WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1  
14 October 2015  
(15-5384)  Page: 1/413  
Trade Policy Review Body 
6 and 8 July 2015 Original: English/Spanish  
anglais/espagnol  
inglés/español  
 
  TRADE POLICY REVIEW 
EUROPEAN UNION 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING 
Addendum 
Chairperson: H.E. Mr. Atanas Paparizov (Bulgaria) 
This document contains the advance written questions and additional questions by WTO 
Members, and replies provided by the European Union.1 
 
 
Organe d'examen des politiques commerciales 
6 et 8 juillet 2015 
EXAMEN DES POLITIQUES COMMERCIALES 
UNION EUROPÉENNE  
COMPTE RENDU DE LA RÉUNION 
Addendum 
Président: S.E. M. Atanas Paparizov (Bulgarie) 
Le présent document contient les questions écrites communiquées à l'avance par les 
Membres de l'OMC, leurs questions additionne lles, et les réponses fournies par l'Union 
européenne.1 
 
 
Órgano de Examen de las Políticas Comerciales 6 y 8 de julio de 2015 
EXAMEN DE LAS POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES 
U
NIÓN EUROPEA  
ACTA DE LA REUNIÓN 
Addendum 
Presidente: Excmo. Sr. Atanas Paparizov (Bulgaria) 
En el presente documento figuran las preguntas presentadas anticipadamente por escrito y 
las preguntas adicionales de los Miembros de la OMC, así como las respuestas facilitadas por la 
Unión Europea.1 
                                               
1 In English and Spanish only./En  anglais et espagnol seulement./En inglés y español solamente. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 2 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO MALAYSIA’S WRITTEN QUESTION 
 
SECRETARIAT REPORT 
 
Para 2.15, pg 28 
 
According to the Commission, the EU continues to see the WTO and the multilateral trading system 
as the centerpiece of its trade policy, and attaches great importance to the conclusion of 
negotiations on the Doha Development Agenda. In this regard, the EU has firmly underlined the 
importance of preparing a post-Bali work programme within the prescribed deadline, which puts the 
WTO on a firm path towards the conclusion of the Round. 
 
QUESTION 
 
Appreciate if the EU could share with Members its level of ambition in NAMA negotiations in 
particular on the issue of non-tariff barriers (NTBs).  
EU reply:  The EU considers that an outcome on NAMA, including on NTBs, calibrated to the level of 
ambition of other core areas of negotiations, needs to form part of the DDA outcome. As these issues are the subject of negotiations that are underway in Geneva, the EU's position will depend on overall developments regarding the DDA. 
 
We noted that the EU in several occasions pushed for simplification of tari ff reduction mechanism in 
NAMA negotiation to compliment the Swiss formul a. Appreciate if the EU could provide Members 
with further details and does the EU intend to table the idea formally at Negotiating Group on 
Market Access (NGMA)? 
 
EU reply:  The EU considers simplification as an important element of efforts that are underway to 
f i n d  a n  a c c e p t a b l e  a p p r o a c h  t o  N A M A ,  a s  w e l l  a s  t o  o t h e r  p a r t s  o f  t h e  D D A .  G i v e n  t h a t  N A M A  negotiations are currently underway in Geneva, the EU's position on these issues is best reflected in the EU's statements at the individual negotiating group meetings. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 3 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO AUSTRALIA'S WRITTEN QUESTIONS 
  
Report by the Secretariat - WT/TPR/S/317 
 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES, BY MEASURE  
3.1.4 Tariffs 
Page 43, Paragraph 3.41  Australia notes that the EU’s highest average tariff rates are for agricultural products and that all 
MFN tariff rates above 100 per cent are ad valorem equivalents relating to agricultural goods.  
 Question 1 
Can the EU explain the justification for maintaining this high level of tariff protection for agricultural producers?  
EU reply:  The EU is the world's largest importer of agriculture products, with imports of EUR 98 
billion € in 2014. The EU has only a limited number of tariff peaks, which were accepted and bound as part of the Uruguay Round Agreement. The EU has concluded and continues to negotiate ambitious FTA agreements to reduce agricultural tariffs in bilateral trade. A successful conclusion 
of the DDA would lead to a reduction in tariff peak s on an MFN basis. In the meantime the EU will 
continue to respect its WTO commitments.  
3.1.7 Contingency Measures 
Page 46, Paragraph 3.61  
We understand that the EU is in the process of modernising its trade defence instruments with the 
intention of making its investigation process more transparent.   Question 2 
What factors have influenced the EU to attempt to make its investigation process more transparent?  
EU reply:  More transparency overall is a continuous quest of the European Commission. As TDI 
are very technical instruments, transparency is of particular importance in this field. On the basis 
of long standing practice and a continuous dial ogue with stakeholders, a number of areas, where 
more transparency would benefit all parties have been identified. These concern more 
transparency in the investigative process by giving additional information to parties through e.g. advance notice or pre-disclosure. Furthermore, guidelines should provide more transparency regarding specific complex elements of an investigation, such as calculation of injury margin, 
selection of analogue country, expiry reviews and Union interest. These tools aim at facilitating 
cooperation for parties in TDI proceedings and at further improving the quality of investigations.  
3.1.7.2 Anti-dumping and countervailing 
Page 47, paragraph 3.63  
Question 3a 
Can the Commission self-initiate anti-dumping investigations? 
 EU reply:  Yes, the EU legislation allows for self-initiation investigations.  
 
Question 3b 
If so, can the EU provide additional information on the use of self-initiation provisions? 
 
EU reply:  Article 5.6. of the Basic Anti-dumping Re gulation and Article 10.8 of the Basic Anti-
subsidy Regulation provide: “In special circumstances, it is decided to initiate an investigation 
without having received a written complaint by or on behalf of the Community industry for the 
initiation of such investigation, this shall be done on the basis of sufficient evidence of dumping, injury and a causal link, as described in paragraph 2, to justify such initiation.”  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 4 - 
 
  The European Commission has never opened a new investigation (Article 5 of the Basic 
Regulation) ex-officio.  However, the Commission has opened a number of interim review and anti-
circumvention cases on an ex-officio basis, a total of 64 between 2005 and 2014.  
3.1.8 Technical regulations and standards 
Page 50, Paragraph 3.80  
Australia notes that technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures are adopted at 
both the EU level and at the level of the EU member states.  Question 4a 
Can the EU explain how it ensures consistency of application of EU level technical regulations across all member states?  
EU reply: The EU Treaty foresees that EU Member States' legislation transposing EU directives 
must comply with the latter. The primary responsib ility for the correct and timely application of EU 
legislation lies with EU Member States, and the European Commission, as the guardian of the EU 
Treaty, monitors the application of Union law and can sue EU Member States that fail to comply 
with EU directives. Businesses or citizens can claim damages for incorrect transposition in national tribunals and/or by lodging a complaint to the European Commission. Furthermore, technical regulations harmonized at EU level provide for establishment of Expert Groups that may draw up 
guidance documents to assist manufacturers, import ers, distributors, and public authorities in EU 
Member States in the interpretation and application of EU harmonized technical regulations.  
Question 4b 
Can the EU explain how it manages reports of inconsistent application of technical regulations by 
different member states? 
 
EU reply: I f  a  p o s s i b l e  i n f r i n g e m e n t  o f  E U  l a w  i s  i d e n t i f i e d  b y  t h e  E u r o p e a n  C o m m i s s i o n  o r  
reported in a complaint, the European Commission attempts to quickly resolve the underlying problem with the Member State concerned by means of a structured dialogue (the so-called EU 
Pilot). Member States can provide further factual or legal information on a potential case of 
violation of EU law – the goal being to find a quick solution in compliance with EU law and thus to avoid the need for formal infringement procedure. If the Member State does not agree with the 
Commission or fails to implement a solution to rectify the suspected violation of EU law, the 
Commission can launch formal infringement procedure. These contain a number of steps foreseen by the Treaties, each of which is laid down in a formal decision. 
 
3.1.9 Sanitary and phytosanitary measures Page 56, Paragraph 3.100 
Australia notes the role of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in providing advice on SPS 
matters, including food safety and the authorisation of genetically modified organisms. Australia 
also notes the European Union’s recent notification  to the WTO of its recent proposal to amend its 
genetically engineered (GE) food and feed legislation, G/TBT/N/EU/284 posted on the WTO website 
on 20 May 2015. 
 Question 5 
Please clarify the grounds on which EU Member States would be able to ban or restrict use of EU authorised genetically mo dified food and feed? 
 EU reply: The proposal provides a legal basis for the EU Member States, which so wish, to adopt 
national measures to restrict or ban the use of genetically modified food and feed after that they 
have been authorised at EU level.   
It sets out strict conditions to ensure compliance with EU law and international obligations: any 
national measure adopted should be based on compelling grounds (overriding reasons of public interest) and be in accordance with the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination. EU 
Member States cannot use grounds which interfere with the EU wide risk assessment of GMOs.  
   WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 5 - 
 
  3.2.2 Export taxes, charges, and levies 
Page 59, Paragraph 3.114 
Australia notes that inward processing under the drawback system will be eliminated when the 
Union Customs Code applies.  Footnote 121further states that inward processing procedures may 
be used even if non-EU goods are no t intended for re-export from the EU. 
 Question 6 
Could the EU explain how inward processing und er the drawback system would apply to goods 
imported into the EU?  EU reply:  Inward processing under the drawback system will be eliminated. However, business 
activities may continue to be carried out under inward processing. There is no requirement any 
more to pay import duties and to claim back these duties if processed products have been exported. This means that the use of inward processing does not have any impact on cash-flow of 
companies. 
 3.2.4 Export credit, insurance, and promotion 
Pages 61-62, Paragraphs 3.124-3.130 
 Question 7a 
For the latest year that data is available, can the EU provide the total amount of agricultural 
exports supported by export financial support pr ogrammes, such as, but not exclusively, export 
credits, export credit guarantees and risk insurance programmes?  
Question 7b 
Can the EU also provide a list of the agricultural commodity exports supported through such 
programs? 
 
EU reply to questions 7a and 7b:  Export financing programs in the EU are applied at the EU 
member state level. The most recent detailed data on export financing in the EU is available in the background document by the Secretariat G/AG/W/125/Rev.2 and its addendum 
G/AG/W/125/Rev.2/Add.2. 
 3.3.1.2 State aid 
Page 65, Paragraph 3.144 
 Question 8a 
Given that some State Aid programmes support agricultural producers, what is the relationship between State Aid and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in providing agricultural assistance?  EU reply:  The CAP contains rules on State aid to promote the economic development of the 
agricultural and forestry sectors and of rural areas. State aid rules in the agricultural sector ensure 
that aids are granted following the general princi ples of competition policy. They have to be 
coherent and consistent with the EU's common agricultural and rural development policies. These 
rules take into account the EU`s international commitments 
 Question 8b 
What determines whether the EU provides funding for agricultural support under State Aid or under the CAP?   EU reply:  Agricultural support is mainly funded by the EU budget, and can be granted for market 
support and income support. 
 In addition to EU funded support, the EU Member States may under certain conditions establish 
national aid measures which are exclusively financed by national funds. The conditions for granting 
such aid must be consistent with those applicable  to CAP support. The EU State aid rules for the 
agricultural sector do therefore to a large extent  reflect the rules applicable to rural development 
support. It is the responsibility of the European Commission to ensure that aid measures 
established by the Member States comply with th e EU State aid rules (see question 9), but the 
decision to grant State aid belongs entirely to the Member State.  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 6 - 
 
  Question 8c 
What differentiates the form of assistance and how is assistance provided under State Aid and the 
CAP to eligible agricultural producers?  
EU reply:  The European Commission together with its Member States is responsible for the 
management of the EAGF and the EAFRD. In particular, payments to the beneficiaries are performed by the Member States through national or regional paying agencies. These agencies 
must check the eligibility of the funds applicatio ns. The expenditure made by the paying agencies 
is then reimbursed by the Commission to the Member States.  Assistance provided as State Aid is granted by national funds. The Member States are solely 
responsible for the management of aid which is financed exclusively from national funds. However, 
the European Commission keeps such aid under constant review, in order to ensure that it complies with the EU State aid rules under which it has been authorised (see question 9). 
 
Page 69, Paragraph 3.148   
Question 9 
What criteria are used to determine eligibility for non-crisis related state aid for agricultural 
producers?  
EU reply:  State aid rules in the agricultural sector follow the general principles of competition 
policy but they must also be coherent and consistent with the EU's common agricultural and rural development policies.  
 
The European Commission has set out criteria under which Member States can support agriculture, forestry and rural areas, in line with EU state aid rules. These criteria are stated under the 
following instruments: 
 1) Specific rules applying to the Agricultural sector: (1) the Agricultural Block Exemption Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 702/2014 of 25 June  2014 declaring certain categories of aid in 
the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas compatible with the internal market in 
application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on  the Functioning of the European Union) allows 
the granting of certain categories of State aid to the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural 
areas without prior notification to the Commission; (2) the EU guidelines for State aid in the 
agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural ar eas 2014 – 2020 set the general criteria which will 
be used by the Commission when assessing the compliance of notified aid with the internal 
market. 
 2) General rules applying to all sectors (e.g. Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty, the Framework for state aid for research and development and 
innovation, the Guidelines on State aid for envi ronmental protection and energy 2014-2020, etc.) 
apply to the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products that is not covered by the specific rules mentioned in the previous paragraph. 
 
3.3.3.4 Excise duties Page 85, Paragraphs 3.201-3.202 
 
Australia notes that all EU Member States apply excise duties on alcoholic beverages and that minimum rates of duty are established by EU directive.  
Question 10a 
Could the EU explain the rationale for differentiation of the minimum rates of duty between 
alcoholic beverages? 
 
EU reply:  The minimum rates of duty are differentiated because different categories of alcohol 
products are considered by the Legislator as not being substitutable for each other, even though 
the defining characteristic is that they all contain alcohol. 
 Question 10b 
S i m i l a r l y ,  o n  w h a t  b a s i s  d o  M e m b e r  S t a t e s  d i fferentiate the rates of duty between alcoholic 
beverages? WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 7 - 
 
  EU reply:  In setting duty rates Member States must respect the categories defined in Council 
Directive 92/83/EEC and the associated minimum rates defined in Council Directive 92/84/EEC.  3.3.5 Government procurement 
Page 90, Paragraph 3.227 
Australia notes that local and regional authorities can advertise for legal services procurement with 
pre-selected bidders.   
Question 11 
What steps does a legal service provider need to take to participate in the pre-selection process? 
 EU reply: According to the revised EU Directives 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU the procurement of 
legal services above certain threshold falls under special light regime, as specified under Chapter 1 
of Title III of these Directives. Contracting authorities have to advertise the procurement contract by publishing a contract notice and after the aw ard- a contract award notice. When they conduct 
the procurement they must ensure the respect of th e principles of equal treatment of the providers 
of the legal service and transparency. Moreover, for legal services falling in the scope of the Directives, Member States are free to determine the procedural rules applicable as long as such 
rules allow contracting authorities to take into account the specificities of the legal services. This 
implies that a procedure with pre-selection process could be organised. Following the publication of a contract notice the legal service provider needs to submit the requested documents within the indicated deadline, proving the eligibility for the performance of the contract such as suitability to 
pursue the professional activity, economic and fina ncial standing, technical and professional ability. 
After the examination of the relevant documents, the contracting authority invites the pre-selected service providers, those that fulfil the selection criteria, to submit an offer for the contract. 
 
3.3.6.2.2 Supplementary Pr otection Certificates 
Page 104, Paragraph 3.277 
 
Question 12a 
Could the EU provide some information in relation to the frequency of use and length of time trends of supplementary protection certificates in the last five years?  
 
EU reply: SPCs are national rights granted by EU Member States. EU Member States do not have 
an obligation of reporting to the European Commission on the number of filings and average 
duration of national SPCs. The national patent offices of the EU Member States publish annual 
reports of activities and on-line information on the number of filings, grants, etcetera of IP rights. 
 
Question 12b 
Are the numbers of applications decreasing?  
 EU reply: Not applicable, as the EU Member States do not have an obligation of reporting to the 
European Commission on the number of filings of national SPCs. 
 Question 12c 
Is the time period uni fying or decreasing? 
 EU reply: Not applicable, as the EU Member States do not have an obligation of reporting to the 
European Commission on the number of filings average duration of national SPCs. 
 Question 12d 
Are there any changes in the time frames or regulatory requirements for the particular products 
identified as eligible for supplementary protection certificates? 
 EU reply: Pharmaceutical Supplementary Protection Cert ificates (SPC) in the EU are governed by 
Regulation 469/2009, and plant-protection produc ts are governed by Regulation (EC) 1610/96. 
These regulations have not been amended since 2009 respectively 1996. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.3.6.2.4 Trademarks 
Page 105, Paragraph 3.284  Question 13 
Can the EU please provide more detail about new rules to align absolute grounds for refusal of trade marks with relevant EU law on geographical indications, and clarification that infringement claims cannot be made against the use of an identical or similar sign that is covered by prior rights 
in order to bring E`U legislation in line with Article 16(1) TRIPS?  
 EU reply:  As regards the grounds for refusal of trad e marks, the provisions on geographical 
indications in the field of agricultural products and foodstuffs, wines and spirit drinks (Article 14 of 
Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Article 102 of Re gulation 1308/2013 and Article 23 of Regulation 
(EC) 110/2008) are more specific than the provisions laid down in Article 7(1)(j) and (k) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community Trade Mark Regulation. Contrary to the Community 
Trade Mark Regulation, Directive 2008/95/EC approxim ating the laws of Member States relating to 
trade marks currently does not address conflicts with protected geographical indications. The amendments of both the Community Trade Mark Re gulation and the Trade Mark Directive aim at 
ensuring that the levels of protection granted to geographical indications afforded by other 
instruments of European Union law are actually being applied in a uniform and exhaustive manner in trade mark examination throughout the European  Union. The EU stresses that the proposals are 
under the ordinary legislative procedure.  
 
Neither the Community Trade Mark Regulation nor the Trade Mark Directive contains at present a 
clear rule stating that the trade mark proprietor cannot successfully invoke his rights against the 
use of an identical or similar sign which is already the subject of an earlier right. This should 
obviously be the result in view of  the underlying principle of priority, but the way Article 99(3) of 
the Community Trade Mark Regulation is currently  worded (giving the proprietor of an earlier 
rights only a defense subject to the ability to obtain a declaration of invalidity of the claimant's 
mark) actually gives rise to doubts. The proposed  amendments to both Article 9 of the Community 
Trade Mark Regulation and Article 10 of the Trade Mark Directive aim at clarifying that infringement claims are without prejudice to earlier rights as also provided in Article 16(1), 3
rd 
sentence of the TRIPS Agreement. The EU stre sses that the proposals are under the ordinary 
legislative procedure.   
Page 105, Paragraph 3.284 
 Australia notes the EU’s draft Regulation and Di rective (released on 27 March 2013) that aims to 
increase legal certainty by updating certain provisions, clarifying ambiguities, scope and limitations 
of trademark rights, including the alignment of absolute grounds for refusal with relevant EU law on geographical indications and the inclusion of protected traditional terms for wine and traditional specialities in the grounds for refusal.  
 
Question 14 
Can the EU provide assurances that the proposed Regulations and Directives are consistent with 
existing agreements, such as the Agreement be tween Australia and the European Community on 
Trade in Wine?  
EU reply: As mentioned in the response to question 13, the proposed relevant amendments on 
geographical indications solely aim at guaranteeing full consistency of the trade mark acquis with the specific European Union legislation on the protection of geographical indications. Therefore, full consistency with existing agreements, such as the Agreement between Australia and the EU on 
trade in wine is ensured too.  The EU stresses that the proposals are under the ordinary legislative 
procedure.   
3.3.6.2.5 Geographical indications 
Page 107, Paragraph 3.289   
Australia notes the recommendation to use a single acronym on a worldwide basis for top range 
wines, and to introduce a country of origin indication for other wines. This recommendation is based on a study prepared by COGEA S.R.L.  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 9 - 
 
  Question 15 
Does the EU intend to follow the study’s reco mmendation to introduce a single acronym for top 
range wines?   
EU reply:  Reflection is ongoing as regards wine labelling rules. It should be noted though that the 
"single" acronym is not considered for PDO and PGI as those two designations will continue to be used. 
 
Pages 107- 110, Paragraphs 3.289-3.298  Question 16 
Is the EU considering unifying its PGI and PDO da tabases, of which there are several according to 
class of product (ie spirits, wine, agrifoods)?  
EU reply:  The EU will examine this issue. 
 Page 110, Paragraph 3.298 
 
A report on the recent public consultation on a possible extension of geographical indication protection to non-agricultural products was expected to be released in the first quarter of 2015.  
Question 17 
Could the EU advise of the expected release date for this report and whether the Commission 
plans to proceed with this project? 
 
EU reply: The report has been published on 2 June 2015 and is available under the following link: 
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8254.  
The Commission has not yet decided whether and how to create a system of geographical 
indication (GI) protection for non-agricultural products at European Union level.   3.3.6.3.1 Legal basis at EU level 
Page 112-113, Paragraph 3.306 
 Question 18a 
Does the EU see the seizure of small consignments, for personal use, becoming common place?    EU reply: In accordance with the applicable substantive intellectual property laws, as interpreted 
by the Court of Justice of the Union, intellectual  property rights are infringed in the European 
Union or its Member States by selling goods, in th e course of trade, to a customer in the European 
Union or offering for sale or advertising to consumers in the European Union.  
Detentions of small consignments are already common as reflected in the Report on EU customs 
enforcement of intellectual property rights. - Resu lts at the EU border yearly published by the EU 
(
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/statistics/index_en.htm) . 
The cases related to postal and courier traffic accounted for around 60,000 cases per year in 2011, 2012 and 2013.  
Question 18b 
If so, how does the Customs Administrations foresee balancing the resource implications of such 
action whilst seeking to address other border risks?        
EU reply: The European Commission published on 21.8.2014 a Communication on EU strategy for 
customs risk management (
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_controls/risk_ 
management/customs_eu/index_en.htm ), accompanied by an action plan. In order to supervise the 
supply chain customs uses risk management to implement effective and efficient controls, avoid unwarranted disruption to legitimate business and deploy resources efficiently.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 10 - 
 
  In addition, in order to reduce the administrati ve burden and costs to a minimum, Article 26 of 
Regulation (EU) No. 608/20132 introduced a specific procedure for small consignments of 
counterfeit and pirated goods, which allows for such goods to be destroyed without the explicit agreement of the applicant in each case. 
 
3.3.6.3.1 Legal basis at EU level Page 113-115, Paragraph 3.30, Table 3.23 
In relation to the type of goods wh ich can be enforced at the border: 
 Question 19a 
For goods (other than trade mark or copyright) how do the Customs Department determine if 
there has been an infringement of Patents, Designs, Plant Varieties or GI’s? 
 EU reply: Under EU legislation on customs enforcement of intellectual property rights, the 
customs authorities do not make a formal determination of intellectual property right infringement. 
Goods are detained by the customs authorities where, on a case by case basis, there are 
reasonable indications that the goods involve an infringement of intellectual property rights. 
Suspected goods can be destroyed upon agreement of parties concerned without there being any 
need to determine whether an intellectual proper ty right has been infringed. In the absence of 
such agreement, the right holder must initiate pr oceedings, before the competent authority to take 
a decision on the substance – usually the Courts -, to determine whether an intellectual property 
right has been infringed; otherwise, the customs au thorities shall grant the release of the goods or 
put an end to their detention.  
Question 19b 
What kind of information or support is provided by the rights holder to assist in determinations of 
infringement for these types of goods?  
 
EU reply: Under EU legislation on customs enforcement of intellectual property rights, the 
customs authorities do not make a formal determination of intellectual property rights infringement (please see answer to question 19 a). 
 
In accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No. 608/2013, the applications requesting for customs authorities to take action with respect to goods suspected of infringing an intellectual 
property right for customs action must include: 
 - Specific and technical data on the authentic goods, including markings such as bar-coding and 
images where appropriate; 
 - Information needed to enable the customs authorities to readily identify the goods in question;  
- Information relevant to the customs authorities’ analysis and assessment of the risk of 
infringement of the intellectual property right or the intellectual property rights concerned, such as 
the authorised distributors; 
 
In addition, before detaining the goods, the customs authorities may ask the right holder to provide them with any relevant information with respect to the goods. 
 
In relation to “The right holder shall be informed in order to enable him to submit an application for action”.  
Question 20a 
Is the “application for action” submitted to Customs or the Courts? 
 
EU reply: Applications must be submitted to the customs department which is competent to 
receive and process applications. The competent customs department is designated by each Member State. The Member States inform the Commission accordingly and the Commission makes 
public a list of the competent customs departments 
                                               
2 Regulation (EU) No. 608/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 1352/2013. OJ L 181/15, 29 June 2013, also notified to the WTO in document IP/N/1/EU/E/1, 10 July 2013; and OJ L 341/10, 18 December 2013. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 11 - 
 
  (http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/right_holder
s/index_en.htm ).  
 
Question 20b 
Does ex-officio action still require the right holder to initiate court action?  EU reply: Where the customs authorities identify suspected goods which are not covered by a 
decision granting an application for action, they ma y, except for in the case of perishable goods, 
detain them.  The customs authorities notify of the detention, on  the one hand, the declarant or the holder of the 
goods and, on the other hand, the persons or entiti es entitled to submit an application concerning 
the alleged infringement of the intellectual property rights.  
The customs authorities shall put an end to th e detention of the goods where they have not 
received an application for action, or where they have rejected such an application.  
Where the application has been granted, the stan dard procedure applies: suspected goods can be 
destroyed upon agreement of parties concerned without there being any need to determine whether an intellectual property right has been in fringed. In the absence of such agreement, the 
right holder must initiate proceedings, before the competent authority to take a decision on the 
substance – usually the Courts -, to determine whether an intellectual property right has been 
infringed; otherwise, the customs authorities shall release the goods.  
Question 20c  
Who is responsible for storage and/or destruction costs if ex officio action is undertaken? 
 
EU reply: In case an application for action has been submitted after notification by customs of the 
detention of suspected goods, the holder of the decision shall, where requested by the customs 
authorities, reimburse the costs incurred by th e customs authorities from the moment of the 
detention of the goods, including storage and handling of the goods and their destruction. 
 
3.3.6.3.2 IPR enforcement at the EU's external borders Page 116, Paragraph 3.310 
 
Question 21a 
Are “applications” based on rights covered or seizures?  
 
EU reply: The applications, which are granted for periods not exceeding one year, contain a list of 
the intellectual property right or rights to be enforced by customs. Where customs identify goods 
suspected of infringing the intellectual property ri ght covered by a decision granting an application, 
they shall detain them. It follows that during the period of validity of an application multiple 
customs detentions can take place.  
Question 21b  
Using an example of trade marks only) The figure of 26,865 – Does this figure for application for 
action submitted by right holder to customs refer to ‘protected’ trade marks (individually) or does 
it refer to number of applications by a rights holder which would cover various trademarks i.e. one 
application by Company X, covering 20 trademarks?    EU reply: In Table 3.24 Enforcement of intellectual property rights, 2011-13 of the document 
WT/TPR/S/317 (page 118), the figure of 26,865 refers to the number of applications by rights 
holders. Each application may cover various intellectual property rights such as trademarks, copyrights, patents, etc. 
 
 2011  2012 2013  
Customs actions    
Applications by rightholders 20,566  23,134 26,865  
Number of cases 91,254  90,473 86,854  
Number of articles  114,772,812  39,917,445 35,940,294  
Domestic Retail Value (€) 1,272,354,795  896,891,786 768,227,929  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 12 - 
 
  Question 21c(i) 
When goods are destroyed – who is responsible for destruction costs? 
 EU reply: The destruction of the goods shall be carried out under customs control and under the 
responsibility of the holder of the decision. Wher e requested by the customs authorities, the holder 
of the decision shall reimburse the costs incurre d by the customs authorities, or other parties 
acting on behalf of customs authorities, from the moment of detention or suspension of the release 
of the goods, including storage and handling of the goods and destruction of goods. This is without 
prejudice to the right of the holder of the decisi on to seek compensation from the infringer or 
other persons in accordance with the legislation applicable.  
Question 21c(ii) 
If it is Customs authorities, can they recoup funds or do they receive additional or specific funding 
for IP enforcement? 
 
EU reply: Please see answer to Question 21c(i) 
 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.2.3.1.1 Direct Payments Page 123, Paragraph 4.17  
The EU now restricts direct payments linked to production to suckler cows, sheep and goats (and 
cotton for four member States).  
Question 22 
Does the EU anticipate further reducing the number of commodities to which direct payments 
linked to production are available?  
 
EU reply:  The EU does not currently anticipate further reductions on the number of commodities 
to which direct payments linked to production are available.  
Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) 
Page 125, Paragraph 4.22  
Question 23a 
What are the “entitlements” farmers must hold in order to receive direct payments and how are 
entitlements determined?  
 
EU reply:  Under the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS), elig ible farmers must hold entitlements and 
activate them on a corresponding number of eligib le hectares to receive payments. In general, 
each entitlement in a member State or region, should have the same value from 2015 (the flat 
rate value determined by dividing the envelope for BPS in the Member State by the number of 
eligible hectares declared by farmers) but member States may derogate from this rule provided the values of entitlements converge towards a flat rate by 2019. In such case, payment 
entitlements are generally established based on reference amounts of direct payments each 
farmer received in 2014. According to Article 34 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1307/2013, payment entitlements may be transferred to ot her farmers. Farmers receiving such payment 
entitlements are not required to produce in order to be eligible for payment under the Basic 
Payment Scheme.  Question 23b 
Are entitlements able to be traded between agri cultural producers? For example, if a farmer 
decides to leave the industry, can that eligible farmer’s entitlement be on-sold by that farmer?   
EU reply:  see response for question 23 a. 
 Question 23c 
If so, how is a market value ascribed to these traded entitlements?  EU reply:  Values are freely negotiated between parties. 
 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 13 - 
 
  Agricultural practices beneficial for th e climate and the environment (Greening) 
Page 125, Paragraph 4.25  Question 24a 
Can the EU explain how crop diversification is beneficial to the environment and for climate rather than as a production risk mitigation strategy?  
EU reply:  The greening (under direct payments) forms a new instrument of the CAP, which is 
granted under the first pillar for implementing three compulsory practices whose environmental and climate benefits have been proven. These practices include the maintenance of permanent 
grassland, application of crop diversification and the establishment of 5% ecological focus areas on 
arable land. These requirements have been chosen in such a way as to bring real environmental 
enhancement whilst limiting the additional cost s and burdens in the operation of the farm.  
 
By respecting these greening practices, farmers contribute to long-term competitiveness and for 
an economically, environmentally and socially  sustainable way of managing their farms. 
 
In particular, the crop diversification requirement stems from agronomic studies demonstrating 
that this practice in particular improves considerably soil quality of arable land. It has also impacts on water quality by allowing better limitation of pesticides and fertilisers.  
On top of these mandatory instruments, agri-environmental policy encourages the introduction 
and/or maintenance of extensive, environmentally friendly farming systems programmed and targeted towards regional needs. These instruments will be accompanied by broad support from 
the Farm Advisory System and applied research. 
 Question 24b(i) 
Why is organic agricultural production entitled to greening payments for land under organic production?   EU reply:  By definition, the organic agricultural production is based on farming practices which 
have environmental benefits and contribute de fact o to reduce the pressures on natural resources. 
 Question 24b(ii) 
How is organic agricultural production certified for payment under the scheme?  EU reply:  In order to benefit from the exemption from greening obligations, farmers have to 
comply with the requirements laid down in Regu lation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production 
and labelling of organic products in the EU and be certified accordingly.   Young farmers’ scheme 
Page 126, Paragraph 4.28 
 Question 25 
How many recipients have obtained assistance in each Member State under this scheme?  EU reply:  First year of implementation of the new CAP reform 2013 is 2015. It is difficult to 
provide the relevant data at this TPR exercise since there is no data available yet. 
 4.2.3.1.2 Internal market support measures Intervention and private storage aids 
Pages 127-128, Paragraph 4.34 
 Question 26 
What is the reason for the increase in the limit for butter purchases from 30,000 to 50,000 tonnes?  
EU reply:  This limit had been reduced gradually in the period 2004 to 2008 from 70 000 to 30 000 
tonnes. In 2013 it has been decided to increase it again to 50 000 tonnes in order to strengthen the safety net and give assurance to the dairy sector  that, in crisis situations, intervention buying in at fixed price will be available. This quanti ty of butter for which fixed price intervention is 
available results from the political agreement reac hed in the 2013 CAP reform. It needs to be seen WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 14 - 
 
  in the light of the elimination of mandatory aid for private storage for this product. It should be 
noted that public intervention is now a safety net measure and will only be used in the event of a 
serious crisis in the market. In this regard it is worth noting that no offers for public intervention in the dairy sector have been made since 2009. 
 
Page 128, Paragraph 4.35  
Question 27a(i) 
Can the EU explain further the operation of its cr isis reserve used to address threats of market 
disturbance?   
EU reply:  The reserve is intended to provide additional financial means for measures that address 
crises affecting agricultural markets. The reserve is established at the beginning of each year by reducing direct payments (through the financial discipline mechanism). If the Commission 
considers that the aforementioned measures cannot be financed from the available appropriations 
within the budget agreed for the European Agriculture and Guarantee Fund, it presents a proposal to the European Parliament and to the European Council for a transfer from the reserve to the 
budget lines financing the measures it considers necessary. 
 Question 27a(ii) 
Is the identification of significant price rises or falls determined through consultation, or would it 
be determined as a deviation from a reference price? 
 EU reply:  Article 219 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 provides for the Commission to take 
measures to address market disturbance or threats thereof "caused by significant price rises or 
falls on internal or external markets or other events or circumstances significantly disturbing or threatening to disturb the market, where that situation, or its effects on the market is likely to 
continue or deteriorate". In determining whether such circumstances exist, the Commission will 
refer to all available information and data.  Question 27b 
How will these measures operate alongside existing safeguard measures established through the Uruguay Round?   
EU reply:  The CAP crisis reserve does not include funds earmarked for the use of a specific 
measure. In case of crisis, funds from the crisis reserve can be activated and disbursed through measures which address the nature of the crisis in  the best possible way. The set of measures that 
can be financed through the crisis reserve includes export subsidies. Any use of the crisis reserve 
requires a decision by the EU Council and the European Parliament.  Question 27b 
Are export subsidies available through the crisis rese rve to address significant price rises or falls in 
external markets?  
EU reply:  It should be recalled that the reserve for crises in the agricultural sector is a means of 
financing measures and not a measure by itself. Export refunds are one of the measures that could be funded through the crisis reserve.  However, as  referred in Paragraph 3.129 of the report of the 
secretariat, the EU set export refunds at zero for all agriculture products on 13 July 2013. Further, 
the current CAP provides that "…the refund ava ilable … shall be EUR 0" (see Article 196(3) of 
Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013). The EU's new Commo n Agricultural Policy provides that export 
subsidies cannot be used other than as an exceptional measure in situations referred to in the 
question.  
 Fruits and vegetables 
Page 129, Paragraph 4.41  
 Question 28a 
What is the rationale for the EU providing up to 60% of national financial assistance for the establishment of producer associations in Member States?  EU reply:  One of the objectives of the CAP as regard s fruits and vegetables is to increase the 
degree of organisation of producers, so to improve their bargaining power in the supply chain. A WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 15 - 
 
  greater speed of organisation of producers across producing regions will lead to greater beneficial 
effects across the supply chain.  To attain such objective Member States may add up to 80% national financing of the contribution 
of producer organisations to the operational fund in regions with a very low degree of organisation 
of producers (i.e. where organised producers ma rket less than 15 % of the value of fruit and 
vegetable production of those regions). The EU can reimburse Member States up to 60% of their 
national financial assistance for that purpose, provided that the strict criteria of articles 91-95 of 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are respected.  Question 28b 
What costs are eligible for reimbursement?  EU reply:  The eligible costs are those pursuing the following objectives:  
(a) planning of production, including production and consumption forecasting and follow-up;  
(b) improvement of product quality, whether in a fresh or processed form; (c) boosting products' commercial value; 
(d) promotion of the products, whether in a fresh or processed form; 
(e) environmental measures, particularly those relating to water, and methods of production respecting the environment, including organic farming; (f) crisis prevention and management. 
A list of actions and expenditure not eligible is available in Annex IX to Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) No 543/2011, including items such  as promotion of individual commercial labels, 
operating costs, operations that could distort competition in the other economic activities of the 
producer organisation, etc. 
 Dairy 
Pages 129-130, Paragraph 4.42 
 We understand that the removal of the production quotas will enable EU dairy companies and farmers to compete more effectively in the international market.   
 
Question 29a 
What other strategies will be put in place to enhance the competitiveness of the EU dairy industry? 
 
EU reply: The new CAP and rural development measures provide for instruments to help 
structural adaptations such as young farmers aid, investment aid to make farmer´s production 
more competitive, diversified and respondent to the market needs.   
 Question 29b 
Will any assistance be provided to EU dairy farmers so that they can respond effectively to a more 
competitive environment? 
 EU reply:  Existing CAP instruments are available to EU dairy farmers as to cope with a more 
competitive environment: 
 Direct payments to support farmers' incomes. 
 Rural development policy allowing farmers, among others, to finance investments, be better 
trained, or receive compensations for being located in constrained areas. 
 Rules on strengthening the integration of producers in the supply chain. 
 The Milk Market Observatory for a closer monitoring of the market. 
 Quality policy, which is particularly relevant for producers oriented to niche products. 
 
Research and innovation policies which can play a significant role in designing sustainable milk production. 
 
4.2.3.3 Market access Page 132, Paragraph 4.55 
 
Australia notes that world prices for raw cane sugar (HS 1701) are currently below the special safeguard (SSG) ‘trigger’ prices advised by the EU in G/AG/N/EEC/2. Australia also notes that in the latest MA:5 notification (G/AG/N/EU/23), the EU has advised that the price-based SSG 
mechanism has become ‘operational’ with respect of raw sugar (HS17011110 and HS17011190). WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 16 - 
 
  Question 30 
Can the EU outline what is meant by ‘operational’ and describe the steps required to see the status 
of ‘operational’ progress to an actual invocation of a price-based safeguard response?  
EU reply:  The European Union legislation provides th at additional duties may be collected in 
accordance to the provisions of Article 5 of th e Agreement on Agriculture. The expression "has 
been made operational" means that for certain pr oducts the amounts are effectively collected if 
the price of the consignment presented for import so justifies. 
 4.3.1.2 Regulatory framework and policy developments Page 143, Paragraph 4.82 
 
Australia notes the EU’s comprehensive overhaul of roaming changes as part of the draft regulation on a “connected continent”, including new rights for consumers and end-uses rights.  
 
Question 31 
Could the EU provide further information on these enhanced consumer rights, including in regard 
to information requirements in contracts? 
 EU reply: The draft regulation on a “connected contin ent” is currently being discussed by EU co-
legislators. The draft regulation proposes to adap t roaming related consumer rights, as spelled out 
in the roaming Regulation currently in force in the EU[1] (contractual information obligations, 
transparency of retail charges, safeguard mechanis ms for retail data roaming services). Pending 
the outcome of the legislative process, the Re gulation 513/2012 remains the legal reference.[1] 
Regulation No 513/2012 of the European Parlia ment and of the Council of 13 June 2012 on 
roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union.  
 
4.3.4.1 Legislations aimed at building ne w rules for the global financial system 
Page 160, Paragraphs 4.130 – 4.144  Australia notes the extensive work undertaken by the EU to strengthen the global financial system.  
 
Question 32 
Could the EU provide an overview of the impact of these regulations to foreign banks operating 
within the EU, and any relevant grace pe riods which will apply for compliance? 
 EU reply: Foreign banks can operate in the EU either through a subsidiary or a branch. 
Subsidiaries carrying out banking activities are assimilated to either a credit institution or an 
investment firm as defined in the EU banking law and are subject to the same regulatory requirements and supervisory framework as set out in the EU banking regulations. There is 
therefore neither separate impact assessment of these regulations nor grace period for 
subsidiaries of foreign banks in the EU banking legislation.  
 EU branches of foreign banks are mainly supervised by the supervisory authorities of the Member 
State of the EU where they are established. As sessing the impact of EU regulations or grace 
periods is therefore not relevant for branches of foreign banks.  
4.3.4.2 Legislations aimed at establishing  a safe, responsible and growth enhancing 
financial sector in Europe Page 166, Paragraph 4.157  
Question 33 
Could the EU provide a timeline for adoption of the proposal on the regulation of long-term 
investment funds, including the timeframe fo r any public consultation being undertaken? 
 
EU reply: The final text of the regulation has been ad opted and will be promptly published in the 
Official Journal of the EU: 
http://ec.europa.eu/finance/investment/l ong-term/index_en.htm#maincontentSec1 
 
  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 17 - 
 
  Page 167, Paragraph 4.161 
 Question 34 
Could the EU provide an overview of its proposal to revise rules for occupational pension funds? 
 
EU reply: All relevant information can be found here: 
http://ec.europa.eu/finance/pensions/iorp/index_en.htm#maincontentSec1 
 Report by the European Union - WT/TPR/S/317  1 THE EUROPEAN UNION IN THE GLOBAL TRADING SYSTEM 
Page 3, Paragraph 1 
In 2007 at the European Union supported a position the Codex Alimentarius Labelling Committee 
that recognised that country of origin statements, required in the standards for Havarti and Danbo, 
“preserved the generic nature of the names of these cheeses and promotes equitable labelling 
requirements.” 
Currently the European Commission is in the process of considering applications by Denmark to 
register the terms “Danbo” and “Havarti” as Geographical Indications in the European Union. A 
number of producers inside and outside the EU have invested in producing Havarti making use of the international standard developed in codex.  They did so in the understanding that they were entitled to use it as a generic term. 
Given the importance that the European Union attaches to stable, enforceable trade rules and 
robust international standards, we would encourage the European Union to consider the significance of taking a consistent position in international standard setting bodies. 
Granting intellectual property rights exclusively to one producer or group of producers, after the 
development in good faith of an international standard undermines the system of international standard setting bodies, and the certainty that standards are intended to provide in international 
trade. 
Question 35a 
What parallels should be drawn between the EU’s positions in international standard setting bodies 
and decisions taken in its domestic rulemaking? 
Question 35b 
Does the EU continue to support the international standards developed by Codex for Havarti and 
Danbo? 
EU reply to questions 35a and 35b:  The EU is of the view that it is not incoherent to protect as 
GI a name for which an international Codex Alimentarius standard was previously defined. The main objective of elaborating Codex standards is to harmonize the production method for a given 
product at international level so as to ensure fair competition. The existence of such a standard 
does not constitute incontrovertible evidence of  the genericity of the term covered by such 
standard. Rather, the generic nature of a given name has to be fully and exhaustively demonstrated for the territory in question in order to refuse protection of a name as a 
geographical indication for that territory. In territories where the designation is of a generic 
nature, abiding by the Codex standards will at least ensure fairer competition. The EU can refer to similar cases occurred in the past like for instances, in 1996, the Danish designations "Danablu" 
and "Esrom" or in 2011 the Swiss designation "Gruyère". The EU would like to note in this context 
that the same applies to the registration of names in Annex В of the Stresa Convention of 1951 
regarding cheeses.  
The EU would like also to clarify that registration of a name as a GI is not tantamount to granting 
intellectual property rights exclusively to one pr oducer or a definite group of producers. Rather, 
any operator, regardless of origin or nationality, may produce the product and use the name in accordance with the relevant specifications, which i.a. define the geographical area  in which the 
production steps have to take place. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 18 - 
 
  The European Commission has not, at this stage, taken a decision in relation to the application for 
registration of the name "Danbo" as a protected geographical indication lodged by Denmark. Once 
the final decision is taken, it may be subject to appeal in accordance with the existing procedures. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 19 - 
 
  Page 3, Paragraph 1.5 
 Question 36 
What steps is the EU taking to implement the decision of the 9th Ministerial Conference in 
December 2013 on tariff-rate  quota administration?  
 EU reply:  EU legislation on Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) administration is Regulation (EU) No 
1308/2013 and its implementing Regulations provides  with the adequate flexibility for the EU to 
comply with the decision of the 9
th Ministerial Conference on TRQ administration, including on 
under-filled mechanism.  
3. Developments in the Internal Market 
Progress in the in the internal energy market Page 8, Paragraph 3.14 
 
Part of the Energy Union Package involves pr oposing a new Renewable Energy Package in 2016-
17.  
 
Question 37 
Will additional details of the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive (RED) be released through the Renewable Energy Package? In particular, Australi a is seeking an indication of the lead times 
necessary to comply with Article 17 of RED, which is expected to increase greenhouse gas 
emissions saving requirements from the use of biofuels from 35 to 50 per cent by 2017.    
EU reply:  The referred greenhouse gas (GHG) emission saving threshold is fixed under the current 
legislation and the minimum 50% GHG saving target is applicable as of 1st January 2017. The Renewable Energy Package will include a revised renewable energy legislative framework after 
2020 and reflect the recently adopted 2030 policy framework for climate and energy policies.  
 4 THE KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN EU TRADE AND INVESTMENT POLICY (2013/2014) 4.2 EU enforcement policy 
Page 12-13, Paragraph 4.26 
 “In 2013, the Commission adopted a proposal to modernise the anti-dumping and antisubsidy 
instruments in an effort to improve them in the face of changes in international trade practices.” 
 Question 38 
Can the EU provide further details on the nature of these reforms, including how they dealt with 
specific changes in international trade practices?  EU reply:   Modernisation aims at improving the predictability of the system by informing parties in 
advance of the imposition of provisional measures and thus importers can better plan their 
business. The partial non-application of the lesser duty rule will discourage our trading partners from engaging in certain unfair trading behaviou r because, as a consequence, they would face 
higher duties in cases structural raw material distortions or subsidisation. The proposed changes 
will also ensure more fairness (e.g. re-imbursement  of duties collected during a review, according 
to which the reason for the imposition of measures does not exist any longer). 
 
Report by the Secretariat - WT/TPR/S/317 2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 2.5 Aid for Trade 
Page 34, Paragraphs 2.48-2.52 
& Report by the European Union - WT/TPR/S/317 
4 THE KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN EU TRADE AND INVESTMENT POLICY (2013/2014) 
4.3.1 Aid for trade Page 13, Paragraphs 4.30-4.32 
 
The EU has been a key provider of aid for trade.  Question 39a 
How much aid for trade has it provided in the last three years? WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 20 - 
 
  EU reply:  EU aid for trade figures are always monitored with a two year lag, so the following 
figures are for the most recent three years av ailable, 2010, 2011 and 2012 and relate to aid for 
trade from the EU and its Member States collectively. 2010: EUR 10.7 billion 
2011: EUR 9.5 billion 
2012: EUR 11.6 billion  
These figures are taken from the annual Aid for Trade monitoring report which is included as an 
annex to the annual Accountability report. These are public documents and available online: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/financing-development_en 
 
The report for 2015, providing the figures for 2013 will be published later this year. 
 Question 39b 
Does it expect to maintain its current levels of aid for trade funding?  EU reply:  The 2007 EU Joint Aid for Trade Strategy pursues the following objective related to aid 
for trade levels: “Increase overall AfT as part of the gradual increases of overall EU ODA.” 
 This objective was bolstered by the Council Conclusions issued on the 2012 Communication on trade, growth and development which confirmed “that the EU and its Member States should 
continue to lead global efforts to resp ond to the Aid for Trade (AfT) demands…” 
 The Global Aid for Trade Review is coming up, and discussions in the UN-led processes on 
Sustainable Development Goals and Financing for Development have highlighted the importance of 
aid for trade to growth and development.  
Question 40 
What has been the EU’s aid for trade focus to date, and will it continue on the same track?  
 EU reply:  The EU’s aid for trade is provided through the EU’s development instruments and is 
therefore programmed according to beneficiary needs. While specific trends and focal issues are 
identified ex-post, notably in monitoring reports such as the annual aid for trade reports referenced above, future programming of aid for trade will continue to be provided in response to 
the needs of developing country partners and programmed according to their priorities. 
 Council Conclusions of May 2015 on A New Global Partnership for Poverty Eradication and 
Sustainable Development after 2015' provide a broad focus on provision of aid for trade to LDCs: 
“All developed countries and emerging economies should better target their Aid for Trade to developing countries, with an increased proporti on of aid for trade going to LDCs and other 
developing countries most in need.”  
 
Following the conclusion of the post-2015 develo pment agenda in September 2015, the EU and its 
Member States expect to revisit and update the joint aid for trade strategy.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 21 - 
 
  EU RESPUESTAS A LAS PREGUNTAS DE MÉXICO 
CON BASE EN EL INFORME DE LA SECRETARÍA DE LA OMC 
 Las preguntas están formuladas con base en el documento WT/TPR/S/317, de tal 
manera que primero se hace referencia a la  cita textual de la parte relevante del 
Informe de la Secretaría y enseguida se pr esentan las interrogantes asociadas a dicha 
cita: 
 
“2.3.3 Preferencias unilaterales“ 
 Pregunta: Se solicita a la UE que pueda se ñalar si ha tenido que implementar el 
mecanismo de salvaguardia previsto en el SG P, y de ser el caso,  indique los productos 
objeto de la medida y su sutiación actual.  
EU reply:  The safeguard provisions of the GSP have never been applied so far. 
 “POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS 
Medidas que afectan directamente a las importaciones 
Procedimientos aduaneros  3.9. La UE sigue adelante con su iniciativa sobre las aduanas electrónicas, que tiene, entre otros 
objetivos, el de mejorar la eficiencia y efectivida d de los procedimientos aduaneros, para facilitar 
así el comercio.
3 La iniciativa sobre las aduanas electrónicas comprende varios proyectos 
individuales, como el sistema automático de importación/exportación y la ventanilla única. La 
ventanilla única de la UE es una iniciativa para la que se adoptó un enfoque de aplicación gradual4: 
la primera etapa consistía en la aceptación automática de certificados electrónicos; en 2012 se inició un proyecto piloto de aceptación de certificados veterinarios (Documento Veterinario Común 
de Entrada (DVCE)), que lleva en marcha desde marzo de 2014.”  
 Pregunta: Dentro de la iniciativa para las aduanas electrónicas, uno de los proyectos es 
el Sistema Automático de Importación/Ex portación. ¿Se encuentran cubiertos los 
certificados de origen para efectos preferenciales bajo es te Sistema? ¿Cómo lo hace 
compatible con los requisitos actuales? ¿C ómo operaría? ¿Cuándo se encontraría en 
vigor? 
 
EU reply:  The Automated Export System is still under development. As for the Automated Import 
System, the requirements are defined and implemented nationally.  
 
“3.10. Como se indica en la publicación Doing Business del Banco Mundial, el tiempo necesario para completar el proceso de importación varía entre los distintos Estados miembros: en más de la mitad de ellos es menor que el promedio de la OCDE, mientras que en los demás se necesita más 
tiempo; por ejemplo, hasta 19 días en el caso de Hungría.
5 La Comisión ha señalado que en el 
cálculo de ese tiempo se incluyen las actividades de las aduanas y de otros organismos que participan en el proceso de importación (por ejemplo, el transporte interior y la manipulación en 
puerto y terminal), y abarca desde la llegada del barco al puerto de entrada hasta la entrega del 
cargamento en el almacén de la fábrica. Según la Comisión, se llevó a cabo un proyecto piloto para calcular el tiempo que necesitarían las adua nas para tramitar una declaración de importación 
ordinaria (desde la aceptación hasta el despacho de las mercancías); los resultados indicaron que 
el 88% de las declaraciones de importación presentadas por medios electrónicos siguiendo el procedimiento normal fueron tramitadas en una hora como máximo. Además, los procedimientos aduaneros se deben aplicar de manera uniforme, aunque puede haber ciertas diferencias a nivel 
de la administración. La Comisión indica que investigará cualquier práctica de un Estado miembro 
que no esté en conformidad con la legislación aduanera de la UE y, en caso necesario, se podrá abrir un procedimiento de infracción.” 
                                               
3 Información en línea de la Comisión Euro pea, "Electronic Customs". Consultada en: 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/policy_issues/electronic_customs_initiative/index_en.htm . 
4 Información en línea de la Comisión Europea, "Ele ctronic Customs: Individual  Projects". Consultada 
en: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/policy_issues/electronic_customs_initiative/it_projects/index_e
n.htm . 
5 Información en línea del Banco Mundial, " Doing Business , Comercio transfronter izo". Consultada en: 
http://espanol.doingbusiness.org/data/exploretopics/trading-across-borders . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 22 - 
 
  Pregunta: Se menciona que el tiempo para concluir una importación varía entre Estados 
Miembros. Considerando que la UE es tan ac tiva en temas de facilitación de comercio 
¿existe algún proyecto para armo nizar y reducir estos tiempos? 
 
EU reply:  Customs procedures in the EU must be uni formly implemented by the Member States' 
customs authorities in accordance with the Community Customs Code and its implementing provisions. Much effort is made in order to ensure a uniform implementation of customs and other 
border procedures. This is, for example, made through joint actions between the Commission and 
the Member States, including monitoring actions in the Member States.  Nevertheless, the differences in time are due mainly to geographical and logistical factors; besides 
they may arise as non-customs related documentation which may differ between Member States. 
 3.1.3.1 Normas no preferenciales  y 3.1.3.2 Normas preferenciales  
 
“3.22. Las normas de origen no preferenciales se aplican con diversos fines, entre otros la 
aplicación de medidas antidumping y compensatorias, restricciones cuantitativas, contingentes 
arancelarios NMF, marcas de origen y medidas comerciales especiales, así como la contratación 
pública.  3.24. Las normas de origen preferenciales son las disposiciones conexas establecidas en los 
regímenes comerciales unilaterales (por ejemplo, el SPG) y los acuerdos comerciales recíprocos. 
Las normas de origen preferenciales de la UE varían entre los diferentes acuerdos comerciales recíprocos.
6 No obstante, hay normas generales que se aplican en la mayoría de los casos, 
mientras que las excepciones a la aplicación de las "normas generales" difieren entre los acuerdos 
comerciales.7 Las nuevas normas de origen del SPG se han simplificado y modernizado, en 
comparación con las aplicadas anteriormente. La Comisión señala que la UE ha estado 
considerando la posibilidad de ampliar sus normas de origen del tipo del SPG para abarcar otros 
regímenes comerciales.”  Pregunta1, sobre el párrafo 3.22 y 3.24: ¿S e encuentran las reglas de origen para 
efectos no preferenciales y la s preferenciales incluidas en el Sistema Automático de 
Importación/Exportación? ¿Al momento de tram itar un certificado de origen el sistema 
hace una correlación automática para aprobar la emisión de un certificado? ¿se utiliza el 
sistema armonizado vigente? 
 EU reply:  Yes, the procedures are harmonised as these are regulated, dependant on the 
applicable trade arrangement, in rules which are common to all Member States. Each arrangement 
has its own legal base in form of a preferential agreement or in the form of a special provision in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2454/93 of 2.7.1993 (IPC).  
Pregunta 2, sobre el párrafo 3.24: La reglas de  origen para fines preferenciales varían en 
sus diferentes Acuerdos comerciales. ¿Exi ste alguna limitante para que los socios 
comerciales con los que se tiene una unión ad uanera manejen también reglas de origen 
distintas a las negociadas por la Unión Europea con terceros países? 
 EU reply:  The conditions for countries  with which the EU has a customs union (Turkey, Andorra 
and San Marino) on the rules of origin to be applied with third countries may be found on the 
different provisions governing the customs unions: a)  Decision 1/95 of the Association Council of 
22.12.1995 (OJ L 35, 13.02.1996) for the EU-Turkey customs union; b) Customs Union Agreement of 1990 Council Decision of 26.11.1990 OJ L 374 of 31.12.1990 and Decision No 1/2003 of the EC-
Andorra Joint Committee of 3 September 2003 (OJ L 253 of 07.10.2003) for the EU-Andorra 
Customs Union and Co-operation and Customs Union Agreement (OJ L 84 of 28.3.2002 ) for the 
EU-Andorra Customs Union  
 
 
                                               
6 Información en línea de la Comisión European, "DG TAXUD: Arrangements list". Consultada en: 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_duties/rules_origin/preferential/article_779_en.htm . 
7 Véase un resumen detallado en "HMRC Notice 828, 'Tariff Preferences: Rules of origin for various 
countries'", de 3 de septiembre de 2013. Consultado en: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-
828-tariff-preferences-rules-of-origin-for-various-countries/notice-828-tariff-preferences-rules-of-origin-for-
various-countries . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 23 - 
 
  Pregunta 3, sobre el párrafo 3.24: ¿Los pr ocedimientos y requisitos para emitir los 
certificados de origen se encuentran armonizados entre todos los Estados Miembros? 
 EU reply: Yes, the procedures are harmonised as these are regulated, dependant on the 
applicable trade arrangement, in rules which are common to all Member States. Each arrangement 
has its own legal base in form of a preferential agreement or in the form of a special provision in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2454/93 of 2.7.1993 (IPC). 
 
Pregunta 4, sobre el párrafo 3.24: Dentro de  sus Tratados de Libre Comercio, ¿Realiza o 
planea realizar la UE verificaciones de orig en de marea directa con los exportadores en 
territorio de la Parte exportadora? 
 
EU reply:  In the existing provisions in the Protocols/Annexes on origin to the different EU FTAs 
regulating the verification of origin procedures, the possibility for the importing party to carry out 
direct visits to the premises of the exporters in th e territory of the exporting Party is not foreseen.  
 “3.1.7  Medidas comerciales especiales 
3.1.7.1 Panorama general 
 3.61. La legislación relativa a las medidas comerciales especiales figura en el Reglamento N
o 1225/2009 sobre antidumping (denominado "Reglamento antidumping de base"), el 
Reglamento No 597/2009 sobre medidas compensatorias (denominado "Reglamento 
antisubvenciones") y los Reglamentos No 260/2009 y No 625/2009 sobre salvaguardias. El 
Reglamento No 427/2003 relativo a un mecanismo de salvaguardia transitorio aplicable a las 
importaciones de determinados productos originarios de China expiró en diciembre de 2013.8 
Actualmente, la UE está modernizando sus instrumentos de defensa comercial (solamente las medidas antidumping y compensatorias) con el fin de aumentar la transparencia de las 
investigaciones y, en particular, en lo que respecta al país análogo, al margen de daño, a la 
reconsideración por expiración y al interés de la UE.
9” 
Pregunta 1: Se solicita a la UE confirme si las propuestas legislativas que se listan a 
continuación son las únicas relativas a la iniciativa de modernización de los 
instrumentos de defensa comercial, que se en cuentran en consideración de los organos 
legislativos correspondientes: 
 COM(2014) 660 final “Propuesta de REGLAMENTO DEL PARLAMENTO EUROPEO Y 
DEL CONSEJO sobre la defensa contra  las importaciones subvencionadas 
originarias de países no miembros de la  Unión Europea (versión codificada)” y 
“ANEXOS a la Propuesta de REGLAMENTO DEL PARLAMENTO EUROPEO Y DEL 
CONSEJO Sobre la defensa contra las im portaciones subvencionadas originarias 
de países no miembros de la Unión Euro pea (versión codificada)”, disponibles en 
http://eur-lex.e uropa.eu/legal-
content/ES/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52014PC0660&from=EN; 
 COM(2014) 318 final “Propuesta de REGLAMENTO DEL PARLAMENTO EUROPEO Y 
DEL CONSEJO sobre las medidas que podrá tomar la Unión en relación con el efecto combinado de las medidas antidumping o antisubvenciones y las medidas 
de salvaguardia (versión codificada)” y “ANEXOS a la Propuesta de REGLAMENTO 
DEL PARLAMENTO EUROPEO Y DEL CONSEJ O sobre las medidas que podrá tomar 
la Unión en relación con el efecto combinado de las medidas antidumping o 
antisubvenciones y las medidas de salvagua rdia (versión codificada)” disponibles 
en http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-cont ent/ES/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX: 52014PC0 
318&from=EN; y 
 COM(2013) 192 final “Propuesta de REGLAMENTO DEL PARLAMENTO EUROPEO Y 
DEL CONSEJO por el que se modifican el Reglamento (CE) nº 1225/2009 del 
Consejo, sobre la defensa contra las im portaciones que sean objeto de dumping 
por parte de países no miembros de la Comunidad Europea, y el Reglamento (CE) 
nº 597/2009 del Consejo, sobre la defensa contra las importaciones 
subvencionadas originarias de países no miembros de la Comunidad Europea. 
                                               
8 Reglamento (CE) No 427/2003 del Consejo, de 3 de marzo de 2003 (DO L 65, de 8 de marzo de 2003). 
9 Documento MEMO/13/319 de la Comisión Europea, de 10 de abril de 2013. Consultado en: 
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-319_en.htm . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 24 - 
 
  {SWD(2013) 105 final} {SWD(2013) 106 final}” disponible en http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013PC0192 . 
 
EU reply:  COM(2014) 660 final and COM (2014) 318 final do not concern modernisation. They are 
Commission proposals to codify a number of amendments made to the existing basic regulations, 
aiming at simplifying and clarifying the law so as to make it clearer and more accessible to citizens. This codification exercise does not change the substance of the basic regulations. The 
Proposals concerning modernisation are COM(2013) 191 final and COM(2013) 192 final. 
 Pregunta 2: Se requiere a la UE que pueda pr oporcionar información actualizada sobre el 
estado que guarda el proceso de adopción de la versión revisada de las guías relativas a 
“Interés de la Unión”, “Margen de daño”, “País análogo” y “revisión por extinción” 
(Union interest, injury margin, analogue country and expiry reviews - http://trade.ec.europa.eu/consultations/index.cfm?consul_id=175- ). 
 
EU reply:  The legislative proceeding regarding the modernisation package is under the normal co 
legislative procedure so the outcome of the process cannot be anticipated.  
 
“3.1.8  Reglamentos técnicos y normas 
 3.84. Como se indica en el cuadro 3.5, el fundamento jurídico para la elaboración de normas en 
la UE es el Reglamento (UE) Nº 1025/2012, en el que se establecen los procedimientos que han de 
seguir las organizaciones europeas de normalización y los organismos nacionales de normalización al elaborar normas y documentos similares ("otros documentos"). Las tres organizaciones 
europeas de normalización reconocidas en el Reglamento son el Comité Europeo de Normalización 
(CEN), el Comité Europeo de Normalización Electrotécnica (CENELEC) y el Instituto Europeo de Normas de Telecomunicaciones (ETSI). La Comisión puede presentar una solicitud formal a las 
organizaciones de normalización para que elaboren una norma, después de haber consultado a las 
partes interesadas, presentado la solicitud al Comité de Normas y recibido la aprobación de los Estados miembros (procedimiento de comitología).”  
Preguntas:  
De acuerdo a los organismos nacionales de normalización ¿Cada país tiene un 
organismo? ¿Cuáles son los organismos de na cionales de normalización que participan 
en la descripción de los procedimientos a seguir en la elaboración de normas y 
documentos similares?.  
¿Quiénes son las partes interesadas a las cual es la Comisión consulta en la elaboración 
de una norma?.  EU reply: The European standardisation is based on th e principle of national delegation. While 
CEN and CENELEC are made up of  national standards bodies (NSBs), which are members of CEN 
and of CENELEC, ETSI is based on direct participation of industry (without NSBs or other intermediaries) and also foresees national votes on European standards. Each EU Member State 
has at least one standards organisation, although some EU Member States might have two 
standards organisations which correspond to the two European Standards Organisations: CEN and CENELEC. The list of EU Member States' standards organisations can be found at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52014XC0927%2807%29 . The list includes also 
the standardisation organisations of the EEA EFTA Member States which are part of the European 
Standardisation system. When CEN or CENELEC elaborate a new European Standard, they set up a European technical committee under the responsi bility of one of its national members, and 
consisting of other national members (NSBs). At the same time NSBs create the so-called 
"National Mirror Committees" (reflecting the European technical committee on the Member State level), which enable all interested parties (enterprises, consumers, public authorities, NGOs, etc.) 
to participate in the creation of the standard at national level and in their own language. 
 The European Commission does not elaborate standards. It can only make a formal request – 
mandate - to the standards organizations for development of a standard. Prior to making such a 
mandate the Commission will consult with a wide group of interested parties: social partners, consumers, SMEs, relevant industry associations, etc.  
“3.88.  El 26 de febrero de 2014 se adoptó un "paq uete de adaptación", compuesto por ocho WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 25 - 
 
  directivas, que se publicó en el Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea el 29 de marzo 2014.10 Los 
productos comprendidos en la directivas son el equipo eléctrico de baja tensión, la compatibilidad electromagnética, los aparatos para uso en atmósferas potencialmente explosivas, los ascensores, los recipientes a presión simples, los instrumentos de medida, los instrumentos de pesaje de 
funcionamiento no automático, y los explosivos con usos civiles; las directivas entrarán en vigor en 
abril de 2016. Además, en 2013 y 2014 se promulgó legislación relativa a los artículos pirotécnicos, las embarcaciones de recreo, los equipos radioeléctricos y los equipos a presión. La 
Comisión señaló asimismo que están pendientes de aprobación otras propuestas de adaptación de 
normas sobre los productos sanitarios, los aparatos de gas, las instalaciones de transporte por cable y los equipos de protección individual.”  
Preguntas:  
¿Las ocho directivas aprobadas y publicadas en el Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea, 
fueron notificadas al Comité OTC de la OMC?  En caso de que la respuesta sea afirmativa 
¿Cuándo y con qué nomenclatura qu edo registrada en el sistema? 
 EU reply: Yes, the eight directives have been duly notified to the WTO TBT Committee 27 
February 2012 as follows:  
 G/TBT/N/EU/19 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the 
harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to the making available on the market of electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits (COM(2011) 773) (44 
pages, in English, French and Spanish). 
 G/TBT/N/EU/20Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the 
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility 
(COM(2011) 765) (65 pages, in English, French and Spanish). 
 G/TBT/N/EU/21 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the 
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to equipment and protective 
systems intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres (COM(2011) 772) (97 pages, 
in English, French and Spanish). 
 G/TBT/N/EU/22 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the 
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the 
market and supervision of explosives for civil uses (COM(2011) 771) (86 pages, in English, 
French and Spanish 86 English, French and Spanish. 
 G/TBT/N/EU/23 Proposal for a  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the 
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to making available on the market 
of lifts and safety components for lifts (COM(2011)770) (116 pages, in English, French and Spanish). 
 G/TBT/N/EU/24 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the 
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to making available on the market of measuring instruments (COM (2011)769) (193 pages, in English, French and Spanish). 
 G/TBT/N/EU/26 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the 
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to making available on the market 
of simple pressure vessels (COM(2011)768) (81 pages, in English, French and Spanish). 
 G/TBT/N/EU/27 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the 
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to making available on the market 
of non-automatic weighing instruments (COM(2011)766 final) (86 pages, in English, French and Spanish). 
 
“3.92. Al nivel de la UE, las prescripciones en materia de acreditación de los organismos de 
evaluación de la conformidad están establecidas en el Reglamento (CE) Nº 765/2008, relativo a la acreditación y a la vigilancia del mercado. De conformidad con el Reglamento, cada Estado 
miembro ha de designar un único organismo nacional de acreditación, que no podrá llevar a cabo 
actividades de evaluación de la conformidad prop ias, no podrá competir con otros organismos de 
acreditación y deberá operar sin fines lucrativos. Deberá ser miembro de la Cooperación Europea 
para la Acreditación ("la EA"), "cuya misión principal es fomentar que se aplique un sistema 
transparente y orientado hacia la calidad para evaluar las competencias de los organismos de evaluación de la conformidad en Europa", y que "gestiona un sistema de evaluación por pares que 
abarca los organismos nacionales de acreditación de todos los Estados miembros y de otros países 
europeos".
11, 12, Las autoridades nacionales reconocerán la equivalencia de los servicios prestados 
                                               
10 DO L 96, de 29 de marzo de 2014. 
11 Considerando (23) del Reglamento Nº 765/2008. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 26 - 
 
  por otros organismos nacionales de acreditación que se hayan sometido con éxito al sistema de 
evaluación por pares, y aceptarán los certificados de acreditación de dichos organismos, así como 
las certificaciones y los informes de ensayo emitidos por los organismos de evaluación de la conformidad acreditados por ellos.
13” 
 
Pregunta: ¿Qué autoridad es la encargada de  resolver el conflicto, en caso de que la 
autoridad nacional de un país no reconozca la equivalencia de los servicios de otro 
órgano nacional de acreditación? 
 EU reply: Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 
2008 setting out the requirements for accreditatio n and market surveillance relating to the 
marketing of products is directly applicable in all Member States and prescribes that national 
authorities shall recognise the equivalence of the services delivered by those accreditation bodies 
which have successfully passed the peer evaluation, and thereby accept the accreditation 
certificates of those bodies and the attestatio ns issued by the conformity assessment bodies 
accredited by them. Should national authorities of a Member State not recognise the equivalence 
of certificates issued by an accreditation body that has successfully undergone the peer evaluation 
by the European accreditation infrastructure – European Cooperation for Accreditation (EA), this 
would represent an infringement of EU law and the Commission would take the necessary measures to ensure that the provisions of EU law are respected.  
“3.94.  Por medio del sistema alerta rápida sobre los peligros derivados de la utilización de 
productos de consumo (RAPEX), las autoridades de los Estados miembros de la UE y los países del AELC intercambian información sobre los productos que se considera suponen un riesgo para la 
salud y la seguridad y sobre las medidas adoptadas para hacer frente a dicho riesgo. También 
deben notificarse las medidas adoptadas por los productores y distribuidores (cuadro 3.7).  
Pregunta: ¿Cuál es la definición y que pr oductos entran en la clasificación de “food 
dangerous products” ? 
 EU reply: The formulation of the question might be based on a misunderstanding or an omission 
since the RAPEX Rapid Alert System is used for dangerous non-food products. It allows the 31 
participating countries (EU countries, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) and the European 
Commission to exchange information on products posing a risk to health and safety of consumers 
and on the measures taken by these countries to do away with that risk. 
 The system also covers products posing risk to he alth and safety of professional users and to other 
public interests protected by relevant EU le gislation (e.g. environment and security).  
 It does not cover food, feed, pharmaceuticals and medical devices, which are covered by other 
mechanisms. 
 Furthermore, the system does not cover second-han d products supplied as antiques or as products 
to be repaired or reconditioned prior to being used, provided that a supplier clearly informs the 
person to whom he supplies the product to that effect. 
 “3.3.4 Empresas estatales” 
 
Tomando en cuenta que la “OECD Guidelines on Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises”/Guías de OCDE sobre Gobernan za Corporativa de las Empresas Propiedad 
del Estado –SOEs- que se encuentra en http://www.oecd.org/cor porate/ca/corporate 
governanceofstate-ownedenterprises/34803211.pdf , no es vinculante, ¿podría dar la UE 
ejemplos concretos de la aplicación de di chas guías por los Estados Miembros que 
forman parte de la OCDE, y de los benefici os que se obtuvieron de dicha aplicación? 
 
En el borrador más reciente de la revisión de las Guías ya referida s, “2014-15 Revision 
of the OECD Guidelines on Corporate Govern ance of State-Owned Enterprises”, que se 
                                                                                                                                               
12 Son miembros de la EA los organismos nacionales  de acreditación de lo s Estados miembros y de 
Islandia, Montenegro, Noruega, Serbia, Suiza, la ex  República Yugoslava de Ma cedonia, y Turquía. Sus 
miembros asociados son los organismos nacionales de acreditación de Albania, Argelia, Belarús, Bosnia y 
Herzegovina, Egipto, Georgia, Israel, Jordania, Kosovo, Marruecos, Moldova, Túnez, y Ucrania. 
13 Artículo 11 del Reglamento (CE) Nº 765/2008. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 27 - 
 
  encuentra en http://www.oecd.org/daf/ca/SOE-guidelines-update-draft-text-May-2014.pdf , se 
hace énfasis en aspectos relacionados co n la consulta pública permanente, la 
transparencia y rendición de cuentas, revisión  periódica de los objetivos de las SOE’s, 
etc. Por ejemplo, en su párrafo 19, la Guía explícitamente señala que “High standards of 
transparency and accountability are needed to a llow the public to assure itself that the 
government exercises its powers in accordan ce with its best interest.”/”Se necesitan 
altos niveles de transparencia y rendición de  cuentas para permitir al público para 
asegurar que el propio gobierno ejerce su s competencias de conformidad con su mejor 
interés”. Aunque dicho borrador no es vinc ulante, y más aún, está en proceso de 
revisión, ¿es posible que la UE pueda indicar si algunas de las buenas prácticas que se 
describen en el borrador ya señalado, ya se  han implementado en los Estados Miembros 
que forman parte de la OCDE, así como los be neficios que se han obtenido de la citada 
implementación?   
En el borrador previamente señalado, disponible  en la página de la OCDE, se indica que 
Letonia se asoció formalmente con el inst rumento revisado (“The following countries 
acted as Associates (with the same rights an d duties as OECD member countries) in the 
revision of the Guidelines and have forma lly associated themselves with the revised 
instrument: Colombia, Latvia, Russia, [more to be added].”), Podría la UE proporcionar 
información sobre la aplicación de la Guía por los Estados Miembros que no son parte de la OCDE, así como los beneficios que se han obtenido de dicha aplicación?; ¿es posible 
que la UE pueda indicar si algunas de las buenas prácticas que se describen en el 
borrador ya señalado, ya se han implementa do en los Estados Miembros que no forman 
parte de la OCDE, así como los benefici os que se han obtenido de la citada 
implementación?. 
 EU reply to the three questions above: The EU does not supervise the implementation by 
Member States of these OECD guidelines. 
 Puede indicar la UE si el sistema legal de los Estados Miembros que forman parte de la 
OCDE, permite que las SOE’s mantengan un diálogo continuo con los auditores (ya sean 
auditores de entidades privadas o de otras instituciones gubernamentales)?; ¿en caso 
de que las auditorías a dichas SOE´s, sean  efectuadas por  auditores de entidades 
privadas, podría detallarse el procedimiento por el cual se seleccionan a los citados 
auditores externos?  
 EU reply : The EU legal framework that regulates the provision of audit services does not 
differentiate between SOEs and privately owned companies. 
 El 4 de mayo de 2011, el Comité Económico y Social Europeo emitió un Dictamen sobre "Las empresas públicas de terceros países en las contrataciones públicas de la UE", mismo que se 
publicó en el Diario Oficial de la Unión Europe a el 23 de julio de 2011. El objetivo de dicho 
Dictamen es examinar “… un aspecto específico del mercado de la contratación pública: respecto de la participación de las empresas públicas de terceros países en licitaciones dentro del mercado 
de la UE.”. Al respecto, podría proporcionar la UE información más detallada sobre la participación 
que han tenido las SOEs de terceros países en su mercado de contratación pública, durante los últimos años? 
 
EU reply:  The Commission does not have detailed information on participation of SOEs of third 
countries in the latest years. With regard to the topic of access to EU markets for companies belonging to third countries the Commission adopted a proposal for a Regulation on the access of 
third-country goods and services to the Union’s internal market in public procurement ("IPI") in 
March 2012, which aims at establishing procedures relating to uncovered procurement to increase the access of Union economic operators to public procurement markets in third countries.  The 
proposal is currently under review by the Commission.  It is at this point in time not possible to 
say exactly when a revised proposal will be tabled.  
“3.3.5  Contratación pública 
 3.215. Todos los contratos públicos por encima de valores de umbral determinados deben cumplir las prescripciones de las directivas de la UE sobre contratación pública, que se reflejan en las leyes 
y reglamentos pertinentes de los Estados miembros de la UE. El marco jurídico anterior (la WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 28 - 
 
  Directiva 2004/18/CE, relativa a los procedimientos de adjudicación de los contratos públicos de 
obras, de suministro y de servicios, y la Directiva 2004/17/CE, conocida como la Directiva de servicios públicos, relativa a los procedimientos de adjudicación de contratos en los sectores del agua, de la energía, de los transportes y de los servicios postales) fue reemplazado por un nuevo 
conjunto de directivas, que los Estados miembros están incorporando a su legislación nacional, a 
saber: la Directiva 2014/23/UE relativa a la adjudicación de contratos de concesión; la Directiva 2014/24/UE sobre contratación pública; y la Directiva 2014/25/UE relativa a la 
contratación por entidades que operan en los sectores del agua, la energía, los transportes y los 
servicios postales. Esas directivas entraron en vigor el 17 de abril de 2014, y los Miembros cuentan con un plazo de hasta 24 meses para su transposición, salvo en el caso de las disposiciones sobre contratación electrónica, para las que disponen de 30 meses.” 
 
Pregunta: Si bien el paquete de reformas en  materia de compras de gobierno entró en 
vigor el 17 de abril del año pasado, los Es tados Miembros tienen como plazo el 17 de 
abril de 2016, para tener implementadas las reformas en su legislación nacional. Al 
respecto, agradeceríamos a la UE que:  
 Proporcione información relativa a los avances en la implementación por sus 
Estados Miembros. 
 Comparta los retos que se han presentado  para que se puedan implementar las 
reformas y como se han superado dichos retos. 
 Ilustre con estadísticas o casos concret os, los beneficios que han empezado a 
experimentar las PYMES. 
 Señale en que medida las PYMES extr acomunitarias han participado de los 
procedimientos de licitación que se han re alizado en los Estados Miembros que ya 
implementan las reformas. 
 Detalle en que medida se ha implementado  la división de contratos en lotes más 
pequeños, los obstáculos que se han identificado para su aplicación, y las 
acciones que se tiene pensado instrume ntar para superar dichos obstáculos. 
EU reply: Directives have been agreed and came into force on 17 April 2014. Member States must 
transpose the Directives into national law within 24 months; this means that Member States have 
to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with 
the Directive by 18 April 2016.Therefore the Commissi on has not yet gathered information on the 
possible benefits to SMEs nor on the experience relating to the division of bids into lots, nor on 
issues or challenges by Member States in implementation process. 
“3.225.  Entre los principales elementos nuevos de la Directiva figuran los siguientes: 
 una definición más clara de una concesión, basada en las resoluciones del Tribunal de 
Justicia de la UE; 
 la cobertura de las concesiones de obras y servicios, tanto en el sector de los servicios 
públicos (excepto el del suministro de agua) como en los sectores clásicos (es decir, todos los demás sectores no abarcados por los servicios públicos); 
 la publicación obligatoria de anuncios de concesiones en el Diario Oficial de la UE si su 
valor es igual o superior a 5.186.000 euros; 
 un marco para ocuparse de las modificaciones de los contratos de concesión durante su 
período de vigencia; 
 el establecimiento de obligaciones con respecto a los criterios de selección y adjudicación 
que aplicarán las entidades contratantes cuando adjudiquen concesiones (la finalidad de 
esas normas es garantizar que esos criterios se publiquen de antemano y sean objetivos 
y no discriminatorios y, en general, son más simples y flexibles que disposiciones similares actualmente aplicables a los contratos públicos); 
 en lugar de procedimientos de adjudicación normalizados obligatorios (siempre con la 
posibilidad de negociación), establecimiento de determinadas garantías generales 
encaminadas a asegurar la transparencia e igualdad de trato (particularmente, en caso de que haya negociaciones); y WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 29 - 
 
   aplicación de las Directivas sobre recursos (Directivas 89/665/CEE y 92/13/CE, 
modificadas por la Directiva 2007/66/CE), a todas las concesiones abarcadas por la Directiva.” 
Pregunta 1: El comunicado de prensa dado a conocer por el Parlamento Europeo 
(http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-
room/content/20140110IPR32386/html/New-EU-procurement-rules-to-ensure-better-quality-and-value-for-money) señala que: 
I.- Las reformas establecen por primera ve z un conjunto común de normas para la 
concesión de contratos que impulsan la comp etencia leal (“ … for the first time sets 
common EU standards on concession contracts to boost fair competition …”). Al respecto, se solicita a la UE: 
 proporcionar información más detallada sobre la manera en que la reforma 
impulsa la competencia leal. 
 aclarar en que sentido es que la reforma define por primera vez, el conjunto común 
de normas para la concesión de contratos. 
EU reply: The Directive on concession imposes a unified set of rules based on principles of 
transparency and non-discrimination. Public contracts were already exhaustively regulated under 
the 2004 public procurement rules. However, those rules only covered partially works concessions 
and excluded service concessions. Such lack of comprehensive EU rules on concessions gave rise 
to distortions of the EU internal market. The new EU rules on concessions create a detailed legal framework covering both works and services concessions and in doing so improve non-
discriminatory and fair access to markets and EU-wide competition for concessions above the 
thresholds. 
II.- Los contratistas que no cumplan con la s leyes laborales de la UE podrán ser 
excluidos de la licitación (“Contractors that do not abide by EU labour laws may be 
excluded from bidding.”). Por lo anterior , se solicita a la UE que proporcione: 
 mayor detalle sobre la forma en que se evaluará la observancia de las leyes 
laborales comunitarias, en aquellos casos que impliquen la participación de 
Miembros OMC extracomunitarios, así como  los parámetros que se tomarían en 
cuenta para no ser excluídos de una licitación.  
 información sobre la aplicación de esta norma por parte de los Estados Miembros 
que ya implementan la reforma. 
 los Estados Miembros cuya legislación am biental, laboral y social diverge con 
respecto a la legislación comunitaria y l os espectos específicos donde se presenta 
dicha divergencia.  
EU reply: There is no automatic exclusion. The Directive provides Member States with the option 
to require or allow contracting authorities to exclude from participation in a public procurement 
contract or concession contract any economic operator if it can demonstrate any violation of 
"applicable obligations" referred to in Article 18(2) of the Directive. Those are obligations in the fields of environmental, social and labour law that apply in the performance of a contract and result from laws, regulations, decrees and decisions, at both Union level and national level and, as 
well as from some major international conventions in the field of labour and environmental law 
listed exhaustively in the Directive. In this context, third countries undertakings are subject to the same requirements as companies from the EU. The relevant Member States legislation must be in 
compliance with EU law. 
Pregunta 2: De acuerdo con la nueva estructura  legal que regulará la adjudicación de los 
contratos de concesión, cada Estado Miem bro mantendrá su libertad para definir las 
características de los servicios a ser proveído s, incluyendo cualquier condición referente 
a la calidad del servicio (“ … public authorit ies remain free to define the characteristics 
of the service to be provided, including an y conditions regarding the quality of the 
service …”, fuente: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-19_en.htm?locale=en ). Por 
lo anterior, se solicita a la UE explicar co n mayor detalle los parámetros bajo los cuales 
se podrá considerar que los criterios qu e serán publicados son “objetivos y no WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 30 - 
 
  discriminatorios”. 
 EU reply: the abovementioned phrase in the MEMO refers  to the provision of services of general 
interest by Member States and aims at clarifying that Member States remain free to define the 
characteristics of the services to be provided, including any conditions regarding the quality of the 
services. 
More in general, in order to ensure the respect of non-discrimination and transparency principles, 
award criteria for concession contracts have to meet some standards that are specified in the 
Directive. Those standards may refer to factors which are not purely economic, but influence the value of a tender from the point of view of the contracting authority and permit it to identify an overall economic advantage to the contracting author ity or the contracting entity. The criteria have 
to be related to the subject-matter of the contract  and should not offer to the contracting authority 
or contracting entity an unrestricted freedom of choice. They should permit effective competition and be accompanied by requirements that allow th e information provided by the tenderers to be 
effectively verified. The award criteria should be disclosed in advance to all potential candidates or 
tenderers. 
Pregunta 3: La nueva Directiva sobre adjudica ción de los contratos de concesión no es 
de aplicación retroactiva. No ob stante ello, las concesiones que se encuentren vigentes 
al momento de entrada en vigor de la Direct iva podrían ser objeto de extensión de su 
duración de tal forma que se mantengan exenta s de la aplicación de la Directiva. En ese 
sentido, se solicita a la UE explicar con mayo r detalle bajo que criterios una extensión de 
duración podría conducir a considerar que se trata de una nueva concesión que estará 
regulada por la Directiva.  
EU reply: Concessions Directive 2014/23/EU includes a partial grandfather clause aimed at 
providing legal certainty to the concessions that already existed or had already been tendered out 
at the moment of entry into force of the Directiv e. Those concessions do not need to be awarded 
pursuant to the Directive. However, the rules of the Directive (on modifications and on the 
duration) will apply to all concessions (including those awarded or tendered before 17 April 2014) 
as soon as the Directive is transposed into national law of a Member State and in any event by the deadline for transposition into national law (18 April 2016). As from that moment, the extension of the duration of any concession will have to comply with the relevant provisions of the Directive 
(Articles 18 and 43). 
“3.226. Las otras dos directivas del conjunto -la Directiva 2014/24/UE sobre contratación pública y 
la Directiva 2014/25/UE relativa a la contratación por entidades que operan en los sectores del 
agua, la energía, los transportes y los servicios postales- introducen varias normas y 
procedimientos encaminados a simplificar el marco anterior. Estas directivas amplían las posibilidades de negociación: se puede utilizar el procedimiento competitivo con negociación si así 
lo justifican las circunstancias específicas relacionadas con la naturaleza, la complejidad, o la 
estructura jurídica y financiera de un proyecto concreto. Se reduce la documentación exigida para el pliego de condiciones, en particular haciendo obligatoria la aceptación de las declaraciones de los propios licitadores (por medio de un documento europeo único de contratación normalizado); 
solo tendrá que presentar documentación formal (certificados y declaraciones) el licitador 
seleccionado. Los plazos mínimos para presentar ofertas se acortan. La finalidad del uso obligatorio de medios de comunicación electrónica en la contratación pública es aumentar la 
accesibilidad a la contratación para permitir a las empresas europeas -especialmente las pymes- 
explotar plenamente las ventajas del mercado único de contenidos digitales y mejorar la eficiencia (las autoridades calculan un ahorro de 100.000 millones de euros al año en el total de 
contrataciones públicas de la UE
14).” 
 Pregunta 1: En el desplegado de prensa re lativo a las preguntas más frecuentes con 
respecto a la reforma en materia de compras de gobierno 
(http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_MEMO-14-20_en.htm?lo cale=en) se indica que 
se amplian las posibilidades de negociación en los casos en que se justifique (“…They 
broaden the possibilities for negotiation: th e competitive procedure with negotiation 
                                               
14 European Commission (2014), Revision of Public Procurement Directives - Frequently Asked 
Questions , 15 de enero de 2014. Consultado en: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-
20_en.htm?locale=en . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 31 - 
 
  may be used when justified by the specific  circumstances in relation to the nature, 
complexity or the legal and financial make-up of  a given project, or by the fact that the 
needs of the contracting authority cannot be met by an ‘off the shelf’ type of solution.”). 
Al respecto, se solicita a la UE proveer más detalles sobre: 
 Los elementos a considerar para califi car que un caso es “justificado por las 
circunstancias específicas”. 
 La experiencia práctica de los Estados Miembros que ya aplican la reforma, con 
respecto a la posibilidad de negociac ión en comento, y si se han visto 
involucradas en las licitaciones empresas de Miembros de la OMC, que no  pertenecen a la UE. 
EU reply : With regard to the conditions for use of the competitive procedure with negotiations, 
contracting authorities may apply a competitive procedure with negotiation in the specific cases 
laid down in Article 26 paragraph 4 of the Directive 2014/24/EU. As Member States have to transpose the Directive by 18 April 2016, the Commission does not have yet detailed information 
on practical experience of Member States implementing the reform.  
Pregunta 2: Se solicita a la UE que prop orcione información detallada sobre los 
procedimientos de licitación en que han part icipado terceros países con los cuales no 
tiene un acuerdo en el sentido que establec e la directiva 2014/25/EU en su párrafo 1 
del artículo 85 (“… tenders covering products  originating in third countries with which 
the Union has not concluded, whether mult ilaterally or bilate rally, an agreement 
ensuring comparable and effective access fo r Union undertakings to the markets of 
those third countries”). 
EU reply : Directive 2014/25/EU replacing Directive 2004/17/EU has been agreed and came into 
force on 17 April 2014. Member States must transpose the Directives into national law within 24 months; this means that Therefore there is no yet information on the application of Directive 
2014/25/EU.  As to the correspondent Article 58 in the previous Directive 2004/17/EU,  
Commission does not have detailed information on the application of the Article 58 to third countries operators.  With regard to the topic of  access to EU markets for companies belonging to 
third countries the Commission adopted a proposal for a Regulation on the access of third-country 
goods and services to the Union’s internal mark et in public procurement ("IPI") in March 2012, 
which is supposed to set the terms of access to th e EU's public procurement market by companies, 
goods and services from outside the EU. The proposal is currently under review by the 
Commission. 
 “3.227. Las autoridades locales y regionales podrán dar publicidad a sus contratos mediante 
anuncios de información previa menos gravosos (en lugar de anuncios de licitación) y tendrán la 
posibilidad de acordar los plazos para el procedimiento de contratación con los licitadores preseleccionados. Para los servicios sociales, de salud, culturales y servicios conexos, se 
establecerá un régimen simplificado (valor de umbral más elevado de 750.000 euros - sin 
obligación de respetar las normas de la UE sobre especificaciones técnicas, posibilidad de tomar en cuenta todos los criterios de calidad y continuidad que se consideren necesarios para los servicios 
de que se trate, y de eliminar el criterio del precio como criterio único para la adjudicación de esos 
servicios). Este régimen simplificado también se apli cará a los servicios jurídicos, los servicios de 
hostelería y restaurante, y los servicios de suministro de comidas al exterior por contrato y cantinas. Por otro lado, los servicios que en el marco del reglamento anterior estaban sujetos a 
obligaciones menos estrictas (los denominados sectores "no prioritarios" o "B", como el transporte 
por vía acuática, y los servicios agrícolas y forestales), estarán sujetos a todo el conjunto de normas de las directivas, ya que se ha establecido el principio de que todos los servicios que no se 
enumeren de manera expresa en el anexo de las directivas en que figura el "nuevo régimen 
simplificado" quedarán abarcados por el régimen completo de las nuevas directivas. Con arreglo a los principios establecidos en la jurisprudencia pertinente del Tribunal de Justicia, las directivas aclaran las condiciones en que la cooperación entre las entidades públicas queda exenta de su 
aplicación, a fin de evitar que las excepciones den lugar a una distorsión de la competencia 
respecto a los operadores económicos privados.” 
Pregunta: En el desplegado de prensa re lativo a las preguntas más frecuentes con 
respecto a la reforma en materia de compras de gobierno 
(http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_MEMO-14-20_en.htm?lo cale=en) se indica que WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 32 - 
 
  se elimina la distinción entre servicios pr ioritarios y no prioritarios “…the current "B" 
(non-priority") services, such as the water tr ansport, agricultural and forestry services, 
will be subject to the full set of rules of  the Directives, unless listed in the "new 
simplified regime" annex to the Directives.”). Se solicita a la UE que explique: a) porque 
anteriormente a dichos servicios no les aplicaba la totalidad de las Directivas, b) cuales 
son los beneficios esperados de eliminar la di ferenciación, c) porque  a los servicios bajo 
el nuevo régimen seguirá sin aplicarles todo  el conjunto de reglas de las Directivas. 
EU reply: The previous Directive 2004/18/EC distinguis hed between two categories of services, 
services referred to in ANNEX II A of that Directiv e (subject to full application of the Directive ) 
and services of Annex II B ( subject to few rules). Services listed in Annex II b were not subject to 
f u l l  r u l e s  a s  t h e y  w e r e  c o n s i d e r e d  t o  h a v e  a  limited cross-border dimension due to their very 
nature. The reform has enlarged the categories of  services under PP rules. Under the reformed 
rules, all  services above EU thresholds falls within the Directive 2014/24/EC and thus require the full application of public procurement rules for contracts. 
There is an exception to this rule for services that are subject to a light regime. Because of their 
very nature they have a limited cross-border dimension. 
Those are services (such as Social, health, cultural services) that are typically organized in 
different ways across MS, as the cultural context varies across EU as well the sensitivity of these services. The rules of this Directive impose the ob servance of principles of transparency and equal 
treatment. 
 “3.228. En cuanto a los aspectos de la contratación relacionados con el medio ambiente, el concepto de "coste del ciclo de vida" introducido en las directivas está orientado a alentar a las 
autoridades públicas a considerar el ciclo de vida útil completo de los productos al tomar una 
decisión sobre su adquisición. El coste del ciclo de vida incluye los costos internos y los costos imputados a externalidades ambientales (incluida la huella de carbono) relacionados con el 
producto, los servicios o las obras durante su ciclo de vida, siempre que su valor monetario se 
pueda determinar y verificar. En sus decisiones so bre la adjudicación, las autoridades contratantes 
pueden tomar en cuenta criterios relativos al proc eso productivo de las obras, los servicios o los 
suministros objeto del contrato, como la inclusió n de personas vulnerables y desfavorecidas o el 
uso de sustancias no tóxicas. Además, pueden exig ir que las obras, los suministros o los servicios 
lleven un etiquetado específico que certifique aspectos ambientales, sociales o de otro tipo, siempre que las prescripciones de esa naturaleza se refieran únicamente a criterios relacionados 
con el objeto del contrato y definan de forma adecuada las características de las obras, los 
suministros o los servicios, y se acepte un etiquetado equivalente.”  
Pregunta 1: En el Memo de la Comisión Eu ropea, de fecha 15 de enero de 2014, por el 
cual el Comisionado Michel Barnier da la bi envenida a la adopción de las reformas, se 
señala en la información correspondiente  a “Antecedentes” (Background) que “… 
existirá la la posibilidad de los compradore s públicos para tener en cuenta el proceso 
específico de producción de bienes…” (“…l a possibilité donnée aux acheteurs publics de 
prendre en compte le processus spécifique  de production des biens …”). Dado lo 
anterior, se solicita a la UE qu e pueda proveer más detalle sobre: 
 la finalidad de conocer el pr oceso específico de producción de los bienes a adquirir, 
aparte de la participación de personas en situación desventajosa o vulnerable y 
del uso de substancias no tóxicas. 
 la forma en que los Estados Miembros po drán allegarse de dicha información, 
 la necesidad de conocer los procesos especí ficos de producción y la manera en que 
dicho conocimiento se tomará en cuenta  en la decisión de un Estado Miembro 
para adjudicar una licitación. 
EU reply: Directives clarify that contracting authorities can use award criteria or contract 
performance conditions relating to the works, suppl ies or services to be provided including factors 
involved in the specific process of production. The condition is that those considerations must be 
linked to the subject matter (this ensures best va lue for money and no discrimination). Criteria 
and conditions referring to such a production or provision process are for example that the manufacturing of the purchased products did not involve toxic chemicals, or that the purchased 
services are provided using energy-efficient machines. Contract performance conditions pertaining WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 33 - 
 
  to environmental considerations might include, fo r example, the delivery, package and disposal of 
products, and in respect of works and services contracts, waste minimisation or resource efficiency. MS can allow this within the limits set by the Directives.   
Pregunta 2: En el desplegado de prensa re lativo a las preguntas más frecuentes con 
respecto a la reforma en materia de compras de gobierno (http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_MEMO-14-20_en.htm?lo cale=en) se indica que 
las autoridades que realizan al compra podrán  requerir el uso de etiquetas específicas 
que certifiquen características ambientales o sociales, entre otras. También se indica 
que se podrán aceptar etiquetas equivalentes  (“ … contracting authorities may require 
that works, supplies or services bear specific  labels certifying environmental, social or 
other characteristics, as long as only the cr iteria and characteristics of the label which 
are linked to the subject-matter of the contract  are required and that equivalent labels 
are accepted.”). Por lo anterior, se solicita a la UE que explique si: 
 
 Dichas etiquetas están o no relacionadas  con reglamentos técnicos comunitarios. 
 Si no están relacionadas con reglament os técnicos comunitarios, la forma en que 
se asegura la compatibilidad con las oblig aciones previstas en los acuerdos TBT y 
SPS. 
EU reply: labels are voluntary and not obligatory. Labels are defined as any document, certificate, 
or attestation confirming that the works, products , services, processes or procedures in question 
meet certain requirements. They must not be confus ed with obligatory technical specifications on 
products. There is no contradiction with TBT and SPS obligations. 
“3.233. En lugar de crear un único órgano de supervisión en cada Estado miembro, las directivas 
prevén una mayor supervisión a nivel nacional, así como una obligación de que los Estados 
miembros presenten a la Comisión un informe trienal de vigilancia con información sobre las fuentes de aplicación indebida, la incertidumbre jurí dica, el nivel de participación de las pymes, la 
prevención, la detección y la notificación adecuada del fraude en la contratación, la corrupción, los 
conflictos de interés y otras irregularidades graves.” 
Pregunta: En el desplegado de prensa re lativo a las preguntas más frecuentes con 
respecto a la reforma en materia de compras de gobierno 
(http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_MEMO-14-20_en.htm?lo cale=en) se indica la 
obligación de los Estados Miembros, de re portar a la Comisión, cada tres años, 
información sobre fuentes de aplicación indebi da, incertidumbres legales, participación 
de PYMES, prevención/detección/reporte de fraude, corrupción, conflictos de interés y 
otras irregularidades serias (“The measures  o n  g o v e r n a n c e  a g r e e d  u p o n  p r o v i d e  f o r  
increased monitoring at national level and fo r Member States' obligations to transmit to 
the Commission every three years a monitoring report covering information on: the 
sources of wrong application, legal uncertainti es, level of SME participation, prevention, 
detection and adequate reporting of procur ement fraud, corruption and conflicts of 
interest and other serious irregularities.”). Al  respecto, se solicita a la UE aclarar si la 
información relativa a la participación de  las PYMES, también incluirá su origen 
comunitario o extracomunitario. 
EU reply:  Member States must transpose the Directives  into national law within 24 months; this 
means that the Commission has not yet gathered information on the participation of SMEs. 
 “3.234. Con respecto a la contratación electrónica, la Comisión señala que, por lo general, los 
compradores públicos que ya la han adoptado plen amente registran ahorros del 5 al 20%. Dado el 
tamaño del mercado de contratación global de la UE, un ahorro del 5% podría generar unos 100.000 millones de euros de ingresos para las arcas públicas. Por lo tanto, las nuevas directivas establecen el uso obligatorio de la contratación electrónica, de forma progresiva, no más tarde de 
marzo de 2016 para la notificación electrónica y el acceso electrónico al pliego de condiciones; 
marzo de 2017 para la presentación electrónica de ofertas a las centrales de compras; y septiembre de 2018 para la presentación electrónica de ofertas a todas las autoridades 
contratantes. Los instrumentos y mecanismos utilizados para la comunicación electrónica deben 
ser no discriminatorios, de disponibilidad general e interoperables.”  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 34 - 
 
  Pregunta: En que medida las recomendaciones operativas 
(http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/pub licprocurement/docs/eprocurement/eteg/et
eg_part2-operational_recommendations_en. pdf) que formuló el Grupo de Expertos 
sobre Licitaciones Electrónicas (Expert grou p on e-Tendering) se incorporaron en la 
reforma en materia de compras de gobierno d e  l a  U E ? ,  ¿ e n  c a s o  d e  q u e  n o  s e  h a y a n  
incorporado dichas recomendaciones en la  citada reforma, como se asegurará su 
aplicación unforme en la UE? 
EU reply: The Expert Group on E-tendering has produced recommendations that are constantly 
being taken into account by the Commission in our Dialogue with MS with regard to implementation of procurement Directives. However those recommendations are non-binding.  
“3.237. Los contratos sujetos a las normas de la UE (por ejemplo, aquellos cuyo valor supere los 
umbrales estipulados) deben anunciarse en el Diario Oficial (serie S), que puede consultarse en el sitio Web del TED.
15 El gasto total de los Estados miembros en contratación figura en el 
cuadro 3.20. La Comisión ha indicado que las diferencias entre los porcentajes de la contratación 
pública anunciada en el Diario Oficial se podría explicar, por ejemplo, atribuyéndolo al pequeño valor de los contratos individuales y a los diversos grados de centralización de los Estados 
miembros. La mayoría de las autoridades contratantes más pequeñas tal vez no tengan nunca que 
realizar adquisiciones lo suficientemente importantes para entrar dentro del ámbito de aplicación de las directivas, mientras que en el caso de los Estados miembros que tienen en general un grado superior de centralización, es más probable que se anuncien las invitaciones a licitar en el Diario 
Oficial, porque la contratación pública tiende también a estar centralizada.
16 La Comisión señala 
también que las prescripciones de anuncio de los contratos públicos de valor inferior al de umbral varían según los Estados miembros, y están establecidas a nivel de la UE sobre una base 
voluntaria. En algunos Estados miembros las entidades contratantes publican los contratos 
públicos por debajo del valor de umbral, mientras que otras solo anuncian los contratos públicos por encima del valor de umbral.” 
Pregunta: El comunicado de prensa 63 37/14 del Consejo de la Unión Europea 
(http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cm s_data/docs/pressdata/en/intm/140975.pdf ), 
establece que los Estados Miembros se encuen tran obligados a monitorear y reportar su 
actividad de compras de gobierno para mejo rar la eficacia y aplicación uniforme de la 
Ley (“The new directives contain obligations for member states to monitor and report on 
public procurement activity in  order to improve the efficacy and uniform application of 
EU law in this field”). En su último examen  de politica comercial, la UE proporcionó la 
siguiente información a la pregunta de Canadá: 
“EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM CANADA Report by the Secretariat WT/TPR/S/284 
Summary. paragraph 8, page 9: The Secretariat Report states that "It is not clear how procurement 
takes place below the threshold beca use of differences in reporting 
among member States, including procurement by sub-national 
authorities and state-owned ente rprises. This problem is not 
peculiar to the EU, but public procurement is a large portion of GDP in the EU and some member States have federal structures with a 
significant proportion of procurem ent taking place at sub-federal 
level."  
1. Given the importance of transpar ency and the size of public 
procurement in the EU, what steps is the Commission taking to 
                                               
15 Tenders Electronic Daily, Suplemento del Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea , información en línea. 
Consultada en: http://ted.europa.eu/ . 
16 Comisión Europea (2011), Evaluation Report- Impact and Effect iveness of EU Public Procurement 
Legislation SEC(2011) 853 final, de 27 de junio de 2011. Consultado en: 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/public procurement/docs/modernising_rules/er853_1_en.pdf . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 35 - 
 
  address the problem created by the differences among member 
States in their reporting of procurement below thresholds? 
EU reply: The public procurement di rectives are only applicable to 
contracts above the threshold values. Moreover, the reporting 
obligations only concern public co ntracts covered by the directives 
and they are similar to all the contracting authorities. There is no obligation to report contracts below the threshold.“ 
Con base en lo anterior, se solicita a la UE que indique si las nuevas obligaciones de 
monitoreo y reporte de los Estados Miembr o abarcan también a los contratos que se 
encuentran pordebajo del umbral. De no ser el  caso, se solicita conocer porque se sigue 
considerando que no es relevante el monitore o y reporte de las compras de gobierno por 
debajo del umbral, especialmente tomando en cuenta que hay Miembros que si lo 
hacen?, en este último caso, se solicita a la  UE pueda proporcionar información relativa 
a la participación de los Miembros de la OMC, extracomunitarios, en las compras de 
gobierno de los Estados Miembr os que ya aplican las reformas. 
EU reply: the reporting obligations are only applicable to above threshold procurements which is 
covered by the EU directives. In addition the EU is  not in a position to provide information on the 
participation of WTO/GPA parties to procurement below the thresholds. 
“3.239. La Directiva 2007/66/CE (Directiva sobre recursos) establece cuáles son los recursos 
jurídicos disponibles cuando se produce una vulneración de la legislación sobre contratación pública de la UE, lo que incluye un "plazo suspensivo", que obliga a los organismos contratantes a 
respetar un plazo mínimo de 10 días contados desde que se adopta la decisión sobre cuál es la 
oferta ganadora, antes de que esta pueda ser firmada, y normas más exigentes contra la adjudicación directa ilegal de contratos públicos, de forma que los contratos adjudicados 
ilegalmente puedan ser declarados carentes de efectos (o nulos) por los tribunales nacionales. La 
Comisión vigila activamente la observancia de las normas de la UE por los Estados miembros mediante procedimientos de infracción, y en los últimos años ha iniciado muchos procedimientos 
contra un gran número de Estados miembros. Dado que los umbrales establecidos en las normas 
de la UE están armonizados con los del Acuerdo sobre Contratación Pública (ACP) y, en líneas generales, sus disposiciones sustantivas son similares a las del ACP, cabe esperar que esos procedimientos de infracción contribuyan también a una aplicación adecuada del ACP.” 
Pregunta: En oportunidad de su anterior exam en de política comercial, la UE señaló que 
la Comisión se asegura de que las reglas para compras de gobierno de los Estados 
Miembro sean coherentes con las reglas y pr incipios del Tratado de Funcionamiento de 
la Unión Europea (“The Commission may verify  that the content of national rules on 
procurement below thresholds is coherent with  the rules and principles of the TFEU. The 
Commission may also investigate the tenderin g procedures for such contracts either 
based on complaints or on its own initiative  if it considers the case to have a cross-
border interest”). En ese sentido, se solic ita que la UE pueda indicar si en los años 
recientes se han detectado casos donde no se  haya verificado dicha coherencia, y la 
frecuencia con que ello ha sucedido. 
EU reply:  The European Commission has not found any case of a Member State having adopted a 
below thresholds procurement legislation that would be incompatible with the principles of the TFEU.  
“3.240. Hay unos 20,8 millones de pyme registradas en la UE; representan el 99,8% de todas las 
empresas y producen más de la mitad del PIB europeo. Por ello, las pymes constituyen el punto central de la política pública europea, uno de cuyos objetivos es facilitar el acceso de estas 
empresas a la contratación pública. Se calcula que entre 2009 y 2011, las pymes (o grupos de 
empresas encabezados por una pyme) fueron adjudicatarias del 56% de todos los contratos públicos de un valor superior al de umbral de la UE. En cuanto al valor global de los contratos adjudicados, esto correspondió a una participación en el mercado del 29%, una cifra ligeramente 
inferior a las estimaciones del trienio anterior (2006-2008). Entre 2009 y 2011, el 1,3% de todos 
los contratos de un valor superior al de umbral se adjudicó a operadores económicos ubicados en un país extranjero. Por lo que respecta al valor global de esos contratos, esta cifra corresponde al WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 36 - 
 
  3,1% de todos los contratos superiores al valor de umbral. Es interesante señalar que el análisis 
no revela ninguna diferencia significativa entre la proporción de pyme seleccionadas para los contratos internos y para los contratos transfronterizos directos. Las pyme consiguieron el 56% de los contratos públicos internos y el 54% de los contratos transfronterizos. En términos de valor, la 
parte correspondiente a las pymes en la contratación transfronteriza fue más baja (22%) que en la 
contratación interna (29%).
17” 
Pregunta 1: En oportunidad del último examen de política comercial de la UE se indica 
que de conformidad con un estudio sobre co mpras de gobierno transfronterizas por 
encima de los umbrales, en el periodo 2007 a 2009, aproximadamente 12% del total de contratos transfronterizos se adjudicó a país es extracomunitarios. En ese sentido, se 
solicita a la UE señalar si ha evolucionado dicha participación en los años más recientes. 
EU reply: No update of the study on cross-border proc urement above EU thresholds is available. 
Pregunta 2: Como se señala en el párrafo  3.240. “…las pymes constituyen el punto 
central de la política pública europea…”, en ese sentido, De conformidad con el 
considerando (19) del “Reglamento (UE) No 1287/2013 del Parlamento Europeo y del 
Consejo, de 11 de diciembre de 2013, por el  que se establece un Programa para la 
Competitividad de las Empresas y para la s Pequeñas y Medianas  Empresas (COSME) 
(2014-2020) y por el que se deroga la Decisión n o 1639/2006/CE”, se indica que a 
diciembre de 2013 “… el 25 % de las PYME de  la Unión exportan o han exportado alguna 
vez en los tres últimos años; sin embargo, solo el 13 % de ellas exportan regularmente 
fuera de la Unión, y únicamente el 2 % han realizado inversiones fu era de su país. Por 
otra parte, la encuesta del Eurobarómetro de 2012 muestra el potencial no aprovechado 
de crecimiento de las PYME de la Unión en los mercados ecológicos, tanto dentro como 
fuera de la Unión, en términos de intern acionalización y acceso a la contratación 
pública.”. Dado lo anterior, se solicita a la UE señale: 
 Información que actualice la tendencia ex portadora y de inversión de las PYMEs 
comunitarias. 
EU reply: Eurostat's Trade by Enterprises (TEC) database includes data on the number and value 
of exporting Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs), both extra-EU and intra-EU. These data 
are provided by EU member state. 
The figure below shows the value that EU SMEs imported and exported, both to intra-EU and 
extra-EU, from 2008 to 2012. The trend is upward for all four categories. 
 The figures for intra-EU imports and exports are likely to be lower due to the Rotterdam effect. 
There are not any data for investments made specifically by SMEs. 
 
                                               
17 PwC, ICT, GHK, Ecorys (2014), SMEs' access to public procurement markets and aggregation of 
demand in the EU , estudio encargado por la Comisión Europea, Dirección de Mercado In terior y Servicios, 
febrero de 2014. Consultado en: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_m arket/publicprocurement/docs/ 
modernising_rules/smes-access-an d-aggregation-of-demand_en.pdf  [marzo de 2015]. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 37 - 
 
  Figure: EU SMEs imports and exports, intra-EU and extra-EU 
 
Presently we are running a Eurobarometer Survey in  order to update these figures. The results will 
be publicly available by the end of the summer of 2015.  
 La forma en que el programa COSME a contribuido a mejorar el desempeño 
exportador de las PYMEs comunitarias. 
EU reply: An important tool in COSME to support SMEs locally is the Enterprise Europe Network 
with 600 offices in more than 50 countries. It helps SMEs to find international business, technology 
and research partners in the EU and beyond. Th e Network is already up and running, providing 
information and services to hundreds of thousand European SMEs. The Network provides business support services – in particular for SMEs – by offering information, feedback and partnering 
services, innovation, technology and knowledge transfer services. The Network provides services 
as internationalisation services beyond the Single Market and informs SMEs on funding opportunities.  
Another concrete tool is the IPR SME Helpdesks that provide information and training to European 
SMEs on how to protect their IP when doing business. The China, Latin America and South-East Asia IPR SME Helpdesks are a continuation of existing Helpdesks. These services offer practical 
business advice from experienced professionals (l awyers, business executives, IPR investigators) 
in person, on-line, and through workshops, e-learning materials, and training. The service would cover countries and regions, with a focus on high-growth markets where there are particular IPR 
problems of importance to European SMEs. The services will be provided both 'on the ground' to 
European SMEs already 'in country' and 'at home' in Europe, so that the relevant information on IPR in the regions can be delivered where it is most useful/needed most, to serve European SMEs efficiently and effectively. 
 
In concrete, the Mercosur IPR SME Helpdesk (Nov 2013 – June 2015) covered MERCOSUR countries and Chile. It had about 500 registered users, 2000 fact sheets (guides) downloaded and 
more than 50 advices. It also provides services to Latin America SMEs wishing to do business with 
EU SMEs. A similar helpdesk in China reports the following impact of activities – 75% of users that received advice take action (e.g. register an inte llectual property right, take advanced professional 
legal advice, take steps to protect confidentiality, etc.) 
 
As of 1 July 2015, the new Latin America IPR SME Helpdesk will cover all Latin American countries, including Mexico. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 38 - 
 
   La manera en que el programa COSME ha  facilitado un mejor acceso al mercado de 
contratación pública extracomunitario.  
EU reply: Same response as above.  
 Los cambios en la proporción del mercado de las PYME que exportan tanto dentro 
como fuera de la UE, que es uno de los in dicadores previstos en el párrafo 2.c del 
artículo 3 del Reglamento (UE) No 1287/2013, del 11 de diciembre de 2013.  
EU reply: The shares of exporting SMEs, both intra-EU and extra-EU, can be seen in the following 
table. These data refer to the value of exporting SMEs as a share of the total value of exporting 
enterprises and were calculated using the Eurostat-TEC database. 
Table: Share of SMEs imports and exports, intra-EU and extra-EU 
 2008  2009  2010  2011 2012  
Imports Intra EU 47%  48% 48% 46% 45%  
Imports Extra-EU 32% 40% 39% 37% 34% 
Exports Intra-EU 38%  40% 40% 38% 38%  
Exports Extra-EU 28% 34% 34% 33% 32% 
Source: Eurostat-TEC database, own calculations. As said above, we are running a Eurobaromete r Survey in order to update these figures. 
 El tipo de “… subvenciones y medidas re lacionadas con ellas …” referidas en el 
artículo 13.2.d y “subvenciones financiadas por la Unión, incluido con arreglo al 
presente Reglamento” que se indican en el artículo 17.2.c del Reglamento (UE) 
No 1287/2013, del 11 de diciembre de 2013 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/ES/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1287&from=EN), y que se han otorgado en el marco de los programas anuales. 
EU reply: The implementation of COSME Financial Instruments is mainly comprised by guarantees 
for loans to SMEs (via banks, guarantee societies, etc.) and by expansion phase venture capital for SMEs (via Venture Capital funds).  The only entities that are eligible to apply for financial instruments under the COSME legal base are financial intermediaries in the participating countries 
of the COSME programme who will in turn finance SMEs in the participating countries of the 
programme. The possibility, introduced by the article 17.2.c on the EU 1287/2013 Regulation, to 
combine and complement the mentioned financial instruments with grants funded by the Union 
has not been used. 
 La naturaleza de los apoyos que se otorga ron en relación con la “Red Europea de 
apoyo a las Empresas” en el marco del ru bro “Acceso a mercados”, para el cual el 
programa de trabajo de COSME en el año 2014 contó con un presupuesto de 
€46,050,000 ( http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/initiatives/cosme/index_en.htm ).  
EU reply: COSME's allocation for 2014 for the EEN will actually be disbursed in 2015, so we 
cannot report any results, yet.  
Aunque apenas está por cumplirse el primer semestre del año 2015, se 
agradecerá que la UE comparta información sobre la naturaleza de los apoyos que se han otorgado en relación con la  “Red Europea de apoyo a las Empresas” 
en el marco del rubro “Acceso a mercados” 
(http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/7322 ), para lo cual se tiene dispuesto un 
presupuesto de €47,790,000. 
EU reply: See previous response above.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 39 - 
 
  “3.3.6.3.1  Fundamento jurídico a nivel de la UE 
3.304. La observancia de los DPI en la UE se basa en la Directiva 2004/48/CE relativa al respeto 
de los derechos de propiedad intelectual y la Directiva 2001/29/CE relativa a la armonización de determinados aspectos de los derechos de autor y derechos afines a los derechos de autor en la 
sociedad de la información.18 Desde el 1º de enero de 2014, la observancia en las fronteras de la 
UE está regulada por el Reglamento (UE) Nº 608/2013 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, y el Reglamento de ejecución (UE) Nº 1352/2013 de la Comisión.19 El nuevo Reglamento, por el que 
se derogó el Reglamento (CE) Nº 1383/2003, amplía el alcance de las categorías de derechos de 
propiedad intelectual (DPI) respecto de las cuales se dispone de medidas en frontera. En la medida en que esas categorías estén protegidas por la legislación nacional o por la comunitaria, los nombres comerciales, las topografías de produc tos semiconductores y los modelos de utilidad 
están también abarcados actualmente por el Reglamento. Asimismo, se incluye en su ámbito de 
aplicación la patente unitaria. Además, el Reglamento se aplica también a nuevos tipos de infracción, al hacerse extensivo a dispositivos de elusión, así como a moldes o matrices para la 
fabricación de mercancías que vulneren DPI. Esas modificaciones van acompañadas del 
establecimiento de procedimientos simplificados para que los titulares de derechos entablen acciones contra mercancías sospechosas de vulnerar DPI. 
3.305. El Reglamento (UE) Nº 608/2013 aclara también la cuestión de la manipulación de los 
medicamentos en tránsito por el territorio de la UE a fin de atender las preocupaciones existentes con respecto a las repercusiones de disposiciones del anterior Reglamento (CE) Nº 1383/2003 en el comercio legítimo de medicamentos genéricos. Como se resumió en el anterior informe del EPC 
de la UE20, en 2010 el Brasil y la India solicitaron la celebración de consultas con la UE y los 
Países Bajos con respecto al trato aduanero de me dicamentos producidos en la India y destinados 
a países en desarrollo, en tránsito a través de puertos comunitarios.21 En consonancia con la 
sentencia de 1º de diciembre de 2011 del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea22 y el 
entendimiento recogido posteriormente en las directrices adoptadas por la Comisión en febrero de 201223, el considerando (11) del Reglamento dispone lo siguiente: "[C]onviene que, a la hora 
de evaluar el riesgo de que se produzcan vulneraciones de los derechos de propiedad intelectual, 
las autoridades aduaneras tengan en cuenta cualquier probabilidad importante de desvío de dichos medicamentos [en tránsito] hacia el mercado de la Unión". Sin esos indicadores, no habría fundamentos suficientes para que las autoridades aduaneras sospecharan la existencia de una 
infracción de derechos de propiedad intelectual por el mero hecho de que los medicamentos 
genéricos transitaran por la UE.24 De conformidad con el artículo 37, a más tardar a finales de 2016 la Comisión deberá también presentar un informe sobre la aplicación del Reglamento (UE) 
Nº 608/2013 que abarque cualquier incidente que pudiera producirse con relación a medicamentos 
en tránsito por el territorio aduanero de la UE, e incluya una evaluación de sus potenciales repercusiones en los compromisos de la Unión sobre acceso a medicamentos en virtud de la 
Declaración de Doha relativa al Acuerdo sobre los ADPIC y la Salud Pública, de 2001. Sin 
cuestionar la utilidad de aclarar la cuestión de la manipulación de los medicamentos en tránsito por las autoridades aduaneras de la UE, es necesario relativizarla examinando la importancia de las mercancías en tránsito en el contexto global: como mostraban las estadísticas aduaneras 
de 2013, los casos de retención de mercancías en tránsito representaron tan solo el 0,33% del 
número total de intervenciones realizadas por las autoridades aduaneras en las fronteras 
exteriores de la UE.
25 
                                               
18 DO de la UE L 157/45, de 30 de abril de 2004; y DO de la UE L 167/10, de 22 de junio de 2001. 
19 DO de la UE L 181/15, de 29 de junio de 2013, notificado también a la OMC en el documento 
IP/N/1/EU/E/1, de 10 de julio de 2013; y DO de la UE L 341/10, de 18 de diciembre de 2013. 
20 Documento WT/TPR/S/284/Rev.1 de la OMC, párrafo 3.303. 
21 Documentos WT/DS408/1 y WT/DS409/1 de la OMC, de 19 de mayo de 2010. 
22 Asuntos acumulados C-446/09 (Philips c. Lucheng Meijing) y C-495/09 (Nokia c. Her Majesty's 
Commissioners of Revenue and Customs). 
23 Directrices de la Comisión Europea relativas al co ntrol, por parte de las autoridades aduaneras de la 
UE, respecto de la observancia de los derechos de prop iedad intelectual con relación a las mercancías y, en 
particular, los medicamentos, en tránsito a tr avés de la Unión Europea, disponibles en: 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/legi
slation/guidelines_on_transit_es.pdf . 
24 Véase el párrafo 3.285 supra , en el que figura el enlace con la propuesta de Reglamento sobre la 
marca comunitaria y el proyecto de Di rectiva de armonización de las legislaciones nacionales sobre marcas de 
fábrica o de comercio. 
25 Véase el cuadro 3.24. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 40 - 
 
  3.306. En una sentencia de 6 de febrero de 201426, el Tribunal de Justicia de la UE tuvo la 
oportunidad de interpretar el anterior Reglamento aduanero (CE) Nº 1383/2003 con respecto a las circunstancias en las que los titulares de marcas de fábrica o de comercio pueden solicitar la intervención de las autoridades aduaneras para detener mercancías (supuestamente) falsificadas 
en las fronteras exteriores de la UE. Cabe esperar que la sentencia afecte también a la 
interpretación del nuevo Reglamento aduanero (UE) Nº 608/2013. Según el Tribunal, cuando tales mercancías se venden a una persona residente en la UE en un sitio Internet de venta en línea 
situado en un tercer país, el titular del derecho se beneficia, en el momento en que las mercancías 
en cuestión entran en el territorio de un Estado miembro, de la protección que el Reglamento aduanero le confiere. Para que esto sea aplicable, no es un requisito previo que antes de la venta las referidas mercancías hayan sido objeto de una oferta de venta o de una publicidad dirigida a 
los consumidores del Estado miembro de que se trate. Como el asunto en cuestión se refería a la 
importación de un solo artículo comprado para uso personal a través de un servicio de ventas transfronterizas en línea, la sentencia del Tribunal pa rece fortalecer los derechos de los titulares de 
marcas de fábrica o de comercio en la medida en que pueden entablar acciones para hacer valer 
también sus derechos con respecto a merc ancías importadas para uso personal. 
3.307. En el cuadro 3.23 se ofrece un resumen actualizado de las principales disposiciones 
relativas a la observancia. Las respuestas anteriores de la UE a la lista de cuestiones sobre la 
observancia del Consejo de los ADPIC
27 proporcionan también alguna información básica útil sobre 
el marco de la UE de observancia de los DPI.28 Sin embargo, esta información se remonta al año 
1997 y necesita ser actualizada para reflejar una serie de importantes cambios introducidos en la 
legislación durante los últimos 18 años.” 
Pregunta: ¿Cuál es el proceso y requisitos qu e debe cumplir el titular de los derechos 
para la aplicación de las medidas en frontera? 
EU reply: The right holder must submit an application to the competent customs department 
requesting for customs authorities to take action with respect to goods suspected of infringing an 
intellectual property right. 
 
