UNITED
STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION
OF ANIMALS, MEAT AND OTHER ANIMAL PRODUCTS
FROM ARGENTINA
report of the panel
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 20
1.1
Complaint by Argentina............................................................................................... 20
1.2
Panel establishment and
composition........................................................................ 20
1.3
Panel proceedings....................................................................................................... 20
1.3.1
General....................................................................................................................... 20
1.3.2
Consultation of experts............................................................................................... 21
1.3.2.1
Expert selection.......................................................................................................... 22
2 Factual
aspects................................................................................................... 24
2.1
The relevant disease:
Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD)................................................ 24
2.2
The measures at issue................................................................................................ 25
2.2.1
Prohibition on importation of fresh
(chilled or frozen) beef from Northern Argentina and animals, meat and other
animal products from the Patagonia region................................................ 25
2.2.1.1
Title 9 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 94...................................................... 25
2.2.1.2
APHIS' 2001 Interim and Final Rules
amending 9 CFR 94............................................ 27
2.2.2
The United States' alleged undue
delay in the application of the procedures set forth in 9 CFR 92.2 to
Argentina's requests for imports of fresh (chilled or frozen) beef from
Northern Argentina and for recognition of Patagonia as free from FMD.................................................................. 27
2.2.2.1
Section 737 of the
2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act................................................. 29
2.3
Products at issue........................................................................................................ 30
2.4
Relevant international standards,
guidelines, and recommendations......................... 30
2.4.1
The OIE and its mandate............................................................................................. 30
2.4.2
The Terrestrial Code.................................................................................................... 31
2.4.2.1
Objectives and structure of the
Terrestrial Code......................................................... 31
2.4.2.2
Official recognition of disease status........................................................................... 32
2.4.3
Relevant standards, guidelines or
recommendations invoked by the parties............. 33
2.5
The parties' domestic
FMD situations.......................................................................... 34
2.5.1
Argentina.................................................................................................................... 34
2.5.1.1
Northern Argentina..................................................................................................... 35
2.5.1.2
Patagonia.................................................................................................................... 35
2.5.2
United States.............................................................................................................. 35
3 Parties'
requests for findings and recommendations.......................... 35
4 Arguments
of the parties................................................................................. 37
5 Arguments
of the thiRd parties..................................................................... 37
6 Interim
review..................................................................................................... 37
6.1
Whether APHIS' review processes of
Argentina's requests were undertaken and completed without undue delay................................................................................................................ 37
6.2
The United States'
appropriate level of protection for foot-and-mouth disease.......... 40
6.3
Whether the United States
took into account the objective of minimizing negative trade effects when
determining its appropriate level of sanitary protection.............................................. 41
6.4
Whether the United States'
measures are more trade-restrictive than required to achieve the
United States' ALOP..................................................................................................... 42
6.5
Special and differential treatment............................................................................... 43
6.6
Argentina's claims under the GATT
1994..................................................................... 44
7 Findings................................................................................................................. 44
7.1
Order of analysis......................................................................................................... 44
7.1.1
Main arguments of the parties.................................................................................... 45
