. /.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SG/Q1/URY/2
8 November 1999
(99-4811)
Committee on Safeguards Original:  Spanish
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLE 12.6 OF THE AGREEMENT
Replies to Questions Posed by the UNITED STATES1
Regarding the Notification of URUGUAY2
The following communication, dated 27 October 1999, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Uruguay.
_______________
Question
Article 21 of Uruguay's law states the "investigating bodies shall hear interested parties
which demonstrate that they may actually be affected by the result of the investigation and have
special reasons to be heard …".  What specific req uirements will interested parties have to fulfil
in order to satisfy this requirement?  Similarly, what would constitute "special reasons" as
stated in Article 21?  Article 3.1 of the Safeguards Agreement requires that a Member provide
an opportunity for interested parties to provid e evidence and their views, but Uruguay appears
to have added additional, and more burdensome criteria for interested parties to participate in
safeguards investigations.  How are these ad ditional restrictions in keeping with the
requirements of Article 3.1?
Reply
The question refers specifically to Article 22 of Decree 2/999, which merely attempts to
implement the provisions of Article 3.1 of the Agreement, setting out more specifically certain aspects
which that Article covers only in very general and schematic terms.  The phrase "interested parties
which demonstrate that they may actually be affected by the result of the investigation and have
special reasons to be heard" reflects an attempt to introduce a minimum of formality with respect to
participation in the procedure.  Any party which claims to have interests, and supplies what itconsiders to be evidence thereof, has the right to participate in the process and defend its interests.
Question
As noted above, Article 3.1 of the Safeguards Agreement requires a Member to hold
public hearings or other appropriate means to allow importers, exporters and other interested
parties to present evidence and their views.  In Article 30 of the Uruguay Law, however,
hearings would not be held unless "written application is made" to hold hearings.  Who would
                                                     
1 G/SG/Q1/URY/1
2 G/SG/N/1/URY/1Suppl.1G/SG/Q1/URY/2
Page 2
make such an application, and how does Arti cle 30 satisfy the public hearings requirements of
Article 3.1?
Reply
Article 30 stipulates that" all interested parties shall have an opportunity to defend their
interests … provided that written application is made to hold hearings …".  Under Uruguayan positive
law, all administrative cases are handled this way.  The written application for a hearing is not a
restriction or an obstacle to participation in an investigation, but simply helps to introduce a certain
amount of order in the discussions that will probably have to be held in the course of a hearing which
will inevitably involve conflicting interests.
Question
With regard to remedy, who specifically  under Uruguay law will make the decision
concerning the remedy measure to be applied?  Is it the President?  What procedures will be
followed in deciding the remedy question?  What factors will be considered in determining howmuch relief to apply and for what duration, and what limitations will apply with respect to
measures allowed under Uruguay Law?
Reply
The duration and the amount or quantity of a provisional measure (tariff increase) or a
definitive measure (tariff increase or quantitative restrictions) are established by the executive.  Such
measures must respect the WTO Agreement on Safeguards contained in Law 16.671, which sets out
the Uruguay Round Agreements.  In this case, the measures must comply with Article 5.1 of the
Agreement on Safeguards as stipulated in Article 42 of Decree 2/999 in that they shall only be appliedto the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment.  But in
addition to the reference to Article 5.1 of the Agreement, Article 39 of Decree 2/999 stipulates that the
safeguard measures shall only apply if the Executive reaches a final determination that the adjustment
plan submitted by the domestic industry is viable.  Uruguayan law imposes the obligation to examine
and assess the appropriateness of the adjustment plan in order to avoid situations which might be
unrealistic with respect to the aims pursued under the notion of "adjustment".
Question
What factors will Uruguay consider in de termining whether a safeguard measure should
be extended beyond the initial period?
Reply
In accordance with the Agreement on Safeguards, Decree 2/999 covers the various factors
relating to the maximum duration of a safeguard measure.  The Decree establishes a general
framework, and hence does not specifically define the various reasons that may be put forward in eachsituation by the applicant or by those who decide  on the application for extension of the measure.
Section VII of the Decree lays down the general crit eria concerning the duration and review of the
safeguard measures.  For each specific case there must be well-founded reason for deciding for or
against the extension of a particular measure.
__________