Document e7ROwq0Vbb70xQVBYDjqEda6E

Page 18 Panel Report with respect to which the applicant has been granted leave to file a written brief. 8. applicant granted leave shall, in addition to filing its written brief with the Appellate Body Secretariat, also serve a copy of its brief on all the parties and third parties to the dispute by noon on Monday, 27 November 2000. 9. The parties and the third parties to this dispute will be given a full and adequate opportunity by the Appellate Body to comment on and respond to any written brief fi_led with the Appellate Body by an applicant granted leave under this procedur-e. (original emphasis) 53. Tl*.e Appellate Body received 13 written submissions from non-governmental organiza-tions relating to this appeal that were not submitted in accordance with the Additiorxal Procedure. [FN30] Several of these were received while we were considering the possible adoption of an additional procedure. After the adoption of the Addi. tional Procedure, each of these 13 submissions was returned to its sender, along wi.th a letter informing the sender of the procedure adopted by the Division hearing this appeal and a copy of the Additional Procedure. Only one of these associate ions, the Korea Asbestos Association, subsequently submitted a request for leave in. accordance with the Additional Procedure. 54. By- letter dated 15 November 2000, Canada and the European Communities jointly requested that they be provided with copies of all applications filed pursuant to the Addi. tional Procedure, and of the decision taken by the Appellate Body in respect of each such application. All such documents were subsequently provided to the parties and third parties in this dispute. *18 55 . Pursuant to the Additional Procedure, the Appellate Body received 17 applications requesting leave to file a written brief in this appeal. Six of these 17 appli. cations were received after the deadline specified in paragraph 2 of the Additional Procedure and, for this reason, leave to file a written brief was denied to these six applicants. [FN31] Each such applicant was sent a copy of our decision denying its application for leave because the application was not filed in a timely manner. 56. Th_e Appellate Body received 11 applications for leave to file a written brief in this appeal within the time limits specified in paragraph 2 of the Additional Procedur-e. [FN32] We carefully reviewed and considered each of these applications in accordan.ee with the Additional Procedure and, in each case, decided to deny leave to file a vrritten brief. Each applicant was sent a copy of our decision denying its applicat ion for leave for failure to comply sufficiently with all the requirements set forth in paragraph 3 of the Additional Procedure. 57. We received a written brief from the Foundation for International Environtnental Law and Development, on its behalf and on behalf of Ban Asbestos (Interna, tional and Virtual) Network, Greenpeace International, International Ban Asbestos Secretariat, and World Wide Fund for Nature, International, dated 6 February" 2001. As we had already denied, in accordance with the Additional. Procedur-e, an application from these organizations for leave to file a written brief in this appeal, [FN33] we did not accept this brief. IV. Issu.es Raised in this Appeal 58. Th. is appeal raises the following issues: (a) -whether the Panel erred in its interpretation of the term "technical regulati on" in Annex 1.1 of the TBT Agreement in finding, in paragraph 8.72(a) of the Pane 1 Report, that "the part of the Decree relating to the ban on imports of asbestos and asbestos-containing products" does not constitute a "technical