Sentences with phrase «seal products ban»

The EU seal products ban and the prohibition on the import of cosmetics tested on animals are identified as examples of producer - based initiatives.

The first argument put forward by the seal hunters in this case is that the EU should not be able to rely on article 114 TFEU as a legal basis to adopt the seal product ban.

Not exact matches

The government defends the practice, as you can see in a set of video clips explaining requirements for specific hunting methods, a quick kill, the importance of the income to local residents and the importance of the hunt to Inuit communities (the ban does not apply to seal products from such hunts).

Other major internet retailers in Japan that have banned ivory products sales include Amazon.com, Google Shopping, and several large hanko name seal traders.

In this post I will focus on the competence issue by discussing the particularities of EU constitutional law and the (modest) challenge a ban on the sale of exotic imports such as seal products poses for EU legislative competence.

The dispute has not only given rise to proceedings before the WTO (providing more wood for the ongoing fiery debate on the legality of PPM - measures), but has also found its way to Luxembourg in the form of a number of direct actions for annulment of EU regulations banning trade in seal products.

In a second round of cases in Luxembourg, a number of seal hunters failed (yet again) to convince the General Court to annul the EU - wide ban on trade in seal products.

Last week, the ECJ delivered its judgment in Case C - 398 / 13 P, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami II, which deals with the EU ban on trade in seals products.

According to the General Court, both exceptions to the ban facilitated trade in permitted seal products and facilitated trade in products in which trade might be hampered if there were no clear cut ban at the EU level.

The prohibition on imports [as a result of enforcement at the border of the marketing ban] is in fact laid down in order to prevent the placing on the market of seal products and, by that means, to achieve the sole objective of the basic regulation which is to improve the functioning of the internal market.

Formally speaking, the ban only affects the marketing of seal products, not their importation (although the ban is enforced at the border in accordance with the Ad Note to Article XI GATT), but there is no doubt that the Regulation amounts to a de facto import ban of seal products.

A Union - wide ban in seal products is therefore justified in order to restore consumer confidence «by offering them a general guarantee that no seal product would be marketed on the Union market, inter alia by banning the import of such products from third countries.»

One must keep in mind here, though, that the EU ban concerns commercial activity relating to seal products, not conservation measures aiming at improving the life and health of seals within the EU.

A ban on the marketing of seal products does not contribute to that aim.

The applicants had argued that the ban in seal products essentially affects commerce with third countries.

In the prior case, the seal hunters challenged the basic regulation banning trade in seal products (Regulation 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council), but lost because the General Court found that they lacked standing to challenge a legislative act (this case is currently under appeal).

They are the World the World Trade Organization's ruling upholding the EU law banning seal products, and the decision of the International Court of Justice that Japan's Antarctic whale hunt is not exempt from the international moratorium on commercial whaling because it does not qualify for the scientific research exemption under international whaling law.