WT/REG439/2/Rev.1  
 
13 November 2023 
(23-7619) Page: 1/5 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  Original: English  
 
STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP, TRADE AND COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE 
UNITED KINGDOM AND THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA  (GOODS AND SERVICES)  
QUESTIONS AND REPLIES  
Revision  
The following communication, dated 10 November  2023, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegations of  the United Kingdom and the Republic of Moldova.  
 
_______________  
 
 
Questions from Canada  
National and MFN treatment  
1.1.  Section 4.3.2 on page 23 of the factual presentation states: "in contrast to 
establishment, the Agreement does not contain specific MFN provisions for cross -border 
supply of services."  
Can the UK and Moldova provide a rationale for applying MFN to mode 3 and not to 
modes 1, 2, and 4?  
Joint response from the Parties  
The approach to MFN in the UK -Moldova Agreement is the same as that taken in the 
EU-Moldova Association Agreement. More generally, agreements that the UK has transitioned since 
leaving the EU re plicate, as far as possible, the effects of previous EU agreements.  
Market access  
1.2.  Section 4.3.1 on page 22 of the factual presentation notes that Annexes XI -B and 
XI-F follow a positive list approach.  Canada notes that in the unique positive list approach 
used in this agreement, that some commitments list the reservation without an 
accompanying "none except" and "unbound:" qualifier within the market access 
commitments (e.g. UK's commitments on Research and Development Services on 
page  347/348).  
Are market access commitments that include reservations without a "none " or 
"unbound " qualifier intended to be interpreted as a "none, except " for both MA and NT? 
Can the Parties clarify how such market access reservations are to be interpreted when 
the commitment does include a "none " or "unbound " qualifier?  
Joint response from the Parties  
The commitments in the UK -Moldova Agreement are largely  the same as those found in the 
EU-Moldova Association Agreement. More generally, agreements that the UK has transitioned since 
leaving the EU replicate, as far as possible, the effects of previous EU agreements.  WT/REG439/2/Rev.1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  The UK -Moldova Agreement, like the EU -Moldo va Agreement, contains liberali zing provisions 
for trade in services, widening sectoral coverage and deepening commitments in many services 
sectors when compared to the UK 's commitments under the GATS.  The positive list approach used 
in this agreement foll ows the standard format of all subsectors being excluded by default and each 
Party listing their commitments through affirmation. Each reservation should be read in its context 
in the relevant List. The UK and the Republic of Moldova are confident its comm itments under this 
Agreement are clear.  
Electronic commerce  
1.3.  Section 5.11 on page 44 of the factual presentations makes reference to 
commitments on the liability of intermediary services from Articles 229 -231 of the 
Agreement:  
What is the policy intent of c ommitments on the liability of intermediary services? 
In the Parties ' view, how do commitments in this area support or enhance e -commerce?  
Joint response from the Parties  
These articles are included because the agreement overall is intended to replicate, o n a 
bilateral basis, the trade relationship the UK had with the Republic of Moldova when it was a member 
of the EU.  
Financial services  
1.4.  Paragraph 4.37 states: Under the Agreement, the reservation for mode 3 in banking 
and financial services remains the same. However, under modes 1 and 2, a few new 
reservations have been introduced, and one reservation has been lifted for the covered 
subsectors. For example, modes 1 and 2 are unbound for direct insurance and direct 
insurance intermediation services except  for insurance of risk relating to maritime 
shipping and commercial aviation and space launching and freight (including satellites), 
for goods being transported, the vehicle transporting the goods and any liability arising 
therefrom; and goods in internati onal transit. For banking and other financial services, 