7.1.2
Analysis by the Panel................................................................................................... 45
7.2
Whether the United States'
measures are SPS measures.......................................... 48
7.2.1
Relevant legal provisions............................................................................................. 48
7.2.2
Main arguments of the parties.................................................................................... 48
7.2.2.1
Argentina.................................................................................................................... 48
7.2.2.2
United States.............................................................................................................. 49
7.2.3
Analysis by the Panel................................................................................................... 50
7.2.3.1
Whether the United States' measures
are SPS measures within the meaning of Annex A(1) 50
7.2.3.2
Whether the United States' measures
directly or indirectly affect international trade 52
7.2.4
Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 53
7.3
Control, inspection and approval
procedures.............................................................. 53
7.3.1
Relevant legal provisions............................................................................................. 53
7.3.2
Whether the application of the
procedures set forth in 9 CFR 92.2 to Argentina's requests falls
within the scope of Article 8 and Annex C(1) of the
SPS Agreement..................................... 54
7.3.2.1
Main arguments of the parties.................................................................................... 54
7.3.2.2
Main arguments of the third parties............................................................................ 55
7.3.2.3
Analysis by the Panel................................................................................................... 56
7.3.3
Whether APHIS' review processes of
Argentina's requests were undertaken and completed without undue delay................................................................................................................ 59
7.3.3.1
General arguments of the parties............................................................................... 59
7.3.3.2
APHIS' review of Argentina's request for
imports of fresh (chilled or frozen) beef from Northern Argentina.................................................................................................................... 60
7.3.3.3
APHIS' review of Argentina's request for
recognition of Patagonia as FMD‑free........... 63
7.3.3.4
Main arguments of the third parties............................................................................ 66
7.3.3.5
Analysis by the Panel................................................................................................... 67
7.3.4
Whether APHIS' review processes of
Argentina's requests met the procedural requirements set forth in
Annex C(1)(b) of the SPS Agreement...................................................................... 89
7.3.4.1
Arguments of the parties............................................................................................ 89
7.3.4.2
Main arguments of the third parties............................................................................ 90
7.3.4.3
Analysis by the Panel................................................................................................... 91
7.4
Harmonization............................................................................................................. 94
7.4.1
Relevant legal provisions............................................................................................. 94
7.4.2
Whether the United States' measures
are based on relevant international standards, guidelines or recommendations...................................................................................................... 95
7.4.2.1
Main arguments of the parties.................................................................................... 95
7.4.2.2
Main arguments of the third parties............................................................................ 98
7.4.2.3
Analysis by the Panel................................................................................................. 100
7.4.3
Whether the United States'
measures are introduced or maintained consistently with Article 3.3................................................................................................................................. 110
7.5
Whether the United States'
measures are based on scientific principles and maintained with sufficient
scientific evidence.................................................................................................... 111
7.5.1
Relevant legal provisions........................................................................................... 111
7.5.2
Whether the United States'
measures fall within the scope of the exemption in Article 5.7 113
7.5.2.1
Main arguments of the parties.................................................................................. 113
7.5.2.2
Main arguments of the third parties.......................................................................... 116
7.5.2.3
European Union........................................................................................................ 118
