.7 should be characterized as a right and not an exception from a general

obligation under Article 2.2. In other words, we consider that in the same way that “Article 3.1 of the SPS

Agreement [...] excludes from its scope of application the kinds of situations covered by Article 3.3 of that

Agreement”, Article 2.2 excludes from its scope of application the kinds of situations covered by Article 5.7.

As we will explain further below, characterizing Article 5.7 as a right rather than as an exception has

implications for the allocation of the burden of proof.”

8. Quatro requisitos cumulativos


Agricultural Products II), WT/DS76/AB/R, para. 89

O Órgão de Apelação entendeu que para que seja possível aplicar uma medida provisional, baseada no

Artigo 5.7, o Membro deve seguir alguns requisitos a fim de exigir do Membro que impõe uma medida, que

busque ter evidências para justificá-la.

Para. 89. “Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement sets out four requirements which must be met in order to adopt

and maintain a provisional SPS measure. Pursuant to the first sentence of Article 5.7, a Member may

provisionally adopt an SPS measure if this measure is: (1) imposed in respect of a situation where “relevant

scientific information is insufficient”; and (2) adopted “on the basis of available pertinent information”.

Pursuant to the second sentence of Article 5.7, such a provisional measure may not be maintained unless the

Member which adopted the measure: (1) “seek[s] to obtain the additional information necessary for a more

objective assessment of risk”; and (2) “review[s] the … measure accordingly within a reasonable period of

time”.

These four requirements are clearly cumulative in nature and are equally important for the purpose of

determining consistency with this provision. Whenever one of these four requirements is not met, the

measure at issue is inconsistent with Article 5.7.”

50

9. Evidências científicas insuficientes


Apples), WT/DS245/AB/R, paras. 179 e 184

Nesse caso, o Órgão de Apelação estabeleceu como requisito inicial ligado ao Artigo 5.7, a configuração da

inexistência de um mínimo de evidências científicas que possam embasar a medida sanitária ou fitossanitária

em questão. Esse ponto, embora bastante questionável no plano da ciência, é essencial no entendimento do

DSB nos casos relacionados ao Acordo SPS.

Para. 179. “(…) The first requirement of Article 5.7 is that there must be insufficient scientific evidence.

When a panel reviews a measure claimed by a Member to be provisional, that panel must assess whether

“relevant scientific evidence is insufficient”. This evaluation must be carried out, not in the abstract, but in

the light of a particular inquiry. The notions of “relevance” and “insufficiency” in the introductory phrase of

Article 5.7 imply a relationship between the scientific evidence and something else. Reading this

introductory phrase in the broader context of Article 5 of the SPS Agreement, which is entitled “Assessment

of Risk and Determination of the Appropriate Level of Sanitary or Phytosanitary Protection”, is instructive in

ascertaining the nature of the relationship to be established. Article 5.1 sets out a key discipline under Article

5, namely that “Members shall ensure that their sanitary or phytosanitary measures are based on an

assessment … of the risks to human, animal or plant life or health”. This discipline informs the other

provisions of Article 5, including Article 5.7. We note, as well, that the second sentence of Article 5.7 refers

to a “more objective assessment of risks”. These contextual elements militate in favour of a link or

relationship between the first requirement under Article 5.7 and the obligation to perform a risk assessment

under Article 5.1: “relevant scientific evidence” will be “insufficient” within the meaning of Article 5.7 if the

body of available scientific evidence does not allow, in quantitative or qualitative terms, the performance of

an adequate assessment of risks as required under Article 5.1 and as defined in Annex A to the SPS

Agreement. Thus, the question is not whether there is sufficient evidence of a general nature or whether there

is sufficient evidence related to a specific aspect of a phytosanitary problem, or a specific risk. The question

is whether the relevant evidence, be it “general” or “specific”, in the Panel's parlance, is sufficient to permit

the evaluation of the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of, in this case, fire blight in Japan.”

Para. 184. “(…) The application of Article 5.7 is triggered not by the existence of scientific uncertainty, but

rather by the insufficiency of scientific evidence. The text of Article 5.7 is clear: it refers to “cases where

relevant scientific evidence is insufficient”, not to “scientific uncertainty”. The two concepts are not

interchangeable. Therefore, we are unable to endorse Japan's approach of interpreting Article 5.7 through the

prism of “scientific uncertainty”.”



WT/DS291/R; Canadá, WT/DS292/R; Argentina, WT/DS293/R, para. 7.3237

O entendimento do Órgão de Apelação nesse caso reforçou a noção do que é insuficiência de evidências para

o Artigo 5.7, ponto fundamental para os casos SPS. Ademais, pontuou a relação desse conceito com o Artigo

5.1, que trata justamente da análise de riscos associados à medida ou medidas em questão.

Para. 7.3237. “(…) in the view of the Appellate ody, relevant scientific evidence is insufficient within the

meaning of Article 5.7 if the body of available scientific evidence does not allow, in quantitative or

qualitative terms, the performance of a risk assessment as required under Article 5.1 and as defined in Annex

A(4). At any rate, this is the interpretation of the concept of “insufficiency” in Article 5.7 which we believe

to be correct.”

51

10. Medida de caráter provisório e “período razoável de tempo”


Agricultural Products II), WT/DS76/AB/R, para. 92

Nesse caso, o Órgão de Apelação reforçou o entendimento do Painel de que o Japão não trouxe informações

científicas para justificar sua medida dentro de um ‘período razoável de tempo’. Nem tampouco buscou

acessar evidências que pudessem comprovar a necessidade da medida em questão.

Para. 92. “(…) Neither Article 5.7 nor any other provision of the SPS Agreement sets out explicit

prerequisites regarding the additional information to be collected or a specific collection procedure.

Furthermore, Article 5.7 does not specify what actual results must be achieved; the obligation is to “seek to

obtain” additional information. However, Article 5.7 states that the additional information is to be sought in

order to allow the Member to conduct “a more objective assessment of risk”. Therefore, the information

sought must be germane to conducting such a risk assessment, i.e., the evaluation of the likelihood of entry,

establishment or spread of, in casu, a pest, according to the SPS measures which might be applied. We note

that the Panel found that the information collected by Japan does not “examine the appropriateness” of the

SPS measure at issue and does not address the core issue as to whether “varietal characteristics cause a

divergency in quarantine efficacy”. In the light of this finding, we agree with the Panel that Japan did not

seek to obtain the additional information necessary for a more objective risk assessment.”


Agricultural Products II), WT/DS76/AB/R. para. 93

O conceito de ‘período razoável de tempo’ é um ponto sensível nos casos baseados no Artigo 5.7, e o

entendimento do Órgão de Apelação neste caso consolidou a noção de que a análise precisa ser feita caso a

caso, ponderando-se a medida aplicada, a existência de evidências científicas, a ação ou inação do Membro

que aplica a medida no tocante a buscar acessar novas evidências, bem como o tempo de aplicação da

medida.

Para. 93. “(…) In our view, what constitutes a “reasonable period of time” has to be established on a case-

by-case basis and depends on the specific circumstances of each case, including the difficulty of obtaining

the additional information necessary for the review and the characteristics of the provisional SPS measure.

(…)”

11. Ônus da prova


WT/DS245/R, paras. 8.210-8.212

Considerando-se que o Japão aplicou a medida restritiva, e buscou justificá-la com base no Artigo 5.7,

deveria justificar ou provar que cumpria os requisitos ligados à aplicação de uma medida provisional. Como

o Artigo 5.7 é um direito que foge à regra do Artigo 2.2, cabe ao Membro que alega a aplicação da medida

provar que ela cumpre todos os requisitos do Artigo.

Para. 8.210. “We understand Japan to be claiming that the phytosanitary measure at issue is justified under

Article 5.7 “in the alternative”, should the Panel find that the measure is maintained without sufficient

scientific evidence within the meaning of Article 2.2. We first note that arguing in the alternative is a well-

established judicial practice and arguing a point in the alternative of another point often implies that there

may be some contradictions between the two lines of argumentation if they were presented concurrently.”

Para. 8.211. “In this instance, we have determined above that Japan's measure is maintained without

sufficient scientific evidence within the meaning of Article 2.2, which is the circumstance in which Japan

52

invokes Article 5.7 in the alternative and claims that this provisional measure has been in place since the date

of entry into force of the SPS Agreement in 1995.”

Para. 8.212. “(…) we find it relevant to recall that the burden is on Japan, as the party invoking Article 5.7

to make a prima facie case in support of its position.”


Biotech Products (EC - Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products), WT/DS291/292/293/R, paras.

7.2976-7.2977

No tocante ao Artigo 5.7, o Painel considerou que cabe ao demandante provar que a medida em questão é

inconsistente com ao menos 1 dos 4 requisitos do Artigo 5.7 (i. as evidências científicas sejam insuficientes;

ii. um Membro pode provisoriamente adotar medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias baseadas nas informações

disponíveis pertinentes, incluindo aquelas oriundas de relevantes organizações internacionais, bem como as

aplicáveis por outros Membros; iii. o Membro deverá procurar obter as informações adicionais necessárias

para uma verificação de risco mais objetiva; e iv. deverá rever a medida sanitária ou fitossanitária em

questão, dentro de um período razoável de tempo)

Para. 7.2976. “Characterizing Article 5.7 as a qualified right and not an exception also has implications for

the allocation of the burden of proof concerning the issue of the consistency of an SPS measure with Article

5.7. According to the Appellate Body's statement in EC – Tariff Preferences, in cases where the permissive

provision constitutes a right rather than an exception, “the complaining party bears the burden of establishing

that a challenged measure is inconsistent with the provision permitting particular behaviour”. And in EC –

Sardines, the Appellate Body observed that “[i]n EC – Hormones, we found that a 'general rule-exception'

relationship between Articles 3.1 and 3.3 of the SPS Agreement does not exist, with the consequence that the

complainant had to establish a case of inconsistency with both Articles 3.1 and 3.3”. We deduce from these

two statements that in cases where a complaining party alleges that an SPS measure is inconsistent with the

obligation in Article 2.2 not to maintain SPS measures without sufficient scientific evidence, it is incumbent

on the complaining party, and not the responding party, to demonstrate that the challenged SPS measure is

inconsistent with at least one of the four requirements set forth in Article 5.7. If such non-compliance is

demonstrated, then, and only then, does the relevant obligation in Article 2.2 apply to the challenged SPS

measure.”

Para. 7.2977. “Our view of the nature of the relationship between Article 2.2 and Article 5.7 and of the

proper allocation of the burden of proof under these provisions is consistent with that of the panel in Japan –

Agricultural Products II. (…)”

12. Princípio ou enfoque da Precaução



WT/DS48/AB/R, para. 123-125

O Órgão de Apelação destacou a relevância do debate sobre o princípio da precaução, mas foi enfático ao

definir que não é pelo fato de que o Artigo 5.7 prevê a possibilidade de se aplicar medidas provisionais,

desde que seguidos certos requisitos, que se pode aceitar a aplicação inconsistente de medidas sanitárias e

fitossanitárias. A vinculação dessa consistência ao Artigo 5, e a necessidade de fazer análise de risco e, com

isso, buscar evidências para adotar medidas, é central para o entendimento do funcionamento do Acordo

SPS, bem como da jurisprudência relativa ao Artigo 5.7.

Para. 123. “The status of the precautionary principle in international law continues to be the subject of

debate among academics, law practitioners, regulators and judges. The precautionary principle is regarded by

some as having crystallized into a general principle of customary international environmental law. Whether it

has been widely accepted by Members as a principle of general or customary international law appears less

53

than clear. We consider, however, that it is unnecessary, and probably imprudent, for the Appellate Body in

this appeal to take a position on this important, but abstract, question. We note that the Panel itself did not

make any definitive finding with regard to the status of the precautionary principle in international law and

that the precautionary principle, at least outside the field of international environmental law, still awaits

authoritative formulation.”

Para. 124. “It appears to us important, nevertheless, to note some aspects of the relationship of the

precautionary principle to the SPS Agreement. First, the principle has not been written into the SPS

Agreement as a ground for justifying SPS measures that are otherwise inconsistent with the obligations of

Members set out in particular provisions of that Agreement. Secondly, the precautionary principle indeed

finds reflection in Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement. We agree, at the same time, with the European

Communities, that there is no need to assume that Article 5.7 exhausts the relevance of a precautionary

principle. It is reflected also in the sixth paragraph of the preamble and in Article 3.3. These explicitly

recognize the right of Members to establish their own appropriate level of sanitary protection, which level

may be higher (i.e., more cautious) than that implied in existing international standards, guidelines and

recommendations. Thirdly, a panel charged with determining, for instance, whether “sufficient scientific

evidence” exists to warrant the maintenance by a Member of a particular SPS measure may, of course, and

should, bear in mind that responsible, representative governments commonly act from perspectives of

prudence and precaution where risks of irreversible, e.g. life terminating, damage to human health are

concerned. Lastly, however, the precautionary principle does not, by itself, and without a clear textual

directive to that effect, relieve a panel from the duty of applying the normal (i.e. customary international law)

principles of treaty interpretation in reading the provisions of the SPS Agreement.”

Para. 125. “We accordingly agree with the finding of the Panel that the precautionary principle does not

override the provisions of Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement.”



WT/DS291/R; Canadá, WT/DS292/R; Argentina, WT/DS293/R, paras. 7.88-7.89

Nesse caso, o Painel não definiu o status legal do princípio da precaução, muito embora tenha reconhecido a

importância do debate sobre o tema.

Para. 7.88. “(…) It appears to us from the Parties' arguments and other available materials that the legal

debate over whether the precautionary principle constitutes a recognized principle of general or customary

international law is still ongoing. Notably, there has, to date, been no authoritative decision by an

international court or tribunal which recognizes the precautionary principle as a principle of general or

customary international law. It is correct that provisions explicitly or implicitly applying the precautionary

principle have been incorporated into numerous international conventions and declarations, although, for the

most part, they are environmental conventions and declarations. Also, the principle has been referred to and

applied by States at the domestic level, again mostly in domestic environmental law. On the other hand, there

remain questions regarding the precise definition and content of the precautionary principle. Finally,

regarding doctrine, we note that many authors have expressed the view that the precautionary principle exists

as a general principle in international law. At the same time, as already noted by the Appellate Body, others

have expressed scepticism and consider that the precautionary principle has not yet attained the status of a

general principle in international law.”