The application for action form is established by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1352/2013 of 4 December 2013.
29 The forms shall be completed in accordance with the notes of 
completion set out in Annex III to the Implementing Regulation. 
 
The application must be accompanied by document s providing evidence to satisfy the competent 
customs department on the entitlement of the app licant, the intellectual property rights to be 
enforced and information relevant to the customs authorities’ analysis and assessment of the risk 
of infringement of the intellectual property righ t or the intellectual property rights concerned. 
 
The applications must be submitted to the co mpetent customs department designated by the 
Member States. The list of competent customs de partments is published on the website of the 
Commission.30 
“3.3.6.3.2 Observancia de los DPI en  la frontera exterior de la UE 
3.308. En la frontera exterior de la UE, las autoridades aduaneras pueden suspender el despacho 
de mercancías o proceder a su retención si se sospecha o se determina que han infringido DPI. En la mayoría de los casos, las autoridades aduaneras intervienen en respuesta a las solicitudes de 
los titulares de derechos. Sin embargo, también pueden actuar de oficio si tienen razones 
suficientes para sospechar que las mercancías infringen un DPI. Entonces, notifican la retención o 
                                               
26 Asunto C-98/13 (Martin Blomqvist c. Rolex SA, Ma nufacture des Montres Rolex SA), disponible en: 
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30ddc88b7757b4124b15b74c90c82d
a8a96a.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxuPbhv0?text=&docid =147506&pageIndex=0&doclang=ES&mode=lst&dir=&
occ=first&part=1&cid=383526 . 
27 Documento IP/C/5 de la OMC,  de 30 de noviembre de 1995. 
28 Documento IP/N/6/EEC/1 de la OMC, de 13 de febrero de 1997. 
29 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1352/2013 establishing the forms provided for in 
Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 of the European PParliament and of the Council concerning customs enforcement 
of intellectual property rights (OJ L 341, 18.12.2013, p. 10). 
30 http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_p
iracy/right_holders/contactlist_intervention_en.pdf.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 41 - 
 
  suspensión al importador en el plazo de un día laborable y al titular del derecho el mismo día, o 
posteriormente a la mayor brevedad. Este último debe presentar una solicitud de intervención dentro de los cuatro días laborables siguientes a la recepción de la notificación. De no hacerlo, se procederá al despacho de las mercancías.” 
Pregunta: ¿Quién responde por los posibl es daños o perjuicios que se llegaran a 
ocasionar al importador cuya mercancía se detenga en la aduana, en caso de que la 
autoridad actúe de oficio y no se inicie ningún procedimiento en contra del presunto 
infractor?. 
EU reply: In principle, where goods not covered by a decision granting an application have been 
legitimately detained by the customs authorities, and no application for action is submitted to the competent customs department within four working days of the notification of the detention of the 
goods to persons entitled to submit such applicatio n, the declarant or holder of the goods have to 
bear the burden stemming from customs actions to enforce intellectual property rights.  
Customs detentions of goods are legitimate wher e there are reasonable indications that those 
goods are prima facie goods which are the subject of an act infringing an intellectual property 
right. In addition, the customs authorities must respect the tight and short periods established for 
notifying the detention of the goods not covere d by a decision granti ng an application: 
- The customs authorities must notify the declarant or the holder of the goods of the detention of 
the goods within one working day of that suspension or detention. 
- The customs authorities must put an end to their detention immediately after completion of all 
customs formalities in the following cases: 
a) where they have not identified any person or entity entitled to submit an application 
concerning the alleged infringement of intellectual  property rights within one working day from the 
suspension of the release or the detention of the goods; 
b) where they have not received an application within four working days of the notification of 
the suspension of the release or detention of the goods, or where they have rejected such an application. 
The liability of the customs authorities is governed  by the legislation of the Member States. Every 
person has the right to have the Public Administration make good any damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States. 
“3.3.6.3.3  Observancia de los DPI dentro de la UE. 
3.314. El Memorándum de Acuerdo de 2011 sobre la venta de mercancías falsificadas a través de 
Internet estableció un código de buenas prácticas destinado a luchar eficazmente contra la venta de tales mercancías, incluso a través de procedimie ntos de notificación y retirada, y a reforzar la 
colaboración entre los signatarios.
31 Entre estos figuran importantes proveedores de plataformas 
de Internet, así como titulares de derechos de diversos sectores industriales. En abril de 2013, la Comisión presentó un informe acerca del funcionamiento del Memorándum de Acuerdo en el que 
se concluía que el Memorándum estaba funcionando bien y se sugería también que se prorrogara 
dos años más y que se ampliara el número de partes signatarias.
32 Asimismo, se manifestó interés 
en ampliarlo a operadores de terceros países.” 
Preguntas:  
 
¿Cuál es el procedimiento seguido en el “notice and takedown” ? ¿Cuáles son las 
responsabilidades de los proveedores del servicio  de internet y cuál es la intervención de 
las autoridades y titulares de de rechos en este procedimiento? 
 
                                               
31 Véase el anterior informe, WT/TPR/S/284/Rev.1, párrafo 3.308. 
32 COM(2013) 209 final, de 18 de abril de 2013. Consultada en: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ 
ES/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0209&from=ES . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 42 - 
 
  EU reply: Right holders commit to notify in a responsible and accurate manner Internet service 
providers (platforms) of the presence of offers  of counterfeit goods and to avoid unjustified, 
unfounded and abusive notifications while Internet  service providers commit to respond to such 
notifications in an efficient and comprehensive ma nner and to ensure that the notified offer is 
swiftly removed or disabled. Both rights holders and Internet Platforms commit to cooperate and 
assist law enforcement authorities for the investigations related to the sales of counterfeit goods. For further information, please check the te xt of the Memorandum of Understanding:  
https://myintracomm.ec.europa.eu/dg/grow/dirunits/F/F5/Documents/MoU2011_en.pdf  
 
¿En cuántos casos se ha utilizado ese procedim iento? ¿Cuáles han sido los resultados? 
 
EU reply: The European Commission does not have such data for the moment. However, it is 
developing Key Performance Indicators with the signatories of the Memorandum of Understanding 
in view of obtaining such information.  
 
“3.315. El Observatorio Europeo de las Vulneraciones de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual, puesto en marcha en 2009 por la Comisión para hacer frente al continuo aumento de la 
falsificación y la piratería
33, reúne información sobre la falsificación y la piratería en el mercado 
interior de la UE y las vigila, proporciona una plataforma para intercambiar experiencias y compartir prácticas óptimas para luchar contra la falsificación y la piratería, despierta la conciencia 
del público y apoya a los titulares de derechos en la protección de sus derechos dentro y fuera de 
la UE. Posteriormente, en virtud del Reglamento (UE) Nº 386/2012, de 19 de abril de 2012
34, se 
encomendaron a la Oficina de Armonización del Mercado Interior (OAMI) funciones relacionadas 
con el respeto de los DPI35, incluida la de reunir a representantes de los sectores público y privado 
miembros del Observatorio. En 2013, el Observat orio quedó plenamente integrado en la OAMI. 
Como se estipula en el plan de acción de la UE antes mencionado y en la estrategia relativa a los terceros países, el Observatorio ayudará también a la Comisión a llevar a cabo el conjunto de 
acciones propuesto para reforz ar el respeto de los DPI.” 
Pregunta: ¿De qué manera apoya el Observator io a los titulares de los derechos dentro y 
fuera de la UE para la pr otección de sus derechos? 
EU reply:  The Observatory does not provide direct help to right holders but it carries out a series 
of activities which will help improving IP rights compliance. Such activities are listed in Reglamento (UE) Nº 386/2012, and they include for exampl e the publication of studies and reports which 
contribute to a better understanding of current tren ds in IP infringement, the importance of IP and 
the IP legal framework in third countries. The Obse rvatory has also activities and projects in the 
area of public awareness, and it develops t ools that help enforcement authorities to fight 
counterfeiting, etc. 
                                               
33 Véase el anterior informe, WT/TPR/S/284/Rev.1, párrafo 3.309. 
34 DO de la UE L 129/1, de 16 de mayo de 2012. 
35 Véase la lista completa de funcio nes en Observatorio Europeo de las Vulneraciones de los Derechos de 
Propiedad Intelectual, Plan plurianu al 2014-2018, anexo 1, disponible en: 
https://oami.europa.eu/ohimportal/es/web/observatory/about-us . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 43 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA 
 
Report by the European Union WT/TPR/G/317 
 
Part I. The European Union in the Global  Trading System: paragraph 1.1, p. 3:  
In 2007 at the European Union supported a position the  Codex Alimentarius Labelling Committee 
that recognised that country of origin statements, required in the standards for Havarti and Danbo, 
“preserved the generic nature of the names of these cheeses and promotes equitable labelling 
requirements .” 
 Currently the European Commission is in the process of considering applications by Denmark to 
register the terms “Danbo” and “Havarti” as Geographical Indications in the European Union.  A 
number of producers inside and outside the EU have invested in producing Havarti making use of the international standard developed in codex.  They did so in the understanding that they were 
entitled to use it as a generic term. 
 Given the importance that the European Union attaches to stable, enforceable trade rules and 
robust international standards, we would encourage the European Union to consider the 
significance of taking a consistent position in international standard setting bodies.  Granting intellectual property rights exclusively to one producer or group of producers, after the 
development in good faith of an international standard undermines the system of international 
standard setting bodies, and the certainty that standards are intended to provide in international trade. 
1. What parallels should be drawn between the EU’s positions in international standard setting 
bodies and decisions taken in its domestic rulemaking?  
2. Does the EU continue to support the internat ional standards developed by Codex for Havarti 
and Danbo?  
EU reply to questions 1 and 2: 
The EU is of the view that it is not incoherent to protect as GI a name for which an international 
Codex Alimentarius standard was previously defined. The main objective of elaborating Codex standards is to harmonize the production method for a given product at international level so as to 
ensure fair competition. The existence of such a standard does not constitute incontrovertible 
evidence of the genericity of the term covered by  such standard. Rather, the generic nature of a 
given name has to be fully and exhaustively demonstrated for the territory in question in order to 
refuse protection of a name as a geographical indication for that territory. In territories where the 
designation is of a generic nature, abiding by the Codex standards will at least ensure fairer competition. The EU can refer to similar cases occurred in the past like for instances, in 1996, the Danish designations "Danablu" and "Esrom" or in 2011 the Swiss designation "Gruyère". The EU 
would like to note in this context that the same applies to the registration of names in Annex В of 
the Stresa Convention of 1951 regarding cheeses.   
The EU would like also to clarify that registration of a name as a GI is not tantamount to granting 
intellectual property rights exclusively to one pr oducer or a definite group of producers. Rather, 
any operator, regardless of origin or nationality, may produce the product and use the name in 
accordance with the relevant specifications, which i.a. define the geographical area  in which the 
production steps have to take place.  The European Commission has not, at this stage, taken a decision in relation to the application for 
registration of the name "Danbo" as a protected geographical indication lodged by Denmark. Once 
the final decision is taken, it may be subject to appeal in accordance with the existing procedures. 
 
Part III. Developments in the Internal Market : Public procurement; new improved rules; 
paragraph 3.7, page 7:  
3. Could the EU explain whether the new rules for public procurement apply to purchases of 
pharmaceuticals for public health care plans?  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 44 - 
 
  EU reply: The new rules apply to all goods except for th ose explicitly excluded from the scope of 
the Directives. Pharmaceuticals fall in the remit of the reformed Directives. Whether a concrete contract falls under the Directive depends on the procuring entity, applicable thresholds, etc.   
Report by the Secretariat WT/TPR/S/317 
Part II. Trade and Investment Regime: (2.3 .2) Regional and pref erential agreements: 
paragraphs 2.23 - 2.27, pages 29-30:   
 
The EU considers that negotiating bilateral agreements with key partners is a priority for the EU to open up more markets opportunities and thus achi eve economic growth and job creation. In this 
c o n t e x t ,  t h e  E U  i s  a t  d i f f e r e n t  s t a g e s  o f  n e g o tiation and implementation of various types of 
bilateral trade agreements, ranging from Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements 
(DCFTA) to Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA).  
4. Could the EU elaborate on any differences in terms of tariff concessions that the EU 
negotiates in these different type of agreements? 
EU reply: The EU considers the level of development of its partners in its tariff negotiations. In 
terms of tariff concessions in these negotiations the EU takes into account whether countries 
qualify for GSP-treatment or not. In negotiations with countries that qualify for such treatment, 
tariff concessions by the EU are as a general rule more generous and reciprocal concessions requested in exchange of less stringent, both in  terms of coverage and staging of commitments. 
However, there are no general fixed policies or rules for tariff negotiations and tariff concessions 
remain subject to negotiation and may also depend on concessions in other trade areas. 
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practises by Me asure: (3.1) Measures Directly Affecting 
Imports; (3.1.6) Import controls and restrictions: paragraph 3.58, page 46: 
 5. Could the EU provide further information as to the manner by which the Forest Law 
Enforcement Governance and Trade Voluntar y Partnership agreements’ licensing scheme 
referred to in paragraph 3.58 builds upon, or supplements, existing Convention on 
International Trade and Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) controls and restrictions? Particularly, to what extent does the licensing scheme, which requires 
verification of timber export legality, recognize or account for nondetriment findings and 
CITES export permits issued by the scientific and management authorities of the country of 
origin? 
EU reply : Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005 on the estab lishment of a FLEGT licensing scheme for 
imports of timber into the European Communi ty (the FLEGT Regulation) and the Voluntary 
Partnership Agreements (VPA) do recognise the achievement and the system of permits 
established under CITES.  Thus, according to Article 4, "FLEGT licensing scheme" of the FLEGT 
Regulation timber products of species listed in Annexes A, B and C to Council Regulation (EC) No 
338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (the EU Wildlife Trade Regulation) are exempt from the lic ensing requirement laid down in paragraph 1 of 
this Article. 
 
In addition, the licensing scheme of the VPAs, which requires verification of timber export legality, 
also take into account CITES export permits issued by the scientific and management authorities 
of the country of origin. Annexes to the VPAs and in particular those on the legality definitions and 
legality assurance system refer specifically to "CITES document" as a means to demonstrate legality of harvesting. 
 
In summary, with regard to the legality of harvesti ng of timber FLEGT and CITES/EU Wildlife Trade 
Regulations complement each other.  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (3.1) Measures Directly Affecting 
Imports; (3.1.9) Sanitary and Phytosanita ry Measures: paragraph 3.99, page 55: 
 
The Secretariat noted that “the Commission adopted a proposal for a package of measures 
which…allows for simplification, modernization, increased consistency, and convergence with international standards of EU health and safety standards for the agri-food chain”.  However, 
Canada notes Regulation 1107/2009 concerning the placement of plant protection products (PPPs) WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 45 - 
 
  on the market does not conform to typical international practice as it replaces the previous risk-
based approval processes for PPPs with a hazard-based approach. Typical international practice uses a risk-based approach where both hazard and exposure are considered.  
6. Could the EU explain why it departed from typical international practice and adopted a 
hazard-based approach?  
EU reply:  The Regulation 1107/2009 was adopted in 2009 by the European Parliament and the 
Council, on a Commission proposal from 2006, and is applied from 14 June 2011. Each step of the 
EU internal legislative process was duly notified to the WTO, including the final adoption 
(G/SPS/N/EEC/289/Add.3). No comments were re ceived from Canada within WTO framework 
following this notification.  
7. Could the EU clarify if hazard-based provisions in Regulation 1107/2009 will be used to set 
default maximum residue limit values under EC Regulation No. 396/2005, so as to  apply to 
pesticide residues in imported food and feed?  
EU reply:  The EU is fully aware of the importance of this issue and its possible trade implications. 
The EU will ensure that a coherent approach is followed which guarantees a high level of consumer 
protection. Full transparency will be ensured through WTO notifications to allow third countries to provide their observations. 
 
8. Could the Commission elaborate on what was the EU's objective in holding a June 1 
consultation/conference and how did it contribute to the ultimate outcome? 
EU reply:  A conference was held on 1st June in Brussels with the aim to inform Member States, 
Members of the European Parliament, third countri es and all interested stakeholders about the 
comprehensive impact assessment that the European Commission is carrying out on criteria to 
identify endocrine disruptors in the context of the Plant Protection Product Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 and the Biocidal Product Regulation (EU) 528/2012. It was a platform for further 
exchanges of views on the topic, following public  consultation already held from September 2014 
to January 2015. As public consultations the conference will feed into impact assessment process. The 1st June conference was entirely web-streamed. All presentations and the recorded broadcast of the conference are available at: 
 
http://ec.europa.eu/health/endocrine_disruptors/events/ev_20150416_en.htm  
9. Beyond that June 1 consultation/conference, what will be the next steps in the consultation 
process?  
EU reply:  The EU is systematically providing all relevant information to all WTO Members in the 
TBT and SPS Committees. The relevant information is also available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/health/endocrine_disruptors/impact_assessment/index_en.htm 
 
10. When can we expect the Commission will publish its conclusions from the consultations? 
EU reply:  A qualitative report is expected to be published by September 2015. 
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (3.1) Measures Directly Affecting 
Imports; (3.1.9) Sanitary and Phytosanita ry Measures: paragraph 3.100, page 57: 
 
Canada and other countries continue to experience lengthy delays in the European Food Safety 
Authority (EFSA) risk assessment process in the area of biotech approvals. EuropaBio recently observed that for Genetically Modified Organisms (GM) products approved in 2011-13, EFSA took 
29 months on average from submission to the publication of a scientific opinion but for products 
pending in early 2015, EFSA took on average 51 months to deliver an opinion.  11. As technology progresses at an ever-increasing pace, and with the growing need for 
renewals due to the EU’s policy to allow GM authorizations to expire after ten years, how will 
EFSA keep up with the increased demands for scientific opinions and how will this be done in a timely manner so as not to create further bottlenecks to the GM authorization process?  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 46 - 
 
  12. Could the EU comment on the length of time it takes for EFSA reviews, including information 
on how long, on average, EFSA reviews currently take in comparison to the past? 
EU reply to questions 11 and 12: The timelines for the risk assessment depend on the quality 
of the dossiers. If EFSA identifies a need for addi tional information, the clock is stopped pending 
submission of the requested information. The timelines in which applicants respond and the quality 
of the additional data provided contribute to th e overall timelines for the risk assessment. Each 
dossier is specific and therefore, it is difficult to compare or to draw conclusions on the trend of the timelines. 
 
The EU believes that the Regulation (EC) No 503 /2013 on authorisation of GM food and feed, 
applicable from 8 December 2014, will further streamline the risk assessment process in the EU as it further clarifies requirements to be fulfilled for the submission of an application and the protocols 
to be followed for conducting trials/studies. It also clarifies the approach to stack products. This 
Regulation will minimise the need for the EFSA to  request additional studies/data and will reduce 
the time needed for the risk assessment phase. 
 
The risk assessment of single events is a pre-requ isite for the assessment of stack applications in 
the EU. Many of recent submissions cover stack products and most of single events have already 
been authorised. Therefore, the risk assessment of the stack applications is expected to be faster. 
In addition, EFSA has recently adopted two guidance documents which will help applicants in the development and submission of applications and in addressing EFSA's requests for additional 
information and thus, will help the risk assessment process. Under development is also a 
supplementary guidance on allergenicity assessment. 
 Following its transparency policy, EFSA is increasing its communications with applicants with the 
aim of smoothing the risk assessment process. Technical meetings with applicants are organised 
on a regular basis to exchange on horizontal technical aspects. In addition, EFSA is now implementing a policy to organise also technical hearings with individual applicants on specific 
questions which give greater opportunity to discuss outstanding questions about applications 
during the risk assessment process.  Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (2) Measures Directly Affecting 
Imports; (viii) Technical regulations an d standards: paragraph 3.93, page 60: 
 The report indicates that technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures are 
established at EU level through EU legislative ac ts adopted by the European Parliament and the 
Council, or by the Commission on the basis of implementing acts or delegating acts conferred by means of an EU act. 
 
13. Is the EU taking measures to ensure that any potential barriers to trade arising from 
implementing or delegating acts for technical regulations are notified to the WTO?  
EU reply:  The EU is committed to respecting its obligations under the TBT Agreement. These 
include transparency obligations (publishing a notice at an early appropriate stage, notifying the 
draft measures to the WTO, providing the WTO Se cretariat with copies of these draft measures, 
and allowing reasonable time for comments). These transparency obligations are respected equally for draft technical regulations and their implementing or delegated acts when these contain 
elements that may be regarded as technical requ irements for products or conformity assessment 
procedures and may have a significant effect on trade. For example, in 2014 EU notified to the WTO TBT Committee more than 70 measures representing draft implementing or delegated acts. 
All the notifications made by the EU to the WT O-TBT Committee are publically available on the 
following web page: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/tbt/en/  Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (2) Measures Directly Affecting 
Imports; (viii) Technical regulations an d standards: paragraph 3.95, page 61:   
The report discusses the legislation related to the “new “and “old” approaches to technical harmonization. 
 
14. Is the EU taking measures to ensure that ongoing changes to existing legislation are notified 
to the WTO, for example when additional su bstances are added to the list of chemicals WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 47 - 
 
  falling under the Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of 
Chemicals (REACH)?  
EU reply:  As stated in the previous answer, the EU  is committed to respecting its obligations 
under the TBT Agreement. Assuming that the question relates to chemicals listed in Annex XVII (and hence subject to restrictions) or chemicals listed in Annex XIV (and hence subject to 
authorisation) to Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals 
(REACH), whenever an additional substance is planned to be introduced in either of these 
Annexes, the related draft measure is notified  to the WTO TBT Committee. Furthermore, the 
preparatory processes leading to the inclusion of substances in either of these Annexes entail 
public consultations, which allow WTO members to participate at an early stage.  Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (3.3) Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; (3.3.1) Subsidies; (3.3.1.2 ) State Aid: paragraph 3.145, page 68: 
 In Table 3.10, it is noted that the Communication from the Commission – Guidelines on State aid 
for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 entered into force on July 1, 2014.  In these 
Guidelines, the Commission sets out the cond itions under which aid for energy and the 
environment may be considered compatible with the EU internal market. In Section 3.3.2.3 of the 
Guidelines, Canada notes that one of the conditions for accepting Member State operating aid for 
biomass plants is that the energy must be produced from renewable sources.  Currently, EU Member States are free to furthe r define how biomass can qualify as a renewable 
source for state aid purposes, with the outcome that differing criteria are being developed within 
the EU for solid biomass. For example, different su stainability criteria for forest-derived biomass 
have been put in place in the UK and the Nether lands, hampering the creation of a single EU 
market for wood pellets used  for electricity generation. 
 15. Can the European Union please provide more detail about its plans to promote consistency 
within EU Member States on state aid for rene wable energy production from solid biomass? 
In particular, will a common definition of sust ainability be developed for solid biomass, as 
was done for biofuels under the Renewable Energy Directive? 
EU reply: The Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 (EEAG) 
set out the rules that apply to all Member States for providing State aid to energy from renewable 
sources which includes aid for biomass. The EEAG defines both ´ renewable energy sources'  and 
´biomass ´ in point 19 of the EEAG. Point 19(5) explicitly mentions biomass as a renewable energy 
source. Biomass is subsequently defined as ´ the biodegradable fraction of products, waste and 
residues from agriculture (including vegetal and animal substances), forestry and related 
industries including fisheries and aquaculture, as well as biogases and the biodegradable fraction of industrial and municipal waste '. Therefore, all biomass according to this definition is considered 
renewable in the EU. 
 Accordingly, in the case of energy produced fr om mixed fuels (containing both biomass and other 
combustible materials), only the energy produced from the biomass fraction is eligible for support. 
This distinction is particularly important in the case of co-firing of biomass with fossil fuels and the 
incineration of waste. In the latter case, only the "biodegradable fraction" of the waste is considered biomass, and therefor e only energy produced from that fraction is considered 
"renewable". There are no plans to revise the 2014 EEAG which are applicable until 31 December 
2020.  
Insofar as the EEAG includes sustainability criteria (point 19(9)), it makes a cross reference to the 
provisions of the Renewable Energy Directiv e (2009/28/EC, "RED"). The Renewable Energy 
Directive set out sustainability criteria for biofuels. However, this Directive does not define sustainability criteria for solid and gaseous biom ass. The RED promotes renewable energy with the 
objective of environmental protection, pursuant to  Article 192 of the Treaty on the Functioning of 
the European Union. Such measures do not prevent any Member State from maintaining or introducing more stringent protective measures, such as environmental safeguards related to the 
use of biomass. 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 48 - 
 
  The roadmap for the Energy Union initiative incl udes for the 2015-2017 period an updating the EU 
bioenergy sustainability policy. This will involve an assessment of bioenergy sustainability in relevant sectors, including electricity, heating and cooling and transport.  
For more detailed information on the applicable State aid rules, please consult the following 
website: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/energy/legislation_en.html 
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (3.3) Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; (3.3.1.2) State aid,  Chart 3.3 State aid, page 69:   
 The Report breaks down state aid by Member State into aid provided in the rail transport sector 
and aid provided outside that sector. 
 16. Could the EU please provide a further breakd own of the state aid provided in the rail 
transport sector? What percentage of rail tran sport aid provided by each Member State in 
the rail transport sector is used to pay pension liabilities? 
EU reply:  As explained in footnote b of the table 3.11 this item concerns railway support in 
general and not necessarily State aid. Most of this railway support mentioned in table 3.11 is not 
State aid. For the State aid that is mentioned in the table, there is an overlap with other items in 
the table, such as restructuring and training aid. No further breakdown can be provided.  Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (3.3) Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; (3.3.1.2) State aid,  Table 3.11 Non-crisis-related aid in the EU, 2008-2013, 
page 69:  
The Report breaks down non-crisis-related EU-wide state aid by sector over a six-year period: 
 17. For the transport sectors other than railways, is state aid provided to both private and public 
entities? Is the state aid directed towards specific activities in each sector, or without strings 
attached? 
EU reply: State aid in the transport sector, but also in  other sectors, can be provided to both 
private and public entities. According to the Tr eaty on the Functioning of the European Union 
("TFEU") the Commission is neutral as regards the ownership of entities receiving State aid. 
 
In principle, the TFEU prohibits State aid becaus e of its potential negative effects on trade and 
competition. Despite the general prohibition of State aid, in some specific circumstances 
government intervention can be necessary for a well-functioning and equitable economy. 
Therefore, the TFEU leaves room for a number of policy objectives for which State aid can be granted. The secondary legislation sets out these exemptions to the general prohibition, for 
instance environmental aid, regional aid, aid for R&D. The Commission only allows State aid to be 
given under certain well-specified conditions, such as a clear public policy objective, an incentive effect, proportionality and a limitation of negative effects. In this secondary legislation the Commission specifies the conditions for granting State aid. 
 
18. Does the EU expect the amount of state aid pr ovided in the transport sector, including for 
railways, to continue to decline over the next 5-10 years? 
EU reply: The EU only gathers statistics about state aid disbursed. Therefore, we are not able to 
predict how the Member States plan their transport politics. 
 19. Further to the Commission’s note that railways support includes a significant amount that is 
not classified as state aid, what factors determine whether the government support is classified as state aid or non-state aid? 
EU reply: We refer to Article 107 of the TFEU for definition of State aid. To be considered as State 
aid, a measure needs to have the following features: 
i. there has been an intervention by the State or through State resources which can take a 
variety of forms (e.g. grants, interest and tax reliefs, guarantees, government holdings of 
all or part of a company, or providing goods and services on preferential terms, etc.);  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 49 - 
 
  ii. the intervention gives the recipient an advantage; 
iii. the support is given on a selective basis, fo r example to specific companies or industry 
sectors, or to companies located in specific regions; 
iv. the intervention might affect trade and competition between Member States. 
Article 107 of the TFEU can be found under the following link: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:12008E107  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (3.3) Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; (3.3.2.2) Antitrus t: paragraph 3.160, page74: 
 The Report provides that during the current economic downturn, a number of undertakings in various industries cited the economic crisis and overcapacity problems as justifications for 
agreements that restrict competition, fo r example, by jointly reducing output. 
 20. Were any of the undertakings that signed agreements restricting competition (e.g. by jointly 
reducing output) in the transport services sector?  If so, in which Member State(s) and 
related which mode(s) of transport? 
EU reply: Baltic Max Feeder (2010): The Commission opened an investigation in January 2010 
into the "Baltic Max Feeder" scheme whereby European "feeder" vessel owners agreed to jointly cover the costs of removing vessels from service. In response to the opening of proceedings by the 
Commission, Anchor Steuerberatungsgesellschaft mbH, the company at the origin of the scheme, 
informed the Commission that the planned scheme had been abandoned. Under these circumstances, the Commission considered that there were no reasons to further investigate and 
decided to close the case. 
 Member States concerned: Northern Europe 
Mode of transport: Sea and coastal freight water transport  
The relevant press releases (opening and closure) can be found on the publicly accessible website of DG COMP at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-21_en.htm?locale=en  
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-374_en.htm?locale=en  
 
Container feeder (2012): The Commission closed an antitrust investigation into two cooperation schemes of ship owners, European Minibulk eG  and Container Feeder eG. These two maritime 
cooperatives established in Germany aimed to coordinate certain activities of the owners of 
minibulk and container feeder vessels, mainly  in Northern Europe, for example the joint 
purchasing of inputs such as fuel. The Commission was concerned that a compensation system set 
up for owners laying-up their vessels (i.e. keeping them idle) would give them an incentive to 
withdraw capacity from the market. The Commission was also concerned that an information exchange scheme could have enabled the coordina tion of rates between competitors. Following 
discussions with the Commission the cooperatives agreed to abandon these two aspects of their 
cooperation before they had been implemented. As a result, competition on the market will be 
maintained. Consequently, the Commission was been able to close the case without having to initiate formal proceedings. 
 
Member States concerned: Germany/Northern Europe Mode of transport: Sea and coastal freight water transport  
A press release was issued under: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-82_en.htm 
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (3.3) Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; (3.3.2.2) Antitrust:  paragraph 3.173, page 76: 
The Report mentions that maritime transport is one of the sectors in which sector-specific antitrust 
rules have been modified.  
21. Could the EU please specify the conditions a ttached to the block exemption for maritime 
transport from EU anti-trust rules (i.e. what were the conditions established by “a previous 
regulation”)? 
EU reply: The "previous regulation" referred to in para 3.173 of the Secretariat report is 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 906/2009 of 28 Se ptember 2009 on the application of Article WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 50 - 
 
  81(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of  agreements, decisions and concerted practices 
between liner shipping companies (consortia). This Regulation sets out (i) conditions for exemptions relating to market share and (ii) other conditions.  
Pursuant to Article 5 of the Regulation to qualif y for the exemption, the combined market share of 
the consortium members in the relevant market in which the consortium operates must not exceed 30 %, calculated by reference to the total volume of goods carried by the members within or 
outside the consortium.  
 Pursuant to Article 6 of the Regulation to qual ify for the exemption, members of the consortium 
must have the right to withdraw, subject to a maximum period of notice of six months, without 
any penalty, financial or otherwise. In the case of a highly integrated consortium, the maximum 
period of notice can be extended to 12 months.  
The Regulation can be found under the following link:  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/E N/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009R0906&from=EN  
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (3.3) Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; (3.3.2.3) Mergers and acqu isitions: paragraph 3.181, page 78: 
 The Report specifies the approval requirements  for mergers with a “Community dimension”. 
 
22. With respect to the EU Commission’s required approval of mergers with a Community 
dimension, does the Commission use a type of net-benefit test used or does it use specified criteria? 
EU reply: The Commission does not use the net-benefit test, but uses specified criteria. The main 
legislative texts for merger decisions are the EC Merger Regulation. The Merger Regulation contains the main rules for the assessment of concentrations. 
 
Pursuant to Article 1 of the Merger Regulation a concentration has a Community dimension where: (a) the combined aggregate worldwide turnover of all the undertakings concerned is more than EUR 5 000 million; and 
 
(b) the aggregate Community-wide turnover of each of at least two of the undertakings concerned 
is more than EUR 250 million, unless each of the undertakings concerned achieves more than two-
thirds of its aggregate Community-wide turnov er within one and the same Member State. 
 A concentration that does not meet the thresholds laid down in paragraph 2 has a Community 
dimension where: 
 (a) the combined aggregate worldwide turnover of all the undertakings concerned is more than EUR 2 500 million; 
 
(b) in each of at least three Member States , the combined aggregate turnover of all the 
undertakings concerned is more than EUR 100 million; 
 
(c) in each of at least three Member States included for the purpose of point (b), the aggregate turnover of each of at least two of the undertakings concerned is more than 
EUR 25 million; and 
 (d) the aggregate Community-wide turnover of each of at least two of the undertakings concerned 
is more than EUR 100 million, unless each of the undertakings concerned achieves more than two-
thirds of its aggregate Community-wide turnov er within one and the same Member State. 
 The Merger Regulation is available at: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/E N/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32004R0139&from=EN 
 
23. Have any mergers been rejected in the transportation sector? If so, please provide links to 
the reasons for rejection. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 51 - 
 
  EU reply: In February 2013, the European Commission prohibited, on the basis of the EU Merger 
Regulation, the proposed takeover of the Irish fl ag carrier Aer Lingus by the low-cost airline 
Ryanair. The acquisition would have combined the two leading airlines operating from Ireland. The Commission concluded that the merger would have harmed consumers by creating a monopoly or 
a dominant position on 46 routes where, curre ntly, Aer Lingus and Ryanair compete vigorously  
against each other. This would have reduced choice and, most likely, would have led to price increases for consumers travelling on these routes. During the investigation, Ryanair offered 
remedies. The Commission assessed them thoroughly and carried out several market tests. 
However the remedies proposed fell short of addressing the competition concerns raised by the Commission.  
For further information please consult the following website: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-13-167_en.htm 
 
The Report provides an overview of the propos ed “targeted transparency system” which would 
require undertakings to submit an information notice to the Commission if they are considering the acquisition of a minority shareholding that qualifies as a “competitively significant link”. 
 
24. Would the proposed “targeted transparency sy stem” be applicable to all undertakings, 
including transportation undertakings?  If the system would only be applicable to 
undertakings in certain sectors, please specify those sectors. 
EU reply: In its White Paper "Towards more effective EU merger control" issued in 2014 the 
Commission did indeed consider that the Commission should be enabled to review certain 
acquisitions of non-controlling minority shareholdings that could potentially raise competition concern under a procedure described as a "targeted transparency system". 
 
However, in view of concerns expressed by stakeholders in comments to the White Paper, the Commission is currently further reflecting on how to ensure proportionality of any proposal 
concerning minority shareholdings.  
 The White Paper is publicly available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri 
=celex:52014DC0449  
 
25. Could the EU please elaborate on the specific criteria used to determine whether or not a 
minority shareholding qualifies as a “competitively significant link”?  Are these criteria the same for minority shareholdings in all sectors? 
EU reply: The all issue is under review, please refer to the previous reply.  
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (3.3) Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; (3.3.4) State enterprises; Tabl e 3.18 State-owned enterprises in selected 
Member States end 2012, page 86:  Table 3.18 lists the number of state-owned enterprises in the EU by sector. 
 
26. For state-owned enterprises in the transport sector, could the EU please provide the name 
and Member State in which the entity was incorporated for all: 
i) Majority-owned listed entities (8); 
ii) Minority-owned listed entities (8); 
iii) Majority-owned non-listed entities (188); and 
iv) Statutory corporations (45). 
EU reply: As stated in the Secretariat report, there is no internationally agreed definition of a 
"State-owned enterprise" and Article 345 of the TFEU states that the EU Treaties "in no way 
prejudice the rules in member States governing th e system of property ownership". Therefore the 
exhaustive information on state enterprises is not collected at EU level. More information, including names of companies by Member States, based on questionnaires responses submitted by national 
authorities to OECD is however available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264215610-en.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 52 - 
 
  Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (3.3) Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; (3.3.4) State enterpri ses: paragraph 3.207, page 86: 
 The Report states that the Treaty on the Func tioning of the European Union (TFEU) includes 
several provisions providing limited exceptions to the general rules for public and private 
undertakings operating services of general economic interest.  
27. Could the EU please provide the TFEU provisio ns that provide limited exceptions to the 
general rules for public and private undertakings operating services of general economic 
interest, particularly in the context of the transport sector? 
EU reply: Article 106 of the TFEU reads as follows: 
1. In the case of public undertakings and under takings to which Member States grant special or 
exclusive rights, Member States shall neither enac t nor maintain in force any measure contrary to 
the rules contained in the Treaties, in particular to those rules provided for in Article 18 and Articles 
101 to 109. 
2. Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the 
character of a revenue-producing monopoly shall be subject to the rules contained in the Treaties, 
in particular to the rules on competition, in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct 
the performance, in law or in fact, of the partic ular tasks assigned to them. The development of 
trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Union. 
3. The Commission shall ensure the application of the provisions of this Article and shall, where 
necessary, address appropriate directives or decisions to Member States. 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (3.3) Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; (3.3.4) State enterpri ses: paragraph 3.208, page 87: 
 
The Report contains details on how financial relations between Member States and public undertakings are made transparent. 
 
28. With respect to the criteria to find a presumption of dominant influence on the part of public 
authorities, what is the definition of “major pa rt of the undertaking’s subscribed capital” (i.e. 
what constitutes “major”)? 
EU reply: In order to find a presumption of dominant influence on the part of public authorities, all 
factors relevant for the assessment are taken into account. The criteria laid down in Commission 
Directive 2006/111/EC are broad and allow for a wide application. In this context, there is no specific definition of the "major part of the undertaking´s subscribed capital".   
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (3.3) Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; (3.3.4) State enterp rises: paragraph 3.213, page 87:   
 
The Report includes three examples of public undertakings in the transport sector in which 
governments or other public authorities have majo rity holdings or have statutory corporations. 
 
29. Could the EU please provide a more complete list  of, in the transport sector, of the names of 
the largest public undertakings in which Member State governments or other public authorities have majority holdings (in addition to SNCF, Aeroport de Paris and Deutsche Bahn)? 
EU reply: As stated in the Secretariat report, there is no internationally agreed definition of a 
"State-owned enterprise" and Article 345 of the TFEU states that the EU Treaties "in no way prejudice the rules in member States governing th e system of property ownership". Therefore the 
exhaustive information on state enterprises is not collected at EU level. More information, including 
names of companies by Member States, based on questionnaires responses submitted by national 
authorities to OECD is however available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264215610-en . 
 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 53 - 
 
  Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (3.3.5) Government Procurement: 
paragraph 3.223, page 89:   The Secretariat Report states that “One of the si gnificant elements of the three new directives on 
public procurement is the new directive on concessions.” 
 30. To what extent are the work concessions and se rvices concessions, as governed by the new 
Directive 2014/23/EU on concessions, covered by the EU’s revised GPA market access 
commitments, especially in light of the commitments towards Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, the Netherlands on behalf of Aruba, Switzerland and Korea (see Paragraph 2 of the 
EU’s GPA Annex 6)?  Will there be any difference between this coverage as outlined in the GPA and coverage as defined by the new Directive on Concessions? 
EU reply: Under the revised GPA the EU has granted access to works concession contracts to 
some GPA parties under the principle of national tr eatment, meaning that the regime applicable to 
nationals in the EU or in the Member states will be also applicable to tenderers from those GPA 
parties.  The new EU legislation on concessions is somewhat broader than the EU commitments in 
the GPA which covers work concession contracts only.  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (3.3.5) Government Procurement: 
paragraph (3.225), page 90:   The Secretariat Report states about “Directive 2014/23/EU on concessions” that “The main novel 
features of the Directive include: (…) no standard mandatory award procedures (negotiations 
always possible) but instead establishment of certain general guarantees aimed at ensuring transparency and equal treatment (notably, in case of negotiations);” 
In paragraph 3.226, the Secretariat Report also st ates that: “The two remaining directives of the 
package – Directive 2014/24/EU on public procur ement and Directive 2014/25/EU on procurement 
by entities operating in the water, energy, tran sport and postal services sectors – introduce a 
number of rules and procedures aimed at simplify ing the previous framework. They broaden the 
possibilities for negotiation: the competitive proced ure with negotiation may be used if justified by 
the specific circumstances in relation to the nature, complexity, or the legal and financial make-up of a given project.” 
 
31. Has the Commission developed any guidelines or criteria to help provide procuring entities 
with advice on the use of negotiation for public procurement?  
 
EU reply: The Commission has not developed any guidelines to help procuring entities with advice 
on the use of negotiation for public procurement.  In view of the long-standing experience of 
contracting authorities with negotiating procedures, such guidelines were not deemed necessary. 
 32. Are there specific sectors in which negotiations are expected to be used more frequently or 
sectors where negotiations may not be used by contracting authorities? 
 
EU reply: In principle, negotiating procedures are used for contracts which are of complex nature 
and where contracting authorities do not have a final idea of the supply or service that would meet 
their needs in the concrete case. The negotiating procedure enables the contracting authorities to 
find the needed solution together with the suppliers which are experienced in the area.  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (3.3.5) Government procurement: 
Paragraph 3.228, page 91  The Secretariat Report states that "contracting authorities may require that works, supplies, or 
services bear specific labels certifying environmental, social or other characteristics." 
 33. What are the requirements and limitations surrounding the use of such labels? How is 
respect for GPA provisions on Technical Specifications  (Article X) ensured? 
 EU reply: Labels as referred to in Article 61 of both Directive 2014/24/EU and Directive 
2014/25/EU are defined as any document, certificat e or attestation confirming that the works, 
products, services, processes or procedures in question meet certain requirements. According to the above-mentioned provision, contracting authorities/entities may require in the technical WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 54 - 
 
  specifications specific label as a means of proof. They are voluntary and not obligatory. 
Contracting authorities have to accept equivalent labels or means of proof as stipulated in Article 61. Moreover, this provision imposes strict conditions for the use of labels as a means of proof that the works, supplies or services correspond to the required characteristics. In particular (a) the 
label requirements can only concern criteria which are linked to the subject-matter of the contract 
and are appropriate to define the characteristics of the works, supplies or services that are the 
subject-matter of the contract; (b) the label requirements are based on objectively verifiable and 
non-discriminatory criteria; (c) the labels are established in an open and transparent procedure in 
which all relevant stakeholders, including government bodies, consumers, social partners, manufacturers, distributors and non-governmental organisations may participate; (d) the labels are accessible to all interested parties; (e) the label requirements are set by a third party over 
which the economic operator applying for the label cannot exercise a decisive influence. The 
provisions on labels are compatible with the GPA.  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (3.3.5) Government procurement: 
paragraph 3.239, page 93:  
The Secretariat Report states that the "Commission is actively monitoring the respect of EU rules 
by member States through infringement proced ures and has opened numerous cases in recent 
years against a great number of member States.”   
34. Are the results of EU monitoring and infringement procedures accessible to the public? Are 
details of the cases opened against member States accessible to the public? Can the EU please share any relevant web addresses where this kind of information is publicly available? 
 
EU reply: Infringements of EU procurement law are pursued either by the Commission in its role 
as guardian of the Treaties via infringement proceedings under Articles 258 and 260 TFEU or 
handled by the Member States’ review bodies. The Annual Public Procurement Implementation 
Review prepared by the European Commission cont ains an overview of th e state of play with 
regard to the number of infringements handled at these two levels, the types of infringements and the sectors most affected by the violation of public procurement rules. Please find below a link to 
the last Annual Public Procurement Implementation Review 2013:  
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicpr ocurement/docs/implementation/20140820-staff-
working-document_en.pdf  
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (3.3.5) Government procurement: 
paragraph 3.241, page 94:   
 
The Secretariat Report states that measures to improve SMEs’ access to public procurement markets "include in particular an encouragement to divide contracts into lots.”   
35. In light of GPA Article II:6 on Valuation , when contracts are divided into lots, how is their 
value estimated for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are a covered procurement under the GPA? 
 
EU reply:  The contracting authorities remain according to EU law obliged to respect the thresholds 
of the GPA and shall therefore count the lots as a one tendering procedure while examining 
whether a given tendering procedure reaches the thresholds or not. 
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (3.3.5) Government procurement; 
(3.3.5.1) GPA and international procuremen t: paragraphs 3.248 and 3.249, page 95:  
 
The Secretariat Report states that "in March 2012 the Commission tabled a proposal aimed at improving the conditions under which EU businesses can compete for public contracts in third 
countries… that have an international agreement wi th the EU in the area of public procurement” 
The Report further goes that as “a last resort… the EU would be able to temporarily close its market to goods and services from that third-country partner regarding public procurement 
contracts worth €5 million or more excluding VAT” should an EU investigation “show ‘recurring and 
serious discrimination’ against EU companies.” The Report adds that the Commission has announced in 2015 the decision to review and amend its proposal.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 55 - 
 
  36. What is the current status of the Commission’s proposal for an International procurement 
Instrument (IPI)?  
 EU reply: The proposal for an international procurement initiative is currently under review. As 
noted in the Commission working programme for 2015, the Commission intends to amend it in 
accordance with the priorities of the new Commission in order to simplify it and to reduce the number of actors.  It is at this point in time not possible to say exactly when a revised proposal 
may be tabled. 
 37. Will the IPI be used to assess public procurement market access commitments previously 
agreed to between the European Union and a third country, e.g. in a bilateral free trade 
agreement (FTA)? 
 EU reply: The IPI proposal is in principle not targeting procurement covered in multilateral or 
bilateral agreements the EU has concluded with third countries. 
 38. What will the relationship be between the proc esses established with the IPI and the dispute 
settlement mechanism established by the relevant FTA? 
 EU reply: The IPI relates to procurement not covered by an agreement (because there is no 
agreement on public procurement between the EU an d the third country in question or because the 
procurement in questions is exempted from the agreement), while the dispute settlement 
mechanism is applicable for possible breaches of commitments covered by an agreement.  
39. What is the value added of the IPI in cases where the EU has an international agreement 
with a third party in the area of public procurement? 
 
EU reply: In the cases the EU has an international agreement with a third country covering public 
procurement, breaches relating to procurement covered shall be handled in accordance with the agreement. The IPI – according to the original proposal which the Commission is currently reviewing – provide the basis for investigations and actions in cases of subsistent discrimination 
against EU goods and services relating to procurement not covered by agreements.  
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (3.3) Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; (3.3.6) Intellectual Property Rights; (3.3.6.2) Indu strial Property; (3.3.6.2.1) 
Patents: paragraph 3.270, page 102:  
The preparatory work and procedural steps for th e implementation of the package are following 
their course. In particular, two Committees are in  charge of preparing technical, regulatory and 
procedural rules required for its implementation. […] These two bodies were initially expected to complete their work at the beginning of 2015. However, a second progress report sent to the 
European Council in June 2014 indicated that the Select Committee was aiming for the completion 
of its work during the first semester of 2015 and the Preparatory Committee for the end of 2015.  
40. What preparations from the Select and Preparatory Committees are still needed before the 
Unified Patent court can be operational?  
EU reply: The Select Committee – which is composed of representatives of the Member States 
participating in the enhanced cooperation that resulted in the creation of the Unitary Patent – 
ensures the governance and supervision of the task s pertaining to the grant and administration of 
the Unitary Patent which have been entrusted to the European Patent Office ('EPO'). The Select Committee was also entrusted by Regulation 1257/201 2 with the responsibility of deciding on i) 
the level of the renewal fees for the Unitary Patent (Article 12 of Regulation 1257/2012)  and ii) 
the setting of the distribution key of the renewa l fees between the participating Member States 
(Article 13 of Regulation 1257/2012). The Select Committee is also in charge of finalising the Rules relating to Unitary protection. The Preparatory Committee is in charge of carrying out all the 
practical work required for the establishment of the Unified Patent Court, it is composed of all the 
Signatory States to the Unified Patent Court Agreement. In order to fulfil its task, the Preparatory Committee has set up 5 working areas: Legal framework (including the rules of procedure and 
court fees); Financial aspects (financial regulation s, pension, social security and salary schemes); 
IT (electronic filing and case management system); Facilities and Human resource & training (selection and training of judges). A roadmap is published on the Preparatory Committee’s WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 56 - 
 
  website. The May 2015 report from the Chairs of  the Preparatory and Select Committee on their 
activities can be found on the European Council website.  
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (3.3) Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; (3.3.6) Intellectual Property Rights; (3.3.6.2) Indu strial Property; (3.3.6.2.1) 
Patents: Paragraph 3.271, page 102:  
Meanwhile, a number of challenges continue to be discussed in relation to the introduction of the 
unitary patent. Those include the need to establish a predictable jurisdiction within the UPC the consistency of which had to be supported by the Court of Appeal; the potential impact of the unitary patent on the European patent, i.e. whet her the former is going to supersede the latter; 
the calculation of fees for the unitary patent; the financing and cost-effectiveness of the UPC as a 
non-EU institution; etc.  
41. How will the Court of Appeal ensure that the law is applied uniformly across the local and 
regional divisions?  The Agreement on a Unified Patent Court states that the Court shall base 
its decisions on a) Union Law, b) the UPC Agreement, c) the EPC, d) other international agreements and e) national law. On which sources of law will it base its decisions?  
EU reply:  The Unified Patent Court will consist of panels that have a multinational composition, 
composed of both legally qualified judges and technically qualified judges. These judges shall have the highest standard of competence, have proven experience in the field of patent litigation and 
thus guarantee that all divisions of the UPC are equally competent and of a balanced composition.  
All divisions will be governed by the same rule s of procedure and the jurisprudence of the UPC 
Court of Appeal. This will to as large extent possi ble minimize the risk of forum shopping, and to 
ensure that the law is applied uniformly across the divisions.  
 
As stated in the question, the Unified Patent Cour t will base its decisions on Union law, The UPC 
Agreement, the Convention on the Grant of European Patents (EPC), other international 
agreements applicable to patents and binding on all the Contracting Member States and national 
law (Article 24 of the UPC Agreement).  Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (3.3) Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; (3.3.6) Intellectual Property Rights; (3.3.6.2) Indu strial Property; (3.3.6.2.1) 
Patents: Paragraph 3.272, page 102:  
Among others, Spain contested the delegation of powers to the European Patent Office (EPO) 
whose acts are allegedly not subject to judicial review. It also considered that the translation arrangements would infringe the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in EU law through the 
introduction of a scheme that disadvantages persons whose mother tongue is not English, French 
or German. In his opinion of 18 November 2014, the Advocate General recommended that both actions be dismissed by the Court of Justice of th e EU (CJEU). The CJEU ruling is expected in the 
first half of 2015. 
 
42. Now that the CJEU has rejected Spain’s Unif ied Patent Court challenges, does the EU 
foresees any more hurdles that could delay the entry into force of the new patent system? 
EU reply: On 5 May 2015 the European Court of Justice dismissed
36 both of Spain’s actions 
against the regulations implementing enhanced coop eration in the area of the creation of unitary 
patent protection  (judgments in Case-146/1337 Spain v Parliament and Council and Case C-
147/1338 Spain v Council).  
 
The Court's judgments confirm the validity of the Patent package. This should pave the way for 
acceleration of the implementation process. In part icular we are confident that this will increase 
the pace of the ratification process by the Co untries which have signed the UPC Agreement. 
                                               
36 http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-05/cp150049en.pdf . 
37 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-146/13 . 
38 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-147/13 . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 57 - 
 
  Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (3.3) Measures Affecting Production 
and Trade; (3.3.6) Intellectual Property Rights; (3.3.6.2) Indu strial Property; (3.3.6.2.4) 
Trademarks: Paragraph 3.283, page 105:  
Currently, for the registration of an individual trademark of up to three classes of goods and 
services, fees amount to €1,050, or €900 if the app lication is filed electronically. Renewal fees are 
€1,500 and €1,350, respectively. The basic fee for a collective mark is €1,800. The opposition fee 
is €350. 
 43. The secretariat report mentions IP office fees for Plant Variety Rights found in par. 3.281 
(p. 105), trademarks found in par. 3.283 (p. 105), and industrial designs found in par. 
3.299 (p. 110), could the EU please provide in formation on fees for patents, copyright, 
supplementary protection certificates, GIs, and utility models? 
EU reply: The fees mentioned in the WTO report in relation to plant variety rights, trademarks 
and industrial designs relate to Community rights. In  this regard, it should be noted that there is 
no EU-wide utility model protection, nor a Community supplementary protection certificate. The 
renewal fees relating to the European patent with unitary effect (Unitary patent) are under discussion at the Select Committee and will be op erational (to be paid to the European patent 
Office) when the unitary patent and the Unified Patent Court will be in force. On classical European 
patents, information on the different fees can be found at the following link: http://www.epoline.org/portal/porta l/default/epoline.Scheduleoffees  Copyright and registration of 
a GI at EU level do not require any fees. 
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e: (3) Subsidies; (vi) IRP enforcement at 
the EU’s external borders: paragraph 3.309, page 115: 
 
This paragraph addresses the issue of non-compliant products being detained at customs.  
44. Could the EU please indicate if they anticipate making GINETEX labelling compulsory on 
apparel products imported to their market in the future? 
 
EU reply:  The EU has no intention in the next future to impose mandatory care labelling. This 
aspect was analysed recently in the Commission's report adopted under Article 24 of Regulation 
(EU) No 1007/2011. Please see this report:  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX: 52013DC0656&from=EN  
 
45. What are current labelling requirements for textiles and apparel exported to the EU? 
 
EU reply: Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 sets out rules concerning the use of textile fibre names 
and related labelling / marking of fibre compositio n of textile products. If textile and clothing 
products fall into the scope of the legislation requiring the CE marking - notably the Directive for Personal Protective Equipment (Directive 89/686/EEC) and the Toys Safety Directive (2009/48/EC) 
– they also have to be CE marked accord ing to the provisions of these Directives.  
 Section IV. Trade Policies by Se ctor: (4.2.) Agriculture; (4 .2.3) Agricultural Policies; 
(4.2.3.1.1) Direct Payments: Paragraph 4.20, page 124: 
 The Secretariat’s report indicates that under the new system of direct payments that farmers may 
be eligible for payments under different schemes including “…agricultural practices beneficial for 
the climate and the environment (Greening)…”.  46. Could the European Union elaborate what objective criteria it uses to measure or to assess 
that certain practices produce beneficial results for the climate or environment? 
EU reply:  The greening (under direct payments) forms a new instrument of the CAP, which is 
granted under the first pillar for implementing three compulsory practices whose environmental and climate benefits have been proven. These practices include the maintenance of permanent 
grassland, application of crop diversification and the establishment of 5% ecological focus areas on 
arable land. These requirements have been chosen in such a way as to bring real environmental enhancement whilst limiting the additional cost s and burdens in the operation of the farm. By 
respecting these greening practices, farmers contribute to long-term competitiveness and for an WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 58 - 
 
  economically, environmentally and socially sustainable way of managing their farms. The greening 
payment is a new element of the EU's response to the global challenge of sustainable management of natural resources and climate action which is of particular importance to agriculture.  
On top of these mandatory instruments, agri-environmental policy encourages the introduction 
and/or maintenance of extensive, environmentally friendly farming systems programmed and targeted towards regional needs. These instruments will be accompanied by broad support from 
the Farm Advisory System and applied research. 
 Section IV. Trade Policies by Sector: (4.2) Agri culture, Other: paragr aph 4.46, page 130:  
 
The Secretariat’s report indicates that the existing system of planting rights for vineyards will 
cease and be replaced by a system of authorizat ions for vine plantings to run from 2016 to 2030. 
 
47. Could the European Union elaborate as to whether under this new system the producer will 
be able to choose what vines to plant or will there be a list of recommended vines for 
planting? 
EU reply:  On wine production, the last CAP reform of 2013 respects the decision of the 2008 wine 
reform to end the planting rights regime at the end of 2015. The new scheme of authorisations for 
vine plantings will be implemented from 2016 until 2030. The main feature is the safeguard mechanism, whereby Member States shall make available each year authorisations for new plantings corresponding to 1% of the planted vine area measured on 31 July of the previous year. 
While producers will only be able to plant vines if they obtain an authorisation, such authorisations 
can be granted for any vines of wine grape varieties classified at national level in accordance with Article 81(2) of Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013. The new system does not contain a list of 
recommended vines for planting. 
 Section IV, Trade Policies by Sector: (4.2) Agriculture; (4 .2.3) Agricultural Policies; 
(4.2.3.3) Market Access: paragraph 4.49, page 131: 
 As provided in Articles 48 and 49 of Regulation No . 1307/2013, up to 5% of the national envelope 
for direct payments may be reserved for additional payments to farmers operating in areas with 
natural constraints as designated by each Member State under rural development. "Areas of 
natural constraints" (ANC), provided for in Arti cles 32 and 33 of Regulation (EU) No. 1305/2013, 
replace the former "less favoured areas" whose designation among member States had been found 
to be inconsistent by the European Court of Auditors in 2003. 
 48. Would the European Commission please explain the reasoning for "less favoured areas” 
being replaced with "areas of na tural constraints" under this policy of additional payments to 
farmers? Could you also please provide the de finition for “areas of natural constraints”? 
EU reply: Areas of natural and other specific constraints are defined under Article 32 of Regulation 
(EU) 1305/2013. Member States delimit their natural constraint area along those definitions:  
1. mountain areas, are characterized by a considerable limitation of the possibilities for using the 
land and by an appreciable increase in production costs due to:   
(a) the existence, because of altitude, of very difficult climatic conditions, the effect of which is to 
substantially shorten the growing season;   
(b) at a lower altitude, the presence over the grea ter part of the area in question of slopes too 
steep for the use of machinery or requiring the use of very expensive special equipment, or a 
combination of these two factors, where the constraints resulting from each taken separately are less acute but the combination of the two gives rise to an equivalent constraints.  
 
Areas north of the 62nd parallel and certain adjacent areas are considered to be mountain areas.  
2. areas, other than mountain areas, are considered to be facing significant natural constraints if, 
at least 60 % of the agricultural area meets at leas t one of the biophysical criteria listed in Annex 
III to R 1305/2013 (low temperature, dryness, excess soil moisture, limited soil drainage, WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 59 - 
 
  unfavourable texture and stoniness, shallow rooting depth, poor chemical properties, steep slope) 
at the threshold value indicated.  Compliance with those conditions is ensured at the level of local administrative units ("LAU 2" 
level) or at the level of a clearly delineated local unit which covers a single clear contiguous 
geographical area with a definable economic and administrative identity.  
3. other areas affected by specific constraints are: 
 a) areas affected by specific constraints and if it  is necessary for land management to be continued 
in order to conserve or improve the environment, to maintain the countryside, to preserve the 
tourist potential of the area or to protect the coastline;  
 b) at least 60 % of the agricultural area meets at least two of the bio-physical criteria listed in 
Annex III to R 1305/2013 each within a margin of not more than 20 % of the threshold value 
indicated, or at least 60 % of the agricultural ar ea is composed of areas meeting at least one of 
the  bio-physical criteria listed in Annex III at th e threshold value indicated, and areas meeting at 
least two of the criteria listed in Annex III each within a margin of not more than 20 % of the 
threshold value indicated.   Compliance with those conditions is ensured at LAU2 level or at the level of a clearly delineated 
local unit which covers a single clear contiguous geographical area with a definable economic and 
administrative identity. Areas affected by specific constraints comprise farming areas within which the natural production conditions are similar and the total extent of which does not exceed 10 % 
of the area of the Member State concerned.  
 The new delimitations are complemented by a fine-tuning exercise. 
 
Before the 2013 reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, for defining "other less favoured areas" 
Member States used a wide range of indicators -a fact criticised by the European Court of Auditors. The 2013 reform of the Common Agricultural Policy developed a set of common biophysical 
indicators, as part of the new legal framework for Rural Development, which are to be used by 
Member States for identifying "areas, other than mountain areas facing significant natural constraints". The shift in approach, notably reference to common biophysical indicators, is 
reflected in the change of the name from "Less Favoured Areas (LFA)" into "Areas Facing Natural 
and Other Specific Constraints (ANC)".  
Section IV. Trade Policies by Sector: (4.2) Agriculture; (4 .2.3) Agricultural Policies; 
(4.2.3.2) Export subsidies: paragraph 4.50, page 132:  The Secretariat Report notes that in July 2013, all export subsidy rates were set at zero, and the 
new rules on the Common Organization of Markets state that "without prejudice to the application 
of exceptional measures, the [export] refund av ailable should be zero" where the exceptional 
measures which might include export refunds are "significant price rises or falls on internal or 
external markets or other events and circumstances significantly disturbing or threatening to 
disturb the market, where that situation, or its effects on the market, is likely to continue or deteriorate"; and "emergency measures to resolve specific problems". 
49. Could the European Union advise if this mean s that export refunds have been eliminated 
entirely? 
EU reply:  As referred in Paragraph 3.129 of the report of the secretariat, the EU set export 
refunds at zero for all agriculture products on 13 July 2013. Furthermore, following the 2013 CAP reform, it is clearly stated that "…the refund available … shall be EUR 0" (see Article 196(3) of 
Regulation 1308/2013). The EU's new Common Agricu ltural Policy provides that export subsidies 
cannot be used other than as an exceptional measure in situations referred to in the question. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 60 - 
 
  EU RESPUESTAS 
PERÚ 
 Sobre la base de lo señalado en el documento WT/TPR/S/317  del 18 de mayo de 2015, el Perú 
tiene las siguientes preguntas: 
 Pregunta 1 
 
2. RÉGIMEN DE COMERCIO E INVERSIÓN 
2.3. Acuerdos y arreglos comerciales 2.3.3. Preferencias unilaterales 
 
Párrafo 2.37.- En lo que respecta a otras medidas unilaterales aparte del SPG, la UE otorgó 
preferencias arancelarias a seis países de los Balcanes Occidentales en 2000, las cuales se 
renovaron posteriormente en 2005 y 2011 hasta el final de 2016.
39 También se otorgaron 
preferencias unilaterales específicas a Moldova, en 2008, que se prorrogaron posteriormente hasta finales de 2015. En abril de 2014 se otorgaron preferencias unilaterales a Ucrania, habida cuenta 
del desmantelamiento arancelario previsto en el acuerdo de libre comercio de alcance amplio y 
profundo entre la UE y Ucrania
40; estas preferencias se mantendrán hasta el final de 2015.41 
 Pregunta.- Al margen de la notificación del acuerdo de libre comercio de alcance amplio 
y profundo entre la UE y Ucrania (Documen to WT/REG353/N/1), ¿de qué manera la UE 
ha informado a la OMC que a partir de abr il de 2014 se están otorgando preferencias 
unilaterales a Ucrania? ¿En qué situación se en cuentra el procedimiento interno de la UE 
para la entrada en vigor del Acuerdo? 
 EU reply : In April 2014, the EU informed the WTO Secretariat and the WTO Members that (in light 
of Ukraine’s extremely difficult economic situation)  it had decided to anticipate the implementation 
of the EU-Ukraine Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) by means of the advanced 
application of the trade preferences benefitting Ukra ine and to start the reduction or elimination of 
Union customs duties on goods originating in Ukraine, in accordance with the Schedule of 
concessions set out in Annex I-A to the Association Agreement.  
 On 1 July 2014, following its signature by the Parties, the Agreement has been notified to the WTO 
Secretariat in accordance with the provisions of  the Transparency Mechanism Decision for RTAs. 
In terms of internal procedure, the EU Council Decision (2014/691/EU) of 29 September 2014 established that trade the part of the Agr eement will be applied as of 1 January 2016. 
 
Pregunta 2  3. POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS  
3.1. Medidas que afectan dire ctamente a las importaciones 
3.1.9. Medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias 3.1.9.3. Sistema de Alerta Rápida para l os Productos Alimenticios y los Alimentos para 
Animales 
 Párrafo 3.109.-  El Sistema de Alerta Rápida para los Pr oductos Alimenticios y los Alimentos para 
Animales (RASFF) permite a las autoridades de control de los alimentos y los piensos de los 
Estados miembros y de la Comisión intercambi ar información sobre las medidas adoptadas en 
respuesta a riesgos directos e indirectos planteados por los alimentos para la salud de las personas, y por los piensos para salud de las personas y los animales y para el medio ambiente.
42 
Los Estados miembros notifican los riesgos detectados en relación con los productos ya comercializados (notificaciones relativas a la comercialización) y en caso de que se deniegue la entrada de productos a la UE (notificaciones de rechazo en frontera). 
 
                                               
39 Información en línea de la Comisión Europea,  "Autonomous trade measures". Consultada en: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/policy/glossa ry/terms/association-trade-measures_en.htm . 
40 Documento WT/REG353/N/1 de la OMC, de 2 de julio de 2014. 
41 Información en línea de la Comisión Europea, "Countries and regions - Ukraine". Consultada en: 
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/ukraine/  [30/3/2015]. 
42 En el artículo 50 de la Legislación Alimentaria General se establecen los criterios de notificación al 
Sistema de Alerta Rápida para los Productos Alimenticios y los Alimentos para Animales. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 61 - 
 
  Pregunta.- A la luz de lo dispuesto en el Ar tículo 5.1 del Acuerdo sobre Facilitación del 
Comercio (Notificaciones de controles o insp ecciones reforzados), ¿se prevé algún tipo 
de modificación al actual RASFF? ¿Existe algún enlace electrónico donde se puede 
obtener mayor información sobre el RASFF? 
 
EU reply:  The RASFF does not need any further amendment because it complies with the 
mentioned article; for example, when a reinforced  check is ended, the RASFF informs the country 
involved by sending a mail to the relevant auth orities (for instance, in RASFF 2014.1383-inf01, of 
28/Nov/2014, related to a Peruvian exporter).  You might contact the RASFF contact point in Peru, at the "Dirección General de Salud Ambiental – 
DIGESA" who get full details of RASFF notifications and follow-up concerning Peru.  
The link to the RASFF Portal, open to the main public, is: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/rasff-wind ow/portal/index.cfm?event=SearchForm 
 
The main page of the RASFF is: http://ec. europa.eu/food/safety/rasff/index_en.htm  
 
Pregunta 3 
 4. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES  
4.2. Agricultura 
4.2.3. Políticas Agrícolas 
4.2.3.1. Ayuda interna 4.2.3.1.1. Pagos directos 
 
Párrafo 4.17.- Con la adhesión de Croacia a la UE, el número de Estados miembros que aplicaban 
el régimen de pago único aumentó a 18
43, mientras que los demás siguieron aplicando el régimen 
de pago único por superficie (RPUS).44 Los pagos en el marco del régimen de pago único y del 
RPUS están desvinculados de los precios y de la producción. Los pagos directos vinculados a la producción solo se aplicaban a las vacas nodrizas, al ganado ovino y caprino, y (en el caso de cuatro Estados miembros) al algodón. Los Estados miembros tenían cierta flexibilidad para 
destinar a objetivos específicos parte de los fondos disponibles para pagos directos y, en el caso de 
los Estados miembros que aplicaban el RPUS, para realizar pagos directos nacionales complementarios (cuadro 4.4). 
 
Pregunta.- ¿En qué cuatro estados miembr os, los pagos directos vinculados a la 
producción se aplican al algodón? 
 
EU reply:  Currently, cotton is produced only in three Member States on around 300 000 ha. 
Greece is the main cotton grower, with 80% of Eu ropean cotton growing area, followed by Spain 
with a share of 20%. Bulgaria produces cotton on less than 1 000 ha. As reflected in Table 4.6 of 
the WTO secretariat report, crop-specific payments for cotton remain available under CAP in four 
Member States: Bulgaria, Greece, Spain and Portugal, in accordance with Article 58 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 
establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of 
the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. Further information is  available at table 4.6 of the WTO secretariat 
report.  
 
                                               
43 Alemania, Austria, Bélgica, Croacia, Dinamarca, Eslovenia, España, Finlandia, Francia, Grecia, Irlanda, 
Italia, Luxemburgo, Malta, los Países Bajos, Portugal, el Reino Unido y Suecia. 
44 Bulgaria, Chipre, Estonia, Hungría, Letonia, Lituania, Polonia, la República Checa, la República 
Eslovaca y Rumania.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 62 - 
 
  Pregunta 4 
 4. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES  
4.2. Agricultura 
4.2.3. Políticas Agrícolas 
4.2.3.1. Ayuda interna 4.2.3.1.2. Medidas de sostenim iento del mercado interior 
 
Párrafo 4.36.- Se entiende por "amenazas de perturbación del mercado" aquellas que se 
produzcan "como consecuencia de incrementos o bajadas significativos de los precios en el mercado interior o exterior o de otros acontecimientos o circunstancias que perturben o amenacen 
con perturbar de manera significativa el mercad o, cuando esa situación o sus efectos en el 
mercado tengan probabilidades de continuar o deteriorarse". En esas circunstancias, la Comisión puede tomar medidas para hacer frente a la situación, "respetando las obligaciones que se deriven 
de los acuerdos internacionales celebrados".
45 
 Pregunta.- ¿Quién determina la existencia de  “amenazas de perturbación del mercado”? 
¿Existen umbrales para medir los incremento s o bajadas significativos de los precios en 
el mercado interior o exte rior? ¿Qué otros acontecimi entos o circunstancias que 
perturben o amenacen con perturbar de ma nera significativa el mercado podrían 
producir "amenazas de perturbación de l mercado"? ¿Qué serie de indicadores 
económicos se utilizan para determinar la ex istencia de "amenazas de perturbación del 
mercado"? ¿Existe algún análisis de causal idad de nexo causal entre incrementos o 
bajadas significativos de los precios en el  mercado interior o exterior u de otros 
acontecimientos o circunstancias y las “a menazas de perturbación del mercado"? 
 EU reply:  The European Commission is given the powers to implement the measures to respond 
to market distortions and so the Commission is re sponsible to determine when those disturbances 
occur. Commission's decisions are subject to judicial review.   For further information see Regulation (UE) No  1308/2013 of the European Parliament and the 
Council of 17 December 2013, establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural 
products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007.  
 
Pregunta 5  
4. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES  
4.2. Agricultura 4.2.3. Políticas Agrícolas 4.2.3.1. Ayuda interna 
4.2.3.1.2. Medidas de sostenim iento del mercado interior 
 Párrafo 4.40.- La financiación de la UE puede aumentar al 100% de la cuantía total del fondo en 
el caso de las retiradas del mercado de productos a los que se dé salida mediante su distribución 
gratuita a organizaciones caritativas y fundaciones con fines de ayuda alimentaria o su distribución a instituciones penitenciarias, colegios, hospitales, etc., hasta un máximo del 5% del volumen de 
la producción comercializada por la organización de productores. Además, continuará el Plan de 
consumo de fruta en las escuelas, en cuyo marco se distribuyen frutas y hortalizas a los escolares. En 2012/2013 y 2013/2014 se asignaron al Plan 90 millones de euros en total, con tasas de cofinanciación que variaron del 50 al 75%.
46  Para 2014/2015, la asignación final fue de 150 
millones de euros, con tasas de cofinanciación del 75 al 90%.47 Finlandia, el Reino Unido y Suecia 
no participan en el Plan.  
Pregunta.- ¿En el Plan de consumo de fruta en  las escuelas solo se distribuyen frutas y 
hortalizas a los escolares que provengan de organizaciones de productores de la Unión 
Europea? ¿O abarca también productos impo rtados? ¿Cuál es el marco normativo del 
                                               
45 Reglamento (UE) Nº 1308/2013, artículo 219. 
46 Información en línea de la Dirección General de  Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural. Consultada en: 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/newsroom/111_en.htm  [noviembre de 2014]. 
47 Información en línea de la Dirección General de  Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural. Consultada en: 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/newsroom/163_en.htm  [noviembre de 2014]. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 63 - 
 
  Plan de consumo de fruta en las escuelas? ¿Existen algún portal electrónico con mayor 
información?  EU reply:  Article 23(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the Council and the European 
Parliament governs the sourcing of products under the School Fruit and Vegetables Scheme. 
According to this provision, the decision on the products supplied under the Scheme is within the 
remit of Member States who may choose the produc ts based on different criteria, including health 
and environmental considerations, seasonality, variety or availability. Even though Member States 
may give priority to the local products, short supply chains or environmental benefits, the sourcing of imported products is not excluded. Although wording of the EU legislation for this scheme encourages Member States to give priority to the extent possible to the Union and local products, 
it does not restrict the sourcing of the products (imports/domestic market). 
 1.1.  The legal framework for the School Fruit and vegetable scheme can be found in Articles 22-
25 of the Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of th e European Parliament and the Council of 17 
December 2013, establishing a common organisation  of the markets in agricultural products and 
repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 
1234/2007. 
Further information on the EU school fruit and vegetable scheme is available at the following 
webpage: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sfs/index_en.htm. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 64 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM 
THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU 
 PART I: REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT (WT/TPR/S/317) 
 
1. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 1.1 RECENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS 
1.1.2 STRUCTURAL REFORMS 
1.1.2.1 FISCAL GOVERNANCE IMPROVEMENT  Page 13 (Para 1.10) 
According to the first regulation of “Two Packs,” “On common provisions for monitoring and 
assessing draft budgetary plans and ensuring the correction of excessive deficit of the Member States in the euro area, ” members of the Eurozone should submit “Stability and Convergence 
Programs” and “National Reform Programs” to the EU by April 30, and then submit the budget 
draft for the next year by October 15. The European Commission has the right to investigate and assess those reports and order the member state wh ich violates the “Stability and Growth Pact” 
disciplines to modify their domestic budgets. 
 Question(s): 1. Considering the rise of radical political partie s one after the other in various elections within 
EU member states, these emerging political forces may not be very compliant with the EU’s 
additional budgetary supervision. How will the EU  respond if an individual member state in the 
future refuses to modify its budget? 
 
EU reply:  The evidence shows that significant fiscal  consolidation has been undertaken by EU 
Member States in recent years, despite difficult  economic conditions. These considerable efforts 
are now bearing fruit, with the budget deficit in  the EU brought under 3% of GDP in 2014 for the 
first time since 2008, while the deficit for the euro area stood at 2.4% of GDP.  
One can recall that the financial crisis has led the EU to examine the economic governance 
framework in place and to reform it (this was described in previous WTO Secretariat report, S 284 
rev 2). For memory, the enforcement of the Stab ility and Growth Pact (SGP) was strengthened 
considerably under the Six Pack in 2011, with the introduction of sanctions for euro area countries 
at all stages in the Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP), and the possibility of sanctions under the 
Significant Deviations Procedure (SDP) under the preventive arm of the Pact. A new voting 
procedure – reverse qualified majority voting – means that these rules will be considered adopted 
unless a qualified majority is against them. In ad dition these measures were reinforced by two 
other initiatives: the adoption of an additional package of measures known as the Two Pack, which 
provides for increased monitoring and the fiscal compact through national correction mechanisms. 
 
In accordance with the Two Pack, the Commission in autumn presented its comments on the Draft 
Budgetary Plans submitted by Member States. These draft budgetary plans set out the main 
aspects of the budgetary situation of the general government and its sub-sectors for the year 
ahead. Worth stressing that all euro area Member States that are not subject to a macroeconomic 
adjustment programme also had to submit their draft budgetary plans by mid-October. Even if still relatively new, the exercise already seems well rooted in the budgetary policy coordination and 
surveillance framework of the euro area. In fact  all of the Member States concerned submitted 
their plans on time and no infringement being found.    Regarding the general rules, let's recall that in cases where the Commission identifies "particularly 
serious non-compliance" with the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact, the Commission can 
request the Member State to present a revised plan within two weeks of the plan's initial submission. That being said, the Commission does not have the right to veto or change draft 
national budgets, as the ownership of the final adopted budget remains with the national 
parliaments. The purpose is rather to feed and en rich the debate in the national parliaments with 
an independent opinion before the final adoption of the budget. For instance, last October the 
Commission carried out consultations with Austria, Finland, France and Italy to request further 
information or to highlight some initial concerns related to the plans they submitted. But worth stressing that none of the DBPs showed "particularly serious non-compliance" with the requirements of the SGP.  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 65 - 
 
  1. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 
1.1 RECENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS 1.1.2 STRUCTURAL REFORMS 1.1.2.2 LABOUR MARKET REFORMS 
 
Page 15 (Para 1.17-1.18) We are pleased to see, particularly in para. 1.18 and Chart 1.4, that the EU’s labour market has 
regained its competitiveness. However, para. 1. 17 and Chart 1.5 suggest that this may be the 
result of certain EU member stat es relaxing beneficiary systems or reducing labour entitlements.  
 Question(s):  
2. Does the Commission have any position or perspective on how to maintain benefits and 
entitlements for labour, when there is a trend in certain individual member states to continue reducing labour benefits and entitlements?  
 
EU reply:  The European Commission recognizes th e importance of fair wages and of the 
establishment of minimum wages and social benefits that prevents both in work poverty and are 
economically sustainable. The Commission has welcomed the introduction of a minimum wages in 
Germany as it contributes to convergence between EU member states.  The Commission recognises that wage dynamics have been subdued across Europe in recent 
years, with nominal declines being observed in some Member States. The Commission notes, 
however, that on average wage growth can be co nsidered to have been broadly in line with 
economic fundamentals. In particular, large wage adjustments occurred in those Member States 
that experienced an unwinding of cumulated macr oeconomic imbalances, and the absence of such 
an adjustment would have possibly led to even high er levels of unemployment. In countries facing 
higher adjustment needs, it can be observed that  wages have been growing on average faster in 
the tradable sectors than in the non-tradable sectors, a pattern which is consistent with the 
rebalancing of the current accounts and net external positions through the reallocation of labour from non-tradable to tradable sectors. A number of factors can further explain the continued recent wage moderation, including the 
persistence of labour market slack, reforms of collective bargaining enhancing the response of 
negotiated wages to market conditions, the sheer si ze of the labour market shock, adjustment in 
public sector wages, and expectations regarding the strength of the economic recovery. 
 
With respect to benefits entitlements, the Commission recognises the need to ensure an adequate and coherent design of labour market institutio ns that support transition between jobs, promote 
productivity and growth and prevent labour market  segmentation. In the context of the European 
Semester, the Commission gives regular advice s and recommendations to Member States to 
enhance the functioning of labour market institutions, including an extended coverage and access to welfare benefits, improving targeting of unemplo yment benefit recipients and ensuring that the 
provision of active labour market programmes and public employment services are proportionate 
to the needs of a growing pool of unemployed.  
1. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 
1.2 TRADE PERFORMANCE  
Page 17 (Para 1.21) 
Since Q3 2011, extra-EU exports started to acquire strong momentum compared with the other three export/import categories, and this diverg ence continued in this TPR review period. 
 
Question(s):  
3. Could the Commission provide an explanatio n and the rationale of why extra-EU export 
performed relatively better, and its impact on the overall decline of EU share of global trade?  
 
EU reply:  The relatively better performance of extra-EU exports compared to extra-EU imports 
and intra-EU exports and imports could possibly be explained by the weak domestic demand in the 
EU and the shortfall of investment as a result of  the continuation of the economic and financial 
crisis. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 66 - 
 
  Nevertheless, according to the European Commiss ion's European Economic Forecast for spring 
201548, domestic demand is expected to accelerate in the following years, reflecting the expansion 
of private consumption expected this year and a rebound of investment next year.  
 
Despite the increase of extra-EU exports, the EU  absolute share of global trade (exports plus 
imports) has decreased since 2007. This is explaine d by the fact that the growth of EU exports has 
been lower than that of global trade. Competitors from emerging and developing countries, like 
China, have continued to improve substant ially their position in the global market49. 
 2. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 2.1 LEGAL AND INSTIT UTIONAL FRAMEWORK 
 
Page 26 (Para 2.1) In accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Common 
Commercial Policy (CCP) remains the exclusive competence of the EU. In addition, customs union, 
agricultural and fisheries policy, internal market, and consumer protection, among others, are areas where the EU has exclusive or shared competence. 
 
The scope of common commercial policy covers trade in goods, trade in services, the commercial aspects of intellectual property rights, foreign di rect investment, and trade defense measures. In 
these areas, member States may act individually only when authorized by the EU. 
 
Question(s):  
4. Could you explain why territories of some  member states are not comprised under EU 
member status? Which territories of me mber states fall under the CCP scope? 
 EU reply:  The CCP applies to those territories of the Member States to which the EU Treaties 
apply. Those territories are specified in Article 355 TFEU. The Treaties (and consequently the CCP) 
does not apply to the territories listed in Article 355.5 TFEU, except to the extent provided therein. 
The reasons why the parties to the Treaties agreed to exclude certain territories from their scope of application vary and may include, for example, geographical, socio-economic and constitutional 
reasons.  
 5. Do those territories of member states that do not fall under the regulatory scope of the EU 
affect the range of coverage of economic and trade agreements that the EU enters into with other 
countries?  
EU reply: No, unless the contracting parties decide otherwise.  
 6. In the area of foreign direct investment, on which issues may member States, authorized by the EU, act individually? Please also explain the EU’s authorization procedure.  
 
EU reply: T h e  T F E U  p r ov i d e s  t h a t  f o r e i g n  d i r e c t  i n v e s t m e n t  i s  a n  i n t e g r a l  p a r t  o f  t h e  c o m m o n  
commercial policy, which is an exclusive competence of the EU. The conditions under which 
Member States may negotiate or re-negotiate existing bilateral investment agreements are set out 
in Article 9 of the Regulation 1219/2012 establis hing transitional arrangements for bilateral 
investment agreements between member States and third countries. The Regulation does not 
provide for the co-existence of Member States and Union investment agreements with the same 
third country. Member States agreements will cease to apply when the EU agreement with the same countries enters into force.  
2. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.1 LEGAL AND INSTIT UTIONAL FRAMEWORK 
 
Page 26 (Para 2.2) 
The scope of the Common Commercial Policy (CCP) co vers trade in goods, trade in services, the 
commercial aspects of intellectual property rights, foreign direct investment, and trade defense 
measures. In these areas, member States may act in dividually only when authorized by the EU. In 
                                               
48 http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2015/pdf/ee2_en.pdf   
49 CEPII-CIREM (2013), EU external competitiven ess: recent developments . Available at: 
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/152235.htm  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 67 - 
 
  the areas of shared competences, the EU member  States retain varying degrees of independent 
regulatory authority, depending on whether, an d to what extent, the EU has already adopted 
measures. Hence, the adoption of national measures in these areas may affect trade within the EU, and with non-EU countries. 
 
Question(s):  
7. Under what circumstances will the EU authorize/mandate member states? When the scope 
of agreements signed between member states  and other economies overlaps with those 
agreements signed between the EU and other economies, which agreement takes priority? 
 EU reply: There are various reasons why the Union may decide to authorize a Member State to 
conclude an agreement in an area falling within  the Union's exclusive competence. For example, 
the Union may authorize the Member States to become parties to an agreement because participation is not open to REIOs (Regional Economic Integration Organisation) like the European 
Union. 
 In some cases, the Union has authorized the Memb er States to maintain, amend or conclude new 
international agreements in a given area (e.g. investments, air service agreements) as a 
temporary measure pending the negotiation and conclusion of Union agreements.  Under EU law, the agreements concluded by the Un ion prevail over the agreements of the Member 
States in accordance with the principle of supremac y of EU law, except as provided in Article 351 
TFEU. Under public international law, any conflicts would have to be resolved in accordance with generally applicable rules, such as those containe d in Articles 30 and 59 of the Vienna Convention 
on the Law of the Treaties. 
 8. Regarding shared authority/jurisdiction, could you elaborate in more detail under what 
circumstances member states enjoy independent legislative authority? 
 EU reply: The division of competences (if it is meant with "authority"/"jurisdiction") between the 
EU and its Member States is based on provisions of the TFEU. It distinguishes between three types 
of competence and draws up a non-exhaustive list of the fields concerned in each case: 
 - exclusive competences (Article 3 of the TFEU): the EU alone is able to legislate and adopt 
binding acts in these fields. The EU Member States' role is therefore limited to applying these acts, 
unless the Union authorises them to adopt certain acts themselves;  
- shared competences (Article 4 of the TFEU): the EU and Member States are authorised to 
adopt binding acts in these fields. However, EU  Member States may exercise their competence 
only in so far as the EU has not exercised, or has decided not to exercise, its own competence;  
- supporting competences (Article 6 of the TF EU): the EU can only intervene to support, 
coordinate or complement the action of Member States. Consequently, it has no legislative power in these fields that would require the EU Member  States to harmonise their laws and regulations 
and may not interfere in the exercise of these competences reserved for Member States. 
 2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.1 LEGAL AND INSTIT UTIONAL FRAMEWORK 
 Page 27 (Para 2.10) The Council may agree to the provisional application of a trade agreement, where parliamentary 
consent is not required. However, if the European  Parliament were to refuse to consent to the 
conclusion of an agreement, the decision on provisional application would need to be reconsidered by the Council. 
 
Question(s):  
9. Does this mean that under the procedural terms of an agreement taking effect, the 
European Council can unilaterally consent to pass particular external economic and trade 
agreements even though the European Parliament had opposed passage?  
 EU reply: Should the consent of the European Parliament for the conclusion of an international 
agreement be required, it has to be expressed be fore the Council decision to conclude. For trade WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 68 - 
 
  and economic cooperation with third countries, the consent procedure will apply. The scope of the 
expression "to pass" is not entirely clear: If it means to conclude, the answer is negative: the Council cannot conclude, or "pass" a trade agreement if the European Parliament expresses its opposition. 
 
The situation is different as regards provisional application. The TFEU does not foresee the involvement of the European Parliament in th is context. Nevertheless, Article 218(10) TFEU 
provides that the European Parliament shall be im mediately and fully informed at all stages of the 
procedure for concluding an international agreement.  2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.2 TRADE POLICY OBJECTIVES AND CONSULTATION 
 Page 28 (Para 2.13-2.14) 
DG Trade maintains the Civil Society Dialogue, wh ich provides registered stakeholders with an 
opportunity to participate in meetings with the Commission on trade and trade-related issues. In addition, DG Trade holds public consultations on major policy initiatives where participation is open 
to EU and non-EU parties. Proposed regulation s are published in the Official Journal of the 
European Union in the C series; and the final regulations are published in the L series. The Commission indicated that its major political priorities, including legislative proposals, are presented in its Annual Work Programme; roadmaps are also available on the Internet providing 
details of the content and timing of each planned regulatory initiative, including public stakeholder 
consultations and impact assessments.  
The Commission carries out impact assessment analysis to support its decision-making for all 
proposals with significant direct impact, including in the trade policy area. In terms of trade agreements, up to four major types of evaluation may be conducted during the life of a trade 
agreement. At the stage of negotiations, the Commission carries out “trade sustainability impact 
assessments” (SIAs) to analyse the economic, envi ronmental and social impacts of the proposed 
trade agreements for both the EU and its trading partners. SIAs, which inform on-going negotiations, are independent studies conducted by external consultants, involving comprehensive 
consultation of stakeholders and taking into account their knowledge and concerns both in the EU 
and in the trading partner. SIAs are also published online. Once the negotiations are concluded and before signature of the agreement, an economic analysis on the consequences of the proposed 
deal for the EU is prepared for the European Parliament and the Council. After sufficient time has 
passed, the Commission will carry out an ex -post evaluation of a trade agreement. 
 
Question(s):  
10. We have noted from para. 2.13 of the Secretariat Report that DG Trade maintains the Civil Society Dialogue with registered stakeholders on trade and trade-related issues. DG Trade also holds public consultations, open to EU and non-EU parties, on major policy initiatives. We would 
appreciate it if the EU could elaborate further on the arrangements and functions of the stated 
“Civil Society Dialogue.” In addition, given the diversity of economic development across EU member states, there might be the possibility that different interests could conflict in this dialogue. 
Therefore, we would like to know how the EU coordinates these conflicting interests to make 
decisions.  
In the case of major trade agreement, DG Trade maintains the Civil Society Dialogue and carries 
out “Trade Sustainability Impact Assessments” (Trade SIAs).  EU reply: The EU maintains an open dialogue with representatives of 412 different civil society 
organisations. Any civil society organisation (CSO) can attend civil society dialogue (CSD) 
meetings as long as they comply with three criteria, i.e. to be not-for-profit, EU based and registered in the European Union’s Transparency  Register. The registered organisations include 
traditional NGOs, employers’ organisations, trade union organisations, environmental and 
consumer associations, business associations, faith-based groups, as well as representatives of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC). 
 
The EU engages with these organisations in regular CSD meetings to give an update on recent trade initiatives and policy making. In 2014 there were 16 meetings of the Civil Society Dialogue with more than 1400 registered participants. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 69 - 
 
  The political decision to organise the dialogue is  based on the acknowledgement that CSOs and the 
DG Trade may have diverging views on certain topics that can be discussed and clarified through the dialogue.  
Civil society has a strong voice in EU trade policy in general and the expertise of NGOs and 
workers’ and employers’ organisations is extr emely valuable when it comes to sustainable 
development commitments. However a voice is not a vote. The Commission has a right of 
initiative: it holds the exclusive right to initiate trade policy proposals and receives from the 
Council mandates to negotiate agreements. CSOs have a voice: they can deliver opinions, make contributions that reflect their concerns, and advise  on topics. The EU is committed to addressing 
concerns of civil society and to promoting transparency and accountability. 
 
11. Regarding the preparation phase, interi m phase, and the concluded phase of trade 
negotiation, to what extent is the content of Trade SIAs (either the preliminary assessment or the 
final assessment report) disclosed to the public? 
 EU reply:  Consultation of stakeholders is an essential element of the Sustainability Impact 
Assessment (SIA) process. In particular all reports (inception, interim and final) are published as 
drafts and are then finalised taking into account co ntributions provided directly by stakeholders or 
at Civil Society Dialogue meetings.  
12. When and to whom is the content of the Trade SIAs open to the main stakeholders (such as 
the European Commission, European Parliament, European Council, consultants, industry and 
trade associations, NGO, academics, media, etc.)? 
 
EU reply:  Consultation of stakeholders is an essential element of SIAs. Consultants are required to 
provide regular information to relevant stakeholde rs on the progress of the analysis and regularly 
seek their input. Moreover, draft reports (in th e inception, interim and final phases) are made 
public and finalised taking into account stakeholders’ comments.  13. In addition to the overall scope of analysis , how are individual industrial sectors (such as 
energy industry) chosen for sectoral impact assessments?  
 EU reply:  Based on the overall assessment of the sustainability impacts, the consultants 
undertaking the SIA propose a list of sectors for detailed sectoral impact assessment, explaining 
the rationale behind it. This list is made available in the draft inception report for public consultation, and is then finalised in coordination with the Commission services. 
 
2. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 2.4 INVESTMENT REGIME 2.4.2 FOREIGN INVESTMENT REGIME 
 
Page 33 (Para 2.45) Under the EU exclusive competence, investment agreements with non-EU member States are 
negotiated at the EU level. In the EU’s view, investment negotiations can take two forms: to 
include investment provisions in the ongoing trade negotiations and make investment protection an integral part of the free-trade agreements (e.g. FTAs with Canada and Singapore); or to pursue 
stand-alone agreements (e.g. with China and Myanmar). EU member States may be authorized to 
negotiate and conclude bilateral investment treaties (BITs) with countries not immediately 
scheduled for EU-wide investment negotiations, or to renegotiate existing agreements; all member 
States’ BITs that entered into force before 9 January 2013 are “grandfathered,” according to the Regulation (EU) No. 1219/2012.  
 Question(s): 
14. Does this mean that an EU member State can negotiate and conclude BITs with a third 
country, if that country is not immediately scheduled for EU-wide investment negotiations? What procedures would an EU member State need to fo llow in order to obtain EU authorization to 
negotiate and conclude such a BIT? 
 EU reply: Foreign direct investment policy is an integral part of the common commercial policy, 
which is remains an exclusive competence of the EU; therefore new investment negotiations with 
third countries can only be carried out at the EU level. The existing BITs between EU Member WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 70 - 
 
  States and third countries will be preserved until they are replaced by EU agreements. In this 
respect, Regulation No 1219/2012 grants legal se curity to the existing BIAs between the EU 
Member States and third countries until they are replaced by EU-wide investment Agreements. Under certain conditions, set out in Article 9 of the Regulation 1219/2012, the EU Member States 
may negotiate or re-negotiate existing bilateral investment agreements. However, the Regulation 
does not provide for the co-existence of Member States and Union investment agreements with the same third country and Member States agreements will cease to apply when the EU agreement 
with the same countries enters into force. 
 2. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 2.4 INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.4.2 FOREIGN INVESTMENT REGIME 
 Page 34 (Para 2.47) 
The Commission considers that investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms ensure 
effective enforcement of investment agreements. Investor-to-state dispute settlement forms a key part of member States’ BITs, and will be included  in future EU investment agreements with other 
countries. In preparation for the application of an ISDS mechanism, the EU adopted a regulation to 
establish a legal and financial framework for inve stor-to-state dispute settlement on 23 July 2014. 
This regulation provides legal and financial certainty for foreign investors in the EU when they have dispute complaints against the EU or its member States, and ensures that any final award or 
settlement award is paid promptly to the investor, regardless of the decisions on the allocation of 
financial responsibility.  
Question(s): 
15. Can the EU further illustrate this regulation? How does it provide legal and financial certainty for foreign investors when they have dispute complaints against the EU or one of its member 
States? 
 
EU reply:  The legal framework for the operation of an ISDS mechanism is in principle set out in 
the respective agreement in which it is included. Furthermore, within the EU the Financial 
Responsibility Regulation (Regulation No 912/2014  of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor-to-state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the 
European Union is party. OJ 2014 L 257/121) contains detailed rules to manage the financial 
responsibility of the EU and Member States linke d to ISDS for international agreements to which 
the EU is a party. It also establishes a procedure to determine who shall act as the respondent in 
investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS). Where the EU loses a case, it will carry out the 
necessary internal steps to ensure implementation  of the award in accordance with EU rules. 
 16. Will the EU publish any model te xt for ISDS clauses in the future? 
 
EU reply:  The EU does not have the practice of publishing model texts for ISDS. 
 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS  
3.1.4 TARIFFS 
3.1.4.1 WTO BOUND TARIFFS 
 Page 42 (Para 3.36) The tariff rates for man-made filaments (Chapter 54) and man-made staple fibres (Chapter 55) 
range from 3.8% to 8%, which are relatively high er compared to those of Taiwan, which mostly 
fall between 1.5% and 4%. The high tariffs make it difficult for Taiwanese products to be exported to the EU.  
 
Question(s): 17. Will the EU consider reducing the tariff rates on relevant products in the future? 
 
EU reply:  The EU is prepared to lower its tariffs, including on the goods mentioned in the 
question by Chinese Taipei, through both multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations, in exchange for reciprocal tariff reductions by its partners. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 71 - 
 
  3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS  
3.1.8 TECHNICAL REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS  
Page 50; 52 (Para 3.80;3.87)  
As was noted in the last Review, a considerable amount of legislation on technical requirements and conformity assessment is harmonized at the EU  level with the objective of ensuring the free 
movement of goods while maintaining a high level of health and safety, and protection of 
consumers and the environment within the Union. The EU system of technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment is outlined in  the Blue Guide on the implementation of EU 
product rules which was first published in 2000 and most recently in 2014. 
 
Currently, harmonized standards apply to 11 different areas covering 31 product groups and one service area.  
 
Question(s):  
18. Although the EU has considerably harmon ized technical requirements and conformity 
assessment at the regional level, member States are allowed to adopt stricter rules on health or 
environmental grounds. In many cases, it is not easy for exporters of third countries to know all the compulsory requirements in the EU that pertain to their products. Would the EU consider setting up a database that provides information to the public of all the EU-wide technical and 
conformity assessment requirements? 
 EU reply:  Numerous resources are readily available. In particular, EUR-Lex service ( http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/homepage.html ) which provides free access, in the 24 official EU languages, to the 
Official Journal of the European Union, EU law (EU treaties, directives, regulations, decisions, 
consolidated legislation, etc.), preparatory acts (legislative proposals, reports, green and white 
papers, etc.), EU case-law (judgements, orders, etc.), international agreements, and other public 
documents, and N-lex service which ( http://eur-lex.europa.eu/n-lex/index_en.htm  ) provides 
information on national law of EU Member States. 
 
Furthermore, the European Commission operates the Export Helpdesk 
(http://exporthelp.europa.eu/) that provides product-specific information regarding the regulatory framework in the EU. It is a free online service primarily for businesses in developing countries 
explaining how to export to the EU. Searching by  HS code directs the user to information about 
the general import requirements such as document s needed for access to the EU market (customs 
documents, import licenses, freight insurance papers), the specific import requirements i.e. EU 
legal requirements for human health, consumer safety, packaging, marketing and labelling, the 
import duties, tariffs and preferential and non-pref erential tariff quotas, preferential arrangements 
the EU has with developing countries (GSP, EPAs, etc.) including the rules of origin and how to prove the origin of a product, the VAT rates and ex cise duties applying to their product in the EU 
Member States, and trade statistics. This application also directs to information on harmonised 
standards and provides details on conformity asse ssment procedures both directly and indirectly. 
Moreover, all Commission Directorates Generals describe the legislation they are responsible for on 
their websites. 
 In addition, the European Commission is responsible for the Directive 98/34/EC notification 
procedure which imposes an obligation upon the Member States to notify to the Commission all 
the draft technical regulations concerning products and Information Society Services before they are adopted in national law. The draft texts and their translations are made available to Member 
States and the public via the Technical Regu lations Information System (TRIS) database 
(http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/tris/e n/). Even though this database does not 
represent a collection of rules in force in the Member States it can be helpful for identifying upcoming technical regulations. 
 
At present the European Commission is not considering setting up any additional database.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 72 - 
 
  3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS  
3.1.8 TECHNICAL REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS  
Page 52 (Para 3.88)  
On 26 February 2014 an “Alignment Package” consisting of eight directives was adopted, and published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 29 March 2014. These directives cover 
low voltage electrical equipment, electromagnetic compatibility, equipment in potentially explosive 
atmospheres, lifts, simple pressure vessels, measuring instruments, non-automatic weighing 
instruments, and civil explosives and will become applicable in April 2016. In addition, in 2013 and 2014, legislation was adopted in the areas of pyrotechnic articles, recreational craft, radio 
equipment, and pressure equipment. The Commission also noted that further proposals for 
alignments of standards are pending on medical devices, gas appliances, cableways and personal 
protective equipment. 
 
Question(s): 19. Could the EU please provide additional ex planation on the possible economic and social 
impacts of the “Alignment Package” to manufacturers and exporters in third countries? What 
additional measures should foreign manufacturers and exporters take when exporting or marketing their products to the EU?  
EU reply: The Impact Assessment (http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/single- market-
goods/internal-market-for-products/new-legislati ve-framework/index_en.htm ) conducted by the 
European Commission prior to the proposal of the 'A lignment Package' assessed that the option of 
alignment of technical regulations will not affect the trade between the EU and third countries. 
According to the impact assessment: "The obligations of economic operators as such do not constitute new technical trade barriers. Instead, they guarantee the free mo vement of safe goods, 
regardless of origin.(…) Responsible importers who establish clear commercial relations with their 
trading parties and responsible manufacturers located in third countries will not be negatively affected by these provisions. Increased transparen cy may encourage distributors to buy imported 
products and may facilitate international trade." For information about the requirements set out in 
the directives please consult: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/single-market-
goods/internal-market-for-products/new-legislative-framework/index_en.htm.  
3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS 3.1.9 SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES 
 
Page 56(Para 3.99) Directive 2002/99EC regulated the animal imports for human consumption at all stages of production. We are concerned whether the amendments will have negative impact on imports from 
non-EU countries which inherently have similar quality but different regulatory regime.  
 Question(s): 
20. Can the Commission provide details of enforcement and changes that may affect non-EU 
countries in this regard.  
EU reply: No amendments to Directive 2002/99/EC are planned in the short term. Once the 
European Commission proposal on an Animal Health Regulation (notified to the WTO in G/SPS/N/EU/45), is adopted and enters into force, all EU animal health legislation (including Directive 2002/99/EC) currently in force will be repealed based on this new Animal Health 
Regulation and replaced by delegated and implem enting acts (5 years from entry into force). 
However the EU does not intend to change the import requirements currently in force. Detailed information can be found: http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/docs/qanda_ahl_porposal_062015_en 
.pdf. 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 73 - 
 
  3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS 3.1.9 SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES 3.1.9.1 LIVE ANIMALS AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS 
 
Page 57 (Para 3.107) On the import certificate for animal products, the Secretariat report pointed out that sometimes 
the consignment may undergo ‘additional controls’ by individual EU members, including 
documentary, identity, and physical checks. We are worried that the standard procedures by 
different EU members may be varied and jeopardized in some instances.  
Question(s): 
21. On the import certificate for animal products, we believe that enforcement should be consistent and unbiased, and we would suggest that the Commission conduct periodical reviews on 
the relevant procedures and provide clear guidance on overall implementation. 
 EU reply: The WTO Secretariat report states that: "an import consignment of live animals or 
animal products must be accompanied by a health certificate stating that the products or animals 
meet EU import requirements. The consignment must undergo official controls at an approved Border Inspection Post (BIP). It may also be subject to additional controls in the EU Member State of destination. The official border controls include documentary, identity, and physical checks". It 
is important to avoid misunderstandings in relation to this statement. 
 It is indeed correct to assume that animal products and live animals coming from non-EU countries 
should be notified to BIPs and subject to document ary, identity, and physical checks prior to their 
entry into the EU. However, it should also be noted that besides specific controls at import, EU Member States are generally required by Regula tion 882/2004 to set up a system of official 
controls to verify compliance by food business oper ators with EU agri-food chain legislation. Article 
3 of that Regulation provides that such controls should be carried out regularly, on a risk basis, with appropriate frequency and at any of the stages of production, processing and distribution. According to EU legislation EU Member States are required to perform individual risk assessments 
to determine when and at what frequency to perform such controls. It is indeed possible that, 
based on their risk assessments, EU Member States may decide to perform official controls on animals/products which have already undergone checks at their entry into the EU. 
 
The European Commission monitors EU Member States’ delivery of their control duties, including through on-the-spot audits. Should EU Member States not act in accordance with EU legislation, 
the European Commission would take relevant action to ensure that this is immediately rectified. 
 3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 3.1 MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS 
3.1.9 SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES 
3.1.9.2 PLANTS AND PLANT PRODUCTS  
Page 58 (Para 3.108) 
Imports into the EU of most plants and plant products from most countries do not require prior approval or notification although  they are subject to rules on f ood safety and customs procedures 
and inspection. The competent authorities in the Member States must be notified of imports of 
some food and feed products of non-animal origin from specified third countries which must enter the EU through designated points of entry where th ey are subject to additional controls. The list of 
products and exporting countries is reviewed quarterly. Furthermore, for phytosanitary reasons, 
imports of certain plants and plant products must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate 
from the competent authority of the exporting count ry and are subject to special requirements, or 
may be prohibited if originating from specified areas. 
 
Question(s): 22. We would like to request the EU to provide detailed information on the market access 
procedures for new plant or plant products, including the standard reviewing steps and timeframe 
for each step in the process, which comply wi th the principles of the WTO/SPS Agreement. 
 EU reply: Council Directive 2000/29/EC contains the lis t of regulated plants and plant products. 
The EU Plant Health import system is an open on e. Therefore, new plants or plant products not WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 74 - 
 
  regulated under the Directive 2000/29/EC are allowed to enter into the EU if not regulated 
quarantine harmful organisms are present and no phytosanitary certificate is needed. Plants for planting are always regulated, consequently, a phytosanitary certificate is needed.  
23. Under what circumstances will certain food and feed products be subject to additional 
controls? And once a food or feed product is placed on the additional control list, what measures can the exporting third countries take in order to have their food and feed products removed from 
the list? 
 EU reply: Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 provides for a coordinated and uniform control approach 
at the EU border, on imports of certain feed and food of non-animal origin from Third Countries 
when a known or emerging risk has been identifi ed. The inclusion of certain food and feed in 
Annex I to the Regulation ("listing") is the outc ome of a decision of the European Commission and 
the EU Member States in their role of risk manage rs. It is based on the latest scientific and factual 
information available, including data resulting from notifications received through the Rapid Alert 
System for Food and Feed (RASFF), reports and information resulting from the activities of the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) of the European Commission, scientific opinions of the European 
Food Safety Authority (EFSA) or of any other re levant scientific body, as well as information 
supplied by third countries' competent authorities. The list of imports of feed and food of non-animal origin subject to an increased level of border surveillance is reviewed on a quarterly basis, taking into account all information available at the time, including the submitted results of the 
controls performed by Member States competent au thorities on the products listed in the Annex. 
In this context the review may lead to an update of the existing list of feed and food commodities 
with new “listings”, “de-listings” or changes to the frequency of controls. These revisions are 
subject to the WTO SPS Notifications. 
 The Regulation 669/2009 does not provide for specific measures to be taken by the exporting third 
country in order to have their food and feed products removed from the list. It is of course up to 
the third country in question to investigate the causes of the identified non-compliances and to 
decide on the most appropriate measures to be put in place in order to ensure that products exported to the EU fully comply with the relevant EU requirements. 
 
3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 3.1 MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS 
3.1.9 SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES 
3.1.9.4 THE SPS COMMITTEE OF THE WTO  
Page 59 (Para 3.111) 
In 2013 and 2014, the EU made a total of 151 no tifications to the Committee on Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures in the WTO, of which: 1 was a corrigendum, 68 were addenda, 8 were 
emergency notifications, and the remaining 74 were regular notifications. They also included the 
Commission proposals for the agri-food chain referred  to above. During this period, France was the 
only Member State to notify an SPS measure with an addendum. During this period WTO Members also used the SPS Committee to raise ten new specific trade concerns about measures taken in the 
EU or a Member State and referred to three concerns that had been raised earlier. The 
Commission noted that the EU has also used the Committee to raise its concerns with SPS measures taken by other WTO Members, in particular trade restrictions related to BSE and 
measures introduced by India and the Russian Federation. 
 Question(s): 24. As it mentioned above, there were 74 regular notifications made by the EU; however, 
some of them provided a comment period of less than 60 days for Members. We would be grateful 
if the EU could kindly explain the reasons and concerns for justifying the shorter comment period of less than 60 days in the aforementioned cases? 
 
EU reply: The European Union attaches great importan ce to the principle of transparency. The 
customary 60-day period for comment is being respected in an ever-increasing number of cases. 
In some cases, particularly where the legislation being proposed is particularly comprehensive and 
detailed, a more generous comment period of up to 120-days can be provided and additional extensions on request from WTO Members are gran ted, if possible. In cases where the comment 
period was less than 60 days this was mainly due to EU internal procedural constraints which WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 75 - 
 
  needed to be respected. WTO Members are nevertheless always invited to send comments at any 
time which, where relevant, will duly be considered.  25. The Secretariat Report described the EU withdrawal of equivalence for processed organic 
products. The Seperate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu,Kinmen and Matsu applied the 
organic equivalence to the EU before the EU am ended relevant regulation. The EU rejected the 
application without providing any opportunity for applicants to clarify the misunderstanding or 
misinterpretation which might affect the evaluative process. The abovementioned measure affects 
the trading of the organic products to the EU and has resulted in technical barriers. The Seperate 
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu,Kinmen and Matsu request the EU to provide opportunities for discussion or consultation about those cases applied before the said amended. For the sake of 
equality and mutual benefit principle and to e nhance the growing trade on organic products 
between the EU and Taiwan, we urge the EU to accept our explanatory and supplementary document and to continue the reviewing process of our application. 
 
EU reply: The EU legal framework for the organic production sector (dating from 2007) is 
currently under review. The objective of this review is to adjust EU legislation to the current 
situation in the EU organic market, which has quadrupled in size over the last 10 years. The 
adjustment is necessary so that the sector can further develop and respond to future challenges. The review seeks to address shortcomings of th e current system putting both producers' and 
consumers' concerns at the heart of the new propos als. The review includes also provisions related 
to imports of organic products from other countries, aiming at improving the level playing field for 
the EU and third countries organic operators. The new rules are aimed at replacing one of the options for importing organics products into the EU (via the unilateral recognition of equivalent 
third countries) by equivalence recognition through international agreements. 
 To facilitate the transition to the new scheme of  recognition based on international agreements, 
the EU does not accept any new request for recognition under the current scheme (Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2014 of  30 April 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 
1235/2008 as regards requests for inclusion in the list of third countries recognized for the purpose of equivalence in relation to the import of organic products). Consequently, recognition of 
equivalence with third countries is currently made only via the negotiation of reciprocal 
international agreements. Besides equivalence recognition of third countries, the Taiwanese authorities (and any other country) are encouraged to use the system of recognition of certifying 
b o d i e s  w h i c h  i s  a l s o  o p e n  t o  g o v e r n m e n t  a u t h o r i t i e s  a s  a n  a l t e r n a t i v e  s y s t e m  o f  e q u i v a l e n c y  
recognition.  
3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.2 MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING EXPORTS 3.2.3 EXPORT PROHIBITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, AND LICENSING 
3.2.3.1 DUAL-USE ITEMS EXPORT CONTROL REGIME  
 
Page 60 (Para 3.119) In specific cases, the export of dual-use items may be subject to additional EU restrictive 
measures (sanctions). Such measures currently apply with respect to trade of dual-use items with 
the Russian Federation, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Iran, and Syria.  
Page 63 (Para 3.137) 
All EU restrictive measures can be found on the EEAS webpage.  Question(s): 
26. According to the EU’s website (http://eeas. europa.eu/cfsp/sanctions/ index_en.htm), the 
countries listed in the document titled “Restrictive Measures in Force” and “Consolidated List of 
Sanctions” are not fully consistent. For example, the number of countries subject to EU’s sanction 
is 36 in its “Restrictive Measures in Force” and 23 in the “Consolidated List of Sanctions.”  Could 
the EU explain where to find the most comprehensive list of entities subject to its dual-use export 
sanctions or restrictive measures?   
 
EU reply: The restrictive measures are published in th e Official Journal of the European Union. 
The documents referred to below are published on the website (http://eeas.europa.eu/cfsp/sanctions/ index_en.htm) for general information purposes only.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 76 - 
 
  The document “ Restrictive Measures in Force ” lists 37 entries in total: the countries in relation to 
which the EU has restrictive measures in force, as well as terrorist groups.   The " EU Consolidated List of persons, groups and entities subject to CFSP related financial 
sanctions " lists persons or entities subject to either asset freezing or a ban on investment by the 
EU. These persons or entities are linked to certain countries (subject of EU sanctions) or terrorist groups, 23 in total. This list does not concern measures other than asset freezing or ban on 
investment. 
 3. POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 3.3 MEASURES AFFECTING PRODUCTION AND TRADE 
3.3.3 TAXATION 
3.3.3.3 VALUE ADDED TAX  
Page 83 (Para 3.197) 
In principle, supplies of goods and services are subject to a standard rate of at least 15%, but 
Member states may apply reduced rates of at least 5% on goods and services listed in Annex III to 
the VAT Directive. 
 Question(s): 27. Does the EU foresee a further harmonization in the VAT system among member States?  
 
EU reply:  An action plan aimed at further harmonizing the VAT system is envisaged in two 
documents:  Communication on the Future of VAT  and Strategy for the EU Digital Single Market . 
The implementation process of concrete acti ons is presented in the dedicated web-page: 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/vat/future_vat/index_en.htm . For example, a 
practical guideline on new VAT rules for 2015 has already been published.  
 
The implementation is still ongoing process- certain actions (e.g. a proposal on Standard VAT return) require an amendment of VAT Directive to  be agreed unanimously by all Member States 
whereas others (e.g. publication of VAT Committee guidelines) require action from the Commission 
only. 
 28. Are the services provided by professional pe rsons such as lawyers, doctors, and accountants 
subject to VAT in EU member States, and is there any relevant EU harmonization rule in this area? 
 
EU reply:  Yes, the harmonised rules exist. According to Article 2(1)(c) of VAT Directive   the supply 
of services for consideration within the territory of a Member State by a taxable person acting as 
such shall be subject for VAT. This includes servic es provided by professional persons acting as 
taxable persons (i.e. excluding persons acting under the employment contracts etc). The common rules of establishing the place of supply of such  services are provided in Articles 44 and 45 of VAT 
Directive . 
 
Under certain conditions, set in Article 132 certain activities, such as medical care in the public 
interest are exempt. 
 29. Is plastic surgery subject to VAT in EU member States? 
 
EU reply: Yes, see reply to the question 28. The VAT rate and the applicability of the VAT 
exemptions for medical care depend on the natu re of the plastic surgery; depending on the 
circumstances in each specific case (i.e. whether it is done for therapeutic or cosmetic purposes) 
these services may be exempt from VAT or taxed.  Member States have also the option to apply a 
reduced VAT rate to the provision of medical and dental care and thermal treatment in so far as 
those services are not exempt (Annex III, point 17 of the VAT Directive).  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 77 - 
 
  3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.3 MEASURES AFFECTIMG PRODUCTION AND TRADE 3.3.3 TAXATION 3.3.3.4 EXCISE DUTIES 
 
Page 85 (Para 3.201) All member States apply excise duties on alcoholic beverages, manufactured tobacco products, 
and energy products. Council Directive 2008/118/EC established the general arrangements for 
excise duties on these products while other directives set out minimum rates that may be applied.  Question(s): 
30. Many experts argue that energy taxes would be more efficient in mitigating the global 
warming than the current emissions trading system under the Kyoto Protocol. However, at present, various EU member States levy energy taxes at different rates. Would this unfairly 
improve the competitiveness of some member States? 
 EU reply: Excise duties on energy products and electr icity are harmonised to a certain extent by 
Directive 2003/96/EC. This Directive indeed only sets minimum levels of excise duty and above 
these rates Member States are free to set their national levels of tax. Setting only minimum levels of taxation for excise duties provides for sufficient harmonization, leaving nevertheless the possibility to Member States to set more ambitious national levels.  As explained in paragraph 
3.189 of the Secretariat report, Member States are free to choose the tax systems most 
appropriate to their situations.  
3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.3 MEASURES AFFECTING PRODUCTION AND TRADE 3.3.5 GOVERMENT PROCUREMENT 
3.3.5.1 GPA AND INTERNATIONAL PROCUREMENT 
 Page 94 (Para 3.224) The value of EU contracts covered by the GPA for the most recent years available is described in 
Table 3.21. 
 Question(s): 
31. Could the EU explain its efforts in providing detailed reporting on contracts awarded to 
companies from other GPA Parties?   
EU reply: The EU has set up a system for publicizing contracts online (Tender Electronic Daily). 
Contracting authorities of Member States and EU entities are obliged to advertise contracts above the thresholds stipulated in the EU directives. In addition, they have to publish also a contract award notice with the name and further information, including nationality of the successful 
tenderer and details of the winning offer. Theref ore, there is a complete transparency to which 
company a contract has been awarded. Therefore, by searching in the TED database one could find 
details on specific contracts awarded to companies of a GPA including on the successful bidder. 
Moreover, TED data are used to feed in the EU statistical reports in accordance with the GPA 
obligations. The Commission monitors that this obligation is implemented by Member States.  
 