the reservation for mode  2 has been removed, and a new reservation has been introduced 
for mode 1.  
Can the UK provide more information on the reservation introduced for mode 1 in 
banking and other fin ancial services?  
Response from the United Kingdom  
The UK -Moldova Agreement a continuity agreement and the UK sought to replicate existing 
reservations, maintaining parity with the EU – Moldova agreement.  
The UK 's offer on modes 1 and 2 are in line with t he UK 's GATS schedule which replicates the 
Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services, with a similar offer agreed in other continuity 
agreements such as with Korea. The 'Cross -Border Trade ' section of the 'GATS Understanding on 
Commitments in Fina ncial Services ' outlines the following:  
3. Each Member shall permit non -resident suppliers of financial services to supply, as a principal, 
through an intermediary or as an intermediary, and under terms and conditions that accord national 
treatment, the fo llowing services:  
(a) insurance of risks relating to:  
(i) maritime shipping and commercial aviation and space launching and freight (including satellites), 
with such insurance to cover any or all of the following: the goods being transported, the vehicle 
transporting the goods and any liability arising therefrom; and  
(ii) goods in international transit;  WT/REG439/2/Rev.1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  (b) reinsurance and retrocession and the services auxiliary to insurance as referred to in 
subparagraph 5(a)(iv) of the Annex;  
(c) provision and transfer of  financial information and financial data processing as referred to in 
subparagraph 5(a)(xv) of the Annex and advisory and other auxiliary services, excluding 
intermediation, relating to banking and other financial services as referred to in 
subparagraph  5(a)(xvi) of the Annex.  
4. Each Member shall permit its residents to purchase in the territory of any other Member the 
financial services indicated in:  
(a) subparagraph 3(a);  
(b) subparagraph 3(b); and  
(c) subparagraphs 5(a)(v) to (xvi) of the Annex.  
The UK 's mode 1 and mode 2 commitments to Moldova replicate this policy intent.  
Question from the European Union  
Competition  
1.5.  Contrary to paragraph 5.43, there is no reference in paragraph 5.44 to the EU -
Moldova agreement and the obligations of each party t o that agreement to adopt and 
maintain legislation for the control of state aid and to establish or maintain an 
operationally independent authority entrusted with the powers necessary for the control 
of state aid.  
Could the parties please explain why?  
Joint response from the Parties  
Reference to the EU -Moldova Association Agreement is only made in the Factual Presentation 
Report and not in the actual text of the competition chapter of the Strategic Partnership, Trade and 
Cooperation Agreement between the U K and the Republic of Moldova. This reference is of general 
nature and is only made to emphasise the fact the provisions of the UK -Moldova Agreement on 
competition and state aid are similar to the relevant provisions in the EU -Moldova agreement.  
The UK -Moldova agreement reflects the interests of both Parties in ensuring continuity to the 
existing trade relationship and providing certainty for businesses. It was not considered necessary 
to bilaterally replicate all provisions of the EU -Moldova agreement for  the UK -Moldova agreement. 
These differences from the EU -Moldova Agreement do not affect either Party 's obligations under 
separate bilateral agreements.  
Question from Japan  
General Provisions of the Agreement  
Intellectual property rights  
1.6.  Paragraph 5.42: With respect to the enforcement of IPR, Article 289(b) and (d) 
stipulates that "Each Party shall recogni ze as persons entitled to seek application of the 
measures, procedures and remedies referred to in this Section and in Part III of the T RIPS 
Agreement:…(b) all other persons authorised to use those rights, in particular licensees, 
in so far as permitted by and in accordance with the provisions of the applicable law;  … 
and (d) professional defence bodies which are regularly recognised as ha ving a right to 
represent holders of intellectual property rights, in so far as permitted by and in 
accordance with the provisions of the applicable law."  WT/REG439/2/Rev.1  
 
