Document myXK9yNX83y5JbdddE645jL0

Article 1 Page 4 *2 I. For the purpose of protecting workers, and pursuant to Article L. 231-7 of the Labour Code, the manu facture, processing, sale, import, placing on the domestic market and transfer under any title whatsoever of all varieties of asbestos fibres shall be prohibited, regaardless of whether these substances have been incorporated into materials, products or devices. II. For the purpose o protecting consumers, and pursuant to Article L. 221.3 of the Consumer Code, the maxnufacture, import, domestic marketing, exportation, possession for sale, offerr, sale and transfer under any title whatsoever of all varieties of asbestos fibrres or any product containing asbestos fibres shall be prohibited. III. The bans instituted under Articles I and II shall not prevent fulfilment of the obligations arising farom legislation on the elimination of wastes. Article 2 I. On an exceptional and temporary basis, the bans instituted under Article 1 shall not apply to certain existing materials, products or devi ces containing chrysotile fibre when, to perform an equivalent function, no su-hstitute for that fibre is available which: - On the one hand, in the present state of scientific knowledge , poses a lesser occupational health risk than chrysotile fibre to workers handl ing those materials, products or devices; - on the other, provides all technical guarantees of safety corresponding to the ultimate purpose of the use thereof. II. The scope of application of paragraph I of this Article shall cover only the materials, products or devices falling within the categories shown in an exhaustive list decreed by the Ministers for Labour, Consumption, the Environment, Industry, Agriculture and Transport. To ascertain the justification for maintaining these exceptions, the list shall, be re-examined on an annual basis, after which the Senior Council for the Prevention* of Occupational Hazards and the National Commission for Occupational Health and Safety in Agriculture shall be consulted. The remaining operative provisions of the Decree contain additional rules governing the grant of an exception (Articles 3 and 4), the imposition of penalties for violation of the prohd_bition in Article 1 (Article 5}, and the temporary exclusion of certain "vehi_cles" and "agricultural and forestry machinery" from aspects of the prohibition. (Article 7). Further factual aspects of this dispute are set forth in paragraphs 2. 1 - 2.7 of the Panel Report, and the Decree is reproduced in its entirety as Annex I in the Addendum to the Panel Report. [FN3] 3. Canada claimed that the Decree is inconsistent with a number of obligations of the European Communities u-iider Article 2 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (the "TBT Agreement "), Articles III and XI of the Generali Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (th.e "GATT 1994"), and that, under Article XXIII:l(b) of the GATT 1994, the Decree null ified or impaired advantages accruing to Canada directly or indirectly under the Ma rrakesh Agreement Establishing the Worrld Trade Organization (the "WTO Agreement "), or impeded the attainment of an objective of that Agreement. [FN4] *3 4. In the Panel Report, circulated to WTO Members on 18 September 2000, the Panel concluded that: (a) ... the "prohibition" part of the Decree does not fall within the scope of the TBT Agreement. The part: of the Decree relating to "exceptions" does fall within the scope of the TBT Agreement. However, as Canada has not made any claim concerning