Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v Commission (Case T-526/10), ECLI:E...

Facts

• The case addressed the legality of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009, which regulated the trade of seal products in the European Union, citing animal welfare concerns and impacts on indigenous peoples.
• The regulation imposed specific conditions for placing seal products on the EU market.
• Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and others challenged the EU’s competence to adopt the regulation and its consistency with international obligations, including those under WTO rules.
• The General Court examined whether Article 114 or Article 207 TFEU was the appropriate legal basis for the regulation and reviewed its objectives, which included internal market harmonisation, animal welfare, and external trade.

Issues

1. Whether the European Union was competent to adopt the Seal Regulation under Article 114 TFEU or Article 207 TFEU.
2. Whether the regulation’s primary purpose was the harmonisation of the internal market rather than animal welfare or trade policy.
3. Whether the "Inuit exception" sufficiently protected the rights and interests of indigenous communities.
4. Whether the regulation met the requirements of proportionality and procedural fairness in balancing the interests involved.

Decision

• The General Court determined that Article 114 TFEU was the valid legal basis, as the regulation aimed to prevent fragmentation of the internal market due to divergent national measures.
• The regulation fell within the scope of the EU’s internal market powers, notwithstanding incidental effects on international trade.
• Arguments based on Article 207 TFEU were rejected, as the main objective of the regulation was market harmonisation.
• The "Inuit exception" was found sufficient to address the interests of Inuit communities while serving the broader objectives of the regulation.
• The regulation was held to be proportionate and procedurally fair following an assessment of the relevant interests.

Legal Principles

• Article 114 TFEU authorises harmonisation measures to prevent internal market divergence caused by varying national rules.
• Internal market legislation can have incidental impacts on international trade if harmonisation is the primary goal.
• Exceptions such as the "Inuit exception" must equitably reconcile the rights of affected communities with regulatory objectives.
• The proportionality principle mandates that legal measures be suitable, necessary, and not excessive relative to their aims.
• EU law requires fair consideration of economic, environmental, and cultural interests both procedurally and substantively.

Conclusion

The General Court upheld Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009, confirming Article 114 TFEU as its correct legal basis, and held that the regulation was proportionate and fair, providing adequate protection for indigenous interests under EU law.