3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.3 MEASURES AFFECTIMG PRODUCTION AND TRADE 3.3.6 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS  3.3.6.1 COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS 
 
Page 100 (Para 3.266) Among the relevant developments in EU member States are amendments to the copyright law in 
Spain that were adopted on 4 November 2014. On e of the changes introduced by the amended law 
requires website owners to remove links to copyright-infringing material in case of large-scale infringing websites offering hyperlinks through an active and non-neutral activity, so long as they 
are not carrying out mere technical intermediation. 
 Question(s): 32. We understand that the Sustainable Economy Law has adopted by Spain in 2011. This 
legislation authorizes the Spanish Intellectual Property Committee to block infringing websites by WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 78 - 
 
  issuing administrative orders to ISPs. Please elaborate more about the relationship between the 
Sustainable Economy Law and the 2014 amendments to the copyright law in Spain.  EU reply : The Sustainable Economy Act (2/2011), enacted on 4 March 2011, modified Article 158 
of the Spanish Copyright Act. The law recently adopted in Spain, referred to in paragraph 3.266 of 
the Trade Policy Review, replaced Article 158 of the Spanish Copyright Act by a new set of articles 
(Articles 158, 158 bis and 158 ter).  
 
33. As mentioned in the report, the amended law requires website owners to remove links to copyright-infringing material in case of large-scale infringing websites offering hyperlinks through an active and non-neutral activity, so long as they are not carrying out mere technical 
intermediation. How are “large-scale” and “active and non-neutral activity” defined? 
 EU reply: The relevant provisions on the removal of hyperlinks to copyright-infringing material in 
case of large-scale infringing websites are contained in Article 158 ter of the Spanish Copyright 
Act.  
3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.3MEASURES AFFECTIMG PRODUCTION AND TRADE 3.3.6 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 3.3.6.2 INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY 
 
Page 104 (Para 3.280) In the EU, plant varieties can be protected either under national plant variety right systems or as a 
Community Plant Variety Right. As regards the la tter, Council Regulation (EC) No. 2100/94 of 27 
July 1994 on Community Plant Variety Rights established a separate regime for the protection of plant variety rights with effect across the EU.   
 
Question(s): 34. The EU take over DUS report between the UPOV members while the treatment is not for all WTO Members. According to the Article 4 of the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of 
Intellectual Property Right, the protection of intellectual property, any advantage, favour, privilege 
or immunity granted by a Member to the nationals of any other country shall be accorded immediately any unconditionally to the nationals of all other Members. Could the EU please explain 
the measure abovementioned compliance the MFN treatment?  
 EU reply : In 2008, Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 on Community Plant Variety Rights (hereafter: 
‘the Regulation’) was amended to ensure that all WTO Members nationals have the same rights to 
apply for Community Plant Variety Rights.
50 There is no differentiation with regards to the origin or 
nationality of applicants that would contradict the Most-Favoured-Nation or the National treatment principles. 
 
With regard to the decision making process on te chnical examinations of Distinctness, Uniformity 
and Stability (DUS) of plant variety, the applicable rules concern the qualifications and standards 
of the offices carrying out the respective examinat ions. The Regulation sets out in Article 55 that 
the technical examination takes place within entrusted Examination Office in EU Member States. Moreover, when it is not possible to perform su ch test in the EU, Regulation (EC) No 874/2009
51 
on the proceedings rules sets out that ‘the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) may consider 
that an examination report on the results of a technical examination of a plant variety, which has been carried out or is in the process of being carried out in a third country, which is member of the International Union for the Protection of new Varieties of Plants (UPOV), constitutes a sufficient 
basis for decision, provided that the technical examination complies with certain conditions’. 
 It should further be noted that the respective EU standards, the CPVO technical protocols, with 
regard to DUS technical examinations are based on UPOV guidelines. In this view, it is important 
to ensure consistency with the only international organisation setting out the respective standards for DUS testing. 
                                               
50 Art. 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 2100/94: ‘An application for a Community plant variety right may 
be filed by any natural or legal person, or any body rank ing as a legal person under the law applicable to that 
body.’ 
51 Commission regulation (EC) No874/2009 of 17/September 2009 establishing rules for the application 
of Council regulation (EC) No 2100/94 as regards proceedings before the Community Plant Variety Office. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 79 - 
 
   
Today, there is a large difference between systems used by WTO Members with regard to technical DUS tests and reports. An individual assessment of the variety characteristics, under the respective CPVO technical protocols and on the basis of the growing conditions in the EU, is always 
necessary. This is important for providing legal certainty with regard to the description of the 
variety for the enforcement by the right holder of the Community Plant Variety Right in the EU territory. 
 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 4.3 SERVICES 4.3.1 TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES 
4.3.1.2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND POLICY DEVELOPMENTS 
 Page 141 (Para 4.69 and 4.87) 
Regarding authorization regimes, the notification requirements remain national, also for cross-
border operators.  In addition, the Broadband Guidelines indicate some concrete conditions that have to be fulfilled for the public intervention to be considered as not excessively distortive, 
including wholesale third party access at prices derived from benchmarking. 
 Question(s): 35. According to the 2002 Authorisation Directiv e of the Regulatory Framework, if a non-EU 
(e.g. the US) telecommunications provider wants to provide telecommunications services in the 
EU, is the notification mechanism also applicable to the provider? Is the non-EU 
telecommunications provider required to establish a commercial presence or a subsidiary in the 
EU?  EU reply: The EU Regulatory Framework, and in particular the Authorisation Directive, aims at 
ensuring the freedom to provide electronic co mmunications networks and services within the 
Union. In line with the general scope of EU law concerning the implementation of an internal market and the freedoms to establish and provid e services, it therefore regulates rights and 
obligations applicable to nationals of Member States (including natural or legal persons established 
in the Union), while it is without prejudice to the applicable international, Union or national 
provisions concerning the requirements applicable to nationals of third-countries, including legal persons not incorporated in the Union. As set ou t in in its WTO schedule, the EU has an open 
regime for telecommunications services, including for the cross-border supply of telecom services. 
 36. Could you explain the meaning and describe th e mechanism of “wholesale third party access 
at prices derived from benchmarking” in Para 4. 87, page 144 of the Telecommunications Services 
Report?  EU reply: The Telecommunications Services Report makes reference to EU State Aid Guidelines, 
which foresee that operators who roll out networks which benefit from state aid should provide 
access to third parties, at regulated prices (see paragraph 78(h) of the Guidelines). The access conditions and price should as closely as possible replicate the price and conditions prevailing in 
competitive broadband markets. Therefore the Stat e Aid Guidelines provide that the access price 
should be established by reference (i.e. benchm arking) to other, competitive broadband markets 
(areas). There are no further guidelines as to the details and mechanism of the benchmarking 
process, which can be indeed complex. The main aim of such benchmarking is to derive a 
reasonable estimate of the price which prevails in competitive markets. The National Regulatory Authorities (or other entities tasked with such duties) could refer for example to wholesale access prices prevailing in other regions characterised by competition, or prices voluntarily offered by 
some operators (commercial offers), or even regulated prices prevailing in other Member States 
(taking into account factors such as population density, PPP, underlying costs, etc), and which have been set at a level mimicking a competitive price. 
 
Benchmarking as price setting methodology is also exceptionally allowed in the Commission's Recommendation 2009/396/EC on fixed and mobile termination rates. Some NRAs, in particular 
with limited human and financial resources, apply benchmarking for determining the costs of fixed 
and mobile call termination. These NRAs would normally take the arithmetic average of those regulated termination rates which have been set according to the cost model recommended by the Commission. 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 80 - 
 
  4. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.3 SERVICES 4.3.3 DISTRIBUTION SERVICE  
Page 155 (Para 4.112) 
E-commerce is growing fast, but from very low initial levels l: the size of the e-commerce market more than doubled between 2009 and 2014 (+119%); bu t, while it represents an increasing share 
of the EU retail market, this proportion rema ins low (6.7% of the overall retail market in 2014 
against 3.2% in 2009). It is nevertheless significant for specific segments such as books, music, second-hand items, and travel. There is also an emerging tendency towards multi-channel retailing using both internet and physical outlets in variable combinations (e.g. the "drive" system for 
grocery sales). 
 Question(s): 
37. Could the EU advise whether there are harm onized regulations on VAT and customs duty 
for products entering the EU through e-commerce?  If there is none, would the EU, through its 
Digital Europe policy, envisage harmonizing VAT among member States on e-commerce? Is there 
any more detailed plan that can be shared at this stage? 
 EU reply: As far as import VAT is concerned according to Article 2(1)(d) of VAT Directive the 
importation of goods shall be subject for VAT. Cert ain VAT exemptions apply to the importation of 
small consignments depending on their nature and value. In addition, as far as import customs 
duties on small consignments are concerned, certain exemptions may apply (Article 23 of Council Regulation1186/2009).  In addition, as far as import customs duties on small consignments are 
concerned, certain exemptions may apply (Article 23 of Council Regulation1186/2009).  On 6th 
May 2015, the European Commission announced its Strategy for the EU Digital Single Market. In this context the Commission should make legislative proposals to modernise the VAT for cross-
border e-commerce and reduce the administrative burden of businesses arising from different VAT 
regimes.  
 4. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.3 Services 
4.3.4 Financial Services 4.3.4.1 Legislations aimed at building ne w rules for the global financial system 
 
Page 160 (Para 4.131) A second element of the first pillar is Direct ive 2014/49/EU on deposit guarantee schemes (DGS) 
which amends and recasts a previous directive. It ensures depositors will continue to benefit from 
a guaranteed coverage of €100,000 in case of ba nkruptcy backed by funds to be collected in 
advance from the banking sector. It creates, for the first time since the introduction of the guarantee scheme in 1994, financing requirements under which: the target level for ex ante funds 
of DGS has been set to 0.8% of covered deposi ts (i.e. about €55 billion) to be collected from 
banks over a 10-year period. In addition, access to the guaranteed amount will be easier and faster as repayment deadlines will be gradually reduced from the current 20 working days to 7 
working days in 2024. 
 Question(s): 
38. According to Article 15 of Directive 2014/49/ EU, member States must check that branches 
established in their territory by a credit institution which has its head office outside the Union have protection equivalent to that prescribed in this Directive. If the protection is not equivalent, member states may require this credit institution to join a DGS in operation within their territories. 
How does the EU evaluate whether the deposi t guarantee schemes (DGS) outside of EU is 
equivalent to that of the EU?  
39. What is the process? 
 EU reply to questions 38 and 39: The regime applied to branches of foreign banks in the EU is 
operated by Member States of the Union and not th e EU itself. The EU therefore does not evaluate 
whether the deposit guarantee scheme of the ho me country of the parent company of the 
branches is equivalent, nor establishes a common process for such evaluation. However, Article 15 -1 of Directive 2014/49/EU( http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX: 
32014L0049&  from=EN ) requires that  "Member States shall at least check that depositors benefit WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 81 - 
 
  from the same coverage level and scope of protection as provided for in this Directive, following an 
objective, impartial and evidence-based approach in this assessment."  
 4. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.3 Services 
4.3.4 Financial Services 4.3.4.3 LEGISLATIONS AIMED AT COMPLETING THE BANKING UNION TO STRENGTHEN 
THE EURO 
 Page 168 (Para 4.168) Finally negotiations on a financial transaction tax are still ongoing within the specific legal 
framework of "enhanced cooperation" among 11 member States and the Commission. 
114WT/TPR/S/284/Rev.2, para. 4.103 and Table 4.23, 28 November 2013. 
 
Question(s): 
40. What are the current status and main obstacles of the negotiations? What are financial institutions’ responses toward this plan? Will this plan be expanded to other EU members? 
 
EU reply: The 11 Member States of the enhanced cooperation are negotiating in order to agree on 
a compromise text. There is a shared willingness to finalise the exercise by the end of the year. A number of Member States of the enhanced cooperation (and also EU Member States outside the 
enhanced cooperation) already have a national FTT in place and therefore, the EU financial sector 
is already experiencing forms of taxation on financial instruments. In the framework of the enhanced cooperation, all the Member States who are not part of the present enhanced 
cooperation group can join the enhanced cooperation in each stage of the procedure, before or 
after the agreement on a common design of the tax.  
PART II: REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT REPORT (WT/TPR/G/317) 
1. The European Union in the global trading system  Page 3 (Para 1.7) 
First of all, the EU has been a long-standing advocate of removing tariff and non-tariff barriers to 
trade in environmental goods and services. Elim inating tariffs and other barriers to trade in 
environmental goods and technologies will contribute to their worldwide deployment, thus 
promoting environmental protection and the figh t against climate change. In July 2014, the EU 
together with 13 other WTO members formally opened plurilateral negotiations on liberalisation of trade in environmental (‘green’) goods and technologi es. In the EU’s view, the first objective of the 
negotiations is to eliminate tariffs on a broad number of environmental goods. Secondly, the 
negotiations should lead to a ‘future-oriented agreement’ with a review mechanism for products and a work programme on other issues in the sector such as Non-Tariff Barriers and services. An Environmental Goods Agreement will be beneficial to all WTO Members and will apply on an MFN-
basis. 
 Question(s): 
41. The European Union had proposed to include the service sector in the negotiation of the 
EGA. However, that could delay the progress of the negotiation. What policy response would the EU have should this occur? 
 
EU reply: The EU's intention is to ensure that the ambitious timing is maintained. EU is committed 
to work with other WTO members to achieve a substantive outcome in the negotiations on tariff elimination on environmental goods by Dece mber 2015. The very rapid progress in the 
negotiations since their launch in July 2014 demonstrates that addressing services in the 
negotiations have not slowed down the process. The EU therefore believes that it is possible to 
include very specific and targeted rules on services already at this stage of the negotiations. By 
facilitating trade in services, we can enhance the commercial value of the EGA, as well as its 
positive environmental impact.  
 
42. Will other members’ trading behavior (such as dumping) affect the EU’s policy on which 
products are put on the product list? If a product has high “ environmental credibility,” it might also 
cause a dumping issue. How will the EU deal with this situation?  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 82 - 
 
  EU reply: The objective of the EGA negotiations is i.a. to eliminate tariffs on a broad list of 
environmental products building on the APEC list. In the WTO there are some other agreements that specifically deal with issues such as illegal dumping or subsidies, and set appropriate procedures and measures addressing such practices.   
 
43. Will the inconsistencies resulting from the absence of regulatory harmonization of NTMs among EU members be reviewed on a regular basis? 
 
EU reply: The EGA as a living agreement should include a future work program on non- tariff 
barriers to trade in environmental goods and services.   
 
3. DEVELOPMENTS IN THE INTERNAL MARKET 
 Page 6 (Para 3.4) 
The recently-appointed President of the European Commission, Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker, started 
his mandate by giving priority to strengthening the EU’s competitiveness and stimulating investment so as to create jobs. As a first action, President Juncker launched an ‘Investment Plan.’ 
This will unlock public and private investment in  the real economy of up to €300 billion over the 
next three years (2015-2017).  Question(s): 
44. Does the EU have any plan to encourage the participation of non-EU countries in its 
‘Investment Plan’?   
EU reply:  In the context of the Investment Plan for Europe, the EU is interested in 'crowding-in' 
and leveraging private capital in favor of investments in the EU's real economy. For this purpose the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) is being established. The opportunity for 
financing EFSI investments is open to investors from third countries, for instance via Investment 
Platforms or project co-financing, in compliance with EFSI Regulation (expected to enter into force in July 2015). Moreover, the EFSI may support invest ments involving entities established in one or 
more Member States and extending to countries within the European Neighborhood policy, the 
Enlargement policy, the European Economic Area, EFTA and OCTs. 
 45. What is the relationship between the ‘Inves tment Plan’ and the EU’s industrial policy? Can 
the EU please elaborate on the strategic industries, in addition to infrastructure, that would likely 
benefit most from the ‘Investment Plan’?  
EU reply:  The Investment Plan is a market-driven instrument designed to mobilise up to EUR 315 
in additional investment over the next three years, maximising the impact of public resources and unlocking private investment.  
EU Industrial policy aims to stimulate growth an d competitiveness in the manufacturing sector and 
the EU economy as a whole. This integrated industri al policy includes a full range of EU priorities 
such as trade, innovation and energy, which im pact industrial competitiveness. The European 
Commission is committed to helping EU enterprise and industry be competitive and generate 
growth and new jobs. The lead DG develops policies and actions for the re-industrialisation of Europe and an innovative, modern, and sustainable economy. 
 
According to Article 9 of the proposed European Fund for Strategic Investment regulation, the EU 
guarantee will be granted for financing and investment operations which are viable, consistent with Union policies, and in support of research, de velopment and innovation; development of the 
energy sector; development of transport infrastr uctures, equipment and innovative technologies 
for transport; financial support to companies having up to 3000 employees, with a focus on SMEs; development and deployment of information an d communication technologies; environment and 
resource efficiency; and human capital, culture and health. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 83 - 
 
  3. DEVELOPMENTS IN THE INTERNAL MARKET 
 Page 6 (Para 3.4) The recently-appointed President of the European Commission, Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker, started 
his mandate by giving priority to strengthening the EU's competitiveness and stimulating 
investment so as to create jobs. As a first action, President Juncker launched an ‘Investment Plan.’ This will unlock public and private investment in  the real economy of up to €300 billion over the 
next three years (2015-2017).   
 Question(s): 46. Could the EU explain the details of unlocking public and private investment in this 
‘Investment Plan’?  
 EU reply:  See above. The Investment Plan is based on three mutually reinforcing strands. First, 
the mobilisation of up to EUR 315bn in additi onal investments over the next three years, 
maximising the impact of public resources and unlocking private investment. Second, targeted initiatives to make sure that this extra investment meets the needs of the real economy. Third, 
measures to provide greater regulatory predictability and to remove barriers to investment, 
making Europe more attractive and thereby multiplying the impact of the Plan.  A new European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFS I) is being set up in partnership between the 
Commission and the EIB group. Public and private en tities can present projects for financing to the 
EIB Group, and the EFSI is geared to maximize the mobilization of private sector capital.    
47. What kind of measures will provide greater regulatory predictability and remove barriers to 
investment in the ‘Investment Plan’?  
EU reply: To improve the business environment and financing conditions, the Investment Plan 
includes progress at EU level towards a Digital Single Market, Energy Union and Capital Markets Union, complemented by structural reforms enhancing the investment environment at country level. 
 
For more details please refer to the factsheet http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/jobs-growth-inves tment/plan/docs/factsheet4-environment_en.pdf . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 84 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM SWITZERLAND 
 Report by the Secretariat  
1. Economic Environment 
1.1.2.1 Fiscal governance improvement Since the financial crisis, some EU Member States have failed to meet the fiscal targets set out in 
the EU rules and the dispersion in debt-to-GDP ratios among member States has grown. How does 
the EU plan to improve its fiscal framework to re duce this dispersion in debt-to-GDP ratio among 
EU Member States?  
EU reply:  The EU fiscal framework has undergone several changes in recent years with a view to 
introducing complementary rules, strengthening compliance mechanisms and raising national ownership. The enforcement of the Stability and Gr owth Pact (SGP) was strengthened considerably 
under the Six Pack in 2011, with the introduction of sanctions for euro area countries at all stages 
in the Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP), and th e possibility of sanctions under the Significant 
Deviations Procedure (SDP) under the preventive arm of the Pact. A new voting procedure – 
reverse qualified majority voting – means that these rules will be considered adopted unless a 
qualified majority is against them. These measures were reinforced by two other initiatives: the adoption of an additional package of measures known as the Two Pack, which provides for increased monitoring, and the fiscal compact through national correction mechanisms. 
 
The efficacy of these rules is evidenced by the very significant fiscal consolidation undertaken by EU Member States in recent years, despite difficult economic conditions. These considerable efforts 
are now bearing fruit, with the budget deficit in  the EU brought under 3% of GDP in 2014 for the 
first time since 2008, while the deficit for the euro area stood at 2.4% of GDP. Indeed, the Commission's spring forecast 2015 shows that just six Member States are expected to breach the 
3% threshold in 2015, compared to 22 in 2010.  
 Similarly, in terms of debt levels, the aggregate fiscal picture for the EU and euro area is now considerably more favourable than for other major economies: the public debt to GDP ratio in both 
the EU and EA is expected to stabilise in 2015 at 88% and 94% of GDP respectively, before 
beginning to decline next year. This compares to debt-to-GDP ratios of over 100% in the USA and over 200% in Japan. However, considering the still  elevated levels, further debt reduction efforts 
will be necessary. 
 On 22 June 2015, the Commission President, together with the President of the Euro Summit, the 
President of the Eurogroup, the President of the European Central Bank, and the President of the 
European Parliament, published a report on how to deepen EMU which sets out several steps in the fiscal policy area, including the creation of an ad visory European Fiscal Board and, in the longer 
term, a common macroeconomic stabilisation function  to better deal with shocks that cannot be 
managed at the national level alone. To prepare the transition from short-term to long-term 
decisions, the Commission will present a White Paper in spring 2017 outlining the next steps needed, including legal measures to complete EMU. 
 
1.1.2.2 Labour market reform In para. 1.17 the report by the Secretariat notes that some indicators suggest that labor markets 
in the EU have become more flexible. However youth unemployment stays high in average at 22% 
(source: eurostat (2014)). Besides inflexible labor markets a potential skill mismatch within Europe’s younger workforce has received renewed attention after the crisis. To what extend does the EU take this factor into account and what does the EU plan to decrease the high youth 
unemployment? 
 EU reply:  Although it has decreased – from 22.5% in April 2014 to 20.7% in April 2015 – the youth 
unemployment rate is indeed still very high in the EU (with peaks of around 50% in some countries).  
In April 2013, the Council reached agreement on  establishing a Youth Guarantee (YG). This 
commitment meant that a quality offer of employment, continued education, an apprenticeship or a 
traineeship should be extended to a young person no later than 4 months after he or she left formal 
education or became unemployed. Setting up YG schemes is a fundamental structural reform in the mid- and longer term. It will help public institutions work better (together) and improve the functioning of the economy (increasing skill matching and productivity). WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 85 - 
 
  All 28 Member States had developed their national YG Implementation Plans by the following spring. 
Progress is assessed yearly in connection with the European Semester underpinning the Europe2020 Strategy and through multilateral surveillance in the EU Employment Committee. Crucially, from June 2015 this is complemented, after an initial pilot phase, by regular monitoring within a 
dedicated, comprehensive Indicator Framework. This looks at relevant macroeconomic indicators, 
implementation indicators measuring effectiveness of direct YG delivery from Public Employment Services or other designated providers, and follow up indicators assessing the sustainability of young 
people's labour market integration following participation in an YG intervention.  
It is deemed that the YG has contributed to the reduction of youth unemployment by 850,000 
compared to March 2013 figures. According to the latest European semester assessment the YG has lent impetus to important structural reforms such as the strengthening of PES capacity to respond to 
the needs of this target group, the adoption of job creation incentives and the improvement of the 
vocational and educational training (VET) systems. More needs to be done in particular when it comes to outreach to the young furthest from the labour market, to developing effective service 
responses to this group, and to engaging more effectively with employers. 15 Member States have 
been proposed this year to receive Country-specif ic recommendations with respect to the transitions 
into employment of young people.   
 
The European Commission provides ample policy and technical support to facilitate Member States' efforts in this regard, e.g. through the European Alliance for Apprenticeships to increase quality 
and supply of apprenticeships, or the European Ne twork of Public Employment Services (PES) to 
improve the capacity of PES. Furthermore, EU funding for the YG implementation is available 
through the dedicated Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) and the European Social Fund (ESF). The directly targeted YEI and ESF investment towards labour market integration of young people 
amounts to €12.7 billion. A further €11 billion from the ESF aimed at measures such as the 
modernisation of employment services and self-employment will also support youth unemployment. Over 26 billion euros will be sp ent on education measures including life-long 
learning where young people are likely to be among the main beneficiaries. 
 1.2.1 Intra-EU trade As indicated in para. 1.23, intra-EU trade in real terms has not yet recovered to pre-crisis levels. 
Does the EU undertake further measures to increase intra-EU trade? Would such policies also 
affect trade with non-member countries?   
EU reply:  One of the priority actions in the Commission Work Programme for 2015 deeper and 
fairer single market with a strong industrial base. The Commission Work Programme for 2015 recalls that the single market is one of Europe’s best assets – its potential must be further 
exploited to improve Europe's competitiveness in  the global marketplace and create jobs. The 
Commission will present an Internal Market Strategy to set out new approaches for capturing that potential. This will consist in a strategy for a renewed and integrated approach for the Single Market, to deliver further integration and improve mutual recognition and standardisation in key 
industrial and services sectors where the economic potential is greatest, eg. business services, 
construction, retail, regulated professions, adva nced manufacturing and combined services/goods 
provision. A particular focus will be on SMEs. The Internal Market Strategy is envisaged to be 
prepared by autumn 2015. 
 2.3 Trade Agreements and Arrangements  
2.3.3 Unilateral Preferences 
In para. 2.30 of the Secretariat’s report Switzerland has taken note with interest of the EU’s decision to “focus on needs” by removing countri es listed in the “Upper Middle Income Economies” 
by the World Bank from the list of eligible countries to the EU’s GSP. This implies substantial 
consequences on the quantities, sources and types of imports under the GSP. What is the effective 
impact of these changes? Is there a significant change towards more imports from LDCs (and “poor” developing countries) since 2014?  
 
EU reply:  The Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) has been revised in order to maintain its 
relevance as a pro-development tool by focusing help on the countries most in need. However, as 
the revised scheme only entered into force on 1 January 2014, it is not possible at this stage to 
provide an assessment of its impact on beneficiaries. The European Commission is, however, mandated to carry out such a review - in the form of a report to the European Parliament and the Council - by the end of 2017. Moreover, by the end of 2015, the Commission will produce a Report WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 86 - 
 
  on the application of the Special Incentive Arrangement for Sustainable Development and Good 
Governance (GSP+).  3. Trade policies and practices by measure – 
3.1.4.1 WTO bound tariffs 
According to para. 3.37 the current certified Schedu le of concessions is the EU-15. The EU is a 
participant to the Uruguay Round pharmaceutical sectorial initiative (Pharma Agreement). So far, 
the EU has notified the results of the first revision of the Pharma Agreement. The respective 
modifications of its schedule of concessions have been certified in WT/LET/666. However, since then there have been three additional revisions.  S w i t z e r l a n d  w o u l d  l i k e  t o  k n o w  w h e n  t h e  E U  
would be ready to notify the modifications to its schedule of concessions resulting from the second, 
the third and the fourth revision of the Pharma Agreement.  
 EU reply:  The WTO Secretariat has circulated for certification the EU-25 schedule in document 
G/MA/TAR/RS/357 dated 25 April 2014. This EU-25 tariff schedule is expressed in Combined 
Nomenclature of year 2006 based on the HS2002 Harmonized System. The schedule integrates all modifications and rectifications till 31 December 2006. 
 
The outcome of the first review of the Pharma Agreement was notified to the Market Access Committee of the WTO in G/MA/W/10 of 11 Octobe r 1996. The outcome of the second review was 
notified to the Committee in G/MA/W/18 of 13 November 1998. These two reviews are included 
within the above mentioned EU-25 schedule that is currently under certification process. 
 The third Pharma Agreement review was notified  to the Market Access Committee of the WTO in 
G/MA/W/85 of 19 March 2007. The fourth review was notified in G/MA/W/102 of 2 August 2010. 
The EU hopes to conclude the certification of the submitted EU-25 schedule soon. Once this certification is successfully concluded, the EU will proceed with the submission for certification of a 
new generation of the EU schedule, possibly in  Combined Nomenclature of year 2011 (HS2007). 
The EU intends to include all the modifications and rectifications resulting from the third and fourth Pharma Agreement reviews within this future schedule.  
 
3.1.7.2 Anti-dumping and countervailing 
The Secretariat’s report notes in para. 3.63 that the EU has 108 anti-dumping and 14 countervailing measures in force. These measures affect 27 trading partners directly. Can the 
European Union explain how it evaluates the econ omic impact of anti-dumping and countervailing 
measures imposed so far and outline the overall results?   
EU reply:  In each individual investigation, the Commission evaluates the impact of dumped 
imports on the Union industry in line with a number of injury indicators. In addition, the economic impact evaluation is part of the Union interest test. The global economic impact of TDI measures, while important for some sectors of the EU indust ry, is limited, as only 0.29% of imports were 
affected by measures in 2013. 
 When imposing anti-dumping measures, how does the European Union ensure that anti-dumping 
duties are exclusively levied on products originating in the country targeted by the measure and 
which rules does the EU apply to prevent the circumvention of anti-dumping duties from third countries ?  
 
EU reply:  Anti-dumping measures are imposed by the Member States Customs authorities on the 
basis of information contained in TARIC Code which sets out the rules applicable to the importation of particular products from specific countries. 
 
The EU applies the rules contained in Article 13 of the basic anti-dumping regulation to deal with instances of circumvention. Such investigations can be initiated either on the basis of a complaint 
or on the Commission's own initiative. 
 If the application for an anti-dumping investigation comes from a monopoly producer of a product, 
m u s t  t h i s  f a c t  i n  a n y  w a y  b e  t a k e n  i n t o  a c c o u n t  w h e n  d e c i d i n g  u p o n  t h e  i n i t i a t i o n  o f  a n  a n t i -
dumping investigation or at a later stage of the proceeding?  EU reply:  Article 4 of the EU basic anti-dumping regulation sets out a clear definition regarding 
the Union industry as regards the initiation of anti-dumping investigations. Once there is sufficient WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 87 - 
 
  prima-facie evidence of dumping and injury in any compliant lodged by a monopoly producer in 
the EU, the Commission can initiate an investigation. The particular market situation of a monopoly producer is taken into account both in the injury analysis and particularly in the context of the Union interest test.  Outside of the context of anti-dumping, the Directorate-General for 
Competition, deals with the issue of monopolies within the EU. 
 What are the rules on “likeness” applicable to a product determined to be dumped, if said product 
is incorporated into a variety of final products? Is there a de minimis  – rule applicable with respect 
to the percentage of value or weight of such a product in the final product? If not, what are the boundaries for “likeness” for purposes of anti-dumping measures of the final products into which the allegedly dumped product is incorporated, which themselves are consumed in very different 
markets (e.g. medical patients and convenience- food customers)? And how are such situations 
adequately reflected in the anti-dumping investigation?   
EU reply:  There are a number of criteria used by the EU  to define the "like product"' in an anti-
dumping investigation. The main requirements are:  
 whether the imported product is alike in all respects with the product sold domestically on 
the market of the exporting country and sold by the Union industry which claims to be 
injured respectively, 
 In the absence of such a product, whether the above products have characteristics closely 
resembling those of the product under investigation. 
 The anti-dumping investigation is limited to the 'product under investigation' or 'product 
concerned' and not to the final product into which it may be an input. 
 3.2.4 Export credit, insurance, and promotion 
The Secretariat’s report notes in para. 3.125 that ex port credits in the EU take mainly the form of 
credit insurance. The description of the respective credit insurance policies follows in the next paragraphs. Could the European Union provide addi tional information on the use of other export 
credit instruments like direct lending and give an indication on their importance in the EU Member 
States?  
 EU reply:  Currently, 21 of the 28 EU Member States have export credit programs. Generally 
speaking, it is the prerogative of each Member State to decide whether they want to have an 
Export Credit Agency and in the affirmative case, what financial instruments to offer. This decision depends typically on the needs of the individual Member State's economy and the capacities of the 
private financial sector. That being said, "pure cover" (i.e. credit insurance and guarantees) is 
traditionally the most common type of export credits used in many EU Member States. In the wake of the Global Financial Crisis and as a result of the liquidity problems caused by it, commercial banks were withdrawing a bit from export credits. As a consequence there was a bigger demand 
for direct lending instruments and many EU ECAs developed relevant new financial instruments. As 
the liquidity situation has in the meantime normalised, this trend is over now.   
Para. 3.130 of the Secretariat’s report mentions that export promotion remains in the competence 
of the EU’s Member States. Could the EU indicate  whether any export promotion programmes exist 
for agricultural products? If this is the case, which specific products are concerned and what are 
the budgetary outlays for such promotion activities?   
 EU reply:  The EU allocates financial support for campaigns to promote farm products and inform 
consumers about how they were produced. The campaigns can run inside the EU, or beyond its 
borders. Recent bans on EU agriculture products have shown the need to further diversify export 
market for EU agri-food products and to explore alternative destinations.   
Rules for a new promotion policy (entering into force on 1
st December 2015) are set in Regulation 
(EU) No 1144/2014.The new rules are designed to help to find new markets, consolidate existing ones, and promote the high standards of EU agri cultural products to consumers in Europe and 
around the world. Campaigns are based in a yearly work programme on which the EU defines 
strategic priorities on internal and external markets.  The EU's budget available for promotion will be in creased from EUR 60 million per year in 2015 to 
EUR 200 million as of 2019 (this includes promotion inside and outside the EU).  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 88 - 
 
  Campaigns currently taking place outside the EU can cover the following agriculture products: 
fresh, chilled and frozen beef, veal and pig me at, food preparations based on these products, 
sheep meat, milk products, olive oil and table olives, wines with a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication, wines with an indication of the wine grape variety, spirits 
drinks with a protected geographical indication, fresh and processed fruit and vegetables, products 
processed from cereals and rice, fibre flax, live plants and ornamental horticulture products, products covered by the schemes for protected designations of origin (PDO), protected 
geographical indications (PGI) or traditional specialties guaranteed (TSG) in accordance with 
Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 and organic farming and organic products.  In addition, Member States may allocate a part of their EU Wine National Support Programmes for 
projects of promotion and marketing of Un ion wines with a view to improving their 
competitiveness in other countries. The measures shall apply to wines with a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication or wines with an indication of the wine grape 
variety and shall consist only of public relations, promotion or advertising measures, participation 
at events, fairs or exhibitions of international importance, information campaigns and studies of new markets. The promotion campaigns must run outside the territory of the EU and EU financing 
shall not exceed 50 % of the eligible expenditure of a campaign. Member States may also 
contribute. EU financing during 2014 was €170 Mio and was applied by 14 Member States.  4. Trade policies by sector 
4.2 Agriculture 
4.2.3.1.1 Direct payments Para. 4.21 of the Secretariat’s report states that all schemes of direct payments with one 
exception are subject to provisions to ensure compliance with basic standards relating to the 
environment, food safety, animal and plant health and animal welfare. What is the EU’s experience 
on the effects of these cross-compliance mechanisms on environmental and animal welfare 
outcomes?  
 EU reply:  The new CAP will contribute in a complementary and coherent way to the objective of a 
more sustainable use of natural resources as well as climate change mitigation and adaptation. 
The respective instruments for achieving this ai m include regulatory tools, mandatory measures 
with compensation as well as incentives. Enhanced  cross-compliance creates a direct link between 
CAP payments and the respect of minimum requirem ents linked to public, animal and plant health, 
environment and animal welfare and most important, contributes to create awareness among 
farmer community on the respect of the environm ent and animal welfare provisions. The greening 
of direct payments forms a new instrument of th e CAP on top of cross compliance. This "green 
payment" within the first pillar of the CAP is gr anted for implementing three compulsory practices 
whose environmental benefits have been proven.   The EU would refer to several evaluation studies which are publicly available: 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/evaluation/market-and-income-reports/index_en.htm  or 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/legal-proposals/index_en.htm . 
 
4.2.3.1.1 Direct payments 
In para. 4.30 the Secretariat’s report notes that each Member State may reserve funds for additional coupled support. Could the EU authoritie s give further information about the use of such 
support by the Member States? What has been th e overall budget of spent support? Which crops 
or animal production benefit from this support?   EU reply:  27 EU Member States have decided to implement voluntary coupled support and 
notified a number of measures to the European Commission. The overall amount allocated is equal 
to 4 billion during 2015-2020, i.e. 10% of the tota l direct payments for the EU. 9 Member States 
decided to use less than 8% of their national ceiling, 3 Member States decided to use between 8 
and 13% of their ceiling, 11 Member States decided to use the maximum percentage of 13%. The 
decisions of 3 Member States were subject to an approval by the Commission. Specific rules apply to Malta due to its small size and the structure of its agricultural sector. 
 
All the eligible sectors and type of production ha ve been targeted, with the exception of cane and 
chicory, short rotation coppice and dried fodder.  The sectors mostly supported by the Member 
States are beef and veal (24), milk and dairy pr oducts (19, sheep and goat meat (22), protein WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 89 - 
 
  crops (16), fruit and vegetables (19) and sugar beet (10). Such sectors absorb around 94% of the 
total amount allocated for financing voluntary coupled support.  EU Member States may decide to use part of their national ceilings for direct payments for 
financing coupled support in clearly defined cases where specific types of farming or specific 
agricultural sectors that are particularly important for economic and/or social and/or environmental reasons undergo certain difficulties in  terms of risk of decline or of abandonment of 
production. Payments shall be granted within defi ned quantitative limits and based on fixed areas 
and yields or on a fixed number of animals to the extent necessary to create an incentive to maintain current levels of production.  
For further information in other sectors and types of  production where this type of support can be 
applied the EU would refer to the WTO secretariat report (paragraph 4.31 and tables A4.1 and A4.2). 
 
4.2.3.1.2 Internal market support measures According to para. 4.40 EU funding for market withdrawals in the fruits and vegetables sector may 
be increased when products are disposed for certain charities or public institutions. In this context 
the Secretariat’s report notes further that providing fruit and vegetables to school children through the School Fruit Scheme has increased in recent years. Could the EU explain the reasons behind 
this increase? How are expenditures for this programme expected to develop in the future?  
 
EU reply:  The School Fruit and Vegetable Scheme was launched in 2009. The definitive allocation 
of aid per Member State participating in the scheme is decided on a yearly basis and is based on 
the overall Union budget. The scheme is co-finance d, which means that EU funds must be matched 
by national or private contributions.  
The overall budgetary envelope for the Scheme since its inception in 2009 was €90 million which 
was further increased to €150 million from 2014. This increase will allow EU Member States to extend the scope and/or increase the effectiveness of their programmes.   
The scheme supports, in addition, educational accompanying measures (co-financed by the EU 
from 2014/2015) explaining the potential benefits of fruit and vegetable consumption and reinforcing the link with agriculture. The number of Member States participating in the programme 
has increased in the past years (from 21 in 2009/2010 to 25 in 2013/2014). 
 Further information on the EU school fruit and vegetable scheme is available at 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sfs/index_en.htm  
 
4.2 Agriculture 4.2.3.3 Market access 
Para 4.54 of the Secretariat’s report states that fill rates for the EU’s notified tariff rate quotas vary 
considerably and that the majority of quotas are not filled. Could the EU indicate the reasons for these generally low fill rates? What specific meas ures are envisaged to change this, taking into 
account the respective decision taken in Bali?   
 EU reply:  Low fill rates for tariff quotas may result from market conditions such as competitive 
domestic production. Particularly, the EU would like to stress that several of these TRQs presenting 
an under fil rate below 65%, are already managed on a first-come-first-served basis in line with the decision taken in Bali. EU has no plans to autonomously change its tariffs for agricultural products. Any change will result from a successful conclusion to the DDA. The EU will apply the 
Bali Decision on TRQ under fill. 
 4.3. Services 
4.3.4 Financial services 
Some of EU’s recent directives and regulations in the field of financial services provide for the possibility of a procedure for the recognition of equivalence (such as for example the regime 
indicated in paragraph 4.140). Could the EU elabor ate on any difficulties the EU authorities are 
confronted with when applying such procedures? Are there any initiatives under way to remedy or alleviate such difficulties and to improve the inst ruments for recognizing the equivalence of foreign 
jurisdictions, in particular as regards the predictability of the procedure?  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 90 - 
 
  EU reply: Procedures regarding equivalence of other jurisdictions’ regulatory and supervisory 
framework concern various issues and bear differe nt consequences. They are all subject to the 
same principles of objectivity, impartiality and evidence-based approach. The EU has no particular difficulty to elaborate on concerning those strictly prudential aspects of its domestic financial 
regulation. 
 Report by the European Union 
 
4.1.1 The EU’s bilateral agenda As indicated in para. 4.13, the EU and ASEAN are about to make efforts to take their trade relations to a different level and working towards an ambitious region-to-region FTA. What will be 
the next steps in this regard?  
 EU reply:  At the annual ASEAN Economic Ministers (AEM) - EU Trade Commissioner Consultations 
held in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) on 26 April 2015, Ministers reaffirmed their shared ultimate 
objective of a comprehensive and ambitious region-to-region FTA.   
Ministers concurred on the need to assess first the prospects towards a successful resumption of 
region-to-region negotiations (halted in 2009). To th is end, they agreed to organise a stocktaking 
event at Senior Officials’ level by end 2015. Senior  Officials will report to Ministers next year. 
 
In the meantime, the EU will continue to pursue the bilateral track of ambitious and 
comprehensive FTAs with some ASEAN Member States.  
In para. 4.15 the EU mentions the ongoing negotiations with the United States. How do you assess 
the perspectives and timelines for a conclusion of the TTIP?   
EU reply:  It is our intention to negotiate as fast as possible; however, clearly substance comes 
before speed. The key is that we achieve an agreement that is both ambitious and balanced.  Notwithstanding the challenges, we're ready to make as much progress as possible in 2015 and we 
hope we can deliver an ambitious and balanced agreement. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 91 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO WRITTEN QUESTI ONS FROM HONG KONG, CHINA 
 
Questions on the Secretariat Report 
 
A. Trade and Investment Regime 
 Reciprocal preferences 
(WT/TPR/S/317: Page 29 para 2.23) 
1. The Association Agreements, including the “deep and comprehensive free trade agreements” (DCFTA) with Georgia and Moldova, have been applied since 1 September 2014.  According to the EU, the DCFTA goes beyond “pure” trade, it “comprehensively” covers areas of trade-related 
policies such as public procurement, competition, intellectual property; and approximates the trade 
and trade-related polices of these partners in line with the EU acquis, in areas such as sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures, technical requirements and standards, customs procedures and 
trade facilitation.  
 Question: 
We note that the EU has different forms of reciprocal trade relations with different countries and 
regions.  Can the EU explain in more detail th e differences between DCFTA and the other forms of 
bilateral agreements or FTAs that are in force or under application in the EU regime?  Is DCFTA the 
deepest and most comprehensive form of FTA the EU has in place with its trade partners, as the 
name suggests? 
 EU reply : The DCFTAs occupy a special role as they propose to the partner countries to align 
domestic laws with a selected part of trade-related EU legislation; this is due to the specific 
relationships with these partners, being part of the European Neighbourhood Policy that aims at sharing the benefits of the EU with neighbouring countries, in particular strengthening stability and 
security. Then, also the Stabilisation and Associ ation Agreements (SAAs) concluded with all the 
Western Balkan countries have a similar approach, as they include a bilateral free trade area with the EU and provisions on progressive alignment to the EU acquis and progressive integration into the EU market. These countries have, indeed, a clear EU accession perspective since 2001. 
 
Then, with some trade partners, the EU has fostered relations going beyond a free trade area. With Turkey, the EU has a Customs Union for indust rial products. With Norway and Iceland, trade 
relations are also more advanced than an FTA, as these countries joined the European Economic 
Area (EEA) therefore having full access to the EU’s internal market covering all aspects of trade in goods and services, providing for free movement of goods, services, capital and people. 
 
Business environment 
(WT/TPR/S/317: Page 33 para 2.41) 
 
2. Despite the common provisions of the EU legislation, a business may face different regulatory 
restrictions depending on where it is established.  It was estimated that up to one-third of the administrative burden linked to EU legislation stems from implementation measures in member 
States. The heterogeneity of rule-setting across  member States and high national barriers, 
especially in some services sectors, makes it hard for businesses to adapt to each national regulation. 
 
Question: Other than relying on initiatives taken by individual member States, what measures or actions have the EU taken to improve the situation, especially in the short and medium run? 
 
EU reply: The European Commission is strongly committed to the EU's smart regulation agenda. A 
number of policy instruments are used for this goal. This includes the Commission's Regulatory 
Fitness and Performance programme (REFIT), as we ll as the "Better regulation" initiative adopted 
in May 2015. This initiative will help ensure a modern and transparent approach toward policymaking. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 92 - 
 
  The Commission has an important role to play in  ensuring the enforcement of single market 
legislation, limiting the heterogeneity of national implementing measures. To this end the Commission can improve the monitoring system of the application of EU law, by defining and applying sectorial enforcement strategies supp orted by action plans. Formal enforcement 
procedures can also be accompanied by informal mechanisms, structured dialogues, peer-reviews 
and country specific recommendations. In addition , the reporting tools can be strengthened. By 
further developing  the Single Market Scoreboard , by broadening the analysis, beyond indicators 
and statistics, to operational/policy conc lusions on the state of play of the EU acqui s in different 
sectors or pointing at structural problems of Member States in different policy areas. This tool (Single Market Scoreboard) can also constitute a peer pressure instrument. 
These are a few examples of the measures that  can be taken by the European Commission to 
improve the situation in the short and medium run. 
In addition, the Commission has worked closely together with Member States to ensure that an 
ambitious implementation of the Services Directive
52 takes place. This means in practice that 
Member States have reduced the administrative burden imposed on business and services 
providers, increase transparency in the market , eliminate discriminatory or disproportionate 
requirements (such as economic needs tests making  the granting of an authorisation subject to 
proof of the existence of a market demand) and se t up business-friendly e-government portals to 
allow business to complete administrative procedures online. 
B. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure  
 
Contingency Measures 
(WT/TPR/S/317: Page 46 paras 3.61) 
 3. The EU is in the process of modernising its trade defence instruments with the objective of 
improving transparency in its trade defence proceedings.  
Question: 
We would appreciate it if the EU could share with us the relevant progress and any expected 
outcomes of the work.  
EU reply:  In April 2013, the Commission has adopted a Proposal and a Communication in order to 
modernise the EUs TDI and has transmitted them to the European Parliament (EP) and the Council. The package also includes draft guidelines on 4 specific elements of TD investigations 
(choice of analogue country, calculation of injury margin, expiry reviews and Union interest). This 
package is currently under ordinary co-legislative procedures.  
Export credit 
(WT/TPR/S/317: Page 61 para 3.127) 
 
4. EU member States are allowed to draw up sch emes providing credit insurances for small and 
medium-sized exporters with small turnovers, for single-risk cover with a maximum of two years, 
or in case of general shortage of export credit in surance.  However, such schemes must be notified 
to the Commission for state-aid assessment, and be  subject to approval by the Commission before 
implementation. 
 Question: 
What factors and considerations would the Commission take into account in assessing the export 
credit insurance schemes proposed by member States? What is the usual time taken for the Commission to make a decision on whether a scheme could be approved?  
EU reply:  In some European Union countries public or publicly supported export-credit agencies 
insure short-term export risks for the account or with the guarantee of the state by financing transactions in the EU and with a large number of non-EU countries. 
 
                                               
52 The Services Directive takes a horizontal approa ch covering a variety of economic activities 
representing 46% of EU GDP (inc l. business services, construction, retail and real estate). WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 93 - 
 
  From a competition viewpoint, the fact that these credit-insurance agencies are acting on behalf of 
the state may imply the risk of distorting competition in relation to private insurers.   The Communication from the Commission to the Member States on the application of Articles 107 
and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of th e European Union to short-term export-credit 
insurance ("Communication", http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX : 
52012XC1219(01)&from=EN) applies to state aid in the short-term export-credit insurance sector. 
This Communication states that, as a general rule, marketable risks cannot be covered by export-
credit insurance with the support of EU countries.  First, the Communication clarifies that, in certain cases, the export credits are not state aid as 
defined in 107 of TFEU. It is considered that when there is no developed competition between 
public and private insurers and therefore there is  no market for these “non-marketable” risks, 
state support is needed in order to export, without state support the insurance would not be 
provided. In these cases, the government support is  not considered to be state aid as there is no 
advantage over competitors nor a potential distortion of competition. Long term export credit (with a risk period above 2 years, as covered by the OECD Arrangement on Officially Supported Export 
Credits) and export credits to countries outside the list of marketable countries as annexed to the 
Commission Communication are considered as non-marketable. In principle, non-OECD countries are considered as "non-marketable".  
Second, government support for short term export  credit to marketable (listed) countries is 
considered to be state aid and in principle not allowed. However, the Communication allows for four categories of exceptions to this prohibition, four categories of temporary non-marketable risks 
(art 18 (a) to (d)). Under certain conditions, short term export credits to marketable countries can 
be considered as temporary non-marketable:   
(a) temporary not listed,  
(b) in case of SME exporters with a small turnover,  (c) single risk cover with a max of 2 years or  (d) general shortage of export credit insurance. 
 
The Commission will assess and can approve such schemes under the conditions specified in the guidelines. 
 Quality of cover: The quality of cover offered by State insurers must be consistent with 
market standards. In particular, only economically justified risks, that is to say, risks that are acceptable on the basis of sound under writing principles, can be covered. The 
maximum percentage of cover must be 95 % for commercial risks and political risks and 
the claims waiting period mu st be a minimum of 90 days. 
 Underwriting principles: Sound underwriting pr inciples must always be applied to the 
assessment of risks. Accordingly, the risk of financially unsound transactions must not be 
eligible for cover under publicly supported schemes. With regard to such principles, risk 
acceptance criteria must be explicit. If a business relationship already exists, exporters must have a positive trading and/or payment experience. Buyers must have a clean claims 
record, the probability of the buyers’ default must be acceptable and their internal and/or 
external financial ratings must also be acceptable. 
 Adequate pricing: Risk-carrying in the export-c redit insurance contract must be remunerated 
by an adequate premium. To minimise the crow ding out of private credit insurers, average 
premiums under publicly supported schemes mu st be higher than the average premiums 
charged by private credit insurers for similar risks. This requirement ensures the phasing out of State intervention, because the higher pr emium will ensure that exporters return to 
private credit insurers as soon as market conditions allow them to do so and the risk 
becomes marketable again. More details on adequate pricing can be found in the Communication.  
 Transparency and reporting: Member States must publish the schemes put in place for risks 
which are considered temporarily non-marketable on the websites of State insurers, specifying all applicable conditions. They must also submit annual reports to the 
Commission on such risks covered by State insurers. 
 The Commission usually decides in between 2 to 6 months on whether a scheme could be approved. For particularly difficult cases (potenti ally including an opening of proceedings) the 
period for approval/rejection can be longer.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 94 - 
 
  More detailed information can be found on the following website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/instruments.html  State aid 
(WT/TPR/S/317: Page 65 para 3.142) 
 5. The Commission is responsible for preparing detailed rules on compatibility of state aids with 
the internal market, examining notifications of ai d schemes (which should be approved before aid 
may be provided), setting general exemptions from  the notification requirements, and recovering 
incompatible state aid.  
Question: 
We are interested to know how incompatible state aids are identified and more details about the mechanism, process, and duration for recovering incompatible state aid. 
 
EU reply:  In principle, the TFEU prohibits State aid because of its potential negative effects on 
trade and competition. Despite the general prohibition of State aid, in some specific circumstances 
government intervention can be necessary for a well-functioning and equitable economy. 
Therefore, the TFEU leaves room for a number of policy objectives for which State aid can be granted. The secondary legislation sets out these exemptions to the general prohibition, for instance environmental aid, regional aid, aid for R&D. The Commission only allows State aid to be 
given under certain well-specified conditions. 
 The criteria to determine the compatibility of State aid with the internal market are set out in 
detail in the General Block Exemption Regulation
53 and the guidelines applicable to different types 
of aid (e.g. Regional Aid Guidelines, Environm ental Aid Guidelines, Risk Capital Guidelines54). The 
Commission will consider an aid measure compatible with the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union (TFEU) only if the positive effects in terms of contribution to a well-defined 
objective of common interest overweigh the negative effects in terms of competition distortions. This is reflected in particular by the requirements that the aid is necessary and appropriate for the achievement of the objective; has an incentive ef fect (the aid must change the behaviour of the 
undertaking(s) concerned in such a way that it engages in additional activity which it would not 
carry out without the aid or it would carry out in a restricted or different manner or location); and is proportionate (the aid amount must be limited to the minimum needed to induce the additional 
investment or activity). 
 Depending on the type of aid, those general principles are specified in more detailed conditions 
that have to be complied with. 
 Article 108(3) of TFEU requires Member States not only to notify State aid measures to the Commission before their implementation, but also to await the outcome of the Commission's 
investigation before implementing notified measures. If either of those obligations is not fulfilled, 
the State aid measure is considered to be unlawfu l. If, following a formal investigation procedure 
the State aid measure is considered incompatible with the internal market (the compatibility 
conditions described above are not met), the Commission will require the Member State to take all 
necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary in accordance with national procedures (negative decision with recovery). 
 
If the Commission has taken a negative decision in the context of aid that has already been paid out, the Commission requires the Member State to recover the aid with interest from the beneficiary (unless such recovery would be contrary to a general principle of EU law). In this case, 
the Commission opens a 'recovery case' to enforc e the implementation of its decision. If the 
Member State does not comply with the decision in due time, the Commission may refer it to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), without initiating an infringement procedure under Article 258 
TFEU. 
 The aim of recovery is to remove the undue ad vantage granted to companies and to restore the 
market to its state before the aforementioned aid was granted. There is a limitation period of ten 
years for recovery. 
                                               
53 Commission Regulation No 800/2008 (OJ 2008 L 214/3). 
54 http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/legislation.html . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 95 - 
 
  Notice from the Commission — Towards an effective implementation of Commission decisions 
ordering Member States to recover unlawful and incompatible State aid available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52007XC1115(01)&from=EN  
Active pending recovery cases can be found under the following link: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/studies _reports/active_pending_recovery_cases_en.pdf  
 
Value added tax 
(WT/TPR/S/317: Page 85 para 3.200) 
 6. As noted in the last Review, the application of different VAT rates for different goods and services adds to compliance costs although reduced rates, zero-rating, and exemptions can 
translate into significant subsidies.  Furthermore, a simplified system which applied a single VAT 
rate at, or possibly even below the minimum standard rate of 15% , if applied to all goods and services, could result in no reduction in revenue while simplifying compliance costs and reducing 
economic distortions among sectors. 
 Question: 
Has the EU made any attempt since the last Review to simplify its VAT system in order to reduce 
cost and economic distortions?   EU reply:  The work is still on-going along the lines announced in the Communication on the 
Future of VAT- Towards a simpler, more robust and efficient VAT system tailored to the single 
market COM(2011)851.  
Copyright and related rights 
(WT/TPR/S/317: Page 98 para 3.260) 
 7. We note there was public consultation conduc ted by the European Commission on the Review 
of the EU Copyright Rules from December 2013 to March 2014 with results published in July 2014.  
The public consultation covers a wide range of copyright issues including (i) the rights relevant for digital transmissions: the "making available" and "reproduction" rights; (ii) linking and browsing; 
(iii) terms of protection; (iv) user-gener ated content; and (v) private copying. 
 Question: 
Does the European Commission have any preliminary views on the issues high lighted in the public 
consultation?  Is there any plan for legislative re form of the EU Copyright Rules in view of the 
consultation results? 
 
EU reply : There is no EU plans for further actions at  the time of writing these replies. In the 
period under review (2013-14) no further actions were taken.   
Patents 
(WT/TPR/S/317: Page 102 para 3.271) 
 8. There are ongoing discussions of a number of challenges in relation to the introduction of the 
unitary patent.  For example, the need to establish a predictable jurisdiction within the Unified Patent Court (UPC) the consistency of which had to be supported by the Court of Appeal; the 
potential impact of the unitary patent on the European patent; the calculation of fees for the 
unitary patent; the financing and cost-effectiveness of the UPC as a non-EU institution, etc.   Question: 
Could the EU provide more information about the specific issues which need to be resolved with 
regard to the introduction of unitary patent an d the proposed solution(s) under consideration? 
 
EU reply : The Select Committee – which is composed of representatives of the Member States 
participating in the enhanced cooperation that resulted in the creation of the Unitary Patent – ensures the governance and supervision of the task s pertaining to the grant and administration of 
the Unitary Patent which have been entrusted to the European Patent Office ('EPO'). The Select 
Committee was also entrusted by Regulation 1257/201 2 with the responsibility of deciding on i) 
the level of the renewal fees for the Unitary Patent (Article 12 of Regulation 1257/2012)  and ii) the setting of the distribution key of the renewa l fees between the participating Member States 
(Article 13 of Regulation 1257/2012). The Select Committee is also in charge of finalising the Rules WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 96 - 
 
  relating to Unitary protection. 
 The Preparatory Committee is in charge of carrying out all the practical work required for the establishment of the Unified Patent Court, it is composed of all the Signatory States to the Unified 
Patent Court Agreement.
55 In order to fulfil its task, the Preparatory Committee has set up 5 
working areas: Legal framework (including the rules of procedure and court fees); Financial 
aspects (financial regulations, pension, social se curity and salary schemes); IT (electronic filing 
and case management system); Facilities and Human resource & training (selection and training of 
judges). A roadmap is published on the Preparatory Committee’s website.56 
 The May 2015 report from the Chairs of the Preparatory and Select Committee on their activities 
can be found on the EU Council website.
57 
 C. Trade Policies by Sector 
 
Telecommunications Services  
(WT/TPR/S/317: Page 139 para 4.65) 
 9. In July 2009, the European Commission adopted its Recommendation on termination rates, which, inter alia , recommended the use of Bottom-up Long Run Incremental Cost as the costing 
methodology for fixed and mobile termination rates.  The recommendations adopted under the 
Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communications are not binding, but member States’ 
National Regulatory Agencies (NRAs), which are responsible for conducting periodic market analyses and imposing regulatory obligations on operators, must take such recommendations into 
account in their work. While most NRAs have en dorsed the recommended costing methodology in 
their decisions, some NRAs have yet to notify their decisions to the Commission. The Commission expected that the decisions concerning termination rates would be notified shortly. The 
Commission and the Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communications are cooperating to 
take steps to ensure consistency in these markets.  Question: 
W h a t  i s  t h e  i m p a c t  o f  t h e  R e c o m m e n d a t i o n  o n  t h e  i n d u s t r y  s o  f a r ?   W h a t  f a c t o r s  d i d  t h e  
Commission consider in making the Recommendation non-binding? We note that National Regulatory Agencies (NRAs) of some EU members’ States have yet to notify the Commission of 
their decisions concerning termination rates even though the Commission has adopted the 
Recommendation on termination rates for six years. Which are those member States whose decisions remain outstanding? What follow up actions has the Commission taken on these NRAs? 
 
EU reply: The telecommunications sector is of critical importance to the economic, social and 
cultural development in Europe. Central to the regulatory framework of electronic communications is the Framework Directive (FD), which aims to establish a harmonised framework for the 
regulation of electronic communications networks and services. 
 To ensure a consistent application of regulatory measures across Europe, Article 7 of the FD 
requires NRAs to notify any new draft measure to the Commission prior to its adoption and to take 
utmost account of the Commission's comments on the notified measure. In addition, where the Commission finds that there are divergences in the implementation of regulation by NRAs that may 
create a barrier to the internal market, Article 19 of the FD allows the Commission to issue 
recommendations (which are per se non-binding instruments) on the most appropriate regulatory approach of which the NRAs should take utmost account. In this context the Commission issued the Termination Rates Recommendation (TRR) in 2009. In a nutshell, the TRR recommends that 
NRAs should set fixed and mobile termination rates (FTRs, MTRs) using a pure bottom-up long-run 
incremental cost (pure BU-LRIC) model, rather than any other costing methodologies that would include a measure of the access provider's common costs, such as LRIC plus (or LRIC+). 
 
Since its adoption, the TRR has improved the consistency of the regulatory approaches for calculating termination rates at a cost-oriented level across the EU. The recommended pure BU-
                                               
55 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2013:175:0001:0040:EN:PDF . 
56 http://www.unified-patent-court.org/ . 
57 http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9107-2015-INIT/en/pdf . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 97 - 
 
  LRIC approach has been endorsed by the majority  of national regulators, with some exceptions, 
significantly reducing termination rates across the EU.  Twenty Member States have so far implemented pure BU-LRIC modelling to set mobile termination 
rates. Moreover three further Member States set the MTRs on the basis of benchmarking against 
pure BU-LRIC rates. Seventeen Member States have implemented pure BU-LRIC cost modelling to set fixed termination rates and two countries use a benchmark of a pure BU-LRIC model. 
 
The Commission strongly believes that regulation of FTRs and MTRs which hampers the internal market jeopardises the achievement of Digital Agen da targets. Therefore it has actively promoted 
the creation of the internal market in all its decisions concerning the notified draft measures 
relating to FTRs and MTRs, using all its powers under the EU telecommunications framework, 
which are however limited with regard to remedies proposed. The Commission is also considering using its powers to initiate infringement procedures; to that effect the Commission has sent an 
official pilot letter to one Member State. Furthermore the Commission may, according to Article 19 
of the Framework Directive (2002/21/EC as amende d), issue a binding decision. The Commission's 
Termination Rates Recommendation is to be reviewed by the end of 2016. 
 
Audiovisual Services 
(WT/TPR/S/317: Pages 150 para 4.99) 
 
10. According to the green paper "Preparing fo r a Fully Converged Audiovisual World: Growth, 
Creation and Values" published in April 2013, online  consumption of audiovisual content, such as 
presence of connectable TV sets in the EU households, consumer spending on digital videos and 
video-on-demand services, was expected to increase continually. 
 Question: 
Is there any plan to facilitate the development of the audiovisual market in light of the continual 
growth of online consumption of audiovisual cont ent, including plans to harmonise regulations for 
online provision of audiovisual content? Would the EU consider further liberalising its audiovisual services sector for the benefit of its consumers? 
 
EU reply : The audiovisual media landscape is changing  and the EU needs to keep up and, if 
necessary, adapt. Viewers still enjoy TV broadcas ts but increasingly access on-demand content via 
tablets and smartphones. More and more new pl ayers enter the European audiovisual market, 
increasing competition. It is the intention of the Commission to provide businesses with an adequate regulatory framework allowing them to continue to exploit their creative potential in the 
digital world. Europe also needs to make cons umer protection a priority together with the 
promotion of the EU's rich cultural diversity. The EU Digital Single Market strategy[1] aims, amongst other things, at creating "A media framework for the 21st century". In pursuing this goal, the Commission is taking steps to ensure that th e existing regulatory framework fully keeps up 
with market and technological developments. The Commission is now assessing the overall 
functioning of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) in the context of a REFIT (regulatory fitness) evaluation in the course of 2015. The overall aim of REFIT is to assess whether 
there is scope for simplification, de-regulation and cutting red tape, both at European and national 
level. As part of the REFIT, the Commis sion will launch a public consultation. 
 
Distribution Services 
(WT/TPR/S/317: Page 158 paras 4.120 - 4.122) 
 
11. On distance and direct selling, a genera l framework has been set up for EU consumer 
protection through a number of Directives such as the Consumer Rights Directive. As regards e-
commerce in particular, the Directive on Electronic Commerce sets down common rules on the establishment, information requirements, commercial communications, liability of intermediaries, 
and pre-contractual requirements necessary for th e starting up and development of cross-border 
information society services. Outstanding hindrances to the internal market identified by the Commission as undermining cross-border online trade will be a core issue for the Digital Single 
Market (DSM) package, which is one of the Commission’s top ten policy objectives as laid out in 
the Commission’s 2015 Work Programme.  Question: 
We are interested in knowing more about the hindrances identified by the Commission as WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 98 - 
 
  undermining cross-border online trade and the deta ils of the DSM package. What is the coverage 
of the package? What problems does the package seek to address? 
EU reply: The Commission's scoping exercise preparing the Digital Single Market Strategy 
identified a number of regulatory barriers wit hholding the development of e-commerce in the EU. 
Tackling regulatory fragmentation (e.g. in consum er protection, security and data protection), 
providing legal uncertainty (e.g. taxation; liability) and bringing down high compliance costs (e.g. e-Government instruments and online information) is a priority. In this regard, and as set out in 
the Digital Single Market Strategy, the Commission will make a proposal before the end of 2015 (i) 
covering harmonised EU rules for online purchases of  digital content, and (ii) allowing traders to 
rely on their national laws based on a focused set of key mandatory EU contractual rights for domestic and cross-border online sales of tangib le goods. To increase cross-border delivery 
options within the EU and make prices more competitive the Commission will launch measures in 
the first half of 2016 to improve price transparen cy and enhance regulatory oversight of parcel 
delivery. 
Financial Services 
(WT/TPR/S/317: Page 163 para 4.145; Pages 166 & 167 paras 4.154- 4161) 
 
12. The second pillar of the post-financial crisis regulatory packages, which aims at establishing a 
safe, responsible and growth-enhancing financial sector in Europe, is composed of six legislative elements adopted and another six legislative elements as yet unadopted.  
Question: 
What have hindered the adoption of the six new proposals in the second pillar? Would the Commission continue to follow up on these legislative elements? Has the industry been consulted 
or informed in the process? 
 EU reply:  The proposals introduced by the European Commission must be adopted by the two 
branches of the legislative power of the European  Union, the European Parliament and the Council 
of the EU, under procedures stated in the Treaty  on the European Union and the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union, requiring sufficient time for the legislator to examine the texts they are asked to adopt. Consultation and information of stakeholders is done by the Commission 
before handing its proposal to the co-legislators. 
 Out of the proposals mentioned in the report of the Secretariat: 
 
- The proposal on European Long Term Invest ment Funds has been adopted and published: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TX T/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_ .2015.123.01.0098.01.ENG . 
 
- The proposal for a Regulation on interchange fees has been adopted by the European Parliament and is expected to be endorsed by the Council of the EU this year: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4585_en.htm . 
 
- Political agreement was found on the upda te of the Payment Services Directive: 
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4585_en.htm . 
 
- The proposals concerning financial benchmarks, insurance mediation and anti-money laundering are currently in discussion in the European Parliament and the Council under the 
ordinary legislative procedure. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 99 - 
 
  EU RESPUESTAS A LAS 
PREGUNTAS DE COLOMBIA 
 
Informe de la UE (WT/TPR/G/317) 
3. DEVELOPMENTS IN THE INTERNAL MARKET 
 3.19. In May 2014, the EU adopted a Directive on  Intra-Corporate Transferees that creates an 
attractive EU scheme harmonizing the conditions for entry, stay and intra-EU mobility of third-
country national workers (managers, specialists an d graduate trainees) being posted by a group of 
companies based outside the EU to an entity of th e same group based on the EU territory for up to 
three years (one year for trainees). The Directive will replace national schemes for the admission 
of specialists, managers and trainees (as defined in the Directive). 
 ¿Hay alguna variación o flexibilidad para la entrada y estadia temporal de personas de 
negocios que no estan relacionadas directamente con una inversion (ej. prestadores de 
servicios bajo contrato, o profesionales independientes)? 
EU reply: The ICT Directive does not provide any form of  facilitation for independent professionals 
or contractual service suppliers not directly linked to investment. The scope of the Directive is 
limited to "Managers", "Specialists" and "Trainee Employees" (also known as graduate trainees in 
FTAs).  
4. THE KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN EU TRADE AND INVESTMENT POLICY (2013/2014) 
 
4.11. The EU-Singapore FTA (EUSFTA) is the first deal between the EU and a Southeast Asian economy and constitutes a stepping stone to greater engagement between the EU and Southeast 
Asia, where a region-to-region FTA remains the ultimate goal. The EUSFTA is a comprehensive 
agreement with extensive commitments by both pa rties to provide greater access to each other’s 
markets, including through the liberalization of services, investment and procurement markets, as 
well as the removal of tariff or non-tariff (i.e . regulatory or technical) barriers to trade. 
 4.12. The negotiations for a comprehensive economic and trade agreement with Canada were concluded in September 2014. Once in force, the agreement will tackle a whole range of issues to 
make business with Canada easier. It will remove customs duties, end limitations in access to 
public contracts, open-up markets for services and offer predictable conditions for investors. 
 
 ¿Cuándo se espera que entren en vigor los acuerdos con Singapur y Canadá? 
 
EU reply: The parties are currently performing the legal review (‘legal scrubbing’) of the CETA 
text. From experience, this process takes 6 to 7 months and will normally be finalised before summer. The text will then be translated into the official languages of the EU - which also takes 
around six months - before being formally submitted to the Council for formal conclusion and 
signature (beginning of 2016). Once the European Council has approved the decision on signature, it sends the Agreement to the European Parliame nt. The consent of the European Parliament is 
required before the agreement will be operational. This could be expected early 2017. 
 
With regard to the EU-Singapore FTA, negotiations have also been concluded. The European Commission has decided to seek an opinion of the Court of Justice before launching the signature 
and ratification procedure of the FTA in order to  clarify the EU competence for this free trade 
agreement. 
 
4.14. The EU-Japan FTA negotiations were launched in 2013 and nine rounds of talks had already 
taken place by the end of February 2015. So far, Japan and the EU have exchanged texts 
proposals for the different FTA chapters, as well as initial market access offers on goods, services 
and investments well and public procurement. The EU's objective is to negotiate a comprehensive 
and ambitious agreement with Japan, covering a wide range of issues and tackling non-tariff measures across many sectors. 
 
4.15. The EU and the U.S. launched negotiatio ns on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment 
Partnership (TTIP) in 2013. Eight rounds of ta lks had taken place by February 2015. The EU's 
objective is to reach an "ambitious, comprehensiv e and mutually beneficial trade and investment WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 100 - 
 
  agreement".  TTIP would address the challenges of today's global trading environment and 
contribute to a stronger transatlantic partnership.  
 En materia de inversión y servicios ¿los acuerdos con Japón y EEUU se están negociando con 
lista negativa, o con lista positiva?  
 
EU reply:  The EU does not comment on on-going negotiations.  
 
4.18. The EU included provisions on investment  protection in the trade agreements concluded 
during the period under review. Furthermore, the EU also started negotiating stand-alone investment agreements with China and Myanmar. Within the current negotiations for FTAs with 
Vietnam, Japan, Thailand, Malaysia, Morocco and India the EU expects the agreements to include 
chapters on investment protection.  
 
 ¿Se tiene previsto incluir mecanismo de solución de controversias inversionista-Estado en los 
capítulos de inversión de los TLC que se están negociando con Vietnam, Japón, Malasia y Marruecos? 
 
EU reply : See answer to previous question.  
 
 De las consultas con la sociedad civil, la Comisión Europea ha ido construyendo su posición 
frente a los acuerdos de inversión y ha hablado de introducir ideas innovadoras al sistema. 
¿en estas negociaciones se están proponiendo estas nuevas disposiciones?  
 
EU reply:  Colombia may find it useful to consult the concept paper recently published by the 
European Commission: “Investment in TTIP and beyond – the path for reform ” 
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/may/tradoc_153408.PDF  
 
Informe de la Secretaría (WT/TPR/S/317) 2. RÉGIMEN COMERCIAL Y DE INVERSIONES  
2.9 Unanimity in the Council is required for agreements on trade in services, commercial aspects 
of intellectual property rights, and foreign dire ct investment that include provisions for the 
adoption of internal rules. 
 
 ¿A qué tipo de disposiciones se hace referencia cuando se habla de “ provisions for the 
adoption of internal rules”  Podría dar algunos ejemplos concretos? 
 
EU reply: This paragraph reflects the provision of Article 207 (4)2 TFEU containing specific rules 
for the negotiation and conclusion of agreements within the sphere of the common commercial 
policy. It mirrors the applicable legislative rules in the decision-making in the Council: the 
negotiation and conclusion of agreements shall be governed by the same majority requirements as 
internal (EU) legislation covering the same subj ect matter. For instance, Article 118 TFEU requires 
the Council to act by unanimity in the adoption of measures in relation to intellectual property. Any 
international agreement that includes the same subject matter would equally require unanimity in the Council for the decision to conclude. (received from F2 not further checked). 
 
2.41 Despite the common provisions of the EU legisl ation, a business may face different regulatory 
restrictions depending on where it is established. It was estimated that up to one-third of the administrative burden linked to EU legislation stems from implementation measures in member 
States.  Moreover, according to the OECD, the hete rogeneity of rule-setting across member States 
and high national barriers, especially in some services sectors, makes it hard for businesses to adapt to each national regulation.  In June 2013, Germany passed new immigration rules which 
aim to cut red tape for people in target industries, allowing them to easily obtain recognition of 
their qualifications in Germany. On the other hand , France passed a bill in the National Assembly 
in October 2013 imposing penalties on companies that shut down operations deemed economically-viable; at end-March 2015 this bill was still under debate in the French Senate. 
 
 ¿Qué tipos de medidas se han tomado, o se piensan tomar, para reducir la carga 
administrativa que genera la legislación de la UE? 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 101 - 
 
   ¿Qué tipo de medidas se han tomado, o se piensan tomar, para reducir la carga 
administrativa relacionada con la implementación de la legislación de la UE en los estados miembro? 
 
EU reply to the two questions above:  The Commission attaches great priority to effectively 
reducing administrative burdens in sectors where businesses have most concerns. It has reduced administrative burdens for businesses stemming from EU legislation by an estimated 26% between 
2007 and 2012 in thirteen priority sectors.
58 The Commission's Regulatory Fitness and 
Performance Programme (REFIT) takes this work furt her, identifying actions to review and revise 
EU legislation to simplify, and reduce regulatory burdens.59 A REFIT platform involving high level 
experts from business, social partners, and civil society and from all 28 Member States as well as 
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions will be 
established before the end of this year. It will collect and advise on specific suggestions for simplification and regulatory burden reduction re garding EU law and the implementation of EU law 
by Member States. A dedicated website "Lighten the load – have your say" to collect individual 
contributions is already operational.  
An annual REFIT scoreboard, recently updated
60 tracks progress in the implementation of the 
specific initiatives launched under this programme providing information on the results and impact on-the-ground as well as contributing to tran sparency on the whole regulatory cycle. The 
Commission believes that a sustainable reduction in regulatory burden requires a joint 
commitment by all EU institutions, Member States and stakeholders. 
 
 Se menciona que en Francia se está discutiendo un proyecto de ley que busca imposing 
penalties on companies that shut down operations deemed economically-viable . ¿Qué se 
entiende por operations deemed economically-viable ? ¿Quién determina si las operaciones 
son viables o no? 
 
EU reply: Colombia is referring to a bill of law which may be still modified during its legislative 
process; therefore it is still too early to give precise indications. 
 
2.42. Some member States such as France, Germany, and the United Kingdom maintain FDI 
review procedures for national security purposes. These procedures were amended during the 
period under review: in September 2013, Germany streamlined its review mechanism for FDI, 
reducing data requirements for sector-specific reviews; and in May 2014, France amended the list of activities subject to FDI review. In 2014, Italy and Portugal also amended or adopted new 
legislation to review investment in strategic sectors such as defence, energy, transport and 
communication.  
 
 Colombia quisiera conocer la lista de actividades sujetas a revisión previa de IED. 
 
EU reply : The areas for review mechanisms for FDI ar e listed in EU Member States' legislation. 
With reference to Germany, Colombia could refer to the details contained in the recently published 
G20/OECD report: https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/ news13_e/g20_oecd _unctad_report_ 
dec13_e.pdf  
 
 El sector de vigilancia y seguridad privada está restringuida para la IED en algún país de la 
UE? En caso afirmativo, en cuáles? 
 
EU reply : In this sector EU WTO commitments apply. There are no restrictions known. In 
accordance with EU's international commitments FDI screening exists for example in France (code 
monétaire et financier français (art. L151-3) et le décret n° 2005-1739 du 30 décembre 2005) and 
Austria (Foreign Trade Law Article 25a 2011). 
 
 Cuál es el procedimiento dentro de la UE para restringir la participación de capital foráneo 
en ciertos sectores? Se requiere ley nacional? Tiene que estar habilitado por una directiva de la UE? 
                                               
58 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/ref it/admin_burden/acti on_programme_en.htm.  
59 Better regulation for better results: An EU agenda, COM(2015) 215, section V. 
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/better_regulation/documents/com_2015_215_en.pdf.  
60 SWD(2015)110,  http://ec.europa.eu/smart-
regulation/better_regulation/documents/swd_2015_110_en.pdf  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 102 - 
 
  EU reply : The applicable rules are laid down in Arti cles 64 and 65 Treaty of Functioning of the 
European Union, although restrictions on ownership of land are provided for certain EU Member States in their respective instruments of accession which are published at the following web address: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/collection/eu-law/treaties-accession.html . As regards measures 
taken by the EU Member States, the procedure and required instruments are determined by 
national legislation in accordance with EU law.  
 
2.44. The TFEU provides that foreign investment policy is an integral part of the common 
commercial policy, which remains an exclusive competence of the EU. During the review period, the EU is still in the process of developing its common investment policy.  
 
 ¿Qué elementos se piensan incluir en la polític a común de inversión? ¿Para cuándo se tiene 
previsto que la política común de inversión esté lista? Esa política se plasmaría en una 
Directiva de la UE? 
 EU reply : The Commission outlined its approach for the EU's future investment policy in its 
Communication "Towards a comprehensive European international investment policy" of July 2010, 
which can be found at the following web address: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/july/tradoc_146307.pdf . The EU's investment policy is 
focused on providing EU investors and investments with market access and with legal certainty 
and a stable, predictable, fair and properly re gulated environment in which to conduct their 
business.  
The Communication does not set specific timetables for deployment of any of the specific 
initiatives indicated. Bilateral Investment Agreements of Member States that currently offer investment protection to many European investors will be preserved until they are replaced by EU 
agreements. 
 All instruments of EU law and international agreements can be used as appropriate in the 
deployment and implementation of the EU's investment policy.  
 
3. POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS 
 
3.84. As noted in Table 3.5 the legal basis fo r the development of standards in the EU is 
Regulation (EU) No. 1025/2012 which outlines the procedures to be followed in the development 
of standards and similar documents ("other deliverables") by the European standards 
organizations (ESOs) and national standardizat ion bodies. The three ESOs recognized in the 
Regulation are the European Committee for Standardization (CEN), the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (Cenelec), and the European Telecommunications Standards 
Institute (ETSI). The Commission may make a formal request to the standardization organizations 
for development of a standard following consultation with interested parties, submission to the Committee on Standards, and subsequent approval by the member States (comitology 
procedures). 
 ¿Hay regulación comunitaria para el desarrollo de estándares en la prestación del servicio? 
¿Cómo es el procedimiento para emitir este tipo de estándares?  
EU reply : The role of standardization in the creation of an Internal Market for services has been 
recognized by the Directive 2006/123/EC on serv ices in the internal market. The Directive 
encourages the development of voluntary European standards to facilitate compatibility between services, information to the recipient and quality of service provision. The new Regulation (EU) 
1025/2012) on European standardization confirmed the role of the 3 ESOs in developing voluntary 
services standards and their contribution to the growth and competitiveness of Europe.  
The procedure for development of services stan dards is the same as the procedure for the 
development of product or production processes standards. A European Standard (EN) must be 
implemented at national level by being given the st atus of a national standard and by withdrawal 
of any conflicting national standard. Therefore, a European Standard (EN) automatically becomes a 
national standard in each EU Member State. 
Furthermore, the European Commission may issue standardization requests to the ESOs to draw 
up and adopt European services standards in suppo rt of European policies and legislation. Such WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 103 - 
 
  requests are drawn up by the Commission services through a process of consultation with a wide 
group of interested parties (social partners, consumers, SMEs, relevant industry associations, etc.) according to Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012. Thos e European Standards developed in response to 
a request by the European Commission are called 'Harmonized Standards', and even though they 
are developed following such a request and in supp ort of European policies and legislation, they 
remain voluntary in their use. 
15) De los estándares elaborados por estas 3 ESOs, cuántas buscan estandarizar servicios? 
EU reply : It is very difficult to say what is the proportion of services standards in relation to all 
standards adopted by the ESOs. Service standards have developed more slowly than standards for products, so they account for a rather small percentage of all European Standards. According to some sources in 2000, services accounted for around 5% of all European standards (Blind, K.: 
Explanatory Factors for Participation in Formal Standardization Processes: Empirical Evidence at 
Firm Level”, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 2006, 15 (2), pp. 157-170.). 
 ¿Los estándares elaborados por estas ESOs están públicamente disponibles? ¿se pueden 
consultar en internet? En caso afirmativo, remitir el link.  
EU reply : The references of European Standards that  h a v e  b e e n  d e v e l o p e d  i n  r e s p o n s e  t o  a  
request by the European Commission in support of EU legislation, i.e. Harmonised Standards, are 
published in the Official Journal of the EU. 
References to all the other European Standards can be consulted through the web pages of the 
ESOs: for CEN at http://standards.cen.e u/dyn/www/f?p=CENWEB:105::RESET, and for 
CENELEC:http://www.cenelec.eu/dyn/www/f?p= 104:105:946655146 751401::::FSP_LANG_ID:25. 
As they are protected by copyright and associat ed exploitation rights, standards as such are 
publicly available through standardisation bodies that are members of the ESOs for a reasonable 
fee. However ETSI standards are free of charge and can be consulted at: 
http://www.etsi.org/standards. 
 Las ESOs son de naturaleza privada o pública? En caso de ser privadas, se entiende que son 
privadas que ejercen funciones públicas? 
EU reply : The European standardisation organisations, namely CEN, CENELEC and ETSI are 
independent non-profit organisations which provid e a platform for the development of European 
Standards (ENs) and other consensus documents. Th ey have been officially recognized by the 
European Union as being responsible for developing and defining voluntary standards at European 
level. Even in cases where the European Commission issues standardization requests to the ESOs 
to draw up and adopt European standards in support  of European policies and legislation, this does 
not affect the private nature of the ESOs and voluntary use of these Harmonized Standards. 
4. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES POR SECTORES 
 4.121. As regards e-commerce in particular, the Directive on electronic commerce
61 sets down 
common rules on the establishment, information requirements, commercial communications, 
liability of intermediaries, and pre-contractual requirements necessary for the starting up and development of cross-border information society services as well as applying the country of origin control principle. It is worth noting that the country of origin principle does not apply to contractual 
obligations in consumer contracts and the e-commerce Directive does not cover the issue of 
differing national taxation regimes or the other main obstacles to cross-border retailing of physical goods. 
 ¿Cómo son los procedimientos para reclamaciones de protección al consumidor de comercio 
electrónico? ¿Cómo es la cooperación para la protección de derechos del consumidor en transacciones electrónicas intra-comunitaria y extra-comunitaria? 
                                               
61 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament an d of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal 
aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in  the Internal Market (Directive on 
electronic commerce), OJEC 17.7.2000, L178/1, for the full text of the directive see: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSer v.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0031: en: HTML . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 104 - 
 
  EU reply: The EU would like to point out the following that contributes to answering the question. 
- EU legislation: 
- Directive 2013/11/EU on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes: the 
Directive ensures EU consumers’ access to quality out-of-court dispute resolution procedures for 
nearly all market sectors (online and offline, except for health and higher education) in case of 
contractual disputes with EU traders. 
- Regulation (EU) 524/2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes: the 
Regulation foresees the development of an EU-wide Online Dispute Resolution platform to facilitate 
the online resolution of contractual disputes between EU consumers and traders arising over online purchases. 
and 
-The Commission Recommendation 2013/396/EU on common principles for injunctive and 
compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States concerning violations of rights granted under Union Law: This Recommendation recommends that all Member States have 
collective redress mechanisms at national level for both injunctive and compensatory relief 
concerning violations of rights granted under Union Law and sets out the common principles that should be followed by national collective redress mechanisms. Currently 22 EU Member States 
have some kind of compensatory collective redress. 
Concerning consumer complaints, including regarding electronic commerce, national authorities of 
the Member States are responsible for the effective enforcement of the laws establishing EU 
consumer rights. In addition consumers could send a complaint, including for electronic commerce, 
related to cross-border issue to the European Consumer Centres (ECC). The European 
Commission, together with national governments, established 10 years ago, this network of ECCs. 
The latter operates presently in all 28 Member States  of the European Union, Norway and Iceland.  
The ECC-Net promotes the understanding of EU consumers' rights and assists in resolving 
complaints about purchases made in another country  of the network, when travelling or shopping 
online. 
Over the last 10 years, the ECCs received more than 650,000 requests for information about EU 
consumer rights and assisted about 300,000 cons umers. The ECC-Net informs consumers on their 
rights under European and national consumer legislation, gives advice on possible ways of dealing with consumer complaint, provides direct assistance to resolve complaints in an amicable way with 
traders, when purchasing abroad, either during tr avel or on-line purchases, redirects consumers to 
an appropriate body if the ECC-Net can't help. It  provides assistance on a variety of popular 
consumer topics, including among others: elec tronic commerce and on-line shopping, air 
passenger rights, car rental problems, most freque nt internet frauds, timeshares/holiday club.  
The European Consumer Centres Network has also developed a free mobile application - the ECC-
Net: Travel App.  This application helps consumer s cope with difficult situations when holidaying 
abroad. It expresses consumer rights in the lang uage of the destination country in a number of 
typical consumer problems. The ECC-Net Travel  App provides legal knowledge and language 
support in 23 EU languages plus Norwegian and Icelandic. 
Concerning consumer protection cooperation within the EU, the enforcement authorities in Member 
States play the most important role in ensuring consumers' rights, both at national and cross-
border levels. The cooperation between these auth orities is essential to ensure that consumer 
rights legislation is equally applied cross the internal market and to create a level playing field for 
businesses. This cooperation takes place in a fo rm of the European enforcement network , so 
called Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Network. Every year, the Network identifies common enforcement priorities and carries out specific activities, for example "sweeps" - 
systematic checks carried out simultaneously in different Member States to investigate breaches of 
consumer protection law in the particular on-line and electronic commerce sector. In addition to the sweeps, the Network together with the European Commission, regularly launches joint enforcement actions to coordinate the respective legal approaches of its members on specific 
consumer issues and adopts, where and when appropriate, a common position towards a specific 
market sector.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 105 - 
 
  Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on consumer protection cooperation (the CPC Regulation) lays 
down the general conditions and a framework for cooperation between national enforcement authorities. It covers situations when the collective interests of consumers are at stake and allows authorities to stop breaches of consumer rules when the trader and the consumer are established 
in different countries. Individuals who encountered problems in cross-border shopping can turn to 
the CPC Network. The CPC Regulati on links national Competent Authorities from all countries in 
the European Economic Area to form a European enforcement network. In each country a Single 
Liaison Office ensures the coordination of national authorities. The cooperation is applicable to 
consumer rules covering various areas, such as unfair commercial practices, e-commerce, comparative advertising, package holidays, timeshares, distance selling, and passenger rights. 
Concerning the consumer protection cooperation outside the EU, the enforcement authorities in 
Member States play the most important role in ensuring consumers' rights. Some of them are 
participating in the International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network (ICPEN). The European Commission has an observer status within it. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 106 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM SINGAPORE 
 PART I:  QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT  
II TRADE POLICY REGIME: FRAMEWORK AND OBJECTIVES 
 
QUESTIONS:  
Trade Policies and Practices By Measure 
Page 36 (Para 3.5), (Para 3.8), and (Para 3.9)  1. Could the EU share (i) how far in advance carriers/importers are encouraged to declare their 
goods prior to their arrival; and (ii)  the type of documents required?  
 EU reply:  (i) The deadlines for the submission of an entry summary declaration depend on the 
mode of transport (see Art. 184a CCIP; future UCC-DA provision: DA-IV-1-02, DA-IV-1-03, DA-IV-
1-04, DA-IV-1-05 DA-IV-1-05a, DA-IV-1-06 and DA-IV-1-07); e.g for long-haul maritime containerised shipping the deadline is 24 hours be fore the goods are loaded onto the vessel on 
which they are to enter the customs territory of th e EU. (ii) The carriers/importers are required to 
submit an entry summary declaration having the data laid down in Annex 30a (Article 183 CCIP).  2. When does the EU target to transition to a fully paperless environment for customs 
legislation and procedures? Also, what were the challenges faced in getting businesses to adopt 
paperless processes and how did the EU overcome them?   
EU reply:  31.12.2020 is the legal deadline by which all electronic EU Customs systems will be fully 
operational in all EU Member States. The economic operators are very much in favour of paperless 
customs procedures which should be as much as possible harmonised in the EU. So there has been 
rather support than opposition or challenges. Of course business has underlined the costs that are 
associated with the needed changes and by me ans of the Trade Contact Group the European  
Commission has been in dialogue with traders and tried to implement as much as possible their advice. 
 
3. Could the EU provide details on its plans to further develop the EU Single Window platform? 
What are the likely developments after Phase 1? For example, besides veterinary authorities, are 
any other regulatory agencies planning to come on board the platform? 
 EU reply: The first phase of the EU Customs Single Wi ndow initiative will be targeted at the 
automated acceptance of EU certificates, providing national customs administrations direct and 
standardised access to EU certificates issued by other public authorities.  The ongoing cooperation with veterinary authorities is expected to be extended to all public 
agencies issuing certificates that supplement customs declarations. 
 In parallel, the European Commission will work  on a better harmonisation of data exchanges 
between authorities (format, terminology), so that data included in the certificates can be easily 
cross-checked with data in the customs declarations.  
Page 41 (Para 3.34) 
 4. Could the EU share if direct transport would no longer be required in future free trade agreements – i.e. preferential benefits would cont inue to be maintained in cases where goods are 
moved through regional distribution hubs? For pa st free trade agreements, would the requirement 
for direct transport from benefici ary territories for goods to maintain the preference be reviewed?  
 
EU reply : For new negotiations the EU is in favour of the so-called ‘non-alteration’ rule which 
allows the products, under certain conditions, to maintain originating status while moving through transportation hubs situated outside the territories of the Parties. For past free trade agreements, 
the EU is actively pursuing to replace the direct transport requirement by the ‘non-alteration’ rule. 
   
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 107 - 
 
  Page 59 (Para 3.113) 
 5. We would like to enquire (i) how much time traders are given to submit their pre-departure declarations; and (ii) if the EU faces any challenges in obtaining timely submissions of pre-
departure declarations. In addition, does the EU have a dedicated electronic platform and/or 
dedicated agency for the collection of such pre- departure declarations? Lastly, are pre-departure 
declarations only accessible by Customs or shared with other security agencies? 
 
EU reply:  
(i) The deadlines of the pre-departure declaration depend on the mode of transport (see Art. 592b 
in conjunction with Art. 842d; future UCC-DA provision: DA-VIII-1-01); e.g for maritime 
containerised long-haul shipping the deadline is 24 hours before the goods are loaded onto the 
vessel on which they are to leave the customs territory of the EU, in short-haul shipping the deadline is two hours; in air transport 30 minutes; in rail and inland waterways two hours; and in 
road transport one hour respectively. 
 (ii) In practice there is not a problem due to th e two-step export procedure in the EU: As a first 
step the exporter has to lodge the export declaration at the customs office of export in order to 
perform customs export formalities regarding "fiscal" and foreign trade policy purposes. As a second step the goods are to be presented at th e customs office of exit with reference to the 
registration number of the original export procedur e. This customs office will supervise the goods 
until they have left the customs territory of the EU. In cases where an export declaration is not 
required, an exit summary declaration is to be lodge d directly at the customs office of exit within 
the time limits defined in Article 842d CCIP. This mainly applies in cases of transhipped goods 
which have the customs status Non-Union goods. 
 With reference to the dedicated electronic plat form, the EU has an electronic system, the ECS 
(Export Control System). This system supports th e required declaration data exchange among the 
customs offices involved in the export procedure in cases where the customs office of export and the customs office of exit are located in different Member States of the EU. 
 
Lastly, it depends on the practice and legislation of the EU Member States. 
 
Page 65 (Para 3.3.1.2)   
6. The EU has recently updated its state aid policy under the “State Aid Modernisation (SAM)”. 
We note that the policy focuses on EU Member States only. We would be grateful if the EU could 
share how effective the SAM has been in contributing to economic development within the EU. We also seek the EU’s clarification on whether there had been measures taken against non-EU entities 
under SAM. If so, we would be grateful for examples, as appropriate.  
 EU reply:  The State Aid Modernisation (SAM) only became applicable as from July 2014. Therefore 
the European Commission has not been able to assess yet its contribution to economic 
development within the EU. The evaluation of state aid effectiveness is an ongoing project. 
 EU rules in principle do not distinguish between  EU and non-EU entities when considering the 
compatibility of the aid. In any case, no negative decision with recovery of aid has been taken yet 
based on SAM.  
Page 90 (Para 3.226) 
 7. The Secretariat report noted that Directive 2014/24/EU and Directive 2014/25/EU have “broadened possibilities for negotiation, in that the competitive procedure with negotiation may be 
used if justified by the specific circumstances in relation to the nature, complexity, or the legal and 
financial make-up of the project”. Are there guidelines on these broadened possibilities for use of competitive procedure with negotiation and for selecting suppliers for negotiation? 
 
EU reply: The Commission has not developed any guidelines help provide procuring entities with 
advice on the use of negotiation in public procurement. However, the possibility to use competitive 
procedure with negotiation is explained in the recitals of the above-mentioned directives.  
  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 108 - 
 
  Page 92 (Para 3.233); Page 93 (Para 3.239) 
 8. We note from the Secretariat Report that “The Commission is actively monitoring the respect of EU rules by Member States through infringement procedures and has opened numerous 
cases in recent years against a great number of Member States.” Para 3.233 of the Secretariat 
Report further states that instead of creating a single oversight body in each Member State, the 
Directives provide for increased monitoring at the national level and for an obligation on Member 
States to send a monitoring report to the Commission every three years. In this regard, could the 
Commission share how it ensures that individual Member States, at all levels of government, especially at the municipal level, comply with the EU’s WTO GPA commitments?   
EU reply:  The WTO GPA commitments of the EU are reflected in the EU directives on public 
procurement. These pieces of EU legislation are tr ansposed into the national law of the EU Member 
States. The latter have various mechanisms on national level to enforce legislation which have to 
fulfil some essential requirements imposed by the EU legislation and depend on the administrative 
and judiciary system of each Member state. On EU level infringements of EU procurement law can 
be also pursued by the Commission in its role as guardian of the Treaties via infringement 
proceedings under Articles 258 and 260 TFEU. 
 Page 94 (Para 3.241)  
Could the EU share if national treatment is applied to SMEs of non-EU countries resulting in these 
SMEs being able to enjoy the improved access to the EU’s public procurement market? If this is 
not the case, could the EU explain the impact of this initiative on its WTO GPA commitments and 
its FTA GP commitments, where relevant? Could th e EU clarify how the latest ‘sub-division of 
public purchases into lots’ and the implementation incentive for companies to adopt this through “apply or explain” principle affect/impact market competition by non-EU companies? 
 
EU reply:  When referring to SMEs, the EU Directives on public procurement do not differentiate 
between Member States' EU or non-EU companies. Division into lots is not mandatory and does not result in a quota for SMEs. When assessing whether bids can be selected for the award of a 
specific lot, EU and non-EU SMEs are treated exactly the same way on the basis of objective 
criteria. Therefore, this incentive does not impa ct negatively the competition between EU and non-
EU companies. 
 
Trade Policies by Sector Page 160 (Para 4.131) 
 
9. How did the EU arrive at 0.8% as the targ et level of ex-ante funds of deposit guarantee 
schemes to be collected from banks?  
EU reply:  The choice of the target level depends on the desired level of pre-funding for handling 
the failure of banks of different sizes. It is note d that ex-ante funds are only one way of financing; 
the DGS is also able to levy ex-post contributions. This has been developed based on a 
comprehensive scenario analysis. Part of the study concerning the method of funding for the DGS 
can be found in the impact assessment published on our website: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52010SC0834  
 
Page 167 (Para 4.162)  10. We are supportive of the EU’s efforts to comp lete the banking union. Are there also plans to 
harmonise conditions for foreign bank branches to access the EU market? 
 EU reply: There is currently no plan to harmonise regulation of foreign branches in the EU. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 109 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO WRITTEN QU ESTIONS FROM NEW ZEALAND 
 
WTO Secretariat Report (WT/TPR/S/317) Summary: Rules of Origin 
WT/TPR/S/317, page 8, para 5 
 The Secretariat report notes that the growing number of preferential trade agreements and 
schemes the EU has with other trading partners are requiring a considerable body of law on ROO. 
 Question 1. What initiatives does the EU have under way to simplify the ROO “spaghetti bowl” 
developing through the growth in its regional trade arrangements over recent years?   
 EU reply:  The EU has kept a coherent set of rules of origin in its FTAs. Since 2011 the EU is 
implementing reformed GSP rules of origin whose objective is to simplify but also adapt the rules 
to the new production processes and trade realities. This new approach has been considered in the most recent FTA on-going negotiations therefore the EU cannot anticipate the outcome of these 
negotiations. 
 Summary : Common Agricultural Policy Reform WT/TPR/S/317, page 10, para 13. 
 
The Secretariat report notes that although the reform in the CAP may reduce distortions to production in the EU, as with earlier reforms, th e range of different border policies the EU has in 
place in the agricultural sector (including tariffs, tariff quotas and the use of the special agricultural 
safeguard), mean that EU “agricultural producers will continue to be insulated from changes in international prices”. 
 
Question 2. While New Zealand commends the efforts made by the EU thus far to reduce the market distortions created by the CAP, we would be interested to understand how does the EU consider 
farmers will be able to respond to market ince ntives (as intended under the EU’s CAP Reform 
objectives) when the impact of the wider range of policies, including border protection, that the EU 
has in place in the agricultural sector continues to impede these signals for producers? 
 
EU reply:  The Commission disagrees with the conclusion formulated by New Zealand. For 
instance, the decline in the use of public intervention is a result of the change in policy orientation 
of the CAP from product (price) support through market intervention measures towards producer 
support through income support. Reforms of the CAP since the early 1990s have changed the public intervention policy, decreasing both the ad ministered prices and buying in quantities and 
completely eliminating the system for some produc ts. This was one of the elements of the reforms 
targeted at market orientation for the CAP and thereby contributing to enhancing competitiveness. 
This trend is reflected in the changes in the structure of the CAP budget whereby the share of 
market intervention measures (including export refunds) declined from 100% of total CAP 
expenditure in 1980 to below 5% in 2011. This policy trend is also reflected in the EU's notified 
domestic support where the current total Aggregated Mearure Support (AMS) has decreased dramatically and most CAP support is notified as Green Box compliant decoupled income support. 
Most support to farmers is granted in the form of decoupled direct payments with no obligation to 
produce which allows farmers to respond to market needs. Market intervention measures are maintained in the CAP as a safety net mechanism.  
At the same time long-term price developments on  global markets also contributed to the reduced 
role of the EU's market intervention measures. However, this continued notwithstanding the recent spikes in some commodity prices. The intervention price for wheat has been lower than both the 
EU and world market prices in the last decade, with EU prices following the same trend as 
international prices. The intervention price for beef has been much lower than EU and world market prices during the last 8 years, with EU prices following the same trend as international 
prices. 
 Tariffs are part of the EU's WTO commitments. EU farmers are today fully exposed to world market prices in many sectors including cereals, dairy products and pig meat, where EU markets prices 
are very similar to world market prices and follow the movements in world market prices. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 110 - 
 
  3. What further reforms does the EU see as necessary to ensure farmers are able to clearly 
discern market price signals to guide them as the EU progressively moves to remove quotas on certain products over the period ahead?  
EU reply: The end of the production quotas in the dairy and sugar sectors is in itself the most 
important reform to ensure that EU farmers can clearly discern market signals. No further reforms are planned at this stage.  
 
Section 1.2.2 Extra-EU Trade WT/TPR/S/317, page 18, para. 1.2.7  
According to the Secretariat report the EU’s sh are of world trade in goods and services has 
continued to decline (down to 16.4% in 2013, from 19.5% in 2004 and 17.3% in 2010).  Within that reduced share of merchandise trade, the pie chart on p. 19 indicates that the direction of 
merchandise trade has not changed much over this period, despite significant shifts in the global 
economy over this period.  
4. What does the EU believe are the reasons why its external trade patterns appear not to have 
changed much over recent years, despite important shifts in the global economy over this period, 
including recent strong growth in emerging markets, particularly markets in Asia?  
EU reply:  Even though the EU share of Asian partners' imports did not change much from 2010 to 
2013, EU exports to Asia increased by 27%, with EU exports to China increasing by 31% and to 
Japan by 23%. Over the same period, EU exports to the US increased by 19%.
62 
 
Moreover, as a result of the international fragmentation of production, EU exports embody more foreign value and less domestic value in 2011 compared to 1995 (85% domestically produced 
value added in the EU in 2011 compared to 92% in 1995). 
 Despite the increase of extra-EU exports, the EU's  share of world trade has declined as the growth 
of EU exports has been lower than that of global  trade. Competitors from emerging and developing 
countries, like China, have continued to improve substantially their position in the global market. 
 Another possible explanation for EU's similar trade patterns is that European exporters face credit 
constraints that may have limited any potential expansion of production and investments.
63 
 Section 3 Trade Policies and Practices by Measure 
Section 3.1.1 Customs Procedures 
WT/TPR/S/317, pages 35, 36 and 37, paras 3.2, 3.5 and 3.9  The Secretariat report notes that the Modern Customs Code was repealed before its application in 
2013 and a Union Customs Code (UCC) adopted instead. The UCC entered into force on 20 
October 2013, with the substantive provisions expected to apply from 1 May 2016. Paragraph 3.7 goes on to indicate that the current single authorisation for simplified procedures (which allow the 
applicant to use local clearance procedures or a simplified declaration procedure in more than one 
Member State) will be replaced by authorisation for centralised clearance under the UCC.  
Question 
5. Is the UCC still on target for application of its substantive provisions from 1 May 2016? Will 
the authorisation for centralised clearance be part of the substantive provisions of the UCC due to 
also come into effect from 1 May 2016? Which aspects of the UCC would still not be applied once 
the main provisions come into effect next year?  
 EU reply:   
a) Yes, the foreseen date for the application of UCC is 1 May 2016. 
b) Centralised clearance under the competent IT support will only be applicable on1 October 2020, as mentioned in the Working Programme for UCC. Between 1 May 2016 and the deployment of the 
IT system, centralised clearance will be applied as today’s SASP. 
                                               
62 Eurostat-Comext data 
63 CEPII-CIREM (2013), EU external competitiven ess: recent developments . Available at: 
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/152235.htm  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 111 - 
 
  c) The aspects of UCC that will not be applied on  1 May 2016 are the ones related to the exchange 
and storage of information that require the update  or deployment of the relevant IT systems. 
Those aspects will be governed by a Delegated Act on Transitional IT Measures that is currently being drafted and should be adopted in last quarter of 2015. 
 
According to the Secretariat report (para3.5) more  than 98% of customs declarations submitted in 
the EU are now electronic. Paragraph 3.10 (on page 37) goes on to report that there is 
considerable variance in the processing times reported across different European ports of entry, 
ranging from under one hour to more than two we eks. However, the bulk of the clearances (88%) 
are reported to take place within the one hour period.  
Question 
6. What steps is the EU taking to set and implement targets for processing times across all EU member state ports of entry to bring about convergence towards the emerging EU norm of 
processing being completed within less than a 24 hour period?  
 EU reply:  The European Commission is developing internal measures together with the Member 
States in order to shorten processing times further where this would facilitate legitimate trade. 
Nevertheless, such measures will take into consideration the need to also carry out controls where this is justified for reasons of security and protection. (Please note that the measures referred to above only relates to customs procedures as established in the Customs Code and its 
implementing provisions.) 
 The Secretariat report goes on to note in paragraph 3.9 that the EU Single Window initiative has a 
phased implementation agenda. Under that agenda , the scope of the first phase was defined as 
the automated acceptance of electronic certificates, with a pilot project accepting veterinary certificates (the Common Veterinary Entry Docu ment (CVED)) becoming operational in March 
2014. 
 Question 7. Please outline the intended next phases and the associated timetable for implementation of 
the Single Window initiative in the EU. 
 
EU reply:  T h e  f i r s t  p h a s e  o f  t h e  E U  C u s t o m s  S i n g l e  W i n d o w  i n i t i a t i v e  w i l l  b e  t a r g e t e d  a t  t h e  
automated acceptance of EU certificates, providing national customs administrations direct and 
standardised access to EU certificates issued by other public authorities.  
The ongoing cooperation with veterinary authorities is expected to be extended to all public 
agencies issuing certificates that supplement customs declarations.  
In parallel, the Commission will work on a better harmonisation of data exchanges between 
authorities (format, terminology), so that data included in the certificates can be easily cross-checked with data in the customs declarations. 
 
Section 3.1.4 Tariffs WT/TPR/S/317, page 43, Table 3.2 and para 3.41. 
 
Table 3.2 of the Secretariat report provides furt her detail on the EU’s tariff structure.  This 
provides more disaggregated information than th e average applied tariff rates and demonstrates 
that there is a particularly wide range of tariff rates applied in respect of Chapters 1-24 of the HS 
system (covering agricultural products).  For chap ters 1-24, applied tariffs are recorded as ranging 
from 0-635% (the range for manufactured products under chapters 25-97 is from 0-39%), with a much lower share of duty-free lines at only 15.3% (compared with 28.6% duty-free lines for 
chapters 25-97) and a much higher share of non-ad valorem tariffs at 38.4% (compared with only 
0.8% non- ad valorem tariffs in chapters 25-97.  Further, paragraph 3.41 (on page 43) highlights that agricultural imports continue to face complex tariff structures such as entry price systems and 
the “Meursing Table”.  It goes on to note that, on average, non-ad valorem rates provide higher 
protection than ad valorem rates – with the latter also having the advantage of providing more certainty for traders. 
 
Question 8. Given the notable differences in treatment between different classes of goods, we would be interested to hear about any plans the EU has to address the issues of tariff peaks and tariff WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 112 - 
 
  simplification that are particularly prevalent with  respect to chapters 1-24 of the EU’s tariff 
schedule.  
 EU reply:  The EU's agricultural tariff system is bound in the EU schedule resulting from the 
Uruguay Round Agreement. An explanation is given in its Annex 1. The EU has no plans to 
autonomously change its tariff structure for agricultural products. Any change will result from a successful conclusion to the DDA. In the mean time, the EU will continue to respect its WTO 
commitments. The EU disagree that specific duti es provide higher protection than ad valorem 
duties. On the long run, the specific duties are er oded by inflation while pure ad valorem are not. 
This is particularly relevant in the current perspective of high international prices.  
Section 3.1.4.3 Tariff Suspensions and Tariff Rate Quotas 
WT/TPR/S/317, page 44, para 3.47.  
The Secretariat report suggests that the products that have benefitted from autonomous tariff 
suspension do not include any products from chapters 1-24 of the HS tariff.  
Question 
9. Can the EU please advise whether any products classified in chapters 1-24 of the HS tariff have been granted autonomous tariff suspension over  the last five years?  If there have not been 
any such cases, is this because there were no applications for products falling under these 
chapters? Or were there applications made that were declined?  If so, we would appreciate 
information on the reasons for them being declined.  
EU reply:  The list of existing autonomous tariff suspensions can be found under the following link 
(consolidated version of the Official Journal of the European Union: "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1387/2013 of 17 December 2013 suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties 
on certain agricultural and industrial products and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1344/2011"): 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte nt/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02013R1387-
20150101&qid=1433835938761&from=EN  
 
Information on the requests for autonomous tariff suspensions under discussion can be found 
under the following link http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds2/susp/susp_consultationchapter.jsp?Lang=en  
 
In reply to the question and as it can be seen from the above mentioned document, over the past 
years, the European Union has granted some autonomous tariff suspensions to certain agricultural 
products classified under chapters 1 to 24 of the Harmonised System, mainly for products not 
produced in the EU.  Section 3.1.7: Contingency Measures 
WT/TPR/S/317, pages 46-47, para. 3.61. 
 According to the Secretariat report, the EU is currently in the process of modernising its trade 
defence instruments (for anti-dumping and counter-v ailing duties), with the objective of improving 
transparency in investigations and, in particular, regarding analogue country, injury margin, expiry reviews and the EU's interest. 
 
Question 10. Can the EU please provide more details on the areas of focus for its current review and modernisation of its anti-dumping and counter-vailing duties provisions, as well as an indication of 
its timeline for the implementation of the outcomes of this process. 
 EU reply:  One of the aims of the proposed modern isation of the EU’s TDIs is to improve 
transparency and predictability. As TDIs are ve ry technical instruments, transparency is of 
particular importance in this field. The propos al aims at providing more transparency in the 
investigative process by giving additional inform ation to parties through e.g. advance notice or 
pre-disclosure before imposition of provisional measures. Furthermore, guidelines should provide 
more transparency regarding specific complex elements of an investigation, such as calculation of injury margin, selection of analogue country, expiry reviews and Union interest. These tools aim at facilitating cooperation for parties in TDI proceedings and at further improving the quality of WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 113 - 
 
  investigations. As the proposal is currently under the ordinary legislative procedure, the EU cannot 
give precise indication on its adoption.  
 Section 3.1.8: Technical Regulations and Standards 
WT/TPR/S/317, pages 51, 53 and 54, paras. 3.85 and 3.91. 
 The Secretariat report indicates that draft standards developed by a member state standardisation 
body must be notified to the relevant European Standards Organisation (ESO). It goes on to note 
that the national standardisation bodies may not object to a subject for standardisation in their work programme being considered at the EU level, in accordance with the rules laid down by the ESOs (including a standstill period). Moreover, where a European standard has been developed 
and adopted by the relevant ESO, any conflicting na tional standard must be withdrawn in order to 
ensure the overall coherence of the European standardisation system.  
Question 
11. Can the EU advise what proportion of EU st andards being adopted have been elevated from 
the national to the EU level? Has the EU experien ced any difficulty with subsequent withdrawal of 
conflicting national standards? And what process does the EU have in place to ensure 
harmonisation between member state standards and EU standards?  EU reply: National standards adopted by National Standardisation Bodies of EU Member States 
rarely become European Standards. Internal Regu lations of the ESOs provide for an obligation of 
the implementation of EN (European Standard) at national level by being given the status of a 
national standard and of the withdrawal of any co nflicting national standard. They also provide for 
measures aimed at ensuring coherence of standards.  The European Commission does not have the 
information on the difficulties with withdrawal of conflicting national standards. According to Regulation 1025/2012 at least once a year, each ESO and national standardisation body (NSB) 
shall establish its work programme which shall contain information on the standards and European 
standardisation deliverables which a ESO or NSB intends to prepare or amend, which it is preparing or amending and which it has adopted in the period of the preceding work programme. 
Furthermore, NSBs may not object to a subject for standardisation in their work programme being 
considered at European level and may not undertake any action which could prejudice a decision in 
this regard. Finally, during the preparation of a harmonised standard or after its approval, NSBs shall not take any action which could prejudice the harmonisation intended and, in particular, shall 
not publish in the field in question a new or revised national standard which is not completely in 
line with an existing armonised standard.  
Question 
12. Can the EU please explain how it goes about reconciling any differences that might arise from individual applications to register the names of food products that have already been recognised as generic in the course of international standard setting, in order to uphold the 
outcomes of such international standard setting processes in which it has engaged?  
 EU reply: The EU is of the view that there is rational to protect as GI a name for which an 
international Codex Alimentarius standard was previously defined. While the existence of such a 
standard may constitute an assumption of the generic nature of the name, it does not constitute incontrovertible evidence thereof. Rather, the generic nature of the name has to be fully and 
exhaustively demonstrated for the territory in question; this, as regards the individual EU 
applications, is evaluated on case-by-case basis.  The Secretariat report goes on to record (in para. 3.91) that in 2014 the European Commission 
received 258 notifications from member states on  decisions that had the effect of rendering non-
applicable mutual recognition of goods between EU member states.  
Question 
13. Can the EU please advise how this number of notification of non-application of goods mutual 
recognition compares with previous years? What ha s been the trend in this regard?  How many of 
these notifications affected products supplied from outside the EU?  
 EU reply: Articles 6(2) and 7(2) of Regulation (E C) No 764/2008 ("the Mutual Recognition 
Regulation") establish the obligation for the national authorities to notify to economic operators 
and to the Commission, respectively, decisions referred to in Article 2(1) (i.e. the prohibition of the WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 114 - 
 
  placing on the market, the modification or additional testing of a product before it can be placed or 
kept on the market, and the withdrawal from the market) and other decisions establishing the temporary suspension of the marketing of a product.  
During 2014 the Commission received 258 notifications; 310 in 2013, and 433 in 2012; thus it 
seems fair to assume this is a decreasing trend. 
As mutual recognition in general, and notifications pertaining to the application of the Mutual 
Recognition in particular, refer to products that have been previously lawfully marketed in at least 
one EU Member State, independently of their origin. No details or statistics exist as whether they were initially supplied from outside the EU. 
Section 3.3.5 Government Procurement 
WT/TPR/S/317, page 88, 89, 91, paras 3.215, 3.220 and 3.228. 
 The Secretariat report notes that the pre-existing legal framework for the EU directives on 
procurement was replaced in April 2014 by a new set of directives.  It goes on to advise that this 
new set of directives requires transposition into national law by Member States and that a period of 24 months has been allowed for this process (with 30 months for the transposition of the 
provisions on e-procurement). 
 Question 14. Can the EU please provide an update on progress to date in the transposition to national law 
of the new set of procurement directives?   
 EU reply :The 3 public procurement Directives ( 2014/23/EU 2014/24/EU and2014/25/EU) have 
been agreed and came into force on 17 April 2014. Member States must transpose the Directives 
into national law within 24 months; this means that Member States have to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive by 18 April 
2016. Member States are in the process of doing so. 
 What measures has the EU taken to ensure this process will be completed within the permitted timeframe? 
 
EU reply:  As of 18 april 2016 the Commission may take action if a Member State fails to 
incorporate EU directives into its national law and to report/communicate to the Commission what 
measures it has taken or if the Commssion finds that the national measures are incomplete.  
 Questions 
15. How does the EU determine relative priorities between its overarching “value for money” 
criteria and the range of other considerations it has established in its procurement rules?  What 
weighting is assigned to these different factors?  
EU reply: In award of a contract the ‘most economical ly advantageous tender’ is the overriding 
concept, since all winning tenders should finally be chosen in accordance with what the individual contracting authority considers to be the economically best solution among those offered. Most 
economically advantageous tender could be assessed either on the basis of the price or costs or on 
the basis of the best price-quality ratio. The best price-quality ratio can be determined by reference to various criteria, including qualitative, environmental and/or social aspects, relating to 
the subject matter of the contract. 
 The Directive clarifies that to identify the most  economically advantageous tender, the contract 
award decision should not be based on non-cost criteria only. Qualitative criteria should therefore 
always be accompanied by a cost criterion that could be either the price or a cost-effectiveness 
approach such as life-cycle costing.  
It is up to contracting authorities to specify the relative weighting which they give to each of the 
criteria chosen to determine the most economically advantageous tender, except where this is identified on the basis of price alone. It is sp ecificed that award criteria have to ensure an 
objective comparison of the relative value of the tenders in order to determine, in conditions of 
effective competition, which tender is the most economically advantageous tender.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 115 - 
 
  16. How does the EU calculate the environmenta l externalities component of the “life-cycle 
costing” approach it has introduced?  What international benchmarks does the EU refer to in calculating this aspect, “including CO2 footprint” of such environmental externalities?  
EU reply: Life cycle costs can include costs imputed to environmental externalities, such as 
pollution caused by extraction of the raw materials used in the product or caused by the product itself or its manufacturing, provided they can be monetised and monitored. The Directive foresees 
that the methods which contracting authorities can use for assessing costs imputed to 
environmental externalities should be established in advance in an objective and non-discriminatory manner and be accessible to all interested parties. Such methods can be established at national, regional or local level, but they should, to avoid distortions of competition through 
tailor-made methodologies, remain general in the sense that they should not be set up specifically 
for a particular public procurement procedure. If the EU establishes common methodologies for the calculation of life-cycle costs for specific categories of supplies or services their use will be 
compulsory. An example of EU methodology for calculation which monetizes the cost of energy 
consumption, C02 emissions and other pollutant em issions is represented by Directive 2009/33/EC 
of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of clean and energy-efficient road 
transport vehicles, explicitly referred to in Annex XIII to the new public procurement Directives. It 
requires public authorities and some other operators to take into account the impact of these vehicles during their operational lifetime in term s of energy consumption, CO2 emissions and other 
pollutant emissions. 
 
Question 17. What plans does the EU have for harmonising and improving data collection on government 
procurement across Member States?  
 EU reply:  The reformed Directive foresees that Commission will review the quality and 
completeness of data that can be extracted from the notices, which are published in TED and 
might request complementary information from the Member State concerned.  
 Section 3.3.6.2.7: Undisclosed Information 
WT/TPR/S/317, page 110-111, para 3.300 
 The Secretariat report notes that the protection of  trade secrets is not harmonized in the EU and 
that the “major differences currently encountered in national laws … have resulted in a 
fragmentation of the Union market that negatively affects cross-border collaboration”.  It goes on to report on a Commission proposal for a directive in this area, which – “with the aim of creating 
an innovation-friendly envi ronment” - proposes that different civil law regimes be harmonized at a 
minimum level, whilst allowing member  States to apply stricter rules. 
 Question 
18. We would be interested in an update from th e EU on the current situation with respect to 
development and passage of this proposed directive,  together with an explanation of the specific 
ways in which it has worked to shape this proposal in order to take into account the need to foster 
an “innovation-friendly environment”? 
 EU reply:  On November 2013 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive harmonizing the 
national laws of the Member States of the Euro pean Union on the protection of trade secrets 
against misappropriation. Criminal sanctions are out of the scope of this proposal The EU's Ordinary Legislative Procedure applies to this proposal. 
 
