WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
ORGANISATION MONDIALE DU COMMERCE
ORGANIZACIÓN MUNDIAL DEL COMERCIOWT/TPR/M/98/Add.1
13 June 2002
(02-3302)
Trade Policy Review Body
13 and 15 May 2002
TRADE POLICY REVIEW
SLOVENIA
Minutes of Meeting
Addendum
Chairperson:  H.E. Ms. Amina Chawahir Mohamed (Kenya)
This document contains the advance written questions, and replies provided by the delegation
of Slovenia.1
__________________________________________________________________________________
Organe d'examen des politiques commerciales
13 et 15 mai 2002
EXAMEN DES POLITIQUES COMMERCIALES
SLOVENIE
Compte rendu de la réunion
Addendum
Président:  S.E. Mme. Am ina Chawahir Mohamed (Kenya)
Le présent document contient les questions écrites communiquées à l'avance et les réponses
fournies par la délégation slovène.1
__________________________________________________________________________________
Órgano de Examen de las Políticas Comerciales
13 y 15 de mayo de 2002
EXAMEN DE LAS POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES
ESLOVENIA
Acta de la reunión
Addendum
Presidente:  Excma. Sra. Ms. Am ina Chawahir Mohamed (Kenya)
En el presente documento figuran las preguntas presentadas anticipadamente por escrito,
junto con las respuestas facilitadas por la delegación de Eslovenia.1
                                                     
1 In English only./En anglais seulement./En inglés solamente.WT/TPR/M/98/Add.1
Page 3
ADVANCE WRITTEN QUESTIONS AND REPLIES PROVIDED BY THE DELEGATION
OF SLOVENIA
I. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
(1) Macroeconomic and structural situation
Question posed by United States of America (Report by the Government of Slovenia):
Obligated spending accounts for about 80% of the Slovenian budget, with public wages
and pensions accounting for the two largest pieces of this budget. If these expenditures continue
to expand, inflation will be hard to overcome. How does the Government of Slovenia plan to
meet its inflation target of 6.4% for 2002? More specifically, how does it plan to overcomepublic sector wage pressure, and what steps will the Ministry of Labour take toward pension
reform? What measures does the government plan to take to lower government spending and
make it more effective?
Reply:
The revised inflation target for 2002 is 6.9%, due to high price growth in the first quarter of
this year (3.2%). There is a considerably lively discussion on the causes and remedies regarding
inflation in the Government and between it and the private sector. Therefore, there is a sense of
importance of controlling and reducing the rate of inflation with appropriate measures.
The Government announced a package of measures to curb inflation, public spending and reduce
wage pressures in the public sector.
There is a newly adopted Law on wages in the public sector. The basic aim of which is to
achieve limited growth or 0% growth in wages (i n state administration) and channel benefits into
retirement schemes. Other measures include the abolishment of indexation mechanisms on
transactions of less than one year, measures in the area of controlled prices, especially regardingpublic services.
On the other hand, the rate of inflation is sensitive to external price growth, especially
regarding the prices of energy.
In 2002-2003 Slovenia envisages a restrictive wage and employment policy in the public
sector and has adopted laws on the reform of the state administration.
Pension and disability benefits reform was already fully in place in 1999. The main novelty is
the introduction of voluntary and employer support ed supplementary retirement schemes, based on
long-term asset growth.
The Government is developing a medium term plan to reform the structure of budgetary
spending in the next 4 years, to reduce debt and debt servicing, to sell state holdings, to delegate
government-public functions to the private sector and introduce autonomous financing by the privatesector, to increase the efficiency, especially, in the administration of state-aid, investment, public
services.WT/TPR/M/98/Add.1
Page 4
(2) Investment regime and incentives
Question posed by Norway:
The Secretariat’s report mentions, under “Developments in the Foreign Investment
Regime”, that even though there have been substantial changes that improve the framework for
foreign direct investments in Slovenia there st ill are procedures that hinder investment from
abroad. We note that the government is in the process of dealing with this issues but would
appreciate an overview of which measures the government is planning to reduce the number of
bureaucratic obstacles.
Reply:
Administrative hindrances to foreign investment have been systematically dealt with since
April 2001 within a government appointed task force with a mandate to simplify the relevant
administrative procedures and abolish redundant requirements.
The range of issues addressed by the government in order to create a friendlier environment
for investors is related to the establishment of a company, business operations carried-out by a sole
proprietor, commercial property development, expa triate work permits, and employment relations.
The key achievements thus far are:
− abolition of the Business Activity Permit as a requirement;
− reduction of time for the registration of a company from 3 months to 1 month;
− reduction of administrative fees by 50%;
− simplified procedures for sole proprietorships;
− simplification procedures for building permits;
− more favourable treatment of applicants for work permits in cases of corporate
transferees.
Further activities to reduce the administrative burden in facilitating investment are focusing
on:
− "one stop" approach for the registration of companies;
− reduction of unnecessary paper-work for companies via the "e-delivery" system of
obtaining and presentation of documents;
− reorganisation of the Tax Administration, introduction of electronically supported
processing methods;
− simplification of procedures regarding the acquirement of residential permits;
− preparation of new legislation regarding the recognition of qualifications;
− enforcement of the new Law on Employment, adopted in April 2002 (the Law will
enter into force on 1 January 2003).
Question posed by Switzerland:
The report of the Secretariat states that Slov enia offers a package of financial incentives
to investors, which include direct financial assistance and tax incentives. The government also
aims to reduce administrative barriers to investment in order to attract new foreign investors in
Slovenia. Recent statistics shows that 2001 was a record year for foreign direct investment inWT/TPR/M/98/Add.1
Page 5
Slovenia: how do assess the recent increase of foreign direct investment in Slovenia and how do
you evaluate so far the impact of the pack age of incentives on the investment volume?
Reply:
The growth in inward foreign direct investment in 2001 was primarily associated with the
post-privatisation acquisitions in the field of fi nancial services and investments in the field of
telecommunications. More acquisitions are expected to follow in the course of 2002. A revived
interest of foreign investors in equity holdings in Slovenian companies was spurred by the
Government's commitment to speed-up privatisation in the financial sector. The impact of the
investment incentives package on the increase in FDI in 2001 cannot be assessed yet, since it was
introduced in the middle of the year. However, the two greenfield investors who already applied for
the incentive package were both approved, and are in the process of setting up their business facilities.