Para. 7.89. “Since the legal status of the precautionary principle remains unsettled, like the Appellate Body

before us, we consider that prudence suggests that we not attempt to resolve this complex issue, particularly

if it is not necessary to do so. (…)”

III. Comentários

O primeiro aspecto a merecer destaque na análise da jurisprudência apontada acima, diz respeito ao padrão

de análise (standard of review) à luz do Acordo de SPS. O Órgão de Apelação enfatizou que os Painéis

54

devem limitar sua análise à revisão da avaliação de risco executada pelo Membro. Dessa forma, o emprego

de uma análise “de novo” (executar uma nova análise dos fatos para execução de avaliação de risco) foi

considerada inconsistente com a obrigação de realizar análise “objetiva” exigida pelo Artigo 11 do DSU.

A doutrina alerta, ainda, que o risco de um Painel ou Órgão de Apelação cometer um erro ao executar ele

mesmo a avaliação de risco é grande, pois pode não ter em mente as mesmas preferências em relação aos

riscos e à proteção almejada. Neste sentido, entende-se que o padrão de análise exigido pelo Órgão de

Apelação no caso de medidas de SPS é mais diferencial que “de novo”.

Ademais, nota-se que o Órgão de Apelação entendeu que para que uma medida de SPS seja baseada em uma

avaliação de risco é preciso haver um elo racional ou uma relação substancial entre a avaliação de risco e a

medida implementada. Ainda mais importante, em US/Canada - Continued Suspension o Órgão de Apelação

afastou a ideia de que uma medida de SPS não possa ser baseada em uma opinião científica minoritária. De

acordo com a decisão emitida neste caso, a base científica que dá suporte à implementação da medida de SPS

não precisa refletir a posição majoritária da comunidade científica, contanto que esta base científica tenha

fonte qualificada e respeitável, bem como tenha sido expressa na avaliação de risco.

Por fim, ainda que não objeto de apelação, destaca-se a decisão do Painel no caso EC - Biotech acerca da

relação entre os Artigos 2.2, 5.1 e 5.7. O Painel esclareceu que se uma medida de SPS é consistente com os

quatro requisitos do Artigo 5.7, a obrigação expressa no Artigo 2.2 ou 5.1 não será mais aplicável. No

entanto, se qualquer um desses requerimentos não é cumprido, ambas as obrigações de não manter medidas

de SPS sem base científica (Artigo 2.2) e de basear medidas de SPS em uma avaliação de risco (Artigo 5.1)

são reestabelecidas.

Além disso, o Painel concluiu que o Artigo 5.7 não é uma exceção ao Artigo 2.2 ou 5.1. De acordo com a

doutrina, o Artigo 5.7 é uma obrigação independente, com um campo de operação mutuamente exclusivo em

relação aos Artigos 2.2 e 5.1. Em junho de 2000, o Comitê do Acordo SPS aprovou orientações com o

objetivo de incentivar a implementação do Artigo 5.5 no tocante à consistência das medidas aplicadas com o

objetivo de atingir níveis apropriados de proteção. Apesar de não ter um propósito de criar interpretação

legal e de modificar o Acordo, a Decisão do Comitê é relevante na medida em que se baseia nos dois

principais elementos do Artigo 5.5: (i) o objetivo de atingir consistência na aplicação do conceito de nível

apropriado de proteção; e, (ii) a obrigação de evitar discriminações arbitrárias ou injustificadas nos níveis

considerados apropriados para atingir a proteção sanitária ou fitossanitária.

O Artigo recepciona a liberdade dos Membros para aplicar padrões sanitários ou fitossanitários próprios,

desde que não ensejem discriminação ou criem restrições disfarçadas ao comércio internacional. Na

realidade, o Artigo 5.5 reforça a relação entre os Artigos 2.2 e 5.1 do Acordo SPS, e incorpora a linguagem

contrária à discriminação herdada do GATT 1947. Os Membros possuem liberdade para adotar medidas que

visem proteger a saúde e vida humanas, animal e vegetal, mas estas devem ser fundamentadas por evidências

científicas ou um mínimo de evidências que justifiquem a necessidade da medida. A grande dificuldade é

ponderar até que ponto uma medida é necessária ou não para atingir o objetivo a que propõe-se.

55

Artigo 6

Rodrigo C. A. Lima


Article 6

Adaptation to Regional Conditions, Including Pest - or Disease - Free Areas and

Areas of Low Pest or Disease Prevalence

6.1 Members shall ensure that their sanitary or phytosanitary measures are adapted to the sanitary or

phytosanitary characteristics of the area - whether all of a country, part of a country, or all or parts of

several countries - from which the product originated and to which the product is destined. In

assessing the sanitary or phytosanitary characteristics of a region, Members shall take into account,

inter alia, the level of prevalence of specific diseases or pests, the existence of eradication or control

programmes, and appropriate criteria or guidelines which may be developed by the relevant

international organizations.

6.2 Members shall, in particular, recognize the concepts of pest - or disease-free areas and areas of low

pest or disease prevalence. Determination of such areas shall be based on factors such as geography,

ecosystems, epidemiological surveillance, and the effectiveness of sanitary or phytosanitary controls.

6.3 Exporting Members claiming that areas within their territories are pest- or disease-free areas or areas

of low pest or disease prevalence shall provide the necessary evidence thereof in order to objectively

demonstrate to the importing Member that such areas are, and are likely to remain, pest- or disease-

free areas or areas of low pest or disease prevalence, respectively. For this purpose, reasonable

access shall be given, upon request, to the importing Member for inspection, testing and other

relevant procedures.


Artigo 6

Adaptação a Condições Regionais, Incluindo-se Áreas Livres de Pragas ou Doenças e

Áreas de Baixa Incidência de Pragas ou Doenças

6.1 Os Membros garantirão que suas medidas sanitárias ou fitossanitárias estejam adaptadas às

características sanitárias ou fitossanitárias da área – seja todo o território de um país, parte do

território de um país ou todas as partes do território de vários países - da qual o produto é originário

e para a qual o produto é destinado. Ao avaliar as características sanitárias ou fitossanitárias de uma

região, os Membros considerarão, inter alia, o nível de incidência de pragas ou doenças específicas;

a existência de programas de controle ou erradicação; e critérios ou diretrizes apropriados que

possam ser elaborados pelas organizações internacionais competentes.

6.2 Os Membros reconhecerão, em particular, os conceitos de áreas livres de pragas e doenças e de áreas

de baixa incidência de pragas e doenças. A determinação de tais áreas será baseada em fatores tais

como geografia; ecossistemas; controle epidemiológico; e a eficácia dos controles sanitários ou

fitossanitários.

6.3 Os Membros exportadores que afirmarem a existência, em seus territórios, de áreas livres de pragas

ou doenças ou de áreas de baixa incidência de pragas ou doenças fornecerão a evidência necessária

de forma a demonstrar, objetivamente, ao Membro importador, que tais áreas são – e deverão

permanecer – áreas livres de pragas ou doenças ou áreas de baixa incidência de pragas ou doenças,

respectivamente. Para tal fim, acesso razoável deverá ser concedido, se solicitado, ao Membro

importador para inspeção, teste e outros procedimentos relevantes.


56


A tradução correta para “shall ensure” é “deverão garantir” ou “deverão assegurar”. Entendemos que a

expressão “Os membros garantirão” é uma expressão forte que não é seguida na prática e pode, dependendo

do caso, contrariar o direito de um Membro de adotar medidas específicas baseadas em seu nível apropriado

de proteção, desde que tenha evidências científicas, ou em casos extraordinários.

O objetivo do Artigo 6 é justamente prever que as medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias, adotadas por um

Membro, devam levar em conta as condições sanitárias peculiares, decorrentes de programas de controle ou

erradicação de uma determinada peste ou doença.

A tradução do Artigo 6.2 é adequada.


1. Relação do Artigo 6 com o Artigo 5.5 (reconhecimento de áreas livres de doenças e nível

apropriado de proteção sanitária ou fitossanitária)


(Australia - Salmon), Demandante: Canadá, WT/DS18/AB/R, paras. 108-110

Para o Órgão de Apelação, os Membros podem adotar medidas que visem assegurar níveis apropriados de

proteção sanitária ou fitossanitária, capazes de causar discriminação entre os níveis adotados por outros

Membros (o que dependerá, necessariamente, de evidências científicas e da realização de análise de risco). A

possibilidade de justificar uma medida própria, baseada em um nível apropriado de proteção, que discrimine

ou não reconheça as condições sanitárias de outro Membro, exige um conjunto mínimo de fundamentação, e

deve ser analisado caso a caso.

Para. 108. “In the context of examining the third element of Article 5.5, i.e., the existence of discrimination

or a disguised restriction on international trade resulting from the arbitrary or unjustifiable distinction in the

levels of sanitary protection in different situations, the Panel took into account three “warning signals” and

three “additional factors”. The third of these “additional factors” concerns the Panel's doubts on whether

Australia applies “similarly strict” sanitary standards to the internal movement of salmon within Australia as

it does on imports of salmon. In the context of its brief and inconclusive discussion on Australia's internal

controls on the movement of salmon, the Panel noted: “... that the other reasons provided by Australia to

justify the absence of any internal restrictions on the movement of salmon products, in particular from

Victoria to other parts of Australia ... would seem to be equally valid in support of allowing imports of

salmon products into specific parts of Australia.”

Para. 109. “In a footnote to this paragraph, the Panel referred to Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement and stated:

We note that in this respect Article 6 of the SPS Agreement provides: “Members shall ensure that their

sanitary ... measures are adapted to the sanitary ... characteristics of the area - whether all of a country, part

of a country, or all or parts of several countries - ... to which the product is destined. In assessing the sanitary

or phytosanitary characteristics of a region, Members shall take into account, inter alia, the level of

prevalence of specific diseases or pests, the existence of eradication or control programmes, and appropriate

criteria or guidelines which may be developed by the relevant international organizations.”

Para. 110. “Canada's request for the establishment of a panel did not include a claim of violation of Article 6

of the SPS Agreement. The Panel's terms of reference are determined by Canada's request for the

establishment of a panel. We, therefore, agree with Australia that Article 6 of the SPS Agreement is not

within the terms of reference of the Panel. However, we disagree with Australia that the Panel exceeded its

terms of reference in quoting Article 6.1 in a footnote, attached to a paragraph in which the Panel examined a

violation of Article 5.5. More precisely, we reject Australia's contention that the Panel, by merely referring to

Article 6.1 in a footnote, made an implied finding of inconsistency with Article 6. In our view, the statement

of the Panel with regard to Article 6, in footnote 430 of its Report, is similar in character to the statement of

57

the panel in United States – Shirts and Blouses, with regard to the powers of the Textile Monitoring Body

(“TMB”). India appealed from this statement, but we found it to be “purely a descriptive and gratuitous

comment providing background concerning the Panel's understanding of how the TMB functions”. We did

not consider that statement to be “a legal finding or conclusion” which the Appellate Body “may uphold,

modify or reverse”. Likewise, we consider that in this case, the Panel's statement in footnote 430 of its

Report regarding Article 6.1 of the SPS Agreement is a purely gratuitous comment and not “a legal finding

or conclusion”. By making such a comment, the Panel did not exceed its terms of reference.”

III. Comentários

Não há uma interpretação extensiva do Artigo 6 nos casos julgados pelo DSB. No entanto, é válido destacar

que o reconhecimento de áreas livres ou de baixa prevalência de doenças ou pestes pelos Membros é um

tema extremamente importante, o qual motivou intensas discussões no Comitê do Acordo SPS, e uma

decisão que visa fomentar a implementação do Artigo. As guidelines criadas serão analisadas a seguir.

Guidelines to Further the Practical Implementation of Article 6 of the Agreement on the Application

of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Decision G/SPS/48

Em 2008, o Comitê do Acordo SPS aprovou a Decisão G/SPS/48 que trata da implementação do Artigo 6, o

qual versa sobre a adaptação das medidas às condições de uma região e do reconhecimento de áreas livres ou

de baixa prevalência de pestes ou doenças.

A falta de reconhecimento do status sanitário de um Membro em relação a uma certa doença normalmente é

motivo para a aplicação de restrições ao comércio. A falta de aplicação do Artigo 6.1 e, mais especificamente

do Artigo 6.2, que trata do reconhecimento de áreas livres de doenças, motivou amplo debate nas reuniões do

Comitê do Acordo SPS, e abriu uma negociação sobre como implementar este Artigo.

Não há jurisprudência que permita analisar o caso do ponto de vista do Órgão de Apelação. No entanto, a

decisão G/SPS/48 é um avanço no debate sobre a implementação do Acordo SPS, pois traz orientações e

parâmetros que podem ser seguidos no tocante ao reconhecimento de áreas livres de doenças. Não pode ser

usada como interpretação legal, e não modifica o Acordo, mas simplesmente visa preencher uma lacuna de

sua interpretação literal.

Quando um Membro reconhece uma área livre de doença no território de outro Membro, aplica na prática o

que se costuma chamar de regionalização. Além disso, se reconhece certas práticas de biossegurança mais

elevadas, reconhece a compartimentalização de uma determinada região em relação a uma peste ou doença,

como no caso da influenza aviária, por exemplo.

A Decisão prevê os passos que um Membro deve seguir para buscar o reconhecimento de uma área livre e as

obrigações dos Membros envolvidos num processo de reconhecimento. Dentre as orientações, vale destacar:

i. The importing Member should, upon request, enter into discussions with the exporting Member with

the aim of clarifying the importing Member's general process and the information generally required

to facilitate a request for the recognition of a pest- or disease-free area or area of low pest or disease

prevalence;

ii. The discussions should be undertaken within a reasonable period of time, and normally within 90

days of a request or as otherwise mutually decided.

iii. The clarification(s) made in the course of the discussions should, if necessary, be appropriately

recorded by the importing Member and transmitted to the exporting Member to avoid any

misunderstandings of the general process.

iv. When an importing Member has limited resources to undertake work on new requests for

recognition, discussions may be postponed for a reasonable period of time. In deciding whether to

postpone discussions, the importing Member should take into account as relevant factors, inter alia:

a) the number of requests for recognition of pest- or disease-free areas or areas of low pest or disease

58

prevalence it has received; b) the priority of the exporting Member in situations where it has

submitted multiple requests, and c) capacity to undertake work on new requests.

v. When an importing Member has postponed discussions in accordance with paragraph 17 of this

decision, it should inform the exporting Member and provide an explanation in writing for the delay.

vi. Typical administrative steps in the recognition process.

vii. Expedited process.

viii. Monitoring.

