Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION 3521
Ⅱ. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTICIPANTS AND THE THIRD PARTICIPANTS 3537
A. Claims of the European Communities - Appellant 3537
1. Procedural Issue - Public Observation of the Oral Hearing 3537
2. Articles 23.2（a） and 21.5 of the DSU 3539
3. Article 22.8 of the DSU 3542
4. The Panel’s Terms of Reference 3545
5. The Panel’s Suggestion for Implementation 3547
6. The Panel’s Selection of Experts 3548
7. Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement 3550
8. Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement 3556
B. Arguments of the United States - Appellee 3563
1. Procedural Issue - Public Observation of the Oral Hearing 3563
2. Articles 23.2（a） and 21.5 of the DSU 3565
3. Article 22.8 of the DSU 3567
4. The Panel’s Terms of Reference 3569
5. The Panel’s Suggestion for Implementation 3570
6. The Panel’s Selection of Experts 3571
7. Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement 3572
8. Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement 3577
C. Arguments of Canada - Appellee 3580
1. Procedural Issue - Public Observation of the Oral Hearing 3580
2. Articles 23.2（a） and 21.5 of the DSU 3582
3. Article 22.8 of the DSU 3584
4. The Panel’s Terms of Reference 3585
5. The Panel’s Suggestion for Implementation 3586
6. The Panel’s Selection of Experts 3587
7. Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement 3588
8. Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement 3594
D. Claims of the United States - Other Appellant 3597
1. Alleged Discrepancies in the Panel’s Description of the Measure at Issue 3597
2. The Panel’s Findings under Article 23.1 of the DSU 3598
3. The Panel’s Findings under Article 23.2（a） of the DSU 3601
4. The Scope of the Panel’s Mandate and the Panel’s Suggestion 3602
5. Conclusion 3603
E. Claims of Canada - Other Appellant 3603
1. The Panel’s Examination of Articles 23.1 and 23.2（a） “In Isolation” from Article 22.8 of the DSU 3604
2. The Panel’s Findings under Article 23.1 of the DSU 3606
3. The Panel’s Findings under Article 23.2（a） of the DSU 3607
4. The Scope of the Panel’s Mandate and the Panel’s Suggestion 3607
5. Conclusion 3608
F. Arguments of the European Communities - Appellee 3609
1. The “Harmonious” Interpretation of Articles 21， 22， and 23 of the DSU in the Post-Suspension Stage of a Dispute 3609
2. The Panel’s Findings under Article 23.1 of the DSU 3612
3. The Panel’s Findings under Article 23.2（a） of the DSU 3613
4. The Scope of the Panel’s Mandate and the Panel’s Suggestion 3615
G. Arguments of the Third Participants 3615
1. Australia 3615
2. Brazil 3621
3. China 3624
4. India 3625
5. Mexico 3625
6. New Zealand 3625
7. Norway 3629
8. Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan， Penghu， Kinmen and Matsu 3632
Ⅲ.ISSUES RAISED IN THIS APPEAL 3632
Ⅳ. THE APPLICATION OF THE DSU IN THE POST- SUSPENSION STAGE OF A DISPUTE 3635
A. Introduction 3635
B. The Panel’s Findings 3637
1. Scope of the European Communities’ Claims 3637
2. The European Communities’ Claim that the United States and Canada Breached Article 23.2（a） of the DSU Read Together with Articles 23.1 and 21.5 3639
3. The European Communities’ Claim that the United States and Canada Breached Article 23.1 of the DSU Read Together with Articles 22.8 and 3.7 3641
4. The Panel’s Jurisdiction 3645
5. Burden of Proof 3645
6. The Panel’s Suggestion 3647
C. Claims and Arguments on Appeal 3647
1. Appeal by the European Communities 3647
2. Other Appeals by the United States and Canada 3650
3. Arguments of the Third Participants 3652
D. Cessation of the Suspension of Concessions - Article 22.8 of the DSU 3654
1. Preliminary Comments 3654
2. When Must a WTO Member Cease to Suspend Concessions Pursuant to Article 22.8 of the DSU？ 3655
3. The Panel’s Analysis Concerning Article 22.8 of the DSU 3660