It was the clear message of the Government to the business community through its
Programme to Attract FDI in 2001 to 2004 that has arous ed a widespread interest of foreign investors
in Slovenia as a site to be considered. In the language of figures, we can see that the Slovenian Tradeand Investment Promotion Agency (TIPO) proces sed some fifty new enquiries in 2000. In 2001 this
figure doubled, and in the first quarter of 2002 it soared to 180 requests for information relating to all
aspects of FDI.
(3) Privatisation
Question posed by United States of America (Report by the Government of Slovenia ):
The process of privatisation has been slow, but has speeded up lately. What are the
prospects for more privatisation in 2002 and 2003?
Reply:
The Government programme for promotion of FDI include a commitment to attract greater
levels of foreign participation in privatisation process, including in the principal privatisation
envisaged for the next two years: banks and public utilities.
(4) Multilateral and regional issues
Question posed by European Union:
Slovenia has concluded FTA’s with various countries. All these agreements contain
provisions on government procurement. Could Slovenia please inform about the contents of
these provisions regarding government procurement? Which countries are granted access togovernment procurement tenders in Slovenia under these agreements?
Reply:
The provisions in the FTAs concluded by Slovenia, concerning government procurement,
contain the following (typical) stipulations:
1. The Parties consider the liberalisation of their respective public procurement markets
as an objective of (the) Agreement.WT/TPR/M/98/Add.1
Page 6
2. The parties shall progressively develop their respective regulations for public
procurement with a view to grant suppliers of the other Party, (after the end of an agreedtransition period), at the latest, access to public procurement markets on the basis of non-
discrimination and reciprocity.
The following countries have been granted such access: EU countries (15), EFTA countries
(4), CEFTA countries (6), Baltic countries (3), Turkey, Israel, Croatia, Macedonia and Bosnia andHerzegovina.
Question posed by United States of America ( Report by the Government of Slovenia ):
Slovenian government statistics indicate that Slovenia's bilateral trade with Austria,
Finland and Sweden has declined. Is this true, or is trade with these countries now included in
trade statistics for the EU as a whole?
Reply:
The paragraph in question needs clarification since it may be misleading as it is referring to
the total volume of trade with EFTA countries and not to bilateral trade with Austria, Finland and
Sweden, respectively.  Statistics of trade with Austria, Finland and Sweden are followed separately as
well as jointly with other trade statistics for the EU. Two-way trade with the above-mentioned
countries has been growing steadily ever since they have become member states of the EU.
(5) Accession to the EU
Question posed by United States of America:
How will Slovenia's existing bilateral investment treaties be affected if Slovenia accedes
to the European Union?
Reply:
Slovenia has concluded a number of bilateral agreements for the protection of investments in
a more or less standard form, which relate to the so called post-establishment phases of investment
and they all contain the REIO clauses. For this reason they are not in conflict with the acquis
communautaire and will remain in force after Slovenia's membership in the EU.
II. TRADE POLICIES AND MEASURES
(1) Tariffs
Question posed by Japan:
The Report states that there is a relatively large gap between bound and applied MFN
rates in non-agricultural products: the difference between them in 2001 being at 13.8
percentage points. Japan requests Slovenia to further reduce the bound rates in the market
access negotiations. Please provide Slovenia’s view in this respect.WT/TPR/M/98/Add.1
Page 7
Reply:
The practice shows that Slovenia has so far not increased MFN tariffs for non-agricultural
products, demonstrating that the tariff system is both stable and predictable. Nevertheless, Slovenia is
prepared to take part in the negotiations on market access in non-agricultural products, once an
agreement has been reached in the WTO on the modalities of these negotiations.
Question posed by Korea:
Since its conclusion of a Temporary Agre ement with the EU in 1996, Slovenia has
maintained differential tariff regimes for EU products versus products from other countries. In
particular, there is a 15 % of tariff rate imposed on automobiles and colour TV for non-EUcountries while EU products enjoy zero tariffs. Does Slovenia have any plan to correct these
differential treatments?
Reply:
The differences in tariffs for the above products result from the Europe Agreement which
again is in full compliance with Article XXIV of the GATT 1994.
Question posed by United States of America:
The Secretariat's report indicates that Slovenia in 1999 adopted a plan to align its tariffs
with the EU's MFN rates. Does this plan include a staged reduction of tariffs to EU rates, and
where can interested parties obtain a copy of the phase-down plan? When does Slovenia expect
to join the European Union?
Reply:
The target date for accession to the EU, set by Slovenia, was previously seen as 1 January
2002. Since that date has been readjusted to 1 January 2004, the plan to align Slovenia's tariffs with
the EU's MFN rates has been also readjusted accordingly.
(2) Customs administration
Question posed by United States of America:
It appears that Slovenia has done a lot to improve its customs administration and
facilitate trade. In this connection Slovenia ha s instituted “simplified customs procedures” for
“authorized traders” only. Please describe th ese simplified procedures and comment on the
criteria for being deemed an authorised trader.
Reply:
According to the basic customs legislation, the customs authorities may grant permission to
simplify the process of completion of the required formalities, stating at the same time the necessary
conditions that need to be complied with.  The permission may be granted to any person eligible and
qualified to deal with customs matters, if they fulfil certain requirements, i.e. “approved exporters”.
Therefore, this is not a matter of privilege, rather a matter of confidence.  The simplified procedures
(which are used on a trial basis) enable a quicker  movement of goods through customs, reduction of
costs to operators, and a reduction of administrative work for the customs authorities.WT/TPR/M/98/Add.1
Page 8
The provision on simplification regarding the customs declaration is laid down in Article 59
of the Customs Act.
Question posed by United States of America:
Regarding the importation of equipment used for production into designated free-trade
zone, paragraph 24 notes that such equipment may be imported without restriction and duty-free so long as it remains in the designated zone . However, the paragraph goes on to say that the
provision relating to imports of equipment into  the economic zones was abolished on January 1,
2002. What specific provisions have been abolishe d? Does this mean that equipment imported
for production within a zone is now dutiable and subject to the VAT and other taxes? Please
explain. Also, are VAT taxes rebated for domestic ally produced equipment that is brought into
free-trade zones for production proposes?
Reply:
Until 1 January 2002, the Law on Economic Zones contained a provision exempting
equipment imported into the economic zone from payment of import duties. This provision did not
make allowances for the payment of value added tax (VAT).
The VAT Act including the provisions on “the right to deduct input VAT” applies to all
equipment imported from abroad as well as to equipment bought in the rest of Slovenian customs
territory.