Decisões como essa são essenciais para incentivar a implementação do Acordo, pois apesar de não gerarem

interpretação judicial, dão suporte para o cumprimento ou não do Acordo. O próprio fato de haver previsão

do monitoramento do cumprimento da decisão pelos Membros ajuda a reforçar o papel da decisão, que ganha

espaço por meio das notificações dos Membros, dos Specific Trade Concerns apresentados nas Reuniões do

Comitê e, dessa forma, ajudam a dar vida ao Acordo.

O Relatório G/SPS/GEN/1134 aprovado pelo Comitê do Acordo SPS em janeiro de 2012 ressalta que 19

processos de reconhecimento de áreas livres de doenças se basearam nas guidelines entre 2009 e 2011.

59

Artigo 7

Rodrigo C. A. Lima


Article 7

Transparency

Members shall notify changes in their sanitary or phytosanitary measures and shall provide

information on their sanitary or phytosanitary measures in accordance with the provisions of Annex B.


Artigo 7

Transparência

Os Membros notificarão as alterações em suas medidas sanitárias ou fitossanitárias e

fornecerão informação sobre suas medidas sanitárias ou fitossanitárias de acordo com as disposições

do Anexo B.






Agricultural Products II) (Japan - Agricultural Products II), WT/DS76/AB/R, paras. 103-105

A interpretação dada pelo Órgão de Apelação neste caso reflete a relevância da transparência quanto à

aplicação de medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias, considerando que os Membros devem deixar claro quais

medidas exigem para a importação de um produto.

Para. 103. “In paragraph 8.111 of the Panel Report, the Panel found: Even though the varietal testing

requirement is not mandatory – in that exporting countries can demonstrate quarantine efficiency by other

means – in our view, it does constitute a “phytosanitary regulation” subject to the publication requirement in

Annex B.”

In paragraph 8.116 of the Panel Report, the Panel subsequently concluded

that:

(…) Japan, by not having published the varietal testing requirement, acts

inconsistently with its obligations under paragraph 1 of Annex B of the SPS

Agreement and, for that reason, with its obligations contained in Article 7 of

that Agreement.

Para. 104. “Japan appeals this finding. According to Japan, the “regulations” referred to in paragraph 1 of

Annex B are limited to legally enforceable instruments. Japan contends that the varietal testing requirement,

as set out in the Experimental Guide, is not a legally enforceable instrument and does, therefore, not fall

within the scope of application of the publication requirement of paragraph 1 of Annex B.”

Para. 105. “We consider that the list of instruments contained in the footnote to paragraph 1 of Annex B is,

as is indicated by the words “such as”, not exhaustive in nature. The scope of application of the publication

requirement is not limited to “laws, decrees or ordinances”, but also includes, in our opinion, other

60

instruments which are applicable generally and are similar in character to the instruments explicitly referred

to in the illustrative list of the footnote to paragraph 1 of Annex B.”

Relatório do Painel no caso Japan - Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples (Japan – Apples),

Demandante: EUA, WT/DS245/R, paras. 8.23-8.24

Nesse caso, o Painel entendeu que as medidas em questão deveriam ser analisadas com base no Anexo A do

Acordo SPS, o qual trata do conceito de medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias e, por esta razão, deveriam ser

regularmente notificadas pelos Membros.

Para. 8.23. “Regarding the second item (i.e., the confirmation by Japanese officials of the US officials'

certification and inspection by Japanese officials of disinfection and packaging facilities), it appears that they

do not entail significant additional obligations for the United States compared with the other requirements

identified.”

Para. 8.24. “However, we note that both requirements fall within the definition of phytosanitary measures

contained in Annex A, paragraph 1, of the SPS Agreement, which includes “inspection, certification and

approval procedures”. We also note that the definition in Annex A, paragraph 1, does not consider the trade

effect of a given measure as a factor to determine whether such a measure is or is not a phytosanitary

measure. While such requirements are common practices and, on their own, may not have justified the

initiation of this case by the United States, we note that they are part of the measure as a whole and that, in

combination with other elements of that measure, they may contribute to the restrictive effect of the measure

at issue.”

III. Comentários

A interpretação do Artigo 7 pelo DSB, mostra-se essencial na medida em que os Membros devem ser

absolutamente claros quanto à aplicação de medidas sanitárias ou fitossanitárias que possam restringir ou

proibir o comércio. A prática mostra que nem sempre uma medida, ou um conjunto de medidas (measure at

issue) são claramente exigidas do Membro exportador, o que depende, em certos casos, da forma pela qual

elas são reguladas pelo Membro importador.

Nesse sentido, a notificação de projetos de regulamentação, ou das próprias regulamentações exigindo a

adoção de medidas sanitárias ou fitossanitárias pelos Membros exportadores, é uma prática que cada vez

mais adquire relevância no contexto do Comitê do Acordo SPS, sendo crucial quando se trata da

transparência na aplicação das medidas.

61

Artigo 8

Rodrigo C. A. Lima


Article 8

Control, Inspection and Approval Procedures

Members shall observe the provisions of Annex C in the operation of control, inspection and approval

procedures, including national systems for approving the use of additives or for establishing tolerances for

contaminants in foods, beverages or feedstuffs, and otherwise ensure that their procedures are not

inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement.


Artigo 8

Procedimentos de Controle, Inspeção e Homologação

Os Membros observarão as disposições do Anexo C na operação de procedimentos de controle,

inspeção e homologação, incluindo-se sistemas nacionais para homologação de uso de aditivos ou para o

estabelecimento de tolerâncias para contaminantes em alimentos, bebidas ou ração animal, e garantirão,

quanto ao resto, que seus procedimentos não são incompatíveis com as disposições do presente Acordo.







WT/DS291/R, para. 7.1569

Nesse caso, o Painel entendeu que a União Europeia não seguiu o Anexo C (1) (a) do Acordo SPS e,

consequentemente, o Artigo 8, que trata dos Procedimentos de Controle, Inspeção e Homologação,

especificamente, no que se refere ao tempo para análise e aprovação ou não de um certo produto, e à análise

de risco ou procedimento ligado a um requisito sanitário ou fitossanitário.

Para. 7.1569. “We recall that the United States and Canada seek to establish an inconsistency with Article 8

of the SPS Agreement on the basis of an inconsistency with Annex C(1)(a). Article 8 requires, inter alia, that

Members observe the provisions of Annex C in the operation of their approval procedures. It follows that a

failure to observe the provisions of Annex C(1)(a) implies a breach of Article 8. We have determined above

that, as a result of the general de facto moratorium on approvals, the European Communities has failed, in at

least one approval procedure conducted under Directives 90/220 and 2001/18, to observe the provisions of

Annex C(1)(a), first clause. Accordingly, we conclude that in respect of the aforementioned approval

procedure, the European Communities has, by implication, also acted inconsistently with the provisions of

Article 8.”



O Painel entendeu que o Artigo 8 e o Anexo C devem ser aplicados a procedimentos relacionados ao

controle, inspeção e aprovação de medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias.

62

Para. 7.356. “Article 8 and Annex C (1) therefore apply to certain types of “procedures”, namely those

dealing with control, inspection and approval which are aimed at checking and ensuring the fulfilment of

SPS measures. In order to determine whether both provisions apply to the specific circumstances of this

dispute, the Panel will first examine what we understand “control, inspection and approval procedures” to be.

We will then proceed to examine the FSIS procedures in order to ascertain whether they are “control,

inspection, or approval procedures” within the scope of Annex C(1) of the SPS Agreement. If so, we will

then turn to examine whether Section 727 had the effect of causing an undue delay in the application of the

normal FSIS procedures to Chinese poultry products failing to observe the requirements in Annex C(1)(a) of

the SPS Agreement and thus being inconsistent with Article 8 of the SPS Agreement.”

III. Comentários

A questão dos procedimentos para controle, inspeção e aprovação destinados a averiguar o cumprimento de

medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias é bastante relevante, pois trata da aplicação prática de medidas, ou de

ações relacionadas às exigências que acabam criando restrições ao comércio.

O debate sobre undue delays ou atrasos justificados, ocasionados pela demora das autoridades sanitárias ou

fitossanitárias dos Membros, para analisar pedidos de análise de risco, de formalização de um certificado

sanitário para exportação, dentre outros procedimentos, evidencia o quanto a falta de transparência e a

existência de procedimentos administrativos específicos para cada Membro podem causar restrições não

justificadas ao comércio.

63

Artigo 9

Rodrigo C. A. Lima


Article 9

Technical Assistance

9.1 Members agree to facilitate the provision of technical assistance to other Members, especially

developing country Members, either bilaterally or through the appropriate international

organizations. Such assistance may be, inter alia, in the areas of processing technologies, research

and infrastructure, including in the establishment of national regulatory bodies, and may take the

form of advice, credits, donations and grants, including for the purpose of seeking technical

expertise, training and equipment to allow such countries to adjust to, and comply with, sanitary or

phytosanitary measures necessary to achieve the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary

protection in their export markets.

9.2 Where substantial investments are required in order for an exporting developing country Member to

fulfil the sanitary or phytosanitary requirements of an importing Member, the latter shall consider

providing such technical assistance as will permit the developing country Member to maintain and

expand its market access opportunities for the product involved.


Artigo 9

Assistência Técnica

9.1 Os Membros concordam em facilitar o fornecimento de assistência técnica a outros Membros,

especialmente a países em desenvolvimento Membros, seja bilateralmente ou por intermédio de

organizações internacionais apropriadas. Tal assistência poderá realizar-se, inter alia, nas áreas de

tecnologias de processamento, pesquisa e infra-estrutura, incluindo-se o estabelecimento de órgãos

nacionais regulatórios, e poderá tomar a forma de consultoria, créditos, doações ou concessões,

inclusive com o propósito de buscar o aperfeiçoamento técnico, treinamento e equipamento para

permitir a tais países ajustarem-se e cumprirem com as medidas sanitárias ou fitossanitárias

necessárias para que alcancem o nível adequado de proteção sanitária ou fitossanitária em seus

mercados de exportação.

9.2 Quando investimentos consideráveis se fizerem necessários para que um país em desenvolvimento

Membro exportador preencha as exigências sanitárias ou fitossanitárias de um Membro importador,

este último considerará o fornecimento de assistência técnica de modo a permitir ao país em

desenvolvimento Membro manter e expandir suas oportunidades de acesso a mercados para o

produto em questão.



Tradução apropriada.


Declaração Ministerial de Doha, WT/MIN(01)/17

Para. 3.6 (i). “Urges Members to provide, to the extent possible, the financial and technical assistance

necessary to enable least-developed countries to respond adequately to the introduction of any new SPS

measures which may have significant negative effects on their trade; and

64

Para. 3.6 (ii). Urges Members to ensure that technical assistance is provided to least-developed countries

with a view to responding to the special problems faced by them in implementing the Agreement on the

Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.”

III. Comentários

A urgência em prover assistência técnica aos Membros de menor desenvolvimento relativo, para que possam

cumprir com medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias, assim como implementar o Acordo SPS, é uma demanda

inata, trazida pela complexidade dos temas e a dificuldade de determinar quando uma medida segue ou não

suas regras.

O fato de a Declaração Ministerial salientar que os Membros devem ajudar os países a ter capacidade para

lidar com o Acordo, bem como com os requisitos que fundamentam medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias e têm

impacto no comércio, denota a importância de aprofundar a criação de padrões que visem, de um lado,

proteger a vida e a saúde humana, animal e vegetal e, de outro, permitir que os países tenham capacidade

para aplicar padrões mínimos que possibilitem exportar seus produtos sem sofrer barreiras sanitárias ou

fitossanitárias. É um desafio constante que segue a implementação e o aprofundamento do conhecimento

sobre as regras do Acordo SPS.

65

Artigo 10

Rodrigo C. A. Lima


Article 10

Special and Differential Treatment

10.1 In the preparation and application of sanitary or phytosanitary measures, Members shall take account

of the special needs of developing country Members, and in particular of the least-developed country

Members.

10.2 Where the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection allows scope for the phased

introduction of new sanitary or phytosanitary measures, longer timeframes for compliance should be

accorded on products of interest to developing country Members so as to maintain opportunities for

their exports.

10.3 With a view to ensuring that developing country Members are able to comply with the provisions of

this Agreement, the Committee is enabled to grant to such countries, upon request, specified, time-

limited exceptions in whole or in part from obligations under this Agreement, taking into account

their financial, trade and development needs.

10.4 Members should encourage and facilitate the active participation of developing country Members in

the relevant international organizations.


Artigo 10

Tratamento Especial e Diferenciado

10.1 Na elaboração e aplicação das medidas sanitárias ou fitossanitárias, os Membros levarão em

consideração as necessidades especiais dos países em desenvolvimento Membros, e, em especial,

dos países de menor desenvolvimento relativo Membros.

10.2 Quando o nível adequado de proteção sanitária ou fitossanitária permitir o estabelecimento gradual

de novas medidas sanitárias ou fitossanitárias, deverão ser concedidos prazos mais longos para seu

cumprimento no que se refere a produtos de interesse dos países em desenvolvimento Membros, a

fim de manter suas oportunidades de exportação.

10.3 Com vistas a assegurar que os países em desenvolvimento Membros possam estar aptos a cumprir

com as disposições do presente Acordo, o Comitê tem direito de conceder a tais países, se solicitado,

exceções específicas, com prazo limitado, no todo ou em parte das obrigações do presente Acordo,

levando-se em consideração suas necessidades de desenvolvimento, comerciais e financeiras.

10.4 Os Membros devem estimular e facilitar a participação ativa de países em desenvolvimento

Membros nas organizações internacionais competentes.