7.5.2.4
Analysis by the Panel................................................................................................. 119
7.5.2.5
Conclusion................................................................................................................ 122
7.5.3
Whether the United States'
measures are based on a risk assessment................... 122
7.5.3.1
Main arguments of the parties.................................................................................. 122
7.5.3.2
Main arguments of the third parties.......................................................................... 124
7.5.3.3
Analysis by the Panel................................................................................................. 125
7.5.4
Article 2.2 of the
SPS Agreement.............................................................................. 131
7.5.4.1
Main arguments of the parties.................................................................................. 131
7.5.4.2
Main arguments of the third parties.......................................................................... 133
7.5.4.3
Analysis by the Panel................................................................................................. 133
7.6
Appropriate level of protection.................................................................................. 134
7.6.1
Relevant legal provisions........................................................................................... 134
7.6.2
The United States' appropriate
level of protection for foot-and-mouth disease........ 135
7.6.2.1
Main arguments of the parties.................................................................................. 135
7.6.2.2
Analysis by the Panel................................................................................................. 137
7.6.3
Whether the United States took
into account the objective of minimizing negative trade effects when
determining its appropriate level of sanitary protection............................................ 140
7.6.4
Main arguments of the parties.................................................................................. 140
7.6.4.1
Argentina.................................................................................................................. 140
7.6.4.2
United States............................................................................................................ 140
7.6.5
Main arguments of the third parties.......................................................................... 141
7.6.5.1
Australia.................................................................................................................... 141
7.6.5.2
European Union........................................................................................................ 141
7.6.6
Analysis by the Panel................................................................................................. 141
7.6.6.1
Conclusion................................................................................................................ 143
7.6.7
Whether the United States'
measures are more trade-restrictive than required to achieve the
United States' ALOP................................................................................................... 144
7.6.7.1
Relevant legal provisions........................................................................................... 144
7.6.7.2
Main arguments of the parties.................................................................................. 144
7.6.7.3
Main arguments of the third parties.......................................................................... 148
7.6.7.4
Analysis by the Panel................................................................................................. 149
7.7
Whether the United States'
measures arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between Members where
identical or similar conditions prevail or are applied in a manner which
constitutes a disguised restriction on international trade............................................................................... 181
7.7.1
Relevant legal provisions........................................................................................... 181
7.7.2
Main arguments of the parties.................................................................................. 182
7.7.2.1
Argentina.................................................................................................................. 182
7.7.2.2
United States............................................................................................................ 184
7.7.3
Main arguments of the third parties.......................................................................... 186
7.7.3.1
China......................................................................................................................... 186
7.7.3.2
European Union........................................................................................................ 187
7.7.4
Analysis by the Panel................................................................................................. 187
7.7.4.1
Discrimination between Northern Argentina
and Uruguay......................................... 190
7.7.4.2
Discrimination between Patagonia, Santa
Catarina, and Chile.................................... 194
7.7.4.3
Discrimination between Northern