(3) Trade remedy measures
Question posed by Japan:
The Report states that the Decree on Safeguard (SG) Measures does not apply to
products imported under FTAs. Does this mean that import from all FTAs to which Slovenia isa member are excluded from SG measures? Please cite all FTAs the imports from which is
excluded by virtue of the provision in the Decree. Is this situation an obligation imposed by
Slovenia, as prescribed in the FTA’s , or rather, is it simply a right of Slovenia to decide upon its
application on a case-by-case basis? When Slovenia carries out an investigation on the
application of safeguards, are the import from each FTA country also taken into account?
Reply:
Yes, Slovenia can confirm that the countries with which it signed the FTAs, safeguard
measures are excluded by virtue of the fact that the agreements themselves contain SG clauses and byvirtue of the Article XXIV:8(b) provision of the GATT 1994.
Slovenia has not introduced any safeguard measures. Therefore, it has no experience in the
implementation of its legislation in this area.
(4) Import licensing regime
Question posed by Hong Kong, China:
We note that Slovenia applies non-automatic licensing requirements to certain products
and is preparing a new and full notification on these requirements to the WTO. We welcome theWT/TPR/M/98/Add.1
Page 9
efforts of Slovenia in enhancing transparency of its import regime and are interested to know
the progress of the preparation.
Reply:
The full notification under Article 7.3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures is in
its final stage of preparation. The notification will be submitted to the Secretariat in a matter of the
next few weeks.
(5) Government procurement
Question posed by Switzerland:
With interest we have taken note of the new Public Procurement Act of April 2000 in
order to align the domestic government procurement legislative framework with EU Directives
and to the WTO Government Procurement Agr eement (GPA). How do you assess so far the
impact of the new Act and work of the Public  Procurement Office (which was created in the
Spring of 2001) with regard to the increase of tran sparency and liberalisation in the awarding of
public procurement contracts, particularly in the transport sector? Has Slovenia the intention
to become a signatory of the GPA in the next future?
Reply:
The Public Procurement Act that came into force in December 2000 has contributed to an
enhanced transparency and competitiveness of the overall public procurement system regardless ofany sector. However, precisely, because the system has been tested in practice, and some experience
has been achieved, the system requires some improvements and streamlining. Therefore, there are
certain amendments to the present Act which are under preparation. The amendments are intended to
provide clarifications to specific provisions of the Act, elimination of contradictory provisions, and
delineation  of award procedures with respect to the values of contracts. Simplification of proceduresis envisioned for contracts of lower values.
The awards of contracts in certain instances, beyond the thresholds of EU directives, have
demonstrated the need for specific regulation in or der to ensure transparent procurement, when there
is a lack of competition on the bidding side.
The Public Procurement Office's prime responsibility is to function in the context of greater
transparency of the public procurement system and monitor the proper application of the Act. Among
the general functions, among the Office's tasks are the issuance of guidelines, specific opinions and an
advisory and information role in relation to entities and potential bidders.  Furthermore, the Officereceives reports from entities on awarded contracts. The Office's function is also to increase the
awareness of the rules and principles of the public procurement system within the government
administration at various levels as well as in the private sector.
The Slovene transport sector has been in most part liberalised, including some semi-
monopoly segments that are open to entrants by competitive bidding for licences and concessions.
National highways and railways as well as city tr ansport remain in state ownership and ownership of
local communities (municipalities) but are undergoing privatisation. The Public Procurement Act will
remain relevant to the extent of relevant legislation provides for confer of exclusive rights.WT/TPR/M/98/Add.1
Page 10
The priority of Slovenia is to fully harmonise its legislation with the relevant EU directives
and the Government Procurement Agreement in the WTO in the process of its eventual accession tothat Agreement.
Question posed by European Union:
Is the “National Review Commission” (NRC) operational? Could Slovenia please
provide some more details about the composition and nomination of its members, competencies,
independence and functioning? What measures is the NRC allowed to adopt in case of
infringement of Public Procurement provisions? Do these measures include provisional
suspension of the tendering process? What is the relationship between the NRC and the Public
Procurement Office? Could Slovenia please also explain in detail the notification mechanismfrom the Public Procurement Office to the NCR in case of infringement by contractors? And if
means of recourse exist against these decisions?
Reply:
The National Review Commission has been operational for three years.  The Review of
Public Procurement Procedures Act defines its composition, its competence, the manner in which it is
appointed, and the procedural aspects of its work. The Commission is appointed by the Parliament
and is accountable to it. Members are appointed on the basis of professional merits. The president of
the Commission must fulfil the requirements for court judge. The Commission is functionally
independent.
The NRC is authorised to take decisions in ma tters of compliance with the Law in contract
award procedures and to review tender document ation and submissions and their compatibility with
the tender conditions and requirements.  The Commission performs on the basis of written
submissions and documentation, and depositions and may make on-site inspections of  relevant
documents. Then Commission may suspend the tendering proceedings and may order corrections, ofthe tender documents as well as the cancellation of the proceedings.
The Law requires prior conciliation between entities and tenders before a review procedure
can be initiated before the Commission, and only if such a conciliation attempt  has failed.
Decisions of the National Review Commissi on are binding for entities; non-compliance is
subject to fines. The Commission is obliged to report alleged offences and felonies to the proper
authorities.
The Public Procurement Office and the National Review Commission are two different
bodies belonging to different branches of the state administration. The former reports to the
Government and the latter to the Parliament.  The PP Office is authorised to report to the NRC on
cases of infringements of the law, but this requirement has not been practised so far.  The planned
amendments to the Law are also going to address the question of relations between the two bodies and
clarify them, in order to avoid conflicts of interest.
(6) Export subsidies
Question posed by United States of America:
In previous years Slovenia has notified support for export subsidies, can you please
indicate whether or not these subsidies still exist in the form of grants and interest subsidies?WT/TPR/M/98/Add.1
Page 11
Reply:
Slovenia does not provide export subsidies. Therefore, Slovenia did not notify any export
subsidies in the previous years.
(7) Intellectual property rights
Question posed by Japan:
According to the Report, Slovenia has co ncluded an agreement with the European
Union on patent extension, which provides that once a patent is filed in the EU, it is
automatically extended to Slovenia and vice versa. In this regard, we ask Slovenia to provide us
with explicit details of this agreement. What is the difference between this agreement and theEuropean Patent Organisation?
Reply:
There is obviously an error in this part of the Report. Slovenia did not conclude an agreement
on patent extension with the European Union but only with the European Patent Organisation.
Slovenia is an observer to the European Patent Organisation. The Agreement with this organisation
provides that once a European patent application is filed, an extension to Slovenia could be requested.
Act on the ratification of European Patent Convention is already in governmental procedure.
It is expected that it would be submitted to the Parliament in June this year.