66

The Procedure to Enhance Transparency of Special and Differential Treatment in Favour of

Developing Country Members (G/SPS/33/Rev.1)

O Comitê do Acordo SPS aprovou em 2009 um procedimento para aumentar a transparência relativa ao

tratamento especial e diferenciado para países de menor desenvolvimento relativo, que tem como objetivo

principal permitir que esses países tenham mais tempo e oportunidade para conhecer e comentar as

regulamentações, notificadas pelos países, que terão impacto no comércio internacional.

a) “Take account of” no Artigo 10.1


Biotech Products (EC - Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products), Demandante: Argentina,

WT/DS293/R, paras. 7.1620-7.1621

Nesse caso, o Painel entendeu que o fato da União Europeia ter adotado uma “moratória de fato” quanto à

aprovação de produtos derivados da biotecnologia, não significa que não considerou as necessidades de um

país em desenvolvimento em conta. A expressão “take account of”, nesse caso, não prescreve ações

específicas que precisam ser seguidas pelo Membro que impõe a medida em relação aos Membros em

desenvolvimento e àqueles de menor desenvolvimento relativo.

Para. 7.1620. “[T]he obligation laid down in Article 10.1 is for the importing Member to ‘take account’ of

developing country Members’ needs. The dictionary defines the expression ‘take account of’ as ‘consider

along with other factors before reaching a decision’. Consistent with this, Article 10.1 does not prescribe a

specific result to be achieved. Notably, Article 10.1 does not provide that the importing Member must

invariably accord special and differential treatment in a case where a measure has led, or may lead, to a

decrease, or a slower increase, in developing country exports.”

Para. 7.1621. “The fact that there is no indication that between June 1999 and August 2003 the European

Communities accorded Argentina special and differential treatment — e.g., by approving the marketing of

biotech products exported from Argentina — does not in and of itself constitute prima facie evidence that the

European Communities has failed to ‘take account’ of Argentina’s needs. While the European Communities

must take account of the interests of developing country Members in applying its approval legislation, the

European Communities may at the same time take account of other legitimate interests, including those of its

own consumers, its environment, etc. There is nothing in Article 10.1 to suggest that in weighing and

balancing the various interests at stake, the European Communities must necessarily give priority to the

needs of Argentina as a developing country. We therefore think it is conceivable that the European

Communities ‘took account’ of Argentina’s needs when adopting and applying its general de facto

moratorium on approvals, but ultimately determined that applications concerning products of export interest

to Argentina warranted no special and differential treatment. Accordingly, we consider that the fact that the

European Communities did not accord Argentina special and differential treatment vis-à-vis other developed

country exporters does not demonstrate, by itself, an inconsistency with Article 10.1.”

b) “Burden of proof” no Artigo 10.1


Biotech Products (EC - Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products), Demandante: Argentina,

WT/DS293/R, paras. 7.1622-7.1624

O Painel entendeu que, o ônus de provar que o Membro desenvolvido não considerou os interesses do país

em desenvolvimento quando aplicou sua medida, nos termos do Artigo 10.1, era do demandante, no caso, a

Argentina. Ademais, o Painel considerou que a falta de uma menção expressa relativa a Membros em

desenvolvimento ou de menor desenvolvimento relativo na regulamentação da União Europeia não poderia

ser entendido como uma afronta ao Artigo 10.1.

67

Para. 7.1622. “Argentina argues that the European Communities has not provided any evidence which

would prove that it has taken into account Argentina’s special needs as a developing country Member. This

argument lacks merit, for it is incumbent on Argentina as the Complaining Party to adduce evidence and

argument sufficient to raise a presumption that the European Communities has failed to take into account

Argentina’s special needs as a developing country Member.”

Para. 7.1623. “[T]he absence of a reference to developing country needs in the text of the EC approval

legislation does not demonstrate that that legislation itself fails to take account of these needs, or that the

European Communities is precluded from taking account, or has not taken account, of these needs when

applying that legislation. We therefore consider that it is not sufficient, for the purposes of establishing a

claim under Article 10.1, to point to the absence in the EC approval legislation of a reference to the needs of

developing country Members.”

Para. 7.1624. “Argentina further argues that for the entire period of application of the general de facto

moratorium on approvals it could not identify any evidence supporting the conclusion that the European

Communities has taken account of Argentina’s special needs. We note that Argentina has merely asserted the

absence of relevant evidence, without specifying what efforts it has undertaken to collect such evidence.

Moreover, we note that Article 10.1 does not specifically require the importing Member to document how it

has complied with Article 10.1.”

c) “Longer time-frame for compliance”

The Procedure to Enhance Transparency of Special and Differential Treatment in Favour of

Developing Country Members (G/SPS/33/Rev.1)

Para. 3.1. “Where the appropriate level of sanitary and phytosanitary protection allows scope for the phased

introduction of new sanitary and phytosanitary measures, the phrase “longer time-frame for compliance”

referred to in Article 10.2 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, shall

be understood to mean normally a period of not less than 6 months. Where the appropriate level of sanitary

and phytosanitary protection does not allow scope for the phased introduction of a new measure, but specific

problems are identified by a Member, the Member applying the measure shall upon request enter into

consultations with the country with a view to finding a mutually satisfactory solution to the problem while

continuing to achieve the importing Member's appropriate level of protection.”

III. Comentários

A discussão sobre regras mais flexíveis, ou períodos mais amplos de tempo, para que Membros em

desenvolvimento e de menor desenvolvimento relativo consigam aplicar e cumprir medidas sanitárias ou

fitossanitárias, exigidas por Membros desenvolvidos, está presente no Acordo SPS, mas é um assunto

bastante sensível. Imaginar que um país que exige uma medida concederá tratamento especial e diferenciado

a outros países não parece razoável, ao menos como regra.

A jurisprudência ligada ao Acordo SPS, bem como a experiência com a implementação do Acordo, com base

nas reuniões do Comitê do Acordo SPS e notificações de preocupações comerciais específicas (specific trade

concerns - STCs), mostram o quanto a adoção de medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias pode trazer impactos

para o comércio, especialmente para Membros em desenvolvimento e de menor desenvolvimento relativo.

68

Artigo 11

Rodrigo C. A. Lima


Article 11

Consultations and Dispute Settlement

11.1 The provisions of Articles XXII and XXIII of GATT 1994 as elaborated and applied by the Dispute

Settlement Understanding shall apply to consultations and the settlement of disputes under this

Agreement, except as otherwise specifically provided herein.

11.2 In a dispute under this Agreement involving scientific or technical issues, a panel should seek advice

from experts chosen by the panel in consultation with the parties to the dispute. To this end, the

panel may, when it deems it appropriate, establish an advisory technical experts group, or consult the

relevant international organizations, at the request of either party to the dispute or on its own

initiative.

11.3 Nothing in this Agreement shall impair the rights of Members under other international agreements,

including the right to resort to the good offices or dispute settlement mechanisms of other

international organizations or established under any international agreement.


Artigo 11

Consultas e Solução de Controvérsias

11.1 As disposições dos Artigos XXII e XXIII do GATT 1994, conforme elaboradas e aplicadas pelo

Entendimento sobre Solução de Controvérsias, aplicar-se-ão às consultas e à solução de

controvérsias sob este Acordo, exceto se disposto de outra forma neste Acordo.

11.2 No caso de controvérsia sob este Acordo envolvendo temas técnicos ou científicos, um grupo

especial deverá buscar assessoria de peritos escolhidos pelo grupo especial, em consulta com as

partes envolvidas na disputa. Para tal fim, o grupo especial poderá, quando julgar apropriado,

estabelecer um grupo de peritos para consultoria ou consultar as organizações internacionais

pertinentes, a pedido de qualquer das partes na disputa ou por sua própria iniciativa.

11.3 Nada neste Acordo prejudicará os direitos dos Membros em outros acordos internacionais,

incluindo-se o direito de recorrerem aos bons ofícios ou aos mecanismos de solução de controvérsias

de outras organizações internacionais ou estabelecidos sob qualquer acordo internacional.





Relatório do Órgão de Apelação no caso United States - Continued Suspension of Obligation in the EC -

Hormones Dispute (US - Continued Suspension), Demandante: União Europeia, WT/DS320/AB/R,

paras. 437-438

69

Nesse caso, o Órgão de Apelação reconheceu a importância de buscar suporte de experts nos temas ligados

às medidas sanitárias ou fitossanitárias. A questão levantada pela União Europeia tratava, na realidade, do

fato do Painel ter consultado com os peritos individualmente, e não questionou a importância do grupo.

Para. 437. “The authority to seek information from individuals or to consult experts is provided to panels

pursuant to Article 13 of the DSU (Right to Seek Information). Article 13.2 provides:

Panels may seek information from any relevant source and may consult experts to

obtain their opinion on certain aspects of the matter. With respect to a factual issue

concerning a scientific or other technical matter raised by a party to a dispute, a panel

may request an advisory report in writing from an expert review group. Rules for the

establishment of such a group and its procedures are set forth in Appendix 4.”

Para. 438. “Article 11.2 of the SPS Agreement specifically addresses the consultation of experts in disputes

under that Agreement. It reads:

In a dispute under this Agreement involving scientific or technical issues, a panel

should seek advice from experts chosen by the panel in consultation with the parties to

the dispute. To this end, the panel may, when it deems it appropriate, establish an

advisory technical experts group, or consult the relevant international organizations, at

the request of either party to the dispute or on its own initiative.”

Relatório do Painel no caso Australia - Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon (Reclamante:

Canadá) (WT/DS18/ R)

Como um dos primeiros casos julgados no contexto do Acordo SPS, o Painel apenas reforçou a possibilidade

de criar um grupo de peritos com base no Artigo 11.2 do Acordo e no Artigo 13 do DSU. Na prática, os

grupos de peritos são usuais nos casos relativos ao Acordo SPS, considerando-se a especificidade e a

bagagem científica relacionada com as medidas aplicadas pelos Membros.

Para. 6.1. “The Panel recalled that paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the SPS Agreement provided that:

In a dispute under this Agreement involving scientific or technical issues, a panel

should seek advice from experts chosen by the panel in consultation with the parties to

the dispute. To this end, the panel may, when it deems it appropriate, establish an

advisory technical experts group, or consult the relevant international organizations, at

the request of either party to the dispute or on its own initiative.

Noting that this dispute involved scientific or technical issues, the Panel consulted

with the parties regarding the need for expert advice. Neither party requested the

Panel to seek such advice, however both parties indicated that they had no objection

to the Panel seeking advice. The Panel decided to seek scientific and technical advice

as foreseen in paragraphs 1 and 2, first sentence, of Article 13 of the DSU, and

pursuant to paragraph 2, first sentence, of Article 11 of the SPS Agreement.”

Para. 6.2. “The parties were invited to submit names of individuals expert in the subject matter before the

Panel. At the same time, names of individuals were also sought from the Office international des epizooties

(OIE). Brief curricula vitae were solicited from all experts who were prepared to assist the Panel.”

Para. 6.3. “The parties were provided the opportunity to comment on these potential experts on the basis of

the curricula vitae, and in particular to state any compelling objections they might have with regard to any

individual. The Panel than selected four individuals from the list taking into account the comments of the

parties and the need for expertise in a number of areas (eg., risk assessment, transmission of diseases of fish,

and the procedures of the OIE). These experts were requested to serve, in their personal capacities, as

individual advisers to the Panel.”

Para. 6.4. “The Panel, in consultation with the parties, prepared specific questions which it submitted to each

expert individually. The experts were requested to provide their responses, in writing, to those questions they

felt qualified to address. The parties agreed that their written submissions to the Panel, including the written

70

versions of their oral statements, be provided to each of the selected experts. The written responses of the

experts were provided to the parties, and the parties were given the opportunity to comment on these.”

III. Comentários

A experiência reunida com os casos SPS e a relevância de se criar grupo de peritos, que tenham

conhecimento científico sobre as medidas em debate é cada vez mais presente e importante para que seja

possível julgar casos cada vez mais repletos de questões técnicas e científicas. Os Panelistas e os Membros

do Órgão de Apelação não possuem experiência técnica em temas relacionados às doenças animais e

vegetais, a disseminação de bactérias e vírus em frutas e outros produtos alimentares, assuntos do cotidiano

das medidas reguladas pelo Acordo SPS.

71

Artigo 12

Rodrigo C. A. Lima


Article 12

Administration

12.1 A Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures is hereby established to provide a regular

forum for consultations. It shall carry out the functions necessary to implement the provisions of this

Agreement and the furtherance of its objectives, in particular with respect to harmonization. The

Committee shall reach its decisions by consensus.

12.2 The Committee shall encourage and facilitate ad hoc consultations or negotiations among Members

on specific sanitary or phytosanitary issues. The Committee shall encourage the use of international

standards, guidelines or recommendations by all Members and, in this regard, shall sponsor technical

consultation and study with the objective of increasing coordination and integration between

international and national systems and approaches for approving the use of food additives or for

establishing tolerances for contaminants in foods, beverages or feedstuffs.

12.3 The Committee shall maintain close contact with the relevant international organizations in the field

of sanitary and phytosanitary protection, especially with the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the

International Office of Epizootics, and the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection

Convention, with the objective of securing the best available scientific and technical advice for the

administration of this Agreement and in order to ensure that unnecessary duplication of effort is

avoided.

12.4 The Committee shall develop a procedure to monitor the process of international harmonization and

the use of international standards, guidelines or recommendations. For this purpose, the Committee

should, in conjunction with the relevant international organizations, establish a list of international

standards, guidelines or recommendations relating to sanitary or phytosanitary measures which the

Committee determines to have a major trade impact. The list should include an indication by

Members of those international standards, guidelines or recommendations which they apply as

conditions for import or on the basis of which imported products conforming to these standards can

enjoy access to their markets. For those cases in which a Member does not apply an international

standard, guideline or recommendation as a condition for import, the Member should provide an

indication of the reason therefor, and, in particular, whether it considers that the standard is not

stringent enough to provide the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection. If a

Member revises its position, following its indication of the use of a standard, guideline or

recommendation as a condition for import, it should provide an explanation for its change and so

inform the Secretariat as well as the relevant international organizations, unless such notification and

explanation is given according to the procedures of Annex B.

