WT/REG464/2  
 
14 November  2023 
(23-6775) Page: 1/3 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  Original: English  
 
COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES 
AND INDONESIA  (GOODS AND SERVICES)  
QUESTIONS AND REPLIES  
The following communication, dated 14 November  2023, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegations of  the EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland)  and Indonesia . 
 
_______________  
 
 
Questions from Canada  
 
Denial of benefits  
 
1.1.  Paragraph 4.4 of the RTA explains that:  
"The Agreement does not contain any specific provision on the denial of benefits."  
 
 Could the Parties (EFTA and Indonesia) provide an explanation as to why there is 
no specific provision on denial of benefits in the RTA?  
 
Response from the EFTA States  
 
 The Parties consider this aspect is sufficiently covered by the exception clauses, thus, no such 
clause was necessary.  
 
Response from Indonesia  
 
 The Parties are of the view that the provision on this aspect is already covered within other 
provisions of the ag reement . 
 
Distribution services  
 
1.2.  Paragraph 4.4.5.2.4 of the RTA on Distribution services refers to:  
"…wholesale trade services are subject to other limitations such as qualification and 
licensing requirements, and an obligation to cooperate with at least 100 Indonesian SMEs 
yearly as a supplier and retailer. " 
 
a. Could Indonesia clarify what the relevant qualification, licensing requirements 
and procedures are for wholesale trade services?  
b. Could Indonesia provide a rationale for including this obligatio n? If Indonesia 
has included this in previous RTAs, what have been the results during 
implementation?  WT/REG464/2  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Response from Indonesia  
 
a. The requirements related to qualification, licensing, and procedures for market access for 
wholesale trade services may refer to the existing regulations, i.e., which related to the 
organization of the trade sector; guidelines for the development, organiza tion, and 
management of shopping centres  and supermarkets; as well as investment business 
activity.  
 
b. It aims to provide opportunities for foreign investment while also considering the 
sustainability of domestic MSMEs. Thus far, the implementation of these provisions has 
been progressing efficiently.  
 
Question from Japan  
 
General Provisions of the Agreement  
 
Intellectual Property Rights  
 
1.3.  Paragraph 5.32: With respect to in Article 8 (3) of Annex XVII of the FTA between 
the EFTA and Indonesia, Japan would like to know which laws and regulations are the 
legal grounds for preventing the use of a geographical indication  (GI) in a manner which 
constitutes an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Article 10bis of the Paris 
Convention.  
Response fr om the EFTA States  
 
 In Iceland the basis for relevant legal means can be found, among others, in Act No. 57/2005 
on Supervision of Unfair Commercial Practices and Transparency of the Market; the Trade Marks 
Act No. 45/1997; and Act No. 130/2014, on the Pr otection of Product Names for Origin, Territory or 
Traditional Specialty.  
 
 In Liechtenstein the basis for relevant legal means can be found, among others, in the Law 
on Unfair Competition no 121 from 1992; and in the Act on the Protection of Trademarks an d 
Geographical Indications no 60 from 1997.  
 
 In Norway the basis for relevant legal means can be found, among others, in the Trademarks 
Act no. 8 of March 26, 2010; and regulation on the protection of designations of origin, geographical 
designations and designations for traditional characteristics of foodstuffs from 2002.  
 
 In Switzerland the basis for relevant legal means can be found, among others, in the Federal 
Act of December 19, 1986, on Unfair Competition; and the Federal Act of August 28, 1992, o n the 
Protection of Trademarks and Indications of Source.  
 
Response from Indonesia  
 
 The Indonesian Trademark and Geographical Indications Law and its derivative regulation 
establishes a legal framework for preventing the use of Geographical Indications (GI) in unfair 
competition, which may mislead the public.  
 
Questions from the United Kingdom  
 
Scope and definitions  
 
1.4.  Paragraph 4.2 suggests the EPA: 'does not include investment protection' . 
 Could the parties please explain why the agreement does not include investment 
protections?  
 WT/REG464/2  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Joint r esponse from the Parties  
 
 The EFTA States pursue individual policies with respect to investment protection outside the 
scope of EFTA 's free t rade agreements. Indonesia and Switzerland concluded a Bilateral Agreement 
on the Promotion and Protection of Investments in 2022.  
 
MFN and horizontal commitments  
 
1.5.  Paragraph 4.19 of the EPA states that: 'Iceland's horizontal limitations mainly cover 
certai n measures on the provision of services through mode 3 (some investment by 
foreigners and non -residents, as well as real -estate lease and acquisition) and mode 4 
(unbound except the temporary entry and stay of executives)'.  
 Could Iceland please explain wh y it has horizontal limitations on investment by 
foreigners and non -residents?  
 
Response from the EFTA States  
 
 The horizontal limitations inscribed in Iceland 's services schedule are in line with Iceland 's FTA 
practice and the country 's regulatory regime. In the horizontal section of the schedule, reference is 
consistently made to "non-residents " (and not to "foreigners "). Limitations on investment pertain 
amongst others to residence requirements for founders of limited liability companies, the 
management and board of directors of domestic companies, and auditors.  
 
__________