Following-up on Colin's post, I have been wondering for quite some time what the arguments were that the EU seal products ban violates EU law. The Canadian seal fur people were kind enough to point me to their pleas here:
The applicants put forward three pleas in law in support of its claims.
First, the applicants argue that the European Parliament and the Council erred in law when using Article 95 EC (currently Article 114 TFEU) as the legal basis for adopting contested regulation. In this regard, the applicants submit that established case law of the European Court of Justice confirms that measures referred to in Article 95 EC must genuinely have as their object the improvement of the conditions for the establishment and functioning of the internal market and that the mere fact that they have a bearing on its establishment is not sufficient to make Article 95 EC applicable. In the applicants ‘opinion, the contested regulation does not result in such improvement as required by the European Courts’ case law but, on the contrary, it will effectively eliminate any possibility of an internal market in seal products covered by the regulation’s scope.
Second, the applicants contend that the defendants erred in law by infringing the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality as enshrined in Article 5 TEU and further elaborated on in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. They claim that the defendants do not demonstrate why intervention at the European Union level is required. The applicants point out that only two Member States had already introduced a ban on seal products. Furthermore, they argue that, even if action at European Union level was to meet the subsidiarity requirement, less intrusive measures would have sufficed to meet the stated goals of the regulation. The applicants contest the fact that the defendants opted for a near total ban on seal products, rather than adopting less restrictive alternatives, such as labelling requirements.
Third, the applicants claim that the contested regulation unduly limits the subsistence possibilities of the applicants, relegating their economic activities to traditional hunting methods and subsistence. They contend that, despite this direct interference with their daily way of life, they have never been heard by the Council nor by the Parliament. Moreover, the applicants submit that the defendants did not weigh the interests of the Inuit Community in surviving in the Arctic against the moral convictions of some citizens in the Union and therefore violated the Article I of Protocol No I to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 8 ECHR, read in light of Articles 9 and l0 ECHR and as explained in the Court’s case law, as well as their fundamental right to be heard.
If any EU law folks out there care to explain any of this, I'm sure many people (including me!) would greatly appreciate it!