12.5 In order to avoid unnecessary duplication, the Committee may decide, as appropriate, to use the

information generated by the procedures, particularly for notification, which are in operation in the

relevant international organizations.

12.6 The Committee may, on the basis of an initiative from one of the Members, through appropriate

channels invite the relevant international organizations or their subsidiary bodies to examine specific

matters with respect to a particular standard, guideline or recommendation, including the basis of

explanations for non-use given according to paragraph 4.

12.7 The Committee shall review the operation and implementation of this Agreement three years after

the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement, and thereafter as the need arises. Where

72

appropriate, the Committee may submit to the Council for Trade in Goods proposals to amend the

text of this Agreement having regard, inter alia, to the experience gained in its implementation.


Artigo 12

Administração

12.1 Estabelece-se, em virtude do presente Acordo, um Comitê sobre Medidas Sanitárias e Fitossanitárias

que servirá regularmente de foro para consultas. Desempenhará as funções necessárias para aplicar

as disposições do presente Acordo e para a consecução de seus objetivos, especialmente em matéria

de harmonização. O Comitê adotará suas decisões por consenso.

12.2 O Comitê estimulará e facilitará consultas ou negociações ad hoc entre Membros sobre temas

sanitários ou fitossanitários específicos. O Comitê estimulará o uso de normas, guias ou

recomendações internacionais por parte de todos os Membros e, em tal aspecto, oferecerá estudos e

consultas técnicas com o objetivo de aumentar a coordenação e a integração entre sistemas nacionais

e internacionais e enfoques para homologação do uso de aditivos ou para o estabelecimento de

tolerâncias para contaminantes em alimentos, bebidas ou ração animal.

12.3 O Comitê manterá contato estreito com as organizações internacionais competentes no campo da

proteção sanitárias e fitossanitárias, especialmente com a Comissão do Codex Alimentarius, o

Escritório Internacional de Epizootias e o Secretariado da Convenção Internacional sobre Proteção

Vegetal, com o objetivo de assegurar a melhor consultoria técnica e científica possível para a

administração do presente Acordo a fim de assegurar que se evite duplicação desnecessária de

esforços.

12.4 O Comitê elaborará um método para acompanhar o processo de harmonização internacional e o uso

de normas, guias e recomendações internacionais. Para tal fim, o Comitê deverá, juntamente com as

organizações internacionais competentes, estabelecer uma lista de normas, guias e recomendações

internacionais relativas a medidas sanitárias ou fitossanitárias que o Comitê determine tenha um

impacto importante no comércio. A lista deverá incluir indicações, por parte dos Membros, de

normas, guias e recomendações internacionais que apliquem como condição para importação ou com

base nos quais os produtos importados que estejam de acordo com tais normas possam usufruir de

acesso a seus mercados. Para os casos em que um Membro não aplique uma norma, guia ou

recomendação internacional como condição para importar, o Membro deverá fornecer uma indicação

da razão para tanto, e, em especial, se considera que o padrão não é rígido o suficiente para fornecer

o nível de proteção sanitária ou fitossanitária adequado. Se um Membro revisar sua posição, após

indicar o uso de uma norma, guia ou recomendação como condição para importar, deverá fornecer

uma explicação para tal mudança e dela informar o Secretariado, assim como as organizações

internacionais competentes, a menos que tal notificação e explicação seja dada de acordo com os

procedimentos do Anexo B.

12.5 A fim de evitar a duplicação desnecessária de esforços, o Comitê poderá decidir, caso seja

apropriado, utilizar a informação gerada pelos procedimentos, em especial aqueles para notificação,

vigentes nas organizações internacionais competentes.

12.6 O Comitê poderá, com base na iniciativa de um dos Membros, por intermédio dos canais

apropriados, convidar organizações internacionais competentes ou seus órgãos subsidiários a

examinar temas específicos relativos a um determinada norma, guia ou recomendação, incluindo-se a

base das explicações fornecidas para a não-utilização conforme estipulado no parágrafo 4.

12.7 O Comitê revisará a operação e a implementação do presente Acordo três anos após a data da

entrada em vigor do Acordo Constitutivo da OMC e, posteriormente, conforme necessário. Quando

apropriado, o Comitê poderá submeter propostas, ao Conselho para o Comércio de Bens, para

73

emendas ao texto do presente Acordo, com relação, inter alia, à experiência acumulada em sua

implementação.



No Artigo 12.3, sugere-se traduzir Escritório Internacional de Epizootias por Organização Mundial de Saúde

Animal (OIE). O restante da tradução é adequado.


a) “Harmonização dos padrões internacionais”

Em março de 1997, o Comitê do Acordo SPS aprovou as Regras de Procedimento encarregadas do

funcionamento das reuniões e da rotina de discussão dos diferentes temas e procedimentos no âmbito do

Acordo.

O Artigo 3.5 estabelece um mandato para que o Comitê crie um procedimento para monitorar a

harmonização de padrões, guias e recomendações internacionais estabelecidas por organizações

internacionais. Na reunião de outubro de 1997, o Comitê instituiu um sistema de monitoramento dos

padrões, e a partir desta data passaram a ser realizadas avaliações periódicas relativas aos padrões

internacionais reconhecidos pelo Acordo (criados pelo Codex Alimentarius, OIE e CIPV). Em 2011 foi

publicado o Draft Thirteenth Annual Report do Procedure to Monitor the Process if International

Haronization (G/SPS/W/260).

Esse acompanhamento periódico dos padrões internacionais é relevante, na medida em que abre espaço para

os países questionarem o não cumprimento dos padrões por certos Membros, debater a importância de

aprofundar a criação de certos padrões nas organizações de referência etc.

b) “Funcionamento e revisão do Acordo SPS”

Em outubro de 1997, o Comitê aprovou os procedimentos relativos à revisão da implementação e operação

do Acordo. Em março de 1999, foi publicado o Relatório Review of the Operation and Implementation of the

Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (G/SPS/12), contendo uma discussão

sobre transparência na aplicação das medidas, necessidade de assistência técnica, tratamento especial e

diferenciado, dentre outros assuntos.

Na Declaração Ministerial de Doha foi aprovada a revisão do Acordo, nos seguintes termos: Para. 3.4.

“Pursuant to the provisions of Article 12.7 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and

Phytosanitary Measures, the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures is instructed to review the

operation and implementation of the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures at least once every

four years.”

Em junho de 2004, o Comitê aprovou o segundo processo de revisão, que culminou na aprovação do Second

Review em junho 2005 (G/SPS/36), sobre os seguintes temas: (i) consistência (Artigo 5.5); (ii) preocupações

comerciais específicas; (iii) uso de consultas ad hoc; (iv) cooperação com a Comissão do Codex

Alimentarius (Codex), a OIE e a CIPV (Artigo 12.3); e, (v) atrasos ou demoras injustificadas (undue delas)

dentre outros temas.

Em 2008 foi aprovado o terceiro processo de revisão, que levou à aprovação do Thrid Review em março de

2010, com foco nos seguintes pontos: consistência (Artigo 5.5), equivalência (Artigo 4), transparência

(Artigo 7 e Anexo B), monitoramento e uso de padrões internacionais (Artigo 3.5 e 12.4), regionalização

(Artigo 6), padrões privados voluntários dentre outros assuntos.

74

III. Comentários

O Comitê do Acordo SPS é um órgão fundamental para a implementação do Acordo, para fomentar o debate

sobre os desafios e a necessidade de interpretação de suas regras, e para permitir que os Membros tenham um

foro específico para debater os temas ligados às questões sanitárias e fitossanitárias.

As revisões periódicas do Acordo permitiram avançar em temas como a equivalência entre os padrões

aplicados, regionalização, transparência e cooperação com as organizações de referência, temas essenciais

para permitir a aplicação não protecionista de medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias.

O recente debate sobre padrões privados ao comércio é um tema de destaque nos últimos dois anos,

considerando a proliferação de padrões que exigem o cumprimento de inúmeros requisitos, ora estritamente

ligados aos objetivos do SPS, ora voltados para questões ambientais e sociais de maneira mais ampla. É,

seguramente, um dos temas sensíveis da atualidade do Comitê do SPS, que busca criar decisões a respeito do

assunto.

A possibilidade dos Membros levarem preocupações comerciais específicas nas reuniões do Comitê,

questionando medidas aplicadas por outros Membros de modo informal, é outro ponto que merece destaque

na dinâmica do SPS.

75

Artigo 13

Rodrigo C A Lima


Article 13

Implementation

Members are fully responsible under this Agreement for the observance of all obligations set forth

herein. Members shall formulate and implement positive measures and mechanisms in support of the

observance of the provisions of this Agreement by other than central government bodies. Members shall take

such reasonable measures as may be available to them to ensure that non-governmental entities within their

territories, as well as regional bodies in which relevant entities within their territories are members, comply

with the relevant provisions of this Agreement. In addition, Members shall not take measures which have the

effect of, directly or indirectly, requiring or encouraging such regional or non-governmental entities, or local

governmental bodies, to act in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement. Members shall

ensure that they rely on the services of non-governmental entities for implementing sanitary or phytosanitary

measures only if these entities comply with the provisions of this Agreement.


Artigo 13

Implementação

Os Membros são integralmente responsáveis, no presente Acordo, pelo cumprimento de todas as

obrigações aqui estabelecidas. Os Membros formularão e implementarão medidas e mecanismos positivos

em favor da observação das disposições do presente Acordo por outras instituições além das instituições do

governo central. Os Membros adotarão as medidas razoáveis que estiverem a seu alcance para assegurar que

as instituições não governamentais existentes em seus territórios, assim como os órgãos regionais dos quais

instituições pertinentes em seus territórios sejam membros, cumpram com as disposições relevantes do

presente Acordo. Ademais, os Membros não adotarão medidas que tenham o efeito de, direta ou

indiretamente, obrigar ou encorajar tais instituições não governamentais ou regionais, a agirem de forma

incompatível com as disposições do presente Acordo. Os Membros assegurarão o uso dos serviços de

instituições não-governamentais para a implementação de medidas sanitárias ou fitossanitárias apenas se tais

entidades cumprirem com as disposições do presente Acordo.



A tradução do Artigo 13 é adequada.


1. Significado de “other than central government bodies” e “non-governmental entities”



Para. 7.13. “As recognized by Australia in its letter of 9 December 1999, the Tasmanian measures “could be

characterized as … measures taken by 'other than a central government body' in the sense of Article 13 of the

SPS Agreement, and would constitute measures 'taken by a regional government' within Australia's territory,

in the sense of Article 22.9 of the DSU”. Article 13 of the SPS Agreement provides unambiguously that: (1)

“Members are fully responsible under [the SPS] Agreement for the observance of all obligations set forth

herein”; and (2) “Members shall formulate and implement positive measures and mechanisms in support of

76

the observance of the provisions of this Agreement by other than central government bodies”. Reading these

two obligations together, in light of Article 1.1 of the SPS Agreement referred to earlier, we consider that

sanitary measures taken by the Government of Tasmania, being an “other than central government” body as

recognized by Australia, are subject to the SPS Agreement and fall under the responsibility of Australia as

WTO Member when it comes to their observance of SPS obligations. In addition, Article 22.9 of the DSU

states clearly that “[t]he dispute settlement provisions of the covered agreements [including the DSU itself]

may be invoked in respect of measures affecting their observance taken by regional or local governments or

authorities within the territory of a Member”, including, as acknowledged by Australia, the measures taken

by Tasmania at issue here. As a Panel acting under these dispute settlement provisions, we are thus entitled

to consider whether the Tasmanian measures observe the SPS Agreement. [rodapé: The main issue that

arises from Tasmania, and not the federal authorities, introducing the measure is one of enforcement of DSB

recommendations within Australia and Australia's obligations in respect of this enforcement by Tasmania,

set out in the second sentence of Article 13 of the SPS Agreement and the second and third sentence of

Article 22.9 of the DSU. However, in this dispute, our task in respect of the Tasmanian measure is to decide

on the application of, and consistency with, the SPS Agreement, not on the enforcement or compliance by

Australia with any findings of inconsistency of the Tasmanian measure that we may make below.”

III. Comentários

Não há jurisprudência que permita apontar como o Órgão de Apelação interpreta o Artigo 13 do Acordo

SPS. No entanto, é válido notar a relevância deste Artigo quando se observa no âmbito do Acordo SPS e

também do Acordo TBT o debate sobre padrões privados ao comércio.

A adoção de medidas que visam atestar o cumprimento de padrões técnicos, sanitários e ambientais ganha

cada vez mais espaço. A proliferação de certificações privadas, criadas por entidades unilaterais (cadeias de

atacadistas, por exemplo), organizações não-governamentais e iniciativas multistakeholder, impõe uma

agenda de exigências para produtores e exportadores e podem criar barreiras ou restrições disfarçadas ao

comércio. Em vários casos os critérios de uma certificação ou padrão privado podem ter relação com a

proteção da vida e saúde e questões ambientais, o que denota uma relação com medidas técnicas e,

dependendo do caso, sanitárias.

Apesar de não serem medidas diretamente exigidas pelos Membros, podem ser reconhecidas como

equivalentes aos níveis exigidos pelos Membros, como é o caso das certificações para biocombustíveis no

âmbito da Diretiva 2009/28/EC que estabelece requisitos de sustentabilidade para biocombustíveis e

biolíquidos.

A Diretiva trata de exigências quanto à redução de emissões de gases de efeito estufa, por exemplo, e

reconhece algumas iniciativas privadas como equivalentes para atingir seu nível de proteção. As seguintes

certificações são reconhecidas pela União Europeia:

a. ISCC (International Sustainability and Carbon Certification)

b. Bonsucro EU

c. RTRS EU RED (Round Table on Responsible Soy EU RED)

d. RSB EU RED (Roundtable of Sustainable Biofuels EU RED)

e. 2BSvs (Biomass Biofuels voluntary scheme)

f. RBSA (Abengoa RED Bioenergy Sustainability Assurance)

g. Greenergy (Greenergy Brazilian Bioethanol verification programme)

Além disso, é interessante ponderar qual poderá ser a análise do conceito de “other than central government

bodies” e “non-governmental entities”, contidas no Artigo 13 no futuro, observando o caso da European

Food Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) Round Table (Mesa Redonda Europeia de Produção e

Consumo Sustentável de Alimentos).