Argentina, Patagonia, Japan, and the United Kingdom. 197
7.8
Adaptation to regional conditions.............................................................................. 199
7.8.1
Relevant legal provisions........................................................................................... 199
7.8.2
Main arguments of the parties.................................................................................. 200
7.8.2.1
Argentina.................................................................................................................. 200
7.8.2.2
United States............................................................................................................ 201
7.8.3
Main arguments of the third parties.......................................................................... 202
7.8.3.1
Brazil......................................................................................................................... 202
7.8.3.2
European Union........................................................................................................ 203
7.8.4
Analysis by the Panel................................................................................................. 203
7.8.4.1
The obligations under Article 6.1............................................................................... 203
7.8.4.2
The obligations under Article 6.2............................................................................... 204
7.8.4.3
The obligations under Article 6.3............................................................................... 205
7.8.4.4
The relationship between the obligations
contained in the three paragraphs of Article 6 206
7.8.4.5
Whether the United States
recognized the concept of FMD‑free areas and adapted its measure to the
SPS characteristics of Patagonia................................................................................ 209
7.9
Special and differential treatment............................................................................. 211
7.9.1
Relevant legal provisions........................................................................................... 211
7.9.2
Main arguments of the parties.................................................................................. 211
7.9.2.1
Argentina.................................................................................................................. 211
7.9.2.2
United States............................................................................................................ 212
7.9.3
Main arguments of the third parties.......................................................................... 212
7.9.3.1
China......................................................................................................................... 212
7.9.3.2
European Union........................................................................................................ 213
7.9.4
Analysis by the Panel................................................................................................. 213
7.9.4.1
Whether Article 10.1 is a positive
obligation............................................................. 213
7.9.4.2
Shall take account of special needs of
developing country Members....................... 214
7.9.4.3
Burden of proof......................................................................................................... 215
7.9.4.4
Whether the United States
took account of Argentina's special needs..................... 217
7.9.4.5
Conclusion................................................................................................................ 219
7.10
Consequential violations........................................................................................... 219
7.10.1
Argentina's claims under
Article 1.1 of the SPS Agreement...................................... 219
7.10.1.1
.................................................................................................. Relevant
legal provision 219
7.10.1.2
........................................................................................ Main
arguments of the parties 219
7.10.1.3
................................................................................ Main
arguments of the third parties 220
7.10.1.4
...................................................................................................... Analysis
by the Panel 220
7.10.2
Argentina's claims under
Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement...................................... 220
7.11
Argentina's claims under the
GATT 1994................................................................... 221
7.11.1 Main
arguments of the parties.................................................................................. 221
7.11.1.1 ........................................................................................................................ Argentina 221
7.11.1.2
.................................................................................................................. United States 222
7.11.2
Analysis by the Panel................................................................................................. 222
8 Conclusions
and Recommendation(s)........................................................ 223
APPENDIX 1.......................................................................................................................... 226