III. SECTORAL POLICIES AND MEASURES
(1) Agriculture
Slovenian views on the future developments of CAP
Slovenia is of course closely watching the current preparations for the mid – term review of
CAP that is bound to happen next month. No essential changes are expected to take place in the
immediate future because the real shifts can only be a result of the current WTO negotiations. The
enlargement of the EU can also be used as a good argument to the more conservative member
countries that the financial constraints simply do not allow CAP to be carried out in the existing form.
So what do we expect in the short term? Some Common Market Organisations like CMO in
rye and beef sector can be improved. No substantial changes will probably happen in the field of
sugar and milk, with the exception of direct paym ents to be introduced on grassland. Obligatory
modulation in the form of shifting the funds from th e direct payments of the first pillar to the rural
development and agri – environmental measures of the second pillar seems to be almost certain. Thisso called Robin Hood approach can only be successf ully implemented in the countries with a large
share of big farms. At present it is used only in a limited number of countries.
Slovenia tries to anticipate this very probable development of CAP by allocating some 40%
of agricultural subsidies to the agri – environmental and rural development measures. In this respectwe are not lagging far behind the leading countries where that ratio is around 45%. When we take EU
as a whole, only 10% of agricultural subsidies are spent on the second pillar measures.WT/TPR/M/98/Add.1
Page 12
Predicting the future developments of CAP is a real job for the soothsayers since U.S.A.
revealed its plans to increase the agricultural envelope by some 70% or so.  That could significantlyslow down the pace of CAP reform in Europe to say the least. Some of the measures used by the
U.S.A. can find its echo also in future CAP measures.
Income safety net based on insurance premiums for counter - cyclical  movements can be a
very appealing weapon in the armoury of future agri cultural subsidies in the U.S.A. as well as on the
old continent. Especially so if it could be sold as a “Green Box” measure.
Question posed by Japan:
The Report states that the Government in troduced the system of direct payments to
farmers for all major crops (i.e. area payments per surface unit, generally hectares). In Japan’s
view, such system appears to come under the “a mber box” classification. However, the Report
goes on to say “Slovenia notified, for the first ti me, to the WTO its “blue box” measures as well
as a strong increase in “green box” measures”. Bearing this in mind, does Slovenia consider the
above direct payments to be “blue box” or “green box” measures? If so, please provide thereason for such classification in concrete terms. For example, do these direct payments
correspond to Article 6.5(a) of the Agricultural Agreement? If so, why? Or rather, do they
correspond to the so-called “decoupled income support”, as described in paragraph 6 of Annex
2 of the Agricultural Agreement?
Reply:
"Blue box" measures
Within the last few years Slovenia has completely abolished a system of administratively
fixed prices for all agricultural produce as well as state monopoly on wheat. A result was a steep
decrease of agricultural prices that threatened to de crease the farmers` income. In order to compensate
the farmers for the potential loss of income, direct payments were introduced as the main measures of
our agricultural reform that started in the year 1999 and than on the full scale in the year 2000.
Slovenia has adopted production-limiting programmes with regard to the direct area payments
and the direct headage payments under Article 6.5(ii) of the Agreement on Agriculture. Usage of theland is registered on the basis of orto-photo system. Agricultural land register and Animal register
have been established. There is a 100% administrative control of all applications as well as 10% on
spot control in case of animal premium and 5% on spot control in case of area based direct payments.
Additional criterion in case of headage based paymen ts, namely that the livestock density of not more
than 2 livestock units per hectare (cross-compliance), is to be observed. Payments and administrativecontrol are carried out by a paying agency that operates a special integrated administrative control
system (IACS). On the spot control is delegated to  the Inspectorate for agriculture, forestry, hunting
and fisheries.
Producers and producer organisations were informed about the production limiting
programmes in question in the Decree on the implementation of financial interventions for the
preservation and development of agriculture and food production (OJ RS 27/2000).
Requirement that payments are made on 85% of the base level of production are ensured by
producer organisations, paying agency and inspectorate that carries out the so called on the spot
control as to the actual state of play of the data provided in the applications.WT/TPR/M/98/Add.1
Page 13
Base level of production is determined on the basis of the available statistical data on the
arable crops production and usage of the land in hectares for the area based payments. The respectiveyear was 1991.
As to the animal headage premium  the available statistical data come from the year 1993.
"Green box" measures
Direct payments within national agri-environmental programme comply with the Annex 2,
paragraph 12 (b) on the basis of the criteria set out in the provisions of the Decree on the
implementation of financial interventions for the preservation and development of agriculture and
food production (OJ RS 27/2000). Payments for the agri-environmental programme are limited inscope and value in order to cover the extra costs or loss of income because of smaller yields and
additional work. Basic calculations related to the elig ibility of extra costs or loss of income has been
done on the basis of the Guideline to the Good Management Praxis (OJ SRS 29/86).
Payments for the agri-environmental programme are subject to the conclusion of the 5-year
obligation for farming according to the provisions of the Decree on the implementation of financial
interventions for the preservation and development of agriculture and food production
(OJ RS 27/2000). Contract stipulates the fulfilment of the special conditions (like Good Agricultural
Practice Code) in order to qualify for the agri-environmental programme set out in the quoted decree.
Question posed by Japan:
In paragraph 2 of the Report, it is stated th at the agricultural exports to the EU in 2000
decreased to USD 70 million, while imports from the EU amounted to USD 350 million. Does
this mean that Slovenia is increasingly relying on  imported agricultural products? Does not this
tendency affect Slovenia’s food security?
Reply:
For the last few years there is more or less constant ratio of 2 : 1 of the value of imported
agricultural products versus exported agricultural products. It is true that the value of our agricultural
exports to EU decreased last year by 15,9%. On the other hand we managed to increase the export tothe republics of former Yugoslavia by 17,4%.
The shift in the structure of imports and exports of agricultural products does not affect
Slovenia's food security as the exports of agricultural products increased on the aggregate level by
5,4%, while the imports increased by 3,3% in the year 2001.
Question posed by Japan:
According to the Report, while output declin ed for both crop and livestock production
in 1992 and 1993, the production started to recov er as from 1994, and such recovery benefited
from growing amounts of Government subsidies. In this regard, we note that, in Table III.4, the
state aid for agriculture and fisheries increased from 17.2 billion SIT in 1998 to 38.3 billion SIT
in 2000. Do such Government subsidies not create too much of a burden on Slovenia’s budget?WT/TPR/M/98/Add.1
Page 14
Reply:
Slovenia considers that the increase of agricultural budgetary envelope is a price to pay in
order to align its agricultural policy measures with the Common agricultural policy of the EU.