A SCP Roundtable foi lançada em maio de 2009 e é uma iniciativa que envolve a Comissão Europeia e

diversos setores da cadeia de alimentos. Tendo a ciência como base, e considerando os aspectos ambientais,

77

o objetivo da SCP é promover a produção e o consumo consciente de alimentos na Europa, fazendo com que

os diferentes atores contribuam com a sustentabilidade. Os objetivos centrais da iniciativa são:

i. Identificar metodologias uniformes e cientificamente embasadas de análise ambiental para alimentos

e bebidas, considerando impactos do ciclo de vida em toda a cadeia produtiva;

ii. Identificar ferramentas de comunicação com os consumidores e outros stakeholders;

iii. Promover e reportar o aprimoramento contínuo de práticas ambientais na cadeia de alimentos e

fomentar diálogo aberto com stakeholders.

A ideia da iniciativa é promover iniciativas voluntárias ligadas a sustentabilidade ambiental que sejam

implementadas em todos os elos da cadeia de alimentos e bebidas. Isso envolve identificar e priorizar as

principais demandas ambientais, mapear iniciativas voluntárias e processos multistakeholder, apontar áreas

prioritárias para a eco-inovação, e disseminar boas práticas como redução da geração de resíduos, uso de

energia, emissões de gases de efeito estufa, consumo de água.

O trabalho da iniciativa deve assegurar o cumprimento das regras comunitárias e evitar distorções de

competição, e as informações ambientais deverão ser comunicadas aos consumidores e stakeholders de

forma não discriminatória.

Caso a iniciativa realmente crie padrões que no futuro sejam cobrados de países fora do bloco, é válido

questionar o papel do Artigo 13 ao tratar de “non-governamental entities” e do cumprimento das regras do

Acordo SPS.

78

ANEXO A

Rodrigo C. A. Lima

IA. Texto do Anexo A em Inglês

Annex A

Definitions (5)

1 Sanitary or phytosanitary measure - Any measure applied:

(a) to protect animal or plant life or health within the territory of the Member from risks arising

from the entry, establishment or spread of pests, diseases, disease-carrying organisms or

disease-causing organisms;

(b) to protect human or animal life or health within the territory of the Member from risks

arising from additives, contaminants, toxins or diseasecausing organisms in foods, beverages

or feedstuffs;

(c) to protect human life or health within the territory of the Member from risks arising from

diseases carried by animals, plants or products thereof, or from the entry, establishment or

spread of pests; or

(d) to prevent or limit other damage within the territory of the Member from the entry,

establishment or spread of pests.

Sanitary or phytosanitary measures include all relevant laws, decrees, regulations, requirements and

procedures including, inter alia, end product criteria; processes and production methods; testing, inspection,

certification and approval procedures; quarantine treatments including relevant requirements associated with

the transport of animals or plants, or with the materials necessary for their survival during transport;

provisions on relevant statistical methods, sampling procedures and methods of risk assessment; and

packaging and labelling requirements directly related to food safety.

2 Harmonization - The establishment, recognition and application of common sanitary and

phytosanitary measures by different Members.

3 International standards, guidelines and recommendations

(a) for food safety, the standards, guidelines and recommendations established by the Codex

Alimentarius Commission relating to food additives, veterinary drug and pesticide residues,

contaminants, methods of analysis and sampling, and codes and guidelines of hygienic

practice;

(b) for animal health and zoonoses, the standards, guidelines and recommendations developed

under the auspices of the International Office of Epizootics;

(c) for plant health, the international standards, guidelines and recommendations developed

under the auspices of the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention in

cooperation with regional organizations operating within the framework of the International

Plant Protection Convention; and

(d) for matters not covered by the above organizations, appropriate standards, guidelines and

recommendations promulgated by other relevant international organizations open for

membership to all Members, as identified by the Committee.

79

4 Risk assessment - The evaluation of the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of a pest or

disease within the territory of an importing Member according to the sanitary or phytosanitary

measures which might be applied, and of the associated potential biological and economic

consequences; or the evaluation of the potential for adverse effects on human or animal health

arising from the presence of additives, contaminants, toxins or disease-causing organisms in food,

beverages or feedstuffs.

5 Appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection - The level of protection deemed

appropriate by the Member establishing a sanitary or phytosanitary measure to protect human,

animal or plant life or health within its territory.

NOTE: Many Members otherwise refer to this concept as the “acceptable level of risk”.

6 Pest - or disease-free area - An area, whether all of a country, part of a country, or all or parts of

several countries, as identified by the competent authorities, in which a specific pest or disease does

not occur.

NOTE: A pest- or disease-free area may surround, be surrounded by, or be adjacent to an area - whether

within part of a country or in a geographic region which includes parts of or all of several countries - in

which a specific pest or disease is known to occur but is subject to regional control measures such as the

establishment of protection, surveillance and buffer zones which will confine or eradicate the pest or disease

in question.

7 Area of low pest or disease prevalence - An area, whether all of a country, part of a country, or all or

parts of several countries, as identified by the competent authorities, in which a specific pest or

disease occurs at low levels and which is subject to effective surveillance, control or eradication

measures.

Footnote 5: For the purpose of these definitions, “animal” includes fish and wild fauna; “plant” includes forests and wild flora;

“pests” include weeds; and “contaminants” include pesticide and veterinary drug residues and extraneous matter.

IB. Texto do Anexo A em Português

Anexo A

Definições4

1. Medida sanitária ou fitossanitária - Qualquer medida aplicada:

(a) para proteger, no território do Membro, a vida ou a saúde animal ou vegetal, dos riscos

resultantes da entrada, do estabelecimento ou da disseminação de pragas, doenças ou organismos

patogênicos ou portadores de doenças;

(b) para proteger, no território do Membro, a vida ou a saúde humana ou animal, dos riscos

resultantes da presença de aditivos, contaminantes, toxinas ou organismos patogênicos em alimentos,

bebidas ou ração animal;

(c) para proteger, no território do Membro, a vida ou a saúde humana ou animal, de riscos

resultantes de pragas transmitidas por animais, vegetais ou por produtos deles derivados ou da

entrada, estabelecimento ou disseminação de pragas ou

(d) para impedir ou limitar, no território do Membro, outros prejuízos resultantes da entrada,

estabelecimento ou disseminação de pragas.

4 Para os propósitos destas definições, animal inclui peixes e fauna selvagem, vegetal inclui florestas e flora selvagem, pragas inclui

ervas daninhas, contaminantes inclui pesticidas e resíduos de medicamentos veterinários.

80

As medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias incluem toda legislação pertinente, decretos regulamentos, exigências

e procedimentos, incluindo, inter alia, critérios para o produto final, processos e métodos de produção,

procedimentos para testes, inspeção, certificação e homologação, regimes de quarentena, incluindo

exigências pertinentes, associadas com o transporte de animais ou vegetais ou com os materiais necessários

para sua sobrevivência durante o transporte, disposições sobre métodos estatísticos pertinentes,

procedimentos de amostragem e métodos de avaliação de risco e requisitos para embalagem e rotulagem

diretamente relacionadas com a segurança dos alimentos.

2. Harmonização - O estabelecimento, reconhecimento e aplicação de medidas sanitárias e

fitossanitárias comuns por diferentes Membros.

3. Normas, guias e recomendações internacionais:

(a) para a segurança dos alimentos, as normas, guias e recomendações estabelecidos pela

Comissão do Codex Alimentarius, no que se refere a aditivos para alimentos, drogas

veterinárias e resíduos, pesticidas, contaminantes métodos para análise e amostragem e

códigos e guias para práticas de higiene;

(b) para saúde animal e zoonoses, as normas, guias e recomendações elaboradas sob os auspícios

do Escritório Internacional de Epizootias;

(c) para saúde vegetal, as normas, guias e recomendações internacionais elaborados sob os

auspícios do secretariado da Convenção Internacional sobre Proteção Vegetal em cooperação

com organizações regionais que operam no contexto da Convenção Internacional sobre

Proteção Vegetal e,

(d) para temas não cobertos pelas organizações acima, normas, guias e recomendações

adequados, promulgados por outras organizações internacionais pertinentes abertas à

participação de todos os Membros conforme identificadas pelo Comitê.

4. Avaliação de Risco - A avaliação da possibilidade de entrada, estabelecimento ou disseminação de

uma praga ou doença no território de Membro importador, em conformidade com as medidas

sanitárias e fitossanitárias que possam ser aplicadas, e das potenciais consequências biológicas e

econômicas ou a avaliação do potencial existente, no que se refere a efeitos adversos à saúde humana

ou animal, resultante da presença de aditivos contaminantes, toxinas ou organismos patogênicos em

alimentos bebidas ou ração animal.

5. Nível adequado de proteção sanitária ou fitossanitária - O nível de proteção que um Membro julgue

adequado para estabelecer uma medida sanitária ou fitossanitária para proteger a vida ou saúde

humana, animal ou vegetal em seu território.

NOTA: Muitos Membros referem-se a tal conceito utilizando a expressassão “o nível aceitável de risco”.

6. Área livre de pragas ou doenças - Uma área, seja todo o território de um país, parte do território de

um país ou todo ou partes do território de vários países, conforme identificados pelas autoridades

competentes nos quais não há incidência de uma praga ou doença específica.

NOTA: Uma área livre de pragas ou doenças poderá circundar ou ser circundada ou adjacente a uma área -

seja dentro de parte do território de um país ou em uma região geográfica que inclui partes ou todo o

território de vários países - na qual a ocorrência de uma praga ou doença específica é conhecida, mas está

sujeita a medidas de controle tais como o estabelecimento de proteção, vigilância e “zonas tampão” que

podem confinar ou erradicar a praga ou doença em questão.

7. Área da baixa incidência de pragas ou doenças - Uma área, seja todo o território de um país, parte do

território de um país ou todo ou partes do território de vários países, conforme identificadas pelas

81

autoridades competentes, na qual uma praga ou doença específica incide em níveis baixos e que

esteja sujeita a medidas efetivas de vigilância, controle ou erradicação.



Quando se lê Escritório Internacional de Epizootias, é mais apropriado considerar Organização Mundial de

Saúde Animal (OIE). A tradução é adequada.

II. Interpretação e Aplicação do Anexo A

a) “Definição de uma medida SPS”


New Zealand (Australia - Apples), Demandante: Nova Zelândia, WT/DS367/AB/R, para. 172

Nesse caso, o Órgão de Apelação definiu como elemento fundamental do conceito de medidas sanitárias ou

fitossanitárias, de acordo com o Anexo A(1), que visem proteger ao menos um dos objetivos previstos no

item 1, prevenir ou limitar danos específicos.

Para. 172. “A fundamental element of the definition of “SPS measure” set out in Annex A(1) is that such a

measure must be one “applied to protect” at least one of the listed interests or “to prevent or limit” specified

damage. Subparagraph (a) brings within the scope of the definition measures applied to protect animal or

plant life or health within the Member's territory from specified risks related to pests and diseases. The word

“to” in adverbial relation with the infinitive verb “protect” indicates a purpose or intention. Thus, it

establishes a required link between the measure and the protected interest. In that sense, the Appellate Body

in Australia – Salmon referred to a Member's “appropriate level of protection” and explained that this level is

an objective, and that the SPS measure is an instrument chosen to attain or implement that objective. We

note, in addition, that the word “applied” points to the application of the measure and, thus, suggests that the

relationship of the measure and one of the objectives listed in Annex A(1) must be manifest in the measure

itself or otherwise evident from the circumstances related to the application of the measure. This suggests

that the purpose of a measure is to be ascertained on the basis of objective considerations.”


Demandante: EUA, WT/DS245/R, paras. 8.21-8.24

Nesse caso, o Painel não reconheceu que os impactos ao comércio de uma determinada medida são

necessários para caracterizá-la como uma medida fitossanitária. Como nesse caso a medida era composta de

diversos requisitos ou medidas (measure at issue), algumas poderiam ter clareza quanto a impactos ao

comércio, mas não eram necessárias para definir a measure at issue como uma medida fitossanitária.

Para. 8.21. “We note that the parties disagree as to the actual number of requirements imposed by Japan

with respect to the importation of US apples. We recall that the United States listed nine requirements and

that although Japan lists the requirements differently, Japan does not dispute the description made by the

United States, except with regard to two items.”

Para. 8.22. “Concerning the first one (certification by US plant protection officials that fruits are free of fire

blight and have been treated post harvest with chlorine), we agree with Japan that it is essentially a

procedural requirement and that phytosanitary certificates are common practice in international trade.

Indeed, we note that the relevant international standards setting body in this respect, the Interim Commission

on Phytosanitary Measures, has adopted standards for such certificates. Furthermore, we note that the US

Apple Export Act provides for the issuance of phytosanitary certificates for apples exported from the United

82

States that are of a certain grade and quality. In this respect, our opinion is without prejudice as to what

exactly should be certified.”

Para. 8.23. “Regarding the second item (i.e., the confirmation by Japanese officials of the US officials'

certification and inspection by Japanese officials of disinfection and packaging facilities), it appears that they

do not entail significant additional obligations for the United States compared with the other requirements

identified.”

Para. 8.24. “However, we note that both requirements fall within the definition of phytosanitary measures

contained in Annex A, paragraph 1, of the SPS Agreement, which includes “inspection, certification and

approval procedures”. We also note that the definition in Annex A, paragraph 1, does not consider the trade

effect of a given measure as a factor to determine whether such a measure is or is not a phytosanitary

measure. While such requirements are common practices and, on their own, may not have justified the

initiation of this case by the United States, we note that they are part of the measure as a whole and that, in

combination with other elements of that measure, they may contribute to the restrictive effect of the measure

at issue.”

b) “Forma e natureza das medidas SPS”



WT/DS291/R, para. 7.149

Nesse caso, o Painel entendeu que para definir se uma medida recai nos conceitos do Anexo A(1), é preciso

caracterizar sua forma legal – um decreto, lei etc – e sua natureza (requerimentos, procedimentos de inspeção

etc).