Section 4: Trade Policies by Sector 
Section 4.2.3.1 Domestic Support WT/TPR/S/317, page 126, paras 4-30. 
 
The Secretariat’s report notes that member states may reserve up to 8% of the national envelope for coupled support, with 2% more allowed for protein crops, taking it to 10%. New Zealand 
understands that the maximum allowable percenta ge is 13% for members whose level of coupled 
support exceeded 5% in at least one of the ye ars of the period 2010-2014 (plus 2% for protein 
crops). Members may also exceed these limits with the Commission’s approval.  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 116 - 
 
  Questions 
19. How many members are entitled to use a maximum allowable use of 13% of the national envelope (plus 2% for protein crops)?  Will they retain these rights indefinitely?  
EU reply:  A total of 11 EU Member States (Spain, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Latvia, Bulgaria, 
Czech Republic, France, Croatia, Lithuania, Hungar y, Poland and Sweden) out of 27 having decided 
to implement voluntary coupled support, will use the maximum percentage of 13% with 9 of them 
also using all or part of the additional 2% available in case a corresponding percentage is 
dedicated to supporting the protein crops sector (see table below). 
IE NL LU UK AT DK EE EL CY IT ES RO SK SE LV BG CZ FR HR LT HU PL SI BE FI PT MT 
0.2% 0.5% 0.5% 1.7% 2.1% 2.8% 4.2% 7.4% 7.9% 11% 12% 12% 13% 13% 14% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 17% 20% 21% 57%
 
Member States cannot retain these rights indefinitely. The decision to use the maximum allowance for voluntary coupled support is valid during the period 2015-2020. Member States may review 
their initial decisions by 1 August 2016 with effe ct from 2017. Such reviewed decisions shall be 
notified to the European Commission.  
20. Table A4.1 shows that 18 members are using mo re than 10% of their envelope on voluntary 
coupled support, including 5 members using over 15%. Which members have been granted permission by the Commission to exceed their limit, and what criteria is used when making this decision? 
 
EU reply: Only four Member States are using over 15 % of their annual national envelope of 
Direct Payments for voluntary coupled support.  
 
The decisions notified by 3 of them (Belgium, Finland, Portugal) were subject to European 
Commission approval for allocating more than 15% (13% +2 % for crops) of their national envelopes of Direct Payments for voluntary coupled support. In the case of Malta, a maximum 
amount, instead of a percentage of national ceiling, to be used for voluntary coupled support was 
fixed by legislation in order to address the particular structure of its agricultural sector where breeding animals without land are largely predominant. 
 
Criteria for approval by the Commission are laid down in Article 55 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014. 
 
EU Member States may decide to use part of their national ceilings for direct payments for financing coupled support in clearly defined cases where specific types of farming or specific agricultural sectors that are particularly important for economic and/or social and/or 
environmental reasons undergo certain difficulties in  terms of risk of decline or of abandonment of 
production. Payments shall be granted within defi ned quantitative limits and based on fixed areas 
and yields or on a fixed number of animals to the extent necessary to create an incentive to 
maintain current levels of production. 
 When implementing the voluntary coupled support, the Member States shall fix a quantitative limit 
which shall reflect at least one year in the period of five years preceding th e year of their decision 
to implement the scheme. They define the eligib ility criteria. They shall ensure consistency 
between specific support measures and measures implemented under other EU support instruments, as well as measures funded by state aids for support measures and avoid 
accumulation of support with such other measures. The notification of the decisions to the 
Commission is subject to compliance with several requirements regarding the content of the support measures envisaged including the description of the difficulties identified and the criteria 
applied for the related targeting. They must also ensure that the support measures they 
implement are verifiable and controllable.  
21. Information published by the Commission shows that voluntary coupled support spending for 
2015 is concentrated in a few sectors, with beef and veal getting a 42% share of total spending, milk getting a 20% share and sheep and goat meat getting a 12% share. Given the trade WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 117 - 
 
  distorting effects of coupled support, has the EU considered setting limits on how much of a 
member’s voluntary coupled support can go to specific sectors?  EU reply: EU legislation does not include provisions setting the limits on how much of a Member 
State's voluntary coupled support can go to specific sectors as it is considered that Member States 
are in the best place to identify difficulties and needs for support on their territory and to target one or several sectors or types of farming accordin gly, within the limit of the maximum percentage 
of the national ceiling allowed to be used for financing the scheme. Also, the fact that the support 
can only be granted to the extent necessary to maintain current levels of production ensures that no sector is over-compensated.  
22. The Commission noted that the coupled supp ort should only be granted to the extent 
necessary to create an incentive to maintain current  levels of production in the sectors or regions 
concerned.  Is there any mechanism in place to ensure the use of voluntary coupled support 
achieves this goal and does not lead to increased levels of production?  
 EU reply:  First, the setting of voluntary coupled support will be used only when there is a risk of 
decline or abandonment of production in a determin ed region or sector. Second, quantitative limits 
(area or number of animals) reflecting the level of production reached in a past reference period in 
the sector concerned (see above reply to question 20) are applicable to each support measure. Third, on the basis of the decision notified by  the Member States, the European Commission fixes 
each year a budgetary ceiling for coupled support which cannot be overshot. The EU will continue 
to respect its WTO domestic support limits.  
Secretariat report para 4.32 (p. 126) indicates that the list of products to which intervention or 
private storage aid is available had not changed since 2013.  
23. What consideration is being given to revising and reducing this list of products for which 
such assistance is available, particularly in the co ntext of the lifting of production quotas on certain 
products over the period ahead?  If all products are expected to remain on the list for which this assistance is available, what mechanisms does the EU have in place to control budgetary 
expenditure under this category of assistance? 
 EU reply: The list of products eligible for market support in the form of public intervention and 
private storage aid was fixed in the 2013 CAP reform and will remain in place unless further 
reviewed in the context, for example, of a future CAP reform. The instruments now operate as safety net and in this regard buying-in to public intervention has not occurred since 2009 (for 
cereals and dairy products) and since 2002 (for beef ). Public intervention is available at a fixed 
price for up to 3 million tonnes of common wheat, 50,000 tonnes of butter and 109,000 tonnes of skimmed milk powder. Thereafter, buying-in would ta ke place by means of tendering procedures if 
necessary. Private Storage aid is fixed either by means of tendering procedures or by means of a 
fixed amount usually available for a limited period of time. 
 For further information see Regulation (UE) No 1308/2013. 
 
Section 4.2.3.2: Export Subsidies WT/TPR/S/317, page 132, para 4.51 
 
The Secretariat report indicates that in July 2013 all export subsidy rates were set at zero and the new rules under the Common Organisation of Markets states that “the [export] refund available should be zero” in other than “exceptional circumstances”. 
 
24. New Zealand congratulates the EU on this move  and on the restraint it has exercised to date 
in its assessment of “exceptional circumstances”.  What mechanisms does the EU have in place to 
ensure no loosening of this criterion in the future ? 
 EU reply: As referred in Paragraph 3.129 of the report of the secretariat, the EU set export 
refunds at zero for all agriculture products on 13 July 2013. The new CAP reform clearly states 
that "Without prejudice to the application of Article 219(1) and 221, the refund available … shall be EUR 0." (see Article 196(3) of CMO Regulation 1308/2013). As such, the EU's new Common Agricultural Policy provides that export subsidies cannot be used other than as an exceptional 
measure.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 118 - 
 
  Fisheries 
 The EU is a major global player in fisheries in terms of catch, fishing fleet and trade.  It is also estimated to be the largest provider of fisher ies subsidies.  The reform of the EU’s Common 
Fisheries Policy, including its fisheries fund, is therefore to be welcomed. We note in particular that 
the EMFF states that it “shall not result in an increase in fishing capacity” (Regulation 508/2014, Article 5) and to this end Article 11 explicitly prohibits the provision of subsidies to particularly 
harmful activities, including: 
 (a) operations increasing the fishing capacity of a vessel or equipment increasing the ability of a vessel to find fish;  
 
(b) the construction of new fishing vessels or the importation of fishing vessels;   
(c) the temporary or permanent cessation of fishing activities, unless otherwise provided for in this 
Regulation;   
(d) exploratory fishing;  
 (e) the transfer of ownership of a business.  
The EU subsidy regime therefore appears to be consistent with the Hong Kong negotiating 
mandate to prohibit fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity.    
Questions 
2 5 .  W h a t  m e a s u r e s  o r  r e f o r m  p l a n s  d o e s  t h e  E U  h a v e  t o  e n s u r e  t h a t  i t s  s u b s i d i e s  d o  n o t  contribute to overfishing?  How does the EU ensure that its fisheries subsidies do not affect 
overfished stocks? 
 The EU is a global leader in the fight against IUU fishing. We understand that the Commission has recently undertaken a review of the IUU Fishing Regulation. 
 
EU reply:  In 2013, the EU adopted a fundamental reform of its Common Fisheries Policy which 
aims to ensure high long-term fishing yields for all stocks by 2015 where possible, and at the 
latest by 2020. This is referred to as maximum sustainable yield. Another increasingly important 
aim is to reduce unwanted catches and wasteful practices to the minimum or avoid them altogether, through the gradual introduction of a la nding obligation. Hence, it is not just that EU 
support measures (i.e. subsidies) but that any EU fishing activity does not contribute to 
overfishing.  Total allowable catches (TACs) or fishing opportunities are set for most commercial fish stocks 
based on scientific advice on the stock status from  advisory bodies such as ICES and STECF. For 
stocks that are shared and jointly managed with non-EU countries, the TACs are agreed with those 
(groups of) non-EU countries. To enforce common-fisheries-policy rules, there is a control system 
(Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009) designed to ensure  that only the allowed quantities of fish are 
caught, to collect the necessary data for managing fishing opportunities and to guarantee the rules are applied to all fishers in the same way, wi th harmonized sanctions across the EU and that 
fisheries products can be traced back and checked throughout the supply chain, from net to plate 
 The new rules adopted in 2015 (described in Table 3.10, page 68 on EU state aid on fisheries) stipulate that where a competent authority has determined that an operator has committed a 
serious infringement under Article 42(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008  or Article 90(1) of 
Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, applications for public support from the European Maritime and 
Fisheries Fund by that operator shall be inadmissible. 
 
Question 26. Could the EU please provide a summary of th e review process, and whether we can expect 
any further action as a result? How does the EU ensure that its fisheries subsidies do not support 
or encourage IUU fishing?  EU reply: The EU's IUU Regulation 1005/2008 aims at  preventing the marketing of fisheries 
products in the EU resulting from IUU fishing. The EU does not currently have immediate plans of WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 119 - 
 
  amending this Regulation, though the European  Commission will publish soon a Communication 
informing on its implementation and possible future actions.  As stated above, new rules adopted in 2015 stipulate that operators who have been found in 
breach of IUU rules can be rendered inadmissible for EU financial support for a determinate period 
of time.  
E-Commerce 
WT/TPR/S/317, page 153 and 158, paras. 4.112 and 4.122.  The Secretariat report notes that e-commerce has grown quickly in the period from 2009-2014, 
but that it still represents a relatively low proportion of EU trade (6-7% of annual retail market, up 
from 3.2% in 2009).  
27. Can the EU explain the reasons for this relatively low level of uptake and use of e-commerce 
platforms? What proportion of this total e-commerce trade is internal EU trade and what proportion is extra-EU trade? How has this figure been changing over time? 
 
EU reply:  e-Commerce is growing rapidly in the EU at an average annual growth rate of 22%, 
surpassing EUR 200 billion in 2014 and reaching a sh are of 7% of total retail sales. Out of this, 
40% of sales are by pure Internet retailers which operate only online and around 14% corresponds 
to mobile commerce. Online sales are concentrated on a limited number of products such as 
clothing and footwear, consumer electronics and appliances and media products, which represent nearly half of all online e-commerce transactions (49%). 
 
Online sales represent a much larger proportion of services. For instance, in the travel and tourism sector – one of the activities most affected by the Internet revolution – online sales represent 
some 40% of total retail sales. In 2013 in the EU , online sales in this sector reached a volume 
close to EUR 70 billion.  European firms have been slow in adapting to se lling online. The proportion of firms selling online 
has been growing rather modestly over recent years, increasing only from 12% in 2009 to 15% in 
2014. Turnover from online sales has similarly increased from 12% to 15%.  
For the vast majority of online sellers these el ectronic sales are not their major distribution 
channel; indeed, for two thirds of them, onli ne sales account for less than 25% of sales. 
 
On average, 80% of EU online expenditures go to domestic shops. Consumers in smaller Member 
States have a stronger tendency to shop across borders because local supply and variety is more limited and better price deals may be found across the border25. Regressions based on data from a 2015 consumer survey show that the probabilit y of doing cross-border e-commerce increases by 
4% when cheaper prices, and by 7% when better quality, are cited as the main reasons to shop 
online for the average European online shopper. Among the top 100 online retailers, 52% only sell in their home country. While 17% of SMEs in the EU sell online (which is already very low), only 
7% sell cross-border to other EU countries. 
 Lowering the cost of resolving complaints and disp utes could increase the likelihood of engaging in 
cross-border e-commerce by 9%. Similarly, limiting the suppliers’ restrictions to selling abroad 
would induce an increase in the propensity to sell online across the border by 11%. Finally, 
reducing delivery prices could boost the probability of European firms engaging in cross-border e-commerce by 7.5%. Looking on a sector by sector basis, for retailers the biggest impact would 
come from lifting restrictions by suppliers to sel ling abroad (20%), while copyright restrictions are 
the most important for information and communication providers (31%).  
Further, the Secretariat report (in para 4.122) also refers to the EU’s current work on a Digital 
Single Market Package designed to address hindra nces to cross-border e-commerce as part of the 
work on the internal single market. 
 
Further, the Secretariat report (in para 4.122) also refers to the EU’s current work on a Digital Single Market Package designed to address hindra nces to cross-border e-commerce as part of the 
work on the internal single market. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 120 - 
 
  28. Which specific “hindrances” is this package aimed at addressing? How will this package treat 
e-commerce transactions with suppliers from external partners of the EU?  EU reply:  The Commission's scoping exercise preparing the Digital Single Market Strategy 
identified a number of regulatory barriers wit hholding the development of e-commerce in the EU. 
Tackling regulatory fragmentation (e.g. in consum er protection, security and data protection), 
providing legal uncertainty (e.g. taxation; liability) and bringing down high compliance costs (e.g. 
e-Government instruments and online information) is a priority. In this regard, and as set out in 
the Digital Single Market Strategy, the Commission will make a proposal before the end of 2015 (i) 
covering harmonised EU rules for online purchases of  digital content, and (ii) allowing traders to 
rely on their national laws based on a focused set of key mandatory EU contractual rights for 
domestic and cross-border online sales of tangib le goods. To increase cross-border delivery 
options within the EU and make prices more competitive the Commission will launch measures in the first half of 2016 to improve price transparen cy and enhance regulatory oversight of parcel 
delivery.  
 Section 4.3.3.2: Regulatory Framework: Services 
WT/TPR/S/317, page 158, para 4.118 refers. 
 In paragraph 1.26 of the Secretariat report reference is made to the OECD having recommended removing internal market barriers to boost intra-EU trade and economic growth. Further, in 
paragraph 4.118 the Commission is quoted as observing that while the Services Directive has 
contributed to simplifying authorization procedures, their complexity, their length and their cost still varies between and within Member States.  The report goes on to note that similarly, while the 
Services Directive has ensured that applications are dealt with more objectively, there are still 
problems in practice at the local level.  
Question 
29. In this light, New Zealand welcomes the Directive on Intra-Corporate Transferees noted in paragraph 3.19 of the EU report (Doc. WT/TPR/G/317), which represents a useful harmonisation of rules for both Intra-EU and suppliers, and should facilitate trade. Does the EU have any further 
plans to liberalise services (or further harmonise regulation) within the EU and to extend such 
plans to third parties, recognising the benefits th is holds for its own competitiveness in services 
and other sectors?  
 
EU reply:  The main priority of the EU regarding the EU services market is to improve the 
enforcement of the existing rule book. The Services Directive (SD), which was adopted in 2006 with 
an implementation deadline at the end of 2009, co vers economic activities representing 46% of EU 
GDP. During the last couple of years the Commiss ion has focused on the ambitious implementation 
of the SD – supporting EU Member States in th eir work and organising mutual evaluations, 
performance checks and peer reviews in order to improve the application of the rules. The 
Commission will continue this work and remains dedicated to improve the uniform application of 
the SD, fight unjustified discriminatory practises an d work for a better overall functioning internal 
services markets. 
 
Furthemore, it should be noted that services reforms are a reoccurring theme in the Country Specific Recommendations (CSRs) on structural reforms that the Commission and Council adopted 
on a yearly basis as part of the European Semester (see the WTO Secretariat section on EU macro 
economic developments for further details). Even if Member States are not obliged to take on-
board the recommendations made, several have done so thereby contributing to improving national services market to the benefit of the single market  
 
During the fourth quarter of 2015, the European Commission will come forward with its "Internal Market Strategy". In terms of services markets, the strategy will announce policy initiatives to 
address remaining barriers to services trade (including through an improved use of the mutual 
recognition principle in key sectors), to further simplify administrative procedures (building on the Points of Single Contact) and to ensure consumers can make better use of their internal market 
rights when it comes to purchasing services cross-border. 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 121 - 
 
  Finally, as stated in the recently adopted European Agenda on Migration64, the European 
Commission will assess possible ways to provide legal certainty to well-trained, highly-skilled foreign professionals who need to travel to the EU for short periods in order to provide services to 
businesses or governments. 
 
Telecommunications WT/TPR/S/317, page 142-143, para 4.77 and 4.81 
 
The Secretariat notes that an impact assessment report into the costs of a “non-Europe” in telecommunications have been found to be considerable, with one of the main obstacles to achievement of a single market in telecommunicati ons being “heterogeneity in the implementation 
of the EU’s telecommunications rules” and “lack of EU standards for inter-operability” to enable 
service provision across the EU.  
The report goes on to note (in para 4.81) that new provisions under consideration by the EU would 
give the Commission the power to “block national decisions on remedies on cross-border operations” in order to ensure a consistent application of EU regulations. 
 
30. When are these new powers for the EU Commission expected to go into effect and what other plans does the EU have in train to address the “heterogeneity” of implementation in the EU’s 
rules in the telecommunications sector? 
 
EU reply: The proposed measures of the "Connected  Continent" legislative package of the 
Commission presented on 11 Septembre 2013 that are listed under para. 4.81 of the TPR report 
have been removed from the legislative text that is being negotiated by the EU co-legislators. As 
indicated in its Communication of 5 May 2015 on a Digital Single Market strategy for Europe
65, the 
Commission will present new proposals in 2016 for an ambitious overhaul of the telecoms 
regulatory framework focusing on delivering   " the conditions for a true single market by tackling 
regulatory fragmentation to allow economies of scale for efficient network operators and service 
providers and effective protection of consumers".  
                                               
64 (COM(2015)240). 
65 COM(2015) 192 final, http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/digital-single-market/docs/dsm-
communication_en.pdf. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 122 - 
 
  EU RESPUESTAS A LAS PREGUNTAS DE ARGENTINA  
 I. INFORME DEL GOBIERNO (WT/TPR/G/317) Párrafo 3.7. 
 
 ¿Podría la UE informar sobre el estado de la propuesta de Reglamento por el que se 
establecerían criterios de reciprocidad para el acceso al mercado europeo de compras 
públicas?;  
  ¿Podría la UE informar como la eventual aprobación de esta medida restrictiva afectaría las 
negociaciones de libre comercio en curso?  
 
EU reply to the two questions above: The proposal for an International Procurement 
Instrument is currently under review. As noted in the Commission working programme for 2015, 
the Commission intends to amend it in accordance with the priorities of the new Commission in 
order to simplify it and to reduce the number of actors.  It is at this point in time not possible to say exactly when a revised proposal may be tabled.  
 
II. INFORME DE LA SECRETARÍA  DE LA OMC (WT/TPR/S/317) 
SISTEMA GENERALIZADO DE PREFERENCIAS: 3.1.3.2. Preferencial Rules 
Umbral 
 Párrafo 3.24:  Desde el 1ro de enero de 2014 entró en vigor un nuevo esquema por el cual un 
número significativo de países en desarrollo han dejado de ser beneficiarios del SGP (Reglamento 
UE 978/2012) en función de un umbral de ingreso per cápita escogido por la UE.   
Este umbral ha efectivamente excluido a país es en desarrollo como la Argentina, cuya 
participación en el comercio mundial es de 0,43% y cuyas exportaciones a la UE se componen principalmente de productos de escaso valor ag regado. Al mismo tiempo, ha permitido que otros 
socios comerciales, de participación en el comercio mundial sustantiva y concentrada en bienes 
manufacturados, continúen beneficiándose del SGP.  
 
 ¿No considera la UE que el criterio de renta per cápita puede haber conducido a distorsiones 
en el diseño del SGP como herramienta de ayuda al desarrollo?  
 EU reply:  The Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) has been revised in order to maintain its 
relevance as a pro-development tool by focusing help on the countries most in need. Thus, GSP 
benefits are granted to all those developing countries which share a common developing need and are in a similar stage of economic development. Countries which are classified by the World Bank 
as high-income or upper-middle income countries have per capita income levels allowing them to 
attain higher levels of diversification without th e scheme’s tariff preferences. They, therefore, do 
not share the same development, trade and financial needs as the remaining developing countries. Furthermore, the use of tariff preferences prov ided under the scheme by high- income or upper-
middle income countries increases the competitive pressure on exports from poorer, more 
vulnerable countries and therefore could impose unjustifiable burdens on those more vulnerable developing countries.  
 
DEFENSA COMERCIAL 3.1.7. Contingency measures 3.1.7.1 Overview 
Modernización de los instrumentos de de fensa comercial (Documento COM(2013) 192 
final de la CE)  
Párrafo 3.61.:  En relac ión con el proyecto de “modernización” de los ins trumentos de defensa 
comercial, la UE ha respondido con anterioridad que: “Many WTO members do not apply the lesser 
duty rule at all, and some apply it occasionally on  a case by case basis. Therefore, not applying the 
lesser duty rule in certain cases is in full compliance with the WTO agreements” . 
66 
 
                                               
66 . Pregunta  N 6. Documento  RD/TPR/192.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 123 - 
 
   ¿Cuál es la racionalidad de aplicar la regla en forma selectiva?, y en tal caso ¿Qué criterios 
se seguirían?  
 EU reply: During the past years, EU industry has increasingly come to face unfair practices other 
than "classic" dumping and subsidisation. Among these are structural raw material distortions or 
bigger state aid. Such practices result in signif icant competitive disadvantages for EU producers. 
They have a direct impact on injury of the EU industry and more generally on the conditions of 
competition, since these distortions generate the injurious imports.  
 3.1.7.2. Anti-dumping and countervailing Empleo de las medidas de defensa comercial 
 
Párrafo 3.71: El informe de la Secretaría indica que varias medidas anti dumping han estado en 
vigor por más de diez años (p. 3.63). También revela que un número relativamente reducido de 
sectores concentra un número importante de medidas. 
 
 ¿No podrían constituir estos datos un indicador del uso de las herramientas de defensa 
comercial como instrumento de protección sectorial?  
 EU reply: The Commission applies the provisions laid down in the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation 
in an objective and non-discriminatory fashion in all the investigations. The process is complaint 
driven and is available to all sectors of industry.  
 La Comisión ha propuesto al Consejo y al Parlamento la publicación de “Guidelines” sobre la 
definición “interés de la Unión”, reconsideración por expiración, visiones, margen de daño y país 
análogo.   
 ¿Piensa la Comisión publicar en el futuro la s “guidelines” sobre determinación de márgenes 
de daño en las investigaciones por dumping y subvenciones?  
 EU reply: The modernisation package is under co-legislative procedure. The guidelines are part of 
this package and their adoption is pendin g the outcome of the legislative process. 
 ARANCELES 
3.1.4. Tariffs 
Picos arancelarios  
Párrafo 3.41.  El informe de la Secretaría incluye algunos ejemplos de Equivalentes ad Valorem 
(EVA) de aranceles NMF de la UE para productos agrícolas. Numerosos productos, tales como carne de ave, hongos, jugo de uva, enfrentan aranceles superiores a 100%.  
 ¿Qué justificación económica se encuentra para aranceles tan elevados?  
 
EU reply:  The EU is the world's largest importer of agriculture products, with imports exceeding 
EUR 98 billion in 2014. The EU has only a limited number of tariff peaks, which were accepted and 
bound as part of the Uruguay Round Agreement. The EU has concluded and continues to negotiate ambitious FTA agreements to reduce agricultural tariffs in bilateral trade. A successful conclusion 
of the DDA would lead to a reduction in tariffs on an MFN basis. In the meantime the EU will 
continue to respect its WTO commitments.  
 
 ¿Por qué razón la UE no aprovechó el contexto de la reforma de la Política Agrícola Común y 
los altos precios internacionales para alinear su sistema arancelario con el resto de los 
miembros de la OMC?   
EU reply: CAP reform is not intended to change the EU's agricultural tariffs. Any change will result 
from a successful conclusion to the DDA. In the meantime, the EU will continue to respect its WTO commitments. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 124 - 
 
  BIOCOMBUSTIBLES 
3.1.8. Technical regulations and standards Limite para ciertos bi ocombustibles y ILUC 
 
En la reciente reforma de las Directivas sobre energías renovables y sobre calidad de los 
combustibles se establece que la contribución total máxima de los biocarburantes producidos a partir de cereales, almidón, azucares y oleaginosa s y, en general todo cultivo principalmente con 
fines energéticos a la cuota de energía procedente de fuentes renovables no podrá superar el 7% 
del consumo final de energía en el transporte en 2020 en los Estados miembro (Articulo 3, apartado 4, letra d de la Directiva 2009/28 CE).    
 ¿Teniendo en cuenta que los biocombustibles incl uidos en esta categoría son, desde el punto 
de vista de las reglas de la OMC “like products” en comparación con otros biocombustibles, como justifica la UE la introducción de esa limitación cuantitativa para su ingreso al 
mercado europeo de biocombustibles sustentables?  
 
EU reply : The review of the Directive is still in the legislative process. The main elements of the 
possible outcome of the on-going legislative proce ss is to limit the contribution food crop based 
biofuels can make towards the target for renewable energy in 2020 at max 7%. The 7% limit applies regardless of the origin of the food crop based biofuels. There is no limit as to the entry of sustainable biofuels into the EU market. The 10% target for renewable energy in transport in 2020 
is maintained. 
 
 ¿Teniendo en cuenta que se establece como techo el “consumo final de energía en 
transporte en 2020 en los Estados miembro”, podría la UE clarificar cual es el momento en 
el tiempo en que se debe hacer efectiva esta limitación?  
 
EU reply : The limit the contribution food crop based biofuels can make towards the target for 
renewable energy applies for the year 2020.  La reforma de las directivas incluye en como apartado 11 del artículo 2 de la Directiva 98/70/CE 
una categoría de “biocarburantes con bajo riesgo de cambio indirecto del uso de la tierra.” El 
considerando (recital) 19 hace referencia a “regímenes de fomento de la productividad”.   
 ¿A qué clase de “regímenes que reduzcan el riesgo de desplazamiento de la producción o de 
fomento de la productividad se refiere la UE? Se encuentran regímenes de este tipo vigentes en los Estados miembro de la UE? 
 
EU reply:  Such systems do not exist in the EU at this stage.  
 En la Directiva 2009/28 CE se introduce un nuevo Anexo VII. Los valores medios allí consignados 
deben ser empleados por los Estados miembro a los fines de informar la reducción de emisiones de 
gases de efecto invernadero. Este anexo contempla tres grupos de materias primas  
 ¿Considera la UE razonable englobar en solo tres categorías a productos elaborados a partir 
de decenas de materias primas diferentes, países de origen y procesos productivos? ¿Qué clase de confianza podrían merecer estos resultados?  
 
EU reply:  We assume that the question refers to Annex VIII (and not to Annex VII): The 
“provisional estimated indirect land-use change emissions from biofuels” contained therein are grouped into three categories because the underly ing scientific assessment found only insignificant 
differences in the mean values for the group of feedstocks which fall respectively into one of the 
three groups. The table does also provide the rang e of the values resulting from the sensitivity 
analysis, which makes the inherent uncertainty transparent.  
 
 ¿Podría la UE informar si se encuentra realizando estudios científicos o está analizando la 
información provista por terceros, que permitan establecer valores para la producción de 
biodiesel con métodos y sistemas productivos diferentes a los utilizados en la UE?. Si así 
fuera ¿podría estimar algún plazo para la aplicación de los mismos?   
EU reply:  We assume that the question refers to Annex VIII (and not to Annex VII): Past and on-
going ILUC assessments fully take into account in detail where and how biofuels (and feedstocks) WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 125 - 
 
  used in the EU are being produced. The estimated mean values are averages because the intention 
is to inform about the overall ILUC impact of biofuels used in the EU. The Commission has no intention to calculate country-specific ILUC values. The values in Annex VIII will be used by fuel suppliers and the Commission for reporting only an d that they do not have any other regulatory 
purpose. In particular, they do not change in any way the sustainability status of any consignment 
of biofuel.  
 
Párrafo 3.93:  Esquema de certificación para biocombustibles  
En el año 2011 la Cámara Argentina de Exportadores de Biocombustibles solicitó a la UE la aprobación de su esquema “CARBIO Sustainability Certification Scheme”.  Hasta la fecha no se han 
producido avances en el proceso de autorización. Un esquema semejante fue aprobado por la 
Autoridad ambiental de los Estados Unidos (EPA) en enero de 2015. 
 
 ¿Podría informar la UE las razones para no aprobar este esquema mientras que sí se han 
aprobado otros?  
 EU reply:  The Commission has spent already significant resources in the assessment of the 
“CARBIO Sustainability Certification Scheme”. Several versions of the scheme have been assessed 
and the results have been discussed with scheme representatives in several meetings and phone 
conferences. Unfortunately, so far none of the su bmitted versions of the scheme could provide the 
necessary safeguards required to demonstrate compliance with the EU sustainability criteria for 
biofuels. One reason is that the “CARBIO Sustainability Certification Scheme" aims to apply a 
significantly different approach than the volunt ary schemes which have been recognized by the 
Commission so far. It focusses on the use of satellite maps to verify compliance with the 
sustainability criteria concerning land use and aims to conduct compliance checks for relatively 
large areas instead of individual operators. The Commission considers that it is required that voluntary schemes include verification checks at the level of individual farms. The scheme so far 
does not fully comply with these requirements. Detailed results of the last assessment were 
communicated to the scheme owners on 12 November 2014. So far no new version of the scheme was submitted.  
There are several reasons why the assessment takes long. The Carbio scheme is significantly 
different than the other voluntary schemes. It is the sole scheme that intends to use geographic maps as a sole way to verify compliance with the sustainability criteria for biofuels related to land 
use. The other schemes verifying compliance with the land use criteria rely on on-site audits. 
Given the kind of assurance required by EU legislat ion, reliance on maps is a challenging concept. 
The scheme still needs to demonstrate that their methodology is able to demonstrate compliance 
with the criteria. After sending the first assessment report it also took scheme owners four months 
to resubmit a revised version.   Metodología de la huella ambiental de los productos y las organizaciones de la Unión 
Europea 
El desarrollo unilateral de la metodología armonizada  de cálculo de huella ambiental  para productos y organizaciones, toda vez que no tiene un definición consensuada a nivel internacional, 
podría derivar en barreras innecesarias al comercio internacional, en forma inconsistente con los 
Acuerdos de la OMC y específicamente con el art. 2.2 del Acuerdo OTC de la OMC. La medida resultaría inconsistente con los principios y disposiciones de la Convención Marco de las Naciones 
Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático, en particular iría en contra del espíritu del artículo 3.5 de esa 
Convención, por el que: "la Partes deberían cooperar en la promoción de un sistema económico internacional abierto y propicio que condujera al crecimiento económico y desarrollo sostenibles de todas las Partes, particularmente de las Partes que son países en desarrollo, permitiéndoles de 
ese  modo hacer frente en mejor forma a los problemas del cambio climático”. 
 Las  medidas  adoptadas  para  combatir  el  cambio  climático,  incluidas  las unilaterales,  no 
deberían constituir un medio de discriminación arbitraria o injustificable ni una restricción 
encubierta al comercio internacional.  
 ¿Podría la UE definir los criterios científicos y la normativa internacional o el consenso 
multilateral sobre la que se basa para el desarrollo de una metodología de huella medioambiental?  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 126 - 
 
  EU reply:  The environmental footprint methods are voluntary measurement tools and do not 
constitute a legal framework. They are being de veloped to help the EU better protecting the 
environment. They intend to support companies, and decision makers (including consumers) to 
take decisions based on the best information available.  
 
These methods are based on existing international (including ISO) and European methodological standards and guidance documents. These methods are an attempt to combine the best features 
and further develop these existing methodologies/ guidance documents with the aim to help them 
produce more reliable, science based, comprehensive and comparable results.  
  ¿Ha considerado la UE la compatibilidad de una iniciativa de este tipo con la normativa de 
la OMC, en especial con el Acuerdo sobre Obstáculos Técnicos al Comercio, teniendo en 
cuenta las dificultades para establecer una metodología científica generalmente aceptada en la materia? 
 
EU reply:  The EU has carefully considered compliance with international trade rules for this 
initiative. The design of the methods and the a pproach taken in their development and testing 
ensure that they are based on the best availa ble science and are non-discriminatory. They are 
currently further tested and further developed through an open and transparent process that provides equal opportunities and rights for participation and commenting for European and non-European stakeholders. As a result there is a significant involvement of stakeholders from non-EU 
countries in the pilot process. The EU made a pr esentation on these methods on two occasions at 
the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE).  The EU is also financing UNEP to perform 
capacity building in developing countries on LC A (life-cycle assessment) data and methodologies 
and also to work on the creation of an international network of interoperable databases. 
 
 ¿Podría la UE informar como se prevé que continúe el proceso de metodología armonizada 
 de cálculo de huella ambiental, luego de la finalización de la prueba piloto sobre alimentos 
y bebidas?  
 EU reply: The EU plans to complete the ongoing thr ee-year pilot phase by end 2016. At that 
point, the European Commission, in consultation with EU Member States, stakeholders and 
independent experts will examine and evaluate the experience gained through the pilots. In view of these, we will consider, discuss and decide on the future use of these methods. 
 
Reglamento (CE) Nº 607/2009 por el que se establecen determinadas disposiciones de 
aplicación del Reglamento (CE) N° 479/2008 del Consejo en lo que atañe a las 
denominaciones de origen e indicaciones  geográficas protegidas, a los términos 
tradicionales, al etiquetado y a la presenta ción de determinados productos vitivinícolas. 
Demoras de la Comisión Europea en concluir  el proceso de aprobación del uso de los 
términos "Reserva" y "Gran Reserv a" en los vinos argentinos. 
 
Ambas normas restringen el derecho de terceros Estados a utilizar estas expresiones en sus etiquetas, lo cual afecta seriamente las exportaciones de vinos de la Argentina a la UE.  
 
Considerando que las expresiones tradicionales constituyen menciones de calidad que se encuadran en el Acuerdo sobre OTC y no en el marco del ADPIC:  
 
 ¿Podría la UE fundamentar el derecho exclusivo de utilizar ciertas expresiones tradicionales 
que le es otorgado a los estados miembros a través de los referidos reglamentos? 
 
EU reply: EU Legislation provides equal access for all operators concerning the use of traditional 
terms, since 2009, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 479/2008. This provision continues to apply under rules provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 (Articles 112 to 114). 
 
Toda vez que puedan existir distintas definiciones  para estos términos tradicionales que han sido 
aceptados por la UE para algunos Estados Miembros como así también para algunos terceros 
países, la falta de aprobación de estos términos para los vinos argentinos constituye  una clara 
discriminación:   
 ¿Podría la UE explicar cuál es el objetivo o el motivo de esta situación, otro que evitar el 
engaño al consumidor?  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 127 - 
 
  EU reply: EU Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 legislation states the reasons in its recitals (notably 
in recital 104).  Habida cuenta que la Argentina inició gestiones para el registro de sus expresiones tradicionales y 
ha esperado de buena fe durante más de 5 años, sin obtener una respuesta satisfactoria de parte 
de la UE:   
 ¿Podría la UE brindar las razones que explican  una demora de tal magnitud con las 
consecuentes restricciones sobre nuestras exportaciones de vinos de calidad a la UE?  
 En virtud del Reglamento (UE) 1308/2013 y la evalua ción interna sobre el tema de las expresiones 
tradicionales:  
 
 ¿Podría la UE explicar cómo piensa dar continuidad a los expedientes de solicitud de 
registros de expresiones tradicionales iniciados según el Reglamento (UE) 607/2009, los 
cuales aún no han sido aprobados definitivamente?  
 
EU reply to the two questions above: As explained at the TBT Committee (18 - 19 March 
2015), an internal assessment on traditional terms has been carried out within the EU with experts from the Member States and other interested parties (in accordance with Article 114(3) of Regulation n° 1308/2013 establishing a common or ganization of the markets in agricultural 
products). The consultation is still ongoing and includes the conditions and specificities under 
which these traditional terms could be used on the labels of products from non-EU countries. The possible derogations, based particularly on mi nimum requirements for production methods and 
controls under product specifications of the wines concerned, have been covered by this 
discussion. Nevertheless, no final conclusions have been reached yet.  
TEMAS SANITARIOS 
3.1.9. Sanitary and Sanitary Measures 3.1.9.1. Live Animals and animal products 
Propuesta de directiva la CE en relación a la prohibición el uso de la técnica de 
la clonación para los animales de granja y la  importación de clones de estos animales en 
la UE y propuesta de directiva la CE de pr ohibición de la comercialización de alimentos 
derivados de clones de animales. 
Considerando los dictámenes científicos de varias agencias incluida la EFSA que concluyen en  que 
no existen diferencias en cuanto a seguridad sanitaria, composición y calidad entre los alimentos provenientes de clones y sus descendientes y aquellos provenientes de animales reproducidos por 
técnicas convencionales:  
 
  ¿Tiene en cuenta la UE que cualquier medida que se adopte debe estar basada en ciencia, 
en especial las medidas regulatorias o establecimiento de requisitos?  
 
EU reply:  Indeed, according to the SPS Agreement SP S measures must be based on science. Yet 
the measures proposed on cloning are not sanitary or phytosanitary (SPS) measures and thus do 
not fall under the scope of the SPS agreement as defined in its Annex I. 
 
 ¿Podría la UE explicar la UE los fundamentos para la restricción de importaciones de clones o 
productos derivados de los mismos? 
 EU reply:  Protection of animal welfare and public morals (i.e. consumer perception, ethical 
concerns related to cloning).  
 
Considerando que la DG AGRI lanzó una convocatoria para el estudio de viabilidad del etiquetado de productos derivados de animales clones y su descendencia denominado, ante la falta de 
disposición de las dos propuestas de directivas  la CE publicadas el 18 de diciembre de 2013]  
 
 ¿Planea la UE incluir medidas relativas a la prohibición descendencia de los clones y sus 
productos, incluidas las importaciones procedentes de terceros países? 
 EU reply:  Offspring of clones is conceived with conventional methods. They thus do not create 
animal welfare concerns. From an animal welfare perspective action on progeny is therefore not 
needed. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 128 - 
 
   ¿Planea la UE incluir medidas relativas a garantizar la obligatoriedad de la trazabilidad y el 
etiquetado de los alimentos proveniente de la descendencia de clones?  
 EU reply:  The European Commission has currently no plans to propose such measures. 
 
En relación con el estudio que se encuentra llevando a cabo la UE relativo a  la trazabilidad de los 
productos  provenientes de animales individuales con ascendencia clon a través del proceso de la 
producción de alimentos en la UE:  
 
 ¿Contempla la UE su aplicación para terceros países, considerando los potenciales costos 
adicionales y el impacto para los operadores?  
 
EU reply:  The study is a thorough assessment of the feasibility and impacts of a potential labelling 
scheme for products from cloned animals and their offspring. The main objective is to analyse and 
quantify the necessary adaptations of existing anim al recording and traceability systems as well as 
the potential burden on business operators triggere d by the requirement to label of food from the 
offspring of clones. The study will consider implementation of labelling food from clone offspring 
within the EU and potential implications on trade with third countries and will be publicly available 
when finalised.  
 Reglamento (CE) Nº 1099/2009 del Consejo de 24 de septiembre de 2009 relativo a la 
protección de los animales en el momento de la matanza. 
 La Argentina señala que el Reglamento se ha elaborado de acuerdo con las características 
específicas del sistema europeo, sin tener en cuenta la situación de los demás Miembros ni la 
viabilidad económica de su aplicación en otros sistemas de producción, en especial los de países en desarrollo. Es por lo tanto necesario que la UE acepte como equivalente (en base al resultado) los 
procedimientos aplicados por otros países para determinados aspectos que establece el 
Reglamento.  A ese respecto, recuerda que el párrafo 3 del artículo 12 del Acuerdo OTC dispone que los 
Miembros deben garantizar que los reglamentos técnicos y los procedimientos de evaluación de la 
conformidad no crean obstáculos innecesarios para las exportaciones de los países en desarrollo Miembros. La Argentina subraya que las prácticas que sigue en materia de bienestar animal no 
solo son compatibles con las normas de la OIE, sino que son equivalentes a las exigidas por las 
normativas de la UE. La Argentina pide a la UE que vele por que la aplicación del Reglamento sea conforme a las obligaciones establecidas en el Acuerdo OTC. 
 
EU reply:  The welfare standards provided by Council  Regulation 1099/2009 on the protection of 
animals at the time of killing are based on sound-scientific findings based on the opinions of EFSA. The same scientific background has been consider ed when international standards were adopted 
by the OIE. Argentina is member of the OIE and, as such, contributed to the adoption of the OIE 
standards.  
Council Regulation 1099/2009 has been adopted by the EU considering its international obligations 
in particular in relation to the TBT Agreement. This regulation refers to the implementation of international standards comparable in effectiveness, such as the ones adopted by the OIE, as a 
tool to achieve equivalence at slaughter and promote the implementation of animal welfare 
standards.  In this context, equivalence of the animal welf are requirements at time of slaughter has been 
already agreed between the EU and some trading partners that are members of the OIE. The 
cooperation with these partners is active and it allows a better mutual understanding of the welfare standards in bilateral agreements. 
 
Proyecto de directrices de orientación sobre la aplicación del artículo 14 del 
Reglamento (CE) N ° 178/2002 en lo relativo  a detección de toxina Shiga Escherichia 
coli (STEC) en alimentos. 
 Párrafo 3.107 : La UE adopta en ocasiones medidas basadas en el enfoque de precaución. Las 
mismas deberían ser proporcionales al riesgo y no afectar el comercio más de lo necesario para 
alcanzar el nivel adecuado de protección. A su vez dichas medidas deberían aplicarse en WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 129 - 
 
  circunstancias específicas y en forma previsional y transitoria y ser revisadas en un plazo de 
tiempo razonable. Sin embargo se percibe que gene ralmente la UE aplica el criterio de cautela 
prácticamente en forma sistemática como medida preventiva, sin relación con el riesgo real. Tal situación es el criterio que ha venido adoptando la UE en los últimos años para los controles y 
rechazos por detección de cualquier cepa de Escherichia coli verotoxigénica en carnes, sin tener 
en cuenta la patogenicidad de las mismas, ni el tipo de producto cárnico que se importa.  
En relación con el proyecto de directrices para la armonización de criterios y procedimientos de 
control para detección de E.coli STEC en carnes: 
 
 ¿Podría la UE informar si habrá una instancia de consulta pública sobre la evolución de las 
directrices a terceras partes?   
 EU reply:  The draft guidelines were developed to be addressed only to competent authorities of 
EU Member States. Nevertheless, stakeholders were informed on the state of play of the document 
during the plenary meeting of the advisory gr oup of the food chain held on 30 April 2015. 
 
 ¿Serán consideradas las diferentes cepas de E coli STEC que se detecten en los controles en 
cuanto a su patogenicidad para la implementación de acciones proporcionales al riesgo?  
 EU reply: The draft guidelines take into account the differences existing in pathogenicity of the 
STEC strains, based on the latest EFSA scientific opinion. 
 
 ¿Serán considerados los diferentes tipos de productos en cuanto al riesgo de los mismos 
para la implementación de acciones proporcionales a dicho riesgo? 
 EU reply: The draft guidelines make distinction between different food categories according to the 
risk they may represent for the exposure of the consumer to the VTEC hazard.  
 
 Teniendo en cuenta que las directrices no tendrían un carácter vinculante, quedando a 
decisión de cada Estado Miembro la implementación de los controles: ¿Cómo se 
garantizará que los controles se efectúen en forma uniforme en todos los Estados 
miembros?   
EU reply: EU member States are responsible for the impl ementation of official controls, which are 
risk-based, on their territory. The draft guidelines do not recommend any particular type of control or surveillance as regards VTEC. However, the European Commission regularly audits EU Member 
States in order to guarantee that controls performed on their territory are effectively risk-based 
and in no way discriminatory.  
 ¿Podría la UE informar si se pueden brindar las garantías de igualdad de condiciones para la 
carne de producción doméstica en los distintos Estados Miembros UE y las importaciones? 
 
EU reply: As mentioned above, routine controls performed by EU Member States are non-
discriminatory, which means that imported products are not controlled more than domestic ones. 
 
Considerando que la administración y seguimiento de los controles reforzados se realiza a nivel 
comunitario, principalmente cuando un establecim iento ingresa al esquema de control sistémico,  
con el consecuente impacto económico para los operadores comerciales. 
 
 ¿Determinará la UE un esquema previo bien definido, en cuanto a cantidad de partidas 
controladas con resultados satisfactorios y/o tiempo que permita tener mayor 
previsibilidad en cuanto a la salida del esquema de control reforzado sistémico?  
 
EU reply: When at least three unfavorable results for the same hazard are reached within the 
sequence of re-enforced checks at the EU border s, then the programme of re-enforced checks is 
stopped and replaced by a regime of 100% physical checks based on Article 20 of Directive 
97/78/EC. Considering this is a matter of serious concern, the competent authorities of the non-EU 
country are informed and requested to investigate the reasons for these non-compliances in the involved establishments, in particular as regards the products for export to the EU. The regime of 
100% physical checks remains in force until the non-EU country provides the European 
Commission's services with a satisfactory action plan which addresses the shortcomings with WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 130 - 
 
  corrective measures. In the absence of reaction from the non-EU country or the improvement of 
the situation, the European Commission's services may envisage additional measures in order to protect the health of consumers in the EU.  
 
3.1.9.2. Plants and plants products 
 Propuesta relativa a la autorización de “u so” de organismos genéticamente modificados 
Párrafo 3.108 : La Comisión Europea presentó el 22 de abril de 2015 una propuesta legislativa 
para enmendar el Reglamento CE 1829/2003. Medi ante esta reforma que permitiría a los Estados 
miembro prohibir o restringir el uso de derivados de organismos genéticamente modificados que son inocuos para la salud o el medio ambiente de acuerdo con la Agencia Europea de Seguridad 
Alimentaria (EFSA).  
 
 ¿Podría la UE indicar si ha conducido un estudio de impacto o consulta pública sobre esta 
propuesta?  
 
EU reply: The proposal merely establishes a legal basis for Member States to act, if they so wish. 
The impact of future decisions would depend on how many Member States would restrict 
genetically modified food or feed in their territo ry and on the scope of the measures taken, and 
this is impossible to know ex-ante. Therefore it was not considered relevant to make an impact assessment. 
 
 ¿Ha evaluado la UE el posible impacto sobre el funcionamiento del mercado interior de la 
Unión en relación con productos alimenticios, por ejemplo, de origen animal, producidos a 
partir de piensos elaborados a partir de harinas de plantas genéticamente modificadas?  
 EU reply: As indicated above, no impact assessment was carried out.  
 
 El 24 de abril de 2015 la Comisión Euro pea anunció la aprobación de 17 eventos 
transgénicos. En el comunicado de prensa, la Comisión admitió que: “Authorisations were not granted during the past months whilst a review of the decision making procedure on 
GMO authorisations was ongoing.”
67 La reforma del Reglamento CE 1829/2003 podría 
llevar meses o años. ¿Durante ese tiempo puede garantizar la UE que nuevas aprobaciones bajo la legislación actual no se verán afectadas?  
 
EU reply: The solution which has been chosen by the European Commission at the end of the 
review – the legislative proposal – has no impact on the EU authorization procedure. Applications 
for authorisation will thus continue to be assessed by EFSA and the Commission will continue to 
submit draft decisions to the relevant Committee.  
 
Teniendo en cuenta que la propuesta legisl ativa indica, entre otras cuestiones, que: “los Estados 
miembros podrán adoptar medidas para restringir o prohibir el uso de los OMG destinados a la 
alimentación humana y los OMG destinados a la alimentación animal, autorizados con arreglo al 
presente reglamento, siempre que dichas medidas estén motivadas y se basen en razones 
imperiosas conformes con el Derecho de la Unión, que, en ningún caso, entren en conflicto con la 
evaluación de riesgo efectuada de conformidad co n el presente Reglamento y que las medidas de 
exclusión voluntaria deberán basarse en motivos legítimos distintos de los evaluados a escala de la 
UE, es decir, el riesgo para la salud humana o animal, o para el medio ambiente.” : 
 
 ¿Podría la UE precisar cuáles podrían ser los just ificativos de base NO científica que pudieran 
argumentar los Estados miembros para prohibir el uso de los OGMs en su territorio?  
 
EU reply: any national measure adopted should be based on compelling grounds (overriding 
reasons of public interest). EU Member States ca nnot use grounds which interfere with the EU wide 
risk assessment of GMOs.  
 La jurisprudencia comunitaria tiene como objetivo una mayor integración del mercado único 
(Cassis de Dijon, TJE, 1979) y que el marco normativo de la UE establece que la decisión final 
sobre las autorizaciones de los eventos biotecnológicos recae sobre la Comisión Europea (Reglamento CE 1829/2003),  
                                               
67 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4843_en.htm. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 131 - 
 
  La UE ha establecido en relación con el cultivo de OGMs que sean los Estados Miembros quienes 
tengan la capacidad de decidir su autorización en sus respectivos territorios (Directiva UE 2015/412). Respetuosamente, el Gobierno Argentino no considera que esta Directiva pueda ser utilizada como antecedente válido que sustente la propuesta para autorizar el uso de OGMs. 
Precisamente, esa Directiva reconoce en su considerando número 6 que el cultivo y la 
comercialización deben abordarse de manera diferenciada: “Issues related to the placing on the 
market and the import of GMOs should remain regulated at Union level to preserve the internal 
market. Cultivation may however require more flexibility….” 
 
 ¿Podría la UE señalar precedentes en los cuales se conceda a los Estados miembros la 
recuperación de competencias cedidas anteriormente,  y que motive a que los Estados 
Miembros opten por prohibir el uso de OGMs luego de que han sido aprobados y 
autorizados a nivel UE? 
 
EU reply:  the distribution of competences between the EU and its Member States is an internal 
matter of the EU which is not regulated by WTO law.  The system of the “opt out” was already used 
in other EU legislations (e.g. Regulation (EU) 528/2012 on biocides). 
 
 ¿Considera la UE la posibilidad de elaborar una evaluación de impacto que contemple 
distintos escenarios en los que se prohíba el uso los alimentos y piensos genéticamente modificados en un determinado Estado miembro considerando las repercusiones de la 
propuesta legislativa  no solamente en el ámbito comercial y productivo, sino también en 
los incentivos para la investigación en el ámbito de la biotecnología? 
 
EU reply:  see reply given under the first bullet point above.   
 
 ¿Considera la UE que una propuesta de esta naturaleza, si finalmente se aprueba, podría 
sentar un precedente para que se aplique en otros sectores?   
 EU reply:  there are already precedents in other areas (see 5
th bullet point above).  
 
 ¿Considera la UE que esta propuesta podría  derivar posteriormente en exigencias de 
etiquetado y trazabilidad del producto final para el caso de los productos animales? 
 
 ¿Si este fuera el caso, considera la UE que tal situación sería en la práctica aplicable? ¿Tiene 
en cuenta la UE los potenciales impactos que esto causaría en relación con un incremento significativo de los precios y del consumo de productos alimenticios?  
 
EU reply common to the two bullet points above: Under EU law the labelling of animals 
products derived from animals fed with GMOs is not allowed, and the proposal does not change 
this situation. By contrast, existing EU law does  not prevent Member States to put in place “GM 
free” labels, including those pinpointing that no  GMOs have been used in the feeding process.  
 
 Como fuera expresado anteriormente en el marco de la presentación de consultas del TPR 
del año 2013 y habida cuenta de la nueva propuesta de la CE, ¿tiene en cuenta la UE el 
potencial impacto que la aplicación de esta propuesta podría tener en diferentes sectores exportadores, ante disrupciones comerciales por detección de OGMs no autorizados en 
Estados Miembros UE que opten excluirse de la autorización a nivel UE? 
 EU reply: please refer to the reply given under the first bullet point. In addition, the proposal does 
not allow Member States to ban food and feed in which an adventitious presence of GM material 
below the labelling threshold (0,9%) is present.  
 
 ¿Podría la UE informar si la propuesta legislativa y su cláusula de "Opt out" vulneran el 
principio de libre circulación de mercancías (arts. 9 a 37) establecido en el Tratado de 
Roma y tratados consecutivos, que constituye la base de la creación del mercado común y de la integración de la UE?  
 
EU reply: The proposal is compatible with the EU law and in particular the rules of the single 
market.  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 132 - 
 
   ¿En qué medida afectaría esta propuesta la libre circulación de harinas, granos, piensos 
dentro de la UE y que medidas de control se planean adoptar para evitar el uso de productos OGM en los Estados miembros en los que rija la prohibición? 
 
EU reply: under the proposal, Member States are not a llowed to ban the free circulation of goods. 
Existing EU and national rules governing the official controls on food and feed will apply for the control of possible EU Member States’ restrictions or bans under the proposal .  
 
 En el caso de ser aprobada la propuesta legislativa, ¿tiene en cuenta la UE el impacto 
indirecto sobre las ventas externas a la UE, como consecuencia de la fragmentación o discontinuidad del mercado único de la UE?  
 
EU reply: please refer to the reply given under the first bullet point  
 
 ¿Planea la UE introducir mejoras sistema actual de aprobación de eventos biotecnológicos 
(establecido en el Reglamento (CE) N° 1829/2003) a fin de acortar los tiempos actuales de aprobación,  considerando su excesiva lentitud y su consecuente impacto negativo sobre 
las exportaciones de terceros países a la UE? 
 EU reply: the EU has adopted Implementing Regulation  (UE) No 503/2013 on authorisation of GM 
food and feed which should further streamline the ri sk assessment process in the EU as it clarifies 
the requirements to be fulfilled for the submissi on of an application and the protocols to be 
followed for conducting trials/studies. It also clarifies the approach to stack products. The EU believes therefore that the Regulation will mini mize the need for EFSA to request additional 
studies/data and will reduce the time needed for the risk assessment phase. 
 
 ¿Puede la UE explicar la diferencia entre “use” and “placing in the market” o como una 
prohibición de “uso” puede afectar de hecho la capacidad “comercialización”?  
 EU reply: the proposal does not allow Member States to ban the free circulation and import of 
genetically modified food and feed.  
 
 ¿Podría explicar la UE por qué ha decidido notificar la propuesta bajo el Acuerdo de 
Obstáculos Técnicos al Comercio? 
 
EU reply: In the view of the EU, the proposal does not fall either within the scope of the SPS 
Agreement or the TBT Agreement. However, the EU  wished to conduct itself in a transparent 
manner vis a vis the other Members of the WTO and therefore decided to notify the measure to 
the TBT Committee, whilst including an appropriate disclaimer stating that the 'notification is for transparency purposes and does not prejudge the position of the European Union on the 
applicability of the TBT Agreement to the notified measures, or on the nature and effects of the 
measure itself'. 
 
 ¿Entiende la UE que esta iniciativa es coherente con el párrafo 3.3. del Documento 
WT/TPR/G/317? 
 EU reply: Having as objective to integrate and complete the EU internal market has never 
prevented the EU or its Member States to make use of prevailing compelling grounds (overriding 
reasons of public interest) where appropriate.  
 Propuesta de la CE para establecer criterios para identificación de sustancias químicas 
con características de disruptores endócrinos , en el marco de la  normativa europea 
de biocidas (Reglamento 528/2012/EU) y pesticidas (Reglamento 1107/2009).   
 
 ¿La eliminación de sustancias fitosanitarias sobre la base del enfoque de la  propuesta (de 
identificación de potencial peligro) no sería incompatible con los principios multilateralmente acordados en las disposiciones del acuerdo MSF de la OMC? 
Reconociendo estas disposiciones como: creación de obstáculos innecesarios al comercio, 
restricción del comercio más de lo necesario, falta de proporcionalidad con el objetivo de la legislación, y falta de una correcta evaluación de riesgos sobre base científica. 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 133 - 
 
  EU reply: The EU is fully aware of the importance of this issue and its possible trade implications. 
The EU will ensure that a coherent approach is followed which guarantees a high level of consumer protection. Full transparency will be ensured th rough the existing mechanisms of exchange of 
information (WTO SPS notifications). 
 
 ¿Al momento de elaborar su propuesta, tendrá en cuenta la Comisión el potencial impacto 
negativo en el comercio internacional de commodities, perjuicios económicos para los 
países en desarrollo y en la productividad, por la posible falta de sustitución de sustancias 
pesticidas derivada de la propuesta?  
 EU reply: Being aware of the potential negative impacts on international trade, the EU, before 
tabling a legislative proposal, is carrying out a comprehensive Impact Assessment where impacts 
on health, environment, agriculture, socio-economic and on international trade are being considered. 
 
 ¿Considera la UE aplicar el mecanismo de tolerancia a la importación establecido en el 
Reglamento 396/2005 para las sustancias categorizadas con propiedades de disruptores 
endocrinos?  
 EU reply: Import tolerances, just as other maximum residue limits, universally apply to food 
regardless whether it is imported or not. For endocrine disruptors the EU will ensure that a 
consistent and coherent approach is followed that equally applies to all MRLs set under Regulation 
No. 396/2005.  
 Atento al proceso iniciado por la UE respecto del análisis y clasificación de sustancias con 
potencial de disruptores endócrinos y dado que de comprobarse las posible consecuencia en la salud de las poblaciones de dichas sustancias: ¿Podría explicar la UE por qué no ha 
buscado trabajar conjuntamente esta cuestión en los organismos internacionales de 
referencia, a fin de buscar una solución consensuada y multilateral? 
 EU reply: The EU is involved in international activities on endocrine disruptors at OECD level and 
is ready to share its experiences as well as the outcome of its impact assessment in this forum 
with OECD countries.  
 ¿Ha considerado la UE la compatibilidad de una iniciativa de este tipo con la normativa de la 
OMC, en especial con los Acuerdos sobre Medidas Sanitarias y fitosanitarias y sobre Obstáculos Técnicos al Comercio, teniendo en cuenta las dificultades para establecer una 
metodología científica generalmente aceptada en la materia?  
 
EU reply:  The EU is considering all implications of its legislation on endocrine disruptors and is 
carrying out an impact assessment to this effect which includes implications on international trade. 
Furthermore it should be noted that provisions requiring the European Commission to establish 
scientific criteria to identify endocrine disruptors are laid down in European legislation, namely Regulation 1107/2009, Annex II paragraph 3.6.5. The Regulation 1107/2009 has been duly 
notified to the WTO SPS Committee at different stages of its adoption process by the EU. 
 Límites máximos de residuos (LMR ) de productos fitosanitarios:  
 
Párrafo 3.102.:  Argentina y otros países han planteado este tema bilateral y multilateralmente a 
nivel del Comité MSF y el Codex, argumentando en  contra el el retiro del mercado de varias 
sustancias fitosanitarias, resultando muchos LMR en la UE establecidos por defecto en 0,01ppm, 
sin contemplar ni los estándares internacionales de LMR en CODEX ni un enfoque conjunto de 
evaluación de riesgos, por lo que entendemos que esto no está en conformidad con el Acuerdo SPS de la OMC. 
 
El Reglamento (CE) 396/2005 establece los LMRs de pesticidas, y el criterio de aplicación de las tolerancias de importación. El enfoque de dicho Reglamento plantea un problema sistémico ya que 
dificulta el acceso de los productos argentinos a la UE (principalmente en el sector de frutas y 
cereales).  La UE considera que el "principio de precaución" como un derecho consuetudinario internacional y como base para su política y legislación sanitaria y fitosanitaria. Esto está claramente establecido bajo el Reglamento 178/ 02 - Artículo 7); así como en el Reglamento WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 134 - 
 
  1107/2009 con un criterio restrictivo, al afirmar en su artículo 1 que sus disposiciones se basan en 
el principio de precaución.  
 ¿Podría fundamentar la UE la aplicación del “principio precautorio” en forma permanente, (y 
no como un enfoque caso a caso solamente cuando no existe evidencia científica 
suficiente) desviándose de la aplicación de lo s criterios del acuerdo MSF, y explicar las 
razones por las cuales la UE establece LMRs de pesticida por debajo de las normas CODEX 
para una gran cantidad de sustancias fitosanitarias, restringiendo el comercio 
internacional?   
 EU reply: EU measures are based on solid scientific principles. The EU regularly implements Codex 
MRLs into EU legislation where no concerns are raised by EFSA in a specific risk assessment. The 
reasons for such reservations are transparently explained in the annual meetings of the Codex Committee for Pesticide Residues and are based on EFSA Scientific Reports published on the EFSA 
website (www.efsa.europa.eu). 
 La Argentina es uno de los principales proveedores de aceites vegetales a la UE y emplea, en el 
caso del girasol, varias sustancias fitosanitarias autorizadas para su uso como tratamiento post-
cosecha:   
 ¿Cuál es el motivo por el cual la UE no establece los factores para determinar LMR para 
productos procesados o compuestos, como lo establece el artículo 20 (2) del Reglamento 
396/2005?  
 
EU reply: The establishment of EU wide processing factors in an EU list is indeed foreseen by 
Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 but is not considered as  a very high priority. Therefore such a list 
has not yet been established. It is therefore up to the operator to justify processing factors with 
specific data. Information can also be taken from relevant reasoned opinions of EFSA and from the 
websites of the German and Dutch national competent authorities: http://chemkap.rivm.nl/object_binary/o4864_Rationale-processing-factors.pdf. http://www.bfr.bund.de/de/a-z_index /verarbeitungsfaktoren-8400.html. 
 
However, the factors presented in these lists are for information only and have not been endorsed by the European Commission. 
 
Propuesta de Reglamento del Parlamento Europeo y Consejo sobre producción ecológica 
y etiquetado de los productos ecológicos, por el que se dero ga el Reglamento (CE) Nº 
834/2007 sobre producción y etiquetado  de los productos ecológicos.  
 En el caso de que se apruebe la propuesta presentada por la Comisión:  
 ¿Podría la UE indicar si los terceros países que cuentan con reconocimiento de equivalencia 
por parte de la UE de sus sistemas de producción orgánica se verán afectados por la propuesta? ¿Podría la UE informar si el régi men de equivalencia actual será reemplazado 
por régimen de cumplimiento estricto de la normativa UE o por acuerdos comerciales 
recíprocos en un plazo de 5 años?  
 
Considerando que la propuesta legislativa tiene por objeto la eliminación de los obstáculos al 
desarrollo de la producción orgánica en la UE, garantizar una competencia justa para los agricultores y los operadores comerciales y mejorar la confianza del consumidor en los productos orgánicos y en vista de las discusiones entre los Estados miembros sobre la introducción de un 
posible umbral ante detección de sustancias no autorizadas que generaría un retiro automático de 
la certificación orgánica, sin considerar la contaminación involuntaria y consecuente perjuicio al productor: 
 
 ¿Podría la UE precisar si ese procedimiento, de ser acordado e incorporado a la normativa, 
se aplicaría para las importaciones provenientes de terceros países?  
 
EU reply to the two questions above: The new Commission legislative proposal on organics is 
currently under the ordinary legislative process. On  this basis, the EU is not in a position to 
respond to this question. Once the final text is ag reed and adopted by the co-legislators, it will be 
subject to a notification to the WTO via the normal channels (TBT Committee).  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 135 - 
 
  3.1.9.3. Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed 
Sistema de Alerta Rápido de Alim entos y Piensos de la UE (RASFF) 
 
El Sistema de Alerta Rápida para Alimentos y Piensos (RASFF en sus siglas en inglés) es un 
sistema, que incluye una red informática, utili zado por las autoridades de control de la 
comercialización de alimentos y piensos de la Unión Europea para intercambiar información sobre 
las medidas adoptadas tras la detección de un riesgo sanitario para la salud pública. Existen cuatro 
tipos de notificaciones, una de las cuales se denomina “rechazo en frontera”. 
 
Marco Legal: El Sistema RASFF fue establecido por el Reglamento CE /178/2002 (llamado « Ley de 
alimentos de la UE ») que dispone los principios generales de la ley de alimentos y establece la 
autoridad de seguridad alimentaria (EFSA). Los artículos 50, 51 and 52 definen el ámbito y 
procedimientos del RASFF. 
 
Desde hace varios años, y a través de diferentes  gestiones, la Argentina, junto también a otros 
t e r c e r o s  p a í s e s  l a t i n o a m e r i c a n o s ,  h a  v e n i d o  p l a n t e a n d o  a  l a  D G  S A N C O  d e  l a  U E  d i f e r e n t e s  problemas e inconsistencias en el funcionamiento del Sistema de Alerta Rápido de Alimentos y 
Piensos (RASFF) con sus consecuentes dificultades e impacto que genera en nuestras 
exportaciones de agro-alimentos al mercado comunitario.  
 ¿Qué acciones establecerá la UE para mejorar la homogeneidad y evitar la discrecionalidad 
por parte de las autoridades de los Estados miembros en la aplicación del sistema según el 
puesto de frontera en que se produce la notificación?  
 
EU reply: RASFF exchanges information among the members of the network on the basis of the 
harmonised European legislation. However in the case when no harmonised criteria or acceptable levels exists the member of the network has to decide on the risk, based on a case-by-case risk 
assessment, in line with Article 14 of the General Food Law ( Regulation (EC) N 178/2002). 
 Se han detectado casos en que los plazos de las notificaciones reflejan variaciones significativas.   
 ¿Cómo planea la UE mejorar estos plazos, tanto en cuanto a las demoras como en cuanto a 
uniformar los mismos para todos los Estados miembros? 
 
EU reply: According to Article 3 of the RASFF implementing regulation (Commission regulation 
(EU) No 16/2011 of 10 January 2011 laying down  implementing measures for the Rapid alert 
system for food and feed) the relevant deadlines  are the following: 48 hours for the members of 
the network to inform the EU, and 24 hours for the EU to verify and circulate the notification 
through RASFF.  Se produce un impacto negativo que genera a los operadores el ser identificados en la página web 
del RASFF -muchas veces injustificadamente-, ya que la mera inclusión puede desprestigiar al 
producto y origen de la mercancía frente a los importadores con el consiguiente perjuicio comercial. Ha habido plazos extensos de respuesta ante consideraciones técnicas de los países 
terceros a las notificaciones y falta de uniformización de los procedimientos; También ha habido 
situaciones de plazos extendidos para la suspensión de alerta indebidamente aplicada, generando dificultades para la(s) empresa(s) involucrada(s) y para la imagen del país ante otros socios 
comerciales. 
 
 ¿Podrá la UE establecer un sistema mediante el cual la empresa o el país involucrado 
disponga de un tiempo prudencial para dar respuesta o clarificaciones relativas a la 
notificación antes de que la misma se publique  en la página web del RASFF (principalmente 
cuando se deba a errores de la notificación, y en un plazo expeditivo que evite poner en riesgo a los consumidores)?;  
 
EU reply:  No brands or operator names are made public by RASFF nor is there any relation made 
between the country of origin and the risk fo und. Therefore the EU considers that commercial 
interests are not damaged by RASFF notifications. Furthermore, any country of origin can provide 
its feedback to the notifications which is then circulated to RASFF members. If it can be demonstrated that the notification was unduly transmitted, then it is withdrawn from the system.  
Concerning advanced notifications, there is no legal basis to provide a response period prior to WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 136 - 
 
  transmission of the notification unless there would be reasonable doubt about the validity of the 
notification. The nature of the syst em requires immediate transmission. 
 
 ¿Planea la UE establecer un mecanismo o procedimiento correctivo o explicativo dentro del 
sistema para las notificaciones indebidamente aplicadas o erróneas (con el consecuente 
impacto para la empresa involucrada o el país de origen aún cuando estaban en conformidad con la normativa UE)?  
 
EU reply: RASFF foresees this possibility in follow-up messages which can complete and correct, 
where necessary, the picture of the situation. If a notification turns out to be unfounded it is 
withdrawn from the system. The reason for withdrawal is also made public. 
 
Ha habido ocasiones en que se han detectado divergencias en el número de embarques de las empresas que son puestos bajo vigilancia, de acuerdo a lo aplicado en cada EM, o imprecisiones 
para establecer el cálculo de los 10 embarques posteriores a ser puestos bajo vigilancia (control 
reforzado) en toda la UE luego de una notificación inicial:  
 
 ¿Cómo piensa la UE monitorear o mejorar esta situación?;  
 EU reply: Concerning re-enforced checks at the bord ers, the monitoring procedure has been 
included in the IT-system used across the EU for all imported consignments. It is presented in the 
"General Guidance on implementation and interpretation of Article 24 of Council Directive 
97/78/EC", which is available at the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biosafety/animalbyproducts/guidance_article_24_1125_5_2012_en.
pdf 
 Since then, no clarification requests for the calculation across the EU have been received from non 
EU-countries.  
 
 ¿Planea la UE establecer criterios o procedimientos claros para la finalización del esquema 
de control reforzado sistémico (tanto en relación con la cantidad de embarques y el tiempo 
durante el cual se controlarán las importaciones de una empresa con resultados 
satisfactorios)?   
 
EU reply: Please see reply to the above question regarding the General Guidance. 
 En el caso de notificaciones que involucran productos elaborados en la UE con materia prima 
importada, en reiteradas ocasiones los Estados miembros no están en condiciones de proveer 
documentación que permita identificar dónde se ha originado el problema:   
 ¿Cómo piensa la UE monitorear o mejorar esta situación?  
 
EU reply: Argentina's statement in this question is a very general one and is not supported by any 
concrete evidence. Anyway, if such a case arises , the cooperation with the third country exporting 
the raw material will be advisable to carry out investigations on the origin of the hazard. 
 Se han detectado también falta de definición de criterios de riesgos para el control de 
determinados productos, lo que dispara notificaciones, rechazos y controles reforzados sin que sea 
siempre necesario (caso de E coli STEC en carnes)  Ha habido también ocasiones en que se han detectado falta de coherencia entre la información del 
sistema TRACES y la información o notificaciones del RASFF. 
 En determinadas ocasiones de notificaciones RASFF en frontera y sus posteriores controles 
reforzados, ante el reclamo hacia algunos Estados Miembros  por los criterios adoptados, las 
autoridades de estos EMs han indicado que siguen las instrucciones de la DG SANTE. Al consultar o reclamar ante la DG SANTE, los funcionarios han indicado que son los Estados Miembros los 
responsables de aplicar los controles establecidos en la normativa de acuerdo a sus criterios.  
 Argentina participó de la consulta pública relativa a la evaluación del funcionamiento del Sistema RASFF en la misma se indicó los aspectos arriba mencionados. 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 137 - 
 
  3.3.1. Subvenciones 
 En la tabla 3.11. se informan subvenciones a la pesca (“Aid granted to fisheries and aquaculture, 
reported by DG Maritime and Fisheries Affairs”). 
 
 ¿Son éstas todas las subvenciones  de la UE y de sus Estado miembros en beneficio de la 
actividad pesquera?   
 
EU reply: The data provided in Table 3.11 concerns excl usively to aid provided by Member States 
at individual level. It does not include other pub lic support to the fishing sector provided under the 
European Fisheries Fund. The EU is reporting all financial support measures and quantities in its 
regular full subsidy notifications pursuant the ASCM agreement. 
 PROPIEDAD INTELECTUAL 
3.3.6. Derechos de propiedad intelectual 
3.3.6.2.2. Certificados de protección suplementaria 
 
Párrafo 3.277:  Los Reglamentos 469/2009 y 1610/96 ponen a disposición de aquellos titulares 
de patentes expiradas de productos medicinales y agroquímicos, respectivamente, un modo de restaurar la protección efectiva de la patente para compensar el tiempo transcurrido entre la presentación de la solicitud de patente y la autorización de comercialización.  
 
 ¿Qué justificación encuentra la Unión Europea para demorar la entrada al dominio público de 
medicamentos y agroquímicos? 
 ¿Podría la Unión Europea elaborar un poco más sobre la compatibilidad de los mencionados 
Certificados de Protección Suplementaria de los Reglamentos 469/2009 y 1610/96 con el Acuerdo sobre los ADPIC y el Protocolo que enmienda el Acuerdo sobre los ADPIC de 
2005?  
 EU reply to the two questions above:  Pharmaceutical innovation plays a decisive role in the 
continuing improvement in public health and in terms of economic growth and jobs. To encourage 
the development of innovative medicinal products, especially those that are the result of long and 
costly research, it is required to introduce SPC rules that provide for sufficient protection to encourage such development. More specifically, the period that elapses between the filing of an 
application for a patent for a new medicinal product and the authorisation to place the medicinal 
product on the market (which occurs following the finalization of lengthy tests and clinical trials usually taking more than a decade) makes the period of effective protection under the patent 
insufficient to cover the investment put into the pharmaceutical research and development. This 
situation leads to a lack of protection which penalises pharmaceutical research.  
 ¿Cómo se armoniza este acrecentamiento de los derechos de propiedad intelectual con las 
prioridades de protección de la salud pública y del ambiente que informan la política 
comercial europea?  
 
EU reply: The EU promotes its standards and rules at global level through cooperation on 
regulatory matters, and also integrates health concerns in multilateral and bilateral trade agreements and refuses to compromise on safety and is committed to keeping essential medicines 
accessible and affordable, in line with the Doha Declaration as noted in the Commission 
Communication on "The EU Role in Global Health" (COM(2010)128 final) For further information on all actions see http://ec.europa.eu/health/eu_world/global_health/index_en.htm.  
 
 ¿Cómo podría justificar la Unión Europea lo previsto en el Artículo 3 (c) del Reglamento 
469/2009 –y en la sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia  de la UE que lo confirma- en el sentido de 
que un elemento activo que integra un medicamento que goza de protección patentaria pueda 
solicitar, por separado, un Certificado de Protección Suplementaria?  
 EU reply: Article 3 (c) of Regulation 469/2009 stipulates that a certificate shall be granted, if the 
product has not already been the subject of a cert ificate. Art. 3(c) is a safeguard to avoid the 
accumulation of multiple SP Cs for the same product.  
  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 138 - 
 
  3.3.6.2.4. Marcas comerciales 
 Párrafos 3.282 al 3.284: En la Unión Europea, las marcas comerciales pueden protegerse tanto 
bajo los sistemas nacionales de los Estados Miembros cuanto como marcas comunitarias.  El 
Reglamento 207/2009 del 26 de febrero de 2009 estableció un régimen separado para registrar 
derechos unitarios con igual efecto a través de toda la Unión Europea.  
 ¿Podría justificar la Unión Europea por qué mantiene el régimen de protección nacional de 
las marcas comerciales, toda vez que ha establecido un régimen de protección de dichas marcas en toda la UE?  
 
EU reply : The well-established principle of coexiste nce between the Community trade mark (CTM) 
system and the national trade mark systems of Memb er States is considered to be fundamental for 
the effective and efficient functioning of a trad e mark regime that meets the requirements of 
companies of different sizes, markets and geogra phical presence. The existence of 27 trade mark 
registers (25 national registers, 1 regional register, and 1 Union register), covering different geographical areas, increases the availability of  and the opportunity for IP protection. Also, the 
limitation of the geographical scope diminishes the vulnerability of trade marks registered locally 
vis-à-vis subsequent applications inasmuch as any trade mark has to be genuinely used (in the relevant territory) to enjoy legal protection. Accordingly, the duality of the trade mark system in Europe offers users a number of choices. 
 
 ¿Cuál es el sentido de que las marcas comerciales gocen de una doble protección? 
 
EU reply: As already follows from the reply to question 71, the purpose of the Community trade 
mark system has not been to replace trade mark protection available at national level but to serve as a necessary complement in order to enable undertakings to adapt their business activities to 
the scale of the European Union. That does not only mean that undertakings should be able to 
freely choose whether to protect their trade marks at national or Union level but also that they should be able to do both and to benefit from double protection where appropriate, according to 
their specific business needs and strategic interests. 
 
 ¿Puede una empresa de un tercer país gozar de doble protección –nacional y comunitaria- 
para sus marcas comerciales? ¿Debería 
 
EU reply: Yes 
 
 ¿En qué medida esta doble protección se corresponde con el principio de libre competencia? 
 EU reply: As a matter of principle, trade mark protection and free competition are not in conflict 
with each other. On the contrary, rather than restraining competition, trademarks are 
indispensable elements for competition to functi on properly. By providing information about the 
commercial source of goods or services and thus enabling consumers to repeat purchases that were satisfactory, trademarks provide for an incentive for entrepreneurs to invest in quality, and 
to increase the variety of commodities offered. Th e objective of trade mark protection is not to 
confer an exclusive position for certain goods or technologies. Competition remains free. Easy accessibility is of essential importance for the pr oper functioning of trade marks as an element of 
undistorted competition. The level of accessibility is largely determined by the overall volume of 
prior rights posing obstacles for protection of new signs. A comprehensive study on the overall functioning of the European trade mark system conducted in 2010 did not reveal any sustainable 
evidence for access to trade marks being substantially impaired by a too large number of trade 
marks being protected in the EU. 
 La propuesta de modificación al Reglamento  207/2009, que se anuncia como un modo de 
simplificar y facilitar el sistema de protección marcaria en la Unión Europea, ¿en qué medida 
beneficiará el registro de marcas comerciales, sobre todo de las pequeñas y medianas empresas? ¿En qué medida beneficiará la libre competencia dentro del mercado europeo? 
 
EU reply: Both the amendment of Regulation 207/2009 and the Recast of Directive 2008/95/EC 
will be beneficial for users of either trade mark re gime in Europe, i.e. for applicants for and owners 
of both EU and national trade marks. The reform measures will improve access to trade mark 
protection for all companies, especially SMEs, regardless of their size, market and geographical WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 139 - 
 
  presence. As such, the package will contribute to increasing incentives for innovation and 
improving the level playing field for European business, thus enhancing the competitiveness and attractiveness of the EU internal market.  
Main features of the reform to achieve the above benefits include: 
 a) Modernised provisions, such as to facilitate the registration of new type of trade marks (e.g. 
sound, motion or hologram marks) in the digital age, and thereby supporting corporate branding 
strategies;  b) Streamlined, more efficient and harmonised registration procedures across all trade mark 
offices in the EU. Faster and less burdensome procedures will be a great improvement for 
successfully growing companies, mainly SMEs, which roll out their business beyond one Member State and seek trade mark protection in front of multiple national administrations; 
 
c) Significant reductions of the fees for Euro pean Union trade marks covering all 28 Member 
States. The agreed changes will lead to savings of up to 37%, in particular for SMEs that seek 
protection of their registered European Union trade marks beyond an initial period of 10 years . 
 INDICACIONES GEOGRAFICAS 3.3.6.2.5. Geographical Indications 
 
Párrafo 3.291:  El artículo 11 del Reglamento UE 1151/2012 se establece que en el registro 
podrán inscribirse las denominaciones de origen y las indicaciones geográficas de productos de 
terceros países que estén protegidas en la Unió n en virtud de un acuerdo internacional del que 
esta sea Parte.  
 ¿Estas denominaciones de origen e indicaciones geográficas deben cumplir con los requisitos 
establecidos en los artículos 5, 6 y 10, entre otros, del mismo reglamento? 
 EU reply: The geographical indications from third countries that are recorded in the publically 
available DOOR database were considered as fulfilling the criteria set up in Regulation (EU) 
1151/2012, in particular those under Title II.  
En el informe, se señala que el Reglamento UE 1151/20112 simplifica y fortalece el esquema de 
“especialidades tradicionales garantizadas”. En prin cipio, para poder ser calificado de “especialidad 
tradicional”, debe probarse el uso en el mercado durante al menos treinta años. 
 
 Las comunidades de emigrados europeos en terceros países, que han conservado las 
técnicas de elaboración de dichas “espec ialidades tradicionales”, ¿podrían recibir 
protección según el Reglamento UE 1151/2012? ¿Qué procedimiento deberían utilizar para 
poder emplear el término de “especialidad tradicional garantizada”? 
 EU reply: The application for registration as a traditional speciality guaranteed of a name of 
product from third country can be submitted under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (see: Article 49 
(5)). Such application should be prepared by a gr oup established in a third country. It should be 
lodged with the Commission, either directly or via the authorities of the third country concerned. 
The application must comply with the provisions specified in Article 20 of the Regulation.  
 Párrafo 3.292: Reglamento UE 1151/2012 
 
 ¿Podría explicar la Comisión por qué se ha reducido de seis a tres meses el plazo para 
presentar oposiciones a las solicitudes de registro bajo el Reglamento UE 1151/2012?  
 
EU reply:  It was considered that the shortening of the registration procedure (including opposition 
procedure) could have a positive impact on the efficiency of business planning and marketing strategies, resulting in a better ratio costs/benefits. The currently applicable three-month period 
for introducing a notice of opposition would appe a r  l a r g e l y  s u f f i c i e n t  t o  s u b m i t  w h a t  c a n  b e  a  
relatively short information. After that, two extra months are available to actually submit the full-fledged opposition.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 140 - 
 
  Párrafo 3.298:  En lo que se refiere a las “Expresiones tradicionales garantizadas”, el Reglamento 
UE 1151/2012 establece que en el futuro solo el registro con reserva del nombre será autorizado.   
 ¿Ha evaluado la UE el impacto de esta medida sobre terceros países, en particular en la 
medida que se debilita el derecho de los inmigrantes y sus descendientes a utilizar, 
producir y exportar productos en base a las prácticas que forman parte de su herencia cultural, sólo porque han cambiado de país?  
 
EU reply: When a TSG was registered without reservation of the name it served only to identify 
the agricultural product or foodstuff correspon ding to the product specification. However, 
registered names could continue to be used on the labelling of products not corresponding to the 
registered specification, but without the indication "traditional speciality guaranteed", the 
abbreviation "TSG" or the Community symbol. This option was not offering real protection for the 
consumer and creating some confusion. To address it, Regulation (EU) 1151/2012 foresees that 
TSG can only be registered with the reservation of the name.  As regards TSG, it is not required to 
demonstrate the link between the product and its geographical origin. Any producer who follows the conditions of production laid down in the specification can use the registered name.  
 
En el párrafo 3.298 se indica que la Comisión Eu ropea decidirá próximamente sobre la eventual 
presentación de una propuesta en material de IG para productos no agrícolas.  
 ¿No sería conveniente avanzar en este tipo de legislación solo en los casos en los que existe 
un consenso internacional, en lugar de avanzar unilateralmente con medidas que pueden conllevar nuevas barreras de entrada y limitaciones a la competencia?  
 
EU reply: The Commission has not yet decided whether and how to create a system of 
geographical indication protection for non-agricultural products at EU level. The outcome of the 
Diplomatic Conference for the Adoption of a New Ac t of the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of 
Appellations of Origin and their International Registration that was held at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva from 11-21 May 2015, shows that multinational work on 
the protection of GI is progressing. 
 
 En el mes de enero de 2015 tuvo lugar un seminario sobre la posible adopción de un 
régimen comunitario de protección de indicaciones geográficas para productos no 
agrícolas. En la presentación
68 efectuada por la Unión Europea se indica que los 
participantes en la consulta pública, subrayaron como resultados esperados « efectos 
económicos positivos (75,8%) « beneficio de los consumidores » (77,5%), “efectos positivos en las relaciones comerciales con terceros países” (63,1%) y « preservación de la 
herencia cultural (70,0%). Sin embargo, tambié n se indica que en la consulta pública se 
recibieron 136 respuestas, de las cuales solo 0,8% (probablemente una persona) corresponden a la categoría “consumidores”. Otro 5,6% corresponde a la categoría « ciudadanos ». El resto de las respuestas provienen de gobiernos, compañías o 
asociaciones. 
 
 ¿Considera la UE que esto es suficiente respal do para emprender una iniciativa legislativa de 
impacto tan importante, incluso sobre “las relaciones comerciales con terceros países 
 EU reply: No. The Commission has not yet decided whether and how to create a system of 
geographical indication protection for non-agricultural products at EU level.  
 
 ¿Estas cifras no parecerían indicar que hay un escaso interés de los consumidores, a pesar 
de que sus supuestos intereses son invocados por productores y autoridades?  
 
EU reply: Please see reply to question above. 
 
3.3.6.2.7. Información no divulgada 
 Párrafo 3.301:  El Reglamento UE 536/2014 sobre Ensayos Clínicos de Productos Medicinales para 
Uso Humano establece, entre otras cosas, el establecimiento y mantenimiento de una base de 
datos, que contenga toda la información presentada durante las solicitudes de ensayos clínicos y 
                                               
68 http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8253. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 141 - 
 
  durante el procedimiento de evaluación. Segú n el Reglamento, dicha información debe ser 
accesible al público, con ciertas excepciones.  
 Los terceros países, en particular los países en desarrollo ¿tendrán modo de utilizar la 
información de dicha base de datos?  
 EU reply:  Yes, within the limits set by the Regulation and the relevant International agreements. 
 
 Los ensayos clínicos –en animales y en humanos- significan, además de un esfuerzo 
económico considerable para las empresas farmacéuticas, un “stress” para las poblaciones sujetos del ensayo, que puede implicar incluso grandes sufrimientos. ¿Cómo piensa la UE 
compatibilizar los derechos de las empresas farmacéuticas con la necesidad de evitar la 
proliferación de estudios similares, a nivel global, con los consiguientes sufrimientos para los individuos que participan de estos estudios? ¿En qué medida el Reglamento 536/2014 
toma esta situación en consideración?  
 EU reply:  Regulation 536/214 deals only with clinical trials on humans. It provides that all clinical 
trials conducted in the EU will have to be registered in a publically accessible database. 
Furthermore it provides for the highest standards of subject protection, starting with clear and stringent rules on the authorisation of any clinical trial taking place in the EU and going all the way up to setting conditions (and providing for the possibility of controls) for all clinical trials taking 
place outside the EU but where the data generated are used in an application for another clinical 
trial or for a marketing authorisation within the EU.  
POLITICA AGRICOLA COMUN 
4.1. Introduction  
Párrafo 4.2.  En este párrafo del Informe WT/TPR/S/317 puede leerse textualmente: “In 
agriculture, the process of reform of the Common Agricultural Policy has continued with a 
significant reform  to the system of direct payments, market measures, and rural development 
with full implementation  starting in 2015.” 
 
Con todo respeto, la Argentina discrepa con esta afirmación. En primer lugar, el presupuesto acordado a la PAC para el período 2014-2020 es de 408.000 millones de euros, de los cuales 
313.000 se destinarán al pilar I (pagos directos). Esta cifra es muy similar a la asignada durante el 
período 2007-2013 (400.000 millones) y casi no sufrió recortes.   
 ¿No ha perdido la UE una gran oportunidad de transformar verdaderamente su política 
agrícola?  
 EU reply: The EU disagrees with such view. Successive reforms of the CAP have increased the 
market orientation of European agriculture while improving the integration of environmental 
requirements and reinforcing support for rural development. The main direction of the policy in recent years has been the decoupling of support which has given the incentive to farmers to 
produce to market needs while providing them with  a certain level of income support to ensure 
provision of basic public goods desired by European society.  
The CAP for the period 2014-2020 continued on this path of reform.  Although the new CAP 
maintains the two pillar structure, it increases the links between them, thus offering a more holistic and integrated approach to policy suppo rt. After the induced policy shift from product to 
producer support, now more than ever a land based approach is foreseen. The reform introduced a 
new architecture of direct payments; better targeted, more equitable and greener, while 
concluding the full market orientation of the CAP by abolishing the last remaining production quotas. 
 
En segundo lugar, es verdad que en principio todos los derechos de pago activados en 2019 en un Estado miembro o en una región deberán tener un valor unitario uniforme.  No obstante, los 
Estados miembros están autorizados a tener en cuenta factores históricos al calcular el valor de los 
derechos de pago durante el periodo de transición (hasta 2019). Es verdad que habrá una mayor “convergencia”, pero el nivel total de ayud as promedio por agricultor se mantendrá 
aproximadamente en los niveles vistos en el periodo 2009-2013. De acuerdo con un informe 
elaborado por la Dirección General de Agricultura, los pagos directos representaron el 29% del WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 142 - 
 
  ingreso de la Agricultura europea en el periodo 2007-2009. Este porcentaje se eleva a 40% 
cuando se incluye el total de los subsidios.69 
 
 ¿Estos porcentajes no debilitan, por su prop ia magnitud, el argumento de un “desacople” 
entre pagos y producción?  
 EU reply: The vast majority of direct payments under the CAP are decoupled from production. 
 
4.2. Agriculture  Diferentes tipos de ayudas bajo la PAC actualmente vigente (varios párrafos de la sección 4.2 del 
Informe): 
 
 ¿Podría especificar en forma detallada la base legal en la normativa de la Unión Europea o 
de sus Estados nacionales cada tipo de ayuda bajo el Pilar I?  
 EU reply:  Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 is the legal basis for direct payments established under 
Pillar I from 1 January 2015. Regulation (EU) No  1308/2013 contains the legal basis for other aid 
schemes under Pillar I.  
 Podría informar la UE sobre la clasificación de estas ayudas en el Pilar I de la PAC, en 
términos de la clasificación del Acuerdo sobre Agricultura: Medida Global de Ayuda; “Caja 
Azul” (art. 6:5 del Acuerdo); “Caja verde” – pagos directos a los productores agropecuarios, según cada tipo de pago en los párrafos 5 a 13, del Anexo 2 del Acuerdo 
sobre Agricultura, “Caja verde” – otras ayudas  que no son pagos directos a los productores 
agropecuarios (párrafos 2 a 4 del Anexo 2 del Acuerdo sobre Agricultura).  
 
EU reply: The EU would like to refer to its most recent WTO notification on domestic support 
DS:1. See WTO notification G/AG/N/EU/20 of 22 October 2014 (covering the marketing year 2011/2012). Information related to the current CAP will be notified to the WTO accordingly in due time. 
 
4.2.2. Trade  
El cuadro 4.2. sobre las importaciones de los principales productos agropecuarios (2008-2013) 
exhibe una tendencia de reducción en las cantidades importadas de:  
- tortas de productos oleaginosos (partida 2304: de 22,9 millones de tn. en 2008 a 17,5 millones 
en 2013); y  - de poroto de soja (de 14,4 millones de tn. en 2008 a 12,9 millones en 2013).  
 ¿Cuál es la razón de estas reducciones en estos dos productos?  
 
 ¿Cómo ha sido la evolución desde 2013 y sus causas?  
 
 ¿Cuál es la estimación de la evolución futura en las importaciones de estos dos productos?  
 
EU reply to the three questions above: The decrease in imports for the two products, is the 
consequence of particular and temporary economic  conditions. The volume of soybeans imported 
in 2014 remains stable in comparison to 2013 (12.93 mio t against 12.97 in 2013).  As regards soymeal, the imported volume increased (from 17.55 mio t in 2013 to 18.48 mio t in 2014). 
 
El cuadro 4.3. sobre las exportaciones de los principales productos agropecuarios expone a productos procesados que se benefician de subv enciones, especialmente a la producción de las 
respectivas materias prima de estos productos y/o de altos niveles de protección arancelaria al 
producto procesado, como el caso de preparaciones alimenticias (partida 2106), preparaciones de chocolate (partida 1806) o preparaciones de panificación (partida 1901) con protección mediante 
medidas que no son aranceles propiamente dichos. Tomando en cuenta el buen rendimiento 
exportador de todos estos productos, podría la UE: 
                                               
69 Impact Assessment, Common Agricultural Policy towards 2020. página 19. 
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2011/sec_2011_1153_en.pdf . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 143 - 
 
   ¿explicar porqué no elimina las subvenciones y el alto nivel de protección en estos 
productos?  
 EU reply: The EU does not apply any subsidies specific for processed agricultural products. The EU 
import regime for processed agricultural products is contained in the EU's schedule, as agreed in 
the Uruguay Round. The EU has no plans to autonomously change its tariff structure; any change will result from a successful conclusion to the DDA  
 
 ¿confirmar si acaso este buen rendimiento exportador es el resultado de las subvenciones y 
de altos niveles de protección del mercado europeo ?  
 
EU reply: Good export performance of the EU processed agricultural products is an evidence of 
competitiveness of the EU agriculture and food industry.  
4.2.3. Agricultural policies 
Direct payments  
El párrafo 4.18 informa acerca de un aumento del apoyo acoplado de la producción en los límites 
nacionales.  
 ¿Podría informar sobre el valor de este aumento de subvenciones?  
 
EU reply: As a result of the increase in the limit for coupled support (from 3.5% to 6.5% of Annex 
VIII) the total EU allocation to these measures  increased from 1.8 billion EUR in 2013 calendar 
year to 2.0 billion EUR in 2014 calendar year. 
 El párrafo 4.21 informa sobre un nuevo pago directo a los productores, “voluntary coupled 
support”: 
 
 ¿Porqué se introduce un pago directo acoplado a la producción, contra la tendencia en el 
pasado de usar pagos directos desacoplados?  
 
EU reply: The introduction of the voluntary coupled support (VCS) does not contradict the overall 
orientation of direct payments under the CAP towards decoupling as this scheme is optional, 
limited in terms of both percentages available for its financing and objective, and compatible with 
WTO obligations. In addition, the introduction of VCS coincides with the abolition of remaining EU coupled support schemes in the beef an d veal and sheep and goat sectors. 
 
The principles governing VCS can be summarized as follows: EU Member States may decide to use part of their national ceilings for direct payments for financing coupled support in clearly defined cases, where specific types of farming or specific agricultural sectors that are particularly 
important for economic and/or social and/or environmental reasons undergo certain difficulties in 
terms of risk of decline or of abandonment of pr oduction. Payments shall be granted within defined 
quantitative limits and based on fixed areas and yields or on a fixed number of animals to the  
extent necessary to create an incentive to  maintain current levels of production. 
 
 ¿Podría proporcionar una estimación de su valor anual, por cada producto beneficiado 
(párrafo 4.30)?  
 EU reply: On the basis of the Member States notifications made to the EU Commission by 
1 August 2014, the total amounts allocated for financing coupled support in the year 2015 by all 
the Member States implementing the scheme are indicated per sector in the table below: 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 144 - 
 
  VCS Sectors - Amount allocated by sector – 2015 
(in € million)  
Beef and veal 1.732  
Cereals 87 
Flax 1 
Fruit and vegetables 204 
Grain legumes 6 
Hemp 2 
Hops 5 
Milk and milk products 829 
Nuts 14 
Oilseeds 1 
Olive oil 70 
Protein crops 443 
Rice 57 
Seeds 5 
Sheepmeat and goatmeat 478 
Silkworms 1 
Starch potato 18 
Sugar beet 174 
 4.127  
 
El cuadro 4.4 describe pagos directos de la UE. Con relación a los pagos del Reglamento n° 
73/2009, ¿podría discriminar los importes de estos pagos: 
 
 según su base legal (art. 68 o art. 69), y  
 
EU reply: see table below. 
 
Breakdown of Articles 69 Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and 68 Regulation (EC) No 
73/2009 (coupled support) from CY 2007 to 2011  (in million euros)  
Article 68 was implemented from only from calendar year 2010. 
 
 según los productos beneficiados? 
 
EU reply: see table below   Calendar 
year 
2007/FY 
2008 Calendar 
year 
2008/FY 
2009 Calendar 
year 
2009/FY 
2010 Calendar  
year 
2010/FY 
2011 Calendar  
year 
2011/FY 
2012 
Article 69 (1782/2003) 427 427 434 123 114 
Article 68 (73/2009) - - - 748 785 
Total 427 427 434 871 899 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 145 - 
 
  Product 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
05030236 All products 3,260,908 3,051,713 3,162,351 3,071,961 2,966,473
05030236 Arable crops 182,424,022 182,099,849 178,766,879 6,201,936 -31,458
05030236 Beef / veal 123,370,595 126,331,123 122,859,298 75,368,877 74,618,718
05030236 Cotton 13,102,029 12,580,878 12,387,982 12,835,035 11,735,919
05030236 Milk products 18,539,795 18,441,187 18,350,407 17,203,316 15,945,638
05030236 Olive oil 26,866,932 25,394,950 28,956,705 80,436 -11,974
05030236 Rice 133,631 151,305 138,865 0 0
05030236 Sheep and goat 19,555,108 20,318,293 21,389,072 11,402 -36,071
05030236 Sugar 26,596,087 31,064,333 30,562,343 8,544,733 8,688,711
05030236 Tobacco 9,027,328 9,294,825 10,792,429 1,822 3,367
05030236 Transitional measure s 0 0 6,724,850 1,730 3,806
TOTAL 422,876,435 428,728,454 434,091,181 123,321,249 113,883,128Article 69 Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Specific support in EUR
 
 
Agricultural Practices beneficial for the climate and the environment 
 
Párrafo 4.25.  La nueva PAC incorpora un nuevo instrumento denominado “Pago para prácticas 
agrícolas beneficiosas para el clima y el medio ambiente” (artículo 43 del Reglamento 1307/2013), conocido como  “Green Direct Payment”.   Se establecen obligaciones diferentes según las 
explotaciones tengan menos de 10 hectáreas o menos de 30 hectáreas. 
 
 ¿Qué porcentaje de las tierras agrícolas y del valor producción europea comprende cada la 
categoría de 1 a 10, 10 a 30 y más de 30 hectáreas respectivamente?  
 
EU reply: The utilised agricultural area of holdings with less than 10 ha of arable land is 35% of 
the total utilised agricultural area. The utilised ag ricultural area of holdings with 10 - 30 ha of 
arable land is 13% of the total utilised agricultural area. The utilised agricultural area of holdings 
with more than 30 ha of arable land is 52% of the total utilised agricultural area. The EU does not have figures on the value of production concerned. 
 
 ¿Están las explotaciones menores a 10 hectáreas igualmente habilitados para beneficiarse 
del Pago para prácticas agrícolas beneficiosas para el clima y el medio ambiente?   
 
EU reply: Holdings with smaller size of 10 Ha can also benefit from the greening payment. 
 El párrafo 4.25(i) informa que entre las opciones para los pagos para prácticas benéficas 
(“greening”) está la condición de destinar por lo menos el 70% de la tierra para praderas 
permanentes (permanent grassland).  
 Estas praderas ¿deben quedan sin uso o pueden usarse para la ganadería?  
 
EU reply:  These grasslands can be used for feeding livestock 
 
 En caso que las praderas puedan ser usadas para la ganadería ¿acaso no sería desacoplado 
el pago? 
 EU reply:  The maintenance of permanent grassland is the condition of eligibility for the greening 
payment, irrespective of whether there is agricultural production or not on the area. 
 Coupled Payments 
 
Párrafo 4.30.  En sus respuestas en el anterior Examen de Política Comercial la UE
70 indicó que 
(pregunta N 74 de Argentina): “Coupled support will be limited. It may only be granted to sectors 
or regions of Member State where specific types of  farming or specific agricultural sectors undergo 
                                               
70 Documento RD/TPR/192. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 146 - 
 
  certain difficulties and are particulary important for economic/social/or environmental reasons. The 
legislation will contain a list of sectors (….).  
 Sin embargo, el Artículo 52, apartado 2 del Reglamento UE 1308/2013 enumera una lista de 
sectores que cubre la mayor parte de la produ cción europea. Adicionalmente, todos los Estados 
miembro han notificado, excepto Alemania, que ap licarán subsidios directamente asociados a la 
producción. Un total de 11 Estados miembro aplicarán el máximo permitido (13% + 2% 
adicional).
71 De esa manera, el 10% del total de pagos directos serán pagos acoplados en el año 
2015.  
 ¿Estima la UE que estos montos son compatibles con el concepto de pagos “limitados” y 
“específicos”? 
 EU reply: The setting of voluntary coupled support will be  used only when there is a risk of decline 
or abandonment of production in a determined regi on or sector. Second, quantitative limits (area 
or number of animals) reflecting the level of prod uction reached in a past reference period in the 
sector concerned (see above reply to question 20) are applicable to each support measure. Third, 
on the basis of the decision notified by the Me mber States, the European Commission fixes each 
year a budgetary ceiling for coupled support whic h cannot be overshot. The EU will continue to 
respect its WTO domestic support limits.  
 ¿Teniendo en cuenta que los productores de carne bovina y de lácteos se encuentran 
protegidos por altos aranceles (Tabla 3.2. del Informe de la Secretaría), se benefician además de los distintos esquemas de pagos directos y del FEADER, no podría afirmarse 
que estos sectores están completamente excluidos de un verdadero sistema de mercado?  
 EU reply: Safety net support is available to these sectors under the CMO Regulation in the form of 
public intervention and aid for private storage. In this regard, it should be noted that buying-in to 
public intervention of dairy products has not occurred since 2009 and for beef since 2002. Moreover, in line with the market orientation of the CAP, the system of milk production quotas 
ended on 31 March 2015.  
 
Con relación a las ayudas para el almacenamiento (párrafos 4.32 y 4.34):   
 ¿Podría informar las cantidades de cada producto agropecuario almacenadas actualmente al 
amparo de medidas de la PAC, incluidas las almacenadas en forma privada con ayuda interna?   
 
EU reply: Products currently stored with the support of CAP measures are limited to butter, 
cheese, skimmed milk powder (SMP) and pigmeat,  all of which under private storage aid (PSA). 
According to the present situation, the followin g quantities are stored under the PSA scheme: 49 
956 tonnes of butter, 14 274 tonnes of SMP, 16 619 tonnes of cheese and 64 000 tonnes of 
pigmeat. The PSA schemes for cheese and pigmeat have been closed for 2015, while additional 
quantities are expected to enter into storage for butter and SMP, which remains open until 30 
September.  
 For up to date information regarding dairy stocks, please visit http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/ 
milk-market-observatory/pdf/e u-stocks-butter-smp_en.pdf  
 
De estas cantidades almacenadas:  
 ¿qué cantidades están almacenadas al amparo de medidas de emergencia ante el cierre de 
mercados de exportación?  
 
EU reply: None.  
 
 ¿qué destino tendrán las cantidades almacenadas?  
 
EU reply: Not applicable (see reply to previous question). 
                                               
71 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct-support/direct-payments/docs/implementation-ms-
notifications-slides_en.pdf. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 147 - 
 
  Dairy:  
 La producción de leche y de productos lácteos de las últimas campañas en la UE ha resultado en la sobreproducción, como consecuencia de políticas no orientadas al mercado, excediéndose así 
algunos de los países miembros en sus cuotas de producción preestablecidas. 
 
 ¿Qué destino han tenido tales excedentes de producción? 
 
EU reply: Whether milk is produced in or out of quota has no influence on its subsequent use. As 
explained in the last TPR (2013), milk producers that exceeded their quotas were required to pay a levy of 27.83 €/100 kg of production in excess of their quota to the extent that they contributed to 
the Member State's overshoot. It is for private operators in the dairy sector to find an appropriate 
outlet for the milk. Milk quotas  expired on 31 March 2015.  
Expiración de del régimen de cuotas de productos lácteos en 2015:  
 
 ¿Hacia qué tipo de esquema se orientará de allí en adelante la UE respecto de su producción 
y comercio externo de lácteos?  
 
 ¿Cuál el efecto en la producción, exportaciones y precios, tanto el esperado, como el que 
está resultando?  
 
EU reply to the two questions above: After the abolition of milk quotas, there is no new 
s c h e m e  s e t  u p  t o  r e g u l a t e  t h e  s u p p l y  o r  t o  i m p a c t  o n  p r i c e s  o r  e x p o r t s .  T h e  a m o u n t  o f  m i l k  
produced in the EU is determined by market forces. Prices are the result of overall demand and 
supply.  
 
4.2.3.2. Export Subsidies 
 Párrafo 4.51.  El nuevo Reglamento Delegado (UE) 1370/2013 fija los criterios para el 
establecimiento de restituciones a la exportación. Aunque la asignación presupuestaria es 
técnicamente “cero”, la Comisión se encuentra autorizada a adoptar actos de ejecución para fijar 
las restituciones por exportación de manera periódica para los productos contemplados en el Capítulo VI del Reglamento (UE) no 1308/2013 en caso de “perturbaciones del mercado que 
amenacen con producirse como consecuencia de incrementos o bajas significativas de los precios 
(….) o de otros acontecimientos o circunstancias que perturben o amenacen con perturbar de manera significativa el mercado (….)”  (Artículo 219 del Reglamento (UE) no 1308/2013).  
 
 ¿Teniendo en cuenta que la UE ha reiteradamente anunciado que no aplica en este momento 
restituciones a la exportación ni tiene intención política de hacerlo, cuál es la razón de mantener márgenes de libertad tan amplios?  
 
EU reply:  As indicated at the report of the secretar iat (Paragraph 3.129), the "EU set export 
refunds at zero for all agriculture products on 13 July 2013". The EU's new Common Agricultural 
Policy provides that export subsidies cannot be used other than as an exceptional measure in 
situations referred to in the question. No measures have been invoked since July 2013. The EU ensures that its policy will be fully in line with its international commitments and the Bali decisions 
on export competition. 
 The EU has no plans to autonomously change its scheduled export subsidy commitments, any 
change will result from a successful conclusion to the DDA.  
 
III. Otras preguntas Política agropecuaria 
 
Luego de varios años, las crisis fiscales y de deuda, persisten en varios países de la Unión Europea. 
 
 ¿Porqué eligen los miembros de la UE continuar centrando sus medidas de austeridad en 
gasto público focalizado en programas sociales y de bienestar y no en programas de subsidios y subvenciones al sector agrícola?  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 148 - 
 
  EU reply: The EU fiscal governance framework does not prescribe the composition of the fiscal 
adjustment which Member States may undertake . Rather, the fiscal framework provides the 
parameters that Member States' fiscal policy should operate within but it remains the decision of individual Member States as to the na ture of any necessary fiscal adjustment.  
 
Dentro de sus objetivos la reforma de la Po lítica Agraria Común (PAC) de 2013 preveía la 
reducción, y el traspaso de pagos acoplados (distorsionantes) a productores agrícolas hacia un 
esquema de pagos desacoplados. 
 Sin embargo, según datos oficiales del presupuesto de la UE sobre erogaciones de pagos directos hasta 2014 y el borrador de presupuesto general para 2015, los pagos acoplados han vuelto a 
incrementarse pasando de 2.700 millones de Euros proyectados en 2014 a 4.800 millones 
proyectados en 2015 (un aumento del 77%). Así, los pagos acoplados pasan de representar un 6,7% a un 11,6% del presupuesto de la UE para pagos directos. 
 
 ¿Puede la UE explicar esta inconsistencia entre el gasto proyectado y el mayor gasto 
realizado?  
 
EU reply: The possibility for Member States to allocate a certain percentage of the envelope 
available for direct payments reflects the 2013 CAP reform which acknowledged the fact that in order to take account of specific problems in certain regions where particular types of farming are 
considered particularly important for economic and/or social reasons, voluntary coupled support 
may be granted, within clearly defined limits. As already explained in reply to question 103, the support can only be granted within defined quantitative limits to the extent necessary to maintain 
current levels of production which en sures no sector is over-compensated. 
 A pesar de la reformas realizadas por la UE desde mediados de los años 1990, sigue manteniendo 
ayuda interna en la forma de sostenimiento de precios (eventualmente también con alguna forma 
de intervención en el mercado) para manteca, le che en polvo descremada, carne bovina y cereales 
(maíz, trigo, cebada; así como arroz) y aceitunas/aceite de oliva. También apoya a otros productos con ayuda para el almacenamiento privado (azúcar). 
 
 ¿Podría informar si prevé abolir este tipo de ayuda interna? ¿En tal caso, cuándo?  
 
EU reply: Public intervention and aid for private stor age were maintained as market instruments 
in the 2013 CAP reform and therefore will continue to be available. However, it should be noted that the purpose of these instruments is to provid e a safety net to the market in times of crisis, 
with the main instrument of support being the decoupled payment (see answer to question 115).  
 
 En caso que no se prevea su abolición, ¿podría indicar las razones para la preservación de 
este tipo de ayuda?  
 
EU reply: Most CAP support to farmers is now granted in the form of decoupled income support 
with no obligation to produce which allows farmer s to produce to market needs. However, the CAP 
also provides for safety nets mechanisms in order to respond to economic, health- or weather-
related crises.  
Subvenciones a los insumos: 
 ¿Podría informar sobre las subvenciones a los insumos de producción agropecuaria (en caso de que existan), identificando las disposiciones legales y administrativas que los autorizan? 
 
- pesticidas;   - fertilizantes;   - combustible u otras formas de energía;  - semillas o animales de reproducción; y   - otros insumos. 
 
EU reply: The EU would like to refer to its most recent WTO notification on domestic support 
DS:1. See supporting table DS9 on WTO notifica tion G/AG/N/EU/20 of 22 October 2014 (covering 
the marketing year 2011/2012). 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 149 - 
 
  Reforma de la PAC 
 
 ¿Podría la UE confirmar que sus esfuerzos de reforma de la PAC se han limitado solamente a 
las subvenciones y no al acceso a mercado? 
 
EU reply: CAP reform is not intended to change its tariffs structure for agriculture products. Any 
change will result from a successful conclusion to  the DDA. In the meantime, the EU will continue 
to respect its WTO commitments. 
 En los últimos meses, el tipo de cambio del Euro con respecto al dólar estadounidense ha tenido una reducción importante. 
 
 ¿Podría indicar los principales impactos, positivos y negativos, para el sector agropecuario?  
 
EU reply: The recent depreciation of the Euro vis-à-vis to the US dollar may impact the 
competitiveness of EU agri-food exports, while at the same time making the imports of intermediate inputs more expensive. However, the Euro was not the only world currency losing 
value against the dollar over the last year, a similar development being registered for the 
Japanese yen, the UK pound sterling and the Brazili an real and even more for the Russian rouble. 
Compared to the latter two currencies, the Euro even  registered a significant appreciation over the 
last year. In the end, the combined effect of the world major currency rates fluctuations had at 
least mixed impacts on the EU agri-food export performance. 
 
 ¿Afecta este movimiento en los tipos de cambio el uso de subvenciones agropecuarias?  
 
EU reply: The level of EU agricultural subsidies is independent from fluctuations in the exchange 
rates. In the past, the outlays related to export refunds measures had a direct link with the 
exchange rates; however, these measures have not been used since July 2013. 
 
 En caso que así fuera, ¿cómo?  
 
EU reply: Not applicable following the reply to previous question. 
 
Subvenciones a la pesca:  
 
¿Cuáles son las actividades que prevé la UE para combatir la sobrepesca y la sobreexplotación pesquera? 
 
EU reply: This question is not directly related to subsidies but to fisheries policy generally.  
 In 2013, the EU adopted a fundamental reform of  its Common Fisheries Policy which aims to 
ensure high long-term fishing yields for all st ocks by 2015 where possible and at the latest by 
2020. This is referred to as maximum sustainable yield. Another increasingly important aim is to reduce unwanted catches and wasteful practices to the minimum or avoid them altogether, 
through the gradual introduction of a landing obligation.  The following webpage illustrates the 
variety of activities. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/index_en.htm . 
 
¿Cuál es el porcentaje de los subsidios a la actividad pesquera otorgados por la UE a cada país 
miembro de la misma y las subvenciones que cada país otorga? ¿Cómo es la distribución de subvenciones, sean de la UE o de cada país?   Subvenciones para los barcos pesqueros:  
¿Aplica subsidios a la construcción de nuevos barcos pesqueros de gran porte? 
¿Cuál es el importe anual del trienio más reciente?  ¿Qué porcentaje de los subsidios a la pesca se destinan a este fin? 
¿Porqué la UE asigna la menor cantidad de fondos de los subsidios a la pesca a la investigación, en 
comparación con la distribuída a las otras actividades subsidiadas?  
EU reply to the above questions: The EU is providing its "EU 2015 new and full subsidy 
notification pursuant to Article XVI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 25 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures" in the days to come. The EU invites the Republic of Argentina to read attentively this notification where it will find answers to the questions raised.  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 150 - 
 
  ¿Cómo puede interpretarse el mensaje72 de Isabella Loevin, miembro del Comité de Pesca del 
Parlamento Europeo, quien declaró que “el hecho de que la UE otorgue subsidios a firmas pesqueras en aguas de África ya es un problema porque, al hacerlo, los contribuyentes europeos 
están agravando las dificultades de los pobres africanos para mantener su sustento”… “…que los 
subsidios vayan a parar a barcos que violan el derecho internacional es vergonzoso e inmoral”?  
 EU reply: New Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements (SFPAs) target surplus stocks only, 
ensuring that EU fishing fleets respect the provisio ns agreed by the Parties. Within these SFPAs, 
the EU contributes financially to support in the corresponding Party the local fishing sector, fishing governance including actions against IUU fishing, scientific research and control.  
¿Qué medidas prevé la UE para recuperar las especies que se hallan al borde de la desaparición, 
como el bacalao de profundidad y los albatros, consecuentes incidentales de la pesca de los primeros, como efecto de la sobreexplotación? 
 
EU reply: The management of fisheries for toothfish falls under the competence of the Convention 
for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) which, in the framework of an 
ecosystem approach, further to ensuring the sustainability of the fishery adopts measures for the 
protection of those birds as albatross that could be endangered due to their incidental by-catch 
during fishing operations. As Contracting Part y  t o  C C A M L R ,  t h e  E U  a b i d e s  b y  i t s  r u l e s  a n d  
collaborates with other Contracting Parties in order to improve the efficacy of the measures 
adopted in the area covered by that Organisati on. Argentina, as a CCAMLR Member also has the 
same obligations and responsibilities to avoid over exploitation. It is regrettable that Argentina has 
not supported more stringent enforcement measures that could be reached via trade measures 
and that would address the very issue Argentina is raising 
 ¿Qué vínculo halla la UE entre los subsidios y la pesca ilegal, no reportada y no regulada (IUU), 
que pretende eliminar a través del Reglamento 1.005/2008 de la UE , y, asimismo, en relación a 
las redes ilegales usadas por buques pesqueros europeos?  EU reply: Access to EU financial assistance is conditional upon compliance of operators with 
Common Fishery Policy rules. The new rules adopted in 2015 stipulate that where a competent 
authority has determined that an operator has committed a serious infringement under Article 42(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 or Arti cle 90(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, 
applications for public support from the European  Maritime and Fisheries Fund by that operator 
shall be inadmissible for a determinate periods of time.  
¿Qué sanción reciben por parte de la UE las flot as de ese origen que emplean los subsidios, que 
reciben de la misma, a la realización de capturas ilegales en otros continentes; particularmente en las áreas en donde la pesca artesanal es la principal fuente de supervivencia de las poblaciones?   
EU reply: Flag States, whether EU or non-EU states, are responsible for taking measures against 
their fishing vessels having engaged in IUU fish ing. Under the EU IUU Regulation Chapter V, 
fishing vessels which are not sanctioned for their ill egal activities by the relevant coastal and/or 
flag States risk ending up on the EU IUU vessel list, which may include both EU and non EU 
vessels. The consequences of being on the EU IUU vessel list are set out in Article 37 of the IUU regulation and entail amongst others for EU vessels withdrawal and non-renewal of fishing 
authorisations and obligation to remain in port.  
                                               
72 PARLAMENTO EUROPEO 2014-2019, Comi sión de Pesca, PECH_PV(2014)0922_1. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 151 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO WRITTEN QUESTI ONS FROM THE P. R. CHINA 
Part I.  Questions based on Report  by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/317) 
 Page 9, Para 10 
To a large extent, direct taxes are the responsib ility of the member States, and the systems and 
rates of income tax, corporation tax, and social contributions vary from one to another.  
Question 1 
The difference in the rates of income taxes, excise taxes and other taxes appears to be against the EU’s desire to establish a unified internal market, and this also results in uncertainty for capital 
investment and trade flow into the EU. Does the EU have any arrangements or initiatives to 
accelerate the integration of its internal market, e.g. harmonize domestic taxes of members states?   
EU reply: EU legislation establishes the excise classification of harmonized excise products in 
three product categories: alcohol, tobacco and ener gy products. Within each product category EU 
legislation set minimum rates for different products. Harmonised excise procedures, which are 
integrated with customs procedures, allow excise products to be moved under excise duty 
suspension to their final destination in the European Union, thus avoiding procedural differences between Member States. 
 
As far as VAT is concerned, the work is still on-going along the lines announced in the Communication on the Future of VAT - Towards a simpler, more robust and efficient VAT system tailored to the single market COM(2011)851: 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/vat/key_documents/commu
nications/com_2011_851_en.pdf  
 
As far as corporate taxation is concerned, th e European Commission tabled a Proposal for a  
Directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) was published on 16th March 2011 that would provide a single set of common rules for computing the tax base of corporations 
within the EU. This proposal is under the ordinary legislative procedure. For further information, 
please refer to the dedicated web-page: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/company_tax/common_tax_base/index_en.htm  
 
Page 9, Para 11 
…Among other changes, the package reinforces rules on aggregation of below-threshold procurement contracts, introduces the concept of life-cycle costing that includes environmental 
externalities… 
 Question 2: Please explain in detail the government procurement rules regarding environmental 
externalities and their implementation status. 
 EU reply : The new rules promote a life-cycle costing approach. The notion of life-cycle costing 
includes all costs over the life cycle of a works, supplies or services contract. This means internal 
costs as well as costs related to environmental factors. Externalities may include the emission of 
greenhouse gases, pollution caused by the extraction of raw materials used in the product or caused by the product itself or its manufacturing.  
 