Question posed by Uruguay:
Could Slovenia comment on paragraph 16 of the Summary Observations of the
Secretariat Report that states that: “While Slov enia’s sectoral policies have moved towards
greater market orientation, the level of gov ernment assistance in agriculture has been
increasing. The share of agriculture to GDP has been decreasing over the last few years (from
5% a decade ago to around 3% in 2000), but there has been an increase in budgetary allocationsto the sector. Recent OECD calculations indica te that the average producer support estimate
(PSE) in Slovenia is higher than the OECD average and similar to that of the EU. The
agriculture sector, comprising a large proportion of small farms located in mountainous areas,
is also shielded from international competition by a combination of specific border measures
(high tariffs and relatively restrictive tariff quotas)”?
Reply:
It is true that the share of agriculture in the GDP has been decreasing over the period of last
few years but on the other hand it is also true that agriculture has been playing significant
multifunctional role in the society. Different countries give different weights and priorities to a wide
range of individual non-trade concerns. They play a very specific role in  agriculture, which is amongothers also a provider of public goods that can not be necessarily sold on the free market.
Strengthening of economic power of rural areas, environmental protection, food safety, supply of
good quality food, cultural heritage and preserving the population in the countryside are just some of
the roles entrusted to agriculture.
Almost 60% of our population live in the rural areas. Besides rural development measures as
we implement them are extremely important in orde r to cope with the growing natural afforestation
which is extended on some 56% of the total territory of Slovenia.
The importance of this  issue can best be seen from the fact that we spend some 40% of our
agricultural subsidies for the rural development measures and the plan for the next year is to go up to
55%. It is needless to say that all rural development measures qualify as the “Green Box” measures
according to the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.
Another reason for having producer support estimate (PSE) on a relatively high level is due to
the fact that have been decreasing the level of agricultural prices and at the same time we had to offset
the loss of farmers` income by introducing area and headage based direct payments.
Question posed by Brazil:
According to the Secretariat Report (pgs 36 and 37) the Slovenian tariff structure is
characterised by tariff escalation. We would be interested in knowing Slovenia’s intentions and
plans with regard to this issu e in the current WTO negotiatio ns. We encourage Slovenia to
further reduce the gap between applied and bound tariffs in the current negotiations.WT/TPR/M/98/Add.1
Page 15
Reply:
The rationale behind this gap is that the countries have more space for manoeuvre and they
need not take so many actions by introducing general and special safeguard measures. The practice
shows that indeed Slovenia does not take any safeguard measures in the field of agriculture. Our
position in this respect is to support the reduction of the tariff rates from the bound level as it was a
case in the Uruguay round.
Question posed by Brazil:
What are Slovenia’s plans with regard to its specific duties and mixed tariffs in the
current negotiations. We encourage Slovenia to convert them to ad valorem  tariffs.
Reply:
For the time being we do not intend to convert our specific duties to the ad valorem  tariffs.
This issue could be addressed in the ongoing WTO negotiations. The final result depends upon theoutcome of negotiations in this very field.
Questions posed by Brazil:
The Secretariat report points out that Slovenia’s PSE (product support estimate) is
higher than the OECD average. We further note that amount of agricultural state support has
increased consistently between 1998 and 2000. We would be interested in knowing how Sloveniaplan to position itself with regard to these i ssues in the current WTO agriculture negotiations.
Reply:
Question on PSE is roughly the same as Uruguay’s. A common answer is provided to this
question.
Questions posed by Brazil:
We are interested in more detailed informat ion on the impact that  the incorporation of
the “ acquis communautaire ” will have on Slovenia’s tariffs and tariff quota regimes
(particularly as regards agricultural products).
Reply:
The impact of acquis communautaire  on Slovenian agriculture is self evident. We intend to
take up the whole acquis upon accession which means among others that the customs tariff and tariff
quota regime will be the same as for all other EU member countries.
Questions posed by Brazil:
We would be interested in more detailed information in the light of paragraphs 31 to 34
of the Secretariat report, on the functioning of Slovenia’s tariff quotas and non-automatic
import licensing system as regards agricultural products. If possible we would request that a
copy of the relevant legislation currently in force be attached to the answers or that the website
(internet) address be provided for accessing that legislation.WT/TPR/M/98/Add.1
Page 16
Reply:
This answer is valid also for the similar question put by Slovak Republic. This year Slovenia
introduced an improved system of tariff rate quota allocations. For the majority of agricultural
products the “first come first served” system is used. Quotas for more sensitive goods like dairy
products, meat, wheat, some fruits and vegetable as well as wine are allocated according the
auctioning system that is recommended in the econom ic theory as the most transparent and the most
objective one. The first results that we have this year can be said to be quite encouraging ones.
Relevant regulation is at the time being available only in Slovenian language.
Questions posed by Brazil:
The Secretariat report points out that Slovenia’s RTA’s have resulted in a number of
tariff quotas, particularly as regards agricultural products. We would like to know how these
tariff quotas apply to coffee (grain)?
Reply:
Slovenia does not apply any tariff rate quota on coffee. The customs duty on raw coffee is 2%
only.
Answer to Kenya and India on our commitments towards developing countries:
Slovenia will most probably become a memb er of EU before the end of a new WTO round.
All EU commitments regarding the special and differ ential treatment for the developing countries will
be valid for our country as well.
(2) Manufacturing
Question posed by United States of America:
Can you please specify as to what ailing industries benefit from higher than average
tariff protection?
Reply:
Applied tariff rates are not specifically aiming at protecting “ailing” industries. They are the
result of historical developments and the actual structure of Slovenian manufacturing and trade.
Furthermore, Slovenia has never raised tariffs for these specific industries or introduced safeguard
measures in order to protect them. The restructuring of selected industries is supported by otherinstruments.
Question posed by United States of America:
In previous years Slovenia has notified subsidy programs that support manufacturing
sectors and services. Can Slovenia please indicate whether these programs still exist and in what
form the subsidy is made?WT/TPR/M/98/Add.1
Page 17
Reply:
The state-aid programmes still in force are determined by specific legislation and by the Law
on State Aid, the annual Law on the Execution of the Budget and other legislation. The programmes
that were in force in 2001 were:
− assistance to the steel industries, supporting a restructuring programme with a phase-
out plan;
− support for public passenger and combined tr ansport operations (described further in
the replies);
− restructuring programmes for the leather-processing, footwear and textile industries;
− programme for the enhancement of entrepreneurship and competitiveness (new
programme established in 2001);
− development of small business enterprises (this programme was incorporated into the
above programme in 2001);
− support programme for the development of the tourist industry;
− employment-related programmes;
− support programmes in the area of research and development;
− regional development programme;
− support programmes for the introduction of environmentally friendly technologies.