ANNEX A
Working
Procedures of The Panel
|
Contents
|
Page
|
|
Annex A-1
|
Working Procedures of the Panel
|
A-2
|
|
Annex A-2
|
Additional Working Procedures on
consultations with experts and the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)
|
A-7
|
ANNEX B
Arguments
Of The Parties
ARGENTINA
|
Contents
|
Page
|
|
Annex B-1
|
First
part of the integrated executive summary of the arguments of Argentina
|
B-2
|
|
Annex B-2
|
Second
part of the integrated executive summary of the arguments of Argentina
|
B-14
|
UNITED STATES
|
Contents
|
Page
|
|
Annex B-3
|
First
part of the integrated executive summary of the arguments of the United States
|
B-25
|
|
Annex B-4
|
Second
part of the integrated executive summary of the arguments of the United States
|
B-37
|
ANNEX
C
Arguments
of the Third Parties
|
Contents
|
Page
|
|
Annex C-1
|
Integrated
executive summary of the arguments of Australia
|
C-2
|
|
Annex C-2
|
Integrated
executive summary of the arguments of Brazil
|
C-6
|
|
Annex C-3
|
Integrated
executive summary of the arguments of China
|
C-9
|
|
Annex C-4
|
Integrated
executive summary of the arguments of the European Union
|
C-13
|
CASES CITED IN THIS REPORT
|
Short Title
|
Full Case Title and Citation
|
|
Australia –
Apples
|
Appellate Body Report, Australia
– Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples from New Zealand,
WT/DS367/AB/R, adopted 17 December 2010, DSR 2010:V, p. 2175
|
|
Australia –
Apples
|
Panel Report, Australia
– Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples from New Zealand,
WT/DS367/R, adopted 17 December 2010, as modified by
Appellate Body Report WT/DS367/AB/R, DSR 2010:VI, p. 2371
|
|
Australia –
Salmon
|
Appellate Body Report, Australia
– Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, WT/DS18/AB/R, adopted
6 November 1998, DSR 1998:VIII, p. 3327
|
|
Australia –
Salmon
|
Panel Report, Australia – Measures
Affecting Importation of Salmon, WT/DS18/R and Corr.1, adopted 6
November 1998, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS18/AB/R,
DSR 1998:VIII, p. 3407
|
|
Australia – Salmon
(Article 21.5 – Canada)
|
Panel Report, Australia – Measures
Affecting Importation of Salmon – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by
Canada, WT/DS18/RW, adopted 20 March 2000,
DSR 2000:IV, p. 2031
|
|
Brazil –
Aircraft
|
Panel Report, Brazil – Export
Financing Programme for Aircraft, WT/DS46/R, adopted 20 August 1999,
as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS46/AB/R, DSR 1999:III,
p. 1221
|
|
Brazil –
Desiccated Coconut
|
Appellate Body Report, Brazil –
Measures Affecting Desiccated Coconut, WT/DS22/AB/R, adopted 20 March 1997,
DSR 1997:I, p. 167
|
|
Brazil –
Retreaded Tyres
|
Appellate Body Report, Brazil –
Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres, WT/DS332/AB/R,
adopted 17 December 2007, DSR 2007:IV, p. 1527
|
|
Brazil –
Retreaded Tyres
|
Panel Report, Brazil – Measures
Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres, WT/DS332/R, adopted 17
December 2007, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS332/AB/R,
DSR 2007:V, p. 1649
|
|
Canada –
Aircraft
|
Appellate Body Report, Canada –
Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft, WT/DS70/AB/R,
adopted 20 August 1999, DSR 1999:III, p. 1377
|
|
Canada – Autos
|
Appellate Body Report,
Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry,
WT/DS139/AB/R, WT/DS142/AB/R, adopted 19 June 2000,
DSR 2000:VI, p. 2985
|
|
Canada –
Continued Suspension
|
Appellate Body Report,
Canada – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – Hormones Dispute,
WT/DS321/AB/R, adopted 14 November 2008, DSR 2008:XIV, p. 5373
|
|
Canada –
Continued Suspension
|
Panel Report,
Canada – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – Hormones Dispute,
WT/DS321/R, adopted 14 November 2008, as modified by Appellate Body Report
WT/DS321/AB/R, DSR 2008:XV, p. 5757
|
|
Canada – Dairy
(Article 21.5 – New Zealand
and US II)
|
Panel Report, Canada – Measures
Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products –
Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States,
WT/DS103/RW2, WT/DS113/RW2, adopted 17 January 2003, as modified by
Appellate Body Report WT/DS103/AB/RW2, WT/DS113/AB/RW2, DSR 2003:I,
p. 255
|
|
Canada –
Pharmaceutical Patents
(Article 21.3(c))
|
Award of the Arbitrator, Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c)
of the DSU, WT/DS114/13, 18 August 2000,
DSR 2002:I, p. 3
|
|
Canada – Renewable Energy /
Canada
– Feed-in Tariff Program
|
Appellate Body Reports, Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable Energy Generation
Sector / Canada – Measures Relating to the Feed-in Tariff Program,
WT/DS412/AB/R / WT/DS426/AB/R, adopted 24 May 2013
|
|
Canada – Wheat
Exports and Grain Imports
|
Appellate Body Report, Canada –
Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and Treatment of Imported Grain,
WT/DS276/AB/R, adopted 27 September 2004, DSR 2004:VI,
p. 2739
|
|
China –
Broiler Products
|
Panel Report, China -
Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products from the United States, WT/DS427/R and Add.1,
adopted 25 September 2013
|
|
China – GOES
|
Appellate Body Report, China –
Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain Oriented Flat-Rolled
Electrical Steel from the United States, WT/DS414/AB/R, adopted 16 November
2012, DSR 2012:XII, p. 6251
|
|
China – GOES
|
Panel Report, China – Countervailing