- 4 - 
 
  We would like to know what kind of licensees and professional defence bodies can 
exercise the right, and what is the requirement under the national laws and regulations 
of each of the United Kingdom and Moldova.  
Joint response from the Parties  
In the UK e xclusive licensees can exercise IP rights, and in some instances a non -exclusive 
licensee may bring an  action for infringement. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides 
for exclusive licensees and other licensees to take action. Exclusive patents licensees and exclusive 
trademarks licensees may take action via The Patents Act and Trade Marks Ac t respectively.  
In the Republic of Moldova, according to the legislation in the field of intellectual property, any 
natural or legal person, other interested entities that have claims against the use of an intellectual 
property object protected or request ed for protection, are entitled to institute action in court to 
defend their legitimate rights and interests. Thus, the rightholder, as well as any person authorized 
to use the protected intellectual property object, are entitled to initiate action, in par ticular the 
licensees, who, without prejudice to the clauses of the license contract, can initiate a procedure for 
the defence of rights only with the consent of the rightholder. The holder of an exclusive license can 
initiate such a procedure if, after th e summons, the rightholder has not himself instituted such an 
action within the prescribed period.  
Questions from Türkiye  
1.7.  Article 224(7) of Chapter 6 Establishment, Trade in Services and Electronic 
Commerce of the FTA between the UK and Moldova provides th at: "Each Party, subject to 
the authorisation of the competent authority, shall permit international maritime 
transport service suppliers of the other Party to provide feeder services between their 
national ports."  
Türkiye would kindly like to learn whether the United Kingdom and Moldova have 
cabotage laws? If yes, are feeder services covered by those cabotage laws? We would 
appreciate if Moldova and the UK could share information on whether allowing other 
Party 's international maritime transport serv ice suppliers to carry out feeder services in 
its territorial sea contradict with the respected cabotage laws?  
Joint response from the Parties  
Under the UK -Moldova Agreement, the UK and the Republic of Moldova agree, subject to the 
authorisation of the competent authority, to permit international maritime transport services 
suppliers of the other Party to provide feeder services between their national ports.   
The UK does not maintain a general cabotage law as such and there is no inc onsistency 
between our domestic regime and the relevant provision in the UK -Moldova Agreement.  
In the Republic of Moldova, the Commercial Maritime Navigation Code is in force, adopted by 
Law no. 599 of 30.09.1999. The Code does not regulate feeder ships.  
1.8.  Article 226(2) of the UK – Moldova FTA provides that: "The Parties agree that the 
development of electronic commerce must be fully compatible with the highest 
international standards of data protection, in order to ensure the confidence of users of 
electron ic commerce."  
Could Moldova and the UK please clarify the meaning of "highest international 
standards of data protection" in paragraph 2 of the Article 226?  
Joint response from the Parties  
Developing e -commerce in a way that is fully compatible with the hi ghest international 
standards of data protection means having a personal information protection regime that takes 
account of principles and guidelines of relevant international bodies, such as the OECD, and being 
responsive to global best practice.  WT/REG439/2/Rev.1  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.9.  In para graph 3 of the Article 226, the Parties agreed that electronic transmissions 
shall be considered as the provision of services within the meaning of Section on Cross 
Border Supply of Services. In addition, the Parties agreed that cross border supply of 
services cannot be subject to customs duties.   
As we understand from this paragraph, Moldova and the UK agree that "electronic 
transmissions cannot be subject to customs duties". If our understanding is correct, could 
Moldova and the UK please explain how they  perceive the moratorium on customs duties 
at the WTO with respect to its applicability and hence the value -add?   
Joint response from the Parties  
The UK and the Republic of Moldova strongly and fully supports the extension of the 
moratorium on customs duti es on electronic transmissions at the 13th WTO Ministerial Conference. 
Failure to extend the moratorium would cause significant uncertainty for businesses and consumers. 
Extending the moratorium gives businesses confidence that, across all WTO markets in w hich they 
operate, they will not face customs duties on electronic transmissions. The moratorium 's coverage 
exceeds that afforded by bilateral FTAs . 
1.10.   Since there is no specific scope article and the sub -section is placed under the 
Chapter Establishment, Tra de in Services and Electronic Commerce, could Moldova and 
the UK please clarify whether the Sub -Section on "Liability of Intermediary Service 
Providers" cover the platforms acting as marketplaces for electronic trade in goods?  
Joint response from the Parties  
Yes, Sub -Section 2 of Section 6 of Chapter 6, Establishment, Trade in Services and Electronic 
Commerce covers e -commerce platforms, insofar as they fall within the definitions in 
Articles  228-231. 
__________