Costs related to environmental externalities can only be taken into account if their monetary value can be determined and verified.  If no common EU method exists for the calculation of life-cycle 
costs such methods can be established at national, regional or local level. However, The Directive 
foresees that the methods which contracting authorities can use for assessing costs imputed to environmental externalities should be established in advance in an objective and non-discriminatory manner and be accessible to all interested parties. 
 
They have to be general in the sense that they sh ould not be exclusively designed for one specific 
public procurement procedure, be objective and the data required can be provided with reasonable 
effort by enterprises. 
 Question 3: Please explain the concept of life-cycle costing that is introduced into government 
procurement.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 152 - 
 
  EU reply:  please refer to reply to Question 2.  
 Question 4: How does the EU ensure that the concept of life-cycle costing will not become green 
trade barriers? 
 
EU reply: It cannot be a green barrier for the following reasons: 
 
Contracting authorities might (if they wish) award a contract to the most economically 
advantageous tender or to the lowest cost using a life-cycle costing approach. It must be clarified that award criteria must always be objective, non-discriminatory and shall not have the effect of conferring an unrestricted freedom of choice on the contracting authority. They shall ensure the 
possibility of effective competition and shall be accompanied by specifications that allow the 
information provided by the tenderers to be effe ctively verified in order to assess how well the 
tenders meet the award criteria.  
 
The Directive allows only life cycle costing when it  is linked to the subject-matter of the contract, 
so for example it is not possible to use criteria and conditions relating to general corporate policy 
of the bidder.  Contracting authorities should hence not be allowed to require tenderers to have a 
certain corporate social or environmental responsibility policy in place. Requiring lyfe cycle costing is a not trade barrier. On the contrary by promoting LCC, the EU considers that public authorities can provide industry with real incentives for de veloping green technologies and products, thus 
contributing to growth. 
 Page 12, Para 1.5 
In response to the weakness of investment, the EU  launched an Investment Plan which is expected 
to mobilize at least €315 billion over the next three years, with an aim of supporting the real 
economy and SMEs. The Investment Plan is intended to support "strategic investments" in 
infrastructure, including broadband and energy networks, transport infrastructure, renewable 
energy, and research and innovation.  Question 5: Please indicate which sectors are covered as “strategic investments”, and why these 
sectors are considered of the nature of strategic investment? Please explain in detail the 
supporting measures.   
EU reply:  The Investment Plan aims at maximizing the impact of public resources and unlocking 
private investment. A new European Fund for Stra tegic Investment (EFSI) is being set up in 
partnership between the Commission and the EIB gr oup. Public and private entities can present 
projects for financing to the EIB Group, and the EFSI is geared to maximize the mobilization of 
private sector capital.  The EFSI will be operational as of September 2015. Second, targeted initiatives to make sure that 
this extra investment meets the needs of the real economy. An European Investment Advisory Hub 
to support project preparation and implementation via technical assistance will be setup as of Q3 2015. A European Investment Project Portal will  be launched by end 2015 to enable project 
sponsors to publish their investment opportunities in an open and transparent way, so as to attract 
potential investors.  
Third, measures to provide greater regulatory pred ictability and to remove barriers to investment, 
making Europe more attractive and thereby multiplying the impact of the Plan.  To improve the business environment and financin g conditions, the investment plan will include 
progress towards a Digital Single Market, Energy Union and Capital Markets Union, initiatives being 
launched by the Commission in 2015.  
Sectors covered as strategic investments are: 
a) research, development and innovation b) development of the energy sector in accordan ce with the Energy Union priorities, including 
 security of energy supply, and the 2020,  2030 and 2050 climate and energy frameworks 
(c) development of transport infrastructures, and equipment and innovative technologies for 
 transport (d) financial support to entities having up to 3000 employees, with a particular focus on SMEs 
 and small mid-cap companies WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 153 - 
 
  (e) development and deployment of info rmation and communication technologies 
(f) environment and resource efficiency (g) human capital, culture and health  
The sectors covered are strategic as they fit with EU strategies of sustainable economic 
development, including in energy, transport, urban, ICT, RDI and SME support.  
Page 13, Para 1.7 
On the positive side, a number of recent developmen ts (e.g. depreciation in the euro, the fall in oil 
prices, the ECB's quantitative easing programme, and improvement in financial conditions) should improve the economic outlook. 
 
Question 6:   
How does the EU assess the stimulating effect as well as the spillover effects of the significant 
depreciation in the euro and the ECB's quantita tive easing programme on the EU’s economy? 
 EU reply:  The ECB's January decision to launch the expanded asset purchase programme (EAPP) 
was explicitly motivated by its primary mandate of preserving price stability in the euro area. In 
line with its objective, the EAPP seems to have induced an upward shift in market-based measures of inflation expectations. It also supports the recovery of the euro area, which has positive externalities for the EU and the global economy. 
 
The euro exchange rate is not a policy target of  the euro area. The expectation and launch of the 
EAPP accentuated cyclical divergences and differenc es in the evolution of monetary policy stances 
in major economies, thus contributing to the sharp depreciation of the euro. The lower euro offers 
some support to euro-area exporters, but effects differ widely across Member States. The euro's depreciation over the past year in nominal effect ive terms needs to be seen against the backdrop 
of its 13% appreciation which took place between mid-2012 and mid-2014. 
 The degree of uncertainty regarding estimates of QE 's positive impact on euro-area GDP growth is 
wide. According to the Commission's Spring 2015 forecast, the positive effect of monetary 
conditions, i.e. the combined impact of the lower yields and the weaker euro, on real GDP growth 
could be about ¾ of a percentage point in 2015.  
The stronger recovery of the euro area has positi ve externalities for the rest of the EU and the 
global economy. Even though the weaker eu ro strengthens the euro area's relative 
competitiveness against its trading partners, its ne gative spillover effects to other economic areas 
should be relatively limited. First, monetary policy is targeted to domestic objectives and all major 
central banks continue to have enough policy autonomy to react flexibly to changing circumstances. Second, by raising inflation, monetary accommodation ceteris paribus implies an appreciation of the euro in real terms, which is what ultimately matters for international 
competitiveness. Third, higher growth in the euro area should have positive spillover effects in 
trading partners insofar as it increases demand for foreign goods.  
Page 14, Para 1.14 
During the period under review, a number of measures to improve the functioning of labour markets were adopted. These measures cover areas including early retirement schemes, 
employment protection legislation, and activation and assistance for those not working. 
 Page 14, Para 1.15 There have been some reforms affecting the labour market such as decentralized wage bargaining 
and more flexible wage arrangements, especially in some member States 
 Question 7: 
The EU’s reforms to the labour market have caused more difficulties and challenges for many 
foreign-invested enterprises in the EU face in re spect of dismissal of employees, reassignment of 
employees and wage bargaining, and consequent increase in their operating costs. What is EU’s 
view of this issue? 
 EU reply: Social policy is a shared competence betw een the EU and the EU Members states. Wage 
bargaining systems are an EU Member States competence. The EU coordinates the employment 
policies of the EU Member States. The involvemen t of workers in enterprises restructuring is WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 154 - 
 
  regulated since many years by EU legislation im plemented by the EU member States (e.g. EU 
Directive on collective redundancies of 20 July 1998, 98/59/ EC, regulating also the procedure for 
such redundancies; EU Directive on the general framework for informing and consulting of workers, 11 March 2002, 2002/14/EC, EU Direct ive on European Works Councils, 22 September 
1994, 94/45/EC). The involvement of EU social partne rs in EU social policy is guaranteed by art 
154 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. Al l EU Member States have ratified the ILO core 
labour standards conventions including promotion of collective bargaining. 
 
The labour market reforms undertaken by EU Memb er States, supported by the EU under e.g. the 
European Semester process of economic govern ance and by EU funds, aim at improving the 
functioning and effectiveness of the labour market in the context of the recovery from the 
financial, economic and social crisis.  
More effective labour markets are in the interest of workers and all enterprises, regardless their origin. The labour market measures apply to all enterprises and do not discriminate between EU 
and foreign invested enterprises.   
 Page 23, Para 1.33 
The major activities of services trade were recorded under "other business services": in 2013, 
"other business services" accounted for 25% of  exports and 28% of imports of services 
(Table 1.1). Other business services, professional  services and technical services (e.g. legal 
services, accounting services, architectural services, engineering services, etc.) accounted for 
10.9% of exports and 9.6% of imports in 2013, with a surplus of €26 billion. Financial services 
together with insurance and pension services ge nerated the biggest services trade balance in 
2013, with a surplus of €64 billion (35% of EU total services trade surplus). 
 
Question 8:  European countries have great demand for service of traditional Chinese medicine. The key to the 
liberalization of trade in services of traditional Chinese medicine is the qualification accreditation of 
practitioners and market access. Has the EU already got a timetable to solve these problems?  EU reply:  Unless a profession is regulated at European Union's level, it is a competence of the EU 
Member States to define both the need for and the level of regulation of professional qualifications. 
Regulation of the profession of Traditional Chinese Medicine is a matter left for national considerations since so far the EU did not see the need to harmonise this sector. Since this is not a 
traditional European profession, ways of regulation/certification may vary intensively from Member 
State to Member State, and recognition of foreign qualifications in this area, including Chinese ones, may vary between Member States.  
 
Page 26, Para 2.4 Some outside observers have pointed out that using the form of directives may increase the EU-origin regulatory burdens through the domestic legal acts needed to transpose directives into 
national law which may increase the probability of non-uniform application of EU rules. The 
Commission indicated that trade policy is administered, in general, in the form of regulations that ensure the uniform implementation of the common commercial policy throughout the EU. 
 
Question 9:  Please explain the consistency of member states in transposing the EU directives into national 
laws. In cases where the laws of a member state are inconsistent with the EU directives, what 
correcting or adjusting mechanisms does the EU have?  EU reply:  Each directive contains a deadline by which Member States must adopt national 
transposition measures – which incorporate the obligations of the directive into national law. EU 
directives leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods of implementation, and therefore Member States have primary responsibili ty for the correct and timely application of EU 
Treaties and legislation. 
 The Commission monitors the application of Union law and may take action if a Member State fails 
to implement EU directives into its national law and to report/communicate to the Commission 
what measures it has taken. If this is the case, the Commission delivers a reasoned opinion on the matter after giving the State concerned the opportunity to submit its observations. If the State concerned does not comply with the reasoned opinion, the Commission may bring the matter WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 155 - 
 
  before the Court of Justice and ask to rule against a Member State (a failure to comply with the 
Court's first ruling may lead to a further negative ruling, which could result in fines).  
 Page 30, Para 2.27 
The EU's reciprocal trade relations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries are 
governed by Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). The EPA process involves seven regional configurations: CARIFORUM, Pacific, Central Afri ca, West Africa, Southern African Development 
Community (SADC), East African Community (EAC), and Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA). 
 Question 10:  What level of liberalization will the EPAs achieve? How does the EU coordinate the unilateral GSP 
and bilateral free trade agreements as for the less-developed economics? 
 EU reply:  EPAs are a tool to support existing regional integration schemes and create a stable, 
predictable and transparent framework for business. EPAs give LDCs a stable framework for trade 
relations with the EU, even when they move up the development ladder; the opportunity to obtain 
more flexible cumulation of origin; targeted cooperation in areas such as Sanitary and 
PhytoSanitary (SPS) measures and Technical Barri ers to Trade (TBT).Given their special status, 
LDCs remain eligible for GSP even under a bilatera l FTA. For further details, please refer to the 
Government report of the EU. 
 Question 11:  
Please share the experience of the EU in prov iding aid for trade to the EPA parties and in 
supporting their capacity building.  EU reply:  Each EPA contains substantial and deta iled provisions referring to Aid for 
implementation of the EPA, including technical assistance. EPA-relevant development cooperation 
has been linked to all areas of the "Aid for Trade" agenda. For details on Aid for trade, please refer 
to the following publication, where also some concrete examples of technical assistance are 
presented: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/november/tradoc_151890.pdf. 
 
A couple of examples on Technical assistance programmes, financed from 10th European 
Development Fund: i) Support to Regional Economic Integration and Trade in the Economic 
Community of West African States (ECOWAS), EU €20 million: one of the expected results is "A 
common ECOWAS Trade Policy is formulated and adopted, and the capacities for trade negotiations and implementation are enhanced"; ii) Support to the Forum of Caribbean States in 
the implementation of the commitments undertake n under the Economic Partnership Agreement, 
EU €46.5 million: one of the expected results is  "To address the problem of implementation 
capacity deficits at both national and regional levels, as well as the need for an effective 
coordination mechanism and pre-identified specific  capacity needs in the areas of competition, 
procurement and trade facilitation and customs".  
Page 30, Para 2.30 
The new "Generalised Scheme of Preferences" (G SP) began to apply on 1 January 2014. According 
to the Commission, the new GSP focusses prefer ences on countries-most-in-need and addresses 
the issue of preference erosion. 
 
Question 12:  How does the EU determine “countries-most-in-need”? What are the criteria for judgement? 
 
EU reply:  The GSP regulation provides that benefici aries of the GSP scheme are all developing 
countries unless they have been classified by the World Bank as high-income or upper-middle 
income countries during three consecutive years or they benefit from a preferential market access arrangement which provides the same, or better,  tariff preferences as the scheme. Thus, the 
criteria are (i) income level as established by the World Bank, and (ii) access to the EU market through other arrangements. In practice, all lower income or lower-middle income developing 
countries are beneficiaries unless they have an alternative market access arrangement e.g. a Free 
Trade Agreement with the EU.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 156 - 
 
  Page 31, Para 2.32 
The EU's GSP consists of three arrangements:...GSP+,  which offers additional tariff reductions to 
"vulnerable" countries that ratify and effectively implement core international conventions in the fields of human rights, labour rights, environmental protection, and good governance. 
 
Question 13:  What kind of additional tariff reduction does the EU offers, under the framework of GSP+, to the 
economies that voluntarily and effectively implement core international environmental 
conventions? Which conventions are core enviro nmental conventions, and which economies are 
involved?   
EU reply: Standard GSP benefits generally consist of a complete suspension of customs tariffs on 
all products listed in the GSP Regulation as non-sensitive and of a 3.5% reduction on all products listed as sensitive. On the other hand, GSP+ benefi ts generally consist of a complete suspension of 
customs tariffs also on the sensitive products. 
 The environmental conventions are listed in A nnex VIII of the GSP regulation as follows: 
-Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora  
-Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer  -Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal  
-Convention on Biological Diversity  
-The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change  -Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety  
-Stockholm Convention on persistent Organic Pollutants  
- Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change  
Page 33, Para 2.42 
Some member States such as France, Germany, and the United Kingdom maintain FDI review procedures for national security purposes. These procedures were amended during the period under review: in September 2013, Germany streamlined its review mechanism for FDI, reducing 
data requirements for sector-specific reviews;  and in May 2014, France amended the list of 
activities subject to FDI review. In 2014, Italy and Portugal also amended or adopted new legislation to review investment in strategic sectors such as defence, energy, transport and 
communication. 
 Question 14:  
How does the EU define “national security”? Wh at sectors are involved? Are there any specific 
rules tailored to China’s State-Owned Enterprises?   EU reply:  Any FDI review procedure at MS level has to be compatible with the limited number of 
exceptions to the fundamental freedom of capital movement enshrined in the TFEU. Inter alia 
article 65 TFEU allows MS to limit capital movements within the EU and from outside the EU on the grounds of public policy and public security which is  defined individually by MS. In general, this is 
interpreted as a means to protect the fundamental interests of society, and is assessed on a case-
by-case basis.  
There are no specific rules tailored to Chinese State-owned enterprises. 
 Page 33, Para 2.45 Under the EU exclusive competence, investment agreements with non-EU member States are 
negotiated at the EU level. 
 Question 15:  
In accordance with the Lisbon Treaty, investment is incorporated into the common trade policy as 
the EU exclusive competence. Please clarify the division of authority on investment administration between the EU institutions and the member states, as well as the division of authority during the 
course of negotiating and ratifying a treaty that is relating to investment. 
 EU reply:  Foreign direct investment policy is an integral part of the common commercial policy, 
which is remains an exclusive competence of th e EU. New investment negotiations with third 
countries can only be carried out at the EU level or with EU authorisation. In terms of procedures WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 157 - 
 
  followed, the European Council mandates usually the Commission to conduct negotiations on 
behalf of the EU, after the Council has approved th e agreement, individual ratification processes 
take place within each individual Member State in accordance with its internal procedures.  
The existing BITs between EU Member States and third countries will be preserved until they are 
replaced by EU agreements. In this respect, Regulation No 1219/2012  grants legal security to the 
existing BIAs between the EU Member States and third countries until they are replaced by EU-
wide investment Agreements. Under certain conditions, set out in Article 9 of the Regulation 
1219/2012, the EU Member States may negotiate or re-negotiate existing bilateral investment agreements. However, the Regulation does not provide for the co-existence of Member States and Union investment agreements with the same third country and Member States agreements will 
cease to apply when the EU agreement with the same countries enters into force. 
 Page 33, Para 2.47 
In preparation for the application of an ISDS mech anism, the EU adopted a regulation to establish 
a legal and financial framework for investor-to-state dispute settlement on 23 July 2014. This regulation provides legal and financial certainty for foreign investors in the EU when they have 
dispute complaints against the EU or its member States, and ensures that any final award or 
settlement award is paid promptly to the investor, regardless of the decisions on the allocation of financial responsibility.  
Question 16:  
Please explain in detail the legal and financial framework to ensure the operation of the ISDS 
mechanism. In particular, when the EU loses a ca se, how does the EU ensure full implementation 
of the award? 
 EU reply:  The legal framework for the operation of an ISDS mechanism is in principle set out in 
the respective agreement in which it is included. Furthermore, within the EU the Financial 
Responsibility Regulation (Regulation No 912/2014  of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor-to-state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the 
European Union is party, OJ 2014 L 257/121) adopted on 23 July 2014 contains detailed rules to 
manage the financial responsibility of the EU and Member States linked to ISDS for international agreements to which the EU is a party. It also establishes a procedure to determine who shall act 
as the respondent in investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS). Where the EU loses a case, it 
will carry out the necessary internal steps to en sure implementation of the award in accordance 
with EU rules; however so far the EU has no practice in this area. 
 
Page 35, Para 3.1 …customs laws and procedures are harmonized and monitored at the EU level, with the national customs administrations in the member States responsible for implementing the law…. 
 
Question 17:  Though the EU customs law establishes uniform rules for tariff guarantee, reduction and 
exemption of duties, processing trade and other policies, specific implementing measures 
formulated by the members states are not always the same. And the relevant application procedures also vary. As a result, when goods flow among various member states, the trading cost 
would be increased due to the different customs procedures implemented. Does the EU have any 
plan or timetable to further harmonize the customs procedures of member states so as to reduce the trading cost?  
EU reply: Customs procedures in the EU are harmonized under the Community Customs Code and 
its implementing provisions and must be uniform ly implemented by the Member States' customs 
authorities. However, certain variations in the administration of these uniform customs procedures 
can sometimes occur between Member States. In cases where the Commission believes that such 
practices are not in compliance with EU customs law it will investigate the issue and, if necessary, infringement procedures will be launched against the Member State in question. 
 
Page 38, Para 3.18 There have been no changes in customs valuation legislation since the last Review. According to the Commission, the rules set out in the WTO Customs Valuation Agreement have been transposed WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 158 - 
 
  directly into applicable EU legislation, i.e. Articles 28 to 36 of the Customs Code, and its related 
Implementing Provisions (Articles 141 to 181a and annexes 23 to 29).  Question 18:  
Classification and valuation are enforced in an un-unified manner among the EU member states. 
The same is true for custom valuation decisions. And in these cases, there lacks a fast-track coordination and resolution mechanism at the EU level. Has the EU set up a mechanism to 
harmonize the implementing criteria of customs valuation among its member states? 
 EU reply:  The EU customs valuation legislation, based on the WCO customs valuation agreement, 
is directly applicable in all EU Member States and is applied (and enforced) in a uniform manner 
throughout the EU. Coordination is done at EU level in conjunction with EU Member States and the 
correct and uniform implementation of the EU customs law is monitored at EU level.  
Page 45, Para 3.53 
Domestic and imported alcoholic beverages, manufactured tobacco products, energy products (e.g. petrol, gas oil, natural gas) and electricity are subject to excise. Excise duty on imports is 
usually collected at the EU border unless the goods are placed under an excise duty suspension 
arrangement, which allows payment to be defe rred. Excise duties are specific taxes. The 
classification and the rules for the holding and mo vement of untaxed excise goods are harmonized. 
The rates applied on these products vary across member States, but must be at least equal to the 
minimum rates established in the EU legislation. 
 Question 19: 
Are the above-mentioned products originated in th e EU and the imported ones subject to different 
rates and collecting rules of excise duty? If so, please explain in detail.  
EU reply:  Collection procedures for excise duty where goods are released for home use at the 
same time as being released from customs supervision are regulated by the individual Member States. Excise goods which are moved to a Member State other than the Member State where the goods first enter the Union under either customs or excise supervision are subject to harmonized 
procedures. In both cases imported products and products originating in the EU face exactly the 
same excise duty rates.  
Page 46-47, Para 3.61 
Currently, the EU is in the process of modernizing its trade defence instruments (anti-dumping and countervailing only) with the objective of improving transparency in investigations and, in 
particular, regarding analogue country, injury margin, expiry reviews and the EU's interest. 
 Question 20:  The EU’s modernization of trade defence instruments was temporarily suspended due to opposition 
by certain member states. Many EU’s Member States worry that the reform would vest the 
European Commission with too much power in trade remedy, in particular the ex-officio initiation of antidumping and anti-subsidy investigatio ns, thus deeming the EU proposal as trade 
protectionist measure. What are the EU’s comments on this? Will the EU continue to push forward 
the modernization of trade defence instruments? And how?  
EU reply:  The EU's Basic Anti-dumping and Anti-subsidy Regulations already allow the 
Commission to initiate investigations on an ex-officio basis in certain circumstances. Regarding the modernisation proposal, the Commission, together with the other institutions, explores ways in order to move the file forward in the be st interest of all parties concerned. 
 
Question 21:  One of the objectives of the EU’s modernizatio n of trade defense instruments is transparency 
enhancement. The EU’s current antidumping investigation lacks transparency. For example, key 
data regarding the quantity and unit price of like products and undercutting amount is not 
disclosed to the companies concerned. The interest ed parties are therefore unable to correctly and 
sufficiently evaluate the calculation of dumping an d injury margins. Please explain how could the 
EU, through effective information disclosure, offer the interested parties full information regarding the calculation of dumping and injury margin and enable their effective defense? Will the EU consider any legislation amendments? What is the EU’s position on the administrative protection 
order in the future? WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 159 - 
 
  EU reply:  Article 20 of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation sets out the relevant provisions 
regarding the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations to interested parties, on the basis of which it is intended to, inter alia, recommend the imposition of provisional or definitive measures. When disclosing these facts and considerations, the EU must also observe the relevant 
provisions enshrined in the Basic Regulation concer ning the confidential treatment of certain type 
of information, i.e. Article 19 of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation. The EU ensures that disclosure is carried out fully in accordance with the requirements of the Basic Regulation, which are in line 
with WTO rules, while at the same time respecting the rights of parties.  
 Regarding timely access to documents, an improved website ( http://trade.ec.europa.eu/tdi/ ) 
provides exact timelines for all ongoing investigations.  So far the EU has no such provision. 
 
Question 22:  Will the legislative reformation involve amendments to the conditions for recognizing non-market 
economies and the method of calculating dumping margin based on surrogate country? 
 EU reply:  The legislative proposal aiming at reforming certain aspects of the EU Trade Defence 
Instruments legislation (Trade Defence Modernisation), does not address the issue of recognizing 
non-market economies and the methodology of calculating dumping based on surrogate country. It is under ordinary legislative procedure.  
Page 47, Para 3.64 
The adoption of contingency measures is subject to the new "comitology" rules (section 2.1) and requires consultations of a committee composed of member State representatives; member States 
can only oppose measures with a qualified majority. 
 Question 23: 
Please explain in detail operation of the new "com itology" rules, and the different effects of the 
new and previous rules in trade remedy field.  EU reply:  The Omnibus Regulation (No 37/2014) adapte d the existing Trade Regulations to the 
new comitology procedures and rules laid down  in Comitology Regulation (No 182/2011). The 
basic Anti-dumping (No 1225/2009) and Anti-subsidy Regulations (No 597/2009) were amended accordingly and trade defence instruments (‘TDI’) investigations became subject to the comitology 
rules.  
 The Commission consults the Trade Defence Instruments Committee (‘TDC’) on draft implementing 
acts. This committee assists the Commission in the exercise of the implementing powers and gives 
opinions on draft implementing acts. The TDC is composed of representatives of all the Member 
States and is chaired by a representative of the Commission.  
The Commission seeks the opinion of the TDC on the draft implementing acts through two main 
procedures: advisory and examination.   
The advisory procedure applies in TDI in the following cases: imposition of provisional measures, 
acceptance of undertaking, initiation of expiry  review, suspension of measures for 9 months, 
extension of suspension for a further period and reinstatement of measures. The committee 
delivers its opinion on the draft implementing act by simple majority of its component members. 
The examination procedure is used in TDI in cases such as for instance imposition of definitive measures, termination of investigation, repeal /maintenance/amendment of measures following 
review, amendment of measures following reopenin g of investigation and extension of measures. 
The committee delivers its opinion on the draft implementing act by qualified majority (more info 
next q.24). If the committee opposes the measure by  qualified majority, the Commission shall not 
adopt the measure. In the case of anti-dumping and countervailing measures where there is no 
opinion and a simple majority opposes the me asure the Commission must consult the Member 
States and submit the measure to the appeal committee. The appeal committee is not a permanent body, but gives Member States the opportunity to have a second discussion on the 
draft implementing act. The appeal committee de livers an opinion by qualified majority. The 
Commission shall not adopt the implementing act where a negative opinion is delivered.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 160 - 
 
  Question 24: 
The voting rule under the new comitology is changed from one country one vote to the weighted count, the votes by big countries outweigh those by  small countries. What’s the purpose of this 
change? How to protect the interests of small countries and address their concerns under the new 
voting rule?  
 EU reply: The voting rules under the new comitology which are applied to TDI procedures derive 
from the Council regulation laying down new ru les for the control by Member States of the 
Commission's exercise of its implementing powers. The new regulation is based on article 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Un ion (TFEU) on implementing acts. It establishes 
two procedures for controlling the Commission's ex ercise of implementing powers: an advisory and 
an examination procedure. The two types of procedures are run with the help of committees 
composed of the representatives of the Member States and chaired by the Commission. In case of TDI, the committee is called Trade Defence Instruments Committee (‘TDC’). With regard to 
advisory procedure, the opinion of the TDC is delivered by the simple majority of its component 
members (one country one vote). Where the examination procedure applies, the committee shall deliver its opinion by qualified majority. As for the qualified majority, on 1 November 2014 a new 
system of weighted votes entered into force, th e so called “dual majority” system. This provides 
that qualified majority is attained when at least 55% of the Member States (16 MSs) representing at least 65% of the EU population express their vote in favor or against a draft implementing act.  
Page 47, Para 3.65 
Provisional measures may be imposed no earlier than 60 days from the initiation of the proceeding. The provisional duties apply the "lesse r duty" principle, i.e. the amount of the duty 
should be the lesser of the dumping margin and the level determined necessary to "remove the 
injury".  
Question 25:  
According to a proposal for the EU’s modernization of trade defense instruments, the lesser duty rule would not apply to circumstance where there exists government subsidy and distortion in raw 
material prices. Please describe the latest progress of this proposal, and clarify whether the EU 
considers revising or withdrawing it. 
 EU reply: As said above, the EU’s modernization of trade defense instruments is still a proposal 
under the ordinary legislative procedures and theref ore it is premature to give any details on this 
aspect.  
Page 47, Para 3.67 
Definitive anti-dumping or countervailing measures  are usually imposed for a fixed period of five 
years, subject to expiry reviews and, if no ex piry review is requested, the measure expires 
automatically. 
 
Question 26:  The EU initiated new antidumping investigations against companies of several WTO Members that 
obtained zero antidumping duty in previous investigations. According to the Appellate Body’s ruling 
in Mexico- Beef and Rice case, companies obtain ing zero antidumping duty are not subject to 
review investigations. Please explain the WTO consistency of such practice as launching separate 
and new antidumping investigations against companies obtaining zero antidumping duty in the 
original investigations.  EU reply: The EU initiates any new anti-dumping investigations in conformity with Article 5 of the 
Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation. A company which obtained a de minimis dumping margin in a 
previous anti-dumping investigation based on Arti cle 5 of the Basic AD regulation, may be subject 
to a new investigation on the basis of Article 5 of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation. By contrast, 
such company would not be subject to a review on the basis of Article 11 of the Basic Anti-
Dumping Regulation. This is consistent with the findings of the Appellate Body in the Mexico- Beef 
and Rice  case. 
 
Page 47, Para 3.67 The Commission indicated that the average duration of AD measures in the EU is around six years (for the period 2002-mid-2014). 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 161 - 
 
  Question 27: 
The duration of many EU antidumping measures against China is more than 10 years, even 20 
years. Thus, please provide detailed data and calculation method used by the EU to come up with the result that average duration of its antidumping measures is 6 years. 
 
EU reply: The average indicated in the report was calculated on the basis of all measures which 
were terminated during the period of 2002-mid 2014. The data, i.e. the measures and the duration 
of the measures, were all notified to the WTO and are thus accessible to all WTO Members. 
 Page 49, Para 3.72 Some of the highest definitive AD duties that resulted from original investigations or reviews 
between July 2012 and June 2014 concern, inter alia , certain iron and steel fasteners from China 
(74.1%), molybdenum wires (64.3%), certain tungsten electrodes from China (63.5%), certain open-mesh fabrics of glass fibres from Chinese Taipei, India and Indonesia (62.9%), solar panels 
from China (64.9%), and peroxosulphates from China (71.8%). 
 Question 28: 
In the context where clean energy and reduction of  carbon emission are encouraged globally, what 
are the policy considerations behind the EU’s initiation of anti-dumping and countervailing investigations against Chinese PV products?   
EU reply: The decision to initiate an anti-dumping or an anti-subsidy investigation is taken by the 
Commission on the basis of Article 5 of the Basi c Anti-Dumping Regulation and Article 10 of the 
Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation respectively, i.e. when there is sufficient prima facie  evidence of 
dumping/subsidization that is causing injury to the Union industry. 
 In every investigation, before adopting a final decision as to impose a duty or not, the Commission 
conducts the so-called 'Union Interest test'. Under this test, the Commission takes due account of 
the potential effect of the measures on interested parties.  Question 29:  
The trade remedy measures targeting Chinese PV products have been in place for nearly two 
years. Have they achieved the desired objectives? How are their implementing effects?   
EU reply: The measures in place on Chinese PV products are due to expire in December 2015 
subject to the provisions of Article 11(2) of the Basic Anti-Dumping regulation and Article 18 of the 
Basic Anti-Subsidy regulation ("expiry review"). While the imposition of anti-dumping and anti-
subsidy measures aims to offset the injurious effects caused by dumping and/or subsidization to 
the Union industry, their effectiveness can only be ascertained by a review.  Question 30: 
What impact have the measures had on the EU’s PV industry, in terms of market scale, employees, 
and number of companies, for instance?   
EU reply: Please see reply to question 29.  
 Page 55, Para 3.98 
To a large extent, legislation on SPS measures in the EU has been harmonized and the majority of 
measures are taken by the EU – although member States can, and occasionally do, take specific measures in specific circumstances.  
Question 31:  
Do the specific SPS measures taken by one or a few member States under specific circumstances apply only to that or those member states, or to all the 28 member States? If the specific 
circumstances no longer exist, would the specif ic SPS measures be withdrawn automatically? 
 EU reply:  An EU Member State or States may adopt national measures in the areas that are non-
harmonised in the EU, provided that they are in conformity with the EU treaties. When doing so, 
such measures will apply to their own territories.  In exceptional circumstances, a Member State may temporarily suspend or restrict the application 
of EU-wide provisions, within its own territory, on the basis of new information or a reassessment WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 162 - 
 
  of existing information, and, in order to protect the life and health of humans, animals or plants 
(articles 36 and 114 of the TFEU). Such national measures will be repealed when the circumstances no longer exist and/or may be replaced by harmonised EU measures.  
 
Page 60, Para 3.117 
The EU export control regime for dual-use items is governed by Regulation (EC) No. 428/2009, 
Regulation (EU) No. 599/2014 of the European Parl iament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 and 
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No. 1382/2014 of 22 October 2014. These regulations 
provide common EU control rules, a common EU control list and harmonized policies for implementation. Under the EU regime, the export of  dual-use items is subject to control and dual-
use items may not leave the EU customs territory without an export authorization. The 
requirement for an export authorization applies to: 
 -dual-use items listed in the EU Control List, in Annex I to the Regulation. The EU Control List is 
based on the lists adopted by international export control regimes listed above; 
 -non-listed items may also be controlled under the so-called "catch-all"/end-use clause, under 
certain conditions listed in the relevant articles of the Regulation. 
 Question 32:  
How does the EU, in regulating import and ex port, solve the dispute between exporters and 
enforcement authority regarding whether a good is a dual-use item? Are there any competent 
authorities that make professional authentication of a good’s property?   
EU reply:  The classification of the items is primarily the responsibility of exporters. In case of 
dispute between the exporter and the competent au thority, the latter has responsibility for making 
a decision on the classification and issuing an export licence. As the decisions by the competent 
authorities are administrative measures, there are subject to appeal. 
 Question 33:  
If the exporters, in the absence of prior consulta tion or permission, export goods under the control 
of catch-all clause, are there relevant laws or regulations to be invoked by the EU to hold the 
exporters accountable or impose punishment on them?  
EU reply:  The export of dual-use items subject to a catch-all control requirement constitutes a 
breach of export control regulations, which is subject to penalties as defined by the legislation of the Member States 
 
Question 34: The EU’s reform to the export control regime for dual-use items mainly embodies 
the improvement of license approval mechanism as well as the adjustment of the control list. We 
believe that the general direction of the refo rm serves the optimization of the approval 
mechanism, efficiency enhancement and facilitation of trade in high technologies. Could the EU 
explain the rationale behind and frequency of the adjustment of the control list ？Has the EU make 
relevant notification to the WTO? 
 EU reply:  The rationale for regularly (yearly) updating the EU control list up to date is that this is 
necessary to ensure that the items on the li st are not commercially outdated and are most 
relevant from a WMD proliferation perspective. The EU regularly updates its legislation to integrate into EU law the decisions taken by the international export control regimes regarding the items to control. The EU is not aware that any member of the international export control regimes has 
notified to the WTO these legislations that fall under the security exception and are covered by the 
UN Resolution 1540 as subsequently amended.  
 
Page 61, Para 3.123 
In legal terms, Regulation (EU) No. 599/2014, which allows the Commission to update the Annex I (the EU Control List) has been a major change to the framework for EU export control policy in 
2014 and cleared the way for the Commission to incorporate modifications agreed by the 
multilateral export control list from 2011 to 2013.…According to the Communication, the frontier between civil and military technologies is increasingly blurred and, as a result, trade in dual–use items is growing…. 
 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 163 - 
 
  Question 35:  
Will the EU consider transferring some military technologies to the list of dual-use items for 
regulation? Does the EU Control List cover products outside the list of international export control regimes? 
 
EU reply:  The EU is not considering transferring mili tary items to the Annex 1 of the Regulation 
599/2014.  
 
Question 36:  How does the EU keep the balance between normal export of companies and export control?  
EU reply:  The EU export control regime strives to st rike the right balance between security and 
competitiveness, and strives to target only those items with real dual-use potential and as said above is aligned on international export control regimes' decisions. 
 
Question 37:  Before taking the reform measures on export control, did the EU consult with the relevant 
interested parties, including foreign exporters, in order to facilitate and promote the legitimate 
bilateral trade in dual-use items?  EU reply: the review of the EU export control regulation involves considerable upstream 
consultation with stakeholders, and in particular but not only industry representatives, aiming in 
particular at ensuring that controls do not place undue burden on legitimate trade with partners.  
Page 61, Para 3.126 
As detailed in the Commission Communication on short-term export-credit insurance, state insurers cannot provide insurance against marketable  risks. Marketable risks are those commercial 
and/or political risks in the countries listed in the Annex to the Communication. ...Therefore from 
the EU perspective, marketable risk countries include Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, the United  States, and the EU member States (except 
Greece). ...State insurance against non-marketable  risks,... ...According to the Commission, data 
of the scale of non-marketable short-term export credits is not available at the EU level. 
 Question 38: 
Official EAC aims to promote and support export in line with the EU’s diplomatic, foreign trade and 
industrial policies, and to avoid stepping in the field of competition among private insurance 
companies. Given the case, how does the Official EAC achieve break-even? 
 
EU reply:  EU State aid rules ensure the balance between the EU Member States' desire to pursue 
certain public policy objectives (such as stimulating export) and the need to protect competition and trade. In principle state aid, which has the potential to distort competition, is not allowed 
under the EU Treaty. In the case of export credit s, where there is competition between public and 
private export-credit insurers for exports within the EU and towards certain third countries (marketable countries), state aid could potentially distort competition and thus state aid is not 
allowed. 
 The Communication on short term export credit clarifies in which exceptional cases government 
support for export credit can be allowed. 
 First, the Communication clarifies that, in certain cases, the export credits are not state aid as defined in 107 of TFEU. It is considered that when there is no developed competition between 
public and private insurers and therefore there is  no market for these “non-marketable” risks, 
state support is needed in order to export, without state support the insurance would not be provided. In these cases, the government support is  not considered to be state aid as there is no 
advantage over competitors nor a potential distortion of competition. Long term export credit (with 
a risk period above 2 years, as covered by the OECD Arrangement on Officially Supported Export 
Credits) and export credits to countries outside the list of marketable countries as annexed to the 
Commission Communication are considered as non-marketable. 
 Second, government support for short term export  credit to marketable (listed) countries is 
considered to be state aid and in principle not allowed. However, the Communication allows for 
four categories of exceptions to this prohibition, four categories of temporary non-marketable risks WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 164 - 
 
  (art 18 (a) to (d)). Under certain conditions, short term export credits to marketable countries can 
be considered as temporary non-marketable:  
(a) temporary not listed,  
(b) in case of SME exporters with a small turnover,  
(c) single risk cover with a max of 2 years or  (d) general shortage of export credit insurance. 
 
More detailed information on state aid rules regarding short term export credits can be found on the following website: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/instruments.html.  
 
Page 62, Para 3.133 
To strengthen member States' inspection systems,  this Regulation was amended in 2014 through 
Regulation (EU) No. 660/2014 of 15 May 2014 which requires EU member States to establish 
inspection plans, including a minimum set of elements and based on a risk assessment. It also 
provides enhanced powers to the authorities invo lved in inspections to decide, on the basis of 
evidence, whether a carried substance or object is waste and whether a shipment can be 
considered an illegal shipment of waste. Member States are required to apply the new changes 
beginning in 2016/17.  Question 39:  
Does “the authorities involved in inspections” mentioned in this paragraph refer to the customs, or 
other departments? What competence will be grante d to the authorities involved in inspections by 
the amended rules effective in 2016/17? 
 
EU reply:  The term “authorities involved in inspections” is not defined in Regulation (EU) No 
660/2014. However, this term is understood to refer to any authorities or bodies in a Member 
State granted the competence or mandate to carry out inspections on waste shipments. Depending 
on the Member State, such authorities could in clude customs, police, environmental inspectors, 
and others.  
These authorities may under the above Regulation conclude that a particular substance or object 
being carried is waste, if the exporter has not br ought evidence of the contrary within a specified 
time-period, or if such evidence is insufficient.  In such cases, the consequence would be that the 
shipment is considered illegal. The authorities may also require evidence from exporters that 
waste shipments which do not require notification (e.g. green, non-hazardous waste) are destined for recovery operations and will be managed in an environmentally sound manner in the 
destination country. 
 Question 40:  Please elaborate on the specific content of inde x system for the risk assessment, and how should 
member states implement risk assessment to su pport the inspection plans? How does the EU 
establish inspection plans through risk assessment?  
EU reply:  There is no particular index system for the conduct of a risk assessment defined under 
Regulation (EU) No 660/2014. According to this re gulation, inspection plans shall be based on a 
risk assessment covering specific waste streams and sources of illegal shipments and considering, 
if available and where appropriate, intelligence-based data such as data on investigations by police 
and customs authorities and analyses of criminal activities. That risk assessment shall aim, inter 
alia, to identify the minimum number of inspections required, including physical checks on establishments, undertakings, brokers, dealers and shipments of waste or on the related recovery 
or disposal. A guidance document is being prepared to support Member States in carrying out risk 
assessments.  
Page 64, Para 3.138 
At the EU level, support is primarily provided und er agriculture and regional policy instruments. 
Most support under regional policy is provided through the European Regional Development Fund 
(ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF), the Co hesion Fund (CF), and the European Agriculture 
Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). The legal basis for these funds may be found in several regulations by the Parliament and Council, along with delegated and implementing acts by the 
Commission. In addition, the European Agriculture Guarantee Fund (EAGF) provides for direct 
payments and market measures related to agriculture (see Section 4.2), and the European WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 165 - 
 
  Maritime and Fisheries Fund provides public suppo rt to the fishery and aquaculture sector and for 
the implementation of the integrated maritime policy in Regulation (EU) No. 508/2014 of the 
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund.  
Question 41:  
Please elaborate on the difference between the supporting policies provided at the EU level and those at the EAC level in each state. Can each EU member enjoy these support policies in a non-
differential way? What’s the rule base for respon sibility-sharing among the member states when 
the funds (i.e. ERDF, ESF, CF) or policies are established?   EU reply:  the EU understands that EAC level in each st ate should be considered as national and/or 
regional level. The reply below has been prepared with this in mind. 
 The primary aim of the EU funds is to narrow the development disparities among regions and 
Member States and to contribute to the region al development of the EU. The Funds participate 
fully in pursuing the goal of EU economic, social and territorial cohesion. In particular:  
Objective Financial Instruments 
Convergence ERDF, ESF, Cohesion Fund 
Regional competitiveness and employment ERDF, ESF 
European territorial cooperation ERDF 
Rural Development – including agri-
environmental measures EAFRD 
 Each EU member state can enjoy the supporting policies provided at EU level in a non-
discriminatory way, depending upon their level of economic development or employment. Specific 
principles apply for the European Fisheries and Maritime Fund (EMFF) and for the European Agriculture Guarantee Fund (EAGF). In particular, with reference to the EMFF, funding is allocated 
depending on the level of employment and of pr oduction in the fisheries and marine and fresh 
water aquaculture sectors, including employment in related processing; the share of small-scale coastal fishing fleet in the overall fishing fleet (small-scale coastal vessels are marine fishing vessels up to 12 m long and not using towed fi shing gear); and the historical allocation and 
consumption of funds under the European Fisheries Fund (the EU public support tool for the 2007-
2013 period). With reference to the EAFRD, funds are co-funded by the EU and paid out according 
to the rules and priorities in EU legislation. 
 
At EU level, the legislation applying to the different Funds including funding priorities is set up. For the implementation of the Funds, Member States have certain flexibility to define national 
priorities. This is done in close cooperation be tween the European Commission and each Member 
State on the basis of a multiannual programming.  The Member States complement the EU funding with national actions (the so called co-funding), 
including actions at regional and local levels as well as sectorial level (for the EMFF). 
 The European Commission and its Member States ensure that assistance from the Funds is 
consistent with the activities, policies and priorities of the EU and complementary to other 
European financial instruments.  
Furthermore, projects financed by the EU fund s must comply with EU and national law. In 
particular, it is under the responsibility of EU Me mber States to ensure that their support measures 
comply with competition rules, notably on state aid.  
Question 42:  
If the regional parliament adjusts the laws and re gulations relating to the development funds, how 
will the EU adjust its legal authorization of the funds? 
 
If the regional parliament adjusts the laws and re gulations relating to the development funds, how 
will the EU adjust its legal authorization of the funds?  
 
EU reply:  As explained in the reply to the previous question, the EU legislation sets out the rules 
for defining funding priorities in programmes. Th e EU legislation gives Member States sufficient 
flexibility to choose priorities which are incl uded and described in programmes. Therefore, WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 166 - 
 
  normally no adjustment of EU decisions approving the national/regional/sectorial programmes is 
required. In duly justified cases, adaptations of decision approving the national/regional/sectorial 
programmes are possible.  
Page 66, Table 3.10 Changes to EU  rules on state aid, 2013 and 2014 
Commission Regulation (EU) No. 651/2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty 
 
• Increase in thresholds for notifying aid • Improved ex post controls and monitoring • Transparency through publications of lists of aid beneficiaries 
 
Question 43:  The EU’s rules on state aid have increased the threshold for aid notification to the European 
Commission. What is the intention of this legislation? The flexibility of member States to use 
subsidies has grown with the increase of the threshold for notifying aid. How does the EU monitor and control the subsidies with trade distortion and competition restriction effects?   
 
EU reply: The new General Block Exemption Regulation (Commission Regulation (EU) No. 
651/2014, "GBER") and a focus on ex-post monitori ng, evaluation and transparency have become 
the cornerstones of the state aid modernisation (" SAM") initiative. They allow the Commission to 
focus on ex ante scrutiny of cases with the biggest  impact on the market whilst strengthening the 
Member States’ cooperation in State aid enforcement. As a result of the reform, a significantly larger number of smaller and unproblematic aid measures (less likely to lead to undue distortions 
of competition) have been exempted from prio r notification, in exchange for new and better 
safeguards and a strengthened responsibility of the Member States.  
The modernization of State aid control has made possible a strengthening of the State aid control 
system by allowing the Commission to focus on the most relevant cases including by ex-officio investigations. In parallel, evaluation of large schemes, transparency of individual awards and a strengthened monitoring programme is making the EU system more effective than before. Member 
States will better understand the cost and benefits of their interventions thanks to the introduction 
of an ex-post evaluation requirement for large GBER schemes in certain aid categories and for 
schemes notified under the new guidelines. Finally, stronger transparency requirement were also 
introduced. Member States shall establish website for the publication of information on all aid 
measures and their beneficiaries, except for aid awards of less than EUR 500,000.  
Page 78, Para 3.182 
…In addition, the Commission reduced the net amount of information required to notify all mergers….  
Question 44:  
Upon the implementation of the merger simplificati on package, how long does it take on average 
to complete an investigation under summary procedure? During the process of application, what 
information to be submitted by the companies can be simplified? 
 EU reply:  For most cases, it takes on average 25 working days under summary procedure to 
complete an investigation. Mergers that are generally unlikely to raise competition problems are 
examined by the Commission under a simplified procedure. Companies may use a shorter notification form and the Commission may clear such cases without a market investigation.   
The Form CO and Short Form CO are the standard notification forms that contain the information 
that is required for launching a merger review. The Commission now eliminates from these forms information requirements that often proved unnecessary to analyse a notified merger. 
 
Moreover, in individual cases, companies can request waivers from the Commission to give that information. The Form CO and Short Form CO now clearly identify categories of information that 
may be good candidates for such waiver requests. Merging companies are encouraged to request 
these waivers, without having to compile such information before seeking it.  Examples of information requirements that have been streamlined: WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 167 - 
 
   For simplified cases, information requirements are tailored to the different case categories. 
For instance, a "super-simplified notification" is introduced for joint ventures that are active entirely outside the European Econom ic Area (EEA). For those cases, companies 
only need to describe the transaction, their business activities and provide the turnover 
figures that the Commission needs to establish jurisdiction. 
  For normal, non-simplified cases, the threshold of what constitutes an 'affected market' for 
which more information needs to be provid ed has been raised to 20% (from 15%) for 
horizontally affected markets and to 30% (fro m 25%) for vertically affected markets. As a 
result, companies need to provide market information for fewer markets. 
 
 Finally, before they notify their merger, comp anies may wish to request Member States to 
refer the merger review to the Commission, or vice versa. The information to be submitted for this purpose in the so-called Form RS is kept to a strict minimum. It 
focusses on the crucial issues that the Commission and the Member States need to 
identify the best placed authority to undertake the review, such as the geographic scope of the relevant markets and the nature of the transaction. 
 
Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 can be found under: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TX T/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013XC1214(02)&from=EN.  
 
More detailed information concerning the above is available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-1098_en.htm  
 
Page 76, Para 3.172 Alternatively, the Commission may take a commitment decision. This is a quick way to restore 
effective competition to the market. Under commitment decisions, the Commission does not have 
to prove an infringement of the antitrust rules and imposes no fines. It voices its concerns and parties can come forward with commitments to address these concerns. If the Commission, after consulting market participants, finds these commitments sufficient, it takes a decision to make 
them legally binding. The commitments are usually valid for a specific period of time but if the 
companies breach them they may be fined.  
Question 45: 
How would the EU punish the companies that breach their commitments? Please give some typical cases. 
 
EU reply:  Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functionin g of the European Union ("TFEU") prohibits 
anti-competitive agreements and concerted prac tices, while Article 102 of the TFEU prohibits 
abuses of dominant market positions in the Single Market. The Commission may enforce these 
rules through two types of decisions: "prohibition" decisions, which are taken under Article 7 of the 
EU Antitrust Regulation ("Regulation 1/2003"),  and "commitment" decisions, which are taken 
under Article 9 of that same regulation. 
 
Pursuant to Article 9(2)(b) of Regulation 1/2003, the Commission may re-open proceedings if an undertaking acts contrary to the commitments.  
 
Adopting an Article 9 decision allows the Commission to impose a fine if the company breaches the legally binding commitments it has entered into. To impose such a fine, the Commission does not need to establish a breach of Article 101 or 102 TFEU, but simply has to show that the company 
did not comply with the commitments. Like fines un der Article 7, these fines cannot exceed 10% of 
the global annual turnover of the undertaking concerned.  
An Article 9 decision implies continuous surveillance by the Commission of the proper 
implementation of the commitments during the agreed term. The commitments usually foresee the appointment of a Monitoring and/or Divestiture Trustee, who must be approved by the 
Commission. The Monitoring Trustee supervises the undertakings concerned to ensure they fulfil 
their commitments, thereby supporting the Commission's own monitoring efforts. The choice of the appropriate monitoring tools depends on the specificities of the case. The Commission takes action if a company does not comply with the commitments it has agreed to. This is illustrated by WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 168 - 
 
  the €561 million fine the Commission imposed on Microsoft in March 2013 for not complying with 
its browser choice commitment that had been made binding in an Article 9 decision of 2009. For more detailed information, please see the press release: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-13-196_en.htm.  
 
Page 76, Para 3.173 While the main principles of the EU treaties gene rally apply, a diminishing number of sectors are 
regulated separately in view of their specificities. During the period under review those sector-
specific rules have been modified for agriculture and maritime transport. As far as agriculture is concerned, EU regulation 1308/2013 of 17 December 2013, taking into account the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy in 2013, modified the application of competition rules to the 
agricultural sector. 
 Question 46: 
Apart from the agriculture and maritime transport sectors, to what sectors of the EU do separate 
competition policies apply?   
EU reply: The same general competition rules apply in fact to all sectors. However, as regards the 
agriculture and fisheries sectors, Article 42 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 
indeed stipulates that the provisions of the Chapter relating to rules on competition shall apply to production of and trade in agricultural products only to the extent determined by the legislator, 
which has as a result laid down certain derogations.  
 As for the maritime transport sector, in some instan ces, such as relating to certain categories of 
agreements, decisions and concerted practices between liner shipping companies (consortia), the 
Commission clarified the application of these general rules by means of a Block Exemption Regulation. 
 
Also in a limited number of other sectors (motor vehicle, technology transfer agreements, research and development agreements, insurance sector, line r shipping, transport by rail, road and inland 
waterway) the Commission clarified the application of the general rules by means of a Block 
Exemption Regulation.  
 Question 47:  
Please describe the adjustments that the EU regulation 1308/2013made to the competition rules 
to the agricultural sector.  
EU reply:  Competition law, including provisions on cartels, abuse of dominance and state aids, 
continues to apply to the agricultural sector (see Article 206 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013).  
Provisions that enable joint selling by farmers if organized in recognized producer organisations have been introduced in the olive oil, beef and veal and certain arable crops sectors (Articles 169-
171).  This facility is subject to conditions su ch as the existence of efficiencies due to the 
integration of activities and ceilings concerning the quantities jointly sold.  
A procedural change has occurred in that the principle of self-assessment applies now to certain 
conduct by farmers in respect of its compatibility with EU competition law (Article 209).  The previous requirement of a prior authorisation de cision by the Commission of agreements "which 
concern the production or sale of agricultural products or the use of joint facilities for the storage, 
treatment or processing of agricultural products" no longer applies.  Page 79, Para 3.185 
Regarding case referrals between the Commission an d national authorities, the Merger Regulation 
allows cases to be referred from member States to  the Commission or vice versa, provided none of 
the authorities involved objects to the referral…. The Member State(s) would not have to give 
reason for opposing the referral. 
 Question 48:  
Has the reform of case referral mechanism simp lified and shortened the assessment procedure? 
What measures could provide facilitation to companies participating in the merger?  EU reply:  As indicated in the Report, the Commission's White Paper of 9 July 2014 contains policy 
proposals for future changes to the legislative framework of EU merger control. Please note that WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 169 - 
 
  these proposals do not reflect the current state of  the law. The objective of the proposed changes 
to the case referral mechanism is indeed to simplify and shorten procedures in cases being referred from Member States to the Commission, which will benefit both the companies which are parties to the transaction and the competition authorities involved. For instance, merging parties 
wishing to refer a case to the Commission before they have notified it to a national authority could 
then directly file a notification to the Commission, without first having to submit a formal referral request. The Commission would acquire jurisdiction to deal with the case unless one of the 
Member States normally competent objects. Likewi se, a referral of a case already notified to one 
or more national authorities could only be referred by these authorities to the Commission if no competent authority objects and the Commission would then acquire jurisdiction for the whole of the European Economic Area (EEA), thus avoiding parallel investigations by two or more 
authorities into the same merger. 
 Page 85, Para 3.203 
…In recent years such tax rates have been more commonly linked to the car's CO2 emissions, 
utilization of alternative energy fuels and other features promoting environmentally-friendly vehicles... 
 
Question 49: Please elaborate on the environmental protection taxes imposed on vehicles, including tax rate and the administration system. 
 
EU reply: Member States are free to incorporate an environmental element in vehicle registration 
and circulation taxes. Several Member States apply a CO2 element and/or local pollution element 
in their vehicle taxation (either for registration or circulation tax or for both).  For further details, 
please refer to the tax guide 2014 published by ACEA (http://www.acea.be/uploads/publications/EU_Summary_2015.pdf ) 
 
Page 87, Para 3.215 All procurement carried out in the EU above specified thresholds must comply with the requirements of the EU Directives on procurement,  which are reflected in relevant legislation and 
regulations of the EU member States.  
 Question 50:  
Besides the latest EU Directives on procurement mentioned in the report, we noticed that the EU is 
planning government procurement reform and making the new regulation. The European Commission’s proposal regarding the new government procurement regulation was supported by 
the European Parliament, but no consensus was reached at the EU Council Meeting of Trade 
Minister in November 2014 due to the difference of member States. What are the major differences? How will the EU de al with this proposal next? 
 
EU reply:  China is in this question referring to the proposal for an International Procurement 
Instrument.  This proposal is currently under review.  As noted in the Commission working programme for 2015, the Commission intends to amend it in accordance with the priorities of the 
new Commission in order to simplify it and to reduce the number of actors.  It is at this point in 
time not possible to say exactly when a revised proposal may be tabled.   
Page 89, Para 3.221 
The new directives have maintained separate di sciplines for procurement carried out by public 
authorities and utility operators in the water, en ergy, transport, and postal services (so called 
"utilities"). While in some member States utilities are private-sector companies operating in a 
commercial environment, in others they are state-owned monopolies or oligopolies, or they 
compete with private companies. Private contracting entities in the utilities sector may also be covered by the Utilities Directive if they have a special or exclusive right granted by member 
States. 
 EU reply:  The Commission Work Programme for 2015 foresees that the proposal will be amended 
in line with the priorities of the new Commission in order to simplify the procedures, shortening 
timelines of investigations and reducing the number of actors in implementation.   
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 170 - 
 
  Question 51: 
Is the “procurement carried out by public authorities and utility operators” in postal services mentioned in this paragraph the same concept as the postal service provider designated under general authorization and individual license in accordance with the postal directive (97/67/EC)? If 
not, what are their differences and the relationship? 
 EU reply: There are two concepts of public procurement in use here. First, Member States may 
use public procurement to select the designated universal service provider which would be tasked 
with providing postal services falling within the scope of universal service. Second, individual universal service providers can use public procurement to purchase goods or services.   
Question 52:  
According to this paragraph, it seems that the government authority could provide special or exclusive right to the utilities providers. What kind  of special or exclusive rights could the postal 
service providers of the EU member States enjoy? Is franchise right included? 
 EU reply:  EU postal operators do not enjoy any exclusive or special rights under the Postal 
Directives. The former reserved area/exclusive right under which designated universal service 
providers enjoyed a monopoly on the provision of a range of universal postal services was abolished across the EU in 2011 in most Member States and in 2013 for the remaining other 11 Member States. There is one exception to this rule. Under Article 8, Member States have a 
legitimate interest in conferring on one or more entities designated by them the responsibility for 
providing the registered mail service used in the co urse of judicial or administrative procedures in 
accordance with their national legislation (Recital 20) 
 
Postal operators which have been designated by Member States as the universal service provider do not charge VAT on the universal postal services  (basic letter and parcel delivery) they provide 
to their clients. 
 Question 53:  Please give an update on the liberalization of post al service market in the EU , including but limited 
to the elimination of franchises service?   
 EU reply:  The liberalisation process concluded on 1 January 2013. After that date, postal 
operators could compete with the designated universal postal service provider. New entrants have 
gained market shares (10-15 per cent) notably in Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden. In addition, private postal operators have access agreements with the incumbent 
designated universal service provider which allows them to collect mail from different customers 
and hand it over to the incumbent for final delivery.As regards cross border mail delivery, business customers are using private operators who can pr ovide delivery services to larger cities and 
densely populated regions in other Member States. Non business customers still rely on the 
incumbent operators which deliver the majority of individual cross border mail volumes. 
 Parcel services for national and cross border delivery are not affected by postal liberalisation as 
this segment of the market has been and continues to be highly competitive and falls outside the 
postal services acquis.   
Page 94, Para 3.242 
In the conclusion of the GPA re-negotiation, enha nced EU commitments provide for further market 
access opportunities for suppliers offering goods and services originating in GPA Parties' economies. 
 
Question 54: According to the new regulation submitted by  the European Commission to the European 
Parliament, the openness of the EU’s government  p r o c u r e m e n t  m a r k e t  i s  a s  h i g h  a s  8 5 % ,  b u t  
other countries fail to provide reciprocal opening. Therefore the EU will narrow its scope of opening to those countries, and this would affect the countries or regions outside the Government 
Procurement Agreement or yet to have free trade agreements with the EU. But the EU argues that 
temporary market access would be provided to goods and services from the countries currently under substantial negotiation on government procurement access with it. What are the EU’s specific considerations in this regard and where is the new regulation going? 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 171 - 
 
  EU reply:  China is in this question referring to the proposal for an International Procurement 
Instrument. This proposal is currently under review.  As noted in the Commission working programme for 2015, the Commission intends to amend it in accordance with the priorities of the new Commission in order to simplify it and to reduce the number of actors. It is at this point in 
time not possible to say exactly when a revised proposal may be tabled. 
 Page 95-96, Para 5.252 
…The conclusions of the European Council held on 20-21 March 2014 have reiterated that 
"intellectual property and patenting were key drivers for growth and innovation"; however, they also noted that "despite its leading role in a num ber of technology industries, the European Union 
was lagging behind in patenting". 
 
Question 55:  Has the European Patent Office an expedite exam ination regime for patent application? If yes, 
what are the conditions for the expedite examination?  
 EU reply: The European Patent Office offers accelerated prosecution of European patent 
applications – "PACE". More details can be found here: 
http://www.epo.org/applying /european/Guide-for-applicants/htm l/e/ga_aii.html#complete.f5-note 
 Page 97, Para 3.254 
According to a joint OHIM/EPO report published in September 2013, around 39% of total economic 
activity in the EU (worth some €4.7 trillion annually) is generated by IPR-intensive industries. 
Approximately 26% of all employment (56 million jobs) is provided directly by these industries, 
while a further 9% of jobs are indirectly  generated by IPR-intensive industries.  
 Page 97, Para 3.256 
The core role of knowledge-based industries that rely on IPRs had already been recognized by the 
"Europe 2020" Strategy. 
 Page 97, Table 3.22 
Contribution of the IP- industries to EU employ ment, GDP and trade and average wage premium of 
IP-intensive industries, 2008-10 
 
Question 56:  
How are the above mentioned three concepts of IPR-intensive, knowledge-based and IP- industries differ from one another? How ar e they defined respectively? 
 
EU reply: In the joint OHIM/EPO report, ‘IPR-intensive industries’, which is used throughout the 
report, are defined as those having an above-average use of IPR per employee; ‘IPR’ is used to refer to the five rights included in the analysis: patents, trademarks, registered designs, copyright 
and Geographical Indications. For further details, please see: http://ec.europa.eu/ 
internal_market/intellectual-property/docs/joint-report-epo-ohim-final-version_en.pdf . 
 
The concept ‘knowledge-based industries’ is used in the Communication on Europe 2020 () and 
Horizon2020 (http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:347:0104:0173:EN:PDF . 
 
Question 57:  
How was the contribution of IPR-intensive industries to the economy calculated in the report published by the OHIM and EPO in 2013? 
 
EU reply: In order to determine which industries are IPR-intensive, the register databases of 
OHIM and EPO were matched with the commercial database ORBIS. The resulting matched 
database contains data on approximately 240,000 companies, including the number of Community 
Trade Marks, Registered Community Designs and pa tents applied for by each company, along with 
the industry classification and various financial and economic variables for each. 
 
Using this database, the number of trademarks, designs and patents per employee was calculated 
for each industry, and the industries which were  above average according to this measure were 
considered to be IPR-intensive. This calculation was performed at the level of the EU, not taking 
into account national filings by the companies in the database. This approach, partly made WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 172 - 
 
  necessary by data limitations, is nevertheless justified by the assumption that an industry which is 
defined to be IPR-intensive based on its registrati on of EU-level IP rights would also be deemed 
IPR-intensive if national IP rights per employee were included as well. In order to calculate the contribution made by those industries in terms of employment, GDP and 
external trade to the economy of the EU as a whol e and to the economies of the individual Member 
States, the list of IPR-intensive industries was combined with data from Eurostat and, where necessary, other EU or national sources. 
 
Page 97, Para 3.256 The core role of knowledge-based industries that rely on IPRs had already been recognized by the 
"Europe 2020" Strategy. as well as, in particul ar, by "Horizon 2020", the EU's new Framework 
Programme for Research and Innovation for the period 2014-2020. It makes €80 billion of funding 
available over seven years and establishes clear rules for the exploitation and dissemination of IPRs resulting from research projects conducted within this framework. At the same time, it 
acknowledges the need to ensure open access to  scientific publications and to promote open 
access to research data that result from publicly-funded research under this programme.  
Question 57:  
What are the sources of the above mentioned €80 billion of funding? Who are the suppliers and 
receivers of this funding?  
EU reply:  The funding comes from the general EU budge t, as decided by the European Parliament 
and Council, in the context of the Multi-annual Financial framework. Details of the EU budget 
process are found here:  http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mff/index_en.cfm . 
 
Grants are awarded to applicants (coming from ac ademia and industry; public and private sectors) 
who submit proposals which are successfu lly evaluated by independent experts. 
 
Question 59:  
What specific measures have been taken to promote the dissemination of IPRs advocated by Horizon 2020? 
 
EU reply : According to the Horizon Rules for Participation and Dissemination (REGULATION (EU) 
No 1290/2013; http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/legal_basis/rules_ 
participation/h2020-rules-participation_en.pdf .) each participant, irrespective of the fact whether it 
has received funding or not from Horizon 2020, must disseminate the results it owns as soon as 
possible. This means each participant is obliged to  disclose its results to the public by appropriate 
means (such as website, scientific conference, pe er reviewed publication). Moreover, the grant 
agreement that the Commission signs with the participants may request more specific additional dissemination activities. Furthermore, participants have to provide open access to their scientific publications and, if the grant agreements stipulates this, they also have to provide open access to 
their research data. 
 Question 60:  
How could the public access the scientific publications and research data of this programme? 
 EU reply:  Information on projects and results are publically available (see 
http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/home_en.html ). 
 
Page 101, Para 3.269 …the European Parliament and the Council reached a political agreement on the unitary patent 
package in December 2012. It comprises Regulation (EU) No. 1257/2012 of 17 December 2012 
"Implementing Enhanced Cooperation in the Area of the Creation of Unitary Patent Protection" which will allow a rightholder to get patent protection in 25 member States (except Croatia, Italy 
and Spain) based on a single request, and Council Regulation (EU) No. 1260/2012 of 
17 December 2012 "Implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements". They will apply from the 
date of entry into force of the third component of the unitary patent package, i.e. the international 
Agreement on the Unified Patent Court (UPC Ag reement) which was signed by 25 EU member 
States (except Croatia, Poland and Spain) in early 2013. It establishes the framework for a specialized court with exclusive competence for litigation regarding the unitary patent. Acceptance 
by 13 member States, including the three member  States with the highest number of European WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 173 - 
 
  patents in force (Germany, France and the United Ki ngdom) is required for its entry into force. In 
January 2015, only six member States had ratified the UPC Agreement.  Question 61:  
What specific measures have been taken by the EU to harmonize unitary patents, European 
patents and national patents?  
EU reply : The European Patent Convention organizes a unique procedure for the granting of 
European patents which have to be validated in the different European Countries (payment of renewal fees and possibly filing of translation in one of the language of the Countries) for having effect on the Countries. 
 
Regulation 1257/2012 and 1260/2012 have set up the European patent with unitary effect ('unitary patent) and the language regime applicable to that new title. In addition, sectorial 
regulations have been adopted at the EU level such  as: Directive 98/44 on the legal protection of 
the biotechnological inventions which harmonize the law of the Member States in the field of 
biotechnology; Regulation 469/2012 concerning th e protection of a supplementary protection 
certificate for plant protection products; Regulation 1610/96 concerning the creation of a 
supplementary concerning the supplementary pr otection certificate for medicinal products. 
 Question 62:  
Compared to the European patents, what advantag es do the unitary patents have in examination, 
maintenance and litigation costs?  
EU reply : The examination process of European patents and Unitary patents at the EPO is the 
s a m e .  T h e  E u r o p e a n  p a t e n t  i s  a  b u n d l e  o f  n a t i o n a l  p a t e n t s  t h a t  n e e d  t o  b e  m a i n t a i n e d  a n d  litigated in each designed Member states. Unitary patents on the contrary represent a single title 
with one-shop stop procedure and central payments of fees at the sole EPO. In addition, Unitary 
Patents and European patents will be litigated before the Unified Patent Court where a single decision will be valid for all the territory of participating Member states. During a transitional period it will be still possible under certain circumstances to initiate disputes relating to European 
patents before national courts. The unitary patent will lead to lower cost and less administrative 
burden.   
Question 63:  
The implementation of European unitary patent regime is not good enough in terms of the 
numbers of ratificating member States. What are its major problems? 
 
EU reply: The patent package will come into effect when at least 13 countries (including 
necessarily France, Germany and the United Kingdom) have ratified the UPC Agreement. To date (15/06/2015), the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court has been ratified by 7 countries (Austria, 
Belgium, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, Malta an d Sweden). On 5 May 2015 the European Court 
of Justice dismissed  both of Spain’s actions against the regulations implementing enhanced 
cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection  (judgments in Case-146/13  
Spain v Parliament and Council and Case C-147/13  Spain v Council). The Court's judgments 
confirm the validity of the Patent package, and li fted the uncertainty overshadowing the ratification 
process.  
 
Page 103, Para 3.276 Of similar interest both for patent rights and their enforcement are the developments regarding 
the interface between standards and patents. In his opinion of 20 November 2014, the Advocate 
General recommended that the CJEU decide that, de pending on the circumstances, the holder of a 
standard-essential patent may be required to make a specific licensing offer to the company that is 
infringing the patent concerned before seeking an injunction. This requirement would apply in 
situations where the right holder is in a dominant position and has made a commitment to the 
standards body to grant third parties a licence on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms 
and where the infringer is ready, willing and ab le to enter into such a licensing agreement. 
According to the Advocate General's opinion, seekin g corrective measures or an injunction in such 
a situation would constitute an abuse of a dominant position.   
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 174 - 
 
  Question 64:  
Has the European Court adopted the opinions of the Advocate General?  EU reply:  The Opinion of Advocate-General Wathelet in Case C-170/13 (Huawei Technologies Co. 
Ltd v ZTE Corp., ZTE Deutschland GmbH) was delivered on 20 November 2014. The Court has not 
yet ruled in this case.  
Question 65:  
In the EU’s law and practices, are there any releva nt provisions regarding the disclosure of patent 
and licensing commitment by the holder of a standard-essential patent?  
EU reply : Many standard setting organizations (‘SSO’) require that patents on technologies 
included in their standards (so-called Standard Essential Patents) are licensed on "fair", "reasonable" and "non-discriminatory"  (FRAND) terms, without however defining these concepts in 
detail. The modalities of applications are governed by the rules applicable to the SSOs subject to 
their compliance with the EU competition rules.  
Page 122, Para 4.16 
Since the past Review of the European Union, the evolution of agricultural policy has continued with the adoption, in December 2013, of the basic regulations for a comprehensive package of reforms, with most of the secondary regulations adopted in March 2014, and full application from 
2015. However, up to the end of 2014, agricultural  policy applied in the EU was essentially the 
same as outlined in the previous Secretariat repo rt with transitional measures applying in 2014. 
The European Agriculture Guarantee Fund (EAGF) covers direct payments and market measures, 
and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) finances the EU contribution to 
rural development programmes.  
Question 66:  
Please describe the implementation of the agricult ural policy after the reform of CAP in 2013-2014, 
including the percentage of direct payments in farmer’s revenue, and their effects on motivating farmers’ initiatives and protecting the rural environment. 
 
EU reply:  Full implementation of the CAP reform will only be completed during 2015 calendar year 
and budget year 2016. For rural development, not all programmes have been adopted yet (51 
adopted out of a total of 118). For direct pa yments, the deadline for producers to submit 
applications was 15 June.  
Direct payments in 2013 accounted for roughly 28% of agricultural factor income. More recent 
figures are not yet available; the percentage of direct payments in farmers' revenues under the reformed CAP is thus not known. Most of these payments are decoupled from production and have 
no or very little influence on farmers' production decisions which are mainly driven by market 
signals.  
 As regards the rural environment, EU Rural Development policy aims at addressing a broad range 
of environmental and socio-economic challenges in a much targeted way via the implementation of 
Rural Development programmes at regional and/or national level.  
Question 67:  
Have such market measures as public intervention and private stocking been initiated? What are their effects on stabilizing the market?  
EU reply: Successive CAP reforms have increased the market orientation and competitiveness of 
EU agriculture. As such the role of market instrume nts is that of a safety net, as the support prices 
are set at a low level ensuring that the mechanisms such as public intervention and Private 
Storage Aid only used in times of real crisis. 
 The decline in the use of public intervention is a result of the change in policy orientation of the 
CAP from product (price) support through market intervention measures towards producer support 
through income support. Reforms of the CAP since the early 1990s have changed public intervention policy, decreasing both the administered prices and completely eliminating the system for some products. This was one of the elements of the reforms targeted at market orientation in 
the CAP and thereby contributing to enhancing competitiveness. This trend is reflected in the WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 175 - 
 
  changes in the structure of the CAP budget whereb y the share of market intervention measures 
(including export refunds) declined from 100% of total CAP expenditure in 1980 to below 5% in 
2011. This policy trend is also reflected in the EU's notified domestic support where the current 
total AMS has decreased dramatically and most CAP support is notified as Green Box compliant 
decoupled income support. Most support to farmers is now granted in the form of decoupled direct 
payments with no obligation to produce which allows farmers to respond to market needs. Market intervention measures are maintained in the CAP as a safety net mechanism. 
 
At the same time long-term price developments on  global markets also contributed to the reduced 
role of the EU's market intervention measures. However, this continued notwithstanding the recent spikes in some commodity prices. The intervention price for wheat has been lower than both the 
EU and world market prices in the last decade, with EU prices following the same trend as 
international prices. The intervention price for beef has been much lower than EU and world market prices during the last 8 years, with EU prices following the same trend as international 
prices. 
 Public intervention buying has not occurred since 2009 for cereals and dairy products and since 
2002 for beef. Aid for private storage was granted for butter and skimmed milk powder in 2014 
following the introduction of the Russian embargo on  the import of EU agricultural products and for 
pigmeat in 2015 as a consequence of a persisting difficult market situation.  
Legal provisions are contained in Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. 
 Question 68:  
Please describe the role of the rural development programmes in promoting the development of 
agriculture and rural areas.  
EU reply: The EU’s rural development policy helps the rural areas of the EU to meet the wide 
range of challenges and opportunities that face them in the 21
st century – economic, 
environmental and social. Known as the “second pill ar” of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), it 
has been improved for the period 2014-2020 through the process of wider CAP reform, via a 
number of legislative acts. 
 In line with the overall CAP objectives three long-term strategic objectives for EU rural 
development policy in the 2014-2020 period can be identified as fostering the competitiveness of 
agriculture, ensuring the sustainable management  of natural resources, and climate action; and 
achieving a balanced territorial development of rural economies and communities including the 
creation and maintenance of employment. 
 However, overall, the reform brings change by improving the strategic approach to constructing rural development programs (RDPs), strengthening the content of rural development measures, 
simplifying rules and / or reducing the related administrative burden where possible. 
 M e m b e r  S t a t e s  w i l l  h a v e  t o  b u i l d  t h e i r  R D P s  b a s e d  u p o n  a t  l e a s t  f o u r  o f  t h e  s i x  c o m m o n  E U  
priorities. 
 1. fostering knowledge transfer and innovation in agriculture, forestry and rural areas; 
2. enhancing the viability / competitiveness of all types of agriculture, and promoting innovative 
farm technologies and sustainable forest management; 3. promoting food chain organisation, animal welfare and risk management in agriculture; 4. restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry; 
5. promoting resource efficiency and supporting th e shift toward a low-carbon and climate-resilient 
economy in the agriculture, food and forestry sectors; 6. promoting social inclusion, poverty reduct ion and economic development in rural areas. 
 
In turn, each rural development priority identifi es more detailed areas of intervention ("focus 
areas"). Within their RDPs, Member States/regions set quantified targets against these focus 
areas, on the basis of an analysis of the needs of  the territory covered by the RDP. They then set 
out which measures they will use to achieve thes e targets and how much funding they will allocate 
to each measure.  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 176 - 
 
  Question 69: 
Please describe the direction of next adjustment to the common agriculture policy.  EU reply: The EU recently adopted the last CAP reform in December 2013 is not yet fully 
implemented. It is therefore too soon to anticipate any adjustments of a future CAP reform. 
 Question 70:  Please describe the market intervention measures maintained by the new common 
fishery policy and their operation mechanism. 
 EU reply:  As indicated in the report prepared by the EU (WT/TPR/G/317)  : " In the framework of 
its new Common Fisheries Policy, the EU has modernised its main market policy for fisheries and 
aquaculture products – the Common Market Organisation (CMO) – as of 1 January 2014.  This new 
policy instrument: * significantly reduces the number and modalities of market interventions ", the 
market intervention mechanisms have been redu ced from six to one – storage aid- which will 
disappear as from 2019. The new CMO has no longer guide prices and selling prices, nor reference 
prices for import duty suspensions as was the case in the previous CMO.  
All measures supporting market policy are provided by a financial instrument (a Regulation 
establishing the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund) through which, amongst other, the main market measures are designed to strengthen the ro le of producer organisations (POs), to foster 
stabilising the market through a transition from market intervention schemes towards production 
and marketing plans elaborated by POs that he lp the implementation of the Common Fisheries 
Policy, to maximise value and promote responsi ble consumption of fisheries and aquaculture 
products, and to enhance market intelligence by ameliorating and disseminating economic 
information on the market of that products. 
 Page 136, Chapter 4.3 Service 
The service section does not describe the law and policies relating to the EU’s advertisement 
industry.  Question 71:  
Please describe in detail the legal framework of advertisement administration, in particular the new 
regulations enacted in recent years. Are there any special provisions for the foreign invested companies? 
 
EU reply:  The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) requires traders to operate in 
accordance with professional diligence and to provide in a clear, intelligible and timely manner 
material information that consumers need in order to take informed decisions, such as the price 
inclusive of taxes and other non-optional charges, and the main characteristics of the product. It 
prohibits misleading practices, including misleading  omissions as well as aggressive practices. The 
Directive applies to business-to consumer advertising but also to other commercial practices 
before, during and after a purchase. 
 The UCPD is technology neutral and applies online as well as offline, and regardless of the channel, 
medium or device used. The Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive (MCAD) regulates 
misleading advertising in business-to-business relations and ensures that comparative advertising always compares "like with like", is objective, does not discredit other companies' trademarks or 
create confusion. It also protects traders against misleading advertising. 
 There are no special provisions for traders established outside of the EU. EU legislation is indeed applicable to all traders marketing their products within the EU. This includes traders that are 
located in third countries.   
 Question 72:  
Can foreign invested companies enjoy national treatment when establishing advertising companies 
in the EU?  
EU reply : According to the GATS commitments advertisement services are fully committed in 25 
out of 28 Member States (with the exception of CY, MT and RO) and in those any foreign companies enjoy national treatment when establishing advertising companies.   
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 177 - 
 
  Page 150, Para 4.101 
At the EU level, the Creative Europe Programme, which has grouped in a "one-stop-shop" the previously separated Culture, MEDIA, and MEDIA Mundus programmes, devotes 55% of its total €1.46 billion funding to the support of the audiovisual creation in particular in the following areas: 
capacity building and professional trai ning for audiovisual professionals. 
 Question 73:  
Please describe in detail the content of Creative Europe Programme, including its regulatory 
agencies, application procedures, flow and amount of funding, and the list of companies and programs that have obtained the funding.  
EU reply :  
1. The content of the Creative Europe Programme and the MEDIA sub-programme: The Creative Europe (2014-2020) has integrated pr eviously existing programmes in the domain of 
cultural and creative sectors, including the audi ovisual sector: Culture, MEDIA and MEDIA Mundus 
programmes.   
The Programme consists of: (a) a MEDIA Sub-programme; (b) a Culture Sub-programme; (c) a 
Cross-sectoral Strand.  The MEDIA Sub-programme provides support for: 
 
(a) the development of a comprehensive range of training measures promoting the acquisition and improvement of skills and competences by audi ovisual professionals, knowledge-sharing and 
networking initiatives, including the integration of digital technologies; 
(b) the development of European audiovisual works, in particular films and television works such as fiction, documentaries and children's and animated films, as well as interactive works such as 
video games and multimedia with enhanced cross-border circulation potential; 
(c) activities aiming to support European audiovisual production companies, in particular independent production companies, with a view to facilitating European and international co-productions of audiovisual works including television works; 
(d) activities helping European and international co-production partners to come together and/or 
providing indirect support for audiovisual works co -produced by international co- production funds 
based in a country participating in the Programme; 
(e) facilitating access to professional audiovisua l trade events and markets and the use of online 
business tools inside and outside the Union; (f) establishing systems of support for the distri bution of non- national European films through 
theatrical distribution and on other platforms, as well as for international sales activities, in 
particular the subtitling, dubbing and audio description of audiovisual works; (g) facilitating the circulation of European films worldwide and of international films in the Union on all distribution platforms, via international cooperation projects in the audiovisual sector; 
(h) a European cinema operators' network screening a significant proportion of non-national 
European films; (i) initiatives presenting and promoting a diversity of European audiovisual works, including short 
films, such as festivals and other promotional events; 
(j) activities aimed at promoting film literacy and at increasing audiences' knowledge of, and 
interest in, European audiovisual works, including the audiovisual and cinematographic heritage, in 
particular among young audiences; 
(k) innovative actions testing new business models and tools in areas likely to be influenced by the introduction and use of digital technologies. The total support available under the MEDIA su b-programme amounts to 753 MEUR over the 7 
years of the programme. 
 2. Regulatory agencies and application procedures. 
The Education, Audiovisual and Culture Execut ive Agency (EACEA) is responsible for the 
management of certain parts of the EU's funding programmes, including the Creative Europe Programme. 
 
The Agency is responsible for most management aspects of the programmes, including drawing up 
conditions and guidelines for funding opportunities, evaluating applications, selecting projects and signing project agreements, financial management, contacts with beneficiaries, monitoring of 
projects (intermediate and final reports, and controls) and on-site project visits WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 178 - 
 
  The Agency will regularly publish calls for support from the different parts of the MEDIA sub-
programme as described above.  3. The list of companies and programme s that have received the funding 
The selection results are published on the EACEA webpage: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/creative-
europe/selection-results_en. 
 
Page 155, Para 4.112 
E-commerce is growing fast, but from very low initial levels: the size of the e-commerce market more than doubled between 2009 and 2014 (+119%); bu t, while it represents an increasing share 
of the EU retail market, this proportion rema ins low (6.7% of the overall retail market in 2014 
against 3.2% in 2009). It is nevertheless significant for specific segments such as books, music, 
second-hand items, and travel. There is also an emerging tendency towards multi-channel retailing using both internet and physical outlets in variable combinations (e.g. the "drive" system for 
grocery sales). 
 Question 74:  
Please provide more information on the combined on-line off-line retailing service, including the 
drive system for grocery sales.  EU reply: European retailers are increasingly using multi-channel strategies combining offline and 
online sales options. The 'drive' system for grocer y sales is an example of click-and-collect options 
thanks to which customers can order groceries online and collect them from a brick-and-mortar store. Such hybrid options are increasingly wi de-spread as retailers aim to bring additional 
customers from the website into their physical st ores. Thanks to these innovations multi-channel 
retailers are gaining ground on 'pure players', that is to say online-only retailers who have up until now dominated online sales. Of the top three compan ies selling online in the UK for instance, one 
is a multi-channel retailer also selling offline. Conversely, certain pure players/exclusively online 
players have started to open physical stores.  Page 160, Para 4.130 
Under the first pillar the Commission includes Regulation (EU) No. 648/2012 on over-the-counter 
(OTC) derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories (the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR)).The objectives of  EMIR are to increase transparency in the OTC 
derivatives market, and to make it safer by reducing counterparty credit risk and operational risk. 
To increase transparency, the new rules require that (i) detailed information on OTC derivative contracts entered into by EU financial and non-financial firms be reported to trade repositories and 
made accessible to supervisory authorities, and (i i) trade repositories publish aggregate positions 
by class of derivatives accessible to all market participants.  Question 75: 
Please introduce the implementation and effects of  the European Market Infrastructure Regulation 
(EMIR).  
EU reply: All information concerning the above mentioned regulation can be found on the relevant 
website: http://ec.europa.eu/finance/financial-markets/derivatives/index_en.htm . 
 
Question 76:  
The Government of China welcomes the legislation of EMIR. Relevant enterprises from the Chinese 
mainland such as CCP and Trade Repositories would like to access the EU market and provide concerning services. According to EMIR, are there any pre-conditions for enterprises from the 
Chinese mainland to enter the EU market? If yes, what are they? 
 EU reply : Chinese CCPs and TRs are welcome to establish in the EU to provide services. Also, a 
central counterparty established outside of the European Union may provide clearing services to 
EU clearing members and trading venues where it has been recognised in accordance with the conditions set out in Article 25 of EMIR. 
 
A non-EU CCP wishing to obtain recognition must apply to the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and the conditions for recognition that must be checked are:  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 179 - 
 
  - the European Commission has adopted a positive equivalence decision with regard to the 
regulatory framework applicable to CCPs in the third country. This is the primary condition for recognition. The European Commission will assess the requirements applicable to CCPs in the third country. If the requirements achieve the same re gulatory outcomes in terms of reduction of 
systemic risk, the European Commi ssion may determine equivalence. 
 - the central counterparty in question is authorised and supervised in accordance with the 
regulatory framework determined to be equivalent under the above condition. ESMA will check this 
is the case when the CCP applies for recognition.  - the CCP is established or authorised in a third country that is considered as having 
equivalent systems for anti-money-laundering and co mbating the financing of terrorism to those of 
the Union in accordance with the criteria set out in the common understanding between Member 
States on third-country equivalence under Direct ive 2005/60/EC on the prevention of the use of 
the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing. 
 - cooperation arrangements have been established between ESMA and the relevant third 
country supervisory authorities covering supervisory arrangements and the sharing/notification of 
information. ESMA will initiate this part of the pr ocess with the relevant regulators of the CCP that 
has applied for recognition.  
The process of recognition of equivalence is based on strictly factual and objective grounds. Its 
objective is to protect the integrity of European financial markets, and it is therefore of strictly prudential nature. 
 
Question 77:  According to EMIR, China’s central bank (the People’s Bank of China) and the regulatory 
departments of public bonds (such as Ministry of Finance and local government) could be 
exempted from reporting and settlement if they participate in the transactions of derivatives. What are the procedures for these entities to get such exemptions?  
EU reply : Article 1(4) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of 4 July 2012 on OTC derivatives, central 
counterparties and trade repositories, commonly known as "EMIR", provides that European central banks and debt management offices are exempted from certain provisions of the Regulation, and 
that this exemption can be extended to third countries central banks and debt management offices 
if they are exempted in their home jurisdictions,  and the rules that exempt them are in force. 
 
Page 160-161, Para 4.133 
European supervisory authorities are requested to avoid references to external credit ratings and will be required to review their rules and guidelines and, where appropriate, to remove credit ratings where they have the potential to create "mechanistic effects". 
 
Question 78:  What do the “mechanistic effects” refer to?  
 
EU reply:  According to the legislation (CRA Re gulation: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1433929709870&uri=CE LEX:02009R1060-20140523) the European 
Supervisory Authorities shall review and remove references to ratings which have the potential to 
trigger sole or mechanistic reliance. It is considered that there is sole or mechanistic reliance on credit ratings (or credit rating outlooks) when an  action or omission is the consequence of any 
type of rule based on credit ratings (or credit rating outlooks) without any discretion (link to 
ESMA/EBA/EIOPA final report?: 
http://www.esma.europa.eu/system/ files/jc_2014_004_final_report_mechanistic_references_to_cr
edit_ratings_rect.pdf ). 
 
Page 162, Para 4.138  The fifth element of the first pillar is the enhanced framework for securities' market and is 
composed of Directive 2014/65/EU on markets in financial instruments (MIFID 2), and Regulation 
(EU) No. 600/2014 on markets in financial instruments (MIFIR).   
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 180 - 
 
  Page 162, Para 4.139 
The MIFID/R package first introduces a market structure framework which ensures that wherever appropriate, trading takes place on regulated platforms.  
Question 79:  
Please describe the implementation and effects of MIFID and MIFIR.  
EU reply:  All information on the “MIFID 2” package can be found on the relevant website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/finance/securities/isd/mifid2/index_en.htm  Page 162, Para 4.140 
…Finally, regarding access to the EU markets for firms from third countries, it institutes a 
harmonized regime based on an equivalence assessment of third-country jurisdictions by the Commission…. For a transitional period of three years and pending equivalence decisions by the 
Commission, national third-country regimes continue to apply. 
 Question 80:  
What are the restrictions for foreign financial institutions to enter the EU market? 
 EU reply:  Chinese financial institutions are welcome to establish in the EU and can provide all 
services regulated by the MIFID 2 package through subsidiaries, an option which allows the 
European Union to maintain a significant level of openness of its financial markets to foreign 
operators. Branches are also allowed but can provide services only in the Member State where they are located. The cross-border provision of certain investment services to certain types of 
clients may be authorized after a transition period of 3 years, as described in Title VIII, article 46 
and subs. of the MIFIR: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32014 
R0600&from=EN  In the meantime, cross border provision of certain investment services may be 
possible in accordance with regulatory regimes in individual Member States. 
 Question 81:  Please describe the major contents and standards of equivalence assessment of third-country 
jurisdictions by the Commission. How are they diffe rent from the current third-country regimes? 
 EU reply:  All references can be found in the above mentioned regulation: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32014R0600&from=EN article 46 and 
subs.  
As indicated in Recital 41 of the above mentioned regulation: “Where a decision cannot be made 
determining effective equivalence, the provision of services by third-country firms in the Union remains subject to national regimes.”  
Question 82:  
What impact will this policy have on the non-EU financial institutions’ access to the EU’s financial market? What are the major changes of this policy within and after the transition period? 
 
EU reply:  As indicated in Recital 41 of the MIFIR Regulation http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32014R0600&from=E N: “The provision of services by third-
country firms in the Union is subject to national regimes and requirements. Those regimes are 
highly differentiated and the firms authorised in ac cordance with them do not enjoy the freedom to 
provide services and the right of establishment in  Member States other than the one where they 
are established. It is appropriate to introduce a common regulatory framework at Union level. The 
regime should harmonise the existing fragmented framework, ensure certainty and uniform 
treatment of third-country firms accessing the Un ion, ensure that an assessment of effective 
equivalence has been carried out by the Commission  in relation to the prudential and business 
conduct framework of third countries, and should provide for a comparable level of protection to 
clients in the Union receiving services by third-country firms.”  
The transition period will see national regimes still apply. All relevant provisions of MIFIR that 
apply a common European regime to non-EU financial services providers will enter into force only after the transition period. The major changes are the possibility to provide certain services to certain clients cross-border under MIFIR, and the possibility for branches of non-EU companies to WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 181 - 
 
  provide certain services to certain clients located outside the territory of the Member State where 
the branch in question is established.  Page 162, Para 4.142 
…If the (banks) do face failure, authorities are equipped by the directive with new comprehensive 
powers and tools to restructure them, allocating losses to shareholders and creditors following a clearly defined hierarchy. 
 
Question 83:  What are the new comprehensive powers and tools available to the regulatory authorities in bank restructuring? What is the clearly defined hierarchy for loss allocation between shareholders and 
creditors? 
 EU reply:  Information concerning resolution of banks can be found on the website of the European 
Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/finance/general-policy/banking-union/single-resolution-
mechanism/index_en.htm , and on the Q&A page here referenced: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_MEMO-14-295_en.htm?locale=en . 
 
Page 162, Para 4.143 …The directive sets out precise arrangements for how home and host authorities of banking groups are to cooperate in all stages of cross-border resolution, from resolution planning to resolution 
itself, with a strong role for the European Banking Authority to coordinate and mediate in case of 
disagreements....  
Question 84:  
How do the home and host authorities cooperate to resolve the cross-border banking groups? How does the EU’s bank regulatory authority coordina te and mediate in case of difference between the 
two authorities? 
 EU reply : Within the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD), resolution authorities 
(home and host) have to cooperate and possibly reach joint decisions in all phases of the 
resolution cycles (resolution planning, resolution).  The European Banking Authority (EBA) can 
mediate upon request in case of disagreement.  It s decision is binding in case of decisions on 
resolution planning.  Within the Banking Union context, the Single Resolution Board will take all 
decisions resolving any home-host issue.  
 Page 165, Para 4.153 
The sixth and last adopted element of the second pill ar is the Directive on the coordination of laws, 
regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS V). The new rules are aimed at strengthening the protection of investors vis-à-vis managers of UCITS funds and their depositaries. Only national central banks, 
credit institutions and regulated firms with sufficient capital and adequate infrastructure will be 
eligible as UCITS depositaries and will hold for safe-keeping all UCITS assets.  
Question 85:  
Please give examples of what are covered by “reg ulated firms with sufficient capital and adequate 
infrastructure”? 
 
EU reply:  EU Credit institutions and MiFID investment firms that are authorised to provide 
safekeeping and administration services may act as UCITS depositories  
Page 167, Para 4.162 
Finally, the third and last pillar of the post-financial crisis legislative agenda of the Commission is geared at completing the banking union to strengthen the euro. It is composed of two elements 
both of which have been adopted by the Parliament and the Council and entered into force, 
namely the Single Supervision Mechanism (SSM) and the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM).  
Question 86:  
What are the considerations behind the above mentioned regulatory reform? How to ensure that the European Central Bank smoothly perform its new regulatory functions, in particular implement 
relevant decisions with high-efficiency? 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 182 - 
 
  EU reply:  The single supervisory mechanism (SSM) fo r banks led by the European Central Bank 
(ECB) aims at strengthening the Economic and Monetary Union. It is a first step towards an integrated “banking union” which includes further components such as a single rulebook, common deposit protection and a single bank resolution mechanism. The SRM will complement the Single 
Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) and will ensure that if a bank subject to the SSM faces serious 
difficulties, its resolution can be managed efficiently with minimal costs to taxpayers and the real economy. 
 
Question 87:  Under the SSM and SRM, what coordination me chanisms have been established between the 
European Central Bank and the regulatory authorities of member States? How to avoid overlapping 
regulation? 
 EU reply:  The single supervisory mechanism (SSM) fo r banks led by the European Central Bank 
(ECB) aims at strengthening the Economic and Monetary Union. It is a first step towards an 
integrated “banking union” which includes further components such as a single rulebook, common deposit protection and a single bank resolution mechanism. The SRM will complement the Single 
Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) and will ensure that if a bank subject to the SSM faces serious 
difficulties, its resolution can be managed efficiently with minimal costs to taxpayers and the real economy.  
Question 88:  
What impact have the new regulatory rules imposed on the business model of financial institutions, in particular the financial institutions with systematic importance? How to foresee the 
future development trend of the financial industry? 
 EU reply:  The EU participates in the work of the major international institutions which deal which 
such issues, such as the G20, the Financial St ability Board, the so-called Basel Committee, the 
International Organization Securities Commission. It implements the standards designed in such forums, and promotes the swift implementation of these standards by its partners, so that sound and needed prudential regulations to prevent syst emic financial and economic crises are put in 
place without disproportionate effects on financial services suppliers and financial markets.  
 
Part II. Questions based on Policy Statement by the EU (WT/TPR/G/317) 
 Page 3, Para 1.7 …the EU has been a long-standing advocate of removing tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade in 
environmental goods and services... 
 Page 3, Para 1.8 …Secondly, the negotiations should lead to a 'future-oriented agreement' with a review mechanism 
for products and a work programme on other issues in the sector such as Non-Tariff Barriers and 
services…  
Question 89:  
How does the EU define the environmental goods? Or what products do the environmental goods mentioned in the report cover? 
 
EU reply: The EU together with 16 other WTO Members including notably China, are engaged in 
the Environmental Goods Agreement negotiations to develop a list of environmental goods. As agreed among the participants of the negotiations, the environmental goods cover products and 
technologies crucial in environmental areas such as waste management, water treatment, air 
pollution control, renewable energy generation, energy efficiency, environmental remediation and 
clean up, noise and vibration abatement, or environmental monitoring and analysis. They are 
defined by specific HS codes on which tariffs will be eliminated. Such list should be subject of a 
review mechanism, which will allow to add new HS codes to reflect technological developments.  
Question 90:  
Please describe the EU’s specific consideration regarding the review mechanism and the removal of non-tariff barriers in the EGA negotiation.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 183 - 
 
  EU reply: The EU strongly advocates for the EGA to become a "living agreement" with an effective 
review mechanism and a work program for other issues in the sector such as non-tariff barriers to trade. These issues will be discussed in the EGA negotiations in the coming months including China. 
 
Question 91:  Please describe in detail the EU’s efforts to remove tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade in 
environmental goods and services, and the tariff an d non-tariff barriers to trade in environmental 
goods and services currently encountered by the EU.  EU reply: The EU supports action at the international level to liberalize trade in environmental 
goods and services is pursuing this through various avenues, including multilateral, plurilateral and 
bilateral approach. The EU has been an active sponsor of numerous efforts undertaken in the last few years at the DDA, G8, G20. Currently, the EU, together with 16 other WTO members including 
China, is engaged in the EGA negotiations to eliminate tariffs on environmental goods and also 
address other issues relevant to the sector. In this respect the EU believes that through also 
removing barriers to trade in services, in particular those linked to trade in environmental goods, 
as well as non-tariff barriers, the value of this agreement would be further enhanced. In parallel to 
the multilateral or plurilateral approach, the EU is  also pursuing liberalization bilaterally through 
negotiations of Free Trade Agreements. This is do ne by: 1) systematic "frontloading" of green 
goods, 2) promotion of trade and investment in environmental goods and services through FTAs 
chapters on Trade and Sustainable Development. A special body on trade and sustainable 
development will monitor the implementation of this provision, (3) more recently EU-Singapore FTA includes commitments addressing non-tariff barriers affecting the green energy sector. Finally, 
another important element is enforcement. The EU continues to push for addressing the most 
commonly faced trade barriers in the field of green energies (and also other environmental goods and services) by leveraging tools such as the Market Access Strategy or as appropriate WTO 
Dispute Settlement. 
 Page 6, Para 3.4 The recently-appointed President of the European Commission, Mr Jean-Claude Juncker, started 
his mandate by giving priority to strengthening the EU's competitiveness and stimulating 
investment so as to create jobs. As a first action, President Juncker launched an 'Investment Plan'. This will unlock public and private investment in  the real economy of up to €300 billion over the 
next three years (2015-2017). Another flagship project for the new European Commission is a 
Capital Markets Union (CMU). This aims to create deeper and more integrated capital markets in the EU's 28 Member States. With the CMU, the Co mmission will seek to reduce fragmentation in 
financial markets, diversify financing sources, st rengthen cross-border capital flows, and improve 
access to finance for businesses, particularly SMEs.  Question 92:  
What measures have the EU Comission and CUM taken to promote the financing of SMEs? How 
about the effects and impacts of those measures?  
EU reply: For promoting the financing of SMEs, the Commission has adopted several actions. In 
particular, the Competitiveness and Innovation  Framework Programme (CIP) guarantee facility 
program, the new COSME and the European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI) included in the 
Juncker Plan. 
 By 31.12.2014, the CIP SME Guarantee Facility Program (known as SMEG) had mobilised more than €19 billion of loans and EUR 3 billion of venture capital for around 368 000 SMEs in Europe. 
For further information: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/access-to-finance/cip-financial-instruments/ 
index_en.htm.  
 
The current COSME program builds on its successful predecessor, CIP (the Competitiveness and 
Innovation Framework Programme, 2007-2013). Nearly €1.4 billion of the COSME budget (€2.3 billion) is allocated to loans and venture capital complementing financial schemes at national 
level. In particular, COSME will provide a guarantee facility for SME loans mainly up to €150 000. 
COSME will also offer better access to venture capital through an equity facility, with a particular focus on the expansion and growth phase of SMEs. It is expected that by 2020, between 220,000 
and 330 000 firms will receive loans backed by COSME guarantees, with the value of lending 
reaching up to €21.5 billion. For further information: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/access-to-WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 184 - 
 
  finance/cosme-financial-instruments/index_en.htm.  
 
The Juncker Plan (up to 315 billion EUR package) will include a new European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), it will be set up in partnership between the Commission and the EIB 
(European Investment Bank).  The role of the Fund  is to ensure enhanced risk-bearing capacity 
and mobilise extra investment, primarily from priv ate sources, in specific sectors and areas. The 
Fund could reach an overall multiplier effect of 1:15 in real investment in the economy. For further 
information: http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/jobs-gr owth-investment/plan/index_en.htm.  
 
Question 93: Please elaborate on the Plan and the timetable for its implementation.  
 
EU reply:  Please see also reply to question 5. Then, the Investment Plan is based on three 
mutually reinforcing strands. First, the mobilisation up to EUR 315bn in additional investments 
over the next three years, maximising the impact of public resources and unlocking private 
investment. A new European Fund for Strategic Inve stment (EFSI) is being set up in partnership 
between the Commission and the EIB group. Public and private entities can present projects for 
financing to the EIB Group, and the EFSI is geared to maximize the mobilization of private sector 
capital. The EFSI will be operational as of September 2015.  Second, targeted initiatives to make sure that th is extra investment meets the needs of the real 
economy. An European Investment Advisory Hub to support project preparation and 
implementation via technical assistance will be setup as of Q3 2015. A European Investment Project Portal will be launched by end 2015 to enab le project sponsors to publish their investment 
opportunities in an open and transparent way, so as to attract potential investors. 
 Third, measures to provide greater regulatory pred ictability and to remove barriers to investment, 
making Europe more attractive and thereby mult iplying the impact of the Plan. To improve the 
business environment and financing conditions, the investment plan will include progress towards a Digital Single Market, Energy Union and Capital Markets Union, initiatives being launched by the Commission in 2015. 
 
Page 6, Para 3.5 …An entirely new system of direct payments will be introduced, which will put a stronger emphasis 
on environmental stewardship... 
 Question 94:  
Please describe in detail the relevant provisions for environmental stewardship in its agriculture 
and fishery policies.  EU reply:  The greening of direct payments forms a ne w instrument of the CAP, which is granted 
for implementing three compulsory practices whose environmental and climate benefits have been 
proven. These practices include the maintenance of permanent grassland, application of crop 
diversification and the establishment of 5% ecological focus areas on arable land. These 
requirements have been chosen in such a way as to bring real environmental enhancement whilst 
limiting the additional costs and burdens in the operation of the farm. By respecting these greening practices, farmers contribute for long-term competitiveness and for an economically, 
environmentally and socially sustainable way of managing their farms. The greening payment is a 
new element of the EU's response to the global challenge of sustainable management of natural 
resources and climate action which is of particular importance to agriculture.  
On top of these mandatory instruments, agri-environmental policy encourages the introduction 
and/or maintenance of extensive, environmentally friendly farming systems programmed and targeted towards regional needs. These instruments will be accompanied by broad support from 
the Farm Advisory System and applied research. 
 Page 7, Para 3.10  
On 20 November 2013, the EU adopted its 7th Environment Action Programme (EAP) to 2020. It is 
a common strategy for both EU institutions and Member States and shall guide environment policy. The EAP identifies three key objectives to be achieved by 2020:  
In addition, four so-called 'enablers' will help Europe deliver on these goals: WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 185 - 
 
  …full integration of environmental requirements and considerations into other policies. 
 Question 95:  
Please describe the current scale of environm ent protection and its development trend. 
 
EU reply:  Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functionin g of the European Union specifies the EU 
environmental policy objectives as “preserving,  protecting and improving the quality of the 
environment; protecting human health;  prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources; and 
promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems […]”.  
In many areas the EU has developed one of th e most comprehensive sets of environmental 
standards and policy frameworks in the world and the state of the environment in large parts of Europe has improved considerably. Emissions of pollutants to air, water and soil have, in general, 
been reduced significantly. These improvements are delivering a range of immediate as well as 
more indirect and longer term environmental, health, economic and societal benefits. However, challenges remain, including continuing biodiversity loss, climate change, air, water and chemical 
pollution and their consequences for human health. 
 A significant part of EU environmental policy is regulatory and varies in nature and scope. There are laws dedicated to specific natural resources or environmental media (such as Birds and 
Habitats Directives, Ambient Air Directive, Water Quality, Waste) while others focus on horizontal 
measures (Environmental Impact Assessment or  Access to Information Directives) or on 
procedural requirements relating to permitting, planning, or reporting obligations (e.g., Industrial 
Emissions Directive,) and the permitting of prod ucts that can be placed on the market (e.g. 
chemicals). An important body of EU environment laws is now in place in the EU. In order to deliver its full benefits, its full implementation in the Member States is necessary. 
 
The Treaties enable the EU to participate in inte rnational environmental ag reements, together with 
Member States and give the Commission a coordinating and representation responsibility. The EU also needs to adapt its own legislation by integrating the results (conventions, protocols) 
negotiated at the multilateral level. 
 EU funding  supports activities that, given their nature, would not be financed at national level. 
The LIFE programme, dedicated to the environment, focuses on small scale projects to facilitate 
knowledge-sharing and catalyse and leverage acti ons crucial for implementing EU environmental 
policy and for addressing environmental problems. 
 
Environment policy is currently steered by the EU Environment Action Programme to 2020 (or 7
th 
Environment Action Programme, 7th EAP) which is a common strategy for EU institutions and 
Member States to guide environment policy. Particular emphasis is being placed on shifting 
towards a circular economy including improved waste management, working towards achieving the 
objectives of the Biodiversity Strategy and safe guarding the Union's citizens from environment-
related pressures and risks to health in areas such as air and water quality and chemicals.  
 
Question 96:  
Please describe the working outcome or plans to  incorporating the environmental requirements 
into other policies. 
 EU reply : Environmental integration was introduced as a legal requirement under the EC Treaty in 
1997, and the Treaty requires environmental prot ection requirements be integrated into the 
definition and implementation of the Union's poli cies and activities. Most environmental impacts 
are indeed the result of activities carried out in a wide range of sectors, including agriculture, transport, energy, fisheries, forestry, industry, construction, as well as trade and development 
cooperation. Food production, transport and buildings alone account for more than 80% of all 
environmental impacts in the EU. Therefore policies related to these sectors can contribute to the delivery of environmental objectives, or as a minimum requirement, reduce their negative impact 
on the environment. 
 The 7
th Environmental Action Programme identified integration as one of the key parts of the 
enabling framework. On this basis, the EU stri ves to integrate the environment into its other 
sectoral policies, including for example agriculture and cohesion. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 186 - 
 
  Environmental integration also covers the EU spending instruments, such as European Maritime 
and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), European Regional De velopment Fund (ERDF), European Agricultural 
Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), thereby fi nancing larger investments necessary for the 
protection of the environment. Also, EU financial instruments for external action are utilised to 
promote EU environment policy objectives abroad. 
 Another opportunity to promote integration of environment policy into other policy domains is 
through the European Semester to ensure that the EU's macroeconomic policies are sustainable, 
not only economically and socially, but also environmentally.  Internationally, the post-2015 framework and Sustai nable Development Goals will also be a key 
driver for integration, bringing together the objectives of poverty eradication and sustainable 
development, paving the way for more integrated policies in a wide variety of areas.  
Question 97:  
In recent years, the EU initiated many trade remedy investigations and imposed trade remedy measures on photovoltaic products, bio-diesels, and raw materials for wind driven generators. This 
has increased the costs of environmental products  users and prejudiced the competitiveness of 
environmental products in comparison to those with high energy consumption and pollution. Is 
such result in line with the original policy goals? What measures will the EU take to ensure the fulfillment of “full integration” mentioned in the report? 
 
EU reply: Please see reply to Question 28. 
 
Page 13, Para 4.26 
…The EU is a prudent and moderate user of the AD and AS instruments, applying the lesser duty rule and also the Union interest test before imposing measures. In 2013, the Commission adopted 
a proposal to modernise the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy instruments in an effort to improve 
them in the face of changes in international trade practices. This proposal is now subject to the normal legislative process with the European Parliament and the Council….  
Question 98:  
What indexes and factors are taken into account when the EU draws a conclusion for Union interest test? Are quantitative criteria (such as unemployment) considered? How does the EU 
consider the interest of downstream users? 
 Question 99:  
What are the specific contents of the Union interest? The trade remedy measures against 
environment friendly products would increase the prices of those products, leading to the choice of carbon emission products by consumers, thus increasing carbon emission in the EU. Will the Union interest be damaged by this? How does the EU consider the environmental interest when 
conducting the Union interest test? 
 EU reply to questions 98 and 99: The EU only imposes anti-dumping ('AD') or anti-subsidy 
('AS') measures if they are not against the interest of the European Union. The rules on Union 
interest in anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations are set out in Articles 21 and 31 of the EU's Basic anti-dumping and anti-subsidy regulations, respectively.  
 
The Union interest analysis is based on an appreciation of all the various interests taken as a whole. It takes into account the interests of all ec onomic operators located in the EU that would be 
affected by the outcome of the AD or AS investigation including the Union industry, traders and 
importers, users, suppliers and consumers.  
 The analysis and conclusions regarding these issues can be found in the various regulations, 
provisional and definitive set out the relevant findings. 
 Question 100:  
The proposal for the EU’s modernization of trade defense instruments provides that the lesser duty 
rule will not apply under certain circumstance. Please offer more details on this, and what is the purpose for this amendment? How would the EU ensure that the trade remedy measures under this rule will not exceed reasonable extent? 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 187 - 
 
  EU reply: The use of the lesser duty rules is not obligatory under the WTO Anti-dumping 
Agreement or SCM Agreement. If the EU were not to apply the lesser duty rule in certain circumstances as described in the Trade 
Modernisation proposal, any trade remedy measures imposed would be at the level of the 
dumping/subsidy margin in line with the legislation and the relevant provisions of the WTO AD and 
SCM Agreements.  
Page 12, Para 4.25  
…Therefore, in June 2013, the EU renewed th e legislation setting out the conditions and 
procedures for action by the customs authorit ies where goods suspected of infringing an 
intellectual property right are, or should have  been, subject to customs supervision or customs 
controls. Furthermore, the EU has included a chapter on IPR enforcement in all the FTAs concluded 
during the period under review.  
Question 101:  
Within this review period, what contents have been brought into the chapters of IPR enforcement of the free trade agreements? 
 
EU reply : The chapters on IPR enforcement in free trade agreements are country specific. Within 
this review period the text of treaties that entered into force or which were negotiated and are public are available here: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/agreements.  
 
PART III: OTHER QUESTIONS 
 
Question 102:  
In 2014, the European Commission proposed the Conflict Minerals Law to the European Parliament, and a consensus is yet to be sought for the final draft. Please clarify the following 
questions: (1) what are the institutional designs of the current draft of Conflict Minerals Law 
regarding the mandatory nature of accreditation system, the scope of conflict products, the definition of conflict regions and downstream users; (2) Have any assessments conducted on the legislation’s potential impact on the global and EU trade; (3) what are the next steps for this 
legislation? 
 EU reply: In March 2014, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a Regulation of the 
European Parliament and the Council setting up a system for supply chain due diligence self-
certification of responsible importers of tin, tantalum and tungsten, their ores, and gold. The proposal modelled on the basis of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance (OECD Due Diligence 
Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals  from Conflict-Affected and High-risk Areas) is 
currently in first reading by the co-legislato rs and therefore subject to modifications.  
 (1) Concerning an accreditation system of the in dependent third-party audit, such system is not 
envisaged in the current draft of the Regulation su bject to its final outcome. Note that the draft 
Regulation refers to the audit principles as set out in the OECD Due Diligence Guidance including 
the principles of independence, competence and accountability.  
 
As to the product scope of the proposal, the main products included are tin, tantalum, tungsten, their ores, and gold. The detailed list of products is set out in Annex I of the draft Regulation. 
 
Concerning the definition of conflict regions, th e draft Regulation has a global geographical scope 
including the conflict-affected and high-risk areas as defined in Article 2(e) of the draft Regulation which are areas in a state of armed conflict, fragile post-conflict as well as areas witnessing weak 
or non-existent governance and security, such as failed states, and widespread and systematic 
violations of international law, including human rights abuses.  
Concerning downstream users, the definition as set out in Article 2(f) of the draft Regulation 
defines the downstream of the metal supply chain from the smelters or refiners to the end use.  
(2) On the economic impact of the draft Regulation , including global and EU trade, the Commission 
conducted an impact assessment accompanying the proposal which has been issued on 4 March. The results of the impact assessment can be consulted on the TRADE website:  
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/d ocs/2014/march/tradoc_152229.pdf.  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 188 - 
 
  (3) In May 2015, the plenary of the European Pa rliament adopted a number of amendments to the 
Commission's proposal. The Council is now examining the draft regulation. The final adoption of a Regulation is not expected before end 2015.   
Question 103:  
Please introduce the EU’s position and consideration on the multilateral, plurilateral and bilateral trade and investment policies in its new, trade policy agenda, as well as the EU’s plans, priorities 
and steps for concluding trade and investment treaties with developed, emerging, developing and 
least-developed economies.  EU reply:  T h e  E u r o p e a n  C o m m i s s i o n  i s  w o r k i n g  o n  a  n e w  C o m m u n i c a t i o n  t h a t  w i l l  p r e s e n t  i t s  
Trade Policy priorities for the forthcoming years. At this stage, as the works are on-going, it is not 
possible to give an exhaustive reply to this question and therefore the EU would invite China to wait for the forthcoming Communication th at should be issued in autumn 2015. 
 
To be noted nevertheless that, on 23 June, th e EU organised an "European Trade Policy Day". 
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1334 . This conference has been organised 
for involving the stakeholders and the civil society in the definition of the new Trade Policy of the 
EU.  China may want to have a look at the docu ments posted on the dedicated web-page of the 
Conference for some preliminary information.  
Question 104:  
How does the EU deal with data flow and data protection issues in the negotiation of trade and investment agreement? What are the EU’s progress in and considerations of digital trade 
legislation? 
 EU reply:  The EU has included commitments on financial information flows in GATS and in other 
trade agreements. The EU does not consider that data protection standards can be included in 
trade agreements since data protection is a fundamental right which, for the EU, is non-negotiable. The EU has recently adopted a Digital Single Market Strategy which announced legislation to improve the functioning of the EU's internal market for digital services and e-commerce. 
 
Question 105:  Given the complexity of digital trade, would the EU  prefer to remove the barriers to digital trade 
through multilateral or bilateral trade agreement? 
 EU reply: The usefulness and effectiveness of trade agr eements, whether multilateral, plurilateral 
or bilateral, depends greatly on the ambition of the parties to the agreement. In many instances, 
however, and considering the non-physical and borderless nature of Internet-based services, 
barriers to digital trade can be addressed by othe r policy means than trade agreements. Just like 
in the "off-line" world, autonomous measures to facilitate or liberalise trade can go a long way in 
fostering an environment conducive to digital trade. 
 Question 106:  
The EU’s Recycling Economy Directive requires that the member States abolish landfill by 2025, 
and recycle 70% of the wastes, 80% of the pack ages, 90% of scrap paper (year 2025) by 2030, 
and the same requirements apply to plastic, wood materials and glass. According to news report, 
this directive was repealed by the EU in 2014. Please explain the EU’s consideration of the 
recycling of wastes and scraps, and the EU’s future policy trend in this regard.  EU reply:  The waste management targets currently binding in the EU include the 50% recycling 
target on municipal waste, 70% recycling target on recovery of construction and demolition waste- 
both to be reached in 2020 (set out in the Wa ste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC), as well as the 
reduction targets for the total amount (by weight) of biodegradable waste going to landfills: 75% 
by 2006, 50% by 2009 and 35 % of biodegradabl e municipal waste produced in 1995, although 
some Member States have time derogations until 2020 (set out by Directive 1999/31/EC).  
The legislative proposal to review waste targets setting out new targets, as mentioned in the 
question, has been withdrawn and the Commission is now working on a new more ambitious proposal on the circular economy. A new package will consist of an Action Plan and a revised legislative proposal on waste. Adoption can be expected by end 2015. The Waste proposal in 
particular is expected to step up ambition in te rms of implementation on the ground, i.e. to be WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 189 - 
 
  more effective taking account of different levels  of current performance in individual Member 
States. The revised proposal will be better adapted to the realities in the Member States, focusing on narrowing gaps between them. It is however premature to give any indication as to the level of ambition and timeline of specific recycling targets. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 190 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM JAPAN 
 Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/317)  
1 ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 
1.1 Recent Economic Developments. 1.1.2 Structural reforms  
1.1.2.1 Fiscal governance improvement 
 (Question 1: Page 14, Paragraph 1.13) According to the report by the Secretariat, only  4.1 % of the total value of public procurement 
published in the Tenders Electronic Daily (TED) in 2011 was awarded directly to cross-border 
foreign suppliers. How does the EU evaluate this figure? Also, does the EU implement any concrete 
measures to increase the percentage of cross-border procurement?  If not, does the EU have any 
intention to implement such measures in the future?  
 EU reply:  The EU published a study on cross-border procurement in 2012 which analyses contract 
awards from 2007 to 2009. This study estimates the level of direct cross-border procurement to be 
3.5% for 2007-2009. Direct cross border procurement was defined as procurement which occur when a firm operating from their home market bid and win a contract in another country. This estimate was therefore based on the origin of bidders. As a result, this estimate does not include 
an assessment of the ratio of foreign goods and serv ices included in the bids. To evaluate the level 
of cross-border procurement, the EU believes it is relevant to consider all types of indirect cross-
border procurement i.e. through subsidiaries and distributors. According to the study the value of 
cross-border procurement including direct and indirect procurement is approximately 29%.  
 3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE  
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports  
3.1.1 Customs procedures   (Question 2: Page 38, Paragraphs 3.15-3.16) 
Paragraph 3.15 describes the general framework of advance rulings on binding tariff classification 
in the EU.  
(1) If different classifications for the same/similar product among its member States were found in 
BTI or identified during daily operations, what is the mechanism for the Commission to ensure uniform classification?  
 
EU reply:  (a) When an application for a BTI decision is received by a customs administration the 
“Administrative Guidelines on the European Binding Tariff Information (EBTI) system and its operation” recommend the administration to conduct searches in the EBTI-3 database in order to 
determine a number of factors, including whether a BTI decision been issued for the same or a 
similar product, whether the applicant has already applied for, or holds, a BTI for an identical or a similar product?  Currently this advice is not enshrined in the legislation but such searches in the 
database will become a legal obligation once the UCC becomes applicable. 
 (b) If a divergence in classification is detected in the EBTI-3 database, the differing Member States 
concerned are exhorted to consult with one another in an effort to resolve the problem. If they fail 
to reach a consensus, the matter must be submitted to the Commission which in turn will put the case before the Customs Code Committee (CCC) , Nomenclature Section. That Committee is 
composed of delegates from the 28 Member States and they will discuss the matter and decide on 
the issue. The Committee will take whatever measures are deemed necessary to ensure uniform 
classification in the Union  
Paragraph 3.15 states that “Advance rulings, as either binding tariff information (BTI) or binding 
origin information (BOI), issued by the customs authorities of one member State are binding throughout the EU.” 
 