and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain Oriented Flat-Rolled Electrical Steel from
the United States, WT/DS414/R and Add.1, adopted
16 November 2012, upheld by Appellate Body Report WT/DS414/AB/R, DSR
2012:XII, p. 6369
|
|
China –
Publications and Audiovisual Products
|
Panel Report, China – Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for
Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products,
WT/DS363/R and Corr.1, adopted 19 January 2010, as modified by
Appellate Body Report WT/DS363/AB/R, DSR 2010:II, p. 261
|
|
China – Raw
Materials
|
Appellate Body Reports, China –
Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials, WT/DS394/AB/R /
WT/DS395/AB/R / WT/DS398/AB/R, adopted 22 February 2012, DSR 2012:VII,
p. 3295
|
|
Dominican Republic –
Import and Sale
of Cigarettes
|
Appellate Body Report, Dominican
Republic – Measures Affecting the Importation and Internal Sale of Cigarettes,
WT/DS302/AB/R, adopted 19 May 2005, DSR 2005:XV, p. 7367
|
|
EC – Approval and Marketing of
Biotech Products
|
Panel Reports, European Communities –
Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products,
WT/DS291/R / WT/DS292/R / WT/DS293/R, Add.1 to Add.9, and Corr.1, adopted
21 November 2006, DSR 2006:III, p. 847
|
|
EC – Asbestos
|
Appellate Body Report, European
Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos‑Containing Products,
WT/DS135/AB/R, adopted 5 April 2001, DSR 2001:VII, p. 3243
|
|
EC – Bananas III
|
Appellate Body Report, European
Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas,
WT/DS27/AB/R, adopted 25 September 1997, DSR 1997:II,
p. 591
|
|
EC – Bananas III (Ecuador)
|
Panel Report, European Communities –
Regime for the Importation, Sale and
Distribution of Bananas, Complaint by Ecuador,
WT/DS27/R/ECU, adopted 25 September 1997, as modified by Appellate
Body Report WT/DS27/AB/R, DSR 1997:III, p. 1085
|
|
EC –
Bananas III (Guatemala and Honduras)
|
Panel Report, European Communities –
Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution
of Bananas, Complaint by Guatemala
and Honduras,
WT/DS27/R/GTM, WT/DS27/R/HND, adopted 25 September 1997, as
modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS27/AB/R, DSR 1997:II, p. 695
|
|
EC – Bananas III (Mexico)
|
Panel Report, European Communities –
Regime for the Importation, Sale and
Distribution of Bananas, Complaint by Mexico, WT/DS27/R/MEX,
adopted 25 September 1997, as modified by Appellate Body Report
WT/DS27/AB/R, DSR 1997:II, p. 803
|
|
EC – Bananas III (US)
|
Panel Report, European Communities –
Regime for the Importation, Sale and
Distribution of Bananas, Complaint by the United States,
WT/DS27/R/USA, adopted 25 September 1997, as modified by Appellate
Body Report WT/DS27/AB/R, DSR 1997:II, p. 943
|
|
EC – Chicken Cuts
|
Appellate Body Report, European
Communities – Customs Classification of Frozen
Boneless Chicken Cuts, WT/DS269/AB/R, WT/DS286/AB/R, adopted 27 September 2005,
and Corr.1, DSR 2005:XIX, p. 9157
|
|
EC –
Fasteners (China)
|
Appellate Body Report, European
Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel
Fasteners from China, WT/DS397/AB/R, adopted 28 July 2011, DSR 2011:VII, p. 3995
|
|
EC – Hormones
|
Appellate Body Report, EC
Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones),
WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, adopted 13 February 1998, DSR 1998:I,
p. 135
|
|
EC
– Hormones (Canada)
|
Panel Report, EC
Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), Complaint by Canada,
WT/DS48/R/CAN, adopted 13 February 1998, as modified by Appellate Body
Report WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, DSR 1998:II, p. 235
|
|
EC – Hormones (US)
|
Panel Report, EC Measures Concerning
Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), Complaint by the United States,
WT/DS26/R/USA, adopted 13 February 1998, as modified by Appellate Body Report
WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, DSR 1998:III, p. 699
|
|
EC – Hormones (Article 21.3(c))
|
Award of the Arbitrator, EC
Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones) – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c)
of the DSU, WT/DS26/15, WT/DS48/13, 29 May 1998,
DSR 1998:V, p. 1833
|
|
EC – IT Products
|
Panel Reports, European
Communities and its member States – Tariff Treatment of Certain Information
Technology Products, WT/DS375/R / WT/DS376/R
/ WT/DS377/R, adopted 21 September 2010, DSR 2010:III,
p. 933
|
|
EC – Sardines
|
Appellate Body Report, European
Communities – Trade Description of Sardines, WT/DS231/AB/R,
adopted 23 October 2002, DSR 2002:VIII, p. 3359
|
|
EC – Sardines
|
Panel Report, European Communities –
Trade Description of Sardines, WT/DS231/R and Corr.1, adopted 23 October 2002,
as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS231/AB/R, DSR 2002:VIII, p.
3451
|
|
EC – Seal
Products
|
Appellate Body Reports, European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the Importation and
Marketing of Seal Products, WT/DS400/AB/R / WT/DS401/AB/R, adopted
18 June 2014
|
|
EC – Seal
Products
|
Panel Reports, European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the Importation and
Marketing of Seal Products, WT/DS400/R / WT/DS401/R / and Add.1,
adopted 18 June 2014, as modified by Appellate Body Reports
WT/DS400/AB/R / WT/DS401/AB/R
|
|
EC – Selected Customs Matters
|
Appellate Body Report, European
Communities – Selected Customs Matters, WT/DS315/AB/R, adopted
11 December 2006, DSR 2006:IX, p. 3791
|
|
|