Para. 7.149. “Annex A(1) indicates that for the purposes of determining whether a particular measure

constitutes an ‘SPS measure’ regard must be had to such elements as the purpose of the measure, its legal

form and its nature. The purpose element is addressed in Annex A(1)(a) through (d) (‘any measure applied

to’). The form element is referred to in the second paragraph of Annex A(1) (‘laws, decrees, regulations’).

Finally, the nature of measures qualifying as SPS measures is also addressed in the second paragraph of

Annex A(1) (‘requirements and procedures, including, inter alia, end product criteria; processes and

production methods; testing, inspection, certification and approval procedures; [etc.]’”

Relatório do Painel no caso Australia - Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples from New Zealand

(Australia - Apples), Demandante: Nova Zelândia, WT/DS367/ R, paras. 7.144-7.145

Nesse caso, o Painel foi mais a fundo na interpretação do conceito de medida sanitária ou fitossanitária

relacionada à forma legal e natureza, e estabeleceu que a lista de exemplos do segundo parágrafo do Anexo

A(1) não permite uma divisão clara entre as questões legais e de natureza. A análise caso a caso sempre é

essencial, principalmente considerando que existem medidas compostas por vários requisitos.

Para. 7.144. “This Panel considers that the second paragraph of Annex A(1) sets out elements of the

definition of SPS measures by providing examples. In fact, the second paragraph starts with the words

‘Sanitary and phytosanitary measures include’. Thus, the items spelt out in the second paragraph do not form

a closed list. This is quite different from the closed list of possible purposes of a covered SPS measure under

the first paragraph of Annex A(1), in particular its subparagraphs (a)-(d).”

Para. 7.145. “Further, the Panel does not consider that the list of examples in the second paragraph of

Annex A(1) provides a clear-cut division between the elements of form and nature, the first three items

(‘laws, decrees, regulations’) corresponding to the form, and the latter two (‘requirements and procedures’)

to the nature of SPS measures. Given the placing of the word ‘and’ between the fourth and fifth items, the

ordinary way to read ‘laws, decrees, regulations, requirements and procedures’ is as an enumeration of five

items, with the words ‘all relevant’ qualifying each one of them.”

83

Relatório do Painel no caso Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry from China (US - Poultry)

(China), Demandante: EUA, WT/DS392/R, paras. 7.97 e 7.100

Nesse caso, o Painel discordou do entendimento no caso CE - Biotech de que o Anexo A(1) não prevê uma

clara distinção entre questões legais e de natureza no conceito das medidas.

Para. 7.97. “We note that the text of Annex A(1) does not mention the term ‘nature’ but neither does it

mention the terms ‘purpose’ and ‘form’. This does not mean that the analysis of the ordinary meaning of the

wording of Annex A(1) in its context and in light of its object and purpose, would not lead us to examining

both the purpose and form of Section 727 in order to determine whether it is an SPS measure.”

Para. 7.100. “The Panel has carefully examined the Panel’s findings in EC - Approval and Marketing of

iotech Products as regards the legal basis for distinction of ‘form’ and ‘nature’ and has difficulty with

following the reasoning. The rationale for dividing the phrase ‘laws, decrees, regulations, requirements and

procedures including …,’ into ‘form’ and ‘nature’ is not clear to us as the Panel did not elaborate on this

point. The Panel did not explain how ‘requirements and procedures’ were somehow fundamentally different

from laws, decrees, regulations’ or why it believed that all SPS measures somehow have the nature of a

‘requirement’ or ‘procedure’. If we examine the text of Annex A(1), we note that there is no such separation

and a plain reading might lead one to believe that ‘requirements and procedures’ are also descriptions of the

possible types or ‘forms’ of an SPS measure while the substantive descriptions following ‘including inter

alia‘ are just illustrative examples of the types of SPS measures Members have imposed.”

c) “Medidas SPS e proteção do meio ambiente”



WT/DS291/R, paras. 7.207 e 7.211

Nesse caso, o Painel entendeu que como as medidas em questão visavam proteger a vida e a saúde das

plantas como parte de um objetivo de proteção ambiental poderiam ser consideradas SPS, muito embora

tivessem um caráter ambiental.

Para. 7.207. “We note that in accordance with Annex A(1)(a) and (b) of the SPS Agreement, the SPS

Agreement covers measures applied to protect animal and plant life or health from certain risks. Thus, to the

extent Directives 90/220 and 2001/18 are applied to protect animals and plants as part of their purpose of

protecting the environment, they are not a priori excluded from the scope of application of the SPS

Agreement.”

Para. 7.211. “We note that the draft text contained bracketed text the acceptance of which would have meant

that ‘measures for the protection of animal welfare and of the environment, as well as of consumer interests

and concerns’ are ‘SPS measures’ within the meaning of the Annex A(1) definition. However, the Annex

A(1) definition in the Chairman’s draft text also contained bracketed text which stated that ‘[r]equirements

concerning quality, composition, grading, [consumer preferences, […], the environment or ethical and moral

considerations] are not included in the definition of sanitary or phytosanitary measures’. Neither of the two

bracketed texts was included in the final text of the SPS Agreement. Since according to one of the two

bracketed texts measures taken for the protection of the environment would have been covered by the SPS

Agreement, while according to the other bracketed text such measures would not have been covered, and

since neither text was included in the final text of the SPS Agreement, we cannot draw the inference that the

European Communities asks us to draw — that the removal of the bracketed text which would have meant

that measures taken for the protection of the environment are SPS measures implied a decision that such

measures should not be covered by the SPS Agreement. In view of the fact that neither of the two bracketed

texts was included in the final text of the SPS Agreement, we consider that the Working Group Chairman’s

draft text does not assist us in determining whether all measures applied to protect from risks to the

84

environment other than risks to the life or health of animals or plants fall outside the scope of application of

the SPS Agreement.”

d) “Padrões internacionais, orientações e recomendações (Annex A(3))”

Relatório do Órgão de Apelação no caso United States - Continued Suspension of Obligation in the EC

- Hormones Dispute (US - Continued Suspension), Demandante: União Europeia, WT/DS320/AB/R,

para. 693

Nesse caso, o Órgão de Apelação considerou que padrões internacionais, guias e recomendações de acordo

com os Artigos 3.1 e 3.2 são os criados pelas organizações listadas no Anexo A, parágrafo 3 do Acordo SPS

(as chamadas irmãs do Acordo SPS, Codex, OIE e CIPV).

Para. 693. “The relevant “international standards, guidelines or recommendations” that are referred to in

Articles 3.1 and 3.2 are those set by the international organizations listed in Annex A, paragraph 3 of

the SPS Agreement, which includes Codex as the relevant standard-setting organization for matters of food

safety. As we noted above, Codex adopts international standards for veterinary drug residues based on

evaluations performed by JECFA. In this case, Codex has adopted international standards for testosterone,

progesterone, trenbolone acetate, and zeranol, on the basis of evaluation performed by JECFA. In addition,

Codex has initiated a standard-setting process for MGA, also on the basis of JECFA's evaluation, but this

process has not yet been concluded.”

III. Comentários

A jurisprudência dos casos SPS permite definir com clareza o que são as medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias,

e abre espaço para incluir um amplo leque de medidas, desde que tenham relação com os chamados objetivos

legítimos do Acordo – proteção da vida e da saúde humana, animal e vegetal. A relação entre medidas SPS

com funções ambientais reflete um desafio dos casos SPS e também TBT, que tenderão a exigir novas

interpretações do DSB.

É válido apontar que o Anexo A deve ser lido em paralelo aos Artigos do Acordo, pois traz detalhes sobre

conceitos e ajuda na interpretação das obrigações previstas nos Artigos.

85

ANEXO B

Rodrigo C. A. Lima

IA. Texto do Anexo B em Inglês

Annex B

Transparency of sanitary and phytosanitary regulations

Publication of regulations

1 Members shall ensure that all sanitary and phytosanitary regulations (6) which have been adopted

are published promptly in such a manner as to enable interested Members to become acquainted with

them.

2 Except in urgent circumstances, Members shall allow a reasonable interval between the publication

of a sanitary or phytosanitary regulation and its entry into force in order to allow time for producers

in exporting Members, and particularly in developing country Members, to adapt their products and

methods of production to the requirements of the importing Member.

Enquiry points

3 Each Member shall ensure that one enquiry point exists which is responsible for the provision of

answers to all reasonable questions from interested Members as well as for the provision of relevant

documents regarding:

a) any sanitary or phytosanitary regulations adopted or proposed within its territory;

b) any control and inspection procedures, production and quarantine treatment, pesticide

tolerance and food additive approval procedures, which are operated within its territory;

c) risk assessment procedures, factors taken into consideration, as well as the determination of

the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection;

d) the membership and participation of the Member, or of relevant bodies within its territory, in

international and regional sanitary and phytosanitary organizations and systems, as well as

in bilateral and multilateral agreements and arrangements within the scope of this

Agreement, and the texts of such agreements and arrangements.

4 Members shall ensure that where copies of documents are requested by interested Members, they are

supplied at the same price (if any), apart from the cost of delivery, as to the nationals (7) of the

Member concerned.

Notification procedures

5 Whenever an international standard, guideline or recommendation does not exist or the content of a

proposed sanitary or phytosanitary regulation is not substantially the same as the content of an

international standard, guideline or recommendation, and if the regulation may have a significant

effect on trade of other Members, Members shall:

a) publish a notice at an early stage in such a manner as to enable interested Members to

become acquainted with the proposal to introduce a particular regulation;

b) notify other Members, through the Secretariat, of the products to be covered by the

regulation together with a brief indication of the objective and rationale of the proposed

regulation. Such notifications shall take place at an early stage, when amendments can still

be introduced and comments taken into account;

86

c) provide upon request to other Members copies of the proposed regulation and, whenever

possible, identify the parts which in substance deviate from international standards,

guidelines or recommendations;

d) without discrimination, allow reasonable time for other Members to make comments in

writing, discuss these comments upon request, and take the comments and the results of the

discussions into account.

6 However, where urgent problems of health protection arise or threaten to arise for a Member, that

Member may omit such of the steps enumerated in paragraph 5 of this Annex as it finds necessary,

provided that the Member:

a) immediately notifies other Members, through the Secretariat, of the particular regulation and

the products covered, with a brief indication of the objective and the rationale of the

regulation, including the nature of the urgent problem(s);

b) provides, upon request, copies of the regulation to other Members;

c) allows other Members to make comments in writing, discusses these comments upon

request, and takes the comments and the results of the discussions into account.

7 Notifications to the Secretariat shall be in English, French or Spanish.

8 Developed country Members shall, if requested by other Members, provide copies of the documents

or, in case of voluminous documents, summaries of the documents covered by a specific notification

in English, French or Spanish.

9 The Secretariat shall promptly circulate copies of the notification to all Members and interested

international organizations and draw the attention of developing country Members to any

notifications relating to products of particular interest to them.

10 Members shall designate a single central government authority as responsible for the

implementation, on the national level, of the provisions concerning notification procedures according

to paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of this Annex.

General reservations

11 Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as requiring:

a) the provision of particulars or copies of drafts or the publication of texts other than in the

language of the Member except as stated in paragraph 8 of this Annex; or

b) Members to disclose confidential information which would impede enforcement of

sanitary or phytosanitary legislation or which would prejudice the legitimate commercial

interests of particular enterprises.

Footnote 6: Sanitary and phytosanitary measures such as laws, decrees or ordinances which are applicable generally.

Footnote 7: When “nationals” are referred to in this Agreement, the term shall be deemed, in the case of a separate customs territory

Member of the WTO, to mean persons, natural or legal, who are domiciled or who have a real and effective industrial or commercial

establishment in that customs territory.

IB. Texto do Anexo B em Português

Anexo B

Transparência dos Regulamentos Sanitários e Fitossanitários

87

Publicação de regulamentos

1 Os Membros assegurarão que todos os regulamentos5 sanitários e fitossanitários, adotados, sejam

prontamente publicados de modo a permitir aos Membros que por eles se interessem,

familiarizarem-se com os mesmos.

2 Exceto em circunstâncias de caráter urgente, os Membros deixarão um intervalo de tempo razoável

entre a publicação do regulamento sanitário e fitossanitário e sua entrada em vigor, de modo que os

produtores em Membros exportadores, particularmente os dos países em desenvolvimento Membros,

disponham de tempo para adaptar seus produtos e métodos de produção às exigências do Membro

importador.

Centros de informação

3 Cada membro assegurará que exista um centro de informação que seja capaz de responder a todas as

consultas razoáveis de Membros interessados, bem como fornecer os documentos pertinentes

referentes:

(a) a regulamentos sanitários e fitossanitários adotados ou propostos em seu território;

(b) a procedimentos de inspeção e controle, regimes de produção e quarentena, procedimentos

para aprovação de aditivos em alimentos e tolerância de pesticidas que sejam aplicados em

seu território;

(c) aos procedimentos de avaliação de risco, fatores levados em consideração, assim como

determinação do nível adequado de proteção sanitária ou fitossanitária;

(d) à adesão e à participação de um Membro ou das instituições pertinentes existentes em seu

território em organizações e sistemas sanitários e fitossanitários regionais e internacionais,

assim como em acordos e arranjos bilaterais e multilaterais no âmbito deste Acordo e aos

textos de tais acordos e arranjos.

4 Os Membros assegurarão que, quando Membros interessados solicitarem cópias de documentos,

estas sejam fornecidas ao mesmo preço (se não forem gratuitas), à parte o custo do envio, que os

cobrados dos nacionais6 e do Membro em questão.

Procedimentos de notificação

5 Sempre que não existir uma norma, guia ou recomendação internacional ou o conteúdo de um

projeto de regulamento sanitário ou fitossanitário não for substancialmente o mesmo que o conteúdo

de uma norma, guia ou recomendação internacional, e se o regulamento puder ter um efeito

significativo sobre o comércio de outros Membros, os Membros:

(a) publicarão uma nota com antecedência suficiente para que todos os Membros interessados

possam tomar conhecimento de que planejam introduzir um determinado regulamento;

(b) notificarão aos outros Membros, por intermédio do Secretariado, os produtos a serem

cobertos pelo regulamento planejado, junto com uma breve indicação de seu objetivo

e arrazoado. Tais notificações serão feitas com a antecedência suficiente, quando

emendas ainda possam ser introduzidas e comentários levados em consideração;

5 Medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias tais como leis, decretos ou portarias que sejam de aplicação geral. 6 Nacionais, neste Acordo, tomará o significado, no caso de um território aduaneiro separado, Membro da OMC, de pessoas físicas

ou jurídicas domiciliadas ou que tenham estabelecimento industrial ou comercial real e efetivo naquele território aduaneiro.