(2) If the national customs administration of one Member State has different views on the classification issued by another member State, is there any mechanism to resolve such a difference in views among the member States?  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 191 - 
 
  EU reply:  Please see paragraph (b) in the reply above. 
 Paragraph 3.16 explains, “The review by national courts of a decision taken by the customs administration of one member State is not binding on the customs administrations of other 
member States.”  
 (3) Does this mean it would allow for having different classifications for one product among 
member States? 
 
EU reply:  Appeals and judicial reviews are governed by the national legislation of the Member 
States and consequently judgments and decisions of a national court only apply within the national 
territory. 
 National courts generally will refer matters concerning the interpretation of EU legislation to the 
Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).  In  a small number of cases the national court will 
pass judgment without reference to the CJEU and such national judgments may indeed create divergence.  However, in such situations th e CCC will adopt measures to ensure uniform 
classification, e.g. a classification regulation. 
 (4) If the review by national courts in one member  State is different from a decision taken by the 
WCO HS Committee, how would the Commission resolve such difference among member States? 
 
EU reply:  (a) The EU as a single entity as well as its individual Member States are all members of 
the WCO and consequently the HS is applicable in  all Member States.  That being the case the 
C o m b i n e d  N o m e n c l a t u r e  ( C N )  o f  t h e  U n i o n  i n c o r p o r a t e s  t h e  H S  a s  a n  i n t e g r a l  p a r t  o f  t h a t  
nomenclature. Furthermore, tariff classification in the Union is based on the Customs Tariff of the European Communities which comprises the Comb ined Nomenclature and other nomenclatures 
based upon it as laid down by Article 20 3(a) and (b) and determined in accordance with 6(a) and 
(b)of the Customs Code.  (b) Therefore the legal basis for the tariff classification given in BTI is not the HS but rather the 
Combined Nomenclature.  As that is the case, a national court cannot overturn a decision of the 
HS Committee. If on the other hand it makes a judgment that overturns a CN classification that is based on a HS Committee decision, the CCC will enact measures to ensure uniform classification. 
 
3.1.8 Technical regulations and standards (Question 3: Pages 50-52, 54, Para graphs 3.81, 3.84, 3.87, 3.93) 
(1) In order to apply/follow appropriate EU Directiv es to export Japanese products, how will the EU 
direct the questions to the appropriate division for consultation? Is there any procedure to follow? If it is directed to EU members, could members explain the procedures? (Page 50, paragraph 3.81)   
EU reply:  In order to place a product to the market of the European Union, the manufacturer 
must ensure that it complies with applicable legislation, and it is him/her that must check which legislation applies to his/her products. More information can be obtained through EU Export 
Helpdesk: http://exporthelp.europa.eu/thdapp/index .htm, which contains links to the relevant 
webpages on product legislation on the Europa website, and by contacting the national contact 
points responsible for the implementation of  the EU Directive or Regulation concerned 
(http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/index_en.htm) or  the national market surveillance authorities 
in the EU Member States at: http://ec.eu ropa.eu/growth/single-market/goods/building-
blocks/market-surveillance/organisation/index_en.htm. 
 
(2) If the products could not apply the specific EU Directives due to a misunderstanding of the 
result of consultation, is there any punishment for not applying the EU Directives? (Page 50, paragraph 3.81)  
 
EU reply: The provisions of national law of EU Member States that are adopted pursuant to EU 
harmonized legislation provide rules on penalties applicable to infringements of EU harmonized 
legislation and prescribe all measures necessary to  ensure that they are enforced. The procedures, 
measures and sanctions in relation to products that do not comply with EU harmonized legislation vary according to EU Member States' national administrative, civil and criminal laws. Depending on the seriousness of the infringement, economic operators may be liable to a fine and, in some 
circumstances, imprisonment. Products may be withdrawn or recalled from the market. However, WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 192 - 
 
  if the product is not regarded as posing an imminent safety risk, the manufacturer may be given 
the opportunity to bring the product into compliance with the applicable legislation rather than being obliged to take the product off the market.  
(3) Could the EU provide a detailed schedule for developing ISO-EN, which needs to have an EU 
consultation period for EU Directives before the DIS ballot in ISO? Any approximate timeframe for the period? (Page 51, paragraph 3.84)  
 
EU reply: The simultaneous development  of a European standard and an ISO (or IEC) one is 
handled by CEN and CENELEC  according to the rules of the respective Vienna Agreement (between 
CEN and ISO) and Dresden Agreement (between CENELEC and IEC). As the European Commission 
is not involved in the preparation of any standard, it has no role in determining delays.  
 (4) Could the EU specify the percentage of mandatory standards, based on EU Directives among 
the EN and EN/harmonized standards? (Page 52, paragraph 3.87)  
 EU reply: European standards are developed by one of the three European Standards 
Organisations (ESOs): the European Committee for Standardization (CEN), the European 
Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (C ENELEC) and the European Telecommunications 
Standards Institute (ETSI). These organisation s provide a platform for the development of 
voluntary European Standards (ENs) and other consensus documents, and are independent non-
profit organisations. Even in cases where the European Commission issues standardization 
requests to the ESOs to draw up and adopt European standards in support of European policies and legislation, these European Standards called 'H armonised Standards' remain voluntary in their 
use. Harmonised Standards represent approximately 20% of all European standards. 
 (5) Could the EU explain, if the technical regulation is identified, is it necessary to be certified by a 
third party, such as quality management by a “notified body”? (Page 54 paragraph 3.93)  
 EU reply: In most product areas compliance with EU legislation can be demonstrated through the 
least burdensome conformity assessment procedure – Supplier's declaration of conformity (SDoC), 
corresponding to Module A – Internal production control . For some product categories considered 
of high risk, EU legislation provides for mandatory third party conformity assessment requiring the intervention of a Notified Body. 
 
3.1.9 Sanitary and phytosanitary measures (Page 57, Paragraph 3.101) 
The WTO report (WT/TPR/S/317) describes that in addi tion to the authorities at the EU level, each 
member State has its own authorities responsible for food safety, animal and plant health, and the environment.  
Japan appreciates it if EU would provide documents or materials that show demarcation including 
supporting legal framework between authorities at the EU level and its member States.   
EU reply:  The division of competence between the European Commission and EU Member States 
is captured in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.  
To assist in Japan's understanding of how this works in practice in the SPS field, it is useful to note 
that SPS measures are extensively harmonised at the EU level which means that legislation is decided collectively, at a central level. This legislation is subsequently applied by all EU Member States. There are very few areas in the SPS fiel d that are non-harmonised and then, only with 
respect to less commonly, consumed or traded commodities. 
 In these non-harmonised areas, Member States may adopt national provisions, provided that they 
are in conformity with the TFEU. In exceptional circumstances, Member States may also 
temporarily suspend or restrict the application of EU provisions, within its territory, on the basis of new information or a reassessment of existing information, and, in order to protect the life and 
health of humans, animals or plants (articles 36 and 114 of the TFEU). 
 When it comes to the implementation  of EU legislation, EU Member States then take a front seat. 
They are responsible for the enforcement of legislatio n, for organising official controls and ensuring WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 193 - 
 
  that goods placed on the market comply with the relevant standards and requirements. In this 
scenario, the European Commission has an oversight role to ensure these systems are effective.   3.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade  
3.3.5 Government procurement 
 (Question 5: Page 92, Paragraph 3.237) 
The report by the Secretariat explains that pr ocurement according to the EU rules must be 
published in the Official Journal which may be accessed online through the TED website. Does the Commission keep track of data of notices and procurement results? How does the Commission ensure that EU member states do indeed meet the publication requirements through the Official 
Journal or TED appropriately? And what kind of measures does the European Commission take to 
ensure this implementation?   
EU reply:  The EU Commission keeps track of data of notices and procurement results. The 
publication requirements are stipulated in the EU directives on public procurement which are transposed into the national law of the EU Me mber States. There are various mechanisms on 
national level put in place by Member states to enforce the applicable legislation. These 
mechanisms have to fulfil some essential requirements imposed by the EU legislation and depend on the administrative and judiciary system of each  Member state. On EU level infringements of EU 
procurement law can be also pursued by the Commission in its role as guardian of the Treaties via 
infringement proceedings under Articles 258 and 260 TFEU. 
 3.3.5.1 GPA and international procurement 
(Question 6: Page 95, Paragraph 3.248) 
How is the current status of the “proposal aimed at improving the conditions under which EU business can compete for public contracts in third countries” by the European Commission? Could 
the European Commission comment on the consistency of this proposal with its GPA commitments 
and for non-government procurement, the consistency of this proposal with its national treatment obligation under the GATT.  
EU reply:  The proposal for an international procurement initiative is currently under review. As 
noted in the Commission working programme for 2015, the Commission intends to amend it in accordance with the priorities of the new Commission in order to simplify it and to reduce the 
number of actors. It is at this point in time not possible to say exactly when a revised proposal 
may be tabled.  
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR  
4.3 Services  4.3.1 Telecommunications services  4.3.1.2 Regulatory framework and policy developments  
4.3.1.2.1 Implementation of the 2009 pack age and related secondary legislation  
 (Question 7: Pages 139-140, Paragraph 4.66) 
In this report, there is a reference to “Significa nt Market Power (SMP) suppliers in a particular 
market”, what is the criteria for defining a supplier as a SMP? In addition, we would like the newest list of SMP of all member states.  
 
EU reply: According to Article 14 of the Framework Directive
73 ‘an undertaking shall be deemed to 
have significant market power if, either individually or jointly with others, it enjoys a position equivalent to dominance, that is to say a position of economic strength affording it the power to 
behave to an appreciable extent independen tly of competitors customers and ultimately 
consumers’. According to point 78 of the SMP Guidelines
74, in order to determine whether an 
undertaking has SMP, NRAs should undertake a thorough and overall analysis of the economic 
characteristics of the relevant market before coming to a conclusion as to the existence of 
significant market power. In that regard, the following criteria can also be used to measure the 
                                               
73 Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common 
regulatory framework for electronic communications  networks and services as amended by Directive 
2009/140/EC and Regulation 544/2009. 
74 Commission guidelines on market analysis and th e assessment of significant market power under the 
Community regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (2002/C 165/03), C 165/6, 11. 07.2002. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 194 - 
 
  power of an undertaking to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, 
customers and consumers. These criteria include,  among others: overall size of the undertaking, 
control of infrastructure not easily duplicated, technological advantages or superiority, absence of or low countervailing buying power, easy or privileged access to capital markets/financial 
resources, economies of scale, economies of scop e, vertical integration, absence of potential 
competition and barriers to expansion.  
Commission decisions concerning all markets can be consulted via the CircaBC application under 
the following link: https://circabc.europa.eu/faces/jsp/extension/wai /navigation/container.jsp?FormBanner:_idcl=For
mBanner:_idJsp6&FormBanner_SUBMIT=1&javax .faces.ViewState=rO0 ABXVyABNbTGphdmEubGF
uZy5PYmplY3Q7kM5YnxBzKWwCAAB4cAAAAAN0AAE ycHQAKy9qc3AvZXh0ZW5zaW9uL3dhaS9uYX
ZpZ2F0aW9uL2NvbnRhaW5lci5qc3A .  
 
These relevant Commission decisions will provide information on the SMP undertaking in each 
market and Member State, where applicable.  
 
(Question 8: Pages 139-140, Paragraph 4.66) 
We would like to request the EU to explain the de finition of both “virtual (non-physical access) 
unbundling” and “physical products”, including some examples of them.   
EU reply: Unbundled local loops (LLU) and sub-loops (SLU), respectively, supplied at the main 
distribution frame (MDF) and at the street cabinet (SC), are physical network access products. Physical network access products give access seekers a greater flexibility and control over the 
retail broadband service offered to the end-user than wholesale broadband access (WBA) provided 
in the form of a non-physical bitstream service, which can be provided at the MDF or at higher points in the network (such as regional or national interconnection points). However, with newly 
deployed NGA (Next Generation Access) network architectures, a differentiation between the 
traditionally physical unbundling and the traditionally non-physical WBA using the above-mentioned criteria has become less obvious. Some NRAs also include access based on non-physical or virtual products in the wholesale local a ccess market when they exhibit functionalities 
equivalent or comparable to the key features of physical unbundling. Examples of virtual access 
products found substitutable to physical access products can be found in the UK (virtual unbundled local access "VULA") or Austria (virtually unbundled local loop "vULL"). More information about 
these products and respective markets can be found in the Explanatory Note to the 2014 Relevant 
Markets Recommendation (https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/new s/explanatory-note-accompanying-commission-
recommendation-relevant-product-and-service-markets ).  
 
(Question 9: Page 142, Paragraph 4.72) According to this report, a limited number of member states impose a specific obligation about IP 
interconnection on SMP.  Are there any member states where no obligation regarding IP 
interconnection is imposed on SMP in spite of its existence? If so, what is the difference between a member state that imposes the obligation and one does not? Moreover, how many member states 
are there which impose on all telecom operators the obligation to provide interconnection with 
other telecom operators who so request, except when there is a reasonable reason to deny? 
 
EU reply: The information contained in section 4.72 of the Trade Policy Report for the European 
Union is based on the Commission staff working document on "the implementation of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communicati ons – 2014" released by the Commission on 14 
July 2014
75 which reports about the implementation of the EU regulatory framework in the 
Member States. During the period covered by the report, only four Member States were reported 
as having imposed to the SMP operator the obligation to provide regulated IP Interconnection offers. A more recent Commission Staff Working Document has been released on 19 June 2015.
76 
This report shows that, driven by the migration to wards all IP networks, regulated reference offers 
for IP-based interconnection for voice services have been set up in 13 Member State. In the other 15 Member States, IP Interconnection offers, where available, are provided on a commercial basis. 
This regulatory approach is based on the analysis of the national market circumstances by the 
                                               
75 Ref. SWD(2014) 249 Final, link: 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=6474 . 
76 Ref: SWD(2015) 126 final, link: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/implementation-eu-
regulatory-framework-electronic-communications-2015 . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 195 - 
 
  national regulatory authority, under the regulatory oversight of the Commission. The Commission 
is not aware of obligations to provide regulated IP interconnection offers imposed to all operators within one Member State, i.e. without any distinction of market power.  
Pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2002/19/EC (the Access Directive)
77, all operators are obliged to 
negotiate interconnection on a commercial basis if so requested by another operator.  
4.3.1.2.2 The "Connected Continen t" draft legislative package  
(Question 10: Page 143, Paragraph 4.84) We understand that the 2012 Roaming Regulation stipulates that telecom companies abolish an extra charge for a fixed intra-EU international call ; is that understanding correct? Due to roaming 
price cuts among EU members, a further increase in international roaming price between EU 
members and other countries is expected. Japan is concerned about the fact that it causes unfairly discriminatory measures against carriers outside EU member countries. Could the EU explain the 
concrete measures to prevent such a situation? 
 Are there any measures with non-EU countries in order to lower international roaming rates?  
 
EU reply: The 2012 Roaming Regulation is about mobile electronic communications. It does not 
stipulate that telecom companies abolish an extra charge for a fixed intra-EU international call. The EU's Roaming Regulation is a legislative instrument focusing on the creation of the EU internal 
market. The scope of the Roaming Re gulation covers intra-EU traffic, when a customer of one EU 
network operator roams on a network of another EU operator's network. The EU, which is a WTO Member on its own right, is an economic integration within the meaning of Article V GATS and the 
EU and its Member States thereby benefit from a waiver under that Article. At the same time, the 
EU's Roaming Regulation does not prevent EU and non-EU operators from freely negotiating tariffs 
for “international roaming”. Indeed they could use the Roaming Regulation figures to provide a 
benchmark. Any price reductions following such negotiations by mobile operators would be 
welcome. The EU is not aware of any agreements and subsequent measures with non-EU countries 
in order to lower termination rates.  
4.3.2 Audiovisual services  
4.3.2.2 Regulatory regime  (Question 11: Page 147, Paragraphs 4.90-4.91) According to para 4.90 and 4.91, audiovisual in the EU directive （the Audiovisual Media Services 
Directive ） includes « on-demand » services; however, is the concept of audiovisual here identical 
to the category of GATS audiovisual services? What contents services does the “on-demand” 
audiovisual services under the EU directive include?   
EU reply : The definition of 'audiovisual media service' in the Audiovisual Media Services Directive 
(AVMSD) overlaps to a large extent with sections 2.D.a. and 2.D.c of the W/120 classification, but 
goes significantly beyond the latter insofar as it covers not only linear services (traditional 
broadcasting), but also non-linear ones (i.e. on demand services) [cf. Art. 1.(a)(i) of the AVMSD]. 
However, the Directive does not cover audiovisual services which are not under the editorial responsibility of a media service provider (for  example, video-sharing platforms). On-demand 
audiovisual media services (i.e. non-linear audiovisual media services) are audiovisual media 
services provided by a media service provider  for the viewing of programmes at the moment 
chosen by the user and at his individual requ est on the basis of a catalogue of programmes 
selected by the media service provider [cf. Art. 1.(g) of the AVMSD]. 
 
(Question 12: Page 147, Paragraph 4.90) We would like clarification of the relationship between the Audiovisual Media Services Directive and 
Creative Europe Programme. Does Creative Europe financially support the EU member states in 
implementing the directive?   EU reply:  The Audiovisual Media Services Directive ( http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ 
TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32010L0013&from=EN ) is a piece of (mainly) internal market legislation in 
the EU. As such, member states must transpose it into national legislation. AVMSD concerns the 
                                               
77 Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 Marche 2002 "on 
access to, interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities" (Access Directive) as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 196 - 
 
  coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member 
States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services. The Creative Europe ( http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1295&from=EN ) is a framework 
programme for support to the culture and audiovis ual sectors. It does not include any financial 
support for member states to implement EU legislation. 
 (Question 13: Pages 147-148, Paragraphs 4.93, 4.95) 
According to paragraph 4.95 European works coul d include non-domestic works. What is the 
definition of “European works”? Are there any re quirements or conditions imposed on “European 
works”?   
EU reply: The definition of "European works" appears in  Article 1, paragraph (n) othe Audiovisual 
Media Services Directive.  
 
(Question 14: Page 147, Paragraph 4.93) 
According to paragraph 4.93, AVMSD leaves wider discretion on how to promote European works for video-on-demand compared to traditional TV services. Is there any possibility to narrow the 
room and introduce stricter rule to video-on-demand in the near future? If so, please explain the 
details.   EU reply: The Commission is now assessing the overall functioning of the Audiovisual Media 
Services Directive in the context of a REFIT (regul atory fitness) evaluation in the course of 2015. 
The overall aim of REFIT is to assess whether there is scope for simplification, de-regulation and cutting red tape, both at European and national level. At this point in time, it is not possible to 
venture the outcome of the exercise and how provisions video-on-demand may evolve. 
 (Question 15: Page 148, Paragraph 4.95) 
In AVMSD transmission time requirements for line ar services set out in Articles 16 and 17 are not 
obligatory (“where practicable”). At Member State level are these non-obligatory requirements as well? If so, why did 3 MS, Ireland Slovenia and th e U.K., receive administrative guidance by the 
Commission to attain the required proportion? Are these requirements practically operated as 
obligations for MS?  
 EU reply: Both Article 16 and 17 clearly establish that "Member States SHALL ENSURE, where 
practicable and by appropriate means", thus the pr ovisions are indeed obligatory. If during the 
reporting/verification process member states allege conditions that rendered those obligations not-practicable, the Commission will examine with the member states the validity of those allegations 
and the ways and means to make sure the obligations are progressively met. 
 (Question 16: Page 148, Paragraph 4.97) What are the “specific promotion measures” imposed by the EU member states for on-demand 
services? 
 EU reply:  an overview of different national legislative frameworks aiming at the promotion of 
E u r o p e a n  w o r k s  o n  V o D ,  i s  f o u n d  i n  t h e  d o c u m e n t  "Promotion of European works in practice", 
available at https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agen da/news/promotion-european-works-practice. 
 
(Question 17: Pages 147-154, Paragraphs 4.90-4.108) 
Regarding music and game contents distribution, what kind of regulation does EU have?  EU reply:  There is no EU-wide regulation regarding specifically music and/or video games 
distribution. The provisions in the directive on e-commerce ( http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32000L0031&from=EN ) do apply as, and if, appropriate. A 
Council Resolution on the protection of consumers, in particular young people, through the 
labelling of certain video games and computer games according to age group, was adopted in 
2002 ( http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexU riServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2002:065:0002:0002:EN: 
PDF), 
 
(Question 18: Page 151, Paragraph 4.103) Under EU rules, could foreigners and foreign companies get state aid for film production, 
distribution and promotion e.t.c? In MS like France, Spain, Italy, U.K. and Germany, could 
foreigners and foreign companies get such a grant? If they could, please clarify the requirements.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 197 - 
 
  EU reply: In principle, according to the EU rules, Member states can grant state aid for film 
production, distribution and promotion activities to foreign (and EU) companies specified in the Communication (Communication from the Commission on State aid for films and other audiovisual works). Member States can impose Territorial spending obligations in film funding schemes , which 
require that a certain part of the supported film budget be spent in the aid-granting Member State. 
The Commission, however, limited the maximum level of territorial production activity that Member States can set as an eligibility condition. Member States may also require that the 
producer has an office in their territory at the moment the aid is paid out. This means that within 
these limits foreign companies may get State aid for film production. Moreover, the Cinema Communication is supplemented by State aid rules on the audiovisual sector in the revised General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER). Member States may implement measures which fulfil the 
conditions of the Regulation without prior Commission scrutiny (Article 54, Aid schemes for audio-
visual works). Conditions include similar limitations to the territorial spending obligations as in the Communication, rules on eligible costs and aid intensities and, according to point 10 of Article 54 
of the GBER, the rule that aid shall not be reserved exclusively for nationals and beneficiaries shall 
not be required to have the status of undertaki ng established under national commercial law. The 
Communication from the Commission on State aid for films and other audiovisual works is 
available at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/specific_rules.html . 
 
The text of the GBER is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/ 
block.html#gber  
 
(Question 19: Page 151, Paragraph 4.103) What is the meaning of state aid to the concept of a certain audiovisual? 
 
EU reply:  The EU refers to Article 107 of the TFEU for de finition of State aid. To be considered as 
State aid, a measure needs to have the following features: 
 
i. there has been an intervention by the State or through State resources which can take a 
variety of forms (e.g. grants, interest and ta x reliefs, guarantees, government holdings of 
all or part of a company, or providing goods and services on preferential terms, etc.);  
ii. the intervention gives the recipient an advantage; 
iii. the support is given on a selective basis, for example to specific companies or industry 
sectors, or to companies located in specific regions; 
iv. the intervention might affect trade and competition between Member States. 
 The definition of state aid applies to the audiovisual sector as it does for other sectors. 
 
The Communication from the Comm ission on State aid for films and other audiovisual works 
provides an updated set of rules for assessing  whether Member States' audiovisual support 
schemes comply with EU rules on State aid. The rules cover all aspects of film creation, from story 
concept to delivery to the audience. They also cl arify that aid to cinemas will be assessed under 
Article 107(3)d) TFEU as aid to promote culture.  
This Communication is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/specific 
_rules.html . 
 
Report by the European Union (WT/TPR/G/317) 
1 THE EUROPEAN UNION IN THE GLOBAL TRADING SYSTEM (Question 20: Page 4, Paragraph 1.9) The report says that the EU aims to raise the level of ambition of all participants regarding market 
access and national treatment. On the other hand, the EU has taken actions including the 
Proposed EU Data Protection Regulation, which indirectly result in creating barriers to market entry. 
 
We think that description seems like a contradiction. Please explain the relationship between it and the actions described above. 
 
EU reply:  The globalised nature of data flows calls for a strengthening of the individual’s data 
protection rights internationally. This requires strong principles for protecting individuals’ data, aimed at easing the flow of personal data across borders while still ensuring a high and consistent 
level of protection without loopholes or unnecessary complexity.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 198 - 
 
  The EU Data Protection Regulation will not result in barriers to market entry. On the contrary, it 
will create a more unified framework for data prot ection, ensure a better functioning of the EU's 
internal market, and provide for a more streamlined procedure for international data transfers. It makes legitimate transfers easier and less burden some by reinforcing and simplifying other rules 
on international transfers, in particular by streamlining and extending the use of tools such as 
‘binding corporate rules’, so that they can be used to also cover data processors and within ‘groups of companies’, thus better reflecting the multiplicity of actors involved in data processing activities. 
The EU's data protection reform package will bo ost innovation in sustainable data services by 
enhancing legal certainty and strengthening trust in the digital marketplace. This way it will foster a virtuous circle between the protection of a fundamental right, consumer trust and economic 
growth. All states should join the European Union in contributing to trust in the digital and the 
internet by respecting and protecting the right to privacy and to protection of personal data. 
 3 DEVELOPMENTS IN THE INTERNAL MARKET  
Reforms to complete the inte rnal market in services 
(Question 21: Page 9, Paragraph 3.19) Regarding ICT Directive, Japan recognises that Ir eland, Denmark, and UK are out of the scope of 
the Directive. First, please explain the background  that these three member states are treated as 
such. Second, please explain the view and eval uation by the EU that these three integral 
economies are out of the scope of the Directive.   
EU reply:  
i) Based on the EU Treaties (Protocol n°22), Denmark has a general opt out at the moment on all 
measures in the area of home affairs and justice, including as regards legal migration instruments 
(with the exceptions of measures and acts that ar e linked to the implementation of the Schengen 
acquis, which apply to Denmark with specific modalities – but this is not relevant for the discussion at stake). 
 
ii) Based on Protocol 21 to the Treaties, the UK and Ireland can chose whether to apply or not the 
EU legislation in the area of home affairs and justice ("opt in" right) [again, specific rules apply in relation to the implementation of the Schengen acqu is but this is not relevant here]. Until now, the 
UK has chosen not to be bound by any of the Directives in the area of legal migration, including 
the ICT Directive. Ireland is currently bound only by  the Directive on the admission of researchers.  
The above Member States may thus have national rules on ICTs but are not bound by EU 
legislation (by their own choice), which means that, inter alia, their intra-EU mobility will not be 
facilitated (as it is in relation to the MS bound by the Directive). WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 199 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES 
 
 PART I:  QUESTIONS ON THE SECRETARIAT REPORT (WT/TPR/S/317) 
 
2. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 2.3 Trade agreements and arrangements 
2.3.1 WTO 
 Page 29, Paragraph 2.18:  The Secretariat’s report states that in February 2015 the EU began 
the process of accepting the protocol for the am endment to the Marrakesh Agreement for the WTO 
Agreement on Trade Facilitation.  Could the EU provide an update on when it expects to formally 
accept the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement?  
EU reply:  In February 2015 the EU began the process of acceptance of the WTO TFA, which is 
still on-going. Currently it is at the level of the European Parliament. Once the Parliament has given its consent, the Council can adopt the agreement. The EU expects the procedure to be 
finalized this year, by the date of the Nairobi 10
th Ministerial Conference.  
 2.4 Investment regime 2.4.1 Business environment 
 
Page 32, Paragraph 2.39:   Paragraph 2.39 of the Report notes that the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) generally prohibits restrictions on capital movements 
within the EU, as well as between the EU and third countries. The Report (at footnote 53) suggests 
this general prohibition does not apply with respect to restrictions on direct investment that were in place by 25 member states prior to December 1993, and by Bulgaria, Estonia, and Hungary 
prior to 1999. 
 
 Could the EU clarify whether the information in footnote 53 of the Report is correct?  In 
particular, is it accurate that the TFEU’s general requirement for free movement of capital 
between the EU and third countries does not apply to foreign direct investment (FDI) 
restrictions in place within EU member states prior to 1993 (or 1999 in the case of Bulgaria, Estonia, and Hungary)?   
 
EU reply:  Footnote 53 correctly states that "restrictions on direct investment from non-EU 
members that were in place before December 1993 (December 1999 for Bulgaria, Estonia, and 
Hungary) are exempt from the prohibition to restrict capital movements between Member States 
and between Member States and third countries. As for the EU enlarged to 28 Members States (following Croatia's accession), it should be added that restrictions on direct investment from non-EU members that were in place in Croatia before 31 December 2002 are also exempted from the 
prohibition . 
 
 If this information is accurate, could the EU provide a list of such FDI restrictions that are 
exempt from the TFEU requirement?  Could th e EU also explain the basis and background 
for the specific period of exemption for Bulgaria, Estonia, and Hungary?   
EU reply:  Any FDI review procedure at MS level has to be compatible with the limited number of 
exceptions to the fundamental freedom of capital movement enshrined in the TFEU. Inter alia article 65 TFEU allows MS to limit capital movements within the EU and from outside the EU on the grounds of public policy and public security which is  defined individually by MS. In general, this is 
interpreted as a means to protect the fundamental interests of society, and is assessed on a case-
by-case basis. The period of exemption for Bulgaria, Estonia and Hungary (as well as Croatia) was decided in the course of the respective EU accession negotiations in order to take account of 
specific concerns in these countries. 
 
 If the information in footnote 53 is not accu rate, could the EU explain how any exemption 
from TFEU rules on third-country capital movements for existing FDI restrictions does in 
fact operate?   
EU reply:  n.a. see reply to previous question.  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 200 - 
 
  3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures directly affecting imports 3.1.1 Customs procedures  
Page 38, Paragraph 3.10:  The Secretariat’s report states that customs procedures must be 
uniformly implemented throughout the EU, although some variations in administration may occur.  Could the EU describe what sort of variations in administration may occur and how member states 
ensure that traders are aware of any such variations?  
 EU reply:  Customs procedures in the EU must be uni formly implemented by the Member States' 
customs authorities in accordance with the Community Customs Code and its implementing 
provisions. However, certain variations in the administration of these uniform customs procedures 
and other customs rules can sometimes occur between Member States. Variations could exist for example in relation to penalties and appeal procedures. 
 
Some variations such as for example the differences in time for customs clearance are due mainly to geographical and logistical factors. Similar variations may exist in relation to customs controls 
that may adapt to the specific situation and risks involved. Other variations could be the result of 
different requirements of non-customs related documentation.  In cases where the Commission considers that variations in administration are not in compliance 
with EU customs law it will investigate the issue an d, if necessary, infringement procedures will be 
launched against the Member State in question.  
 
Page 39, Paragraph 3.16:  The Secretariat’s report states that appeals procedures vary across 
member states.  So that traders may understand their rights and limitations, is information about appeals procedures publicly available, laid out in sufficient detail, and easily accessible?  
 
EU reply:  According to Article 245 of the Community  Customs Code the provisions for the 
implementation of the appeals procedure shall be determined by the Member States. The relevant 
information is publicly available at EU Member States' level. 
 
Page 39, Paragraph 3.16:  The Secretariat’s report states that the Court of Justice of the 
European Union (CJEU) recently issued a ruling th at affirmed that anyone has a right to be heard 
before the adoption of any decision liable to adversely affect his interest.  Can the EU explain at 
what specific point in the decision-making process the “right to be heard” entitlement is offered?   
EU reply:  The decision-making process in customs matters and the appeal procedures may differ 
between Member States. However, the European  Court of Justice has ruled in case C-129 Kamino 
International  that every person has a right to be heard before the adoption of any decision liable 
to affect his interests. 
 
3.1.7 Contingency measures 3.1.7.1 Overview 
 
Page 46, Paragraph 3.61:  The Secretariat’s Report states that “the EU is in the process of 
modernizing its trade defence instruments (anti-dumping and countervailing only) with the 
objective of improving transparency in investigations.”  Parties interested in the EU’s investigations 
have long complained that they often struggle to defend their interests because they have lacked 
timely access to the essential facts, such as the basis upon which export prices were established for each interested party – including any adju stments one party may have received but not 
another – and information and allegations submitted on the administrative record by the domestic 
industry.  Please identify specific reforms the EU is considering to address these transparency 
concerns.  If there are no plans to address these transparency concerns, please explain why.  If 
confidentiality is a concern, is the EU considering the limited release of confidential information to 
authorized representatives of interested parties?  
EU reply:  One of the aims of the proposed modern isation of the EU’s TDIs is to improve 
transparency and predictability. As TDIs are ve ry technical instruments, transparency is of 
particular importance in this field. The propos al aims at providing more transparency in the 
investigative process by giving additional inform ation to parties through e.g. advance notice or 
pre-disclosure before imposition of provisional measures. Furthermore, guidelines should provide WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 201 - 
 
  more transparency regarding specific complex elements of an investigation, such as calculation of 
injury margin, selection of analogue country, expiry reviews and Union interest. These tools aim at facilitating cooperation for parties in TDI proceedings and at further improving the quality of investigations. 
 
Regarding timely access to documents, an improved website ( http://trade.ec.europa.eu/tdi/ ) 
provides exact timelines for all ongoing investigations. 
 
3.1.7.2 Anti-dumping and countervailing  Page 47, Paragraph 3.64:  The Secretariat’s Report states that under the new comitology rules, 
“member states can only oppose measures with a qualified majority.”  Please indicate the number 
of times during the period of review that a qualified majority of member states have opposed the imposition of measures, and list the specific investigations involved.  
 
EU reply:  The Trade Defence Instruments Committee (TDC) has so far never experienced the 
situation where the Member States would have o pposed the measure with the qualified majority.  
 
Page 47, Paragraph 3.68:  The Secretariat’s Report indicates that “AD or CV measures may be 
terminated before their expiry” through the interi m review process.  For the period of review, 
please provide details of the number of interi m reviews requested to terminate measures, the 
number of times such measures have been termin ated, and the reasons why such measures were 
terminated.   
EU reply:  During the review period there were se veral interim review requests lodged by 
individual companies for obtaining an amendment of  the measures in force that would be limited 
to them. 
 
As a result of the investigations, regarding termination, one company obtained a zero anti-dumping duty, and thus measures were terminated as far as this company was concerned (although the measures remained in force for the other exporting producers from the country 
concerned). In the context of another interim re view, a company obtained a zero anti-dumping 
duty and given that the company was the sole ex porting producer in the country concerned, the 
measures as a whole were consequently terminated. 
 
3.1.9 Sanitary and phytosanitary measures  
Page 55, Paragraph 3.98 :  The Secretariat report states “to a large extent, legislation on SPS 
measures in the EU has been harmonized and the majority of measures are taken by the EU – although member states can, and occasionally do, take specific measures in specific circumstances.”  However, this section and the fo llowing two sections of the TPR (Section 3.1.9.1 
on Live animals and animal products, and Section 3.1.9.2 on Plants and plant products) all discuss 
the different requirements third countries must meet at both the member state and EU levels 
meaning a significant amount of the EU’s annual agricultural imports are subjected to multiple sets 
of regulatory requirements that are not harmon ized.  These sections make clear that market 
access for many products is not permitted without meeting both individual member state and EU requirements.  Can the EU clarify how this arrangement can be reconciled with the 
“harmonization” referenced above?  Please also elaborate on the “specific measures in specific 
circumstances” referenced above, and how those “specific circumstances” differ from the layered 
system of requirements already in place as outlined in Sections 3.1.9.1 and 3.1.9.2.   
EU reply:  There have been no major changes to the EU legislative architecture in the SPS field 
since the last Trade Policy Review of the EU. To faci litate its understanding, it might be useful to 
refer to the Treaty on the Functioning of the Eu ropean Union where the division of competence 
between the European Commission and EU Member States is captured in a straightforward 
manner.  
In practice, while SPS measures are largely harmonised at the EU level, a very few areas in the 
SPS field remain non-harmonised. These relate to less commonly, consumed or traded commodities. In these areas, Member States may adopt national provisions in conformity with the provisions of the TFEU. Areas of overlap rarely occur. Multiple layers of regulatory requirements, 
aimed at achieving the same purpose, are thus unlikely. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 202 - 
 
  Page 55, Paragraph 3.98:   The United States also notes that, in several instances, EU member 
states have rejected Commission proposals without citing any scientific basis for their rejection or offering another explanation for why the Commission proposal was rejected.  For example, we reference the rejection in December 2008 by the Council (Council Decision 2009/121/EC) of the 
Commission’s proposal approving the use of pathogen reduction treatments (PRTs) for poultry. We 
note that various scientific opinions by EU institutions, such as the European Food Safety Authority, (EFSA), found that the PRTs do “not present any risk to public health.”  Can the EU 
please explain how member state rejections of Commission proposals for harmonized requirements 
align with the statements in Paragraph 3.98 above?   EU reply: The US selects an interesting example in its question. What happened in the case of 
PRT approval is that despite a European Commission  proposal for the approval of PRTs for poultry, 
the European Parliament voiced its disapproval due to remaining scientific uncertainties. In this light, the Council rejected the proposal due to its perceived need for additional data. One of the 
key concerns was related to the development of antimicrobial resistance – an issue which is 
increasingly receiving the highest attention at a global level with resolutions adopted by the WHO, the FAO and the OIE in recent months in order to mobilise efforts worldwide to fight rising 
antimicrobial resistance. In light of the incomplete information available at the time, it was not 
considered wise to proceed.  Page 57, Paragraph 3.104:  According to the Report, the Commission has explained that “SPS 
measures taken in the EU are normally based on international standards or, in other cases – 
including the absence of an international measure – based on the scientific opinion of the EFSA.” If EU SPS measures are based on international st andards or, in their absence, on the scientific 
opinion of EFSA, please explain the reasons for the lengthy delays and/or inaction in the regulatory 
approval process for numerous products in which EFSA has issued a favorable scientific review, or for which international standards do exist.  We have seen numerous examples of the Commission 
not basing SPS measures on either internatio nal standards or EFSA opinions, and would like 
clarification for how the EU intends to rectify these instances to be consistent with the claim quoted above.  For example, why has the Commission failed to approve peroxyacetic acid for use as a pathogen reduction treatment for poultry?  Why does the Commission not accept Codex 
standards that beta agonists may be used in livestock feeding?  Why does the EU continue to 
impose requirements that tallow must be protein-free, contrary to World Organization for Animal Health recommendations? 
 
EU reply: To develop science-based standards one is bound to follow risk analysis principles. 
Following the risk assessment stage, there is inevitably a period during which risk managers 
decide if, and what, measures will be adopted to achieve a stated aim.  
 Page 57, Paragraph 3.105:  According to the Secretariat Report, to be eligible to export live 
animals or products of animal origin to the EU, the competent authority of the exporting country 
must be formally recognized by the Commission as being able to “ensure credible inspection and 
controls throughout the production chain, which cover all relevant aspects of hygiene, animal health and public health.”  The addition of a third country, territory, zone, or compartment to the 
list of approved exporters usually requires a visit from the European Commission Food and 
Veterinary Office (FVO).  For cert ain food products that may pose a risk to public health (such as 
meat and aquaculture), the Commission must approve the residue monitoring program, the 
salmonella control program for poultry and poultry products, and other requirements depending on 
the animal and/or product.  The Commission then prepares draft legislation to include the third country, territory, zone, or compartment on the lists for animal and public health status, provided the Commission Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed agrees.  What assurances 
do third countries have that the requirements impo sed on these products will be consistent with 
international standards and science, given the concerns outlined above regarding statements made in Paragraph 3.104?  
 
EU reply: The EU recalls that its SPS measures are based on solid scientific principles: deriving 
from international standards or on the scientific opinion of EFSA. The complete assessment process 
of countries seeking to export to the EU is fully transparent and detailed in EU Regulation (EC) No 
854/2004 for public health matters and Directive 2002/99/EC insofar as animal health is concerned. A closer look at this legislation provid es ample evidence of the fact that assessments of 
exporting countries are based on international standards or other science-based standards. 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 203 - 
 
  3.1.9.2 Plants and plant products 
 Page 58, Paragraph 3.108:  In this section, the Secretariat states that “imports of certain plants 
and plant products must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate from the competent 
authority of the exporting country and are subject to special requirements, or may be prohibited if 
originating from specified areas.”  How does the EU determine what “specified areas” are subject to prohibitions, and what scientific methodology and/or international standards does the EU 
employ to make these determinations?  For example, the United States has been unable to identify 
any scientific methodology for the Commission’s phytosanitary prohibition on entire groves of U.S. citrus that are known to have had cases of citrus canker, despite the fact that peer-reviewed risk analyses have concluded that symptomatic citrus are highly unlikely to be a vector of citrus 
canker.  Would the EU please explain the scientific basis for pursuing this citrus prohibition, and 
other cases in which imports are “prohibited if originating from specified areas?”  
EU reply: The EU import prohibitions for specified plants provided in Part A of Annex III of the 
Union Plant Health Directive 2000/29/EC has been in place since the beginning of the EU plant 
health regime in 1977. It should be underlined that unlike most trading partners, the EU maintains 
an open system and if a commodity is not regulated, it is allowed to enter the EU (if no quarantine 
pests are present).   Of the many plants and plant products in trad e, there are currently 19 commodities which are 
considered to present a high phytosanitary risk to the EU, given the quarantine pests potentially 
associated with them and their specific origin. For that reason their introduction into EU territory is prohibited. Citrus fruits, on the other hand, may be imported into the EU territory albeit under 
specific import conditions. Relevant conditions can be found in Directive 2000/29/EC. 
 Following an EFSA pest risk assessment (PRA) on citrus canker published in February 2014, the EU 
initiated a revision of the current import requirements regarding citrus canker. EFSA analysed all 
the information provided by the US.  If and when , amendments to the current import requirement 
are intended, these will be notified to WTO Members to allow trading partners to submit comments. We look forward to the US continuing  to be actively involved in this process. 
 
3.2 Measures directly affecting exports 3.2.4 Export credit, insurance, and promotion 
 
Page 61, Paragraph 3.126:  The Commission Communication on short-term export credit 
insurance for marketable risks provides (in Section 4.2/Para. 18) a list of exceptions to marketable 
risks where government insurers may enter the market.  Does the Commission publish all 
determinations it makes on such exceptions?  EU reply:  The Communication from the Commission to the Member States on the application of 
Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Function ing of the European Union to short-term export-
credit insurance (the "Communication") stipulates in paragraph 13 that State insurers cannot provide short-term export-credit insurance for mark etable risks. Marketable risks are defined in 
paragraph 9 as commercial and political risks with a maximum risk period of two years, on public 
and non-public buyers in the countries listed in the Annex to that Communication. The USA is included in the list in the Annex. 
 
However, paragraph 18, sets out the conditions under which the Commission may decide that certain commercial and political risks on buyers established in the countries listed in the Annex are temporarily non-marketable, allowing thus for State insurers to step in and provide insurance 
coverage. Those decisions are published and take the form of an amendment to the 
Communication (for temporarily non-marketable risks falling under the derogation of paragraph 18(a)
78) or of Commission Decisions (for temporarily non-marketable risks falling under the 
derogations of paragraph 18(b)–(d)79). 
 Page 61, Paragraph 3.126:  If the Commission determines a marketable risk to be temporarily 
unmarketable, does short-term credit insurance remain subject to Commission rules on 
                                               
78 See for instance, Communication from the Commission amending the Communication (OJ C 28, 
28.1.2015, p. 1-2). 
79 See for instance, Commission Decision of 5.8.2014 in State aid case SA. 38347 (2014/N) – Romania 
– Short-term export credit scheme (OJ C 136, 24.4.2015, p. 1). WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 204 - 
 
  marketable risk, or does it then become subject to the rules on non-marketable risk?  For 
example, given that the Commission currently excl udes Greece from the list of marketable risk 
countries, which set of rules apply to short-term insurance for Greece?   
EU reply:  If the Commission determines a marketable risk to be temporarily unmarketable, the 
short-term credit insurance becomes subject to the rules on non-marketable risk. In 2012, the 
Commission perceived a lack of private market in surance capacity to cover exports to Greece and 
therefore amended the Communication by temporarily removing Greece from the list of 
marketable risks countries. The most recent ex tension of this amendment expires on 30 June 
2015, but is likely to be prolonged further by the Commission.  
Page 61, Paragraph 3.127:  Has the Commission published rules or guidelines with respect to 
government insurance against non-marketable risks?  Does the Commission make available information on government insurance against non-marketable risks that is notified to the 
Commission for state-aid assessment and approval, and whether or not such schemes are 
approved by the Commission?  If the EU does not obtain non-marketable risk financing information 
from individual member states, how does the EU ensure it is properly reported in the WTO?  
 
EU reply:  Risks that are in principle non-marketable are outside the scope of the Communication. 
Long term export credit insurance (with a risk period above 2 years) and export credits to countries outside the list of marketable countries as annexed to the Communication are considered 
as non-marketable and are outside the scope of Stat e aid control and therefore there is no need to 
report.   
3.3. Measures affecting production and trade 
3.3.4 State enterprises  
Page 87, Paragraph 3.211:  The Secretariat’s Report discusses a Forbes report on the trade 
effects of state enterprises, particularly state-owned enterprises, and notes that 24 EU enterprises were listed as state-owned enterprises.  Please explain why the EU has not notified these entities to the WTO, particularly given the elements in the definition of “state-trading enterprise” (STE) in 
the Understanding on the Interpretation of Articl e XVII of the General Agreements on Tariffs and 
Trade 1994, which includes three fundamental elemen ts relevant to the identification of an STE: 
(1) governmental or non-governmental enterprise, (2) the granting to the enterprise of exclusive 
or special rights or privileges, and (3) a resulting influence, through the enterprise’s purchases or 
sales, on the level or direction of imports or exports.  
EU reply: The link provided for in the Secretariat report refers to Forbes' list of the "World's 
biggest public companies", but neither the Forb es' list nor the OECD report identify the 24 
companies mentioned in the paragraph. The EU has no tified all entities that meet the criteria for 
being notified as STEs, under the WTO rules. 
 
3.3.5 Government procurement  
Page 88, Paragraph 3.215:   Article 69.4 (Abnormally low tenders) of Directive 2014/24/EU 
states that “Where a contracting authority establishes that a tender is abnormally low because the tenderer has obtained State aid, the tender may be rejected on that ground alone only after a 
consultation with the tenderer in which the latter is unable to prove, within a sufficient time limit 
fixed by the contracting authority, that the aid in question was compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU.”  Does the EU apply these rules to suppliers outside of the 
EU?  If so, how is “state aid” defined, and is it consistent with the definitions of prohibited and 
actionable subsidies under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures? What 
procedures must contracting authorities follow to determine whether a tender is abnormally low because the tenderer has obtained State aid? What formal training must EU contracting authorities 
undertake to make determination regarding State ai d?  Does article 69.4 apply to suppliers from 
non-EU GPA countries?  If yes, how does the EU ensure consistency with the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) Article XV.6?  
 
EU reply:  The requirement in our legislation with regard to abnormally low bids in case of State 
aid is to prove that the aid was compatible with the EU internal market, in particular the State aid provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 205 - 
 
  Article 69 Directive 2014/24/EU provides explicit re ference to Art 107 of the Treaty, "Whether aid 
in question was compatible with the internal ma rket within the meaning of Article 107 of the 
Treaty."  The legality of the aid will therefore be  assessed on the basis of Article 107 of the Treaty. 
The field of application of Article 107 TFEU is restri cted to aid granted by Member States in the EU 
internal market. There is no specific application to GPA countries' suppliers. 
 Page 89, Paragraph 3.219:  The EU awards framework agreements under Article 33 of Directive 
2014/24/EU. The United States understands that framework agreements generally establish the 
terms under which the parties may enter into a future contract, in some instances years later and without further competition. The process as described in the Directive appears to be an open tendering procedure that does not result in the award of a contract.  The process appears to allow 
for subsequent procurement activities, in some instances years later, to award contracts without 
the use of open tendering procedures, including in instances “where not all the terms governing 
the provision of the works, services and supplies ar e laid down in the framework agreement.”  Art. 
33.4(c). Please explain the different processes used under framework agreements, and explain 
whether the EU awards contracts under framewor k agreements using open tendering, selective 
tendering, or limited tendering procedures. If the EU is using selective tendering for some of those 
awards, please explain whether suppliers not ho lding a framework agreement are provided an 
opportunity to compete for subsequent contract awards, consistent with Article IX of the GPA. If the EU is using limited tendering for some of those awards, please explain the basis for the 
approach under Article XIII of the GPA.  
 
EU reply:  these framework agreements are general agr eements that cover a series of orders or 
individual services in varying degrees of detail . They shall not exceed four years, apart from 
exceptional cases (duly justified). A framework agreement can be concluded with one operator or 
with more than one operator. A framework agreement is conducted in two-stages. The procedures provided in the directive, in line with GPA commitments, apply to the first stage of the process. 
The first stage will be ended by a (partial) awar d as it determines which economic operators may 
deliver the goods, services or works covered by the framework agreement (if there are deliveries 
then they must necessarily come from one of  those with whom the framework agreement has 
been concluded.) In accordance with article 33 of Directive 2014/24/EU, contracting authorities 
may conclude frameworks agreements provided that  they apply any of the procedures provided for 
under the same directive. The second-stage of the process are awarded in accordance with the 
procedures laid down in article 33 paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) and (5) of Directive 2014/24/EU.  
 
Framework agreements could be more assimilated to recurrent contracts within the meaning of GPA (ndr: Article II.7 of revised GPA "Where an individual requirement for a procurement results 
in the award of more than one contract, or in the award of contracts in separate parts (hereinafter 
referred to as “recurring contracts”)) than to awards pursuant to Article IX of GPA.  It might be the case that a framework agreements, which is concluded with more than one 
economic operator , sets out all the terms governing the provisions of the works services and 
supplies concerned and the objective conditions for determining which of the economic operators , party to the framework agreement, will perform them. In that case contracting authorities are 
allowed to obtain specific works, supplies or services that are covered by the framework 
agreement, by requiring them from one of the econ omic operators, determined in accordance with 
objective criteria and on the terms already set out. 
 
Or it might be the case that a framework agreem ent does not set out all the terms governing the 
provisions of the works services and supplies conc erned. In that case the Directive imposes the 
further requirement that contracting authorities award the specific contracts for the works, 
supplies or services concerned following a mini-competition among the economic operators that 
are parties to the framework agreement.  
To ensure transparency and equal treatment, co ntracting authorities have to indicate in the 
procurement documents for the framework agreement the objective criteria that will govern the choice between those two methods of performing the framework agreement. 
 
Page 89, Paragraph 3.222:  It is noted that “during the period under review, the Commission 
approved some member states’ requests to exempt specific markets” from the Utilities Directive.  
Could the EU provide a list of these exempted ma rkets and the criteria the Commission used when 
deciding whether to approve these requests?  If  any of those markets had been subject to the WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 206 - 
 
  disciplines of GPA before the Commission’s determination, did the EU make a notification as 
required under Article XIX of the GPA?   EU reply:  Specific utilities markets in given countries may be exempt from public procurement 
rules if it can be proved that: 
 • the legal/regulatory environment permits access and competition in the sector concerned 
• the utility operators in the market concerned are subject to competitive pressure 
 The list of exemption decisions adopted by the Commission can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/public -procurement/rules/exempt-markets/index_en. 
htm. 
 
Page 89, Paragraph 3.223:  The Secretariat’s report notes that for concession contracts in the 
EU, member states use different labeling for concessions and there is a “current lack of 
transparency on their award.” What steps is the EU taking to rectify this problem?  
EU reply: Before the adoption of the Directive on concession contracts, there were only limited 
rules applicable to work concessions. The adoption of a Directive on concession with clear definition of concessions allowing stakeholders to distinguish between concessions and public contracts or unilateral acts such as authorisations or licences has been the main response by the 
EU to these concerns. 
 An adequate legal framework for the award of concessions as proposed in the Directive will ensure 
effective and non-discriminatory access to the market to economic operators in the field of 
concessions.  
Member States have until 17 April 2016 to transpose the Directive.  
 Page 92, Paragraph 3.233:  The Secretariat’s report notes that every three years member states 
must submit a report to the Commission covering a number of procurement issues, including 
“information on the sources of wrong application.”  Are there EU requirements in place that require 
member states to report to the Commission a misapplication of procurement Directives immediately, or can a member state wait to describe such instances in its tri-annual report? 
 
EU reply:  Before the adoption of the Directive on co ncession contracts, there were only limited 
rules applicable to work concessions. The adoption of a Directive on concession with clear 
definition of concessions allowing stakeholders to distinguish between concessions and public 
contracts or unilateral acts such as authorisations or licences has been the main response by the EU to these concerns. An adequate legal framework for the award of concessions as proposed in the Directive will ensure effective and non-discriminatory access to the market to economic 
operators in the field of concessions.  Member States have until 17 April 2016 to transpose the 
Directive.   
3.3.6 Intellectual property rights 
 Page 97, Table 3.22:  Given that the shares of products with EU geographical indications 
protection in EU direct employment, EU exports,  and EU imports are each less than 1%, how can 
the EU justify, from an economic standpoint, its demands for the protection of hundreds of 
geographical indications in bilateral trade agreements?  
EU reply:  The EU geographical indications (GIs) value is important in economic terms, both on 
domestic and on export markets. The worldwide sales value of EU GIs was estimated at €54.3 billion in 2010 and represented 5.7% of the total EU food and drink sector. In terms of 
exports, in 2010, sales of GI products outside the EU were €11.5 billion, accounting for 15% of all 
extra-EU trade for food and beverages. The expo rts are led by some emblematic GIs, including 
Champagne, Cognac, Scotch whisky, Bordeaux or Prosciutto di Parma.  
 
The protection of EU GIs in third countries, including through bilateral trade agreements helps to prevent unfair competition or misuse of EU GIs names outside the EU. This will have a positive effect on EU GI's market share.  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 207 - 
 
  Such protection also helps to advertise EU pr oducts around the world thus supporting export 
growth and benefiting farmers in rural areas of the EU.   Further information is avalaible at the following web pages:  
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/external-studies/value-gi_en.htm and 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/external-studies/added-value-pdo-pgi_en.htm.  
 
3.3.6.1 Copyright and related rights 
 Page 98, Paragraph 3.261, Footnote 213:  The Secretariat Report notes the Communication on 
Content in the Digital Single Market, a document that in turn discusses  the Commission’s review 
o f  t h e  E U  c o p y r i g h t  f r a m e w o r k .   T h a t  c o n s u l tation process addressed a number of questions 
related to limitations and exceptions to the copyright law in the digital age (see Questions 21-63 of the July 2014 Report cited in footnote, direct link at 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyright-
rules/docs/contributions/consultation-report_en.pdf ). What, if any, modifications to the existing 
system of copyright limitations and exce ptions is the Commission considering? 
 
EU reply: None so far  
 Page 100, Paragraph 3.264:  In  discussing private copying levies on the first sale of blank 
media, the Secretariat notes that, under EU law, private copying levies may be applied 
indiscriminately to the first placement of an item on the market, provided that they may be effectively reimbursed if the final use of those media is not for the purpose of private copying.  
Does the EU have statistics (on an annual basis) that it can provide regarding the amount of 
monies collected and distributed under these levies?  In addition, does the EU have any details from its member states on any levies gathered by collective rights management organizations on 
media that are not ultimately used for the purpose of private copying.  
 EU reply:  Collecting societies responsible for the administration of the private copying 
compensation data regularly gather relevant information on private copying levies. WIPO 
periodically publishes an International Survey on Private Copying. 
 Page 101 Paragraph 3.266:  The Secretariat reports on amendments to the Spanish and German 
copyright laws under which organizations representing newspapers can claim remuneration  when 
excerpts of articles are posted online. Has the Commission analyzed or discussed these laws or any implementing regulations with the relevant member states, and if so, what might be the views 
of the Commission?  
 EU reply: The Commission is closely observing the prac tical implementation of those legislative 
initiatives in Germany and Spain, including the discussions and agreements concluded by relevant 
stakeholders. 
 3.3.6.2 Industrial property 
3.3.6.2.1 Patents 
 Page 102, Paragraph 3.269:  With only six member states having ratified the Unified Patent 
Court agreement for the specialized court, are there any efforts by the EU to encourage other 
member states to ratify before the 2016 deadline?  Have any of the three key member states ratified the agreement?   
EU reply: The Agreement on a Unified Patent Court has been ratified by seven member states, 
namely Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, Malta and Sweden. 
 
On 5 May 2015 the European Court of Justice dismissed
80 both of Spain’s actions against the 
regulations implementing enhanced cooperation in  the area of the creation of unitary patent 
protection  (judgments in Case-146/1381 Spain v Parliament and Council and Case C-147/1382 
Spain v Council). The Court's judgments confirm the validity of the Patent package. 
                                               
80 http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-05/cp150049en.pdf . 
81 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-146/13 . 
82 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-147/13 . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 208 - 
 
  3.3.6.2.5 Geographical indications 
 Page 107, Paragraph 3.289:  While the 2013 Commission report cites only sales values, an 
earlier report of the Directorate for Agriculture on the Value of Production of Agricultural Products 
and Foodstuffs notes that GI-protected products account for less than 10 percent of total EU 
production and in some categories, less than 2 perc ent. Additionally, only 2 percent of agricultural 
product and food stuff exports are GI-protected. Given these figures, please describe the economic 
significance of GIs to EU member states.  
 EU reply:  According to the study conducted in 2010, Fr ance was the leading "GI" Member State in 
terms of sales value with €20.9 billion (wine repres enting 75% of the total French sales under GI). 
Italy was in second place with a balance between wine and other agricultural products. Those two 
Member States covered 60% of the EU sales value.  France and Italy were followed by Germany, 
United Kingdom, Spain, Greece and Portugal. Othe r EU member states like Austria, Hungary, 
Slovenia and Slovakia also have significant GIs share. 
 T h e  n u m b e r s  o n  t h e  s h a r e  o f  n a t i o n a l  G I  i n  t h e  E U  f o o d  a n d  d r i n k  i n d u s t r y  a n d  b y  M S  a r e  
presented in details in the study: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/external-studies/2012/value-
gi/final-report_en.pdf . 
 
Page 107, Para 3.289:  The report notes that a “2014 study on the competitiveness of European 
wines, found that EU wines protected by GIs appeared on foreign markets with a wide range of 
different acronyms; this generated confusion so that retail chains in third countries would not attribute much value to GIs. It therefore recommended to use a single acronym on a worldwide 
basis for top range wines, and to introduce a country of origin indication for other wines.”  Can the 
EU describe any plans for the use of a single acronym for top-range wines and the introduction of a country of origin indicator for other wines? 
 
EU reply: Reflection is ongoing as regards wine labelling rules. It should be noted though that the 
"single" acronym is not considered for PDO and PGI as those two designations will continue to be used. 
 
Page 108, Paragraph 3.291:  Is it possible for a non-FTA, non-EU country to have its GIs granted 
protection under the EU regulation 1151/2012? 
 
EU reply: Any third country producers can apply for registration of an agricultural product or 
foodstuff as a PDO or PGI on the basis of Re gulation (EU) No1151/2012 on quality schemes for 
agricultural products and foodstuffs. The protection afforded by this Regulation upon registration, 
is available to PDO or PGI of other countries that meet the criteria set up in Article 5 of the Regulation and that is protected in their country of origin. The application for registration of a PDO/PGI from a country outside the EU can be lodged with the Commission either directly or via 
the authorities of the country concerned.  Producers outside the EU can also apply for registration 
of wines under Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, for spirit drinks on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008, or finally on the basis of Regulati on (EU) No 251/2014 for aromatised wines. 
 
Page 108, Paragraph 3.292:  The reduction in the opposition period would seem likely to reduce 
transparency and opportunities for due process fo r the industry participants in the opposition 
process.  Reduction of the opposition period ma y also compromise the level of review and the 
quality of scrutiny of the suitability of a particular GI for registration in the EU.  Please address these concerns.   
EU reply: The three-month period for introducing a notice of opposition would appear fully 
sufficient to submit what can be relatively brief information. There are then two further months to actually submit fully-fledged opposition. As the possibility for opposition is opened after the 
scrutiny of an application, a shorter opposition period cannot impact on the quality of this scrutiny. 
 3.3.6.2.7 Undisclosed information 
 
Pages 110-112, Paragraphs. 3.301-3.303:  We understand that a publicly accessible EU 
database containing all information submitted in clinical trials applications and during assessment procedures will be set up and maintained by the EMA in order to ensure an appropriate level of 
transparency in clinical trials.  How will the EU ensure that generic manufacturers in third countries WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 209 - 
 
  are not able to rely on this information?  Please describe any safeguards that have been built into 
this system to ensure compliance with TRIPS Article 39.3?  EU reply:  Article 81 of Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 (“th e Clinical Trials Regulation”) establishes 
an EU database to be set up by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The information contained 
in the database will be publically accessible unless covered by the provisions of article 81(4). This article provides for the non-disclosure of commercially confidential information taking into account 
the Marketing Authorisation (MA) status of the me dicinal products in question unless there is an 
overriding public interest in disclosure. EMA is developing specific rules for the publication of information contained in the EU database.  
Page 111, Paragraph 3.301:  The Secretarait report states: “In principle, this information shall 
be publicly accessible unless the confidentiality of the information can be justified for any of the following grounds: protection of commercially confidential information; protection of personal 
data; protection of confidential information communication between member states in relation to 
the preparation of the assessment report; or the need to ensure effective supervision of the 
conduct of clinical trials by member states.” Who will make a determination on whether the 
confidentiality of the information is justified, and when and how will that determination be made?  
Will the confidential information be redacted from  the documents submitted by the innovators? If 
so, by whom, and at what point in the process?  What are the procedures for requesting such redactions? 
 
EU reply:  EMA in collaboration with the European Commission and the EU Member States is 
currently developing the specific rules for the publication of information in accordance with the 
Clinical Trials Regulation. 
 Page 111, Paragraphs 3.302 and 3.303:  Who is responsible for enforcement of violations of 
the terms of use for undisclosed information? Exactly how will those terms of use of undisclosed 
information be enforced?  How will violations (unfair use) be prosecuted in third countries when a party uses this information to obtain marketing authorization in a non-EU country? What assurances does the pharmaceutical industry have on the protection confidential information?  
 
EU reply:  According to the terms of use (ToU), the Courts of England and Wales do not have 
exclusive jurisdiction to settle disputes or claims arising out or in connection with the ToU. As the 
UK law was accepted by the user when accepting the ToU, such disputes or claims may be settled 
under UK law by the courts of another country, either within the EU or outside.  
The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, ap plicable to the ToU, offers an opportunity to 
applicants and Marketing authorization holders to operate and enforce the ToU directly against possible infringers of the ToU, who could be tempted to make an unfair commercial use of the information received. Whilst EMA does not have the resources to police the use by any and all 
recipients of the relevant published clinical reports, it shall cooperate with the judicial authorities 
and with the Applicant/MAH in case of any suspected breach of the contract. In particular, Courts may require EMA to disclose the identity of the users who do not comply with the ToU to the 
MAHs/Applicants. If a user is found not in compliance with or in breach of the ToU, EMA will 
suspend the account of this user to prevent further access to the data published.  
The mechanism being put in place was established in close consultation with all interested 
stakeholders, including pharmaceutical industry associations, in order to ensure that their rights were duly safeguarded and their concerns addressed.  
3.3.6.3 Enforcement 
3.3.6.3.1 Legal basis at EU level  
Page 113, Paragraph 3.307, Table 3.23:  The Secretariat notes that the EU’s prior responses to 
the TRIPS Council's Checklist of Issues on En forcement provided some useful background 
information regarding the EU's framework for IPR enforcement, but that this information “dates 
back to 1997 and needs updating in order to re flect a number of important legislative changes 
during the past 18 years.”  Does the EU plan to provide an updated chart to the Secretariat and to 
Members, and, if so, when might delivery be expected?  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 210 - 
 
  EU reply:  Annexed to the Secretariat Report is a complete table with all enforcement legislation 
(A.2.1), which has also been notified to the WTO.  3.3.6.3.3 IPR enforcement within the EU 
 
Page 116, Paragraph 3.311:  Paragraph 3.311 states that the Commission has conducted 
consultations on the civil enforcement of IPR within the EU, including on the functioning and 
possible review of the Enforcement Directive, since 2011, but have not yet resulted in any 
concrete action or proposal.  Are any further steps being considered at this time?  EU reply: The European Commission is preparing an eval uation of the Enforcement Directive. To 
this extent it will launch public consultations and will carry out several studies in order to 
determine whether the Directive should be reviewed.  
Page 117, para. 3.314:  Paragraph 3.314 notes states that the Commission recommended in 
2013 a two-year extension of the 2011 Memorandum of  Understanding on the sale of counterfeit 
goods over the Internet, which “established a code of practice designed to effectively combat the 
sale of such goods, including through notice and take-down procedures, and to strengthen 
collaboration between the signatories.” Presumably  the two-year extension of the Memorandum is 
about to expire. Will the Memorandum be extended  again?  If so, for what period of time?  
 
EU reply: The European Commission cannot yet answer this question as the extension of the 
Memorandum of Understanding is currently being discussed with the signatories.  
4. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.2 Agriculture 4.2.3 Agricultural policies 
4.2.3.2 Export subsidies 
 Page 132, Paragraph 4.50:  According to the Secretariat, the last EU export subsidy notification 
covered marketing year 2012/13.  Can the EU provide more recent data on its use of export 
subsidies (in terms of subsidized quantity and the value of the subsidies)? 
 EU reply: The EU has already submitted to the WTO the da ta on the use of export subsidies in the 
marketing year 2013-2014, which is the most recent data available (see WTO notification 
G/AG/N/EU/25 for the period 2013/2014). Data for the marketing year 2014-2015 was submitted weeks before this TPR exercise. This information should be available to other WTO members soon 
following normal WTO procedures. 
 Page 132, Paragraph 4.51:  According to the Secretariat, all export subsidy rates were set at 
zero except with respect to the application of exceptional measures (e.g., significant price 
changes, market disruptions, etc.). Have any such measures been invoked since July 2013, and 
does the EU foresee the need to use such measures in the future?  Given the continuation of intervention and market price support, as well as the elimination of milk production quotas, how 
will the EU ensure that exports are not subsidized? 
 EU reply: As reflected in the secretariat's report in Paragraph 3.129, the "EU set export refunds at 
zero for all agriculture products on 13 July 2013". No such measures have been invoked since 
then. There is no legal basis to invoke such measures other than in case of exceptional market conditions. The EU ensures that its policy will be fully in line with its international commitments and the Bali decision on export competition. 
 
4.2.3.3 Market Access  
Page 132, Paragraph 4.54:  The Secretariat writes that the majority of the EU’s agricultural tariff 
rate quotas (TRQs) are not filled. Can the EU el aborate on which TRQs are not being filled and the 
reasons for this low fill?  Presumably internal EU prices are higher than world prices, which would 
create an incentive to import competitively priced commodities. To what extent do the EU’s 
regulatory policies affect the import of commodities that are subject to TRQs?   WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 211 - 
 
  EU reply: Low fill rates for tariff quotas may result from market conditions such as competitive 
domestic production. For the specific quotas concerned, see EU's notification referred to in Paragraphs 4.27 and 4.29 (G/AG/N/EU12 of 13 December 2012).  
4.2.4 Domestic support levels 
4.2.4.1 WTO notifications  
Page 133, Paragraph 4.56:  Could the EU elaborate on the CAP 2014-20 reforms, in particular, 
the flexibility granted to member states to deve lop criteria for payments under Pillar II with 
respect to environmental payments?  
EU reply: As far as the rural development policy in the period 2014-2020 is concerned, it retains 
its current, successful basic approach based on the subsidiarity principle: Member States or regions continue to design their own multi-annual programmes on the basis of the EU legal 
framework set for the period 2014-2020. 
 This framework establishes six main priorities for rural development 2014-2020 of which at least 
four must be selected and responded to in each rural development programme. These priorities 
are: fostering knowledge transfer and innovation; enhancing farm viability and competitiveness of 
all types of agriculture, promoting innovative farm technologies and the sustainable management of forests; promoting food chain organization, including processing and marketing, animal welfare 
and risk management; restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and 
forestry; promoting resource efficiency and the transition to a low-carbon and climate resilient economy; and promoting social inclusion, povert y reduction and economic development in rural 
areas. Moreover, these priorities and their programming in the programmes must contribute to the 
three cross-cutting objectives: innovation, environment and climate change mitigation and adaptation. 
 
The new structure based on EU priorities is to pr ovide more flexibility for Member States in their 
decisions on how and with which tools to address their specific needs and problems, including the environmental ones, identified in the analysis of the situation. On the other hand, such list of 
priorities also ensures that the programmes  contribute to the overall EU priorities. 
 Member States and regions have a large menu of measures to respond to the needs and priorities 
of their rural areas. With respect to the environm ental payments, the most relevant measures are: 
agri-environment-climate, organic farming, Natura 2000 and Water Framework Directive payments, areas facing natural or other specific constraints, forestry measures and 
environmentally-related investments. 
 With regards to agri-environment-climate payments which represent the most important rural development measure in terms of environmental payments, the support can only be granted for 
commitments which are set at the level going beyond the mandatory requirements. This 
guarantees that the payments for this measure deliver the environmental and climate-related public goods additional to those provided by the mandatory requirements. Member States and 
regions decide about the exact content of agri-e nvironment-climate measures to address their 
specific needs.  
In order to further underline the importance of using rural development for the environment and 
climate-related issues, Member States have to spend at least 30% of their rural development funding from the EU budget, at the level of each programme, on certain measures related to land management, environmental issues and climate change mitigation and adaptation. 
 
The rural development programmes are co-funded from national envelopes.  
Member States have to set quantified targets at programme level linked to the 18 Focus Ares 
related to 6 EU rural development priorities. They will be able to use streamlined tool-kit of measures to be combined in relevant packages to  address priorities and achieve targets. For the 
same purposes, Member States also have the possibility of proposing thematic sub-programmes 
relating to one of the following issues: young fa rmers, small farms, mountain areas, short supply 
chains, women in rural areas, climate change mitigation and adaptation and biodiversity.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 212 - 
 
  Page 133, Paragraph 4.56:  We understand that Pillar I funding for commodity-specific payments 
that require production has increased in proportion al terms.  How will these programs be notified, 
and how will the EU ensure that programs at the me mber state level will be captured in the EU’s 
WTO domestic support notification? 
 
EU reply:  Commodity-specific payments linked to production under Pillar I (including Voluntary 
Coupled Support) will likely be notified as Blue Box. They are 100 % financed by the EU. All 
domestic support is notified in accordance with WTO procedures.  
 4.3 Services 4.3.1 Telecommunications Services 
4.3.1.1 Statistical Overview   
 Page 138, paragraph 4.62:  Table 4.14 shows revenues and investment in the electronic 
communications sector, but excludes from the investment total fees for the acquisition of rights of 
use of radio frequencies. Please answer the following:  
 Does the EU consider that fees for the acquisitio n of rights of use of radio frequencies should 
be excluded from calculating the amount of investment in the electronic communications sector?   
EU reply: Fees for the acquisition of rights are not included in the investment calculations. 
Our statistics only take into account investment in physical network infrastructures.  
 
 If fees for the acquisition of rights of use of radio frequencies are included in such 
investment amounts, what would the corrected numbers for such investment be for the years 2010, 2011, and 2012   
 
EU reply: We do not have any official figures that have been received from or agreed with 
the Member States.  
 In its recently announced Digital Single Market  (DSM) strategy, the EU has proposed several 
goals for its management of spectrum.  Does  the EU have an estimate regarding what 
changes in investment in the electronic communications sector would result from changes 
proposed in its DSM strategy?  
 EU reply: The Commission will be gathering this information as part of the public 
consultation on the Telecoms Review planned for Q3 of 2015. 
 
4.3.1.2 Regulatory framework and policy developments 4.3.1.2.1 Implementation of the 2009 pa ckage and related secondary legislation 
 
Page 139, Paragraph 4.56:  Paragraph 4.65 explains that several member state National 
Regulatory Authorities (NRA) have not yet adopted the Bottom-Up Long Run Incremental Cost 
(BU-LRIC) methodology recommended by the Commission. What steps is the EU taking to ensure 
that service suppliers in all member states provide access and use of all public telecommunications services on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions?  
 
EU reply: The European Commission recommends the BU-LRIC methodology to national 
regulatory authorities to determine the value of price-caps for regulated mobile and fixed termination rates. The report correctly states that some in some EU Member States, regulators 
have not yet adopted it. The fact that they have  not adopted it, however, does not in any way 
mean that in those Member States access to fixed and mobile termination services is not provided on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions.  Indeed, in all Member States, such 
access to termination services is regulated. This means that regulators ensure that access by 
regulated operators is guaranteed.   
National regulatory authorities and the European Commission work together, under the 
supervision of national and European courts, to ensure that the binding EU-law obligations are enforced correctly.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 213 - 
 
  Page 140, Paragraph 4.68:  Paragraph 4.68 explains that the Commission has reduced the list of 
markets susceptible to ex ante  regulation from seven to four. Does the EU believe that its 
obligations under the WTO GATS, including th e Telecommunications Annex and the Reference 
Paper on Basic Telecommunications, have changed because of its decision to remove three 
markets from ex ante  regulation? 
 EU reply: In general, the EU does not believe that the obligations of a WTO Member as regards 
public telecommunications services are dependent on whether this Member identifies a specific 
telecom market as being subject to regulation. Such an interpretation would give WTO Members the discretion to self-define the coverage of its obligations regarding public telecommunications services – which would go against the objective of the Annex on Telecommunications to facilitate 
the exploitation of market access commitments that are contained in a Member's Schedules. 
 The 2014 Recommendation on Relevant Markets adopted by the European Commission was based 
on an assessment of conditions of competition on  an EU-wide basis by applying three cumulative 
criteria: (i) the presence of high and non-transito ry barriers to entry; (ii) market structure which 
does not tend towards effective competition within the relevant time horizon; and (iii) the 
insufficiency of competition law alone to adequately address the market failure(s) concerned. Only 
markets where all three criteria are met are recommended for regulation.   The Recommendation, however, is not binding. It is for National Regulatory Authorities in each of 
the EU Member States to determine whether the finding of the European Commission on an EU-
wide basis apply in the same way in each Member State. If the conditions of competition in that Member State are different, then the regulator must apply or withdraw regulation on the basis of 
the national finding and of national circumstances. 
 The withdrawal does not affect the EU's ob ligation under WTO GATS: the premise of the 
withdrawal of a market from the Recommendation is that the market is sufficiently competitive for 
regulatory intervention no longer to be necessary, because markets present sufficient levels of competition absent intervention. This is not the first time that such reduction has taken place. Indeed, the 2014 Recommendation is the third edition of the text: the first edition in 2003 
contained 18 markets, and the reduction from 18 to 7 in 2007 did not cause concern.  
 Specifically, for two of the relevant markets that were identified in the 2007 version of the 
Recommendation, the European Commission found in 2014 that that conditions of competition had 
evolved to the extent that these markets should no longer be recommended for regulation. For the 
time being, however, those two markets remain regulated in most Member States since conditions 
are considered to be different on a national basis.  
 The other five markets contained in the 2007 Recommendation are still recommended for ex ante regulation, although their classification has been changed and the boundaries between some of 
those markets have been slightly adjusted (the 2014 Recommendation includes four markets, but 
one of those markets is divided into two sub-markets, that were considered separate markets in the 2007 version).  
 
Page 141, Paragraph 4.69:  Paragraph 4.69 explains that “in addition to compliance with the 
general authorization framework, member states may require providers to submit a notification 
before starting to exercise the rights stemming from the general authorization.”  Do any EU 
member states maintain establishment, guarantee, or other requirements for the provision of telecommunications services?   
EU reply: The transposition of the revised Authorisation Directive resulted in an overall 
harmonisation of the sector-specific procedures ap plicable to national and intra-EU cross-border 
operators willing to provide electronic communicati ons services. A recent preliminary ruling of the 
European Court of Justice in 2014 (C-475/12), further clarified that the EU law precludes the 
imposition of national registration requirements in addition to those provided for in the Authorisation Directive, as well as the obligation to establish branches or a separate legal entity in 
the country where the services are provided. Th e Commission services are closely monitoring 
compliance with this ruling.   
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 214 - 
 
  4.3.2 Audiovisual services 
4.3.2.1 Statistical overview  
 Page 146, Paragraph 4.89: Table 4.18 lists consumer expenses for audiovisual distribution 
services.  This table includes cable, satellite, Internet Protocol Television, Digital Terrestrial 
Television, and Cinema gross box-office.  What activities are included in the category “Internet Protocol Television?”  Are providers of television delivered through cable, satellite, or terrestrial 
antennae that also maintain a presence on the Internet included within the category of Internet 
Protocol Television?   EU reply:  “Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) includes only the subscription to a IPTV package 
and related PPV and VOD services, such as deli vered by a telecommunication operator over a 
closed IP network with guaranteed delivery quality. This is generally telecom operators offering TV over DSL or fibre networks, but sometimes includes cable operators expanding their service 
beyond their usual footprint via the use of third-party DSL networks.” 
 Page 147, Paragraph 4.89:  Table 4.19 shows revenue figures for video on demand online 
revenues, 2009-13.  This table breaks down those figures between “online on demand TV 
revenues” and “online on demand film revenues.”  How are the concepts of “TV” and “film” defined 
for purposes of this breakdown, and why has the EU  gathered statistics in this manner?  Is there a 
regulatory significance to this distinction?   
 
EU reply:  For purposes of this breakdown, online TV includes long and short form videos ranging 
from traditional TV content (sport, drama, news etc.) to made-for-the-web videos that feature 
similar content (e.g. an online cooking demonstration). Online TV excludes music videos, films, 
films trailers, video game trailers, adult content and content distributed through user-generated websites. 
 
“Films” are defined as having been released in a cinema.  Is the breakdown determined according to the duration of the video, or according to some other 
criteria? 
 EU reply:  as above 
 
Are any video online on-demand revenues excluded from Table 4.19?    
EU reply : The table includes all online on-demand revenues, but excludes revenues from VOD 
over closed networks with guaran teed delivery quality (TV-VOD). 
 “Online on-demand revenues” includes the 5 major European countries: DE, ES, FR, GB, IT. 
“Online on-demand film revenues” include 17 EU  countries: AT, BE, CZ, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, GB, 
GR, HU, IE, IT, NL, PL, PT, SE..  
How does the table account for revenues attributable to content produced exclusively for online 
consumption, and never intended to be consumed as “TV” or a “film?” 
 
EU reply:   Content produced exclusively for online consumption is included. 
 Page 147, Paragraph 4.93:  The Secretariat’s report notes that Articles 16 and 17 of the 
Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) require that, for linear services in the EU, the 
majority of broadcast transmission time must be reserved, “where practicable, for European 
work.”  Could the EU describe the factors that de termine the “practicability” of the requirement 
referred to above?  What are the general guidelin es or practical examples of when a broadcaster 
may be excused from meeting this requirement on  “impracticability” grounds?  How are “European 
works” defined for purposes of the minimum broadcast requirements described in paragraph 4.93 of the Report?  
 
EU reply:  There is no specific compilation of factor or reasons that would determine 
“practicability”. This is examined on a case-by-case basis.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 215 - 
 
  The definition of "European works" appears in Ar ticle 1, paragraph (n) of the Audiovisual Media 
Services Directive.  Page 147, Paragraph 4.93:  The Secretariat’s report states that, for non-linear services, Article 
13 of the AVMSD leaves a wider discretion to member states on how to promote European works, 
and notes that the Directive permits measures concerning the “share of European works in catalogues.”  Is the concept of “European works” defined for non-linear services in the same way it 
is for linear services?  What is the process for monitoring non-linear services to assess their 
“European” content?  How does the directive define a “catalogue” for this purpose?  Does Article 13 of the AVMSD apply to all providers of non-line ar video content, or does it only apply to 
providers of video content otherwise intended for distribution through television or cinema?  Does 
Article 13 of the AVMSD apply to platforms for vide o content uploaded by third parties, and does 
the answer depend on whether the video was prof essionally produced or whether, how and the 
extent to which the uploader is reimbursed?   
 
EU reply: The definition of "European works", (Article  1, paragraph (n) of the Audiovisual Media 
Services Directive), applies to both linear and non-linear services. 
Monitoring is done by the EU Member States. 
 Catalogue is not specifically defined in the Directive, but from the definition in Article 1, paragraph (g), it follows that it is the list or collection of “programmes selected by the media service 
provider”. 
 Article 13 of AVMSD applies to all providers or non-linear audiovisual media services that have 
editorial control of the content that they provide no matter the distribution channel for which it 
was initially intended.  
As regards platforms for video content uploaded by third parties, the Directive does not cover 
audiovisual services which are not under the editorial responsibility of a media service provider (for example, video-sharing platforms).  
Page 148, Paragraph 4.95:  In Paragraph 4.95, the second bullet point notes the effect of 
mandated levels of local content on EU TV channels, with 64.3% of the programming coming from within the EU itself in 2010.  The point further states that “only 8.1% of these works were non-
domestic.”  Does the term “domestic” in this co ntext refer to production in a specific member 
state?  
EU reply:   Yes, it does. Domestic refers to the works originating from the Member State under 
whose jurisdiction the TV channel belongs.  In other words, is the conclusion to be drawn that, on average, roughly 57% of the TV 
programming for a given consumer was produced in the member state in which that consumer 
resides?  
EU reply: Yes, roughly 56%. 
 These figures appear to reflect programming “s hown” rather than programming “consumed.”   
EU reply : Yes, indeed.  
 Does the EU have corresponding consumption figures for TV programming broken down among “domestic,” “EU,” and “non-EU?”  
 
EU reply:  No, such breakdown is not available. 
 
Page 148, Paragraph 4.95:  The third bullet point notes that the Commission “invited” three EU 
member states that do not attain minimum European works broadcast quotas to “encourage” their broadcasters to show more European works.  What form did the Commission’s “invitation” to these 
three member states take?  Are such “invitatio ns” a regular mechanism of Commission practice?  
In what manner, or through what mechanisms, di d the three member states that received the 
Commission’s invitation, seek to “encourage” their broadcasters to achieve higher European works quotas?  Can the EU provide data on broadcasting levels of European works for all member states? 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 216 - 
 
  EU reply:  Article 16 establishes that "Member States shall ensure, where practicable and by 
appropriate means...", thus the provisions are obli gatory, but it is up to the Member States to 
decide on the means to be used. If during the reporting/verification process Member States allege conditions that rendered those obligations not-practicable, the Commission will examine with the 
Member States the validity of those allegations and the ways and means to make sure the 
obligations are progressively met. The “invitations” are not a specific mechanism but merely allude to the normal contacts that the Commission maintains with Member State authorities to implement 
and uphold EU legislation, in this case the AVMS directive. 
 Page 150, Paragraph 4.100: Paragraph 4.100 states that the EU did not take commitments 
regarding audiovisual services under the GATS or in any of its Free Trade Agreements.  Is the term 
“audiovisual services” defined in the same way for purposes of:  a) the GATS, b) EU FTAs, and c) 
the audiovisual services directive?  Are there an y services within the scope of the audiovisual 
services directive for which the EU has undertaken commitments in FTAs?  
 
EU reply:  The definition of 'audiovisual media service' in the Audiovisual Media Services Directive 
(AVMSD) overlaps to a large extent with sections 2.D.a. and 2.D.c of the W/120 classification, but 
goes significantly beyond the latter insofar as it covers not only linear services (traditional 
broadcasting), but also non-linear ones (i.e. on demand services) [cf. Art. 1.(a)(i) of the AVMSD]. 
The EU has not defined the term "audiovisual services" in the context of bilateral FTAs. Neither has it taken liberalisation commitments in such agreements with respect to services covered by the 
AVMSD. 
 Page 150, Paragraph 4.101: Paragraph 4.101 of the Report notes that an EU-level Creative 
Europe Programme devotes over half its €1.5 billion budget to support programs that include the 
“distribution and sale of audiovisual works in and outside Europe.” Could the EU describe the specific measures and programs covered by the Creative Europe Programme that support the 
distribution and sales of audiovisual works ou tside Europe? What policy objectives does the 
support for exports of European audiovisual works to markets outside the EU seek to advance?  
 EU reply:  The Creative Europe programme devotes approximately 20 % of its €1.5 billion budget 
to the distribution and sale of audiovisual works in and outside Europe. The support covers part of 
the minimum guarantees and print and advertising co sts incurred by distributors and sales agents 
coming from countries participating to the programme for the distribution of European films.  
 
In line with Article 8 of Regulation 1295/2013, this support is open to the following non-EU countries, provided they meet the conditions set out in Directive 2010/13/EU of the European 
Parliament and of the Council: acceding countries, candidate countries and potential candidate 
countries benefiting from a pre-accession strategy, EFTA countries that are party to the EEA Agreement, the Swiss Confederation and countries covered by the European Neighbourhood Policy.  
The main policy objective of the support to these countries is to strengthen the links between the 
EU and its neighbouring partners.  
 4.3.3 Distribution Services 
4.3.3.2 Regulatory Framework  
 Page 158, Paragraph 4.118:  Paragraph 4.118 describes the impact of the EU Services Directive 
on the authorization procedures for distribution serv ices at the member state level, and states that 
“while the Services Directive has ensured that ap plication are dealt with more objectively, there 
are still problems in practice at local levels.”  Can the EU describe these problems and the steps it is taking to address them? 
 
EU reply:  The rules regulating establishment of retail outlets vary across the European Union, not 
only at national level but also at regional and even local level, both in form and content. The 
remaining complexity and the problems at local level as regards retail establishment authorisations 
result notably from spatial planning. The Commission is examining some particularly restrictive practices in the context of its infringements procedures.Furthermore, the Commission considered 
useful to launch a peer review of MS regulatory frameworks in 2014.  
 Page 158, paragraph 4.120:  Concerning distan ce sellin g, paragraph 4.120 describes the 
Consumer Rights Directive (2011/83/EU) that became applicable in June 2014.  The paragraph 
states that “member states’ national legislation ma y diverge from the Directive only where this is WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 217 - 
 
  specifically authorized.”  Does the directive itself authorize such divergence, and, if so, under what 
circumstances?  Is there a process for member states to request divergence from the Directive?  Have any member states made such requests?   
EU reply: Article 4 of the Consumer Rights Directive imposes a requirement on Member States 
"not maintain or introduce, in their national law, provisions diverging from those laid down in this Directive, including more or less stringent provisions to ensure a different level of consumer 
protection, unless otherwise provided for in this Directive". Specific provisions authorizing Member 
States to enact diverging legislation can be found in Article 3(4), Article 6(7), Article 6(8), Article 7(4), Article 8(6) and Article 9(3). Member States are required to notify to the European Commission if they wish to make use of the possibility to derogate.  
 
A table summarizing the Member States' use of regulatory choices can be found at the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-marke ting/files/overview_regulatory_choices.pdf . 
 
Page 159 Par. 4.127:  Paragraph 4.127 notes that the EU’s international trade agreements 
contain substantial commitments for distribution services, but reflect restrictions by member 
states on certain products such as tobacco, firearms and pharmaceuticals.  Does this assessment 
reflect the EU’s practice of treating retail sales from pharmacies as professional services, rather than as a distribution service, even for non-ph armaceuticals? The paragraph also makes note of 
certain member state “establishment procedures.” Can the EU describe these procedures? 
 
EU reply: This assessment reflects the EU commitments in distribution services and in retail sales 
of pharmaceuticals. The latter is scheduled by th e EU together with professional services given 
that the supply of pharmaceuticals to the general pu blic is directly linked to pharmacies and is 
related to a profession of pharmacist.  "Establishm ent procedures" usually refers to authorisations 
that are needed to open a pharmacy in certain EU Member States. These authorisations can for 
example be subject to territorial or demographic restrictions.  
 5. APPENDIX TABLES  
Pages 201-202, Table A3.3:  In the Secretariat report, the EU describes the existence of the 
following official ECAs for member states fo r which no information was submitted for the 
WTO/Committee on Agriculture Export Competition survey (G/AG/W/125/Rev.2/Add.2, dated 19 
May 2015): 
 
o Belgium - ONDD (Office of National du Ducroire Nationale Delcrederedienst) 
o Cyprus - ECIS (Export Credit Insurance Service) 
o Czech Republic – EGAP and Czech Export Bank 
o Greece – ECIO (Export Credit Insurance Organisation) 
o Ireland – ICI (Insurance Corporation of Ireland) 
o Italy – SACE (Istituto per I Servizi Assicurativi del Credito all’Esportazione 
o Lithuania - INVEGA 
o Luxembourg – ODD (Office du Ducroire) 
o Malta – Malta Export Credit Guarantee Company 
o Portugal - COSEC (Companhia de  Seguro de Creditos, SA) 
o Romania - Eximbank of Romania 
o Slovakia – EXIMBANKA (Export-Import Bank of the Slovak Republic) 
o Slovenia - SID (Slovenska izvozna in razvojna banks, d.d.) 
o Spain -  CESCE (Compania Esponola de Seguros de Credito a la Exportacion) and Secretaria 
de Estado de Comercio 
 
The EU provided neither a positive nor a “nil” report for these countries and entities. Would the EU please respond to the questions of the Export Competition survey for these countries/entities? 
 
EU reply: Based on replies to the WTO Secretariat's questionnaire, none of the EU Member State 
institutions referred to in the question run export financing programmes relevant in the context of 
the data collection exercise carried out by the WTO Secretariat. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 218 - 
 
  PART II:  QUESTIONS ON THE GOVERNMENT REPORT (WT/TPR/G/317) 
 3.7 Public Procurement: new improved rules  
Page 7, Paragraph 3.7:  Could the EU provide examples of procurements now covered under 
Directive 2014/23/EC (Concessions) that had not been covered under either 2004/18/EC or 2004/17/EC?  Are there procurements conducted by EU public procurement authorities that do not 
fall under either of the three public procurement directives?  
 EU reply:  The award of services concessions was not subject to Directive 2004/18/EC nor to 
Directive 2004/17/EC. Service concession contra cts are now covered by Directive 2014/23/EU. 
 
All procurement by contracting authorities above the thresholds laid down in the Public procurement Directives is subject to rules of those Directives; specific exceptions are listed in 
those Directives. For some listed services, there is a light regime (application of main transparency 
rules). WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 219 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM NORWAY 
 
With reference to Para 4.26 i EUs report on “EU enforcement policy”:  
“The EU is a prudent and moderate user of the AD and AS instruments, applying the lesser duty 
rule and also the Union interest test before imposing measures. In 2013, the Commission adopted a proposal to modernise the anti-dumping and antisubsidy instruments in an effort to improve them in the face of changes in international trade practices. This proposal is now subject to the 
normal legislative process with the European Parliament and the Council. Could the EU elaborate 
on the changes envisaged in the proposed modernised anti-dumping instrument?”  
EU reply:  One of the aims of the proposed modern isation of the EU’s TDIs is to improve 
transparency and predictability. As TDIs are ve ry technical instruments, transparency is of 
particular importance in this field. The propos al aims at providing more transparency in the 
investigative process by giving additional inform ation to parties through e.g. advance notice or 
pre-disclosure before imposition of provisional measures. Furthermore, guidelines should provide more transparency regarding specific complex elements of an investigation, such as calculation of injury margin, selection of analogue country, expiry reviews and Union interest. These tools aim at 
facilitating cooperation for parties in TDI proceedings and at further improving the quality of 
investigations.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 220 - 
 
  EU RESPUESTAS A LAS PREGUNTAS ADICIONALES DE ARGENTINA 
 
I. INFORME DE LA SECRETARÍA  DE LA OMC (WT/TPR/S/317) 
 
2. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.1 Legal and Institutional Framework1  
Párrafo 2.3 
El párrafo indica que las políticas comerciales y relacionadas con el comercio de la UE se formulan 
y aplican mediante dos tipos de legislación: legislación primaria y secundaria.  
 Pregunta 
¿En qué ámbitos y bajo que normativa se desarrolla y se trabaja dicha legislación? 
 
EU reply: The common commercial policy is subject certain principles and objectives expressed in 
its primary legislation, i.e. the Treaties: The general objectives and principles of Union's external 
policy are laid down in Article 21 TEU; they also  apply to the common commercial policy. Article 
206 TFEU contains the specific trade policy objectives. According to Article 207 (2) TFEU, the European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with the 
ordinary legislative procedure, shall adopt the measures defining the framework for implementing 
the above mentioned common commercial policy principles and objectives (i.e. secondary legislation). The common commercial policy is implemented in particular by means of a common customs tariff, and common import and export regi mes, such as anti-dumping and anti-subsidy 
measures, the Trade Barriers Regulation and safeguard measures. 
 Párrafo 2.6 
El párrafo menciona que la Comisión aplica la política comercial a través de "actos delegados" y “ejecución”. En el caso de los "actos delegados", los legisladores delegan en la Comisión la facultad de adoptar actos no legislativos de aplicación general, para complementar o modificar algunos 
elementos no fundamentales de los actos legislativos. En el caso de los "actos de ejecución", la 
Comisión, si así se establece en la legislación primaria, recibe los poderes de ejecución necesarios cuando sea preciso establecer condiciones uniformes de aplicación de los actos legislativos vinculantes de la UE. El ejercicio por la Comisión de los poderes de ejecución está controlado por 
los Estados miembros a través de la "comitología", el procedimiento en virtud del cual unos 
comités compuestos por representantes de los Estados miembros prestan asistencia a la Comisión en el ejercicio de las "competencias de ejecución" que le hayan atribuido los legisladores.  
 
Pregunta: 
a) ¿A qué se refiere con “actos no legislativos de aplicación general”? 
 
EU reply:  The legislator can regulate a certain field in question only partially, leaving the 
Commission the responsibility for supplementing, am ending or implementing the legislative acts. 
Under Article 290 TFEU, the Commission receives the power to adopt delegated acts; it is 
authorised to supplement or amend the work of  the legislator. The term "act of general 
application" is to be understood as acts that affe ct or are intended to affect in a legally binding 
manner an undetermined group of third parties. 
 
b) ¿los representantes que componen los comités tienen rotación o son compuestos siempre por los mismos representantes?  
 
EU reply:  According to the Standard Rules of Procedure adopted by the Commission (2011/C 
206/06), each Member State is considered to be one member of the committee. Each member of the committee decides on the composition of its delegation and has to inform the chair of the 
committee thereof. 
 c) Dado la aclaración de que las normas de la “c omitología” no se han modificado desde 2011, está 
pensado una actualización o ampliación de las mismas?  
 EU reply: According to Regulation No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States 
of the Commission's exercise of implementing  powers, by 1 March 2016, the Commission shall 
present a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of this WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 221 - 
 
  Regulation, accompanied, if necessary, by appropriat e legislative proposals. At the current stage, it 
is not possible to state whether changes to the Regulation are envisaged.  2.2 Trade Policy Objectives and Consultation 
Párrafo 2.13 
El párrafo indica que la Dirección General de Comercio mantiene un diálogo con la sociedad civil en virtud del cual las partes interesadas registradas tienen oportunidad de participar en reuniones 
específicas con la Comisión sobre cuestiones comerciales y relacionadas con el comercio. Además, 
esta Dirección celebra consultas públicas sobre sus principales iniciativas de política, en las que pueden participar las partes interesadas, pertenecientes o no a la UE.  
Preguntas: 
a)¿Cómo es el procedimiento para participar de las consultas públicas? ¿Es el mismo tanto para 
pertenecientes a la UE como no pertenecientes?  
 
EU reply: All public consultations must be listed on the website of the Directions General (DG). 
Moreover, impact assessments in support of the development of new policy initiatives must include 
a 12 week online public consultation open to all. There is no differentiation made (in terms of 
access) between EU and non-EU respondents; anyone may go online and submit a reply.   Note that as of 19 May 2015, the European Commission has radically overhauled its procedures for 
stakeholder consultation. In future, all new policy initiatives will have their own dedicated 
webpages. DGs developing new policy initiatives w ill have to publish on these webpages (inter 
alia):a roadmap which outlines the main features of the proposal, and provides details of the 
expected timeline for preparation and analysis of the underlying initiative; a consultation strategy, 
which will set out the DG’s objectives for  planned stakeholder consultation linked to the initiative, as well as the various consultation activities by which the DG intends to ensure that all relevant 
stakeholder groups have an opportunity to express their views; and consultation documents linked 
to specific consultation activities.  These new measures should make it much easier in future to contribute to public consultations 
linked to the development of new trade policy initiatives. 
 b) ¿En qué medida tiene en cuenta la Comisión las opiniones de la sociedad civil?  
 
EU reply:  Civil society has a strong voice in EU trade policy in general and the expertise of NGOs 
and workers’ and employers’ organisations is ex tremely valuable when it comes to sustainable 
development commitments. However a voice is not a vote. The Commission has a right of 
initiative: it holds the exclusive right to initiate trade policy proposals and receives from the Council mandates to negotiate agreements. Civil Society Organisations have a voice:  they can deliver opinions, make contributions that reflect their concerns, and advise on topics. DG Trade is 
committed to addressing concerns of civil society and to promoting transparency and 
accountability.  
Párrafo 2.14 
El informe indica que la Comisión realiza evaluaci ones de impacto para que sirvan de fundamento 
de las decisiones que se adopten sobre las propuestas que puedan tener importantes 
repercusiones directas, y que dichas evaluaciones son estudios independientes realizados por 
consultores externos que suponen amplias consultas con los interesados y en las que se tienen en cuenta los conocimientos y preocupaciones de esto s, tanto en la UE como en sus interlocutores 
comerciales.  
 
Preguntas: 
a) ¿Cuál es el criterio de selección de los consultores?  
 
EU reply:  The Commission currently selects its contractors on the basis of the "most economically 
advantageous tender", according to price (30%) and technical quality of the offer (70%) assessed 
on the basis of the following pre-defined sub-criteria: (i) technical quality, experience, variety and 
coherence of the proposed team for the assignment; (ii) quality and appropriateness of the proposed methodology; (iii) approach proposed fo r the management of the project and its quality 
control. 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 222 - 
 
  ¿Solo evalúan y analizan la información brindada por los interlocutores comerciales e interesados, 
o también reciben información y realizan consultas en  virtud de los mecanismos formales de la UE? 
 EU reply:  The Commission decides on a case-by-case basis which consultation activities will be 
undertaken by an external contractor, and for which particular tasks (for each consultation 
activity) the contractor will be responsible.   However, in circumstances where consultation tasks 
have been delegated to an external contractor, the lead DG/service responsible for the initiative 
remains accountable without exception for: setting the scope and objectives of stakeholder 
consultation; the consultation process and outcome; and compliance with the Commission’s General Principles and Minimum Standards for public consultation.  
2.3 Trade Agreements and Arrangements 
2.3.1 WTO 
Párrafo 2.19 : Durante el período objeto de examen, la UE presentó a la OMC numerosas 
notificaciones referentes, entre otras cosas, a la agricultura.  
 Pregunta: 
¿Podría indicar la UE cuando presentará sus notificaciones de ayuda interna correspondiente a los períodos fiscales 2012/2013 y 2013/2014?   EU reply: The EU would like to refer to its most recent WTO notification on domestic support 
DS:1. See supporting table DS9 on WTO notifica tion G/AG/N/EU/20 of 22 October 2014 (covering 
the marketing year 2011/2012).  
2.3.3 Unilateral preferences 
Párrafo 2.30 
El párrafo indica que, en el nuevo “sistema generalizado de preferencias” (SGP), en vigor desde el 1° de enero de 2014, el número de beneficiarios disminuyó de 178 a 92, y se prevé que siga 
disminuyendo.   Pregunta: 
a) ¿Cuándo se prevé la próxima verificación de la lista?   EU reply: The list is reviewed on an annual basis. The next review will take place by the end of 
2015. 
 b) ¿A qué atribuye la UE esta disminución drástica en el número de beneficiarios, más allá de los 
aspectos formales relacionados con las estadísticas de ingresos publicadas por el Banco Mundial?  
 EU reply: As described in the WTO Secretariat report section on the GSP, the list of beneficiaries 
was reduced because of the application of two criteria: (i) the income criterion (classified by the 
World Bank during three consecutive years as upper-middle income countries), and (ii) the market 
access criterion i.e. beneficiaries are graduated if they benefit from preferential market arrangements (eg an FTA with the EU) providing the same, or better, tariff preferences.  
 
2.4 Investment Regime 
2.4.1 Business environment 
Párrafo 2.39 
Se indica que el “Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea” (TFUE) prohíbe las restricciones a los movimientos de capitales entre Estados mi embros de la UE y entre Estados miembros y 
terceros países; prohíbe también las restricciones a los pagos entre Estados miembros de la UE y 
entre Estados miembros y terceros países. Pueden concederse exenciones respecto de la aplicación 
de restricciones en "circunstancias excepcionales" cuando tales medidas sean estrictamente necesarias. 
 
Pregunta: 
¿A qué se refiere el informe con “circunstancias excepcionales”? 
 
EU reply:  Free movement of capital is a fundamental freedom of the EU. Restrictions can be 
justified for overriding reasons in the public interest, in conformity with articles 63 to 66 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU and as st rictly interpreted in the publicly-available 
jurisprudence of the Cour t of justice of the EU.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 223 - 
 
  Párrafo 2.42 
El párrafo menciona que varios Miembros de la UE, como Alemania, Francia, Reino Unido están 
analizando y simplificando los procedimientos de examen de la IED.  
Pregunta: 
¿Están evaluando las autoridades comunitarias la posibilidad de unificar criterios para estos 
procedimientos de examen?  
 
EU reply:  There are currently no plans for actions to establish an EU-wide review mechanism for 
FDI. Nevertheless, the EU Member States' legislation establishing review mechanisms to FDI are constantly monitored by the EU and are in full conformity with the EU's international 
commitments. 
 2.4.2 Foreign investment regime 
Párrafo 2.45 
Se indica que, en virtud de la competencia exclusiva de la UE, los acuerdos sobre inversiones con Estados que no son miembros de la UE se negocian a nivel de la UE. Las negociaciones sobre la 
inversión pueden adoptar dos formas: o bien se opta por incluir disposiciones relativas a la 
inversión en las negociaciones comerciales en curso y por que la protección de las inversiones forme parte integrante de los acuerdos de libre comercio, o bien por suscribir acuerdos específicos. Los Estados miembros de la UE pueden ser autorizados para negociar y concluir convenios 
bilaterales de inversión (CBI) con países con los que no está previsto entablar inmediatamente 
negociaciones sobre la inversión a escala de toda la UE, o para renegociar convenios ya vigentes; todos los CBI de los Estados miembros en vigor antes del 9 de enero de 2013 están "amparados 
por anterioridad" en virtud del Reglamento (UE) Nº 1219/2012. 
 Preguntas: 
a) ¿Los convenios bilaterales de inversión (CBI) con países no miembros de la UE tienen vigencia establecida? b) En relación a los convenios “amparados por anterioridad”, ¿está prevista su renegociación para estar amparados en la nueva reglamentación?  
c) En relación a la inclusión de los CBI en los acuerdos de inversión de la UE con otros países, 
¿cómo se procederá con los acuerdos ya firmados?   
EU replies to the three questions above:   
 Foreign direct investment policy is an integral part of the common commercial policy, which 
remains an exclusive competence of the EU; therefore new investment negotiations with third 
countries can only be carried out at the EU level. The existing BITs between EU Member States and third countries will be preserved until they ar e replaced by EU agreements. In this respect, 
Regulation No 1219/2012 grants legal security to the existing BIAs between the EU Member States 
and third countries until they are replaced by EU-wide investment Agreements. Under certain 
conditions, set out in Article 9 of the Regulation 1219/2012, the EU Member States may negotiate or re-negotiate existing bilateral investment agreements. However, the Regulation does not 
provide for the co-existence of Member States and Union investment agreements with the same 
third country and Member States agreements will cease to apply when the EU agreement with the same countries enters into force. 
 
3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
3.1.1 Customs procedures 
Párrafo 3.4 
El párrafo menciona que todos los operadores económicos establecidos en la UE que lleven a cabo actividades abarcadas por la legislación aduanera y los operadores económicos no establecidos en 
la UE que realicen una de las operaciones enumeradas  en el artículo 4, apartado 3, del Reglamento 
de aplicación del Código Aduanero deben registrarse ante las autoridades aduaneras de los Estados miembros. Las autoridades nacionales expiden un número de registro e identificación de 
los operadores económicos (EORI). Cada operador tiene su propio número EORI, reconocido en 
toda la UE.   
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 224 - 
 
  Preguntas:  
a) ¿Podrían explicar con mayor detalle como es el procedimiento de registro? ¿Existe un sitio web 
donde se realiza el mismo?   
EU reply:  The EORI number is assigned to economic operators by the competent authority in each 
Member State. The list of the 'competent' authorities is published on the Europa website.  http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds2/eos/eos_home.jsp.  
 
The situations where the persons need to be registered for EORI are clearly defined in the EU Customs legislation, however, there might be variations at national level concerning the procedure to be followed for the registration itself. The information required by the competent authority in 
the Member States are defined at national level. Only the data stored in the central database is 
provided for in the customs legislation [Annex 38d  of the Customs Code Implementing Provisions 
(Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2454/1993)]. Neve rtheless, further information may be required 
for the registration that is only stored in the national database, depending amongst others on the 
fields where the EORI is used as unique identifier of the economic operator (e.g. tax, statistical purposes etc.) in the Member State concerned. 
 
Párrafo 3.7 
El párrafo indica que, en el marco del código aduanero de la UE, la autorización única de procedimientos simplificados existente será re emplazada por una autorización de despacho 
centralizado. 
 Preguntas: 
a) ¿Cuáles son los cambios que introduce el “despacho centralizado” con respecto al procedimiento anterior?   
EU reply: The differences are: 
 1) Standardised application and authorisation (data requirements in Annex A-DA related to 
customs decisions) 
 
One common form for centralised clearance application and authorisation, when more than one customs authorities are involved.  
 
AEOC Certificate as condition for Centralised Clearance when more than one Customs Administration are involved.  
 
2) Standardised consultation procedure (identification of elements to be exchanged between 
MS) Article IA-V-2-14 Deadlines (90 days instead of 60 days) but no refusal without justification.  
No more rejection for disproportionate administrative charge foreseen (Article 253h(5) CCIP)  
Information to be exchanged between Member States are in the application or in attached documents: VAT, P&R questions 
 
3) Lodgement of customs declarations or pres entation notifications only at one customs 
office (supervising customs office)  
4) All types of customs declaration  
Not only simplified declarations or entry in the records but also standard declarations.  
Limited case of Entry in the Declarant's Records (EDR) with presentation waiver (different from today): restringent criteria for this waiver in Article 182 UCC 
 
5) Common  IT system in place between Memb er States at the latest end 2020  
For the process of release or control of goods,  collaborative approach between the two customs 
offices involved in each operation.  
But the supervising customs office releases the goods taking into account feedback from the 
customs office of presentation.   
Solutions have been presented to Member States for VAT calculation and statistical requirements.  
Exchange of customs declaration for the purpose of VAT and statistical requirements.  
The authorisation holder shall not have to transfer customs declarations to other Member States than the Authorising Member State.  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 225 - 
 
  b) ¿Cuándo entrará en vigencia este nuevo procedimiento?  
 EU reply: Centralised Clearance can only be fully applicable once the common IT systems are in 
place between the MS, allowing exchanges of info rmation in a timely manner. According to the 
current work programme of development of IT customs systems, it is planned for 2020. 
 Párrafo 3.11 
El informe explica que la participación en los programas de operadores económicos autorizados es voluntaria, y solo está abierta a los operadores económicos establecidos en la UE. Los operadores económicos de terceros países pueden solicitar un ce rtificado si tienen filiales establecidas en la UE 
que lleven a cabo actividades relacionadas con las aduanas. 
 
Pregunta: 
¿Cómo es el procedimiento para solicitar el certificado?  
 
EU reply: On the basis of the current EU Customs legislation (art  5a of the Regulation (EEC) No 
2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code and art. 14a to 14x of Regulation (EEC) No 
2454/93), Member States can grant the AEO status to any EU economic operator who is involved 
in activities covered by the customs legislation and, who meets the following common criteria: customs and fiscal compliance, (…) appropriate record-keeping, financial solvency and, where relevant, appropriate security and safety standards. 
 
The AEO status is not mandatory but is a commercial decision of the applicant in order to have access to simplifications provided for the customs rules and /or facilitation with regard to customs 
control relating to security and safety. 
 The general principle is that the application is submitted to the competent EU Member State and 
must contain all the particulars required by the legislation. The customs authority shall accept or 
reject the application within 30 days of receipt the application. The presentation of a Self-Assessment Questionnaire is strongly recommended in order to speed up the issuing procedure.  
The customs authority shall issue or deny the AE O certificate within 120 + 60 days starting from 
the date of receipt of the application.  The certif icate is granted after an audit activity conducted 
by the customs authority in order to verify the compliance with the criteria and assess the risk. 
The AEO certificate is recognised in all Member States and has not time limit but the customs 
authority shall monitor or re-assess the compliance with the above mentioned criteria.  
Párrafo 3.14 
El Informe explica que el artículo 52 del código ad uanero de la Unión establece que las autoridades 
aduaneras no impondrán gravámenes por los controles aduaneros y demás actos de aplicación de la normativa aduanera efectuados durante el horario oficial de sus aduanas competentes. En el 
mismo artículo también se dispone que las autoridades aduaneras tendrán derecho a imponer 
ciertos gravámenes cuando se presten servicios especiales al operador. No obstante, según resoluciones del Tribunal de Justicia de la UE, el gravamen debe ser proporcional al servicio 
prestado y estar directamente vinculado con este. 
 Preguntas:  
a) ¿A qué se refiere con servicios especiales?   EU reply:  Specific services are the ones defined as such by the Member States’ national 
legislation. These may include any of the serv ices indicated in Article 52(2) of the UCC. 
 
b) ¿Cuáles son exactamente los gravámenes que se aplicarían?   
EU reply:  The charges to be applied are defined by Member States’ national legislation. 
 3.1.2 Customs valuation 
Párrafo 3.20  
1.2.  En este párrafo el informe menciona que la Sección del Valor en Aduana del Comité del 
Código Aduanero publica un compendio de coment arios y conclusiones del Comité sobre temas 
específicos relacionados con la valoración en aduana, con inclusión de la interpretación de 
determinadas normas sobre la materia señaladas a la atención del Comité. El compendio contiene WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 226 - 
 
  también una revista general de las resoluciones del Tribunal de Justicia de la UE relativas a la 
valoración en aduana. Aunque la última actualización del compendio se publicó en septiembre de 2008, según la Comisión, se siguen elaborando orientaciones adicionales. 
Pregunta:  
¿Podría explicar donde es posible obtener información sobre las publicaciones actuales del 
compendio?    
EU reply:  The Compendium as mentioned can be found on the TAXUD website at the following 
address:  http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/customs/customs_duties/declared_go
ods/european/compendium_2008_en.pdf  
 
3.1.3 Rules of origin 
3.1.3.2 Preferential rules 
Párrafo 3.24 
En este párrafo el informe indica que las nuevas normas de origen del SGP se han simplificado y modernizado, en comparación con las aplicadas anteriormente. 
 
Pregunta:  
¿Podría explicar  cuáles son exactamente las modificaciones introducidas?  
EU reply:  Please refer to the notification submitted to the Committee on Rule of Origin on 13 May 
2015 and circulated as document G/RO/N/69/Add.1. As well as to the notification submitted at the Committee on Trade and Development submitted on 24 June 2015 and circulated as document 
WT/COMTD/N/4/Add.7. 
 3.1.4 Tariffs 
3.1.4.2 MFN tariffs 
Párrafo 3.40 
En este párrafo el informe indica que el Ar ancel de 2014, que está basado en el SA 2012, 
comprende 9.379 líneas a nivel de 8 dígitos: alrededor de una cuarta parte de todas las líneas 
arancelarias están libres de derechos; se aplican tipos "de puro estorbo" al 7% aproximadamente 
de las líneas, y los contingentes arancelarios abarcan alrededor del 5% de las líneas arancelarias.  
Pregunta:  
¿A qué tipo de aranceles se considera “de puro estorbo”?  
 
EU reply:  According to the WTO Secretariat, "Nuisance rates are those greater than zero, but less 
than or equal to 2%" (see footnote G on Table 3. 1 of the WTO secretariat report- Structure of MFN 
tariffs in the EU-28, 2011, 2013 and 2014.)  
3.1.4.3 Tariff suspensions and tariff rate quotas 
Párrafo 3.44  
En este párrafo el informe menciona que la Comisión señala que se pueden conceder suspensiones arancelarias para productos que no se puedan obtener en la UE, y contingentes arancelarios para 
productos producidos en cantidades insuficientes en la UE.  
Pregunta:  
¿Podrían aclarar  la frase “cantidad insuficiente”? 
 EU reply:  The "Communication from the Commission concerning the autonomous tariff 
suspensions and quotas" scheme, published in the official Journal C series (see C 363 / 11 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ. C_.2011.363.01.0006.01.ENG ) 
establishes the administration of the scheme.  
 
Through forwarding requests for suspensions, init ialised by interested economic operators, the 
"insufficiency" of production is assumed, unless the opposite is proven. 
 
As soon as the applications for tariff suspensions are made available to the public (via the Member State authorities and the European Commission (e.g. through internet: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds2/susp/susp_consultationchapter.jsp?Lang=en ), WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 227 - 
 
  domestic producers within the EU have the right to raise objections against any requested waiver 
of duties.  In the course of the negotiations held with Member  States on these requests, the different point of 
views stated by the interlocutors involved will be assessed, leading to either a refusal of the 
request or its approval (and therefore, inclusion into the proposal made by the Commission to the 
Council). 
 
Párrafo 3.46 
En este párrafo el informe dice que cualquier em presa establecida en la UE puede solicitar una 
suspensión o un contingente arancelario a la Comisión por conducto de las autoridades nacionales 
designadas. La Comisión examina las solicitudes con la ayuda del Grupo de Economía Arancelaria, 
que representa a las autoridades competentes de cada Estado miembro.  
Preguntas: 
a) ¿Cuál es el procedimiento por el cual una empresa establecida en la UE puede solicitar una 
suspensión o un contingente arancelario?  
 
EU reply:  The procedure is outlined in the Communication above mentioned ("Communication 
from the Commission concerning the autonomous tariff suspensions and quotas" scheme, published in the official Journal C series (see C 363/11 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2011.363.01.0006.01.ENG  - see paragraph 4.1). 
 
b) ¿Cuáles son los procedimientos para la aprobación de la solicitud? 
 
EU reply:  The requests are assessed by the Commission and then discussed with Member States 
(through an expert group consisting of delegates from the members states of the EU and Turkey), 
following the principles as determined, mainly, under paragraphs 2.5 and 3.2 l.c.  of the above 
mentioned communication.  Párrafo 3.47  
En este párrafo el informe indica que según la Comisión, por regla general, las suspensiones arancelarias autónomas se conceden por un período de cinco años y, si se utilizan lo suficiente, son prorrogadas de forma automática. 
 
Preguntas:  
a) ¿Qué porcentaje de utilización de las suspensiones arancelarias autónomas se considera 
suficiente para una prórroga automática?  
 EU reply:  There is an automatic extension of the susp ension if the calculated amount of duty 
savings attributed to one measure in one reference year exceeds 15 000 EUR in total. 
 
b) ¿Cuál es el tiempo estipulado para la prórroga?  
EU reply:  If the calculation conducted as described under question 29 shows an amount above the 
threshold indicated, the suspension related to the item at stake is prolonged "automatically" for 5 
years; However, the interested parties can explicitly apply for a prolongation pursuant to the 
procedure provided under paragraph 4.2.1, and, unless this request is objected, the measure is 
prolonged for only 1 year, otherwise it will be stopped.  3.1.5 Internal taxes collected at the border on imports 
Párrafo 3.52  
En este párrafo el informe menciona que las mercancías importadas se despachan a libre práctica una vez pagados los derechos aplicables y cumplidas las formalidades aduaneras. No obstante, los 
comerciantes tienen que cumplir diferentes normas relativas al IVA sobre las importaciones, según 
el Estado miembro de importación, no según el punto de entrada.  
Preguntas:  
a) ¿Cuáles son exactamente las normas relativas al IVA que deben cumplir los comerciantes?  
 EU reply:  EU VAT legislation is based mainly on the VAT Directive (2006/112/EC ) A directive is 
binding upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but leaves the choice of form and WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 228 - 
 
  methods to the national authorities who transpose it into national legislation. Articles 201 and 211 
of this Directive entitle Member States to desi gnate persons responsible for import VAT payment 
and to lay down import VAT payment rules.  
Therefore, the import VAT payment procedure is subject to the national rules of the importing 
Member State and may vary in different EU countries.  
b) ¿Tienen pensado las autoridades de la UE armonizar la normativa sobre IVA?   
 EU reply:  An action plan aimed at further harmonizing the VAT system is envisaged in two 
documents: Communication on the Future of VAT and Strategy for the EU Digital Single Market . 
 
The implementation process of concrete acti ons is presented in the dedicated web-page: 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/vat/future_vat/index_en.htm . For example, a 
practical guideline on new VAT rules for 2015 has already been published. 
 The implementation is still ongoing process- certain actions (e.g. a proposal on Standard VAT 
return) require an amendment of VAT Directive to  be agreed unanimously by all Member States 
whereas others (e.g. publication of VAT Committee guidelines) require action from the Commission only. 
 
