GD/14

Treatment by Germany of Imports of Sardines (Brisling)

View all disputes

Other titles

Germany Sardines (Source: GATT Analytical Index)

Parties

Complainant
Norway
Respondent
Germany, Fed. Rep.
Third Parties

Products at Issue

Products at issue
Sardines
Type of product
Non-agricultural
Product sub-type
Fish and fish products

Related disputes

GATT
WTO

Key legal aspects

Legal basis
  • GATT Article XXIII:1(a)
  • GATT Article XXIII:2
Claims raised
  • GATT Article I
  • GATT Article III
  • GATT Article XIII:1
  • GATT Article XXIII:1(b)
Defences raised
  • n.a.

Adjudicators

Type Panel on Complaints
Chairperson C. M. Isbister (Canada)
Other members Representative of Australia, Representative of Canada, Representative of Cuba, Representative of Finland, Representative of Netherlands, Representative of Ceylon

Report

Type Panel on Complaints
Legal basis at issue
  • GATT Article XXIII:1(a)
  • GATT Article XXIII:2
Claims at issue
  • GATT Article I:1
  • GATT Article III
  • GATT Article XIII:1
  • GATT Article XXIII:1(b)
Defences at issue
  • n.a.
No of Pages (total / legal reasoning) 6
  • -
  • -
  • No inconsistency - but finding nullification or impairment
  • Judicial economy exercised
  • No inconsistency - but finding nullification or impairment
  • Finding nullification or impairment
  • -

Timeline

Request for consultations
Request for establishment
Establishment
Composition
Report
Adoption of report
Mutually agreed solution
Request withdrawn

Outcome

Outcome of the proceedings
Report adopted, mutually agreed solution, request withdrawn
Additional Info G/26 (30/10/1952) Panel on Complaints - Report on the Treatment by Germany of Imports of Sardines (Brisling): The Panel examined the imposition by Germany of (i) an import duty of 14% on Clupea pilchardus as compared with 20% and 25% on other varieties; (ii) a turn-over tax of 4% on Clupea pilchardus as compared with 6% on other varieties; and (iii) removal of quantitative restrictions on Clupea pilchardus while these restrictions were maintained on other varieties. The Panel found there was not sufficient evidence showing that Germany had violated GATT Articles I:1 and XIII:1 and did not consider it necessary to consider the alleged inconsistencies under GATT Articles III:2, XII, or XIV. The Panel then examined whether Norway suffered nullification or impairment and concluded that Norway had reason to assume during tariff negotiations that its products "would not be less favourably treated than other preparations of the same family and this this situation would not be modified by unilateral action of the German Government". The Panel therefore concluded that "the value of the tariff concession obtained by Norway had been impaired".