88

(c) quando se lhes solicite, fornecerão a outros Membros cópias do projeto de regulamento e,

sempre que possível, identificarão as partes que difiram em substância das normas, guias ou

recomendações internacionais;

(d) concederão, sem discriminação, um prazo razoável para que outros Membros façam

comentários por escrito, discutirão estes comentários, caso solicitado, e levarão em

consideração estes comentários escritos e o resultado destas discussões.

6 Quando, no entanto, surgirem ou houver ameaça de que surjam, problemas urgentes de proteção da

saúde para um Membro, este Membro poderá omitir os passos enumerados no parágrafo 5 deste

Anexo que julgue necessário, desde que o Membro:

(a) notifique imediatamente aos outros Membros, por intermédio do Secretariado, o

regulamento em questão e os produtos cobertos, com uma breve indicação do objetivo e

arrazoado do regulamento, inclusive a natureza do(s) problema(s) urgente(s);

(b) quando se lhes solicite, forneça a outros Membros cópias do regulamento;

(c) permita que outros Membros façam comentários por escrito, discuta estes comentários, caso

solicitado, e leve em consideração estes comentários escritos e o resultado destas discussões.

7 As notificações ao Secretariado serão feitas em inglês, francês ou espanhol.

8 Os países desenvolvidos Membros fornecerão, a pedido de outros Membros, cópias dos documentos

ou, no caso de documentos volumosos, resumos dos documentos cobertos por uma determinada

notificação em inglês, francês ou espanhol.

9 O Secretariado circulará prontamente copias da notificação a todos os Membros e às organizações

internacionais interessadas e levará à atenção dos países em desenvolvimento Membros quaisquer

notificações relativas a produtos de seu particular interesse.

10 Os Membros designarão uma única autoridade do governo central como responsável pela

implementação em nível nacional das disposições relativas aos procedimentos de notificação, de

acordo com os parágrafos 5, 6, 7 e 8 do presente Anexo.

Reservas de caráter geral

11 Nada neste Acordo será interpretado no sentido de obrigar:

(a) ao fornecimento de pormenores ou cópias de projetos ou a publicação de textos em línguas

outras que não a do Membro, exceto conforme estipulado no parágrafo 8 deste Anexo ou

(b) à comunicação por parte dos Membros de informação confidencial, cuja divulgação possa

Impedir o cumprimento da legislação sanitária ou fitossanitária ou lesar os interesses

comerciais legítimos de determinadas empresas.




II. Interpretação e Aplicação do Anexo B

89


Agricultural Products II), Demandante: EUA, WT/DS76/AB/R, paras. 105-107

Nesse caso, o Órgão de Apelação considerou que a lista de instrumentos do Anexo B (1), com leis, decretos

ou portarias, não é exaustiva.

Para. 105. “We consider that the list of instruments contained in the footnote to paragraph 1 of Annex B is,

as is indicated by the words ‘such as’, not exhaustive in nature. The scope of application of the publication

requirement is not limited to ‘laws, decrees or ordinances’, but also includes, in our opinion, other

instruments which are applicable generally and are similar in character to the instruments explicitly referred

to in the illustrative list of the footnote to paragraph 1 of Annex B.”

Para. 106. “The object and purpose of paragraph 1 of Annex is ‘to enable interested Members to become

acquainted with’ the sanitary and phytosanitary regulations adopted or maintained by other Members and

thus to enhance transparency regarding these measures. In our opinion, the scope of application of the

publication requirement of paragraph 1 of Annex B should be interpreted in the light of the object and

purpose of this provision.”

Para. 107. “We note that it is undisputed that the varietal testing requirement is applicable generally.

Furthermore, we consider in the light of the actual impact of the varietal testing requirement on exporting

countries, as discussed by the Panel in paragraphs 8.112 and 8.113 of the Panel Report, that this instrument is

of a character similar to laws, decrees and ordinances, the instruments explicitly referred to in the footnote to

paragraph 1 of Annex B.”

III. Comentários

A questão da transparência na aplicação das medidas sanitárias e fitossanitárias é um desafio constante para

os Membros, bem como para o DSB na análise dos casos. A inventividade dos Membros na adoção das

medidas baseadas em instrumentos que nem sempre são regulamentações explícitas, exige a capacidade de

compreender as regras do SPS a fim de permitir detectar possíveis barreiras ao comércio.

90

ANEXO C

Rodrigo C. A. Lima

IA. Texto do Anexo C em Inglês

Annex C

Control, inspection and approval procedures (8)

1 Members shall ensure, with respect to any procedure to check and ensure the fulfilment of sanitary

or phytosanitary measures, that:

(a) such procedures are undertaken and completed without undue delay and in no less

favourable manner for imported products than for like domestic products;

(b) the standard processing period of each procedure is published or that the anticipated

processing period is communicated to the applicant upon request; when receiving an

application, the competent body promptly examines the completeness of the documentation

and informs the applicant in a precise and complete manner of all deficiencies; the

competent body transmits as soon as possible the results of the procedure in a precise and

complete manner to the applicant so that corrective action may be taken if necessary; even

when the application has deficiencies, the competent body proceeds as far as practicable

with the procedure if the applicant so requests; and that upon request, the applicant is

informed of the stage of the procedure, with any delay being explained;

(c) information requirements are limited to what is necessary for appropriate control, inspection

and approval procedures, including for approval of the use of additives or for the

establishment of tolerances for contaminants in food, beverages or feedstuffs;

(d) the confidentiality of information about imported products arising from or supplied in

connection with control, inspection and approval is respected in a way no less favourable

than for domestic products and in such a manner that legitimate commercial interests are

protected;

(e) any requirements for control, inspection and approval of individual specimens of a product

are limited to what is reasonable and necessary;

(f) any fees imposed for the procedures on imported products are equitable in relation to any

fees charged on like domestic products or products originating in any other Member and

should be no higher than the actual cost of the service;

(g) the same criteria should be used in the siting of facilities used in the procedures and the

selection of samples of imported products as for domestic products so as to minimize the

inconvenience to applicants, importers, exporters or their agents;

(h) whenever specifications of a product are changed subsequent to its control and inspection in

light of the applicable regulations, the procedure for the modified product is limited to what

is necessary to determine whether adequate confidence exists that the product still meets the

regulations concerned; and

(i) a procedure exists to review complaints concerning the operation of such procedures and to

take corrective action when a complaint is justified.

Where an importing Member operates a system for the approval of the use of food additives or for the

establishment of tolerances for contaminants in food, beverages or feedstuffs which prohibits or restricts

access to its domestic markets for products based on the absence of an approval, the importing Member shall

91

consider the use of a relevant international standard as the basis for access until a final determination is

made.

2 Where a sanitary or phytosanitary measure specifies control at the level of production, the Member

in whose territory the production takes place shall provide the necessary assistance to facilitate such

control and the work of the controlling authorities.

3 Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent Members from carrying out reasonable inspection within

their own territories.

Footnote 8: Control, inspection and approval procedures include, inter alia, procedures for sampling, testing and certification.

IB. Texto do Anexo C em Português

Anexo C7

Procedimentos de Controle Inspeção e Aprovação

1 No que se refere a todos os procedimentos para averiguar e garantir o cumprimento de medidas

sanitárias ou fitossanitárias, os Membros assegurarão:

(a) que tais procedimentos sejam realizados e concluídos sem demoras indevidas e de forma não

menos favorável aos produtos importados do que aos produtos nacionais similares;

(b) que o período normal de processamento de cada procedimento seja publicado ou que o

período de processamento previsto seja comunicado ao solicitante a pedido deste; que ao

receber uma solicitação, a instituição competente examine prontamente se a documentação

está completa e informe o solicitante de todas as deficiências de forma precisa e completa;

que a instituição competente transmita, assim que possível, os resultados do procedimento

de forma precisa e completa, a fim de que se possam tomar medidas corretivas caso

necessário; que, mesmo quando haja deficiências, a instituição competente prossiga até onde

for possível com o procedimento se o solicitante assim requiser e que o solicitante seja

informado, a seu pedido, do andamento do procedimento, explicando-se-lhe qualquer atraso;

(c) que as informações solicitadas limitem-se ao necessário para que os procedimentos de

controle, inspeção e homologação sejam adequados, incluindo-se os relativos a homologação

do uso de aditivos ou ao estabelecimento de tolerâncias de contaminantes em produtos

alimentícios, bebidas ou ração animal;

(d) que a confidencialidade da informação sobre os produtos originários dos territórios de outros

Membros, que resulte ou seja fornecida em função de controle, inspeção e homologação,

seja respeitada da mesma forma que para produtos nacionais e de tal forma que os interesses

comerciais legítimos sejam protegidos;

(e) que toda solicitação de amostras individuais de um produto, para controle, inspeção e

homologação, seja limitada ao razoável e necessário.

(f) que todas as taxas impostas aos procedimentos para produtos importados sejam eqüitativas

em comparação com todas as taxas cobradas por produtos nacionais similares ou produtos

originários de qualquer outro Membro, não devendo ser superiores ao custo real do serviço;

(g) que os critérios empregados no estabelecimento de instalações utilizadas nos procedimentos

e na seleção de amostras sejam os mesmos, tanto para produtos importados quanto para

7 Procedimentos de controle inspeção e homologação incluem, inter alia, procedimentos para amostragem, teste e certificação.

92

produtos nacionais, com o objetivo de reduzir ao mínimo as inconveniências aos solicitantes

importadores, exportadores ou seus agentes;

(h) que sempre que as especificações de um produto sejam modificadas após o seu controle ou

Inspeção à luz dos regulamentos aplicáveis, ou os procedimentos para o produto modificado

sejam limitados ao necessário para determinar se existe confiança suficiente de que o

produto ainda satisfaz os regulamentos em questão; e

(i) exista um procedimento para examinar as reclamações relativas à operação de tais

procedimentos e para tomar medidas corretivas quando a reclamação seja justificada.

Quando um Membro importador aplique um sistema de homologação do uso de aditivos

para alimentos ou de estabelecimento de tolerâncias de contaminantes em produtos

alimentícios, bebidas ou ração animal que proíba ou restrinja o acesso de produtos a seu

mercado interno por falta de homologação, tal Membro importador levará em consideração a

utilização de uma norma internacional pertinente como base para o acesso até que se faça

uma determinação final.

2 Quando em uma medida sanitária ou fitossanitária se especifique um controle na etapa de produção,

o Membro em cujo território a produção ocorre prestará a assistência necessária para facilitar tal

controle e o trabalho das autoridades encarregadas de realizá-lo.

3 Nenhuma disposição do presente Acordo impedirá os Membros de realizarem inspeções razoáveis

em seu território.




II. Interpretação e Aplicação do Anexo C

Relatório do Órgão de Apelação no caso Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples from New

Zealand (Australia - Apples), Demandante: Nova Zelândia, WT/DS367/R, para. 7.1463

Nesse caso, o Painel entendeu que o Anexo C trata dos procedimentos destinados a verificar o cumprimento

das medidas SPS.

Para. 7.1463. “[T]he text of Annex C(1)(a) relates to ‘procedures to check and ensure the fulfilment of SPS

measures’, not to develop SPS measures. However, under the definition of Annex A(1) of the SPS

Agreement, SPS measures include both substantive requirements and procedures. Therefore, the ‘SPS

measure’ referenced in the language of Annex C(1)(a) may be a requirement to conduct an import risk

assessment prior to allowing for the importation of goods that might pose sanitary or phytosanitary risks. In

that case, the actual import risk assessment conducted for a specific good might constitute the procedure to

check and ensure the fulfilment of this ‘SPS measure’.”

Relatório do Painel no caso Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry from China (US - Poultry)

(China), Demandante: EUA, WT/DS392/R, para. 7.363-7.364

Nesse caso o Painel entendeu que o Anexo C(1) não especifica ou exclui procedimentos ligados a aplicação

das medidas SPS. Na prática, esses procedimentos abrangem medidas que visem assegurar o alcance dos

objetivos do Acordo.

93

Para. 7.363. “Considering the actual text of Annex C(1) of the SPS Agreement, the Panel notes that Annex

C(1) does not specify, nor exclude, any types of ‘procedures’. According to our reading, Annex C(1)

basically requires that ‘any procedure’ is covered by its provisions so long as that ‘procedure’ is aimed at

‘checking and ensuring the fulfilment of sanitary or phytosanitary measures’, and is undertaken in the

context of ‘control, inspection, or approval’. In the Panel’s view, no a priori exclusion is contemplated by the

SPS Agreement.”

Para. 7.364. “We find equally important to note that the SPS Agreement does not specify, or limit, the SPS

measures referred to in Annex C(1). Indeed, Annex C(1) of the SPS Agreement merely provides that any

procedure to check and ensure the fulfilment of SPS measures is subject to the provisions of items (a)

through (i).”

III. Comentários

A questão dos procedimentos para averiguar e garantir o cumprimento de medidas sanitárias ou

fitossanitárias é um ponto crucial para a análise de medidas protecionistas ou fundamentadas nas regras do

Acordo. Como não há uma lista de quais são os procedimentos, a capacidade dos Membros de criar

exigências mascaradas que causam restrições ao comércio é enorme.

Além disso, os procedimentos administrativos ligados à implementação ou cobrança de uma medida pode

gerar atrasos ou demoras injustificadas que causem barreiras. Da mesma forma, um processo de análise de

risco pode ser inviabilizado por demoras administrativas, ou uma medida provisional pode ser justificada

com base na necessidade de buscar evidências científicas sem que isso ocorra num período razoável de

tempo. Todos esses pontos ilustram desafios do Acordo SPS, que possivelmente serão frutos de debates em

futuros casos.

Documents

ESCOLA DE ECONOMIA DE SÃO PAULO DA FUNDAÇÃO GETULIO … Acordo... · “The SPS Agreement recognizes the right of WTO Members to take measures necessary to protect human, animal