The various forms of state-aid are mainly grants attached to specific policy objectives, in
exceptional cases government loan guarantees can be provided, or additional capital investment, low
interest loans for specific cases of support.
The year 2001 has seen a considerable reductions in the value and scope of government
support schemes, compared to the year 2000, both in manufacturing and services. New programmes
involve support for line passenger bus services and the programme for the enhancement of
entrepreneurship and competitiveness.  Support pr ogrammes for the steel industry, for example, have
dropped by almost 30% in 2001, compared to the year 2000.
(3) Financial services
Question posed by Japan:
Slovenia has been pursuing liberalisation in the insurance sector. In this respect, does
Slovenia have any plan to liberalise the servic es in mode 1 regarding insurance for maritime
shipping, commercial aviation, space launching and freight (including satellites)?
Reply:
Slovenia will consider further liberalisation in the insurance sector in the ongoing GATS
negotiations framework.
Question posed by United States of America:
Mention is made of the financial crisis of 1992 and how it led to restrictions of foreign
presence aimed at restoring the “safety and soundness of the system” in spite of possiblereduced competition. Since 1999-2000, the focus is  reported to have returned to increasing
competition and foreign presence. Please provide details of how this increased competition andWT/TPR/M/98/Add.1
Page 18
foreign presence is being achieved, making a relati ve comparison to the level of competition and
foreign presence achieved  previous to the financial crisis of 1992 and the level of competition
and foreign presence in Slovenia at present. For instance, what kind of capital account
liberalisation has been made, and what additional reforms have been passed and implemented,
or remain in the planning stages? Regarding pl anned reforms, is there a timetable attached to
them that trading partners may use to fo llow the progress of reforms in Slovenia?
Reply:
What is called the “1992 financial crisis” was in fact not a specific financial crisis. Slovenia
broke off from the previous system inheriting a legacy of high inflation and other imbalances, that is
why the first period of independence focused on securing the internal stability of a fragile newlyemerging financial system. Therefore, Slovenia need ed to safeguard against external financial shocks.
After this first phase of achieving stability, the gradual liberalisation has started. The major
breakthrough occasioned with the adoption of the Law on Foreign Exchange in 1999.
Upon the adoption of the Foreign Exchange Law and other regulations by the Government of
Slovenia as well regulations of the Bank of Slovenia, between 1999 and 2001 almost all controls of
capital flow have been abolished.
Regulations have fully liberalised foreign direct investments, foreign credit transactions,
personal capital transfers, most security transactions of residents and non-residents. Some remaining
measures concerning short-term capital transactions will be phased-out.
The Bank of Slovenia adopted a time-table for the abolishment of all the control measures.The only remaining restriction in the area of capital flow is in the competency of the Bank of
Slovenia, and that is the question of possession of bank accounts in foreign countries by permanentresidents of Slovenia. The Foreign Exchange Law is to be additionally amended to abolish further
technical control in trading with securities.
Question posed by United States of America:
What are the “specialised institutions” and what public functions do they carry out?
Reply:
The specialised institutions referred to in the text are the Slovene Export Corporation, the
Nuclear Pool and the Slovenian Capital Company.
The Slovene Export Corporation is an export cr edit agency, established in 1992 as a special
private law financial institution for insurance and fi nancing of exports, in accordance with the special
Law on Export insurance and Finance Corporation of Slovenia.  The majority shareholder of theSlovene Export Company is the Republic of Slovenia. Activities that it performs in wider interest and
for the account of the state are: export credit insurance against non-commercial risks, investments’
insurance against non-commercial risks, medium-term export credits insurance against commercial
risks, short-term export credits’ insurance against commercial (non-marketable) risks in non-OECD
countries, insurance against exchange rate risks.WT/TPR/M/98/Add.1
Page 19
Slovenian Capital Company is a joint-stock company whose sole founder is the Republic of
Slovenia. It has been established on the basis of the Pension and Disability Insurance act  with a viewto assure additional funds to finance the transition toward the funded pension and disability insurance
system.
The Slovenian Nuclear Pool has been operating as a commercial interest association since
1994 and links all of the major Slovenian insurance companies and two reinsurance companies with aview to assure additional safety of the Krško nuclear power plant (NPPK). The Nuclear Pool insured
NPPK against fire (Material Damage – MD), M achinery Breakdown (MBD) and third-party liability
(TPL). MD and MBD, including the nuclear risk, was provided by the Slovenian and Croatian pools
in equal proportions, while the Slovenian pool covers liability insurance.
Question posed by United States of America:
Please clarify how “commercial presence (being) required to offer insurance in
Slovenia” accords with Slovenia’s existing GATS commitments which include Mode 1 supply
for marine, aviation and transport insurance.
Reply:
In practice Slovenia fully applies Mode 1 for marine and aviation insurance as well as for
transports in transit.
Question posed by United States of America:
Please clarify whether the insurance supervision body is an independent body. The
information seems to suggest that it reports to Parliament.
Reply:
It is fully independent from the Government and reports directly to the Parliament.
Question posed by United States of America:
Can 100 percent foreign-owned subsidiaries or joint ventures provide third-party auto
liability insurance?
Reply:
Yes, according to the Third party-motor liabi lity Act from 1994, third party motor liability
insurance can be carried by an insurance company that is irrespective of ownership registered in the
Republic of Slovenia.
Question posed by United States of America:
Does Slovenia have any legal barriers that limit Mode 1 supply of reinsurance,
insurance intermediation or serv ices auxiliary to insurance? We would anticipate that Slovenia
could bind a wider range of cross-border supply.WT/TPR/M/98/Add.1
Page 20
Reply:
Cross-border supply (Mode 1) of the referred services is not allowed. A  foreign insurance
agency or insurance brokerage company may perform activities related to insurance agency or
insurance brokerage only through a branch. In order to establish a branch, an authorisation by the
Insurance Supervision Agency is required. The same holds for the reinsurance business.
Conditions for provision of services auxiliary to insurance remain the same as those
scheduled in the GATS commitments. Provision of consultancy and claims settlement services is
conditioned with the incorporation as a legal entity and the consent of the Bureau of insurance is
required. For actuaries and risk assessment activities provision of services is possible only through
professional establishment.
Slovenia would consider further liberalisation in the context of ongoing GATS negotiations.