Párrafo 3.53 
En este párrafo el informe menciona que los impuestos especiales de consumo sobre las 
importaciones suelen percibirse en la frontera de la UE, a menos que los productos de que se trate 
estén sujetos a un acuerdo de suspensión del im puesto especial de consumo, lo que permite 
aplazar el pago.  
Preguntas: 
¿Cuáles son específicamente los productos que están sujetos a este tipo de acuerdo?  
 EU reply:  Alcohol, tobacco and energy products used for heating or propulsion are covered by 
excise legislation. Most of these goods, with th e exception of a small number of hydrocarbons are 
also covered by the possibility to suspend excise duty when moving from a place of importation to 
an authorised location within the European Union and to hold the goods under excise duty 
suspension – tax (excise) warehousing. The list of products covered can be found in Table 11 of 
Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 684/2009. (OJ L 197, p24, 29.07.2009 as amended.)  
3.1.6 Import controls and restrictions 
Párrafo 3.54 
1.3.  Según este párrafo la Comisión utiliza un sistema de vigilancia con el fin de "aumentar la 
transparencia de las tendencias de las importaciones de dichos productos, pero sin intención 
alguna de limitar el acceso a los mercados de la Unión". Sobre esta base, pueden realizarse 
controles con fines estadísticos y nuevos controles sobre el origen de los productos. 
Pregunta: 
¿En qué consisten exactamente estos controles?  
 EU reply:  A prior surveillance system is maintained on the basis of Council Regulation No. 
260/2009 on the common rules for imports. Import controls can be put in place only under specific 
conditions. Article 1 defines the general principles . The affected products shall be freely imported 
into the Community and accordingly, without prej udice to the safeguard measures which may be 
taken under Chapter V of the regulation, shall no t be subject to any quantitative restrictions. 
 
Chapter IV, Surveillance, Article 11 of the Regulation  rules that if a trend in imports of a product 
originating in a third country covered by this Regulation threatens to cause injury to Community 
producers, and where the interests of the Community so require, import of that product may be 
subject to a retrospective Community surveillance  or a prior community surveillance. The latter 
can be carried out in accordance with Article 12, which foresees a surveillance document.  Such a 
document shall be issued by the competent au thority designated by Member States, free of 
charge, for any quantity requested and within a ma ximum of five working days of receipt by the 
national competent authority of an applicatio n by any Community importer. The surveillance 
document shall be made out on a form corresponding to a model in Annex I. The importer’s WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 229 - 
 
  application for surveillance documents shall contain only the following (except where the decision 
to impose surveillance provides otherwise): name and address of the applicant and VAT registration number (in addition, where approp riate, name and address of the declarant), 
description of goods (trade name, combined nomenclature code, place of origin and place of 
consignment), quantity (where appropriate, any other additional unit), value of the goods (cif in 
euro, a statement (dated and signed by the ap plicant). During the period under review, no 
products have been subject to it as reported by the Secretariat. 
 
Párrafo 3.57 
Según este párrafo la UE también mantiene restricciones a la importación por razones de seguridad y ambientales. Algunos de esos controles/ restricciones se aplican en virtud de tratados y 
convenios internacionales en los que es parte la UE y/o sus Estados miembros, como el Convenio 
de Viena para la Protección de la Capa de Ozono y el Protocolo de Montreal relativo a las Sustancias que Agotan la Capa de Ozono. En principio se prohíben las importaciones (y 
exportaciones) de esas sustancias que agotan la capa de ozono, pero hay algunas excepciones, y 
en ese caso se aplica un régimen de licencias de importación.  
Pregunta: 
¿Cuáles son las excepciones?  
 EU reply: The exemptions from the import ban are lis ted in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 
1005/2009 on substances that deplete the ozone layer. They serve to allow imports of ozone 
depleting substances (ODS) for uses considered critical or essential, for destruction or to provide other Parties, with less stringent phase-out requ irements, with ODS. Importers and exporters of 
exempted ODS require licenses. For that purpose the Directorate-General for Climate Action in the 
European Commission operates an ODS licensing system. Exempted uses and exemptions from the general import ban include: 
 
(a) laboratory and analytical uses; (b) feedstock; (c) process agents; 
(d) for destruction by certain technologies; 
(e) hydrochlorofluorocarbons repackaged and subsequently re-exported to a Party where the consumption or import is not prohibited; 
(f) methyl bromide for emergency uses, for repack aging and subsequent re-export for quarantine 
and pre-shipment applications; (g) recovered, recycled or reclaimed  halons, under the condition that they are only imported for 
certain critical uses 
(h) products and equipment containing or relying on controlled substances for destruction (i) products and equipment containing or relying on controlled substances to satisfy laboratory and analytical uses; 
(j) products and equipment containing or relying on halon to satisfy critical uses  
(k) products and equipment containing hydrochlorofluorocarbons for which the placing on the market has been specifically authorised  
 
Furthermore, virgin and reclaimed HCFCs may still be exported from the EU for other uses than 
destruction. 
 
Párrafo 3.58 
1.4.  El párrafo del informe menciona que la UE ha concertado con varios países "acuerdos 
bilaterales de asociación voluntaria relativos a la aplicación de las leyes, gobernanza y comercio 
forestales", en virtud de los cuales las importaciones de determinadas maderas y productos de la 
madera procedentes de esos países estarán sujetas a un régimen de licencias.  
Pregunta: 
¿Cuáles son los acuerdos mencionados y que productos abarcan? 
 
EU reply:  The Action Plan on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) is the 
European Union response to illegal logging. It was adopted in 2003. A key element of the FLEGT Action Plan is a voluntary scheme to ensure that only legally harvested timber is imported into the EU from countries agreeing to take part in this  scheme. The internal EU legal framework for this 
scheme is a Regulation adopted in December 2005 , and a 2008 Implementing Regulation, allowing WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 230 - 
 
  for the control of the entry of timber to the EU from countries entering into bilateral FLEGT 
Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPA) with the EU. Once agreed, the VPAs will include 
commitments and action from both parties to halt trade in illegal timber, notably with a license scheme to verify the legality of timber exported  to the EU. The agreements also promote better 
enforcement of forest law and promote an inclusive approach involving civil society and the private 
sector.  
The European Commission has been given a mandate from the Council of Ministers of the EU to 
conduct negotiations in view of concluding such FLEGT VPAs. The first VPA to be signed was with 
Ghana, followed by the Republic of Congo, Came roon, Indonesia, the Central African Republic and 
Liberia. 
 
In relation to the product scope, each VPA is different as it is the result of the bilateral negotiations. Details on the each product scope, can be found in the VPA text at the following 
pages: http://www.euflegt.ef i.int/vpa-countries  and http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/flegt. 
htm 
 
Other bilateral negotiations are ongoing with Côte  d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, 
Gabon, Guyana, Honduras, Laos, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam.  The EU made a presentation on its FLEGT Action Plan at the WTO Committee on Trade and 
Environment on 30 June 2014. 
 3.1.7 Contingency measures 
3.1.7.1 Overview 
Párrafo 3.61  
En el párrafo se indica que, actualmente, la UE está modernizando sus instrumentos de defensa 
comercial (solamente las medidas antidumping y compensatorias) con el fin de aumentar la 
transparencia de las investigaciones y, en particular, en lo que respecta al país análogo, al margen de daño, a la reconsideración por expiración y al interés de la UE.  
Pregunta: 
¿Podría explicar de qué forma la UE está modernizando sus instrumentos de defensa comercial? 
 
EU reply:  One of the aims of the proposed modern isation of the EU’s TDIs is to improve 
transparency and predictability. As TDIs are ve ry technical instruments, transparency is of 
particular importance in this field. The propos al aims at providing more transparency in the 
investigative process by giving additional inform ation to parties through e.g. advance notice or 
pre-disclosure before imposition of provisional measures. Furthermore, guidelines should provide more transparency regarding specific complex elements of an investigation, such as calculation of injury margin, selection of analogue country, expiry reviews and Union interest. These tools aim at 
facilitating cooperation for parties in TDI proceedings and at further improving the quality of 
investigations. These guidelines do not introduce any changes to the legislation but aim at consolidating the EU’s best practice in these areas. The modernisation package is currently under 
co-legislative procedure and the guidelines are pa rt of this package. Thus, their adoption is 
pending.  
3.1.7.2 Anti-dumping and countervailing 
Párrafo 3.66 
1.5.  En el párrafo el informe indica que el pago de los derechos provisionales se debe asegurar 
mediante una garantía. Tras la constitución de la misma, se procederá al despacho a libre práctica 
en la UE de las importaciones del producto en cuestión. Se pueden establecer derechos 
provisionales por un plazo de seis meses y, en cualquier caso, no superior a nueve meses. 
Preguntas: 
a) ¿Cómo es el procedimiento para constituir la garantía?  
 EU reply:  Provisional anti-dumping duties are secured by provision of a guarantee in accordance 
with the provisions of the Customs Code, Title V II, Chapter I and the Customs Code Implementing 
Regulation, Part IV, Title I.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 231 - 
 
  b) ¿En qué consisten los derechos provisionales que se aplican y bajo qué criterios se determina el 
plazo durante el cual se aplican?  EU reply:  The form of the provisional anti-dumping duty is usually an ad valorem duty but it can 
also be in the form of a “fixed amount” duty, i.e. a fixed amount per unit quantity; or a “variable” 
duty equal to the amount by which the customs value is less than a Minimum Import Price (MIP).  
The Commission determines the duration of the provisional anti-dumping measures in accordance 
with Article 7(6) of the EU Basic Anti-Dumping Regu lation. This Article establishes that "provisional 
duties may be imposed for six months and extend ed for a further three months or they may be 
imposed for nine months. However, they may only be extended, or imposed for a nine-month 
period, where exporters representing a significant percentage of the trade involved so request or 
do not object upon notification by the Commission." Usually, when the Commission decides to impose provisional anti-dumping measures, it does so just before the end of the first nine months 
of the investigation. Therefore provisional measures would be in place for a maximum of 6 
months, as the investigation shall be completed within maximum 15 months.  
3.1.8 Technical regulations and standards 
Párrafo 3.81 
El párrafo menciona que, en la UE, pueden comercializarse productos que no cumplen las normas 
armonizadas pertinentes, siempre que cumplan los requisitos esenciales. 
 
Por otro lado, el mismo párrafo indica que, en la mayoría de casos, el productor puede utilizar los 
mismos procedimientos de evaluación de la conf ormidad que se emplearían para demostrar que el 
producto se ha fabricado de acuerdo con las normas armonizadas. Sin embargo, en el caso de los 
juguetes, la maquinaria de alto riesgo y en casos específicos relacionados con la utilización de radiofrecuencias, se requiere una evaluación de la  conformidad por terceros cuando el producto no 
se ha fabricado en conformidad con las normas armonizadas. 
 Preguntas: 
a) ¿Cuáles son los “requisitos esenciales” a los que se refiere el informe?  
 
EU reply:  Essential requirements are set out in relevant EU harmonisation legislation. The wording 
of essential requirements is intended to be precise enough to create legally binding obligations 
that can be enforced. They deal with the protection of health and safety but may also cover other 
fundamental requirements (for example protec tion of property, scarce resources or the 
environment). Essential requirements either arise from certain hazards associated with the product 
(for example physical and mechanical resistance, flammability, chemical, electrical or biological 
properties etc.), or refer to the product or it s performance (for example provisions regarding 
materials, design, construction, manufacturing proce ss, etc.), or they are a combination of these. 
 
b) ¿Qué organismos están habilitados para realizar la evaluación de la conf ormidad en el caso de 
los juguetes?   
EU reply:  The manufacturer has to verify the applicable product specific requirements and 
conduct the conformity assessment procedure i.e.  check whether the product – toy - meets the 
essential safety requirements laid down in the Toy Safety Directive 2009/48/EC. This includes 
estimating and documenting the possible risks arisin g when using a product in accordance with its 
intended use and the design and any other measures  taken to address those risks. If harmonised 
European standards exist covering all the relevant safety requirements of the toy and the manufacturer has applied them fully, the toy will be presumed to be in conformity with the 
requirements laid down in the Toy Safety Directive and the manufacturer can use the Supplier's 
Declaration of Conformity (SDoC) procedure (Module A – Internal Production Control). In that case, the manufacturer is free to use any laboratories of his choice to perform any necessary tests, 
including in-house laboratories. The manufacturer could also opt, on a purely voluntary basis, for 
the EC-type examination procedure described below.  
If harmonised standards do not exist, are not used, or they do not cover all the relevant safety 
requirements that apply to the specific toy, the manufacturer must submit his product to a 
different procedure (EC-type examination, togeth er with the conformity to type procedure), 
requiring the involvement of "Notified Bodies". No tified Bodies are conformity assessment bodies 
designated by EU Member States to perform th e relevant tasks established by EU harmonised WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 232 - 
 
  legislation. As already mentioned, this third-party conformity assessment procedure is also 
available, on a voluntary basis, in the case where the manufacturer has applied harmonised standards that cover all relevant essential requirements.  
In all cases the manufacturer will issue a Declaration of Conformity and will be ultimately 
responsible for ensuring compliance of this product with the Toy Safety Directive 2009/48/EC  
Párrafo 3.84 
1.6.  El párrafo indica que la Comisión puede presenta r una solicitud formal a las organizaciones de 
normalización para que elaboren una norma, después de haber consultado a las partes interesadas, presentado la solicitud al Comité de Normas y recibido la aprobación de los Estados 
miembros (procedimiento de comitología). 
Pregunta: 
¿Bajo qué argumentos la Comisión puede presentar una solicitud formal a las organizaciones de 
normalización para que elaboren una norma? 
EU reply:  According to Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 1025/2012 the European Commission may, 
within the limitations of the competences laid down in the Treaties, request one or several 
European standardisation organisations to draft a European standard or European standardisation deliverable in support of European Union legislation and policies. 
Párrafo 3.88 
El párrafo indica que, el 26 de febrero de 2014, la UE adoptó un "paquete de adaptación", 
compuesto por ocho directivas y cuyos productos comprendidos son equipos eléctricos de baja tensión, compatibilidad electromagnética, aparatos para uso en atmósferas potencialmente 
explosivas, ascensores, recipientes a presión simples, instrumentos de medida, instrumentos de 
pesaje de funcionamiento no automático y explosivos con usos civiles; las directivas entrarán en vigor en abril de 2016.  
 
Preguntas: 
a) ¿En qué cambian estas nuevas normativas a las aplicables actualmente a estos productos? 
 
EU reply:  The aim of the so-called Alignment package is to bring product harmonisation legislation 
in line with the reference provisions of Deci sion 768/2008/EC, which establishes a common legal 
framework for industrial products in the form of a toolbox of model provisions for use in future 
legislation, including provisions to support market surveillance and the application of the CE 
marking, definitions of terms commonly used in product legislation (e.g. definitions and 
responsibilities of economic operators) and procedures which allow future sectoral legislation to 
become more consistent and easier to implement. The new legislation is simpler, clearer and 
easier to enforce and thus more efficient.  
¿Cómo estima la UE que la nueva normativa afectará a las importaciones de los mismos? 
 EU reply:  The Impact Assessment (http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/single- market-
goods/internal-market-for-products/new-legislati ve-framework/index_en.htm ) conducted by the 
European Commission prior to the proposal of the 'A lignment Package' assessed that the option of 
alignment of technical regulations will not affect the trade between the EU and third countries. According to the impact assessment: "The obligations of economic operators as such do not 
constitute new technical trade barriers. Instead, they guarantee the free mo vement of safe goods, 
regardless of origin.(…) Responsible importers who establish clear commercial relations with their trading parties and responsible manufacturers located in third countries will not be negatively 
affected by these provisions. Increased transparen cy may encourage distributors to buy imported 
products and may facilitate international trade."  1. Cuadro 3.6 
El cuadro indica que, a diciembre de 2014, la UE  armonizó, entre otras normativas, el Reglamento 
CE 1907/2006, relativo al Registro, Autorización, Evaluación y Restricción de Sustancias y Preparados Químicos (REACH). 
 
  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 233 - 
 
  Pregunta: 
Se solicita explicar en qué instancia de implementación se encuentra este registro y las próximas 
etapas que deben cumplirse.    
EU reply:  Table 3.6 represents only areas or sector s in which Harmonized Standards in the EU 
exist, and not that the EU harmonised legislation in those areas or sectors has been enacted during the period covered by the current Trade Policy Review. 
 
Párrafo 3.89 
En este párrafo se indica que, después de la presentación de la notificación, se abre un período de statu quo  de tres meses durante el cual no se puede adoptar el proyecto. Este período puede 
prorrogarse por otros seis meses como máximo, cu ando un Estado miembro o la Comisión emiten 
un dictamen razonado, y hasta 12 a 18 meses más si la Comisión decide bloquear el proyecto de reglamento técnico mientras prosigue la labor de armonización en la UE. 
 
Pregunta: 
¿En qué casos el período puede prorrogarse por seis meses y en qué casos por 12 a 18 meses?  
 
EU reply:  A Member State shall postpone the adoption of a draft technical regulation for 6 months 
from the date of receipt by the Commission of the draft, if the Commission or another Member State delivers a detailed opinion to the effect that  the measure envisaged may create obstacles to 
the free movement of goods within the internal market. The adoption of a draft technical 
regulation shall be postponed for 12 months from the date of receipt by the Commission of the draft if the Commission announces its finding that the draft technical regulation concerns a matter 
which is covered by a proposal for a directive, regulation or decision presented to the Council of 
the European Union. Moreover, if the Council adopts a common position during the standstill period referred to above, that peri od shall be extended to 18 months. 
 
3.1.9 Sanitary and phytosanitary measures 
Párrafo 3.98 
En este párrafo se explica que la legislación relativa a las MSF de la UE se ha armonizado en gran 
medida, y es la UE la que adopta la mayoría de las medidas, aunque, en determinadas 
circunstancias, los Estados miembros pueden adop tar medidas específicas, y a veces lo hacen. 
 
Pregunta: 
¿Bajo qué circunstancias y/o argumentos los Estados miembros pueden adoptar medidas 
específicas?   
¿Podrían brindar ejemplos concretos?  
 EU replies to the two above questions:  There are very few areas in the SPS field that are not 
harmonised in the EU and then, only with respect to less commonly consumed or traded 
commodities (like f.e. crocodile meat). In these non-harmonised areas EU Member States may 
adopt national provisions provided that they are in conformity with the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union (TFEU).  
 
In exceptional circumstances, EU Member States may also temporarily suspend or restrict the application of EU provisions, within its territory, on the basis of new information or a reassessment 
of existing information. This may be done in order to protect the life and health of humans, 
animals or plants in conformity with the TFEU.  Párrafo 3.99 
En el párrafo el informe indica que no se han producido grandes cambios en el marco legislativo de las MSF desde el último examen. No obstante, el 6 de mayo de 2013 la Comisión adoptó un conjunto de medidas que, según la Comisión, permite simplificar, modernizar y dar mayor 
coherencia a las normas de salud y seguridad de la UE aplicables a la cadena agroalimentaria, y 
hace posible su convergencia con las normas internacionales.  
Pregunta: 
¿De qué manera las nuevas medidas lograron simplificar y modernizar las normas de salud y 
seguridad en la UE?  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 234 - 
 
  EU reply:  The proposed package “Smarter rules for safer food" (proposals regarding animal 
health, plant health, plant reproductive material and official controls regulations) aims to consolidate, and in so doing, to also cut back the current EU legislative framework in these areas – consisting of almost 70 pieces of legislation – to only four science and risk-based acts. It responds 
to the new challenges the EU faces on the global agri-food market, takes into account new 
diseases and pests that appear as well as production methods and techniques that are radically changing. 
 
Párrafo 3.100. Rol de la EFSA en materia de autorización de OGMs. En Enero de 2015 la EFSA 
puso bajo consulta pública una propuesta de directrices a los efectos de asistir a las empresas en la preparación y presentación de los dossiers para solicitar renovación de autorizaciones de OGMs.  
 
Pregunta: 
¿Podría la UE informar si el proceso de elabor ación de dichas directrices ya ha finalizado?  
 
EU reply:  EFSA Guidance for renewal applications of genetically modified food and feed 
authorised under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 was published on 18 June 2015. 
 
En caso afirmativo, podría la UE informar si se encuentra disponible una versión final de las mismas?  
EU reply:  This guidance can be found on the EFSA website: 
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4129.htm  
¿ha tenido en cuenta la EFSA las comentarios presentados por terceros países durante la consulta?  
 EU reply: EFSA has considered all the comments received during the public consultation. 
 
Propuesta de Directiva la CE relativa a la prohibición el uso de la técnica de 
la clonación para los animales de granja y la  importación de clones de estos animales en 
la UE y propuesta de directiva la CE de pr ohibición de la comercialización de alimentos 
derivados de clones de animales.   
 Pregunta: 
¿ Podría la UE informar cuáles son los fundamentos científicos sobre los cuales basa la restricción de las importaciones de clones y sus derivados, en pos del cumplimiento de las obligaciones dimanantes del Acuerdo MFS, en particular la consagrada en al artículo 2.2 de basar sus medidas 
en principios científicos?  
 EU reply: EU measures proposed on cloning are not SPS measures and thus do not fall under the 
scope of the WTO SPS agreement as defined in its Annex I. 
 
Párrafo 3.101 
El párrafo indica que, además de las autoridades a nivel de la UE, cada Estado miembro tiene 
autoridades propias encargadas de la inocuidad de los alimentos, la sanidad animal, la 
preservación de los vegetales y el medio ambiente.  
Pregunta: 
a) ¿Pueden existir diferencias en la implementación de la legislación comunitaria a nivel de cada 
Estado?  b) ¿Pueden existir diferencias incluso en la normativa aplicable? ¿En qué medida? 
 
EU replies to the two above questions:  The SPS measures are extensively harmonised at the 
EU level which means that legislation is decided collectively, at a central level. This legislation is 
subsequently applied by all EU Member States and they are responsible for the enforcement of 
legislation, for organising official controls and ensuring that goods placed on the market comply with the relevant standards and requirements. The European Commission has an oversight role to 
ensure that the EU legislation is properly im plemented and enforced in  view of the proper 
functioning of the EU’s internal market.   
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 235 - 
 
  Sección 3.1.9. 
Comentario General Como consideración general, se recuerda que la UE ha realizado reiteradas 
referencias al “principio precautorio”, especialmente en lo que se refiere a las cuestiones sanitarias/fitosanitarias. En tal sentido, se dese a aclarar que tal noción no ha sido receptada de 
forma expresa en el Acuerdo MSF/OMC, sino qu e lo que tal Acuerdo permite es, a través del 
artículo 5.7, la adopción de medidas provisionales  definiéndolas como “exenciones cualificadas” de 
la obligación dimanada del párrafo 2 del artículo 2 de no mantener medidas sanitarias o 
fitosanitarias sin testimonios científicos suficientes.  
 Para poder adoptar tales medidas provisionales, los miembros deben sin embargo cumplir con una serie de elementos. Con carácter previo a la adopci ón de la medida provisional, es condición que la 
información científica disponible sea insuficiente como para realizar una evaluación del riesgo 
conforme las disposiciones del Acuerdo MSF (específicamente bajo el artículo 5). Adicionalmente, el país que adopta la medida provisional debe hacerlo en base a la información pertinente 
disponible e intentar obtener más información dentro de un plazo de tiempo razonable para 
realizar una evaluación más objetiva del riesgo, revisando su medida en forma acorde en un plazo razonable. 
 
En síntesis, no sólo no se consagra un “principio precautorio” sino que las medidas provisionales del artículo 5.7 del Acuerdo MSF no habilitan la adopción de restricciones injustificadas al comercio internacional en ausencia de fundamentos sólidos.  
 
EU reply: In accordance with Article 3.3 of the WTO SPS Agreement, the EU sets its sanitary 
protection, as regards human, animal and plant health, at a level that it considers appropriate. 
Recourse to provisional measures in light of precaution is a central plank of EU policy, and one that 
is consonant with the SPS Agreement.  
Provisional measures may be adopted in the event of a potential risk, including when this risk 
cannot be fully quantified or its effects determined because of the insufficiency or inconclusive nature of the scientific data. Such measures are only maintained while the scientific uncertainty 
exists, and for a "reasonable period of time" as  per the provisions of Article 5.7 of the SPS 
Agreement. The “reasonable period' envisaged in the SPS Agreement includes the time needed for 
completion of the necessary scientific work and the time needed for the performance of a risk analysis based on the conclusions of this scientific work. 
 
3.1.9.1 Live animals and animal products 
Párrafo 3.105 
E n  e l  p á r r a f o  s e  i n d i c a  q u e ,  e n  e l  c a s o  d e  determinados productos alimenticios que puedan 
plantear un riesgo para la salud pública (como los productos cárnicos y de la acuicultura), la Comisión debe aprobar el programa de control de residuos, el programa de lucha contra la salmonella para las aves de corral y sus productos, y otros requisitos, según el animal y/o 
producto de que se trate. 
 Preguntas: 
a) ¿Qué criterios utiliza la UE para determinar qué productos pueden afectar la salud pública?  b) ¿Existe un listado de esos productos que actualmente se encuentran bajo esa calificación?  c) ¿En qué consisten los programas de control de residuos y lucha contra la salmonella?  
 
EU replies to the three above questions: Before third countries can export live poultry, 
breeding eggs and table eggs to the EU, their sp ecific control programmes on salmonella in the 
primary production have to be approved by the European Commission. These programmes should 
comply with the requirements of Annex II to Regu lation (EC) No 2160/2003 and with requirements 
of Regulation (EC) No 200/2010 (breeders), 517/2011 (layers) and 1190/2012 (breeders of 
turkeys). Furthermore the application of live vaccines is restricted and antimicrobial substances 
may not be allowed for salmonella control as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1177/2006. If the 
programmes are approved, third countries can be listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 in case requirements on animal health and residue monitoring are also met. 
 
For the import of poultry meat, no specific approved salmonella control programmes are necessary. However the Union food safety criteria as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 have to be respected for fresh poultry meat, minc ed meat and meat preparations. These criteria WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 236 - 
 
  define the acceptability of foodstuffs placed on the market and can be checked by Member States 
at import controls.  As regards residues, third countries wishing to export to the EU need to comply with the 
requirements laid down in Directive 96/22/E C, Directive 96/23/EC and Decision 97/7474/EC 
regarding sampling and analysis. Their residue plans are evaluated against the provisions of these legal acts for the commodities they wish to export. Third countries complying with the provisions 
are listed in Commission Decision 2004/432/EC. 
 Párrafo 3.107 
En el párrafo se indica que los envíos están sujetos a controles oficiales en un puesto de inspección 
fronterizo autorizado. Además, pueden ser objeto de controles adicionales en el Estado miembro 
de destino. Los controles oficiales en frontera conllevan inspecciones documentales, de identidad y materiales. 
 
Pregunta: 
¿Qué tipos de controles adicionales pueden realizar los Estados miembros? 
 
EU reply: Concerning products of animal origin, EU Member States must ensure that official 
controls are carried out regularly, on a risk basis and with appropriate frequency, so as to verify 
that the products are in compliance with EU food legislation. These official controls are carried out 
at any stage of production, processing and distribution, including importation in the Member State 
of destination. The general rules are laid down in  Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 and particularly in 
Directive 96/23/EC with regards to monitoring plans for detection of residues. 
 
3.1.9.2 Plants and plant products 
Párrafo 3.108 
El párrafo indica que, por motivos fitosanitarios las importaciones de ciertos vegetales y productos vegetales deben ir acompañadas de un certificado fitosanitario expedido por la autoridad competente del país exportador y están sujetas a prescripciones especiales, o pueden ser prohibidas si son originarias de determinadas zonas. 
 
Preguntas: 
a) ¿Cuáles son específicamente los “motivos fitosanitarios” a los que se refiere el párrafo? 
 
EU reply: The phytosanitary reasons refer to the risk of  introduction and/or spread of regulated 
pest into the EU territory. 
 
b) ¿Podrían brindar un listado con los productos sujetos al requisito de certificado?  
 EU reply:  Please see annex V part B of the Directive 2000/29/EC   
 
c) ¿Cuáles son las “prescripciones especiales” a las que se refiere el informe?  
EU reply: Special requirements refer to the specific phytosanitary import requirements to allow 
the import of some of the regulated commodities that need to be specified in the additional 
declaration of the phytosanitary certificate. 
 
d) ¿Qué criterios se utilizan para determinar las zonas cuyas importaciones podrían ser prohibidas?    EU reply: There are currently 19 such commodities for which the introduction into the EU 
territory, if originating from specific areas, is prohibited. The criteria to determine these areas is 
the high phytosanitary risk for the EU production and the natural environment of a quarantine pest potentially associated with a commodity/ies and specific origins. The pest status of the regulated 
EU quarantine pests potentially associated with these commodities, as well as the procedures 
applied to detect and eradicate them as applied in other parts of the world, might in some cases be known, in other cases they can be new and largely unknown to the EU. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 237 - 
 
  3.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade 
3.3.1 Subsidies 
3.3.1.2 State aid 
Párrafo 3.145 
El párrafo indica que, de conformidad con los apartados a) y c) del párrafo 3 del artículo 107 del 
TFUE y las directrices de la Comisión sobre las ayudas estatales de finalidad regional para 2014-2020, la Comisión puede aprobar la concesión de ayuda a las zonas desfavorecidas de la UE, con 
objeto de lograr un incremento de la actividad económica en las zonas asistidas que compense los 
posibles efectos negativos en términos de restricción del comercio y de la competencia en el mercado interior.  
Preguntas: 
a) ¿Cuáles son las condiciones o criterios bajo los cuales una región puede ser considerada 
desfavorecida?  
 
EU reply: The ultimate purpose of regional aid is to support economic development and 
employment in disadvantaged regions of Europe. In  order to avoid or minimise any distortion of 
competition caused by this aid, the Guidelines on regional State aid for 2014-2020  (Guidelines) set 
out the rules under which Member States can provide financial incentives to companies to invest in these areas.  
The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Un ion (TFEU) provides for the possibility to grant 
aid for two types of regions:  
 Article 107(3)(a) regions, where the economic situation is extremely unfavourable compared 
to the Community as a whole. These regions are defined on the basis of strict EU-wide criteria. They include regions that have a GDP per capita lower than 75% of the EU 
average, and outermost regions as defined in Article 349 of the Treaty. 
 
 Article 107(3)(c) regions, which are disadvantaged in relation to the national average. These 
regions are defined on the basis of a wider range of criteria, including criteria that reflect 
socioeconomic, geographical and structural problems at national level. These include 
sparsely populated regions, former Article 107(3)(a) regions and other problem regions as proposed by member States. 
 
Guidelines on regional State aid for 2014-2020 is available at:  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:C:2013:209:0001:0045:EN:PDF 
 
For more detailed information please consult the Competition Policy Brief with references on adopted regional aid maps under: 
 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/cpb/2014/014_en.pdf  
 
b) ¿En qué consiste específicamente la ayuda?  
 EU reply: Regional aid consists mainly of investment aid. In certain limited circumstances it can 
also be used for operating aid. As a general rule, aid should be granted under multi-sectoral aid 
schemes that are an integral part of a regional development strategy. 
o Investment aid: aid awarded for investment in tangible and intangible assets 
relating to the setting up of a new establishment, the extension of an existing 
establishment, diversification of the output of an establishment into new, 
additional products, or a fundamental change in the overall production process of an existing establishment or, under certain conditions, the acquisition of assets 
directly linked to an establishment provided the establishment has closed or would 
have closed if it had not been purchased ('initial investment'); 
o Operating aid: regional aid intended to reduce a firm's current expenses. Any aid 
of this type has to be justified by the contribution it makes to regional 
development and is subject to strict conditions. Nature and level of the aid must be proportionate to the problems it seeks to alleviate. 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 238 - 
 
  c) ¿Qué significa “efectos negativos en términos de  restricción del comercio y de la competencia en 
el mercado interior”?   EU reply: The Commission generally analyses whether the design of aid measure ensures that the 
positive impact of the aid towards an objective of common interest exceeds its potential negative 
effects on trade and competition.  
On avoidance of undue negative effects on competition and trade please see Section 3.7 of the 
Guidelines on regional State aid.  Two main potential distortions of competition and trade may be caused by regional aid. These are 
product market distortions and location effects. Both types may lead to allocative inefficiencies 
(undermining the economic performance of the in ternal market) and to distributional concerns 
(distribution of economic activity across regions). 
 
One potentially harmful effect of State aid is that it prevents the market mechanism from delivering efficient outcomes by rewarding the mo st efficient producers and putting pressure on 
the least inefficient to improve, restructure or exit the market. A substantial capacity expansion 
induced by State aid in an underperforming market might in particular unduly distort competition, as the creation or maintenance of overcapacity could lead to a squeeze on profit margins, a reduction of competitors’ investments or even the exit of competitors from the market. This might 
lead to a situation where competitors that would otherwise be able to stay on the market are 
forced out of the market. It may also prevent undertakings from entering or expanding in the 
market and it may weaken incentives for competitors to innovate. This results in inefficient market 
structures which are also harmful to consumers in the long run. Further, the availability of aid may 
induce complacent or unduly risky behaviour on the part of potential beneficiaries. The long term run effect on the overall performance of the sector is likely to be negative.  
 
Aid may also have distortive effects in terms of increasing or maintaining substantial market power on the part of the beneficiary. Even where aid does not strengthen substantial market power directly, it may do so indirectly, by discouraging the expansion of existing competitors or inducing 
their exit or discouraging the entry of new competitors. 
 Apart from distortions on the product markets, regi onal aid by nature also affects the location of 
economic activity. Where one area attracts an in vestment due to the aid, another area loses out 
on that opportunity. These negative effects in th e areas adversely affected by aid may be felt 
through lost economic activity and lost jobs including those at the level of subcontractors. It may 
also be felt in a loss of positive externalities (f or example, clustering effect, knowledge spillovers, 
education and training, etc.).  The geographical specificity of regional aid distinguishes it from other forms of horizontal aid. It is 
a particular characteristic of regional aid that it is intended to influence the choice made by 
investors about where to locate investment projects. When regional aid off-sets the additional costs stemming from the regional handicaps and supports additional investment in assisted areas 
without attracting it away from other assisted areas, it contributes not only to the development of 
the region, but also to cohesion and ultimately benefits the whole Union. With regard to the potential negative location effects of regional aid, these are already limited to a certain degree by 
regional aid maps, which define exhaustively the areas where regional aid may be granted, taking 
account of the equity and cohesion policy objectives, and the maximum permissible aid intensities. However, an understanding of what would have happened in the absence of the aid remains important to appraise the actual impact of the aid in the cohesion objective. 
 
3.3.2 Competition policy and regulatory issues 
3.3.2.1 Overview 
Párrafo 3.158 
En el párrafo se indica que las partes, bajo ciertas condiciones, pueden solicitar la anulación de decisiones de la Comisión al Tribunal General (por motivos de hecho o de derecho). Los recursos 
motivados por cuestiones de derecho solo pueden ser sometidos al Tribunal de Justicia cuando 
previamente el Tribunal General haya dictado sentencia o una orden.  Pregunta: 
¿Bajo qué argumentos las partes pueden solicitar la anulación de las decisiones de la Comisión?  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 239 - 
 
  EU reply: All Commission decisions are indeed subject to oversight by the General Court and the 
Court of Justice (Article 263 TFEU). Subject to certain conditions, the parties can bring an action in the General Court to annul Commission decisions in an infringement matter (whether to terminate the violation or pay a fine) on grounds of fact or law
83 The Court of Justice can review judgments 
of the General Court, but only on matters of law. 
 Filing the court action does not in itself suspend the application of the decision. The parties can 
request that the General Court suspend application pending the appeal. For fines, the 
Commission’s practice is to agree to suspend pending appeal, on condition of providing a bank guarantee for the fine plus interest.  
The grounds for judicial review are lack of comp etence, infringement of an essential procedural 
requirement, the Treaty itself or a rule of law related to its application and misuse of power (article 263 TFEU). Despite this apparently narrow scope, the General Court and the Court of Justice have 
also overturned Commission decisions for inadequacy of evidence or error of fact. The courts have 
devised a category of “comprehensive review,” and when applying it the General Court will control 
the accuracy and quality of the Commission’s reasoning about economic and market analysis. The 
court rules provide for commissioning independent expert reports and these have been relied upon 
to overturn the Commission's findings and conclusions.  The power of the courts to review the amount and appropriateness of a fine is unlimited. The 
courts do not require the Commission to follow a prescribed formula, recognising that an element 
of discretion is needed to tune sanctions to effective deterrence. But in law, the courts can reach their own decisions about the reasonableness of fi nes. Because of how fines are determined, this 
means the courts could effectively substitute their own opinions for the Commission’s about the 
gravity and duration of the infringement.  
4. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.2.3 Agricultural policies 
4.2.3.1 Domestic support 
4.2.3.1.1 Direct payments 
Párrafo 4.17 . Pagos directos.  - El informe de la Secretaria indica que los pagos en el marco del 
régimen de pago único y del régimen de pago único por superficie (RPUS) están desvinculados de los precios y de la producción. 
 
Pregunta: 
¿Podría la UE clarificar y especificar cómo define y determina la elegibilidad de los beneficiarios de 
estos pagos? 
 
EU reply:  Only natural or legal persons who comply with the conditions set out in Article 9 of 
Regulation (EU) No 1307/201.  
 
¿Cuáles son los requisitos mínimos que necesita un productor para recibir un pago directo?   
EU reply: Minimum requirements for receiving direct payments are contained in Article 10 of 
Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013.   
¿en que situación la UE no otorga pagos directos a sus productores?  
 EU reply: Persons or groups of persons not complying with the basic conditions as set out in 
Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/201 cannot be granted direct payments. 
 
Further information is available in Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 and at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct-support/direct-payments/index_en.htm 
 
Párrafo 4.21  
En el párrafo se indica que en el caso de determinadas explotaciones agrícolas pequeñas, los 
Estados miembros pueden reemplazar los diferentes regímenes de pagos directos por un régimen 
para los pequeños agricultores simplificado.  
                                               
83 Article 263 of the TFEU. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 240 - 
 
  Pregunta: 
a) ¿Cuáles son específicamente los tipos de explotaciones?  
 EU reply: The Small Farmers Scheme (SFS) is a simplified direct payment scheme. It is optional 
for Member States. Any farmer claiming support may decide to participate in the Small Farmers 
Scheme and thereby receive an annual payment fi xed by the Member State of between 500 € and 
1 250 € (as maximum), regardless of the farm size. Member States may choose from different 
methods to calculate the annual payment, including an option whereby farmers would simply 
receive the amount they would otherwise receive. This is expected to result on a significant simplification for the farmers concerned and for national administrations. Further information is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/ direct-support/direct-payments/index_en.htm  
 
b) ¿En qué consiste el “régimen simplificado”?    
EU reply: First of all, it is an administrative simplification linked to management and control of 
direct payments (a farmer can opt for participation in the small farmers scheme only once (in 2015) and remain under that scheme, unless he opts out). Besides, participants will be exempted 
from greening and from the cross compliance system (however they still have to respect the rules 
in relation to the environment, public health, animal health, plant health and animal welfare). Farmers participating in the small farmer scheme enjoy simplified administrative procedures.  
Further information is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct-support/direct-
payments/index_en.htm.  
Agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment (Greening) 
 
Párrafo 4.25.-  Ecologización. De acuerdo al informe de la Secretaria, cada Estado Miembro de la 
UE está obligado a asignar por lo menos el 30% de la dotación nacional para pagos directos, a 
pagos para prácticas agrícolas beneficiosas para el clima y el medio ambiente (Ecologización).   Pregunta: 
Podría la UE señalar si estos pagos directos han sido notificados bajo caja verde?  EU reply: The EU would like to refer to its most recent WTO notification on domestic support 
DS:1. See WTO notification G/AG/N/EU/20 of 22 October 2014 (covering the marketing year 
2011/2012). Information related to the current CAP will be notified to the WTO accordingly in due time. In addition, the EU would like to note th at the last CAP reform was recently adopted in 
December 2013 and is not yet fully implemented. 
 Si es así, podría explicar las razones por las que dichos pagos no tienen efectos de distorsión del 
comercio ni efectos sobre la producción?  
 
EU reply: T h e  v a s t  m a j o r i t y  o f  d i r e c t  p a y m e n t s  ( i ncluding the greening) are decoupled from 
production. "Greening" is a payment which complements the Basic Payment Scheme or the Single 
Area Payment Scheme and not linked to production of specific products or to price support.  
 The Greening payment is a new element of the EU's response to the global challenge of 
sustainable management of natural resources and climate action which is of particular importance 
to EU agriculture.  Young farmers' scheme 
Párrafo 4.28 
En el párrafo se indica que cada Estado miembro está obligado a reservar hasta un 2% de la dotación nacional para la concesión de pagos adicionales a jóvenes agricultores (definidos como 
aquellos agricultores que tengan 40 años de edad  o menos y que se instalen por primera vez en 
una explotación agraria como jefe de explotación) por un período máximo de cinco años.  
Pregunta: 
¿Podría explicar con mayor detalle en qué consiste este régimen? 
 EU reply: In order to encourage generational renewal, the EU has established a compulsory 
payment for Young Farmers.  This payment is intended to support the first years following the WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 241 - 
 
  initial setting up of farmers who are no more than 40 years of age for a maximum of 5 years 
(depending on the setting up date and first applic ation date). Member States have the option to 
introduce additional eligibility criteria in terms of appropriate skills and/or training requirements. This is in addition to other measures availa ble for young farmers under Rural Development. 
 
Further information is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct-support/direct-payments/index_en.htm 
 
¿Podría especificar la UE como sus Estados Miembros fijan la cuantía del pago adicional que reciben los agricultores que participan del Régimen para jóvenes agricultores?   
EU reply: The young farmer payment is a top-up amount per hectare that corresponds to an 
additional 25% of the average value of the paymen t entitlements held by the young farmer, or a 
value corresponding to 25% of the average value of  the payment entitlements at national level, 
with a maximum limit decided by the Member States (between 25 and 90 hectares/payment 
entitlements).  See Article 50 (6) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013.  
Further information is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct-support/direct-
payments/index_en.htm.  Market disturbance 
Párrafo 4.36 
En el párrafo se indica que se entiende por "amenazas de perturbación del mercado" aquellas que se produzcan "como consecuencia de incrementos o bajadas significativos de los precios en el 
mercado interior o exterior o de otros acontecimientos o circunstancias que perturben o amenacen 
con perturbar de manera significativa el mercad o, cuando esa situación o sus efectos en el 
mercado tengan probabilidades de continuar o deteriorarse". En esas circunstancias, la Comisión 
puede tomar medidas para hacer frente a la situación, "respetando las obligaciones que se deriven 
de los acuerdos internacionales celebrados".  Pregunta: 
a) ¿A qué se considera “incremento o bajada significativa de los precios”?   EU reply: Article 219 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 provides for the Commission to take 
measures to address market disturbance or threats thereof "caused by significant price rises or 
falls on internal or external markets or other events or circumstances significantly disturbing or threatening to disturb the market, where that situation, or its effects on the market is likely to 
continue or deteriorate". In determining whether such circumstances exist, the Commission will 
refer to all available information and data.  
 b) ¿Qué tipo de medidas puede tomar la Comisión? 
 
EU reply: Article 219 of Regulation (EU) no 1308/2013 empowers the Commission to take the 
necessary measures to address the market situation whilst respecting any obligations resulting 
from the EU's international agreements. 
 Párrafo 4.38 
En el párrafo se indica que, además de las normas generales sobre la gestión de crisis, se aplican también normas específicas en caso de crisis en el sector de las frutas y hortalizas y el sector vitivinícola.  
Pregunta: 
¿Qué normas específicas se aplican en los sectores mencionados en caso de crisis en el sector? 
 
EU reply: EU financial assistance in the fruit and vegetables sector is articulated through 
implementation of operational programmes by prod ucer organisations. The crisis prevention and 
management is among the objectives of the op erational programmes and may cover: investments 
making the management of the volumes placed on the market more efficient; training measures 
and exchanges of best practices; promotion and communication, whether for prevention or during 
a crisis period; support for the administrative co sts of setting up mutual funds; replanting of 
orchards where that is necessary following mandatory grubbing up for health or phytosanitary WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 242 - 
 
  reasons on the instruction of the Member State competent authority; market withdrawal; green 
harvesting or non-harvesting of fruit and vegetables and harvest insurance.  Wine sector support programmes can cover promotion, restructuring and conversion of vineyards, 
green harvesting, mutual funds, harvest insurance, investments, innovation in the wine sector and 
by-product distillation.  
Fruits and vegetables 
Párrafo 4.39 
En el párrafo se indica que en el sector de las frutas y hortalizas, la ayuda sigue centrándose en 
las organizaciones de productores. Para recibir fi nanciación, una organización de productores debe 
ser reconocida por las autoridades del Estado miembro de que se trate, para lo cual debe cumplir 
determinados criterios, entre ellos el de presentar un programa operativo de tres a cinco años de duración que responda a algunos de los objetivos establecidos en el artículo 33 del Reglamento 
(UE) Nº 1308/2013. 
 Pregunta: 
¿Podría enumerar todos los criterios que debe cumplir una organización de productores para recibir financiación? 
EU reply: To receive funding from the EU a producer organisation in the fruit and vegetables 
sector has to be recognised by the Member State in which its headquarters are located and shall 
implement an operational programme during 3 to 5 years previously approved by that Member 
State. 
A producer organisation in the F&V sector can be recognised if: 
- it is formed on the initiative of the producers; 
- it has a minimum number of members and/or cove rs a minimum volume or value of marketable 
production, to be laid down by the Member State concerned, in the area where it operates; 
- it provides sufficient evidence that it can carry out its activities properly, both over time and in 
terms of effectiveness, provision of human, materi al and technical support to its members, and as 
appropriate concentration of supply; 
- its statutes provide for procedures including re porting, production, marketing and protection of 
the environment, being member of only one pr oducer organisation for a given product, the 
imposition on members of financial contributi ons, rules enabling the producer members to 
scrutinise democratically their organisation and its decisions, penalties for infringement of 
obligations under the statutes, rules on the minimum period of membership which may not be less 
than one year. Moreover, the statutes shall requir e its producer members to market their entire 
production concerned through the producer organisation. 
The producer organisation should pursue at least one of the following objectives: 
(i) ensuring that production is planned and adjust ed to demand, particularly in terms of quality 
and quantity; 
(ii) concentration of supply and the placing on the market of the products produced by its 
members, including through direct marketing; 
(iii) optimising production costs and returns on investments in response to environmental and 
animal welfare standards, and stabilising producer prices. 
Operational programmes of producer organisations in the fruit and vegetables sector shall have at 
least two of the objectives mentioned in previous paragraph or two of the following: 
(a) planning of production, including production and consumption forecasting and follow-up;  
(b) improvement of product quality, whether in a fresh or processed form; 
(c) boosting products' commercial value; (d) promotion of the products, whether in a fresh or processed form; (e) environmental measures, particularly those relating to water, and methods of production 
respecting the environment, including organic farming; WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 243 - 
 
  (f) crisis prevention and management. 
 Other 
Párrafo 4.45. Otros productos.-  En septiembre de 2017 expirará el régimen de cuotas anuales 
de producción de azúcar, de 13,3 millones de toneladas en la actualidad, junto con el régimen de 
precios mínimos de la remolacha azucarera, actualmente de 26,29 euros por tonelada, aunque el azúcar podrá seguir siendo objeto de ayudas al almacenamiento privado. Para fortalecer la 
posición negociadora de los cultivadores, el Re glamento (UE) Nº 1308/2013 exige contratos por 
escrito entre los productores y los transformadores.  Teniendo en cuenta la eliminación de la cuota de azúcar a partir de septiembre de 2017 ¿Podría la 
UE explicar que impacto tendría dicha decisión en  su sector azucarero y qué efectos puede generar 
sobre el comercio internacional?  
EU reply: The end of the production quotas in the suga r sectors is in itself the most important 
reform to ensure that EU farmers can respond to market signals. As a consequence, EU prices are 
l i k e l y  t o  b e  f u r t h e r  i n  l i n e  w i t h  w o r l d  p r i c e s .  I n  g e n e r a l ,  i t  i s  e x p e c t e d  t h a t  t h e r e  w o u l d  b e  a n  
increase of the competitiveness, combined with a slightly lower consumption.  
  4.2.3.2 Export subsidies 
Párrafo 4.50 y 4.51.- Subvenciones a las exportaciones. Según la última notificación sobre 
subvenciones a la exportación presentada por la UE, que corresponde a la campaña de comercialización 2012/2013, indica que la carne de aves de corral representaba la casi totalidad 
del gasto (55.3 millones de euros de un total de 59 millones).  
 ¿Podría la UE indicar los detalles sobre el marco legal y el funcionamiento de las subvenciones 
concedidas para la carne de aves de corral?   
 EU reply: Export subsidies for poultry meat were set at zero in July 2013. From 1 January 2014, 
the legal framework covering export refunds for a ll products are Articles 196 to 204 of Regulation 
(EU) No 1308/2013. 
 De acuerdo al informe de la Secretaría, en las nuevas normas sobre la organización común de 
mercado se dispone que sin perjuicio de la aplicación de medidas excepcionales, la restitución a la 
exportación disponible debe ser igual a 0.  ¿Podría la UE especificar y detallar a que se refieren las medidas excepcionales? ¿En que casos se 
podrían aplicar este tipo de medidas?   
 EU reply: The measures are those amongst those referred to in Article 219 of regulation (EU) No 
1308/2013. Article 219 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 provides for the Commission to take 
measures to address market disturbance or threats thereof "caused by significant price rises or 
falls on internal or external markets or other events or circumstances significantly disturbing or threatening to disturb the market, where that situation, or its effects on the market is likely to 
continue or deteriorate". In determining whether such circumstances exist, the Commission will 
refer to all available information and data.  
¿Podría asegurar la UE que a partir del año 2014 ha cumplido con el compromiso asumido por los 
Miembros de la OMC en la Conferencia Ministerial de  Bali de obrar “con la mayor moderación” en lo 
que respecta al recurso a todas las formas de subvenciones a la exportación?    
EU reply: The EU ensures that its policy is fully in line with its international commitments, 
including the Bali Ministerial declaration on export competition.  
4.2.4 Domestic support levels 
4.2.4.1 WTO notifications 
Párrafo 4.56 
En el párrafo se indica que la última notificación sobre ayuda interna recibida de la UE corresponde 
a la campaña de comercialización 2011/2012. Esa notificación, junto con otras anteriores, mostraba un cambio gradual de las pautas de la ayuda a raíz de las sucesivas reformas de la PAC: la ayuda de los compartimentos ámbar y azul iba en descenso, en tanto que la del compartimento 
verde iba en aumento. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 244 - 
 
  Pregunta: 
¿Cuál es el motivo por el cual las notificaciones sobre ayuda interna no han sido actualizadas?  
 EU reply: The DS:1 notification for marketing year s 2011/12 was submitted to WTO members on 
22.10.2014. The notification for 2012/13 (budget year 2013 ending 31.12.2013) will be submitted 
in the near future.  
4.3 Services 
4.3.1 Telecommunications services 
4.3.1.2 Regulatory framework and policy developments 
Párrafo 4.63 
En el párrafo se indica que el acontecimiento normativo más destacado en el sector de los 
servicios de telecomunicaciones es la adopción por la Comisión Europea en septiembre de 2012 de un nuevo paquete legislativo de gran alcance, "Un continente conectado", y su examen, aún en 
curso, en el Parlamento y el Consejo. 
 Pregunta: 
¿Podría explicar más en detalle de que se trata este nuevo paquete legislativo?    EU reply:  The 'Connected Continent' Regulation was proposed by the Commission on 11 
September 2013 [NB: not 2012 as put by Argentina in their question]. It aims to bring the EU 
closer to a truly single market for telecoms in the EU. It includes provisions to remove 
unnecessary administrative obstacles to the cross-border provision of electronic communications, harmonise ways to access European fixed networks, improve spectrum management coordination, 
guarantee common high levels of consumer protection across the Union, abolish roaming 
surcharges in the Union, and guarantee an open internet in the Union. The ongoing legislative 
negotiations of the EU co-legislators (Parliament and Council) focus currently on two elements of 
the Commission proposal, i.e. ending roaming surc harges and safeguarding the open internet.   
 II. OTRAS PREGUNTAS 1. Escalonamiento Arancelario 
 Según puede verse en la última versión del nomenclador arancelario (TARIC 2014), la UE aplica a sus importaciones un esquema de escalonamiento arancelario creciente en progresivas fases de la 
cadena de procesamiento de varios productos base o primarios. El trato arancelario para el 
producto primario o materia prima es menor que para el producto semi-procesado, que a su vez es menor que para el producto terminado.  Como puede observarse a continuación, por ejemplo, para 
las cadenas de trigo, soja y maíz: 
 
Tariff Escalation Examples in TARIC 2014: WHEAT    
  CN Code Description Conventional rate of 
duty (%) 
(single or out of quota 
tariff)     
  1 2 3     
Wheat 
grain 10019900 Wheat and Meslin: - Other: -- Other 95 eur/t (1) (2) 
Wheat 
flour 11010015 Wheat or Meslin flour: - Wheat flour: -- 
of common wheat or spelt 172 eur/t   
Wheat 
meal 11031110 Cereal groats, meal and pellets: - Groats 
and meal: -- Of wheat: Durum wheat 267 eur/t   
Pasta 19021100 Pasta, whether or not cooked or stuffed 
(with meat or other substances) or 
otherwise prepared, such as spaghetti, 
macaroni, noodles, lasagne, gnocchi, 
ravioli, cannelloni; couscous, whether or 
not prepared: - Uncooked pasta, not 
stuffed or otherwise prepared: -- 
Containing eggs 7,7% + 24,6 
eur/100kg/net 
 
(= 7,7% + 246 eur/t/net) (2)  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 245 - 
 
  Biscuits 19053191 Bread, pastry, cakes, biscuits and other 
bakers' wares, whether or not containing cocoa; communion wafers, empty cachets of a kind suitable for pharmaceutical use, sealing wafers, rice paper and similar products: - Sweet 
biscuits, waffles and wafers: -- Sweet biscuits: --- Sandwich biscuits 9% + EA MAX 24,2 + AD 
S/Z (3)  
 
(1): The European Union undertakes, in respect of cereals of headings: 
 - ex 1001 wheat, to apply a duty at a level and in a manner so that the duty-paid import price for such  cereals will not be greater than the effective interven tion price (or in the event of a modification of the 
 current system, the effective support price) increased by 55 %.  The duty applied shall in no case exceed the duty shown in column 3.  (2): WTO Tariff Quota. (3): Meursing table. 
 
Tariff Escalation Examples in TARIC 2014: SOYA   
  CN Code Description Conventional rate of duty (%) 
(single or out of quota tariff)  
  1 2 3 
Soya 
beans 12019000 Soya beans, whether or not broken: - 
Other free 
Soya 
bean 
meal 12081000 Flours and meals of oil seeds or 
oleaginous fruits, ot her than those of 
mustard: - Of soya beans 4,50% 
Soya 
bean Oil 15071090 Soya-bean oil and its fractions, 
whether or not refined, but not chemically modified: - Crude oil, whether or not de gummed: -- Other 6,40% 
15079090 Soya-bean oil and its fractions, 
whether or not refined, but not 
chemically modified: - Other: -- 
Other 9,60% 
 
Tariff Escalation Examples in TARIC 2014: MAIZE (CORN)     
  CN Code Description Conventional 
rate of duty (%) 
(single or out of 
quota tariff)    
  1 2 3   
Maize grain 10059000 Maize (corn): - Other 94 eur/t (1) (2) 
Maize flour 11022010 Cereal flowers other than of wheat or meslin: - 
Maize (corn) flour: -- Of a fat content not 
exceeding 1,5% by weight 173 eur/t   
11022090 Cereal flowers other than of wheat or meslin: - 
Maize (corn) flour: -- Other 98 eur/t   
Maize meal 11031310 Cereal groats, meal and pellets: - Groats and 
meal: -- Of maize (corn): --- Of a fat content 
not exceeding 1,5% by weight 173 eur/t   
11031390 Cereal groats, meal and pellets: - Groats and 
meal: -- Of maize (corn): --- Other 98 eur/t   
Maize 
Preparations 19041010 Prepared foods obtained by the swelling or 
roasting of cereals or cereal products (for 
example, corn flakes); … : -- Obtained from 
maize 3,8% + 20 
eur/100kg/net 
 
(= 3,8% + 200 
eur/t/net)   
(1): The European Union undertakes, in respect of cereals of headings: 
 
- ex 1005 maize, except hybrid seed, and to apply a du ty at a level and in a manner so that the duty-
 paid import price for such cereal s will not be greater than the effect ive intervention price (or in the 
 event of a modification of th e current system, the effective support price) increased by 55%. 
The duty applied shall in no case exceed the duty shown in column 3. 
(2): WTO Tariff Quota. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 246 - 
 
  ¿Cual es la razón por la que la UE aplica este es quema de protección y escalonamiento arancelario 
en los distintos estadios de procesamiento (donde hay una agregación de valor progresiva) de la cadena de estos y otros productos agrícolas, alimenticios y primarios importados?   
EU reply: As regards pasta, the raw materials are not only wheat but also eggs. All the raw 
materials should be taken into account in assessing the tariff escalation. The same reasoning also applies for ‘maize preparation’ or ‘corn flakes’ where sugar or honey may be added. EU tariffs were 
accepted and bound as part of the Uruguay Round Agreement. 
 ¿Planea la UE modificar o mantener este tipo de esquema de proteccionismo efectivo?   
EU reply: EU tariffs were accepted and bound as part of the Uruguay Round Agreement. The EU 
has no plans to autonomously change its tariffs for agricultural products. Any change will result from a successful conclusion to the DDA. In the meantime, the EU will continue to respect its WTO 
commitments. 
 ¿Cómo cree la UE que este tipo de esquemas afecta el acceso a mercados y el desarrollo de países 
en vías de desarrollo exportadores de alimentos y de productos agrícolas con mayor valor 
agregado?   ¿Podría la UE explicar cómo contribuye el escalonamiento arancelario a la mejora cualitativa en la 
participación de los países en desarrollo en las cadenas globales de valor del sector agropecuario?  
 EU replies to the two questions above: The EU is committed to resist protectionism, to 
reinforce the multilateral trading system and to strengthen the role of trade as an engine of 
growth. The EU maintains that the most viable way of ensuring the liberalisation of trade is to ensure a successful outcome for the Doha Development Round. In terms of market access 
opportunities granted to developing countries, EU policies remain unparalleled. The EU is the 
biggest importer of agricultural products in the world and by far the greatest importer of agricultural products from developing countries.  
2. Aranceles muy complejos: 
Los aranceles muy complejos para productos agropecuarios procesados en el Anexo I de su lista 
de concesiones arancelarias, tambié n llamada “Tabla de Meursing”:  
 
a) En vista de las dificultades en el cálculo de estos aranceles para las empresas que exportan a la UE, que impiden conocer con certidumbre el arancel al momento de la negociación con las 
empresas importadoras en la UE,  
 (i) ¿podría la UE dar ejemplos numéricos de cálculo de estos aranceles muy complejos para cada tipo de arancel complejo?  
 
EU reply: The EU would like to kindly inform Argentina that such an example may be found in the 
current certified Schedule CXL. 
 
(ii) ¿existe alguna forma ágil (por ejemplo en algún sitio Internet oficial) para averiguar el valor del arancel para un determinado producto, antes de  su embarque, ya sea en forma vinculante o 
meramente con carácter informativo?  
 EU reply: The elements of the calculation of the duty are officially published each year in the 
official journal of the EU, the most recent in OJ L 312 Vol II from p 666. 
 
b) ¿Prevé la UE la simplificación de estos aranceles, es decir, su conversión en aranceles aduaneros propiamente dichos?  
 
EU reply: The EU's agricultural tariff system is set out in its WTO schedule, resulting from the 
Uruguay Round Agreement. The EU has no plans to autonomously change its tariff structure for 
agricultural products. Any change will result from a successful conclusion to the DDA. In the 
meantime, the EU will continue to respect its WTO commitments.  3. Restricciones a la importación no arancelarias: 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 247 - 
 
  En los Comités de la OMC sobre Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias y sobre Obstáculos Técnicos al 
Comercio, suelen plantearse a la UE preocupaciones comerciales específicas (PCE) que, en opinión de los países que plantean dichas PCEs, no serían consistentes con las disposiciones de las normas de la OMC, incluyendo la ausencia de justificación científica. 
 
Tomando en cuenta que estas restricciones a la importación no arancelarias suelen constituir barreras para exportar a la UE, que incluso pueden ser insuperables, especialmente en productos 
agropecuarios y pesqueros, ¿ha considerado la UE que estas restricciones dificultan o imposibilitan 
la integración de los países en desarrollo a las cadenas globales de valor?  EU reply: The EU ensures that all its technical regulations and SPS measures are in compliance 
with WTO rules, in particular with the SPS and TBT Agreements. Those measures are applied 
equally to domestic products and imported produc ts, including products from developing countries. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 248 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM THE PHILIPPINES 
 1. In paragraph 1.7 of the Government’s repo rt, the EU mentioned its views on the EGA 
negotiations.  
 
Could the EU please provide estimated timelines in realizing the first and second objectives given the progress of the current negotiations? 
 
EU reply:  The EGA Members are committed to timely conclusion of the tariff negotiations. See the 
joint statement for the launch of the EGA negotiations: http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/wto/ 
documents/press_corner/final_joint_statement_green_goods_8_july_2014.pdf.  
 
Currently, the EU is intensively working with other EGA members to achieve a substantive outcome in the negotiations by the end of 2015  to contribute to the 10th WTO Ministerial 
Conference, and to the United Nations Framew ork Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 
Conference of the Parties (COP) in Paris in December.  
The objective is to create a "living agreement" that in addition to eliminating tariffs on a broad 
range of environmental goods building on the APEC  list of 54 environmental products, will also 
include an effective review mechanism to add new products taking into account i.a. changes in technologies, and will address other issues in the green sector such as services or NTBs. In this 
context, the EU considers that the EGA as a "liv ing agreement" will create a process for further 
negotiations, which could deliver further results in mid and long term.  
 
2. In paragraph 3.4 of the Government’s report and paragraph 1.5 of the Secretariat’s report, 
the recently-appointed President of the European Commission started his mandate by giving priority to strengthening the EU's competitiveness and stimulating investment so as to 
create jobs with the launching of the “Investment Plan” as his first action. The Plan is 
expected to mobilize at least €315 billion ov er the next three years, with an aim of 
supporting the real economy and SMEs, in support of "strategic investments" in infrastructure, including broadband and energy networks, transport infrastructure, 
renewable energy, and research and innovation. 
 
Could the EU please provide information on  how the Plan will impact intra-EU and 
international/global trade? How will the Plan be implemented? What is the criteria for a 
company to qualify for financing aside from the prioritizing certain sectors and directing the funding to companies with less than 3000 empl oyees, i.e. will there be a geographical 
prioritization?  
 EU reply:  The Plan is expected to mobilise up to € 315bn in investment in the real economy in 
Europe. Given that these investments will be in infrastructure, innovation and access to finance for 
SMEs, it can be expected that effects on intra-EU  and extra-EU trade will be beneficial as these 
investments are typically key to enhance the flow of goods and services.   
Foreign investors will also be able to participate in the financing. In addition the Plan foresees that 
the launch of a European Investment Project Portal to enable project sponsors to publish their investment opportunities in an open and transparent way, so as to attract potential investors 
including from other countries. 
 Moreover, the EFSI may support investments involving entities established in one or more Member States and extending to countries within the European Neighborhood policy, the Enlargement 
policy, the European Economic Area, EFTA and OCTs. 
 The Infrastructure and Innovation window is open to any entity (public or private) of all sizes, 
while the SME window for guarantees and ventur e capital is for companies up to 3000 employees. 
 There will be no geographical prioritization, an d projects will be assessed on their own merits. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 249 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
 QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT (WT/TPR/S/317)  
2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.4 Investment Regime 2.42. p 33 
Some member States such as France, Germany, and the United Kingdom maintain FDI review 
procedures for national security purposes. These procedures were amended during the period under review: in September 2013, Germany streamlined its review mechanism for FDI, reducing data requirements for sector-specific reviews;  and in May 2014, France amended the list of 
activities subject to FDI review. In 2014, Italy and Portugal also amended or adopted new 
legislation to review investment in strategic sectors such as defense, energy, transport and communication. 
 
Question: The paragraph 2.42 to some extent indicates the legislative changes for FDI in strategic 
sectors made in Member States, in particular in Italy and Portugal, by which amended or adopted 
new legislation to review investment in strategi c sectors such as defense, energy, transport and 
communication. At the same time, nothing in this section provides for the information on the type 
of changes made, whether these changes/amendments are of a restrictive nature and what 
constitutes the revision of such investments. Plea se explain, to what extent will new developments 
in legislation on investment in strategic sectors in energy, transport and communication made in EU Member States as mentioned in paragraph above affect the conditions of foreign investors for 
establishment and making investments in these particular sectors? Please specify the reference 
information on the new laws.  
EU reply: As regards the first part of your question, the areas for review mechanisms for FDI are 
listed in EU Member States' legislation. MSs' review mechanisms differ in terms of sectoral scope, which depends on Member States' sensitivities related to public policy and public security (or 
national security). Those MS that have review me chanism usually include, for instance defence and 
some strategic sectors are areas subject to review. The EU Member States' legislation establishing review mechanisms to FDI which are constantly monitored by the EU is in full conformity with the EU's international commitments. There are no plans for action to establish an EU-wide review 
mechanism for FDI. 
 As regards the second part of your question, please note that (a) as regards the energy sector, the 
EU is bound by the Energy Charter Treaty; and (b) more generally, Articles 64 and 65 TFEU allow 
limited room for the EU Member States to introduce restrictions to the free movement of capitals to/from third countries. 
 
In 2014, Italy completed the implementation of its Law on the State’s special powers in companies carrying out strategic activities or owning strategi c assets by adopting four implementing decrees  
which specify the strategic activities in relation to which the Italian state may exercise special 
powers and which set out the procedure to be followed for the exercise of these powers. The 
Italian legislation requires notice of company decisions and transactions resulting in a change of ownership or control or affecting the availability of assets. This applies to companies carrying out 
certain activities in the defence and national security sectors, or owning strategic assets in the 
energy, transport and communication sectors. It empowers the state to impose conditions or oppose such decisions and transactions in the even t of serious threats to certain public security 
interests. It provides for detailed rules on the relevant thresholds triggering the obligations and on 
the specific criteria for the exercise of special powers. Tight deadlines apply.  Portugal has adopted a new law introducing a mechanism to review acquisitions which confer 
control over major infrastructure or strategic assets in the area of energy, transport and 
communication. It enables the government to oppose an acquisition only in case of a genuine or sufficiently serious threat to national defence and security or the security of supply in services 
critical to the national interest, e.g. in case of links with terrorist organisations. Tight deadlines 
apply. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 250 - 
 
  3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1.9 Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures 3.98 p.55 To a large extent, legislation on SPS measures in the EU has been harmonized and the majority of 
measures are taken by the EU – although member States can, and occasionally do, take specific 
measures in specific circumstances. The principal legislation on SPS measures is set out in Table 3.5. 
 
Question 1: Please explain in what «specific circumstances» EU member States can take specific 
SPS measures. Please provide more detailed information on this issue.  
EU reply: There are very few areas in the SPS field th at are not harmonised in the EU and then, 
only with respect to less commonly consumed or traded commodities (like f.e. crocodile meat). In these non-harmonised areas, EU Member States may adopt national provisions, provided that they 
are in conformity with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).  
 In exceptional circumstances, EU Member States may also temporarily suspend or restrict the 
application of EU provisions, within its territory, on the basis of new information or a reassessment 
of existing information. This may be done in order to protect the life and health of humans, animals or plants in conformity with TFEU.   
Question 2: Please clarify whether there are standards for products in the European Union, that 
are not harmonized within the EU, and implemente d but by the member States. If yes, could you 
please provide the list of such standards. 
 
EU reply:  Please see reply to question above. 
 
3.2 Measures directly affecting exports 
3.2.1 export procedures and requirements 3.112 p. 59 In general, procedures applied to exports are simi lar to those applied to imports (section 3.1.1). 
Simplified procedures may also be granted to exporters. 
 Question 1: Please clarify the differences between export and import procedures. Whether there 
are any differences in safety and quality requirements of agricultural goods?  
 EU reply: Food or feed exported or re-exported from the EU to a third country shall comply with 
the relevant requirements of EU food law, unless otherwise requested by the authorities of the 
importing country or established by the laws, regu lations, standards, codes of practice and other 
legal and administrative procedures as may be in force in the importing country. This is stipulated by the Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002.  
 
Food and feed can also be exported or re-exporte d from the EU, in cases when the food or feed 
concerned was not placed on the market in the EU, with the express agreement of the competent 
authorities of the third country of destination. This provision however does not apply to foods or 
feed which are injurious to health or unsafe.  
Question 2:  According to the available information, the ca ses of counterfeit certificates of origin 
for agricultural goods have become more frequent recently. Notably while exporting from the EU or 
transiting through the EU territory to the third countries, particularly to Russia. The Russian Federation would appreciate if the EU could elabor ate on this issue. Please indicate if the EU 
confirms the difficulties while implementing sanitary or phytosanitary control in the EU? If yes, 
what measures are taken by the EU to eliminate the said violations?  
EU reply: The prohibitions on the imports of EU agricultural products to the Russian Federation 
introduced during 2014 have led to a significant market disruption with considerable price 
increases in Russia. This has made it particularly interesting for some in the Russian Federation, 
and also in third countries, to attempt to introduce banned products into the Russian market. Such activities, seek to circumvent controls on either side of the border. The EU reminds Russia 
that the products covered by the Russian import ban on agricultural products circulate freely within 
the EU and pose no safety threats requiring controls of an SPS nature.   WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 251 - 
 
  In cases where the Russian Federation has provid ed the EU with sufficient information, the 
responsible authorities have taken, and continue to take, actions to investigate these cases and to bring to justice those individuals that have breached the law. This is without prejudice to EU position on the WTO-compatibility of Russia's import prohibitions at issue.  
 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
3.1.6 Import controls and restrictions 
3.54. p. 45 The EU import licensing system is based on the premise that no import licences are required 
except where specific products from certain origins are subject to quantitative restrictions (for a 
list of those products see next paragraph) and for safeguard measures against injurious imports pursuant to either GATT Article XIX or international commitments.  
Question: The road transport is regulated essentially at member-state level, however, there are 
some EU level regulations that were not included in  the TPR. We would like to ask EU to provide us 
with further information on the EU level regulations for the commercial road transport and 
especially on the objectives of the regulati on introduced by the Council Regulation (EC) № 1/2005 
as of 22/12/2004 “On the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) № 1255/97”. That measure 
requests that in order to carry out such a hauling a foreign road transport company should pass a 
protracted licensing procedure which involves the vehicle certification within the EU territory and obligatory training of the driver and accompanying personnel in the EU. In our view, the said measure could be considered as an obstacle to trade. 
 
EU reply: The main objective of the EU Regulation on the protection of animals during transport is 
to safeguard the welfare and health of animals. Th anks to a harmonised set of rules within the EU 
territory, the EU ensures a level playing field fo r all operators. EU Member States perform the 
necessary checks on their territory, as foreseen by the EU legislation, to ensure its proper implementation. 
 
Welfare conditions of animals during transport resu lt from day-to-day conduct of the transporters. 
As transporters can freely operate in the EU, the Regulation sets a transparent and harmonised system for transporters' authorisations by the EU Member States' Competent Authorities. The EU 
Regulation sets therefore training as a prerequisite for any person handling animals during 
transport and sets a system of competence's certification.  
The harmonised EU licensing system allows all transporters travelling in the EU to operate with one 
single authorisation mutually recognised.  
The EU Commission is ready to promote cooperation with main trading partners on animal welfare 
to facilitate the implementation of standards as the ones on transport unanimously recognised by international organisations such as the OIE.  
3.55. p.45 
The EU does not maintain quantitative restrictions on imports from WTO Members and countries with which the EU has bilateral agreements. Import  quotas are applied to certain steel products 
from Kazakhstan, and certain textiles from Belarus and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. 
 Question: Nevertheless, we would like to highlight that according to our nuclear fuel exporters the 
EU implements quantitative restrictions on imports of low enriched uranium. The said restrictions 
were applied by undisclosed Corfu Declaration. In relation to LEU, only about 20 per cent of the EU market is allocated for import from the third coun tries. As it was mentioned in p.73 of the EU’s  
Regulation No 139/2004 of 6/10/2004 that the Corfu Declaration (paragraphs 121-140) “restricts 
the ability of European utilities to purchase materi al from Russia. The purpose of that Declaration 
is to ensure that Russian imports of LEU into th e Community should not result in an appreciable 
reduction in the market shares of the European producers which could affect their viability as 
suppliers.”  The measure is implemented through contract  approval system administered by the 
Euratom by the co-signature obligation.  
 
We draw the attention of the EU that the me asure above has never been notified to the 
WTO and is being implemented in not transp arent manner. The restrictions appear to 
have a trade-distortive impact on Russian LEU suppliers and we ask the EU side to WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 252 - 
 
  further elaborate on compatibility of the measure with its WTO obligations. Please 
explain the nature of this measure and the rationale behind it.  EU reply: Contrary to the allegations, the EU does not impose quantitative limitations in the trade 
of low enriched uranium (LEU).  
 The EU follows a common supply policy of nucle ar fuels implemented by the Euratom Supply 
Agency (ESA), under the supervision of the Co mmission. The Russian share of the EU uranium 
enrichment market has reached more than 40% in  recent years, proving that no quantitative 
restrictions are applied. On the other hand, the Russian nuclear fuel market still appears inaccessible for EU exports.  
 
The two attached graphs indicate the evolution of the various market shares for both natural 
uranium and enrichment services. 
 
Further information on the supply policy, its implementation and the EU nuclear fuel market statistics can be found in the ESA Annual Reports, available on the ESA website 
(http://ec.europa.eu/euratom/index.html). 
 
 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 253 - 
 
  
 
 
3.1.7.2 Anti-dumping and countervailing 
Paragraphs 3.63 – 3.79 p.47-50 
1. The said paragraphs describe the procedure of application of anti-dumping measures. At 
the same time it does not provide for detailed description of certain stages of this procedure, in 
particular, normal value calculation. 
 
The Russian Federation has posed several questions concerning this issue earlier, in 
particular with regard to the application of the so-called “cost adjustment methodology”. The 
following answer has been provided by th e EU in the document RD/TPR/192/Add.2.: 
 
“[I]t is important to describe the EU practice with regard to the determination of the 
normal value which has been consistently applied in all cases. First the investigating authority (the Commission) establishes if there are sufficient domestic sales of the product under investigation in 
the domestic market of the country concerned. If the reply is positive, the Commission passes to 
the second test which is to assess whether the domestic sales were made in ordinary course of trade. Accordingly, the Commission compares the domestic selling price to the total cost of 
production. Normally, cost of production is established based on the records kept by the parties 
subject to investigation. However, in case where the records do not reasonably reflect the cost of 
production, in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community ('the 
Basic Regulation') such records cannot serve as a basis for calculating normal value. Consequently, 
in such case the costs are adjusted or established on the basis of sources of information other than those records. That information may be taken from the costs incurred by other producers or 
exporters or, when that information is not available or cannot be used, any other reasonable 
source of information, including information from other representative markets. EU legislation, which is a basis of the methodology described above, has been duly notified to the WTO in 2002. 
It has been consistently applied ever since.” WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 254 - 
 
  Considering this answer, please clarify the following.  
a) What are the criteria for the investigating authority to determine whether the records 
“reasonably reflect” the costs of production? b) Is the EU of the view that the records which “reasonably reflect” the costs of production should 
contain “reasonable” costs and/or prices of inputs, otherwise such records cannot serve as a basis 
for normal value calculation? If the answer is positive, please provide the criteria for the investigating authority to determine whether the costs and/or prices of inputs are “reasonable”. c) While making clarifications of the issues mentioned above, please make references to the 
relevant published documents. If criteria for the above-referenced determinations are not provided 
for in any public documents (for example where decisions are made on a “case-by-case” basis), 
please explain how the EU ensures consistency of its approach in different investigations/reviews.  
 
EU replies to the three above questions: The issues covered under these questions are 
currently subject to Dispute Settlement Proceedings in the WTO – reference DS 474 and DS 494.  
The EU is confident that the approach followed in investigations is in line with its international 
obligations.  
2. In the context of normal value determinat ion Article 2.7(b) of the Basic Regulation 
introduces the notion of “non-market economy c o u n t r y  w h i c h  i s  a  m e m b e r  o f  t h e  W T O ”  a n d  
obligations for producers of such country to show , by corresponding to certain criteria listed in 
Article 2.7(c) of the Basic Regulation, that market conditions prevail for them.  
Moreover, the list of such countries (footnote 1 to Article 2.7(a) of the Basic Regulation) 
includes, for example, Armenia which market economy status has not been restricted or put into a question according to the terms of its WTO accession. It seems that the EU thus presumes that 
Armenia is a “non-market economy” subjecting its exporters in every anti-dumping investigation to 
an additional procedure of proving that market economy conditions prevail for them to be eligible for application of standard normal value calculation procedure.  
With this respect, we kindly ask the EU to clarify the following.  
a) Please provide the political rationale and legal grounds within the WTO Agreements for such “exceptional” treatment of Armenian exporters.  
 
EU reply: The rationale for the treatment of countries listed in Article 2(7), and the footnote to 
that Article, in the EU's Basic Anti-dumping Regulation, is that costs and prices in these countries 
are not always reliable and the result of market forces. State intervention in the economy in the 
countries distorts companies' costs and prices to such an extent that the latter cannot be used, as a rule, for the purpose of establishing normal value in anti-dumping proceedings.  
b) Please clarify whether exporters from each and every WTO Member are subject to the same 
“market economy conditions” test, as the Armenian exporters.  
 
EU reply: Article 2(7) of the EU's Basic Anti-dumping Regulation, and the footnote to that Article, 
lists the countries to which the provision applies.   c) Please explain with reference to all the relevant published documents, which are the conditions 
for a country to be included to or excluded fr om the footnote 1 to of the Basic Regulation). 
 EU reply: The Criteria to assess whether or not a country has reached market economy status 
are: 
 1. No state interference over the allocation of economic resources in the economy or 
decisions of companies. This could take the form of price fixing, obligations to produce for 
export, restrictions imposed on exports of raw materials or subsidies for industrial inputs. 
 2. Absence of state-induced distortions in the operation of enterprises linked to privatisation 
(i.e. “carry over” from the old system). Absence of use of non-market trading or 
compensation system (e.g. barter trade).  
 
3. Companies are subject to a transparent and ri gorous system of company law. This includes 
being subject to international accounting standards. 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 255 - 
 
  4. Respect of property rights including intellect ual property rights and a functioning bankruptcy 
 regime.   5. The financial sector operates free from state control and is governed by commercial 
standards in terms of the cost of credit.  
 To be granted MES, the applicant country must show that it meets all the five criteria.  Once the 
criteria have been met a legislative amendment to  the EU's Basic Regulation is required. This 
follows the normal legislative procedure in the EU.  
 3. Please clarify the mechanism of registra tion of imports provided in Article 14(5)  of the Basic  
Regulation that is used for the purposes of, inter alia, retroactive application of anti-dumping 
duties (Article 10.4 of the Basic Regulation).  
EU reply: Imports of a product concerned by an AD investigation may be made subject to 
registration in the circumstances described in Article 14(5). Once the Commission is satisfied that the conditions for registration are met, and after informing the Member States, an instruction is 
issued to the Customs authorities of the EU to pr oceed with the registration of imports.  This 
instruction is done by way of a Commission Regulation.   4. Does the Commission use any specific methodology for determining whether the criteria for the 
application of anti-dumping measure 90 days prior to the date of application of provisional 
measure are fulfilled?  
EU reply: The Commission examines whether the requirements as set out under Article 10(4)(a) 
and (b) are met on the basis of the information av ailable in the context of the investigation, if 
relevant.  
 
5. The Secretariat’s report identifies the measures  imposed as a result of the anti-circumvention 
review pursuant to Article 13 of the basic Regulati on. Please clarify whether the standard of injury 
specified in the Anti-Dumping Agreement differs from  the standard used for injury determination in 
cases of circumvention of anti-dumping measure. Which factors does the investigating authority 
consider in order to determine whether the remedial effects of the duty are being undermined?  
EU reply: In anti-circumvention investigations the Commission examines whether there is 
evidence of injury or that the remedial effects of the duty are being undermined. Factors that are 
considered in the assessment whether or not the remedial effects of the duty are being 
undermined are the prices and/or quantities of the like product which is exported to the EU. 
 3.1.7.3 Safeguards  
The Russian Federation would like to get some clarifications with respect to the EU Council 
Regulation No 625/2009 of 7 July 2009 «On common rules for imports from certain third countries» (the «Regulation»).  
 
1) Please, explain within which provisions of the WTO Agreements do «surveillance», «safeguard» and other measures under this regulation fall. In particular, how do the so-called «safeguard» 
measures relate to the provisions of Article XIX of GATT-94 and the WTO Agreement on 
Safeguards? 2) In particular, what does «production of an impo rt authorization» (Article 15.1 of the Regulation) 
imply and which provisions of the WTO Agreements do authorize its application? 
3) Could you please describe what is the nature of the measures which may be imposed under the 
Regulation and describe the forms in which they may be applied? Appendix 1 of the Regulation contains the list of countries, which the measures under this Regulation may be applied against. 
Armenia, Russia and Vietnam are among them. Why does this list contain only these WTO 
Members? What kind of criteria did the EU use to choose these countries? 4) Does the EU have any plans to modify, amend or withdraw the Regulation, including the list of 
countries which its provisions are applicable to? More specifically, when will the EU exclude the 
Russian Federation from the application of this Regulation? 5) Please, provide the list of measures being no w implemented under the Regulation by the EU. 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 256 - 
 
  EU replies to the five above questions:  As these questions relate to an EU Regulation which 
concerns non-WTO countries only, the EU considers that this Regulation does not fall under the scope of the WTO TPR exercise.   
The list of countries contained in the Annex 1 referred to dates from 5 February 2009. The 
countries which have joined the WTO since that date were removed from Annex 1 with the most recent “recast” exercise (please refer to the current version of the Regulation (EU) No 2015/755
84 
published on 19 May 2015).  
 During the period when Russia was still mentioned in the annex of Council Regulation (EC) No 625/2009 while it was already a member of the WTO, no proceedings were initiated or concluded 
under this Regulation. 
 3.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade 
3.3.1 Subsidies  
 
Section 3.3.1 of the Report by the Secret ariat describes the EU industrial support 
measures. In this respect the Russian Federation is concerned about the Directive 2009/28/EC of 
the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 “On the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directive 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC” ( the “Directive”). In our understanding, the general objectives of this Directive 
are (a) to increase the share of energy from rene wable sources in the EU gross final consumption, 
and (b) to reduce dependence of the EU on energy  import (i.e. to reduce imports of traditional 
energy goods). According to Article 3(1) of the Di rective the EU Member States shall ensure that 
the shares of energy from renewable sources in their gross final consumption of energy achieve 
their respective national targets. For this purpose different support schemes are allowed. 
For example, the key tasks of the Republic of Lithuania Law of 12 May 2011 “On energy 
from renewable sources” are (a) to ensure that the share of energy from renewable sources 
accounts for at least 23 per cent by 2020, and (b) to reduce the country’s dependence on fossil energy import.  
Against this background we kindly as k the EU to clarify the following.  
 
1) We doubt that these measures are fully consistent with the EU and its Member States obligations under Articles III and XI of the GATT-94  and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on subsidies 
and countervailing measures. If the EU doesn’t share this view, please provide the relevant 
explanations.   
EU reply:  The EU sees no reason why measures taken under the Directive 2009/28/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 23 Ap ril 2009 “On the promotion of the use of energy 
from renewable sources and amending and su bsequently repealing Directive 2001/77/EC and 
2003/30/EC” would be incompatible with the WTO provisions cited by the Russian Federation. 
 
2) Having examined the latest new and full notifications of the EU, we found that only a minor number of subsidies granted on central and regional levels were notified. For example, we did not 
find notifications of some subsidies granted by Au stria, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Great Britain, 
Denmark, Luxemburg, Italy, Ireland, Slovenia, France, Finland, Portugal, the Netherlands and 
other Member States. Please, explain how the non-no tification of the renewable energy support by 
the EU is consistent with its transparency obligations under Article 25 of the Agreement on 
subsidies and countervailing measures and whether and when the EU is going to fill these gaps in its notifications?   
 
EU reply:  The issue raised is currently the subject of a written question posed by the Russian 
Federation to the EU in the framework of reviewing subsidy notifications in the ASCM Committee meeting in Geneva (G/ASM/Q2/EU/44). The reply is being co-ordinated with the EU Member States 
concerned and a reply will be transmitted to the Russian Federation in that context as soon as 
possible.  
 
3) Please, describe the plans of the EU and its Member States regarding the continuation and 
degree of support of the renewable energy sector until 2020.  
                                               
84 Regulation (EU) No. 2015/755 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 123, 19.5.2015, 
p.33. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 257 - 
 
  EU reply:  The Renewable Energy Directive foresees that Member States may use support schemes 
to reach their 2020 renewable energy targets. The nature and design of these support schemes is 
determined by the EU Member States. Member States' plans concerning renewable energy support schemes are reported to the Commission on a biannual basis and may be found on the 
Commission's website ( https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy/progress-
reports ). The Renewable Energy Directive is not expected to be revised before 2020.  
 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.1 Introduction 4.7. p.119 Fisheries, environmental services, transport servic es, and pipelines services were comprehensively 
covered in the previous Review and are not incl uded in this Section. For fisheries, the EU 
introduced a reform of the Common Market Orga nization from January 2014 through Regulation 
(EU) No.1379/2013 repealing Regulation (EC) No. 104/2000 which will be covered in the next 
Review. 
 Section 4 “Trade policies by Sector” of the Report by the Secretariat (document No. WT/TPR/S/317 
of 18 May 2015) selectively covers agriculture, fi nancial services, telecommunications, distribution 
services, and audiovisual services. At that, it is  indicated in paragraph 4.7 of the Report that 
”pipelines services were comprehensively covered in the previous Review and are not included in 
this Section”. However, the previous Report by the Secretariat (document No. WT/TPR/S/284 of 28 
May 2013, Section 4.3.4 “pipeline services”) did not substantially reflect issues related to the 
”Third energy package”. Thus, the Russian Federation kindly asks to provide answers for the following questions on this measure, which are not covered by the Report of the Secretariat 
(document No. WT/TPR/S/317 of 18 May 2015, paragraph 4.7):  
 Questions:   
1) The relevant EU Directives provide for three options for compliance with the unbundling 
requirement (i.e. OU, TSO, ISO). These options are of different degree of restrictiveness. How does this measure comply with GATS Article II?   
2) The relevant EU Directives provide for discretio n of the regulator to grant exemptions from the 
unbundling requirements to certain types of infras tructure. How is this measure compatible with 
GATS Article II?  
 
3) The requirements for certification of the TS Os with foreign capital provide for different 
treatment depending on the country of origin of such capital. How do these certification 
requirements comply with GATS Article II?  
 4) Taking into account that the EU has undertaken specific commitments as regards Wholesale Trade Services (CPC 622) and Storage and Warehous e Services (CPC 742) (other than in ports) 
and the relevant EU Directives affect both of these sectors; the fact that the relevant EU Directives 
are applied differently in different part of the EU  territory; the fact that the claimed goal of the 
liberalization of the energy market could be achieved in a manner less onerous for foreign service 
providers; the high level of discretion and lack of objective criteria for granting exemptions as well 
as certification of TSOs with foreign capital, how do the relevant EU Directives comply with the requirement of GATS Articles VI:1, VI:4 and, in  particular, Articles VI:4(a), VI:4(b) and VI:5?   
 
5) The EU's Specific Commitments do not provide for possibility either to apply restrictions in 
respect of acquisition of real estate, or to impose any additional requirements in respect of the suppliers of services through commercial presence such as those provided for in the Third Energy 
Package. How do the relevant EU Directives comply with the EU's Specific Commitments?  
 6) Provided that some EU Member States undertook specific commitments under GATS Article XVI 
to accord services and service suppliers of any other WTO Member treatment no less favourable 
than that provided for in their Schedules in resp ect of pipeline transport services and, how the 
unbundling measures, as implemented in the laws of such Member States, are compatible with 
these Members’ market access obligations under GATS Article XVI:1?   
 EU replies to the above six questions:  Given that questions 25 to 30 are related to a pending 
panel procedure at the WTO, the European Commission cannot reply in substance to these 
questions. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 258 - 
 
  4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.2 Agriculture 4.2.3.1 Domestic support 4.2.3.1.1 Direct payments 
4.22. p. 125 
Under the BPS, eligible farmers must hold enti tlements and activate them on a corresponding 
number of eligible hectares to receive payments. As a general rule, only those farmers who were 
entitled to receive direct payments in 2013 would be allocated entitlements in 2015. However, 
other groups of farmers may be allocated entitlements, such as farmers starting agricultural activity and young farmers. A member State may also decide to limit the number of entitlements to be allocated, for example by limiting the number of entitlements allocated to a farmer as the 
lesser of the number of eligible hectares in 2013 and 2015. 
 Question: Please further elaborate on the conditions for participation of young farmers in direct 
payments allocation. As it is known, the farmers are supposed to prove the use of appropriate area 
of farmland to claim the annual subsidy payment, and under the condition that the said land is 
kept in good agricultural and environmental condition.  In this context, what are the requirements 
for the “beginners” to receive payments other than confidence from the authorities?   
 EU reply:  Payment entitlements under the basic payment scheme are allocated only for eligible 
hectares (either used for production or maintained in a state suitable for grazing or cultivation 
without preparatory action going beyond usual agricultural methods and machinery) and payment 
to farmer is granted upon activation of paymen t entitlements and declaration of a corresponding 
number of eligible hectares. This applies to all beneficiaries, including young and new farmers. 
 
In addition, young farmers need to fulfill certain conditions. In summary, a young farmer is farmer not older than 40 years of age in the year of submitting his first application for direct payments 
and for the first time setting up an agricultural ho lding as head of the holding (the setting up may 
have taken place either in the year of application or in the period during the preceding five years). 
Member States could also set additional requirements linked to skills and/or training that young farmers need to fulfill to qualify for payments.  
 
Also farmers commencing their agricultural activity have to fulfill certain conditions. Generally, such farmers are those who commenced their agricultural activity in calendar year 2013 or later. 
Similar as for young farmers, Member States may ask for appropriate skills, experience or 
education.  
All these conditions are subject to controls in th e framework of the Integrated Administration and 
Control System (IACS).  4.2.3.1.2 Internal market support measures 
4.37 p. 129 
For measures to address foot-and-mouth disease th e EU is to provide 60% of the total funds, for 
other measures relating to disease control or loss of consumer confidence due to public, animal or 
plant health risks the EU is to provide 50%. Other measures which may be taken to react to 
severe imbalance in markets include intervening in the market to reduce supply (market withdrawal, private storage, production planning), divert production (transformation, and 
processing), increase consumption (free dist ribution, and promotion), address consumer 
confidence (quality requirements), and measures to  address the spread of pests and diseases or 
the effects of natural disasters.  
4.38 p. 129 
In addition to the general rules on crisis management, specific rules also apply in the event of crises in the fruit and vegetables, and wine sectors. 
 
Question: Please elaborate on the conditions and the ge neral rules of the application of the said 
crisis management in the EU’s agriculture and other measures, which may be taken under this 
mechanism?  
 EU reply: The crisis reserve is established at the beginning of each year by reducing direct 
payments (through the financial discipline mechanism). It is intended to provide additional 
financial means for measures that address crises affecting agricultural markets. The measures that WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 259 - 
 
  can be financed through the crisis reserve include market support measures, exceptional measures 
and export subsidies.  The European Commission has implementing powers to adopt measures in response to market 
disturbances and so the European Commission is responsible to determine what constitutes a 
crisis. The European Commission's decisions are subject to judicial review. If the European Commission considers that the aforementioned measures cannot be financed from the available 
appropriations within the budget agreed for the European Agriculture and Guarantee Fund, it 
presents a proposal to the European Parliament and to the European Council (the 'Budget Authority') for a transfer from the reserve to th e budget lines financing the measures it considers 
necessary. As such, the use of the crisis reserv e requires a decision by the Budget Authority. 
 
For further information see Article 226 of Regulati on (EU) No 1308/2013, Article 25 of Regulation 
(EU) No 1306/2013, and point 22 of the Inter institutional Agreement of 2 December 2013 
between the European Parliament, the Council an d the Commission on budgetary discipline, on 
cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management.  
4 Developments in selected sectors 
4.1 Agriculture 4.2.3.2 Export subsidies 4.50 p.132 
The last notification on export subsidies from  the EU is for the marketing year 2012/13 which 
indicated that the use of export subsidies had co ntinued to decline in terms of both the budget 
allocation and the product coverage with poultry meat accounting for nearly all spending 
(€55.3 million out of a total of €59.05 million). As noted in the notification, 1.35 million tonnes of 
sugar was exported which did not receive any export refunds but, as this is production in excess of the quota, has been deemed to be a subsidized export. 
 
4.51 p.132 In July 2013, all export subsidy rates were set at zero, and the new rules on the Common Organization of Markets state that "without prejudice to the application of exceptional measures, 
the [export] refund available should be zero"  where the exceptional measures which might include 
export refunds are "significant price rises or falls on internal or external markets or other events 
and circumstances significantly disturbing or threatening to disturb the market, where that 
situation, or its effects on the market, is likely to continue or deteriorate"; and "emergency 
measures to resolve specific problems".  
We draw the EU’s attention that there is no definition for export subsidies in the CAP.  
 Questions:  1) Is there any other documents managing “export subsidies”? 
 
EU reply: The legal bases for export refunds (which is the EU legal terminology for export 
subsidies) are contained at Part III, Chapter VI of Regulation 1308/2013 and its delegated and 
implemented acts. 
 2) Could you please clarify does the term “export subsidies” mean only “export refunds” or there 
are other methods to subsidize export directly other than export refunds? 
 EU reply: "Export refunds" is the EU legal terminology for "export subsidies" in the sense of the 
WTO Agreement on Agriculture. No other direct export subsidizing methods are applied by the EU 
 
3) As far as we understand export refunds were fixed at zero, but in case of significant price rises or falls on internal or external markets they might be higher. Is it correct? 
 
EU reply: According to the new CAP rules, export subsidies cannot be used other than as an 
exceptional measure in cases of market disturbance. Significant price rises or falls on internal or 
external markets are some of the factors which may be taken into account.  
 4) The latest publication (that we dispose) concerning export refunds was made in 2013 (the information dated 2012) – “Agriculture in the European Union. Statistical and Economic WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 260 - 
 
  Information. Report 2013”. Is there any statisti cal information about export refunds, which was 
published after the CAP-2013 came into force (Regulation (EU) № 1308/2013)? 
 EU reply: The EU submits notifications (ES:1) to the WT O on the use of export subsidies. The last 
ES:1 notification submitted by the EU covers ma rketing year 2013-2014, which is the most recent 
data available. The marketing year 2014-2015 is  still ongoing for some products. No export 
refunds for agriculture products have been granted since July 2013.  
 
4.2.3.3.Market access 4.54 p.132 As in the previous Review, the EU notified 112 separate tariff quotas as being in operation in 
marketing year 2011/12 and calendar year 2012. Fill rates for these quotas vary considerably from 
0 to 100%, although an average fill rate is not very meaningful given the big differences in quota sizes and values. However, the majority of quotas are not filled. 
 
Question:  According to the Secretariat report “the majority of quotas are not filled". Does it mean 
that these particular tariff quotas are excessive? Furthermore, according to Article XIII 2 (b) GATT 
if quotas are not practicable, the restrictions may be applied by means of import licenses or 
permits instead of quotas. Does the EU consider this alternative?  
 EU reply: The EU tariff rate quotas results from the Uruguay Round negotiations or from Article 
XXIV:6 GATT negotiations or from Article XXVIII GA TT negotiations. Therefore the EU fails to see 
how these quotas could be excessive, or not practi cable. On this basis, the EU does not see the 
need to consider other alternatives to the existing quota system as described above. 
 
4.3 Services 4.3.1 Telecommunications services 
4.76.  p. 142 
On 11 September 2013, the Commission presented its "connected continent legislative package", composed of two elements: on the one hand a proposal "for a regulation of the Council laying down measures concerning the European single market for electronic communications and to 
achieve a connected continent" (COM (2013) 627 final) and, on the other, a Recommendation "on 
Costing Methodologies and Non-Discrimination" (see above). Upon their presentation, the Commission deemed these proposals to be the "most ambitious plan in 26 years of telecoms' 
market reform" and estimated the macroeconomic gains of a real single telecom market to an 
annual boost of 0.9% to GDP i.e. the biggest sing le EU-wide macroeconomic boost available in the 
next few years. The European Parliament adopted its First Reading Resolution on 3 April 2014 with 
a number of amendments. As at end-March 2015, discussions in the Council were ongoing. 
 4.85.  p. 143 
Finally the last major element of the draft regu lation is constituted by provisions aimed at 
preserving an "open internet". To address this question at the EU level the Commission suggests 
that blocking and throttling of internet content should be banned, giving users access to the full and open internet regardless of the cost or speed of their internet subscription. 
 
Question: The paragraph 4.76. describes the "Connected  Continent" draft legislative package, 
which was presented by the European Commission as the "most ambitious plan in 26 years of 
telecoms' market reform". One of the elements of th e draft regulation in question is constituted by 
provisions aimed at preserving an “open internet”. The Report by the Secretariat states that “the Commission suggests that blocking and throttling of internet content should be banned, giving users access to the full and open internet” (parag raph 4.85). Could the EU explain how it intends 
to address IPR protection in the framework of this legislative package?  
 EU reply: IPR enforcement is one the key priorities of  the European Commission as described in 
the WTO Secretariat report (Section 3.3.6.3). The Action Plan on enforcement of IPR adopted on 
1st July 2014 foresees a number of non-legislative measures aimed at addressing commercial scale infringements. Action 3, also called the Follow the Money strategy, aims at reducing the 
revenues of commercial scale IP infringers, by reducing advertising revenues for websites 
dedicated to the infringement of IPR. To this extent, the Commission will facilitate Stakeholder Dialogues and Memorandum of Understandings involving advertising payment service providers and payment service providers. In this manner the Commission seeks to dissuade commercial WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 261 - 
 
  scale IP infringing activities on-line that undermi ne trust, investment and growth of the digital 
Single Market.  
 
4.3.2 Audiovisual services 
4.3.2.2 Regulatory regime 4.93. p.147 
For linear services, Articles 16 and 17 of the Directive require that the majority of transmission 
time shall be reserved, where practicable, for Euro pean works and that broadcasters shall reserve, 
where practicable, 10% of their transmission ti me or programming budget to European works 
produced by independent producers. On the other hand, for non-linear services, Article 13 of the 
Directive leaves a wider discretion to member States on how to promote European works. They can, for instance, introduce measures regarding the share of European works in catalogues, measures to ensure the prominence of such works,  or impose a financial contribution on video-on-
demand service providers for the production and righ ts acquisition of such works. Article 4 of the 
Directive also allows member States to implement more detailed or stricter rules in the fields coordinated by the AVMSD on media service providers under their jurisdiction, provided those 
rules are consistent with the general principles of European Union law. 
 Question:  The EU Directive on Audiovisual Media Se rvices (AVMSD) codified in 2010 sets a 
national content quota for linear services, and requires member States to ensure that video-on-
demand services encourage national production. A minimum level of 10 % for transmission time or 
programming budget to European works produced by independent producers is in effect. Some EU members continue to apply the EU Broadcast Directive in a more restrictive manner. France’s 
legislation, implies that 60 percent of programming be EU and 40 percent French language. These 
requirements exceed those of the Broadcast Directiv e. Does the EU intends to further maintain the 
regulation in this sphere? In what way local content requirement influence the competitiveness of 
European audiovisual products? How does this measure correspond with the EU’s WTO obligations?  
 EU Reply: Article 16, paragraph (1) of the AVMSD provides that “Member States shall ensure, 
where practicable and by appropriate means, that broadcasters reserve for European works a 
majority proportion of their transmission time, excluding the time allotted to news, sports events, 
games, advertising, teletext services and teleshopping.[...]» (emphasis added).  
While Article 17 indicates «Member States shall ensure, where practicable and by appropriate 
means, that broadcasters reserve at least 10 % of their transmission time, excluding the time allotted to news, sports events, games, advertis ing, teletext services and teleshopping, or 
alternately, at the discretion of the Member State, at least 10 % of their programming budget, for 
European works created by producers who are independent of broadcasters. [...]»  
In accordance with Article 4(1) of the AVMSD, "Member States shall remain free to require media 
service providers under their jurisdiction to comply with more detailed or stricter rules in the fields coordinated by this Directive provided that such rules are in compliance with Union law."  
There is no 'national content quota' at European level and more detailed rules at national level in 
this respect can only be based on language requirements and not on nationality criteria. 
 
Thus, the conditions alleged in the question are in line with the provisions of the AVMSD.  
The provisions in the AVMSD concerning the prom otion of European works aim at protecting and 
promoting cultural diversity, in accordance with EU obligations under the Treaty of the Functioning 
of the European Union and the 2005 UNESCO Conv ention. They do not prevent EU audiovisual 
markets from being widely open to productions originating outside the EU.  As regards WTO obligations, the EU has made no commitments in the audiovisual field. 
 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.2.6 Diplomatic measures 3.137. p.63 
All EU restrictive measures can be found on th e EEAS webpage. All measures and regulations are 
published in the Official Journal of the EU. Accord ing to the Commission, during the review period, 
the EU adopted new measures but has also reduced the scope of existing sanctions: 
• new measures adopted (in the sense that the geographical coverage is affected): WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 262 - 
 
   Central African Republic (December 2013) (UN based135): embargo on 
arms and related materiel; ban on provision of certain services (financial 
technical assistance transport related to arms); and the legal framework for an asset freeze (although no persons are specifically listed yet); 
 Yemen (December 2014) (UN based136): asset freeze and visa ban; 
 Ukraine: restrictive measures in response to events in Crimea and 
Sevastopol (import embargo, investment ban, export restrictions, prohibition of services relating to infrastructure and the tourism sector) 
(since June 2014); restrictive measures in respect of actions relating to 
Ukraine (asset freeze) (since March 2014); freezing of funds and economic resources of certain persons (since March 2014);  
 and the Russian Federation (since July 2014): embargo on arms and 
related materiel; embargo on dual-use goods and technology if intended 
for military use or for a military end-user; ban on imports of arms and related materiel; ban on provision of certain services related to arms and 
related material; ban on provision of certain services related to dual -use 
goods and technology; (deep water, Arctic and shaleoil-related) controls on export of certain equipment for the oil industry; controls on provision of 
certain related services etc; 
As regards mentioned in the said paragrap h restrictive measures the questions below 
relate to the following lega l acts adopted by the EU: 
- Council Regulation No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014; 
- Council Decision No 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014; 
- Council Regulation No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 with all its modifications; 
- Council Decision No 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 with all its modifications; 
- Council Regulation No 692/2014 of 23 June 2014; 
- Council Decision No 2014/386/CFSP of 23 June 2014 with all its modifications; 
- Council Regulation No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014; 
- Council Decision No 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014; 
- Council Regulation No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 with all its modifications; 
- Council Decision No 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 
- and other related acts of the EU.  
Question 1:  In accordance with mentioned legal acts of the EU funds and economic resources of 
certain natural and legal persons, including those of the Russian Federation are frozen; access to 
the capital markets for affected persons, including certain Russian financial institutions, is 
restricted; the supply of brokering services in connection with the goods and technologies included 
in the list adopted and maintained by the EU is pr ohibited; admission of certain natural persons to 
the territory of the EU, including their entry and transit is prohibited.  
 
Please explain the nature of these measures and rationality behind it.   EU reply : Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP and Council  Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 contain 
restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in 
Ukraine and provide for the freezing of funds and ec onomic resources of certain persons identified 
as responsible for the misappropriation of Ukrainian State funds and persons responsible for 
human rights violations in Ukraine, and natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with 
them, with a view to consolidating and supporting the rule of law and respect for human rights in 
Ukraine. The criteria for imposing restrictive measures is contained in the legal act. 
 
Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 contain restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine and provides for trav el restrictions and the freezing of funds and 
economic resources of certain persons responsible for actions which undermine or threaten the 
territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. The criteria for imposing restrictive measures is contained in the legal act. 
 
Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP and Council Regulation No 833/2014 contain restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, with a view to increasing the costs WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 263 - 
 
  of Russia's actions to undermine Ukraine's territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence and 
to promoting a peaceful settlement of the crisis. The recitals of the legal acts provide detailed ex planation of the nature and rationality of the 
measures.  
 
Further information on these measures can be found on the following website: http://europa.eu/newsroom/highlights/specia l-coverage/eu_sanctions/index_en.htm#3. 
 
Please explain the criteria used for the inclusion of certain Russian natural and legal persons on the List of persons to which this measure is applied.   
EU reply : The criteria are set out in the legal acts and were communicated by the Council to the 
natural and legal persons subject to designation. In particular, the following Articles refer to the criteria: 
 
 Article 1 of Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP and Article 3 of Council Regulation (EU) No 
208/2014  
 Article 1 of Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Article 3 of Council Regulation (EU) No 
269/2014 
This measure is applied only in respect of Russian services suppliers, to this extent, please explain, 
how this measure complies with the requirements of GATS Article II.  
 EU reply : When adopting this measure, the EU duly took into account its WTO obligations and 
considers that the measure fully complies with these obligations. 
 
The measure prohibits the commercial presence of Ru ssian services suppliers included on the List 
within the territory of the EU to supply services  in the sectors in which the EU has undertaken 
specific commitments, to this extent, please explain, how this measure complies with the 
requirements of GATS Articles XVI and XVII.   
EU reply : When adopting this measure, the EU duly took into account its WTO obligations and 
considers that the measure fully complies with these obligations.  Taking into account that the EU has undertaken specific commitments in a number of sectors, 
please explain, how this measure complies with the GATS Articles XI, XVI and XVII when applied 
to the services sector where the EU has undertaken specific commitments?   
EU reply : When adopting this measure, the EU duly took into account its WTO obligations and 
considers that the measure fully complies with these obligations.  
Question 2:  The EU imposes certain measures affecting also trade in goods between the Russian 
Federation and the EU, in particular, though not excl usively, prohibition to sell, supply, transfer or 
export, directly or indirectly, to the Russian Fede ration certain goods and technologies included in 
the list adopted and maintained by the EU; prior authorization for the sale, supply, transfer or 
exports, directly or indirectly, to the Russian Fede ration of certain goods and technologies included 
in the list adopted and maintained by the EU; proh ibition to import, purchase or transport certain 
goods included in the list adopted and maintained  by the EU from Russia by nationals of the EU 
Member States or using their flag vessels or aircraft; prohibition of technical assistance, financial 
assistance and brokering services related to certain goods included in the list adopted and maintained by the EU. 
 
Please explain the nature of this measure and rationality behind it.   EU reply : Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP and Council Regulation No 833/2014 contains 
restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, with a view 
to increasing the costs of Russia's actions to undermine Ukraine's territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence and to promoting a peaceful settl ement of the crisis. The recitals of the legal 
acts provide detailed explanation of the nature and rationality of the measures. Further 
information on these measures can be found on the following website: http://europa.eu/newsroom/highlights/special-coverage/eu_sanctions/index_en.htm#3 . 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 264 - 
 
  This measure is applied only in respect of goods destined to the territory of the Russian 
Federation, please explain how this measure complies with GATT Article I.   
 EU reply : When adopting this measure, the EU duly took into account its WTO obligations and 
considers that the measure fully complies with these obligations. 
 This measures fails to provide to the goods originating in the Russian Federation treatment no less 
favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin in respect of all laws, regulations 
and requirements affecting their internal sale, of fering for sale, purchase, distribution or use, 
please explain how this measure complies with GATT Article III.   
EU reply : When adopting this measure, the EU duly took into account its WTO obligations and 
considers that the measure fully complies with these obligations.  
This measure is a restriction on transit of certain goods from the territory of the EU when they are 
destined to the territory of the Russian Federation, please explain how this measure complies with GATT Article V.  
 
EU reply : When adopting this measure, the EU duly took into account its WTO obligations and 
considers that the measure fully complies with these obligations.  
The criteria for subjecting particular goods to the restrictions in question are partial, non-
transparent, politically motivated, and applie d arbitrarily, please explain how this measure 
complies with GATT Article X. 
 
EU reply : When adopting this measure, the EU duly took into account its WTO obligations and 
considers that the measure fully complies with these obligations. 
 
This measure is a restriction on exports of certain goods from the territory of the EU, please explain how this measure complies with GATT Article XI.   
EU reply : When adopting this measure, the EU duly took into account its WTO obligations and 
considers that the measure fully complies with these obligations.  
In respect of all measures mentioned above: 
 Does the EU apply measures that are similar to any of the measures described above in respect of 
any other WTO Member? If yes, please explain th e reasons for applying such measures to other 
WTO Members and indicate legal acts according to which such measures are applied?  EU reply to the above questions : As explained in the WTO Secretariat report, all EU restrictive 
measures can be found on the EEAS webpage. All measures and regulations are published in the 
Official Journal of the EU. The legal basis and rati onale for the measures are explained in the legal 
acts at issue. 
 
Have all of the mentioned measures of the EU refe rred to above been notified to the WTO? If no, 
please explain, why?  
 
EU reply : The EU is currently reviewing the matter of notification. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 265 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM COSTA RICA 
 TRADE IN SERVICES  Page 10 (paragraph 3.10) 
 
3.19. En mayo de 2014 la UE adoptó una Directiva sobre los traslados intraempresariales en la que se establece un atractivo sistema para la armonización de las condiciones de entrada, residencia y 
movilidad dentro de la UE de trabajadores nacionales de terceros países (directivos, especialistas y 
titulados universitarios en formación) destinados por un grupo de empresas establecidas fuera de la UE a una entidad del mismo grupo establecida en el territorio de la UE por un período de hasta tres años (un año en el caso del personal en formación). La Directiva sustituirá a los sistemas 
nacionales para la admisión de especialistas, directivos y personal en formación (definidos en la 
Directiva).  
Questions: 
 
1. Costa Rica sees in a very positive light the efforts undertaken by the EU towards harmonization. 
Can the EU provide further information on the new harmonized system and how it is being 
implemented, as well as the timeframe for such implementation.   2. Will the system require recognition of professional qualifications to intracorporate transferees?  
 
EU reply to the two questions above: The EU-wide scheme for the admission and mobility of 
intra-corporate transferees will be implemente d by November 2016. All EU Member States — 
except the UK, Ireland and Denmark — are bound by it. Applicants will have to provide evidence 
that the transferee has the profe ssional qualifications needed in  the host entity. The practical 
application of this requirement may differ between EU Member States. Such evidence will not have to be provided for any subsequent mobility by th e transferee within the EU, as it is deemed to 
have been verified by the first Member State to which admission was sought. 
 
As stated in the recently adopted European Ag enda on Migration (COM(2015)240), the European 
Commission will assess possible ways to provide legal certainty to well-trained, highly-skilled 
foreign professionals who need to travel to the EU for short periods in order to provide services to 
businesses or governments  
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 
Report by the Secretariat Page 117 (paragraph 3.274)  
3.274. En una sentencia en un procedimiento prejudicial publicada el 18 de diciembre de 2014247, 
e l T J UE tuvo la op ortunid ad  d e ac larar más  la p ate ntab il id ad  de  mate riale s  vivos , e n e s te  c aso células madre embrionarias humanas de conformidad con la Directiva 98/44/CE. El Tribunal, 
respetando el planteamiento propuesto por el Abog ado General en sus conclusiones de 17 de julio 
de 2014248 consideró que los óvulos humanos no  fecundados que, mediante partenogénesis, 
habían sido estimulados para dividirse y desarrollarse pero que, a falta de ADN paterno, no podían 
desarrollarse para convertirse en un ser humano no constituían un embrión humano en el sentido 
del artículo 6, apartado 2, letra c) de la Directiva 98/44/CE; por lo tanto, no podía excluirse automáticamente que los partenotes fuesen patentables. De este modo, el Tribunal matizaba su anterior sentencia en el asunto Oliver Brüstle c. Greenpeace e.V. (asunto C-34/10) en la que 
definía el concepto de "embrión humano" en un sentido amplio. Gracias a esta importante 
aclaración, se espera que resulte patentable en la UE más tecnología relacionada con células madre. 
 
Questions: 
 
1. Can the EU please provide further information on policies regarding patentability of stem cell 
technology and indicate if there are plans to specifically regulate the investigation of this technology through a directive?   
EU reply:  In the context of Article 16 of the Dire ctive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of 
biotechnological inventions (the 'Biotech Directive'), the Commission established in November 2012 an expert group on the development and implications of patent law in the field of WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 266 - 
 
  biotechnology and genetic engineering (the 'Expert Group'). The Expert Group started its work in 
December 2013. It is set to provide the Commission with analyses and position papers on issues considered of relevance for the application of the Biotech Directive. The Expert Group analyses inter alia different methods for deriving the human embryonic stem cells with the special focus on 
the destructive and non-destructive use of an em bryo from the patent perspective. Publicly 
available information on the composition and the work of the Group can be found at the following address: 
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/ind ex.cfm?do=groupDetail. groupDetail&groupID=297
3&NewSearch=1&NewSearch=1  
 
Page 125 (paragraph 3.298.) 
 3.298. En lo que respecta a la protección de las indicaciones geográficas de productos no agrícolas, 15 Estados miembros cuentan con sistemas específicos de protección. Estos sistemas 
adoptan diversas formas, desde reglamentaciones regionales o nacionales relativas a 
determinadas artesanías (por ejemplo, cerámica) o a todos los productos no agrícolas hasta legislación relativa a productos específicos (por ejemplo, cuchillos de Solingen). La Comisión, 
reconociendo la fragmentación actual del marco jurídico y del impacto potencialmente negativo 
sobre el funcionamiento del mercado interior de la Unión, había ya anunciado en su estrategia de 2011 para Europa con respecto a los DPI293 su intención de realizar un análisis profundo del marco jurídico vigente de protección de las indicaciones geográficas de productos no agrícolas de 
los Estados miembros de la UE, y sus repercusiones en el mercado de la Unión. Posteriormente, la 
Comisión publicó en marzo de 2013 un estudio exterior
294, en el que se concluía que los 
instrumentos jurídicos vigentes de que disponían los productores a escala nacional y europea no 
eran suficientes. Después de una audiencia pública celebrada en abril de 2013, la Comisión 
publicó, el 15 de julio de 2014, un Libro Verde titulado "Aprovechar al máximo los conocimientos técnicos europeos: posible ampliación de la protección de las indicaciones geográficas de la Unión 
Europea a productos no agrícolas".
295 Entre julio y octubre de 2014 se celebraron consultas 
públicas, cuyos resultados iniciales se presentaron y volvieron a debatir en una conferencia organizada por la Comisión en enero de 2015. La Comisión, basándose en los resultados de estas consultas públicas, sobre las que debía publicarse un informe detallado en el primer trimestre de 
2015, así como en las opiniones emitidas por otras instituciones de la UE, decidirá cómo seguir 
desarrollando este proyecto.  
Questions: 
 
1. Can the EU please provide further information on how will it continue developing the project for the protection of non-agricultural GIs?  
 
EU reply:  The Commission has not yet decided whether and how to create a system of 
geographical indication (GI) protection for non-agricultural products at European Union level. Such a decision will be made in due time on the basi s of the results of the public consultation, the 
opinion of the European Economic and Social Co mmittee and of the Committee of the Regions, as 
well as the European Parliament's upcoming own initiative report on the Green Paper “ Making the 
most out of Europe’s traditional know-how: a possible extension of geographical indication 
protection of the European Union to non-agricultural products ” which is envisaged for summer 
2015.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 267 - 
 
  RESPUESTAS A LAS PREGUNTAS DE CHILE 
 Documentos: WT/TPR/G/317 y WT/TPR/S/317  
Informe de la Secretaría 
 I. En relación con el párrafo 3. 3.6.2.5 Indicaciones geográficas, 
Pregunta 1) Chile agradecería mayor información en torno a la forma en la que los distintos 
regímenes de protección que conviven al interior de la UE coexisten con la aplicación del Sistema de Lisboa de la OMPI.   
EU reply:  T h e  E U  w o u l d  l i k e  t o  n o t e  t h a t  i s  n o t  c u r r e n t l y  a  m e m b e r  o f  t h e  L i s b o n  s y s t e m .  I n  
addition, the EU would like to note that the sco pe of the revised Lisbon Agreement was extended 
from appellations of origin to all geographical indications. As regards agricultural products and 
foodstuffs, there is acompatibility between this revised Agreement and EU legislation since the 
latter foresees the possibility to protect the names as appellations of origin (PDO) and geographical indications (PGI).  
 
Concerning protection of non-agri food geographical indications, there is currently no legislation at the EU level. The non-agricultural GIs are protected in each Member State according to its own legal system. The EU is currently examining whether to adopt a single system for non-agricultural 
GIs. 
 Pregunta 2)  Asimismo, Chile agradecería mayores antecedentes con respecto a una eventual 
suscripción de parte de la Unión Europea a la versión revisada del Arreglo de Lisboa la cual fue 
acordada durante  el mes de mayo en Ginebra.  
EU reply: The revision of the Lisbon system has created the possibility for intergovernmental 
organizations (such as the EU) to become party to the revised Agreement. A decision on the basis of the relevant internal EU procedures as to whether and under which conditions the EU will actually become a member has not yet been taken.   
 
