183. The representative of Brazil said that Brazil strongly contested the legality of the EC Regulation. His delegation agreed that Article 51 and the TRIPS Agreement provided a minimum standard, but it was not an unlimited standard. Article 51 could not be interpreted as clashing with other WTO provisions such as GATT Article V. There were no exceptions in TRIPS and it was the duty of the interpreter to read those two provisions in a consistent manner. Article 51 did not provide a blank cheque for a Member to apply measures that violated other provisions of the WTO.
184. Furthermore, his delegation disagreed that it was the duty of the Dutch authorities to save lives in Brazil. That was for the Brazil to decide, which had its own authorities, its own means of conducting a laboratory analysis, and its own means of assessing whether a particular drug was substandard or not. Brazil had not delegated this responsibility to anybody else.
185. Regarding the detention or seizure of the goods, he said that his delegation did still not have enough information as the relevant authorities had not been very helpful in providing that information. Brazil had indications that the Dutch authorities had held back goods in transit ex officio even in situations where the patent holder in the Netherlands had not requested that. These goods had not yet been released. Despite the lack of information, there were clear indications that these detentions did not occur along the lines the EC delegation had claimed. He said that Brazil would pursue this issue bilaterally and within different WTO forums. The aim was to receive assurances that this type of action would not reoccur, but he said that at this point his delegation was not any more reassured than at the beginning of the meeting.