Question posed by United States of America:
Regarding Mode 3 supply, can Slovenia confirm that the changes implemented through
the Insurance act of 2000 mean that foreign suppliers (for life, non-life, reinsurance) now have
the right to choose their form of commercial pr esence – 100 percent subsidiary, joint-venture or
branch?
Reply:
Yes.
Question posed by United States of America:
Do any limitations exist for branching? How are branches regulated under the
Insurance Act - do any capital requirements apply?
Reply:
Foreign insurance company may perform insurance business in the Republic of Slovenia by a
branch, which has received an authorisation by the Insurance Supervision Agency. Art. 97 of the
Insurance Act stipulates the conditions, which a br anch of a foreign insurance company must fulfil.
Requirements relate to the composition of the management board (at least two members), adequate
staff and technical equipment, sufficient equity at disposal (capital requirements as stipulated in art.
110 and 111 of the Insurance act reasonably apply also to branches) and money deposit or otheradequate financial assets which are used as security to meet the obligations arising from insurance
contracts concluded in the territory of the Republic of Slovenia or covering risks situated in the
Republic of Slovenia. Article 98 of the Insurance Act further stipulates the documents, which have to
accompany the application for an authorisation.
Question posed by United States of America:
Does Slovenia apply any restrictions on fore ign companies seeking to invest in domestic
insurance companies?WT/TPR/M/98/Add.1
Page 21
Reply:
No.
Question posed by United States of America:
Are branches of foreign companies required to put a percentage of their premiums in
the guarantee fund as discussed in Article 112 of the Insurance Act of 2000?
Reply:
Yes, according to article 97 (3), the chapter 5 on risk management - including article 112 -
applies also to branches of foreign insurance companies.
Question posed by United States of America:
Article 258 of the Act states that “regulations issues by the Insurance Supervisory
Agency shall be published in the official gazette of the Republic of Slovenia”. Does this process
include publishing draft regulations in advance to allow for public comment?
Reply:
The Council of experts of the Insurance Supervision Agency may only adopt regulations
when it has legal basis in the law. Before adopting a regulation, the Insurance Supervision Agency isnot legally obliged to publish the proposed regulation. Nevertheless, the Insurance Supervision
normally consults the Slovenian Insurance Association on informal basis about the draft regulation.
Question posed by United States of America:
Item 17 of the Insurance Act of 2000 indicates that foreign insurance concerns are
required to join this association while domestic concerns are not. Is this correct?
Reply:
Insurance companies established in Slovenia are not obliged to become members of the
Slovenian Insurance Association, membership is voluntary. Membership at the Slovenian Insurance
Association however will be obligatory for branches of insurance companies coming from the EU
member states (after accession to the EU),  but only in the case that these branches would like to
perform compulsory third-party motor liability insuranc e. In this case it must also join the guarantee
fund which is intended to cover losses caused by drivers of unknown and uninsured motor vehicles.
(This provision is contained in Article 94, paragraph 5 of Insurance Act and not in Article 17).
This is however not a regime that would ap ply now to branches of foreign insurance
companies – which now applies to WTO member states.
Question posed by United States of America:
Does Slovenia allow private provision of pension fund management services, either as
part of its insurance regime or separately regulated as pension funds?WT/TPR/M/98/Add.1
Page 22
Reply:
Yes. According to the Pension and Disability Insurance Act (Official Gazette of the Republic
of Slovenia no. 106/99, 72/00, 124/00 and 109/01), wh ich entered into force on January 1, 2000,
private pension arrangements are possible. Private pe nsion plans can be carried out by mutual pension
funds, pension companies and insurance companies, which are licensed to perform life-insurance
business according to Insurance act. Insurance companies, banks and pension companies can managemutual pension funds.
(4) Telecommunications
Question posed by Canada:
Paragraph 18 states that the services industri es in Slovenia could benefit from increased
foreign presence (in terms of increased transfers of capital, technology and know-how) and
enhanced market access commitments. It also notes that Slovenia introduced a new
telecommunications law in 2001 that ended the mo nopoly rights in the fixed telephony market.
According to paragraph 6, though, Slovenia di d not take any specific commitments in the
extended negotiations on telecommunication services. Please indicate whether Slovenia is
considering making commitments under GATS in the telecommunication services sector to
further improve the process of modernisation of this sector and, if so, what commitments
Slovenia is considering?
Reply:
Slovenia is considering making commitments under GATS in the telecommunications
services sector based on the existing legislation, which provides a mandate for further liberalisation
and for technological advancement of the telecommunications sector. In  particular, as it is stated in
the Report by the Secretariat (paragraphs 29 and 30 on page 72) , Slovenia could grant, according to
the 2001 Telecommunications Act full market access and national treatment for the
telecommunications services, when they are provided through cross-border supply or through
consumption abroad, as well as for the services provided through commercial presence.
An upgrade on mobile telephony penetration is in place, since it has reached a mark of 75%.
Question posed by Canada:
Paragraph 27 states that liberalisation of the telecommunications sector has been
gradual. Does Slovenia intend to bind its autonomous liberalisation under the GATS? If so,
when?
Reply:
Slovenia is prepared to bind its autonomous liberalisation in the telecommunications sector in
the context of the ongoing GATS negotiations.
Question posed by Hong Kong, China:
We appreciate the efforts made by Slovenia  to liberalise the telecommunications sector
which include, among others, the divestiture of the state-owned "Telekom Slovenije". We would
like to know more about the liberalisation plan  of "Telekom Slovenije" and the details of
foreign participation in the further di vestiture expected in the near future.WT/TPR/M/98/Add.1
Page 23
Reply:
Slovenia considers the liberalisation of the telecommunications sector and the sale of a 65%
share in Telekom Slovenia as two different and fairly independent activities. The implementation of
liberalisation, as mandated by the Telecommunications Act, is proceeding at a satisfactory pace, while
the sale of the state share in the "TS" is treated with a lower priority due to the current unfavourable
market conditions for such divestitures.
Question posed by Korea:
According to page 71, paragraph 27 of the Secretariat Report, the Slovenian
Government has started to divest its majority holding in "Telekom Slovenije". Please provide
detailed information on the privatisation plan and the relevant laws and regulations.
Reply:
The Slovene Government has an intention to divest a majority holding in the "Telekom
Slovenije", once the market conditions for such divestiture become more favourable.  There is no
specific privatisation plan yet.
Question posed by Korea:
Page 71, paragraph 28 of the Secretariat Report provides that a new
Telecommunication Act was introduced.  Is there an English version of the Act published? If itis available at an official Internet site, please provide the exact site address. If the English
version is not yet published, could you let us know the plan of your government with respect to
publishing such a version.