4. Did the Panel Exceed Its Mandate by Addressing the Conformity of Directive 2003/74/EC with the SPS Agreement？ 3664
E. Procedural Avenues for Resolving Disagreements as to Whether the Inconsistent Measure Has Been Removed under Article 22.8 of the DSU 3670
1. What Is the Appropriate Procedural Avenue to Resolve a Disagreement as to Whether the Inconsistent Measure Has Been Removed？ 3670
2. Is the European Communities Precluded from Initiating Article 21.5 Panel Proceedings Regarding Whether Directive 2003/74/EC Has Brought It into Compliance？ 3675
F. Analysis of the Panel’s Findings of ”Procedural Violations” 3682
1. The Prohibition on Certain Unilateral Actions - Article 23 of the DSU 3683
2. The Panel’s Alleged Examination of Articles 23.2（a） and 23.1 in Isolation from the Requirements in Article 22.8 of the DSU 3686
3. Whether the Panel Erred in Finding that the United States and Canada Are “Seeking the Redress of a Violation” with Respect to Directive 2003/74/EC 3689
4. Whether the Panel Erred in Finding that the United States and Canada Made a Determination of Violation Without Recourse to the DSU， Within the Meaning of Article 23.2（a） 3693
5. Conclusion 3698
G. The Panel’s Finding that It Had No Jurisdiction to Make Findings under the SPS Agreement 3699
H. The Panel’s Suggestion 3700
Ⅴ. DUE PROCESS IN THE PANEL’S CONSULTATIONS WITH THE SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS 3701
A. The Panel’s Findings 3701
B. Claims and Arguments on Appeal 3707
C. Did the Panel Infringe the European Communities’ Due Process Rights and Fail to Make an Objective Assessment of the Matter in the Consultations with the Scientific Experts 3710
Ⅵ. THE CONSISTENCY WITH ARTICLE 5.1 OF THE SPS AGREEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES’ IMPORT BAN ON MEAT FROM CATTLE TREATED WITH OESTRADIOL-17B FOR GROWTH-PROMOTION PURPOSES 3735
A. Introduction 3735
B. The European Communities’ Risk Assessment for Meat from Cattle Treated with Oestradiol-17β 3735
C. The Panel’s Findings 3740
D. Claims and Arguments on Appeal 3748
E. The Panel’s Assessment of Directive 2003/74/EC under Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement 3753
1. General Disciplines Applicable to the Adoption of an SPS Measure 3753
2. The Panel’s Interpretation and Application of Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement 3759
3. The Panel’s Specificity Requirement 3769
4. Quantification of Risk 3773
5. Burden of Proof 3777
6. The Panel’s Articulation and Application of the Standard of Review under Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement 3782
F. Conclusion 3795
Ⅶ.THE CONSISTENCY WITH ARTICLE 5.7 OF THE SPS AGREEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES’ PROVISIONAL IMPORT BAN ON MEAT FROM CATTLE TREATED WITH TESTOSTERONE， PROGESTERONE， TRENBOLONE ACETATE， ZERANOL， AND MGA FOR GROWTH-PROMOTION PURPOSES 3796
A. Introduction 3796
B. The European Communities’ Evaluation of the Five Hormones Subject to the Provisional Ban 3797
C. The Panel’s Findings 3799
D. Claims and Arguments on Appeal 3816
E. The Panel’s Finding that the Relevant Scientific Evidence in Relation to the Five Hormones Was Not “Insufficient” Within the Meaning of Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement 3823
1. Insufficiency and the Acceptable Level of Protection 3827
2. Relevance of International Standards under Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement 3830
3. The Panel’s “Critical Mass” Standard for Determining “Insufficiency” under Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement 3834
4. The Panel’s Allocation of the Burden of Proof under Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement 3840
5. The Panel’s Application of Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement 3843
F. Conclusions 3848
Ⅷ.FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 3850