Reply:
The English version of the Telecommunications Act is available at the following address:
http://www.gov.si/mid/DocFiles/Telecommunications _Act.pdf .
Question posed by United States of America:
Regarding the 3 GSM wireless licenses that have been awarded, in the future, will you
adopt a technologically neutral approach. For example, will you allow the use of U.S. technology
when you migrate to your third generation wireless platform?
Reply:
In order to be compatible with the neighbouring countries in particular, and implementation
of the EU regulations, opening the telecommunications field to other than the UMTS standard would
not be opportune.
Question posed by United States of America:
While it is extremely encouraging that the Slovenian government is divesting its shares
in "Telekom Slovenije", what plans are in pla ce for full privatisation, and what timeframe is
there for this to occur?WT/TPR/M/98/Add.1
Page 24
Reply:
Due to the fact, that a substantial number of European incumbents are still majority owned by
the respective states, Slovenia, particularly in the light of the present telecommunications market
situation, does not foresee a very fast sale of the complete state share in the "Telekom Slovenije".
Question posed by United States of America:
Regarding opening fixed voice telephony to competition by unbundling the local loop,
can new firms now own and operate their own telecom facilities and also utilise "Telekom
Slovenia’s" facilities to provide competing vo ice services to the public? Is resale of "Telekom
Slovenia’s" services and facilities allowed?
Reply:
The market is fully liberalised and no licence is needed. A newcomer only needs to notify the
National Regulatory Agency (NRA) of its intention to start the services. The only exception is fixedand mobile voice telephony, where a licence is required. The reason for this is the obligation by law to
finance the provision of universal service in the case of fixed voice telephony, and the need to manage
the frequency space in the case of mobile telephony.
The incumbent is required to issue a Reference Interconnection Offer, and respect "all
reasonable requests for interconnection". The TS must allow other operators to allow sharing of its
facilities and installations (e.g. ducts, poles, antenna towers, etc.). In view of this provision, we havenot explicitly foreseen a resale of TS facilities and services in the Telecommunications Act. The
resale of TS is otherwise not prohibited. There is one big – 10% of the market – resaler of the mobile
telephony services of the Mobitel (owned by TS). This is a purely commercial agreement between the
network operator and the resaler.
Question posed by United States of America:
Please elaborate upon the independent nature of the Telecommunications and
Broadcasting Agency as regulator of this industry.  Is this body now fully staffed and
functioning?
Reply:
The body is functional and is still in the process of hiring staff. At this time it has 44
employees with a plan to employ further staff to reach a complement of 68 persons by the end of2002. An extensive training programme has been set up.
Question posed by United States of America:
Who appoints members to this regulatory  agency? Who, if anyone, can dismiss those
members?
Reply:
The director and three deputies are appointed by the Government. They have a mandate of
five years and can be dismissed before the termination of the 5-year period only in the following
cases:WT/TPR/M/98/Add.1
Page 25
− if convicted of a felony;
− for infringements of the relevant laws or relevant regulations in the course of
performing the functions as director or deputy director.
Question posed by United States of America:
How are decisions made? Are decisions appealable to a court?
Reply:
The decisions by the NRA are made by the director and they are final. Decisions can be
contested in a court of law on the basis of the generally applied justice system.
Question posed by United States of America:
What enforcement authority does the Ag ency have? For instance, can the Agency
impose fines, and to what extend/amount?
Reply:
The NRA can impose fines of up to Euro 7500 in the case of manager level responsibility and
Euro 50 000 in the case of companies.
Question posed by United States of America:
Are the procedures of the Agency open and transparent? For instance, is public
comment on proposed new rules and regulations solicited and/or allowed? Are proposed new
rules and regulations made before they are finalised and legislated upon, at least?
Reply:
NRA must publish its decisions in advance on the network, for comments and final decisions
in the Official Gazette.
Question posed by United States of America:
Has the regulator issued regulations on interconnection and rules regulating the
dominant carrier ("Telekom Slovenije")?
Reply:
The NRA has arbitrated on interconnection fees between the TS and other operators. It has
approved, after thorough negotiations and extensive modifications, the Reference Interconnection
Offer provided by TS.
Question posed by United States of America:
Please explain how “prices are no longer ad ministrated, but the Act authorizes the
Government to regulate rates”.WT/TPR/M/98/Add.1
Page 26
Reply:
There is a factual error in the Report of the Secretariat. The government is no longer
authorised to regulate rates.
Question posed by United States of America:
Please elaborate upon the meaning of the sentence “Telekom Slovenije is required to
provide universal service without financial compensation for a period of at least two year after
entry into force of the Act”.
Reply:
The TS has to provide universal service for at least two years without financial compensation.
After that period, other voice telephony operators will have to contribute to the cost for the provision
of the universal service.
Question posed by United States of America:
Does "Telekom Slovenije" have a universal service plan? If so, how is it administrated?
Is "Telekom Slovenije" providing this service for free?
Reply:
The universal service plan will be required after the expiry of the two year period mentioned
above.
Question posed by United States of America:
Do you anticipate updating your 1995 GATS telecommunications to reflect your current
laws and practices? Will you also adapt the model telecom Reference Paper in your schedule?
Reply:
Yes, there is an intention to update Slovenia's GATS commitments.
Question posed by United States of America:
Currently, are there any foreign investment limitations for any telecom service or
Internet service firm that wants to provide services in Slovenia?
Reply:
There are no limitations on foreign investment in the telecommunications sector.  Examples
are the third mobile operator, Western Wireless, and further companies providing VoIP and internetservices.WT/TPR/M/98/Add.1
Page 27
(5) Transport
Question posed by United States of America:
In August 2000, Slovenia notified subsidies for the support of transport organisations.
Can Slovenia please indicate whether these subsidies are still in effect and in what form?
Reply:
In the year 2001 there were two programmes still in effect in the area of transport:
− subsidies for (internal) line bus services;
− support for the implementation of transport policies in the public railways system
(pertaining to passenger services and container transport services).
In both cases there are performance requirements attached to grants. The basic policy is to
support  loss-making public passenger transport services and to stimulate the development of
combined transport services of goods.
(6) Tourism
Question posed by Japan:
Please provide the Slovenia’s position regarding  the liberalisation of the mode 1 in travel
agency services.
Reply:
The Slovene Law on the promotion of Tourism does not restrict Mode 1 at all. In fact in
cross-border supply of services, consumption abroad and establishment, the regime is fully liberalised.
The law imposes conditions and restrictions in relation to issues of consumer protection against fraud
and situations of insolvency of operators in the area of tourism.
__________