II. En relación a: 3.1.7 Medidas comerciales especi ales, 3.1.7.1 Panorama general  
Párrafo 3.61.  La legislación relativa a las medidas comerciales especiales figura en el Reglamento 
No 1225/2009 sobre antidumping (denominado "Reglamento antidumping de base"), el Reglamento No 597/2009 sobre medidas compensatorias (denominado "Reglamento 
antisubvenciones") y los Reglamentos No 260/2009 y No 625/2009 sobre salvaguardias. El 
Reglamento No 427/2003 relativo a un mecanismo de salvaguardia transitorio aplicable a las importaciones de determinados productos origin arios de China expiró en diciembre de 2013.67 
Actualmente, la UE está modernizando sus instrumentos de defensa comercial (solamente las 
medidas antidumping y compensatorias) con el fin de aumentar la transparencia de las 
investigaciones y, en particular, en lo que respecta al país análogo, al margen de daño, a la reconsideración por expiración y al interés de la UE.68 
 
3.1.7.2 Medidas antidumping y compensatorias Párrafo 3.63.  A finales de noviembre de 2014, en la UE había en vigor 108 medidas antidumping 
y 14 medidas compensatorias, que afectaban a 27 interlocutores comerciales. Entre ellas hay 
medidas nuevas, medidas prorrogadas y medidas destinadas a hacer frente a la elusión. Algunas medidas antidumping llevan en vigor más de 10 años. La Comisión mantiene sitios Web públicos con información sobre las investigaciones69 y sobre los avisos y las medidas adoptadas.70 
 
Pregunta 3) Teniendo en cuenta que existen 108 medidas antidumping vigentes, algunas por 
más de 10 años, según el párrafo 3.63 (3.1.7 Medidas comerciales especiales; 3.1.7.2 Medidas 
antidumping y compensatorias), y considerando  e l  i n t e r é s  d e  l a  U E  d e  m o d e r n i z a r  s u s  
instrumentos de defensa comercial según el párrafo 3.61 (3.1.7 Medidas comerciales especiales; 3.1.7.1 Panorama general), ¿Se tiene contemplado modernizar la legislación respecto de los 
exámenes de vigencia de las medidas antidumping y medidas compensatorias? 
 EU reply:  The proposed modernisation of the EU’s TDIs is mainly aimed at improving 
transparency and predictability and also at rendering the instruments more effective and efficient. 
In this context, the Commission prepared guidelines  on four areas of its practice including expiry WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 268 - 
 
  reviews. These guidelines do not introduce any changes to the legislation but aim at consolidating 
the EU’s best practice in these areas. The modern isation package is currently under co-legislative 
procedure and the guidelines are part of this package. Thus,  their adoption is pending. 
 
III. En relación a 3.1.7.2 Medidas antidumping y compensatorias 
Párrafo 3.75.  La UE no puede imponer medidas antidumping ni compensatorias a las 
importaciones procedentes de Islandia, Liechtenstein y Noruega, excepto las de pescado y otros 
productos que quedan fuera del ámbito de la libre circulación de mercancías en el Espacio 
Económico Europeo.  Pregunta 4)  En el párrafo 3.75 (3.1.7 Medidas comerciales especiales; 3.1.7.2 Medidas 
antidumping y compensatorias) se menciona que a Islandia, Liechtenstein y Noruega no se les 
aplican medidas antidumping ni compensatorias, con excepción de algunos productos tales como pescado, entre otros. ¿Podría la UE detallar qué otros productos se encuentra exceptuados de la 
no-aplicación de medidas antidumping y compensa torias? ¿Podría además mencionar en qué se 
ampara esta excepción?  
EU reply:  Article 8.3 of the European Economic Area Agreement ('EEA Agreement') defines the 
scope of the products subject to the free mo vement of goods amongst EEA countries.   
The Article states that:  
Unless otherwise specified, the provisions of this Agreement shall apply only to:  
(a) products falling within Chapters 25 to 97 of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, excluding the products listed in Protocol 2;  
(b) products specified in Protocol 3, subject to the specific arrangements set out in that 
Protocol.  
The relevant Protocols can be found at:  http ://www.efta.int/legal-tex ts/eea/protocols-to-the-
agreement. 
The scope of application of anti-dumping and counte rvailing measures is defined by Article 26 and 
Protocol 13 to that Agreement. Provisions relating to fish products are contained in Protocol 9.   
Article 26 of the EEA Agreement states:  
 
Anti-dumping measures, countervailing duties and measures against illicit commercial 
practices attributable to third countries shall not be applied in relations between the 
Contracting Parties, unless otherwise specified in this Agreement.  
Protocol 13 states:  
 
The application of Article 26 of the Agreemen t is limited to the areas covered by the 
provisions of the Agreement and in which the Community acquis is fully integrated into the 
Agreement. 
Moreover, unless other solutions are agreed upon by the Contracting Parties, its application is without prejudice to any measures which may be introduced by the Contracting Parties 
to avoid circumvention of the following measures aimed at third countries: 
- anti-dumping measures; - countervailing duties; 
- measures against illicit commercial practices attributable to third countries.  
 IV. En relación a 3.3.2 Política de comp etencia y cuestiones reglamentarias  
3.3.2.4 Cooperación internacional 
Párrafo 3.186.  En la medida en que las empresas realizan cada vez más operaciones 
transfronterizas que afectan a varios países, la UE coopera con las autoridades encargadas de la competencia fuera de su jurisdicción. Los acuerdos de la UE en materia de competencia y los 
acuerdos de cooperación con los Estados Unidos (1995, 1998 y 2011), el Canadá (1999), el Japón 
(2003) y la República de Corea (2009) facultan a las partes para transmitirse información, fundamentalmente información no confidencial. El acuerdo con Suiza, que se firmó en 2012 y 
entró en vigor el 1º de diciembre de 2014, prevé una cooperación superior a la establecida 
anteriormente con otras jurisdicciones, debido a que permite un intercambio de información más amplio, incluso sin el consentimiento de las empresas afectadas. Además de los acuerdos citados supra , la UE ha concertado acuerdos bilaterales y/o memorandos de entendimiento dedicados WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 269 - 
 
  específicamente a cuestiones relacionadas con la competencia (llamados "acuerdos específicos") 
con el Brasil (2009), China (2012), la India (2013) y la Federación de Rusia (2011).  Pregunta 5)  En el párrafo 3.186 se menciona que la UE ha concluido “acuerdos específicos” con 
varios países, tales como Brasil (2009), China (2012), la India (2013) y la Federación de Rusia 
(2011). ¿Puede dar la UE más detalles de qué trata cada uno estos acuerdos específicos?  
 
EU reply:  The European Commission has engaged actively in cooperation with competition 
authorities of many countries outside the EU. Cooperation with some of them is based on bilateral agreements dedicated entirely to competition (the so-called " dedicated agreements ").  
 
With regard to Brazil the Memorandum of Unde rstanding on Cooperation (2009) is available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/intern ational/bilateral/brazil_mou_en.pdf.  
 
With regard to China the Memorandum of Unders tanding on Cooperation in the area of anti-
monopoly law (2012) is available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/international/bilateral/mou_china_en.pdf.  
 
With regard to India the Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation (2013) is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/international/bilateral/india_agreement.pdf.  
 
With regard to the Russian federation the Memora ndum of Understanding on Cooperation (2011) is 
available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/international/bilateral/mou_russia_en.pdf.  
 
Pregunta 6)  Como se menciona en el párrafo 3.186, “las empresas realizan cada vez más 
operaciones transfronterizas que afectan a varios países,” por lo que “la UE coopera con las 
autoridades encargadas de la competencia fuera de su jurisdicción”. En relación a esto, ¿existen casos particulares que pueda mencionar en donde la UE cooperó o recibió cooperación de alguna autoridad encargada de la competencia fuera de su jurisdicción?  
 
EU reply:  The European Commission has formal agreements with over 30 jurisdictions outside 
Europe and cooperates with non-EU agencies in more than 60% of its enforcement decisions in 
recent years. For instance, in complex merger ca ses, cooperation with non-EU agencies amounted 
to over 50%. Examples of international case s are available through the EC´s website. 
 
V. En relación a 3.3.2 Política de compet encia y cuestiones reglamentarias, 3.3.2.4 
Cooperación internacio nal. Párrafo 3.188.  La UE también se ha mostrado partidaria de una 
mayor cooperación multilateral a través de la Red Internacional de Competencia, el Grupo Intergubernamental de Expertos en Política de la Competencia de la UNCTAD y el Comité de la 
Competencia de la OCDE. En opinión de la UE, estos foros multilaterales son una plataforma 
importante de promoción de la libertad de competencia y de lucha contra el proteccionismo; ello permite a las autoridades encargadas de la competencia de todo el mundo responder de manera 
más eficaz a los casos de infracción mediante inspecciones coordinadas en varias jurisdicciones. 
 Pregunta 7)  S e  m e n c i o n a  q u e  l a  U E  s e  h a  m o s t r a d o  p a r t i d a r i a  d e  u n a  m a y o r  c o o p e r a c i ó n  
multilateral a través de la participación en varios foros. ¿Estaría considerando la UE una mayor 
participación en el grupo de CPLG en el marco de APEC?  
 EU reply: The European Commission`s DG for competition aims at developing international 
cooperation through bilateral as well as multilateral efforts. In this context, the ICN, OECD and 
UNCTAD have been very pro-active. Furthermore, the European Commission also supports similar consultations in other regional forums globally, taking into account available resources. 
 
Informe de Gobierno  
VI. En relación al párrafo 3.10 (Nuevo Programa de Acción en materia de Medio 
Ambiente de la UE y objetivos con respecto al cambio climático) , se señala que el 20 de 
noviembre de 2013, se adopta el Séptimo Programa de Acción en materia de Medio Ambiente. Dentro de los objetivos se encuentra el de “ayudar a la Unión a abordar con mayor eficacia los 
problemas internacionales relacionados con el medio ambiente y el clima”.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 270 - 
 
  Pregunta 8) En virtud de ello, Chile agradecería que la UE entregara información respecto de la 
Regulación 757/2015, de fecha 29 de abril, que fue publicada 19 de mayo del presente año y su proceso de implementación, así como sus eventuales implicancias para el comercio. Cabe destacar que la regulación en comento dice relación con el monitoreo, reporte y verificación de las 
emisiones de dióxido de carbono proveniente del transporte marítimo. 
 EU reply: The EU has adopted Regulation 757/2015 on monitoring, reporting and verification of 
CO2 emissions from shipping so as to allow for all stakeholders to get a better knowledge CO2 
emissions generated by shipping, thereby creating incentives for energy and emission savings. The 
EU Regulation creates an EU-wide framework for collecting and publishing verified annual data on CO2 emissions from all large ships (over 5 000 gross tons) using EU ports from 1
st January 2018.  
It is designed to apply on a non-discriminatory basis to any ship calling into EU ports according to 
the principle of flag neutrality.   
Consistent with the objective of minimising the administrative burden, it uses a lean approach 
based on already existing data on board of ship s: log books, noon reports and bunker delivery 
notes can be used. Companies will have to monitor and report the verified amount of CO2 emitted 
by their large ships on voyages to, from and betwee n EU ports. Companies will also be required to 
provide certain other information, such as data to determine the ships' energy efficiency. After 
being monitored, data will need to be independently verified and then annually reported in an aggregated manner to the Commission.  
The EU Regulation does not affect trade directly. It puts some minor additional administrative 
burden on maritime transport. It should also be noted that negotiations have now started in IMO for similar data collection system. The EU is participating very actively and hopes that it will result 
in an effective system. The EU Regulation makes it clear that, in such a case, the EU would align 
its rules accordingly. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 271 - 
 
  CHILE (ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS) 
EU RESPUESTAS 
 Del Informe de la Secretaría: 
 
El párrafo 2.34 establece que “2.34. Según el Reglamento (UE) Nº 978/2012, el trato dispensado en el marco del SPG, el SPG+, y la iniciativa Todo menos armas puede ser retirado temporalmente 
por una serie de motivos, entre ellos: violación grave y sistemática de los derechos humanos y 
laborales; exportación de mercancías fabricadas en prisiones; deficiencias graves en los controles aduaneros; el ejercicio grave y sistemático de prácticas comerciales desleales -en especial las que afectan al abastecimiento de materias primas- que perjudican a la industria de la Unión y no han 
sido abordadas por el país beneficiario; el incumplimiento grave y sistemático de los objetivos 
adoptados por las organizaciones regionales de pesca u otros acuerdos internacionales.  
P1) Chile agradecería que la Unión Europea in dique si se ha suspendido la iniciativa 
“Todo menos armas” a algún Estado y si así fuera, cuál ha sido el motivo.  El artículo 2.42 señala que “[a]lgunos Estados miembros, como Alemania, Francia y el Reino 
Unido, mantienen procedimientos de examen de la IED por motivos de seguridad nacional. Estos 
procedimientos se modificaron durante el período objeto de examen: en septiembre de 2013, Alemania simplificó su mecanismo de examen de la IED y redujo los requisitos de información para realizar el examen en determinados sectores” 
 
EU reply : EBA preferences have been withdrawn once in the past with respect to Myanmar. In 
particular, in 1997, by means of Regulation 552/97
85, the EU suspended preferences for Myanmar 
on the basis of serious and systematic violations of labour rights (forced labour). The preferences 
were reinstated in 2013 (retroactively to 2012) by Regulation 607/201386 as violations were 
deemed no longer serious and systematic. 
 
P2) Chile agradecería que la Unión Europea indique en qué medida se simplificó el mecanismo de examen de la IED en Alemania.  
 
EU reply : With reference to Germany, Colombia could re fer to the details contained in the recently 
published G20/OECD report: https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news 13_e/g20_oecd_unctad_report_dec13_e.pdf  
El párrafo 2.47 señala que “[l]a Comisión considera que los mecanismos existentes de solución de 
controversias entre los inversores y el Estado aseguran la aplicación efectiva de los convenios sobre inversiones. Los mecanismos de solución de controversias entre los inversores y el Estado 
constituyen una parte fundamental de los CBI de los Estados miembros y serán incluidos en los 
futuros acuerdos sobre inversiones de la UE con otros países. Como preparación para la aplicación de un mecanismo de solución de controversias entre los inversores y el Estado, la UE adoptó el 23 de julio de 2014 un reglamento que establece un marco jurídico y financiero para la solución de 
controversias entre los inversores y el Estado. Este Reglamento ofrece seguridad jurídica y 
financiera a los inversores extranjeros en la UE que litigan con la UE o sus Estados miembros y garantiza que se pagarán al inversor cualquier importe fijado en un laudo definitivo o en un 
acuerdo transaccional, independientemente de las decisiones sobre la responsabilidad financiera”. 
 P3) Chile agradecería saber cómo se comp lementa el citado reglamento con las 
disposiciones de los capítulos de inversión en los ALC y los CBI en esta materia.  
 EU reply: The Financial Responsibility Regulation (FRR) adopted on 23 July 2014 contains detailed 
rules to manage the financial responsibility of the EU and Member States linked to ISDS for 
international agreements to which the EU is a party. It also establishes a procedure to determine 
who shall act as the respondent in investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS).   
El párrafo 4.63 señala que la Agencia Digital para Europa forma parte de un programa más amplio, 
la Estrategia Europa 2020 para un crecimiento inteligente, sostenible e integrador.  
                                               
85 OJ L85 of 27 March 1997, p.8. 
86 OJ L181 of 29 June 2013, p.13. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 272 - 
 
  P4) Chile agradecería que la Unión Europea se ñalase en qué consiste dicho programa.  
 EU reply:  Building on the experiences of the 'Digit al agenda for Europe' the new the European 
Commission has set the creation of a Digital Single Market as one of its key priorities. 
Fragmentation and barriers that do not exist in the physical Single Market are holding the EU back. 
Bringing down these barriers within Europe coul d contribute an additional EUR 415 billion to 
European GDP. The digital economy can expand markets and foster better services at better 
prices, offer more choice and create new sources of employment. Pillar I of the Digital Single 
Market Strategy, entitled 'Better access for cons umers and businesses to online goods and services 
across Europe' deals with e-commerce-related actions in particular. The Commission aims at improving trust of consumers and businesses in Cross-border e-commerce by making a proposal 
(i) covering harmonised EU rules for online purchases of digital content, and (ii) allowing traders to 
rely on their national laws based on a focused set of key mandatory EU contractual rights for domestic and cross-border online sales of tangible  goods. To ensure affordable, high-quality cross-
border delivery services the Commission will launch measures in the first half of 2016 to improve 
price transparency and enhance regulatory oversigh t of parcel delivery. To increase cross-border 
availability of products and services the Commission will make legislative proposals in the first half 
of 2016 to end unjustified geo-blocking. Action could include targeted change to the e-Commerce 
framework and the framework set out by Article 20 of the Services Directive. On taxation the Commission is expected to make legislative proposals in 2016 to reduce the administrative burden on businesses arising from different VAT regimes including (i) extending the current single 
electronic registration and payment mechanism to intra-EU and 3rd country online sales of 
tangible goods, (ii) introducing a common EU-wide simplification measure (VAT threshold) to help small start-up e-commerce businesses, (iii) allowing for home country controls including a single 
audit of cross-border businesses for VAT purposes  and (iv) removing the VAT exemption for the 
importation of small consignments from suppliers in third countries.). VAT exemption for the importation of small consignments from suppliers in third countries. 
 
El párrafo 4.79 indica que la finalidad principal del Reglamento propuesto (Reglamento del Consejo 
por el que se establecen medidas en relación con el mercado único europeo de las comunicaciones 
electrónicas y para crear un continente conectado) es simplificar los requisitos para la prestación de servicios transfronterizos de comunicaciones electrónicas gracias al establecimiento de un régimen de autorización inicial única para operar a través de las fronteras. 
 
P5) Chile agradecería si la Unión Europea indicase en qué consiste el régimen de 
autorización inicial única para operar a tr avés de las fronteras y si existe alguna 
limitación a empresas extranjeras.  
 EU reply: There is no specific authorisation regime for e-commerce service providers. According to 
the e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC) Member States shall not provide any previous 
authorisation or similar requirement for providers of information society services (online services). For specific economic sectors, such as banking, in surance, or electronic press services, there might 
exist specific authorisation regimes in the Member States. The proposed measures of the 
"Connected Continent" legislative package of the Commission presented on 11 September 2013 
that are listed under para. 4.79 of the TPR report have been removed from the legislative text  on which the  EU co-legislators reached a political agreement on 29 June 2015 and which is pending 
adoption. As indicated in its Communication of 5 May 2015 on a Digital Single Market strategy for 
Europe
87, the Commission will present new proposals in 2016 for an ambitious overhaul of the 
telecoms regulatory framework focusing on delivering " the conditions for a true single market by 
tackling regulatory fragmentation to allow economies of scale for efficient network operators and 
service providers and effective protection of consumers".   
 Restrictions for foreign companies: The EU Regulatory Framework, and in particular the 
Authorisation Directive, aims at ensuring th e freedom to provide electronic communications 
networks and services within the Union. In line with the general scope of EU law concerning the implementation of an internal market and the freedoms to establish and provide services, it 
therefore regulates rights and obligations applicable to nationals of Member States (including 
natural or legal persons established in the Union), while it is without prejudice to the applicable 
                                               
87 COM(2015) 192 final, http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/digital-single-market/docs/dsm-
communication_en.pdf . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 273 - 
 
  international, Union or national provisions concer ning the requirements applicable to nationals of 
third-countries, including legal persons not incorporated in the Union.  As set out in in its WTO schedule, the EU has an open regime for telecommunications services, 
including for the cross-border supply of telecom services. 
 Sobre 6. 3.1.8 Reglamentos técnicos y normas 
Parrafo 3.81:  P6) Respecto a la armonización con normas internacionales, existe alguna estimación en qué 
grado están armonizados?  
 
EU reply:  Whenever possible, the European Standardisation Organisations CEN, CENELEC and 
ETSI adopt international standards as European st andards. Almost 80% of all European standards 
in the electro-technical sector are either identical or based on IEC standards, while 31% of 
European Standards developed by CEN ar e identical to ISO. More info on: 
http://www.cencenelec.eu/aboutus/ InFigures/Page s/default.aspx . 
 
P7) Cuando mencionan el cumplimiento de “requi sitos esenciales”, a qué se refiere? A los 
requisitos establecidos en los reglamentos técnicos a nivel de la UE?  
 
EU reply  Essential requirements are set out in relevant EU harmonisation legislation. The wording 
of essential requirements is intended to be precise enough to create legally binding obligations that can be enforced. They deal with the protection of health and safety but may also cover other 
fundamental requirements (for example protec tion of property, scarce resources or the 
environment). Essential requirements either arise from certain hazards associated with the product 
(for example physical and mechanical resistance, flammability, chemical, electrical or biological 
properties etc.), or refer to the product or it s performance (for example provisions regarding 
materials, design, construction, manufacturing proce ss, etc.), or they are a combination of these. 
Parrafos 3.81 y 3.82:  
P8) Existe un listado de los productos donde la UE permite la certificación de primera parte o 
declaración de conformidad del proveedor, y su justificación técnica?  
 
EU reply: A comprehensive list of products to which first party certification applies does not exist. 
The reason for this is that EU harmonised techni cal regulations address specific risks associated 
with the product in relation to its intended use or refer to its performance requirements. The 
applicable conformity assessment procedure may therefore vary for the same product depending, 
for instance, on the risk or the intended use. For instance, vast product sectors such as the electro-technical sectors or machinery are subject to supplier's declaration of conformity. When the same product is used in an explosive atmosphe re, generally third-party conformity assessment 
applies. For further details, please consult the section on DG GROW website 
(http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/ce-marking/index_en.htm) which lists all EU 
harmonised technical regulations to which CE marking applies. 
 
Parrafo 3.84: P9) Sólo la Comisión puede presentar una solicitud formal a las organizaciones de normalización 
para que elaboren una norma técnica? No es posible que un sector específico (industria) pueda 
hacer su solicitud?  
 EU reply: Any interested party can introduce a proposal for new work in European Standardisation 
Organisation (CEN, CENELEC, ETSI). Most standardization work is proposed through the member 
National Standardisation Bodies.  
However, in order for European standards and othe r standardisation deliverables to be developed 
in support of European Union legislation and policies, the European Commission needs to address a request for standards to the European standardisation organisations. Regulation 1025/2012 sets 
a directly applicable framework for using harmonised standards in support of Union harmonisation 
legislation. Compliance of harmonised standards, and other standardisation deliverables, with the initial request should be assessed by the Commission and the European standardisation organisations. A reference to a harmonised standard is published in the Official Journal of the WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 274 - 
 
  European Union, if such standard satisfies the requirements which it aims to cover as set out in 
the corresponding Union harmonisation legislation.  P10)  Pueden participar otros países en el proceso de elaboración de una norma técnica?  
 
EU reply: In the field of information and communication technologies (ICT), private stakeholders 
directly participate in the standardisation activities of ETSI which has over 800 members from 64 
countries and across five continents. The main reason why ETSI has a business model based on 
direct participation is that the working language in the ICT sector is exclusively English.  In the more traditional sectors covered by CEN-CENELEC, direct participation of private 
stakeholders takes place at national level: companies can actively contribute to the development 
of European standards through the relevant national standardisation body, in accordance with rules of procedure of the national standardisation bodies. The rationale for this participation model 
is that the European standard under development will be adopted as the only national standard 
applicable: it is therefore necessary to enable local technical experts to participate in the process, in their own language, to ensure that national/local interests are adequately taken into 
consideration. 
 Parrafo 3.92: P11) 
 Cuando se menciona que las autoridades nacionales reconocerán la equivalencia de los 
servicios prestados por otros organismos nacionales de acreditación que se hayan sometido con 
éxito al sistema de evaluación por pares, y aceptarán los certificados de acreditación de dichos organismos, respecto a esa “evaluación por pares”, se refiere a la evaluación que se hace para ser 
parte de los acuerdos correspondientes al Foro Internacional de Acreditación (IAF), o a qué 
sistema?   
EU reply: The reference in the WTO Secretariat Report mentioning the obligation of national 
authorities to recognize the equivalence of the se rvices delivered by other national accreditation 
bodies that have passed their peer review and acce pt the accreditation certificates issued by those 
bodies refers to those accreditation bodies that are members of the European Cooperation for 
Accreditation (EA). 
 Parrafo. 3.93: 
P12)  La UE reconoce organismos de evaluación de la conformidad extranjeros y/o certificaciones 
extranjeras? Si es así, cómo es el procedimiento o en qué regulación está establecido?  
 
EU reply: The EU has entered into a number of Mutual Recognition Agreements with third 
countries permitting non-EU Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs) to issue certificates carrying the same validity as those issued by EU Notified Bodies.  In addition to such formal agreements, 
the EU conformity assessment system provides for significant flexibilities for the acceptance of 
foreign conformity assessment. Apart from the actual issuance of certificates, all other stages of 
conformity assessment (including full testing and factory inspections for quality assurance purposes) can, in principle, be subcontracted by EU Notified Bodies (NBs) to their non-EU 
subsidiaries or other non-EU conformity assessment bodies (CABs). NBs take full responsibility for 
the tasks performed by subcontractors or subs idiaries, including as regards their technical 
competence. Given that product testing and factory audits are the most expensive parts of 
conformity assessment, these flexibilities offer, in  the EU's view, significant trade facilitation 
potential. Non-EU CABs holding accreditation certificates issued by an accreditation body signatory to the IAF (International Accreditation Forum) MLA (multilateral recognition arrangement) or the ILAC (International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation) MRA (mutual recognition arrangements) 
will generally be presumed to fulfil the technical competence requirements to qualify as an eligible 
subcontractor.  
In addition to sub-contracting arrangements, international voluntary cooperation arrangements 
between CABs such as the IECEE CB scheme
88 or the IECEx system89, to which EU NBs actively 
participate, also offer an important avenue for the acceptance of foreign conformity assessment 
                                               
88 Worldwide System for Conformity  Testing and Certification of Electrotechnical Equipment and 
Components (IECEE) Certific ation Body (CB) Scheme. 
89 International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) System for Certification to Standards Relating to 
Equipment for Use in Ex plosive Atmospheres. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 275 - 
 
  results in the regulated area in the EU when, for the products and risks covered by those schemes, 
EU harmonizing legislation provides for mandatory third-party conformity assessment.  Preguntas generales:  
P13)  Cómo funciona la metrología a nivel de la  UE? Está definida en alguna regulación?  
 EU reply:  The EU’s legislation on legal metrology is one of the pillars of the single market for 
products. EU requirements aim to promote technological innovation, protection of health, public 
safety, protection of the environment, and fair trade. The objective is to allow free movement of goods between the Member States, while allowing fo r the possibility of continuing manufacturing in 
conformity with national rules for the home market. 
 
The European system of units of measurements st ems from the International System of Units (SI) 
which serves as a global standard. Measuring instruments harmonised by EU law range from 
weighing scales and utility meters to taximeters. EU pre-packaging legislation defines the quantity 
contained in pre-packaged products. It helps guarantee the net quantity in prepacks and the volume of product in bottles or jars. EU law requires national authorities to do regular market 
surveillance. Furthermore, EU law prohibits EU countries to legislate on sizes and it lays down fixed 
sizes for wine and spirit drinks.  The EU’s policy on legal metrology is supported by WELMEC, a body set up to promote European 
cooperation in legal metrology. WELMEC members are the national authorities responsible for legal 
metrology in EU and EFTA countries. Close cooperation with WELMEC and stakeholders is the main source of the EU's guidance documents and is essential for the application of EU law. 
 
P14)  La UE en general, ha elaborado regulaciones bastante exigentes que afectan a los productos 
químicos, tales como el Reglamento REACH. Respecto a este reglamento, la UE ha hecho alguna 
evaluación de impacto ex post de esta regulación en función del objetivo que se quería alcanzar? 
Cuál ha sido el impacto en las Pymes?  
 EU reply: In 2013 the European Commission completed a review of REACH which consisted of the 
legally required reviews and reports: (a) the revi ew of ECHA (Article 75.2), (b) the review to 
assess whether or not to amend the scope of REACH in order to avoid overlaps with other EU legislation (Article 138.6), and (c) a general report from the experience acquired in the operation 
of the regulation (Article 117.4). All the informat ion related to the review can be consulted at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals /documents/reach/review2012/index_en.htm   
The next general report on REACH, which will also include an examination of the impacts on SMEs 
is due by 1 June 2017. 
 P15)  Cómo se ha llevado a cabo el trabajo de coordinación con la industria, sobre todo en materia 
de anticiparse ante un reglamento técnico ex tranjero que pueda tener un impacto en sus 
exportaciones?  
 EU reply:  The EU TBT Enquiry Point coordinates the a ssessment of the drafts notified by other 
WTO Members and prepares the official EU comments on these drafts if necessary. In this process, 
the contributions of the industry are welcome and the provision of information is facilitated by the EU TBT database. This database (http://ec.europa .eu/growth/tools-databases/tbt/en/ ) provides a 
wide range of services in relation to all draft notified to the WTO. These include a comprehensive 
and fine-tuned search function and the possibility to enrol to email alerts according chosen industrial sectors and countries. These functions are widely used by the industry and helps them 
being informed in a timely manner about the new TBT notifications and enables them to send 
contributions to the EU TBT Enquiry Point on new notifications. Furthermore, the database also 
contains the comments sent or received by the EU, which helps the industry to keep track of the follow-up of the notifications. 
 
Sobre 3.1.9 Medidas sanita rias y fitosanitarias 
P16) Pregunta general:  ¿Qué mecanismos ha implementado la Comisión Europea para asegurarse 
de que los sistemas reguladores de los Estados Miembros den cumplimiento a sus obligaciones con 
el Acuerdo MSF?” WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 276 - 
 
  EU reply: The division of competence between the European Commission and EU Member States 
is captured in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).90 
 To assist in Chile's understanding of how this works in practice in the SPS field, it is useful to note 
that SPS measures are extensively harmonised at the EU level which means that legislation is 
decided collectively, at a central level. This legislation is subsequently applied by all EU Member States. There are very few areas in the SPS fiel d that are not harmonised and then, only with 
respect to less commonly consumed or traded commodities. 
 In these non-harmonised areas, Member States may adopt national provisions, provided that they are in conformity with the TFEU. In exceptional circumstances, Member States may also 
temporarily suspend or restrict the application of EU provisions, within its territory, on the basis of 
new information or a reassessment of existing information, and, in order to protect the life and health of humans, animals or plants (articles 36 and 114 of the TFEU). 
 
When it comes to the implementation of EU legi slation on food safety, animal health and plant 
health, EU Member States then take a front se at. They are responsible for the enforcement of 
legislation, for organising official controls and ensuring that goods placed on the market comply 
with the relevant standards and requirements. In this scenario, the European Commission has an oversight role to ensure that the EU legisl ation is properly implemented and enforced.  
                                               
90 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content /EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CE LEX:12012E/TXT&from=EN . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 277 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM THAILAND 
 QUESTIONS REGARDING THE EUROPEAN UNION REPORT 
 
3. Developments in the internal market 
Page  6 (Para. 3.5. ) 
Question 1:  How would the new direct payments change ? What would it likely to be addressed 
to?  
 
EU reply:  Direct payments aim at supporting and stabilizing farmers' income. They also ensure 
the provision of environmental public goods (cross compliance and greening). The new direct 
payments system provides a new architecture of direct payments in order to better target support. 
For instance, basic payment is complemented by payment for young farmers. It can also be 
complemented (depending on Member States' choices) by the redistributive payment, by a payment for areas with natural constraints, by voluntary coupled support targeting sectors or 
regions facing difficulties. Moreover, each farmer supported under the basic payment scheme (or 
the single area payment scheme) will receive a payment per hectare for respecting certain 
agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment (the "Greening payment").  
The basic rules on Direct Payments and the applicable eligibility criteria are contained in 
Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013.   Further information is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct-support/direct-
payments/index_en.htm. 
 
Page 7 (Para. 3.10)  
Question 2: Do you have any apparent measures, regulations or guidelines relating to the protection 
and conservation of natural resources to be used as tools/mechanisms to implement the new EU 
environment action programme? Please provide some examples. 
 EU reply:  In May 2011, the European Union adopted the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020  that 
lays down the framework for EU action over the next ten years in order to meet the 2020 
biodiversity headline target set by EU leaders in March 2010, which also constitutes the EU 
implementing measures of its commitment taken und er the UN Convention on Biological Diversity 
to agree to the global Strategic Plan for Biodiv ersity to 2020.  In 2010 the CBD Conference of the 
Parties adopted the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, including the twenty Aichi 
Biodiversity targets. 
 This Strategic Plan constitutes the relevant ov erarching framework for all biodiversity-related 
conventions, and should contribute to the achi evement of the Millennium  Development Goals and 
future Sustainable Development Goals . 
 
The Habitats Directive  protects over 1200 rare, threatened or endemic species of wild animals 
(except birds) and plants – often collectively referred to as 'species of European importance'. The directive also protects some 230 natural and semi-natural habitat types. 
 
The Bird Directive  covers all bird species that are naturally present in the EU. In total this 
amounts to around 450 species, ranging from familiar garden birds to much rarer migratory 
species that spend an important part of their annual cycle in the EU. 
 Natura 2000 is the centrepiece of EU nature & biodiversity policy . It is an EUwide network of 
nature protection areas established under Habitats Directive. The aim of the network is to assure 
the long-term survival of Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats.  
 The reformed Common Agricultural Policy  (CAP), in force since 2014, enhanced the attention 
to protection and conservation of natural resources. An important feature of the new CAP is the 
recognition that farmers should be rewarded for the public services they provide. The reformed 
CAP has identified three priority areas for ac tion in environment (i) biodiversity and the 
preservation and development of natural farming and forestry systems, and traditional agricultural 
landscapes; (ii) water management and use; and (iii) dealing with climate change. Furthermore, the CAP ensures that its rules are compatible with environmental requirements and that CAP 
measures promote the development of agricultural practices preserving the environment and 
safeguarding the countryside. By respecting these greening practices, farmers contribute to long-WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 278 - 
 
  term competitiveness and for an economically, environmentally and socially sustainable way of 
managing their farms.  Important progress has been made in the context of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)  
since 2002 (in particular arising from the introduction of long-term management plans for several 
stocks) and since the adoption of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in 2008, in particular in the northern waters where most stocks (for which total allowable catches (TACs) are 
in place) are managed under the MSY and the precautionary approach. EU policy aims to restore 
and maintain stocks above levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield  (MSY) by 
achieving MSY exploitation rates by 2015 where po ssible and — on a progressive incremental basis 
— at the latest by 2020 for all stocks. 
 
The EU adopted a regulation on the prevention an d management of the introduction and spread of 
invasive alien species , which entered into force on 1 January 2015
91. The objective of the 
Regulation is to establish a framework for action to prevent, minimise and mitigate the adverse 
impacts of invasive species on biodiversity and ecosystem services.  
 
4.1.2 EU Investment policy 
Page 11 (Para. 4.17.) 
Question 2:  It is observed that more than 1400 exis ting BITs of the EU Member States which 
mostly cover investment protection and Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) will be finally 
replaced by the EU agreements. However, it is still a controversial issue that the EU needs a 
profound reform of the traditional approach to investment protection and the associated ISDS system where the key challenge is that the goal of protecting and encouraging investment does 
not affect the ability of the EU and its Member States to continue to pursue public policy 
objectives. In this regard, what is the current ap proach of the EU to investment protection and 
ISDS for the on-going FTA negotiations whereas the process of public consultations and the reform 
are still in progress? 
 EU reply:  The EU is carrying out a process of reform of its investment policy; in this regard 
Thailand may find it useful to consult the conc ept paper “Investment in TTIP and beyond – the 
path for reform” recently published by the European Commission. For the rest, the EU does not 
comment on ongoing negotiations. 
 
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 
 
2.3.3 Unilateral preferences 
Page 30 (Para. 2.30.) Question 1:  Since 1 January 2014 the new graduation criteria of the GSP applies, that not only 
countries classified by the World Bank as ‘high income countries’ will be excluded from the scheme, but also the countries which are classifi ed as upper middle income countries. This has 
resulted in a number of beneficiary countries decreasing from 178 to 92 countries. This new 
graduation criterion to exclude upper middle income countries from the scheme has massively disadvantaged developing countries whose income level just reached the lower threshold. This is 
because most developing countries are faced with income inequality where the average wage is 
distorted by the very high earners. Most producer s in these countries are still SMEs with limited 
resources and the preferences offered under GSP are crucial in helping them to integrate into 
international markets. Furthermore, the Commission already put in place the criteria for section 
graduation, where the industries which are compet itive enough (as measured by market share in 
the EU; 14.5% for textiles and 17.5% for other products) will be excluded from the scheme. Thus any industries in the beneficiary countries that become very competitive will be excluded, while 
other industries which are still developing can benefit from preferential treatment. For this reason, 
the old graduation criteria where only high in come countries were excluded from the scheme, 
seems more appropriate.  
Therefore, the new country graduation criteria, which exclude upper middle income countries, may 
hinder the development of developing countries, especially where their industries are comprised mostly of small and medium size companies. The loss of GSP is, in a crucial way, preventing SMEs 
in developing countries from reaping all the benefits of access to the global market, which has 
                                               
91 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on 
the prevention and management of the introduc tion and spread of invasive alien species:   http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1417443504720&uri=CELEX:32014R1143.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 279 - 
 
  been the main principle of the scheme. The ne w graduation criteria have diminished the 
significance of the EU GSP scheme in giving developing countries vital access to EU markets and contributing to their growth. Please comment.   
EU reply:  The Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) has been revised in order to maintain its 
relevance as a pro-development tool by focusing help on the countries most in need. Thus, GSP benefits are granted to all those developing countries which share a common developing need and 
are in a similar stage of economic development. Countries which are classified by the World Bank 
as high-income or upper-middle income countries have per capita income levels allowing them to attain higher levels of diversification without th e scheme’s tariff preferences. They, therefore, do 
not share the same development, trade and financial needs as the remaining developing countries. 
Furthermore, the use of tariff preferences provid ed under the scheme by high-income or upper-
middle income countries increases the competitive pressure on exports from poorer, more vulnerable countries and therefore could impose unjustifiable burdens on those more vulnerable 
developing countries. 
 Page 31 (Para. 2.33.) 
Question 2: Thailand would like EU to give an additional explanation on the ratification and 
effective implementation of relevant Labor Convention in order to maintain GSP+ preferences of the applicable country.  
EU reply: The special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance 
(GSP+) is based on the integral concept of sustainable development, as recognised by international conventions and instruments such as the 1986 United Nations (UN) Declaration on 
the Right to Development, the 2000 UN Millennium Declaration, the 2002 Johannesburg 
Declaration on Sustainable Development as well as the 1998 International Labour Organisation 
(ILO) Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.  
 Consequently, the additional tariff preference s provided under GSP+ are granted to those 
developing countries which commit to ratify an d implement the 8 fundamental ILO conventions 
(which cover the fundamental principles and rights at work) in order to help them assume the 
special burdens and responsibilities resulting from the ratification and effective implementation of 
these conventions.  
3.1.3.2 Preferential rules Page 40 (Para. 3.28.) 
Question 3:  Diagonal cumulation allows beneficiary countries to use materials under cumulation 
of origin with countries in the same regional group. However the members of the regional group 
which are non-GSP countries are excluded from  such cumulation. For example, four ASEAN 
countries (Brunei Darussalam, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand) are not beneficiary countries and therefore are excluded from regional cumulation  under the current GSP scheme. This may hinder 
the regional integration for ASEAN countries, to the extent that it has caused disruption in their 
value chain since these countries are closely connected in terms of the use of raw materials in the 
production process. How does the new GSP play an essential role in promoting regional integration among developing countries?  
 
EU reply:  The EU GSP Rules of Origin permit regional cumulation for four sepa rate regional groups 
and even cumulation between two of those regi ons upon request. While the EU has excluded 
cumulation with countries within a group which are non EU GSP beneficiary countries, the EU has 
introduced in the EU GSP Rules of Origin the po ssibility, upon request, to cumulate with any 
country with which the EU has an FTA. Therefore cumulation with countries belonging to a regional group which are non GSP beneficiaries is still possible when an FTA is in force between the EU and 
those countries.  Only in the cases where a country belonging to a regional group is not receiving 
preferences in the EU under the GSP or under an FTA, cumulation would be excluded.    
 
Page 40 (Para. 3.29.) 
Question 4: GSP beneficiary countries may apply to the Commission for cumulation extension to 
countries that have free trade agreements with th e EU but so far (end-March 2015), no application 
was submitted to the commission from GSP beneficiary countries for such extended cumulation. 
Has the detailed information on how a beneficiary country can apply for extended cumulation been made available to eligible countries? What is the time frame for the application process?  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 280 - 
 
  EU reply:  The conditions and procedures for a beneficiary country to apply for extended 
cumulation are established in Article 86 of the EU Commission Regulation 2454/93.  In "The European Union’s Rules of Origin for the Generalis ed System of Preferences. A guide for users" 
published in the European Commission's website, detailed information and additional explanations 
are provided on this point. There is not a specific time framework  established for the application 
process. 
3.3.2 Competition policy and regulatory issues 
Page 74 (Para. 3.161.) 
Question 5: It states in this paragraph that "Since 2008, companies found to have participated in 
a cartel can settle their case by  acknowledging their involvement in the cartel and having a 
reduced fine in return, and under  certain stringent conditions, no fine at all. This so called 
"leniency policy" is considered by the  competition authorities as a very efficient implementation 
tool to detect and dismantle cartels  since the penalties for breaching competition law can be very 
severe."........... Thailand would like EU to explai n in more details about the "leniency policy" in 
terms of immunity and leniency applications, administrative, civil and criminal sanctions, 
reductions in fines and cooperation among competition agencies in cartel cases. 
EU reply:  The Commission operates a leniency policy whereby companies that provide information 
about a cartel in which they participated might receive full or partial immunity from fines. 
Since cartels are illegal, they are generally highly  secretive and evidence of their existence is not 
easy to find. The 'leniency policy' encourages companies to hand over inside evidence of cartels to the European Commission. The first company in any cartel to do so will not have to pay a fine if 
certain conditions are respected. This results in the cartel being destabilised. In recent years, most 
cartels have been detected by the European Commission after one cartel member confessed and asked for leniency, though the European Commission  also successfully continues to carry out its 
own investigations to detect cartels. 
The Notice on Immunity from Fines and Reduction of Fines in Cartel Cases (the “Leniency Notice”) 
explains the conditions under which the Commission can offer full immunity or a reduction in the 
fines, that would otherwise have been imposed on a cartel member, in exchange for disclosure of 
information on the cartel and cooperation with the investigation.  Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases is available at: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TX T/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52006XC1208(04)& from=EN . 
In order to obtain total immunity  under the leniency policy, a company which participated in a 
cartel must be the first one to inform the Co mmission of an undetected cartel by providing 
sufficient information to allow the Commission to launch an inspection at the premises of the 
companies allegedly involved in the cartel. If the Commission is already in possession of enough information to launch an inspection or has already undertaken one, the company must provide 
evidence that enables the Commission to prove the cartel infringement. In all cases, the company 
must also fully cooperate with the Commission throughout its procedure, provide it with all evidence in its possession and put an end to th e infringement immediately. The cooperation with 
the Commission implies that the existence and the content of the application cannot be disclosed 
to any other company. The company may not benefi t from immunity if it took steps to coerce 
other undertakings to participate in the cartel. 
Leniency applications 
In order to benefit from the Notice, companies can approach the Commission directly or through a 
legal adviser through a dedicated fax number. The use of this fax ensures that the precise time and date of the contact is duly recorded and that the information is treated with the utmost 
confidentiality within the Commission. Before sending the actual submission by fax, however, 
assistance can be sought from one of the Commission officials involved in leniency by calling a dedicated telephone number. 
Template for the submission of a summary leniency application within the ECN: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/mlp_revised_2012_annex_en.pdf . 
 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 281 - 
 
  Criminal sanctions 
At European level the Commission cannot impose pe nalties on individuals. However, there may be 
implications for criminal proceedings against individuals under national legislation within or outside the EU. As a complement to sanctions on undertaki ngs under EU law, several Member States have 
introduced criminal sanctions (UK, Ireland, Esto nia, Germany, Hungary). The EU legal framework 
accommodates this diversity and Member States can, under national law, provide for sanctions on individuals. 
 For instance, see Estonian legislation on leniency and sanctions: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/brief/02_2010/ee_leniency.pdf . 
 According to Sec. 298 of the German Criminal Code, bid rigging is considered a criminal 
offence with a maximum sentence of five years of imprisonment or criminal fines. If an 
infringement of German and/or EU competition law involves a criminal offence under 
applicable German criminal law (for example, in cases of bid-rigging), the competition authorities will refer proceedings against the individuals involved (as opposed the 
companies) to the Public Prosecutor. 
 According to Sec. 420 of the Hungarian Criminal Code, any person who enters into an 
agreement aiming to manipulate the outcome of  an open or restricted procedure held in 
connection with a public procurement procedure or an activity that is subject to a 
concession contract by fixing the prices, charges or any other term of the contract, or for the division of the market, or takes part in any other concerted practices resulting in the restraint of trade is guilty of felony punishab le by imprisonment between one to five years. 
Cooperation among competition agencies 
Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules of 
competition laid down in Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty creates a system of parallel 
competences in which the Commission and the European Union countries' competition authorities 
can apply those articles. Together, the national competition authorities and the Commission form a network of public authorities that act in the public interest and cooperate closely in order to 
protect competition. The network is called the ECN. 
Cases may be handled by one or more national competition authorities acting in parallel or by the 
Commission. In most cases, the authority receiving a complaint or starting an ex officio procedure will remain in charge of the case.  By contrast, the Commission is particularly well placed if one or 
more agreements or practices affect competition in more than three EU countries. It is also 
p a r t i c u l a r l y  w e l l  p l a c e d  t o  d e a l  w i t h  a  c a s e  i f  t h e  c a s e  i s  c l o s e l y  l i n k e d  t o  o t h e r  C o m m u n i t y  provisions which may be exclusively or more effectively applied by the Commission or if the 
Community interest requires the adoption of a Commission decision to develop Community 
competition policy when a new competition issue arises or to ensure effective enforcement. 
A key element of the functioning of the network is the power of all the competition authorities to 
exchange and use information that has been collect ed by them for the purpose of applying Article 
81 or 82 of the Treaty. Article 12 of the Regulation  states that the exchange of information may 
take place not only between a national competition authority and the Commission but also between national competition authorities. 
Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52004XC0427(02)&from=EN . 
For a more thorough treatment of the above, please consult the ECN´s website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/index_en.html  
The European Commission has formal agreements with over 30 jurisdictions outside Europe and 
cooperated with non-EU agencies in more than 60%  of its enforcement decisions in recent years. 
For instance, in complex merger cases, cooperatio n with non-EU agencies amounted to over 50%. 
 
More detailed information on the above: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/international/bilateral/  
 
  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 282 - 
 
  More information on the Leniency legislation: 
 http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/legislation/leniency_legislation.html  
 
3.3.5 Government procurement 
Page 94 (Para. 3.241. ) 
Question 6:  It states in this paragraph that "These measures include in particular an 
encouragement to divide contracts into lots ... Th e sub-division of public purchases into lots 
facilitates access by SMEs both quantitatively and qualitatively." …   Please explicate in greater detail whether there is a mechanism to ensure that such sub-division of 
contracts aimed at facilitating SMEs is undertaken in a non-discriminatory manner and thereby 
GPA-consistent. This is due mainly to the fact that dividing contracts with the intention of totally or partially excluding it from the application of the GPA is prohibited under Article II(6)(a) of the GPA.   
 
EU reply:  The EU directives on public procurement contain specific provisions on the valuation of 
contracts. Those rules stipulate that where a prop osed work or a proposed provision of services 
may result in contracts being awarded in the form of separate lots, account shall be taken of the 
total estimated value of all such lots. Where the aggregate value of the lots is equal to or exceeds the threshold laid down in the directives, the provis ions of the directives should apply. Therefore, 
dividing contracts into lots as stipulated under the EU legislation is compliant with Article II:6 of 
the GPA. 
 Page 95 (Para. 3.248.) 
Question 7:  Under this paragraph, it states that " ... the Commission tabled a proposal aimed at 
improving the conditions under which EU businesses can compete for public contracts in third countries, confirming the legal status of bidders, goods and services from countries that have an 
international agreement with the EU in the area of public procurement ..." 
Please provide the answer to each of the following questions: 
1)  Is this proposal referred to as the Internationa l Public Procurement Initiative (IPPI)? If yes, 
what is the current status of the IPPI for the time being?  
EU reply: Yes, the text refers to the EU proposal for an International Procurement Instrument.  
This proposal is currently under review.  As noted in the Commission work programme for 2015, the Commission intends to amend it in accordance with the priorities of the new Commission in 
order to simplify it and to reduce the number of actors.  It is at this point in time not possible to 
say exactly when a revised proposal may be tabled. 
2) In confirming the legal status of bidders, g oods and services from countries that have an 
international agreement  with the EU in the area of public procurement, to what extent 
will an international agreement cover? Does this proposal encompass any treatment by the EU not to exclude bidders, goods and services from countries that have not yet had such international agreement with the EU but whose FTA negotiations with the EU are 
underway?  
EU reply: The proposal for an international procurement initiative is currently under review. It is 
at this point in time not possible to say what the exact content of the revised proposal will be 
Page 95 (Para. 3.249. ) 
Question 8:  It states in this paragraph that "... it recommended that the exception foreseen for 
developing countries should be extended to countries considered to be vulnerable due to lack of 
diversification and insufficient integration within the international trading system ..." 
Please clarify as to how the vulnerability of a country due to lack of diversification and insufficient 
integration within the international trading system and in the world economy will be evaluated in light of the exception foreseen? Comparatively speaking, will this apply the same criteria in 
considering whether or not a country is categorized as vulnerable in the case of granting the GSP 
Plus? This is because it apparently imitates what is stipulated as a core criterion for granting the GSP Plus to vulnerable countries in Article 9(1 )(a) of the Council Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 
according to which the definition of a vulnerable country is also explicated in the Annex VII 
thereto.  
EU reply: The proposal for an international procurement initiative is currently under review. It is 
at this point in time not possible to say what the exact content of the revised proposal will be. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 283 - 
 
  3.3.6.1 Copyright and related rights 
Page 101 (Para 3.267.) 
Question 9: “As regards infringement procedures, the Commission formally requested France, 
Poland and Romania in July 2014, as well as Cyprus and Luxembourg in October 2014, to fully 
implement Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 
2011 amending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights.” Could the EU specify when these EU Member States would implement the Directive 
2011/77/EU extending the term of protection of copyrights and certain related rights?  
EU reply:  France, Romania, Cyprus and Luxembou rg have already implemented Directive 
2011/77/EU. Poland's legislation to implement the Directive has just been adopted by the second 
chamber of the Parliament. It just needs to be si gned by the President before coming into force. 
3.3.6.2.4 Trademarks 
Page 105 (Para 3.284.) 
Question 10: The Commission proposes a draft Regulati on amending the Community Trademark 
Regulation and a draft Directive revising and establishing new rules harmonizing national 
trademark laws. This includes “the alignment of absolute grounds for refusal with relevant EU law on geographical indications” As the EU conc luded a number of bilateral agreements on GI 
protections, could the EU clarify that the geograph ical indications protected or recognized by these 
agreements would be an absolute ground for refusal of further trademark registrations? 
EU reply:  In the EU proposals of both the European Union Trade Mark Regulation and the Recast 
Trade Mark Directive it is foreseen that it is  not possible to register trade marks which are 
excluded from registration pursuant to national or Union legislation or international agreements to 
which the Union or the Member State concerned is party, providing for protection of designations 
of origin and geographical indications. The EU stresses that the proposals are under the ordinary 
legislative procedure. 
 3.3.6.2.5 Geographical indications 
Page 110 (Para 3.298.) Question 11: The EU launched in 2014 a Green paper on a possible extension of geographical 
indication protection of the European Union to non-agricultural product and organized the 
conference in January 2015. What is the next step for the Commission to proceed with this 
project? 
EU reply:  The report has been published on 2 June 2015 and is available under the following link: 
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8254  
The Commission has not yet decided whether and how to create a system of geographical 
indication (GI) protection for non-agricultural products at European Union level. Such a decision will be made in due time on the basis of the resu lts of the public consultation, the opinion of the 
European Economic and Social Committee and of the Committee of the Regions, as well as the 
European Parliament's upcoming own initiative report on the Green Paper “ Making the most out of 
Europe’s traditional know-how: a possible extension of geographical indication protection of the European Union to non-agricultural products ” which is envisaged for summer 2015 
4.2.3 Agricultural policies 
Page 122 (Para. 4.16.) 
Question 12: According to Paragraph 4.16, please provide more information on the European 
Agriculture Guarantee Fund (EAGF) as how the programme related to market measures.  
 
EU reply: The European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) primarily finances direct payments to 
farmers and measures regulating or supporting agricultural markets.  
 
Successive reforms of the CAP have increased th e market orientation of European agriculture 
while improving the integration of environmental requirements and reinforcing support for rural 
development. The main direction of the policy in recent years has been the decoupling of support 
which has given the incentive to farmers to produce to market needs while providing them with a certain level of income support to ensure provision of basic public goods desired by European society.  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 284 - 
 
  The latest CAP reform continues on this path by introducing a new architecture of direct 
payments; better targeted, more equitable and greener, whilst ensuring market orientation of the CAP by abolishing the last remaining production quotas.   
Rules on market measures are set at Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. 
 Further information on the EAGF is available at: 
 
 Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (on the financing, management and monitoring of the 
common agricultural policy) 
 the DG AGRI website on financing the CAP: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-
funding/index_en.htm . 
 
4.2.3.1.1 Direct payments 
Page 123 (Table 4.4) Question 13: Please provide more information on the direct payment programme under Article 
69, as how the measure is used and what is the eligible criteria for the programme.  
 
EU reply: EU legislation on direct payments in force between 2005 and 2009 provided for the 
possibility for the Member States to retain up to 10% of certain sector component of their national ceiling for direct payments to grant additional payment to farmers in sectors concerned by the 
retention within the limit of a yearly fixed budgetary ceiling. Seven Member States decided to use 
this possibility to support specific types of farm ing which are important for the protection or the 
enhancement of the environment, or for improv ing the quality and marketing of agricultural 
products as foreseen by the legislation, in the arab le crops, rice, olive oil, tobacco, sugar, beef and 
veal, sheep and goats or dairy sectors. Member States had the responsibility to select the objectives and the sectors targeted as well as to define the eligibility criteria accordingly. 
 
Further information is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct-support/direct-
payments/index_en.htm . 
 
Page 125 (Para. 4.22.) 
Question 14: Since the EU tends to ceased the number of the eligible farmers to the Basic 
Payment Scheme, does this indicate that the EU  i s  r e a d y  t o  s t o p  t h e  B P S  p r o g r a m m e  i n  t h e  
future? What is the scheme progress? and will there be any measure to substitute the BPS 
scheme?  
EU reply: The EU has no plans to change or abolish the Basic Payment Scheme. 
 4.2.3.1.2 Internal market support measures 
Page 128 (Para. 4.36) 
Question 15: As for the market disturbance measure, please provide more details on market 
disturbance measure and the end result of the enforcement.   
EU reply: Article 219 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 provides for the European Commission to 
take measures to address market disturbance or threats thereof "caused by significant price rises 
or falls on internal or external markets or other events or circumstances significantly disturbing or 
threatening to disturb the market, where that situation, or its effects on the market is likely to 
continue or deteriorate". In determining whether such circumstances exist, the Commission will refer to all available information and data.  
The European Commission is given the powers to  implement the measures to respond to market 
distortions and so the European Commission is responsible to determine when those disturbances occur.  
 
For further information see Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 285 - 
 
  Additional Question: 
 
Question 16:  In relation to trade, what is the follow–up measure or monitor of the 
implementation and the effectiveness of the law en forcement to control the security of the natural 
resources and the environment?  
 
EU reply:  The EU respectfully requests clarification of the question as it is not clear which EU 
measure(s) it refers to. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 286 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA 
 Questions Regarding the Secretariat Report 
 
Page 27 (Para 2.9. & 2.10.) 
 2.9. On ratification of trade agreements, the Eu ropean Parliament and the Council vote on trade 
agreements as a whole. The European Parliament ratifies trade agreements by simple majority, 
while the Council generally needs a qualified majority to give consent. Unanimity in the Council is required for agreements on trade in services, co mmercial aspects of intellectual property rights, 
and foreign direct investment that include provisions for the adoption of internal rules. Unanimity 
in the Council is also required for the negotiation and conclusion of agreements on trade in cultural 
and audiovisual services, and in social, educatio n and health services. For agreements that go 
beyond the competence of the EU (e.g. CCP), ratifi cation by the national parliaments of individual 
member States may be required. 
 2.10. The Council may agree to the provisiona l application of a trade agreement, where 
parliamentary consent is not required. However, if the European Parliament were to refuse to 
consent to the conclusion of an agreement, the de cision on provisional application would need to 
be reconsidered by the Council.  
Question 1 
 
Since the competences of the Common Commercial Policy have been extended, there may be a 
change in the coverage of the provisional application of the so called comprehensive FTAs. In the 
case of the Korea-EU FTA, several clauses relating to the criminal execution of intellectual property 
rights and cultural cooperation have been exempted from provisional application. 
 
Since investment protection is a competence of the Common Commercial Policy, will it be included 
in the coverage of provisional application?   
EU reply:  All matters concerning provisional application are decided on a case-by-case 
basis.Provisional application is used in particular when EU agreements also require ratification by EU Member States. It has not yet been decided whether all EU agreements including investment 
protection will require ratification and hence whether provisional application will apply to 
investment protection.   
Page 33 (Para 2.45. & 2.46.) 
 2.45. Under the EU exclusive competence, investment agreements with non-EU member States are negotiated at the EU level. In the EU's view, investment negotiations can take two forms: to 
include investment provisions in the ongoing trade negotiations and make investment protection 
an integral part of the free-trade agreements (e.g. FTAs with Canada and Singapore); or to pursue stand-alone agreements (e.g. with China and Myanmar). EU member States may be authorized to 
negotiate and conclude bilateral investment treaties (BITs) with countries not immediately 
scheduled for EU-wide investment negotiations, or to renegotiate existing agreements; all member States' BITs that entered into force before 9 January 2013 are "grandfathered", according to the 
Regulation (EU) No. 1219/2012. 
 2.46. There were some 1,400 BITs between the EU member States and third countries before the TFEU entered into force. Information about member States' BITs signed/in force is published 
annually in the Official Journal. 
 Question 2 
 Considering the large number of existing BITs between EU Member states and third countries 
(around 1,400) and a limited number of ongoing ne gotiations, it seems that the coexistence of 
existing BITs of Member States and an EU level investment regime will be maintained for a long 
time, despite the fact that the foreign investment policy is now an exclusive competence of the EU.  It seems that there is a need to narrow the gap between existing BITs. Does the EU have a 
specific time schedule to address this problem?  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 287 - 
 
  EU reply: There is no problem as the existing BITs be tween EU Member States and third countries 
will be preserved until they are replaced by EU agreements.   Currently, the EU Member States are still allowed to revise existing BITs and to negotiate new 
ones. How will the EU ensure that the Member States’ negotiations are in line with the EU level 
investment regime?   
EU reply: Regulation 1219/2012 foresees a mechanism that allows Commission to authorise 
Member States – subject to certain conditions – to open formal negotiations with a third country to amend or conclude a bilateral investment agreement. The compatibility is ensured during this process. 
 
Page 33 (Para 2.47.)  
2.47. The Commission considers that investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms 
ensure effective enforcement of investment agreements. Investor-to-state dispute settlement forms a key part of member States' BITs, and will be included in future EU investment agreements 
with other countries. In preparation for the applic ation of an ISDS mechanism, the EU adopted a 
regulation to establish a legal and financial framework for investor-to-state dispute settlement on 23 July 2014. This regulation provides legal and fi nancial certainty for foreign investors in the EU 
when they have dispute complaints against the EU or its member States, and ensures that any 
final award or settlement award is paid promptly to the investor, regardless of the decisions on the 
allocation of financial responsibility.  
Question 3 
 
Although the Commission has a firm stance of on the inclusion of ISDS in investment policy, the 
internal debate on ISDS seems to be turbulent with in the EU, particularly in the case of the EU-US 
TTIP negotiations.   Please provide us with a more specific position on the inclusion of ISDS, the reformation of the 
current ISDS regime, and a future plan for TTIP negotiations and other investment negotiations. 
 EU reply : The EU included provisions on investment protection in the trade agreements concluded 
during the period under review. Furthermore, the EU also started negotiating stand-alone 
investment agreements with China and Myanmar. Within the current negotiations for FTAs with Vietnam, Japan, Thailand, Malaysia, Morocco and India the EU expects the agreements to include 
chapters on investment protection. Please also refer to the concept paper “Investment in TTIP and 
beyond – the path for reform ”. 
 
Page 47 (Para 3.63. & 3.67) 
 
3.63. At end November 2014, the EU had 108 anti-dumping (AD) and 14 countervailing (CV) measures in force, affecting 27 trading partners. These measures include new measures, extended 
measures, and measures imposed from circumventio ns. Some AD measures have been in place for 
longer than ten years. The Commission maintains public websites to provide information on investigations, and on notices and adopted measures. 
 
3.67. Definitive anti-dumping or countervailing me asures are usually imposed for a fixed period of 
five years, subject to expiry re views and, if no expiry review is requested, the measure expires 
automatically. Expiry reviews may be initiated at the request of an EU industry or on the 
Commission's initiative. If the expiry review determines the measure should be retained, the 
duties normally remain in force for another five years. The Commission indicated that the average duration of AD measures in the EU is around six years (for the period 2002-mid-2014). 
 
Question 4 
 
According to a secretariat report, it states that the average duration of AD measures is around six 
years while there are some AD measures in place for longer than ten years. 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 288 - 
 
  Please provide us with more specific statistics which outline the proportion of measures which were 
terminated without expiry reviews and which had ex piry reviews, and the proportion of measures 
which have extended their duration according to the result of an expiry review.    
EU reply:  During the period mentioned in para 3.67 of the TPR concerned by Q4 (2002 – mid-
2014), 226 measures expired, of which 146 withou t request for expiry review (65%). Out of the 
remaining 81 measures for which expiry reviews were requested, 30 measures (13%) were 
extended once, 28 measures (12%) twice and one measure three times. 22 expiry reviews [10%] 
were terminated without extension of the measures.  Page 47 (Para 3.64) 
 
3.64. An industry within the EU may lodge a complaint with the Commission which may then initiate an investigation.71 If the investigation determines there is dumping or subsidies in 
production and/or export of the products concer ned, causality between the imports and injury, or 
threat thereof to the EU's industry, and that the imposition of a contingency measure is not against EU interests, the Commission may ad opt contingency measures. The adoption of 
contingency measures is subject to the new "comitology" rules (section 2.1) and requires 
consultations of a committee compos ed of member State representatives; member States can only 
oppose measures with a qualified majority.  
Question 5 
 
According to comitology rules, it seems that in order to take a TDI measure, the Commission 
consults with a committee composed of Member States representatives. How does this comitology 
work with regards to taking a decision on a provisional anti-dumping duty? Is it common to consult beforehand? Or, if the Commission consults with the committee after taking a provisional measure, 
what happens if Member States oppose the already taken measure? Does the Commission have to 
cancel the provisional measure? Were there any real cases?  EU reply:  As of February 2014 the Comitology Regulation applies to Trade Defence Instruments 
proceedings. Where the Commission intends to ad opt provisional anti-dumping or countervailing 
measures the Article 8 of the Comitology Regula tion applies. Article 8(5) of the Comitology 
Regulation provides in particular that “…the Commission shall adopt measures after consulting or, 
in case of extreme urgency, after informing th e Member States…”. The purpose is to seek the 
views of Members States before the Commission ad opts the provisional measures. No later than 
14 days after adoption, the Commission must submit the adopted provisional measures to the 
Committee to obtain its formal opinion. In this  context the advisory procedure applies and the 
Committee’s opinion is delivered by simple ma jority. The Commission must take the utmost 
account of the conclusions drawn from the discu ssion within the Committee and of the opinion 
delivered in the formal vote. Should the Committee oppose by simple majority the provisional 
measures, under the advisory procedure, the Commission has no obligation to withdraw the 
adopted provisional measures.  
Page 89 (Para 3.223.) 
 3.223. One of the significant elements of the thr ee new directives on public procurement is the 
new directive on concessions. Concessions are partnerships between the public sector and mostly 
private companies, where the latter exclusively op erate, maintain and carry out the development 
of infrastructure (ports, parking garages, toll roads) or provide services (which may be of general economic interest, such as energy and waste disposal for example). According to some studies, 
over 60% of all Public Private Partnerships (PPP) contracts in Europe are to be qualified as 
concessions. However, the fact that member States use different labelling for concessions, and the current lack of transparency on their award, makes systematic and precise measuring of their 
economic and social importance difficult. 
 Question 6 
 According to the secretariat report, over 60% of al l Public Private Partnerships (PPP) contracts in 
Europe are to be qualified as concessions. Theref ore the majority of PPP contracts can fall in the 
directive concerning concessions. In that case, which rules can be applied to the residual PPP 
contracts which cannot meet the definition of concessions.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 289 - 
 
  EU reply: Apart from being concessions, public-private partnerships could also qualify as public 
contracts either in the classical or in the utilities sectors in the sense of Directives 2014/24/EU or 2014/25/EU. Further PPPs do not fall in the scope of the EU legislation on procurement as the 
contracts are carried out on the basis of licenses, etc.  
 
Page 91 (Para 3.228.&3.299.)  
3.228. Regarding the environmental aspects of proc urement, the concept of “life-cycle costing” 
introduced in the Directives is aimed at encouraging public authorities to consider the full life-cycle of products in their purchasing decisions. The life-cycle cost concept includes internal costs and costs imputed to environmental externalities (inclu ding the CO2 footprint) linked to the product, 
service or works during its/their life cycle, prov ided their monetary value can be determined and 
verified. In their award decisions, contracting authorities may take into account criteria linked to the production process of the works, services or supplies to be purchased such as the inclusion of 
vulnerable and disadvantaged people or the use of  non-toxic substances. In addition, contracting 
authorities may require that works, supplies, or services bear specific labels certifying environmental, social or other characteristics, as long as the label requirements only concern 
criteria which are linked to the subject-matter of the contract and are appropriate to define 
characteristics of the works, supplies or servic es and that equivalent labels are accepted.  
 3.229. The new legislative framework also contains a series of provisions regarding the 
incorporation of other public policy objectives. First, to favour social inclusion, the current 
contracts' reservation in favour of sheltered workshops has been extended to economic operators whose main aim is the social and professional in tegration of disabled and disadvantaged workers; 
and the minimum required percentage of disabled  or disadvantaged employees is reduced from 
50% to 30%. Second, regarding innovation, all procedures may now take account of the total lifecycle cost of purchases when tenders are being evaluated. Thus, innovative bids may be 
awarded more points in the light of their long-term financial benefits. Innovation 
 Question 7 
 
The main objectives of the new directives for public procurement -- simplification, flexibility and 
legal certainty -- seem to be good news for international tenderers. Considering they are directives which should be transposed into national law, avoiding divergence from original directives should 
be guaranteed. Please provide us with a specific plan for monitoring the implementation of the new 
directives.  
EU reply:  The 3 public procurement Directives (2014/23/EU, 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU) came 
into force on 17 April 2014. Member States must transpose the Directives into national law within 24 months; this means that Member States have to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with these Directives by 18 April 2016. Member 
States are in the process of doing so. 
 As of 18 April 2016 the Commission may take action if a Member State fails to incorporate EU 
directives into its national law and to report/communicate to the Commission what measures it has 
taken or if the Commission finds that the national measures are incomplete.  
The plan to consider not only the price but also the quality of the procurement has also a favorable 
aspect to international bidders. However, considering ‘life-cycle costing’ or ‘other public policy objectives such as social inclusion or innovation’ can be seen as barriers for third country participants. Does the EU have a specific plan to control objective application of these new 
elements in the bidding process?  
 EU reply:  Contracting authorities might (if they wish) award a contract to the most economically 
advantageous tender or to the lowest cost using a life-cycle costing approach. It must be clarified 
that award criteria must always be objective, non-discriminatory and shall not have the effect of conferring an unrestricted freedom of choice on the contracting authority. They shall ensure the 
possibility of effective competition and shall be accompanied by specifications that allow the 
information provided by the tenderers to be effe ctively verified in order to assess how well the 
tenders meet the award criteria.   WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 290 - 
 
  The Directive allows only life cycle costing when it  is linked to the subject-matter of the contract, 
so for example it is not possible to use criteria and conditions relating to general corporate policy of the bidder.  Contracting authorities should hence not be allowed to require tenderers to have a certain corporate social or environmental responsibility policy in place. Requiring lyfe cycle costing 
is a not trade barrier. On the contrary by promoting LCC, the EU considers that public authorities 
can provide industry with real incentives for de veloping green technologies and products, thus 
contributing to growth. 
 
In principle, the Commission has at its disposal the mechanism of infringement proceedings under Articles 258 and 260 TFEU to ensure the objectiv e and legal application of the EU legislation. 
Under the Directives Member states have also reporting obligations related to the application of EU 
legislation. No additional means for control are envi saged to be put in place by the EU for the time 
being. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 291 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIION FROM SAUDI ARABIA 
 Secretariat Report (WT/TPR/S/317) 4. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(4.3) SERVICES 
(4.3.4) Financial Services  
Paragraph 142 states: 
 "The seventh element of the first pillar is the Ba nk Recovery and Resolution Directive, BRRD. It 
harmonizes and upgrades the tools for dealing with bank crises across the EU. Banks will be 
required to prepare recovery plans to overcome financial distress, while authorities will lay out 
plans to resolve failed banks in a way which preserves their most critical functions and avoids taxpayers having to bail them out. Authorities are granted a set of powers to intervene in the 
operations of banks to avoid them failing. If they do face failure, authorities are equipped by the 
directive with new comprehensive powers and tools to restructure them, allocating losses to shareholders and creditors following a clearly defined hierarchy." 
 
Q1. At which stage does BRRD have to be activated?   EU reply: The main aims of a bank resolution are to: 1) safeguard the continuity of essential 
banking operations, 2) protect depositors, client assets and public funds, 3) minimise risks to 
financial stability, and 4) avoid the unnecessary destruction of value.  
The authorities may determine that a bank needs to be resolved if: 
 
 it has reached a point of distress such that there are no realistic prospects of recovery over 
an appropriate timeframe, 
 all other private sector or supervisory interven tion measures have been proved insufficient 
to restore the bank to viability, and 
 winding up the institution under normal insolvency proceedings would risk prolonged 
uncertainty or financial instability and therefore resolving the bank would be better from a 
public interest perspective. 
 
Entry into resolution will thus always occur at a point close to or at insolvency. Authorities 
nonetheless will retain a degree of discretion to ensu re that they can intervene before it is too late 
for resolution to meet its objectives. 
 
Q2. Could you please elaborate further on the resolution tools?   EU reply: The choice of tools under the European Re solution framework will depend on the 
specific circumstances of each case and build on options laid out in the resolution plan prepared for 
the bank. They consist of powers to:  
(i) effect private sector acquisitions (parts of the bank can be sold to one or more purchasers 
without the consent of shareholders); (ii) transfer business to a temporary structure (such as a "bridge bank") to preserve essential 
banking functions or facilitate continuous access to deposits; 
(iii) separate clean and toxic assets between "good " and "bad" banks through a partial transfer of 
assets and liabilities; and/or (iv) bail in creditors (mechanism to cancel or reduce the liabilities of a failing bank, or to convert 
debt to equity, as a means of restoring the institution's capital position). 
 Other tools can be used to the extent that they  conform to the principles and objectives of 
resolution set out under the BRRD. In circumst ances of very extraordinary systemic stress, 
authorities may also provide public support instead of imposing losses in full on private creditors. 
The measures would nonetheless only become available after the bank's shareholders and 
creditors bear losses equivalent to 8% of the bank's liabilities and would be subject to the 
applicable rules on State aid.   WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 292 - 
 
  Q3. What is the defined hierarchy for the allocation of losses, and what is the relevant 
 framework used for that purpose?   EU reply: The write down will follow the ordinary allocation of losses and ranking in insolvency. 
Equity has to absorb losses in full before any debt claim is subject to write-down. After shares and 
other similar instruments, it will first, if necessary, impose losses evenly on holders of subordinated debt and then evenly on senior debt-holders. 
 
Deposits from SMEs and natural persons, including in excess of EUR 100,000, will be preferred over senior creditors. The Deposit Guarantee Scheme to which the institution is affiliated (and the deposits it covers) will in turn rank above these. It will also be liable to assume losses for the 
amount that it would have had to bear if the bank had been wound up under normal insolvency 
proceedings. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 293 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM INDIA 
 Document – WT/TPR/S/317 
 
Page – 56, Paragraph – Table 3.8 Princi pal SPS legislation in the EU in 2015 
Background 
The General Food Law applies to safety of food and feed in the internal market, established a 
framework for controlling and monitoring the risks and their prevention and management, and created the European Food Safety Authority (EF SA) for the control and evaluation of food and 
feed. 
 Question 1:  
EU is requested to provide justification for maintaining a higher level of MRL for pesticides 
(including herbicides and fungicides) compared to that of CODEX standards/international standards 
for the following agricultural products. Could EU also indicate whether any risk assessment has 
been carried out, and the scientific justification, before applications of higher MRLs? 
 
S. No. Product 
1 Cattle Meat 
2 Chickpea 
3 Coffee bean green 
4 Corn grains 
5 Cucumber 
6 Grape 
7 Guar 
8 Milk 
9 Mustard seed (oilseed) 
10 Nut cashew 
11 Onion Bulb 
12 Peanut 
13 Pepper, non-bell 
14 Rice 
15 Sesame Seed 
16 Soybean 
17 Sugar cane 
18 Tea Leaves 
19 Wheat, grain 
 
Further the European Union is also requested to provide clarifications on the following 
related queries: 
 
I. EU is requested to provide scientific justification (risk assessment), as mandated by the SPS 
Agreement, for the application of higher tolerance level on these pesticides (including herbicides and fungicides) which are of export importance for India?  
 
EU reply:  EU maximum residue limits (MRLs) are set according to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 
after a risk assessment by EFSA, taking into account existing EU Good Agricultural Practices 
(GAPs) or, in case of an import tolerance request, third country GAPs. Furthermore, the EU regularly implements Codex MRLs into the EU legislation provided no concerns are raised by EFSA 
in a specific risk assessment carried out at EU level and provided that these Codex MRLs are 
higher than the current EU MRLs. Where existing  E U  M R L s  a r e  h i g h e r  t h a n  C o d e x  M R L s  t h e y  
remain unchanged. As regards the above mentione d commodities, different MRLs are set for many 
different substances. Specific information can be taken from the publicly available EU pesticides 
database92. 
 
II. The EU is requested to clearly provide answers as to why such stringent MRL levels are 
required for the presence pesticides and veterinary drugs like: Captan (700 times); Dicloran (700); Fenpropathrin (500); Dicamba(200); Oxamyl (102.5) and Clofentezine 100 times the 
CODEX MRL standards.  
 
                                               
92 http://ec.europa.eu/sanco_pesticides/public/index.cfm?event=homepage&language=EN . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 294 - 
 
  EU reply:  The EU regularly implements Codex MRLs into EU legislation where no concerns are 
raised by EFSA in a specific risk assessment. The reasons for such reservations are transparently 
explained in the annual meetings of the Codex Committee for Pesticide Residues. 
 
III. What are the Theoretical Maximum Daily Intake (TMDI) levels and the Acceptable Daily 
Intakes (ADI) in case of each Pesticides/Veterinary Drugs?  
 
EU reply:  The ADI's for pesticides can be found in the EU pesticides database. Under 'active 
substances' the toxicological reference values of all substances can be found as well as links to the 
relevant legislation, in which also reference is made to the corresponding EFSA conclusions. The TMDI level, which is used for calculating the chronic exposure, is not a substance specific level. It 
is calculated based on the mean food consum ption data and the MRL. The chronic exposure 
calculations for specific MRLs can be consulted in the EFSA reasoned opinions that are published on the EFSA website
93. 
 
IV. The EU is requested to provide details of the bifurcation of the two approaches that could be 
used under the existing provision of the SPS Agre ement: scientific evidence or risk assessment? 
Further EU is requested to furnish all the details to India.   
EU reply:  EU measures are based on solid scientific principles. For the establishment of MRLs for 
pesticides residues EFSA performs a risk assessment taking into account all available scientific evidence. These assessments are publically available on the EFSA website. 
 
Page – 139, Paragraph – 4.63 
Background In 2010 the European Commission placed the tele communications policy into a wider framework 
by adopting the Digital Agenda for Europe (DAE ) which is aimed at taking advantage of the 
potential offered by the rapid progress of digital technologies, notably by setting ambitious targets 
for the deployment of 4G and broadband networ ks, but the scope of the Agenda goes beyond 
telecommunication services to include areas such as e-commerce, and e-government.  
Question 2:  
The EU is requested to provide details of the elements related to e-commerce included in the 
Digital agenda for Europe (DAE).  
 
EU reply:  Building on the experiences of the 'Digit al agenda for Europe' the new the European 
Commission has set the creation of a Digital Single Market as one of its key priorities. 
Fragmentation and barriers that do not exist in the physical Single Market are holding the EU back. 
Bringing down these barriers within Europe coul d contribute an additional EUR 415 billion to 
European GDP. The digital economy can expand markets and foster better services at better prices, offer more choice and create new sources of employment. Pillar I of the Digital Single 
Market Strategy, entitled 'Better access for cons umers and businesses to online goods and services 
across Europe' deals with e-commerce-related actions in particular. The Commission aims at improving trust of consumers and businesses in Cross-border e-commerce by making a proposal 
(i) covering harmonised EU rules for online purchases of digital content, and (ii) allowing traders to 
rely on their national laws based on a focused set of key mandatory EU contractual rights for domestic and cross-border online sales of tangible  goods. To ensure affordable, high-quality cross-
border delivery services the Commission will launch measures in the first half of 2016 to improve 
price transparency and enhance regulatory oversigh t of parcel delivery. To increase cross-border 
availability of products and services the Commission will make legislative proposals in the first half of 2016 to end unjustified geo-blocking. Action could include targeted change to the e-Commerce 
framework and the framework set out by Article 20 of the Services Directive. On taxation the 
Commission is expected to make legislative proposals in 2016 to reduce the administrative burden on businesses arising from different VAT regimes including (i) extending the current single 
electronic registration and payment mechanism to intra-EU and 3rd country online sales of 
tangible goods, (ii) introducing a common EU-wide simplification measure (VAT threshold) to help small start-up e-commerce businesses, (iii) allowing for home country controls including a single 
                                               
93 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/ . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 295 - 
 
  audit of cross-border businesses for VAT purposes  and (iv) removing the VAT exemption for the 
importation of small consignments from suppliers in third countries.  
Page – 147, Paragraph – 4.92 
Background 
The AVMSD applies to on-demand services, a slightly lighter regulation (so called "graduated 
approach") in particular regarding the promotion of European works.  
Question 3: 
Could the EU please explain what is meant by “graduated approach”?   EU reply : The AVMSD distinguishes between "televisio n broadcasting" or "television broadcast" 
and "on-demand audiovisual media service". In or der to describe and distinguish both from each 
other, the AVMSD introduces the notions of "linear audiovisual media service" for television broadcasting/television broadcast (Article 1.1 (e)), and "non-linear audiovisual media service" for 
on-demand audiovisual media service (Article 1.1 (g)).  
 The distinction between linear and on-demand services is the basis for a graduated 
regulatory approach : In a two-tier system of rules the Directive acknowledges a set of core 
societal values applicable to all audiovisual media services, but provides lighter regulation to on-demand services where the users have a more acti ve, "lean-forward" approach and decide on the 
content and the time of viewing. All audiovisual me dia services have to respect the basic tier of 
obligations in the following areas: 
 1. - identification of media service providers, 
2. - prohibition of incitement to hatred, 
3. - accessibility for people with disabilities, 
4. - qualitative requirements for commercial communications, 
5. - sponsoring, and 
6. - product placement. 
 Stricter rules in the areas of advertising and pr otection of minors are foreseen for television 
broadcasts due to their impact on society. 
 Page – 147, Paragraph – 4.93 
Background 
For linear services, Articles 16 and 17 of the Directive require that the majority of transmission time shall be reserved, where practicable, for Euro pean works and that broadcasters shall reserve, 
where practicable, 10% of their transmission ti me or programming budget to European works 
produced by independent producers. On the other hand, for non-linear services, Article 13 of the 
Directive leaves a wider discretion to member States on how to promote European works.  
Question4: 
Could the EU please explain what is meant by “linear services” and “non-linear services”?   
 
EU reply : As indicated in the reply to question 3 (above), AVMSD defines (Article 1.1 (e)) 
‘television broadcasting’ or ‘television broadcast’ (i.e. a linear audiovisual media service) as an audiovisual media service provided by a media service provider for simultaneous viewing of 
programmes on the basis of a programme schedule; 
And ‘on-demand audiovisual media service’ (i.e. a non-linear audiovisual media service) as an audiovisual media service provided by a media se rvice provider for the viewing of programmes at 
the moment chosen by the user and at his indi vidual request on the basis of a catalogue of 
programmes selected by the media service provider. 
 Page – 148, Paragraph – 4.97 
Background 
Regarding on-demand services the implementation re port revealed a certain lack of uniformity in 
implementing the promotion of European content obligation. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 296 - 
 
  Question 5: 
Could the EU please inform the details of Europe an content obligation and how they apply to non-
EU countries? Is there any difference between such obligations for EU and non-EU countries?  
 
EU reply : Provisions regarding European content appear in Articles 13, for non-linear services 
provided by media service providers under the jurisd iction of an EU member state, and Article 16 
for linear services provided by broadcasters un der the jurisdiction of an EU member state, ( in 
accordance with Article 2.3  in both cases). EU legislation applies to EU member states. 
 
Page – 150, Paragraph – 4.102 
Background 
At the member State level, support measures for audiovisual works are subject, like other state 
aide measures, to the control of the Directorate General for Competition of the Commission which 
has formulated specific rules for the sector. 
 
Question6: 
Could the EU please inform the rules for co-production with non-EU countries? Is there any 
difference between such rules for EU and non-EU countries?  
 
EU reply:  Member States have bilateral co-production agreements (i) with other EU Member 
States and (ii) with third countries. Public support for production is governed by MS measures which determine the conditions for the support.  
According to the EU rules, the conditions imposed by Member States as regards state aid for film 
production, distribution and promotion activities to foreign (and EU) companies are subject to the rules contained in the Communication from the Commission on State aid for films and other 
audiovisual works (Communication). 
 Member States can impose Territorial spending obligations in film funding schemes , which require 
that a certain part of the supported film budget be spent in the aid-granting Member State. The 
Commission, however, limited the maximum level of territorial production activity that Member 
States can set as an eligibility condition. Member States may also require that the producer has an office in their territory at the moment the aid is paid out. This means that within these limits 
foreign companies may get Stat e aid for film production.  
 Moreover, the Cinema Communication is supplemente d by State aid rules on the audiovisual sector 
in the revised General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER). Member States may implement 
measures which fulfil the conditions of the Regulation without prior Commission scrutiny (Article 54, Aid schemes for audio-visual works). Conditions include similar limitations to the territorial 
spending obligations as in the Communication, rules on eligible costs and aid intensities and, 
according to point 10 of Article 54 of the GBER, the rule that aid shall not be reserved exclusively 
for nationals and beneficiaries shall not be required to have the status of undertaking established under national commercial law. 
 
The Communication from the Commission on State aid for films and other audiovisual works is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/specific_rules.html . 
 
The text of the GBER is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/block. 
html#gber  
 
Audio-Visual Services 
Para 4.3.2 of the Secretariat Report relates to Audiovisual services. Para 4.106 mentions that the member States provide an estimated €3 billion per year in film support: €2 billion in grants and 
soft loans, and €1 billion in tax incentives. Around 80% of this is for film production. France, the 
U.K., Germany, Italy, and Spain offer the majority of this support.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 297 - 
 
  Question 7  - Does the EU take commitments in Audio-Visual Services in its Free Trade 
Agreements? If yes, the details may be provided. 
 
EU reply: The EU does not take commitments on audiovisual services in its free trade 
agreements.  
 
Page – 158, Paragraph – 4.118 
Background 
According to the Commission, while the Services Directive has contributed to simplifying authorization procedures, their complexity, their length and their cost still varies between and within member States. Similarly while the Services Directive has ensured that applications are 
dealt with more objectively, there are still problems in practice at local level. 
 Question8: 
The EU is requested to inform about the problems in practice at local level and what are the 
solutions envisaged for such problems? It is also requested to provide details of differences in authorization procedures between member states?  
 
EU reply:  The rules regulating establishment of retail outlets vary across the European Union, not 
only at national level but also at regional and even local level, both in form and content. The remaining complexity and the problems at local level as regards retail establishment authorisations 
result notably from spatial planning. The Commission is examining some particularly restrictive 
practices in the context of its infringements procedures .Furthermore, the Commission considered useful to launch a peer review of MS regulatory frameworks in 2014.  
 
Page – 158, Paragraph – 4.120 Background 
There is a specific legal framework both at national and EU levels, the latter paying particular 
attention to cross-border provision of distribution services.  Question9: 
Are there any differences in the legal framework for cross-border provision of distribution services 
for the EU and non-EU countries? If yes, pl ease provide details of such differences  
 
EU reply: Distance selling of goods and services is regulated by the Consumer Rights Directive 
(2011/83/EU). This Directive requires traders to provide certain information regarding their identity, the main characteristics of the product, price, etc. before the purchase. It also gives 
consumers the right to withdraw from a purchase with 14 days from receiving the good or 
concluding the contract on the service. The Dire ctive applies both to cross-border and domestic 
contracts and has been transposed in the national legislation of all the EU Member States. Traders 
in non-EU countries have to comply with this legislation if they target EU consumers in their 
commercial activities. Websites which contain information in EU languages, list prices in euros etc. 
could be considered as targeting EU consumers.  
Page – 158, Paragraph – 4.122 
Background Outstanding hindrances to the internal market have been identified by the Commission as 
undermining cross-border online trade and this will be a core issue for the DSM (Digital Single 
Market) package which is one if the Commission's top ten policy objectives, as laid out in the Commission's 2015 Work Programme.  
Question10: 
Could the EU please inform about the main elements of the Digital Single Market package?   
EU reply : The Digital Single Market Strategy adopted today includes a set of targeted actions to 
be delivered by the end of next year (see Annex). It is built on three pillars: (1) better access for consumers and businesses to digital goods and services across Europe; (2) creating the right 
conditions and a level playing field for digital networks and innovative services to flourish; (3) 
maximising the growth potential of the digital ec onomy. The Digital Single Market Strategy sets 
out 16 key actions under 3 pillars which the Commission will deliver by the end of 2016. Actions include rules to make cross-border e-commerce easier, to enforce consumer rules more rapidly 
and consistently, more efficient and affordable parcel delivery, ending unjustified geo-blocking, an WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 298 - 
 
  antitrust competition inquiry into the e-commerce sector, a modern, more European copyright law, 
a review of the Satellite and Cable Directive, reducing the administrative burden businesses face from different VAT regimes, an ambitious overhaul of EU telecoms rules, review the audiovisual media framework, a comprehensive analysis of the role of online platforms, the review of the e-
Privacy Directive, a 'European free flow of data initiative' to promote the free movement of data in 
the European Union, defining priorities for standards and interoperability, and supporting an inclusive digital society where citizens have the right skills 
 
Page – 27, Paragraph – 2.8 Background Before commencement of trade negotiations with a non-EU territory or territories, the Commission 
must acquire prior authorization from the Council whose decisions are taken by qualified majority 
voting (QMV).  
Question11: 
Could the EU please inform about the criterion for prior authorization from the Council?  
EU reply:  The procedure for the commencement of trade negotiations consists basically of two 
phases. The European Commission first submits recommendations to the Council to initiate negotiations with a third country seeking a formal authorization in this respect. Following the submission, the Council authorises the opening of negotiations including the negotiation directives 
based on the recommendation and sets the overall objective to be achieved. 
 Page – 28, Paragraph – 2.13 
Background 
DG Trade maintains the Civil Society Dialogue, wh ich provides registered stakeholders with an 
opportunity to participate in meetings with the Commission on trade and trade-related issues. In 
addition, DG Trade holds public consultations on major policy initiatives where participation is open 
to EU and non-EU parties.  Question12: 
Could the EU please inform the frequency of such consultations and if any conditions are attached 
for participation by non-EU parties?   
EU reply:  Note that as of 19 May 2015, the European Commission has radically overhauled its 
procedures for stakeholder consultation. In future, all new policy initiatives will have their own dedicated webpages.  DGs developing new policy initiatives will have to publish on these webpages 
(inter alia): a roadmap which outlines the main features of the proposal, and provides details of 
the expected timeline for preparation and analysis of the underlying initiative; a consultation strategy, which will set out the DG’s objectives for  planned stakeholder consultation linked to the initiative, as well as the various consultation activities by which the DG intends to ensure that all 
relevant stakeholder groups have an opportunity to express their views; and consultation 
documents linked to specific consultation activities. There is no differentiation made (in terms of access) between EU and non-EU respondents; anyone can participate submitting an input online. 
 
Page – 33, Paragraph – 2.41 Background 
Despite the common provisions of the EU legislation, a business may face different regulatory 
restrictions depending on where it is established. It was estimated that up to one-third of the administrative burden linked to EU legislation stems from implementation measures in member States. Moreover, according to the OECD, the hete rogeneity of rule-setting across member States 
and high national barriers, especially in some services sectors, makes it hard for businesses to 
adapt to each national regulation.  
Question13: 
Could the EU please inform what the services sectors are and also about the applicable national barriers in these sectors that make it hard for businesses to adapt to each national regulation? 
 
EU reply: India could refer to the OECD report mentioned in the secretariat report as well as in 
footnote 57 as the EU is not responsible for the OECD report. The EU can provide the following elements for further comments: WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 299 - 
 
  The EU services sector accounts for over 70% of economic activity in Europe, and a similar (and 
rising) proportion of overall employment. The various services sectors are identified in the framework of the GATS in the WTO. The main horizontal provisions harmonizing the rules for services providers and recipients are the Servic es Directive. The Directive covers economic 
activities making up 46% of EU GDP, with the biggest sections being business services, wholesale 
and retail, real estate and construction.  
A number of important services sectors (e.g. financ ial, energy, transport, health care, security 
etc.) are excluded from the scope of the Directiv e. Instead most of these sectors are covered by 
sector-specific legislation, such as transport, telecom, and financial services.  
Through the implementation of the Directive, EU Member States have had to cut red-tape, 
increase transparency in the market, eliminate unj ustified or disproportionate requirements and 
set up business-friendly e-government portals that would allow business to complete 
administrative procedures online - Points of Single Contact (PSC).  
 In 2012, three year after the deadline for implementing the Directive the European Commission 
carried out an assessment of the implementation done by Member States. See " COM/2012/0261 
final" and  "SWD/2012/0148 final", Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-
market/services/servicesdirective/implementation/evaluation/index_en.htm . 
 
In addition, as part of the European semester process, every year Member States and the 
Commission adopt Country Specific Recommendation (CSRs) meant to improve competition in the services sector. These CSRs indicate services sector where Member States are encouraged to 
remove barriers and undertake reforms. See more information at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/making-it-happen/ country-specific recommendations/index_en. 
htm. 
 
Furthermore as part of the upcoming "Internal Market Strategy" the Commission will publish a report on "Remaining barriers to services trade".   
Page – 94, Paragraph – 3.243 
Background In 2011, euro 237.2 bn. was open to GPA Parties. 
 
Question14 : 
In respect of government procurement contracts for the past three years, could the EU provide 
details of the percentage of government procurement by value that was awarded to non-EU 
suppliers?  EU Reply : We do not have such information for the last three years.  You might find some 
information on import from non EU countries in a 2011 study on cross border procurement  
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicproc urement/docs/modernising_rules/cross-border-
procurement_en.pdf . 
 
Page – 132, Paragraph – 4.53 Background 
Many agricultural products are subject to non Ad Valorem duties. 
 Question15 : 
In headnote 7 in its Tariff Schedule, EU has stated that the duty-paid price will not be more than 
180% of the Intervention Price for Indica Rice. Co uld the EU provide details of the Intervention 
Price for Indica Rice for the past 5 years? Would th e EU agree that result of headnote 7 is that it 
imposes a variable import duty on Indica Rice, as the duty changes automatically and 
continuously? How does the EU reconcile headnote 7 and the resultant variable import duty with 
the finding of the Appellate Body in Chile- Price Ba nd that “nothing in Article 4.2 suggests that a 
measure prohibited by that provision would be rendered consistent with it if applied with a cap”.  
 
EU reply:  The mechanism to calculate the duty on husked and milled rice results from Article 
XXVIII negotiations, which reduced the duty compared to the one originally included in the 
schedule. EU bound duties provide that import duty cannot be higher than 65 €/t for husked rice and 175 €/t for milled rice. The applied import duty on milled rice is 175 €/t, while the import duty WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 300 - 
 
  is set at a lower level of 30 €/t for husked rice since 2012. In addition the import duty for husked 
rice of certain Basmati varieties from India is fixed at zero since 2004.  
Page – 76, Paragraph – 3.170 
Background 
Commitment to grant licences to third parties on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) 
terms. In an Opinion delivered on 20 November 2 014 to the European Union Court of Justice, the 
Advocate General stated that the fact that a comp any owns a SEPdoes not necessarily mean that it 
holds a dominant position. He also proposed that the Court of Justice rule that, where the 
proprietor of an SEP has made a commitment to a standards body to grant third parties a licence on FRAND terms  
Question16 : 
What was the outcome in the case relating to th e conduct of SEP holders? When an SEP holder 
sells his technology as a bouquet of SEP and non SEP technology on all or nothing basis, can this 
be considered as misuse of dominant position? Please indicate any cases in the European Court of 
Justice on this issue.  
 
EU reply:  At the time of responding, the ECJ had not yet adopted its judgement in the above-
mentioned case.   OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL WATHELET delivered on 20 November 2014 is available at: 
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document .jsf?text=&docid=159827&pageIndex=0&doclang
=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=108095 . 
 
When determining whether a conduct can be considered as abuse of dominant position especially 
with regard to SEP holders, the Commission has to examine several different factors. Therefore, it 
has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. 
 
In the Samsung and Motorola cases, the Commission clarifies that in the standardisation context, where the SEPs holders have committed to (i) license their SEPs and (ii) do so on fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, it is anti-compe titive to seek to exclude competitors from the 
market by seeking injunctions on the basis of SEPs  if the licensee is willing to take a licence on 
FRAND terms. In these circumstances, the seeking of injunctions can distort licensing negotiations 
and lead to unfair licensing terms, with a negative impact on consumer choice and prices. 
 
The Huawei case is significant because this is the first time the issue has appeared before the European Court of Justice, being a dispute referred from a German court in relation to the 
interpretation of EU law.  
 Examples of previous Commission SEPs cases: 
 Rambus: a "patent ambush" case. Rambus was preliminarily found to have engaged in a so-
called "patent ambush", by intentionally concea ling that it had SEPs, and by subsequently 
charging royalties for those SEPs that it would not have been able to charge absent its conduct. Following the Commission's Statement of Objections, Rambus committed to 
putting a worldwide cap on its royalty rates for products compliant with the relevant 
standards for a period of five years. In 2009, the Commission adopted an Article 9 decision, rendering Rambus' commitments legally binding. 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=1_38636  
 IPCom: transferability of the FRAND commitment. In 2007, IPCom acquired from Bosch a 
number of FRAND-encumbered SEPs. It was alleged that IPCom violated its predecessor's FRAND commitment. Following a Commission investigation, IPCom declared its willingness 
to conform to Bosch's previous FRAND commitment. 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=1_39615  
 Motorola: The European Commission adopted a decision which finds that Motorola Mobility's 
(Motorola) seeking and enforcement of an inj unction against Apple before a German court 
on the basis of a smartphone standard essent ial patent (SEP) constitutes an abuse of a 
dominant position prohibited by EU antitrust rules in view of the particular circumstances 
in which the injunction was used. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 301 - 
 
  http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=1_39985  
Competition policy brief on standard essential patents: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/cpb/2014/008_en.pdf  
 
Page – 96, Paragraph – 3.253 
Background In total numbers, applications went up from 266,000 to 274,174, with about two-thirds of 
applications submitted by inventors from non-EPO countries of origin, and the number of patents 
granted amounted to 64,613 in 2014, as compared to around 66,700 in 2013.  Question17: 
What is the status of pendency in examination in the European Patent Office? Please indicate the 
figures for the last three years.   
EU reply:  The IP5 published in October 2014 a statistics report, which includes information on 
pendency statistics. See http://www.fiveipoffices.org/statisti cs/statisticsrepor ts/2013e dition/ 
ip5sr2013corr.pdf . 
 
Page – 96, Paragraph – 3.253 Background In total numbers, applications went up from 266,000 to 274,174, with about two-thirds of 
applications submitted by inventors from non-EPO countries of origin, and the number of patents 
granted amounted to 64,613 in 2014, as compared to around 66,700 in 2013.  
Question18 : 
According to the information provided 266,000 applications were received in 2014. How many applications were examined by EPO in 2014 and what was the disposal –which would include 
grant, refusal or abandonments in that year? Information on these may also be provided for 2011, 
2012 and 2013.   EU reply: Information on applications can be found in the EPO annual reports, which can be found 
online: http://www.epo.org/about-us /annual-reports-statistics.html. 
 Page – 97, Paragraph – 3.256 
Background 
 The core role of knowledge-based industries that rely on IPRs had already been recognized by the 
"Europe 2020" Strategy203, as well as, in part icular, by "Horizon 2020", the EU's new Framework 
Programme for Research and Innovation for the period 2014-2020.204 It makes €80 billion of funding available over seven years and establ ishes clear rules for the exploitation and 
dissemination of IPRs resulting from research pr ojects conducted within this framework. At the 
same time, it acknowledges the need to ensure open access to scientific publications and to 
promote open access to research data that result from publicly-funded research under this programme. 
 
Question19: What are the broad contours of the Programme for Research and Innovation? What activities are 
to be undertaken as part of the project?  
 EU reply:  Horizon 2020 is the financial instrument implementing the Innovation Union, a Europe 
2020 flagship initiative aimed at securing Europe's global competitiveness. 
 
Seen as a means to drive economic growth and create jobs, Horizon 2020 has the political backing 
of Europe’s leaders and the Members of the European  Parliament. They agreed that research is an 
investment in our future and so put it at the hear t of the EU’s blueprint for smart, sustainable and 
inclusive growth and jobs.  
By coupling research and innovation, Horizon 2020 is helping to achieve this with its emphasis on 
excellent science, industrial leadership and tackling societal challenges. The goal is to ensure Europe produces world-class science, removes barriers to innovation and makes it easier for the public and private sectors to work together in delivering innovation. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 302 - 
 
  Horizon 2020 is open to everyone, with a simple structure that reduces red tape and time so 
participants can focus on what is really important. This approach makes sure new projects get off the ground quickly – and achieve results faster.  
The EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation will be complemented by further 
measures to complete and further develop the Eu ropean Research Area. These measures will aim 
at breaking down barriers to create a genuine single market for knowledge, research and 
innovation. 
 More information can be found here: http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en . 
More details on the rules for participation can be found here: . https://ec.europa.eu/research/ 
participants/portal/doc/call/h2020/common/ 1595113-h2020-rules-participation_oj_en.pdf  
 
Page -102, Paragraph – 3.269 
Background 
As noted in the previous TPR report232 and for the reasons explained therein, the European 
Parliament and the Council reached a political agreement on the unitary patent package in 
December 2012. 
 Question20 :  
Once the unitary patent regime comes into force, what would be the status of patent offices of the 
concerned EU member States? What would be the impact of this on non EU application?  
 EU reply:  The regime for unitary patents co-exists with the regime for national patents and 
European patents. The status of the patent offices does not change. 
 Page – 103, Paragraph – 3.272 
Background 
Spain contested the delegation of powers to the EPO whose acts are allegedly not subject to judicial review  
Question21 : 
The secretariat in its report mentions that Spain had contested the delegation of powers to EPO as 
its acts are not subject to judicial review. Coul d EC explain this and inform about the mechanism 
for oversight on EPO?  
 EU reply: On 5 May 2015 the European Court of Justice dismissed
94 both of Spain’s actions 
against the regulations implementing enhanced coop eration in the area of the creation of unitary 
patent protection (judgments in Case-146/1395 Spain v Parliament and Council and Case C-
147/1396 Spain v Council). The Court's judgments confir m the validity of the Patent package, and 
lifted the uncertainty overshadowing the ratification process. 
 
The EPO is subject to oversight by the Unified Patent Court in respect of actions concerning 
decisions of the European Patent Office in carrying out the tasks set out in Regulation 1257/2012. 
 
Page – 111, Paragraph – 3.302 Background 
In parallel, the EMA adopted, on 2 October 2014, its new policy on publication of clinical data for 
medicinal products for human use.306 The objective of  facilitating public access to clinical trial 
data after completion of the marketing authorization process is to respond to an increased demand for transparency, to allow researchers to reassess data, to avoid duplication of clinical trials and to 
foster innovation and the development of new medicines. The policy extends, among others, to 
clinical data which are submitted, as of January 2015, as part of any new application for marketing authorization. The Terms of Use in Annex 1 specify, however, that the clinical reports may only be 
used for general information and non-commercial purposes; they may not serve to support an 
application for marketing authorization or any extension or variation thereof for a product anywhere in the world. Similarly, the user is prohibited from making any unfair commercial use of 
the clinical reports. 
                                               
94 http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-05/cp150049en.pdf . 
95 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-146/13 . 
96 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-147/13.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 303 - 
 
  Question22 : 
The report of the secretariat mentions the step taken by the EC to disclose clinical trial data to the 
public. However, the policy aims to prevent third parties to use the data to seek market 
authorization including in other countries. Since, the data would no longer be undisclosed 
information, how is the EC proposing to implement its extra territorial jurisdictional implication of such a policy. Would this be tenable under the TR IPS Agreement which only requires a country to 
provide a mechanism to protect undisclosed information?  
 
EU reply:  EMA will not divulge commercially confidential information (CCI). Although generally the 
information contained in clinical reports should not be considered CCI, EMA has acknowledged that in limited circumstances the clinical reports could contain CCI, and could, therefore, be subject to 
redaction prior to publication. Where redaction of CCI is proposed by the applicant/marketing 
authorisation holder (MAH), a consultation with the applicant/MAH will be undertaken, following 
scrutiny by the Agency of the proposed redaction, including the justification provided by the 
applicant/MAH, as to whether th e definition of CCI applies. 
 
Concerning enforcement, according to the Terms of Use (ToU), the Courts of England and Wales 
do not have exclusive jurisdiction to settle disputes or claims arising out or in connection with the ToU. As the UK law was accepted by the user when accepting the ToU, such disputes or claims 
may be settled under UK law by the courts of another country, either within the EU or outside. 
 The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, a pplicable to the ToU, offers an opportunity to 
applicants and Marketing authorization holders (M AHs) to operate and enforce the ToU directly 
against possible infringers of the ToU, who could be tempted to make an unfair commercial use of 
the information received. Whilst EMA does not have the resources to police the use by any and all recipients of the relevant published clinical reports, it shall cooperate with the judicial authorities 
and with the Applicant/MAH in case of any suspected breach of contract. In particular, courts may 
require EMA to disclose the identity of the users who do not comply with the ToU to the MAHs/Applicants. 
 
If a user is found not in compliance with or in breach of the ToU, EMA will suspend the account of this user to prevent further access to the data published.  
Page – 116, Paragraph – Table 3.24 
Background 
Table 3.24 Enforcement of intellectual property rights, 2011-13 
 
Question 23 :  What is meant by ‘transit EU’ and ‘transit’ in the table on break down of cases in 
2013? Could EU provide the details of the number of ca ses that are included in ‘transit’ and ‘transit 
EU’ and their details including the outcome?  
 
EU reply:  - "Transit" refers to cases in which goods supposedly destined for third countries are 
placed under a customs transit procedure. Therefore,   "Transit EU" refers to cases in which goods 
destined for the EU are placed under a customs transit procedure. Customs transit procedures 
allow the movement from one point to another within the customs territory of the European Union of goods not released for free circulation Available information can be found here: 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/statistics/ind
ex_en.htm. 
 
Page – 116, Paragraph – Table 3.24 Background 
Table 3.24 Enforcement of intellectual property rights, 2011-13 
 
Question24 : 
Given the statistic on measures taken on goods tran siting EU, could EC explain the criteria on the 
basis of which this is enforced in EC territory? Details of the type of goods on which these were 
imposed and the markets they originated from may also be provided.  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 304 - 
 
  EU reply: As explained in the "Guidelines on goods in transit" published by the European 
Commission Services as a Staff Working Document97, goods coming from non-EU Member States 
"in transit" (placed under the customs transit procedure which are supposedly destined for third countries) may be, under current legislation, detained by customs authorities based on the 
suspicion of an infringement of an intellectual property right when, during their presence within 
the customs territory of the European Union withou t being released to free circulation, or even 
before their arrival in that territory, those goods are the subject of a commercial act directed at 
the European Union market, such as a sale, offer for sale or advertising, or where it is apparent 
from documents (e.g. instruction manuals) or co rrespondence concerning the goods that their 
diversion to the European Union market is envisaged.  
In addition to the existence of a commercial act already targeted at the European Union market, 
other circumstances can also trigger temporary detention by the customs authorities of the Member States. A customs authority to which an application for action is made may, as soon as 
there are indications available to it giving grounds for suspecting that such an infringement exists 
suspend the release of or detain those goods. Those indications may include, inter alia, the fact that the destination of the goods is not declared whereas the suspensive procedure requested 
requires such a declaration; the lack of precise or reliable information as to the identity or address 
of the manufacturer or consignor of the goods (whereas the customs legislation requires to provide such information), a lack of cooperation with the customs authorities or the discovery of documents or correspondence concerning the goods in question suggesting that there is a 
likelihood that they will be diverted to the European Union market. 
 Available information on statistics can be found here: 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/statistics/ind
ex_en.htm.  
Page – 64, Paragraph – 3.18 
Question 25:  EU states sustainable development is one of the important constituents of Common 
Fisheries Policy. What sustainability measures have been enforced as a result of the policy so far? 
Could EU provide details of the manner in which ea ch member state has enforced such measures?   
 
EU reply:  During the last 30 years, the EU has managed the fisheries with limitations on both 
access to the waters (continuously reducing the fleet capacity that is deployed) and to the fishing 
resources (through total allowable catches and technical selectivity measures). In 2013, the EU 
adopted a fundamental reform of its Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) which aims to ensure high long-term fishing yields for all stocks by 2015 where possible, and at the latest by 2020. This is 
referred to as maximum sustainable yield, the internationally agreed standard for fisheries 
management. Another increasingly important aim is to achieve cleaner fisheries, through reducing unwanted catches and wasteful practices to the mi nimum or avoid them altogether. This will be 
achieved through the gradual introduction of a landing obligation. 
 
The CFP determines the common rules, leaving to the Member States the liberty to determine how they allocate access licences and fishing opportuni ties among their fishermen to comply with the 
r u l e s .  I t  i s  a l s o  u p  t o  M e m b e r  S t a t e s  t o  d e t e r m i n e  h o w  t h e  f l e e t  i s  c o m p o s e d ,  a s  l o n g  a s  t h e  
overall capacity ceiling per state is respected. Generally, the Member States are compliant with the EU rules and in case of non-compliance they are sanctioned. 
 
Question 26:  As far as fisheries access rights are concerned, what are the terms and conditions 
on the basis of which EU’s fishing fleets are granted permission to fish in the fishing waters of 
access granting States? What kind of support to the fisheries sector is provided through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund? Could EU provide details of the policy or fund under which fisheries access rights arrangements or partnership agreements are funded?  
 
EU reply: For each EU country a fishing fleet capacity ceiling is established, in kilowatts and gross 
tonnage. New fishing vessels may enter the fleet only after the same capacity (kilowatts and 
tonnage) is removed from that fleet. As general rule, fishing vessels registered in the EU fishing fleet register have equal access to all EU waters and resources that are managed under the CFP. 
                                               
97 http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_ 
piracy/legislation/guide lines_on_transit_en.pdf . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 305 - 
 
  Access to fisheries is normally authorised th rough a fishing license. There are however two 
temporary exceptions (expiring by end 2022) to this rule of equal access: in waters up to 12 nautical miles where access can be limited to vessels from adjacent ports, and in waters up to 100 nautical miles from EU's outermost regions where access can be limited to vessels registered in 
ports of these territories. 
 The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund provides public funds for a comprehensive set of 
activities in the maritime, fisheries and aquaculture sectors. In general terms, helps to fishermen 
in the transition to sustainable fishing, support coastal communities in diversifying their economies, finances projects that create new jobs  and improve quality of life in coastal areas and 
makes it easier for applicants to access financing. The Fund is used to co-finance projects, along 
with national funding from individual Member States. More information is available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/emff/index_en.htm . 
 
Article 32 of Regulation (EU) N° 1380/2013 of th e European Parliament and of the Council of 11 
December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy provides for the details and conditions under 
which financial assistance to third countries through Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements 
should be granted, making a distincton between access part to be supported through both the EU 
budget and ship-owners contrubutions, and a specific contribution to support fisheries governance 
in the partner country 
 For more details, see other details below.  
Question 27:  In addition to CFP of EU, some sustainability measures are enshrined in the 
Fisheries Access Rights & Partnership Agreements between EU and other coastal states granting 
access rights. How does the EU enforce the sustainability measures? What are the mechanisms to 
ensure that EU’s fishing fleets, especially commercial fishing fleets adhere to the sustainability measures? 
 
EU reply: New Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements (SFPAs) target surplus stocks only, 
ensuring that EU fishing fleets respect the provisio ns agreed by the Parties. Within these SFPAs, 
the EU contributes financially to support in the corresponding Party the local fishing sector, fishing 
governance including actions against IUU fishing, scientific research and control. Fishing possibilities must be based on improved scientifi c knowledge and the principle that European fleet 
has access to surplus resources which its partners cannot or do not wish to fish in accordance with 
UN principles. There is better control of the fishin g activity of the EU long distance fleet and EU 
vessels should not compete with the local fleet, in particular the small fishermen. Governance of 
fisheries partnership agreements is also being strengthened through transparency and non-
discrimination measures.  One of the important elements of the Common Fisherie s Policy is an EU system of control with the 
necessary tools to implement them. The system is laid down in Council Regulation 1224/2009
98. 
which thoroughly modernised the EU's approach to fisheries control. In particular, it brought the 
system into line with the strong measures wh ich the EU had adopted in 2008 to combat illegal 
fishing. 
 Fisheries control is not just about checking the acti vities of fishers at sea, which is expensive and 
cannot alone ensure that the rules are respected. Checks are carried out at every point in the 
chain from the boat to the retailer. Fishing vessels are not even allowed to leave port without a valid licence to fish. Though checks at sea are still done, the focus is now on checks in ports where fish is landed or transhipped, during transport, in factories that process fish and at markets where 
fish is sold. 
 The control system applies to all fishing activities in EU waters, and to all fishing carried out by EU 
fishing vessels and EU nationals, wh erever they may fish. It also a pplies to recreational fishing on 
sensitive fish stocks and aquaculture in so far as they are covered by rules at EU level – for instance, to fishing for eel or to certain recreational fisheries for bluefin tuna. 
 
Fishing under EU fisheries partnerships agreements is carried out in such a way as to ensure the viability of the resource from ecological, economic and social points of view, in conformity with the 
                                               
98 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:343:0001:0050:EN:PDF . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 306 - 
 
  principles of the Common Fishery Policy.  SFPAs include technical measures that reflect these 
principles while fishing activity is permanently managed, monitored and strictly controlled within the rules on the basis of on the one part internat ional rules, expressed in both the SFPA protocol 
and Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) rules, as well as in national legislation 
from the coastal State. 
 
Page – 130, Paragraph – 4.46 
NEW AND FULL NOTIFICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XVI:1 OF THE GATT 1994 AND 
ARTICLE 25 OF THE AGREEMENT ON SUBSIDIES AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES 
EUROPEAN UNION (G/SCM/N/253/EU):  Page 12-13 
Question 28:  EU accepts that financial support is provided to wine sector for marketing and 
promotion of wines in third countries? Could EU clarify that the  measures taken do in fact support 
marketing and eventual exports of wines to thir d countries? Can EU clarify that the financial 
s u p p o r t  t o  w i n e  s e c t o r  f o r  m a r k e t i n g  i n  t h i r d  c o u n t r i e s  m a y  i n  f a c t  b e  i n  t h e  n a t u r e  o f  e x p o r t  
subsidy?  
 
EU reply:  The EU allocates financial support for campaigns to promote farm products and inform 
consumers about how they are produced. The campaigns can run inside the EU, or beyond its borders.  
 
Rules for a new promotion policy (entering into force on 1st December 2015) are set in Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014,as well as Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 for wines.  
Such promotion of agricultural products is not an export subsidy since there is no export 
contingency. These widely available export prom otion and advisory measures fall within the 
exclusion of Article 9.1(d) of the WTO Agreemen t on Agriculture and are not subject to export 
subsidy commitments. 
 
Page – 61-62, Paragraph – 3.2.4 
 
Question 29: The report states that the EU member states ar e allowed to draw up schemes providing credit 
insurance for small and medium enterprises engaged in exports for short term export credit up to 
2 years. The table A3.3 of Secretariat Report gi ves details of state agencies that provide short 
term export credit/export credit insurance in EU member states.  
 
I. Can EU clarify and provide details of all short term export credit and export credit insurance programmes being implemented by all the EU member states?  
 
EU reply:  The Commission aims to remove distortions of competition due to state aid in the short-
term export-credit insurance sector where ther e is competition between public or publicly 
supported export-credit insurers and private export-credit insurers.  
 
The Commission communication to the Member States on short-term export-credit insurance (Communication) states that, as a general rule, marketable risks cannot be covered by export-
credit insurance with the support of European Union (EU) countries.  
 For further details, please refer to the text of the Communication:  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52012XC1219(01)&from=EN  
 
For countries temporarily removed from the list of marketable risk countries, there is no 
notification obligation to the Commission. Therefore, we cannot provide any details of those. 
 Member States need to notify all other "temporary non-marketable risk" schemes to the 
Commission. Examples: 
 
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-253_en.htm . 
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-193_en.htm . 
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-593_en.htm . 
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1515_en.htm . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 307 - 
 
  http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-718_en.htm . 
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-282_en.htm . 
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-131_en.htm . 
 
Legislation on the above: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/instruments.html . 
II. Does EU agree that the state insurance provided by the State agencies of EU member states 
against non-marketable risk i.e. short term export credit/export credit insurance may amount to 
an export subsidy? 
 EU reply:  State agencies intervention for non-marketable risk cannot be considered State aid in 
the meaning of Art. 107 of the TFEU. 
 
III. Does EU propose to notify to the Subsidies Committee all the programmes of EU member states which relate to provision of short term export credit/credit insurance for exports?  
 
EU reply:  Taking into account that non-marketable risk cannot be considered State aid in the 
meaning of Art. 107 of the TFEU, the EU does no t propose to notify non-marketable short term 
export credit schemes to the WTO. State aid for ma rketable export credit insurance is prohibited 
according to the EU rules.  Additional questions 
 A. Questions on application of EU Directive 2001/83/EC  
Q30.   India seeks certain clarifications on the manner of application of Directive 2001/83/EC of 
the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community Code Relating 
to Medicinal Products for Human Use which governs the placing on the market, production, 
labelling, classification, distribution and adve rtising of medicinal products for human use.  
 EU reply:  The EU notes that there is no precise question in the above statement which seems to 
be rather an introduction to the following question.  
 
Q31.  India understands that regulatory authorities of EU Member countries conduct inspection 
and audits of clinical research organizations (CRO) that provide conduct the bio-equivalence 
studies required for application of market authorization of various medicinal products in the EU 
market. In particular, India would like to seek information on the following: 
 
(i) In how many circumstances in the past 10 years has EMA recommended suspension of 
market authorizations? In how many instances in the past 10 years has EMA recommended suspensions based on doubts relating to check-out ECG procedures of a 
CRO? 
(ii) India understands that corrective action is an integral part of all regulatory audits. In 
how many of these instances have EU regulatory audits considered check-out ECG 
related procedures and recommended corrective actions for CROs, instead of 
recommending outright suspension of approvals? 
(iii) Does EU believe that Good Clinical Practices (GCP)  audits of its own regulatory 
authorities are entirely invalidated by findings of doubts in select sampling of check-
out ECGs, when ECG related testing itself is not relevant for majority of the medicines 
whose market authorization is in question? 
EU reply:  The EU legislation provides that in case authorities are aware of any situations that may 
impact marketing authorizations a procedure should be triggered in order to assess the impact for 
all existing marketing authorizations at EU level. This is in particular in case of finding of non-
compliance with Good Clinical Practice.  
The assessment on the impact is of a scientific nature which is conducted by the European 
Medicine Agency (EMA) scientific committees. The European Commission relies for its decision 
making process on these scientific assessments. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 308 - 
 
  For the period January 2009 until December 2014, 161 referrals procedures were started. Of those 
161 referrals, 34 had a suspension or revocation of market authorization as an outcome, 6 of the 
34 followed an inspection, and 4 of these were due to GCP non-compliance.  
B. EU proposal to amend the Trade Mark Regulation: 
It is understood from the information available in the website that the EU is in the process of 
amendment of its existing EU Tr ademark Regulations, i.e. Council Regulation (EC) No. 207/2009, 
and the existing Trademark Directive, i.e. Directive 2008/95/EC. The proposed amendment 
includes provisions specifically relating to goods in transit. It appears to allow EU authorities to 
confiscate / seize goods, originating from one country and destined for a third country, while in 
transit through the EU and apparently, without the need for any evidence or any suspicion that it would be sold/diverted into the EU market. Pr ecisely, Recital 18 of the Proposed Trademark 
Regulation states: 
 
“…the proprietor of a European Union trade mark should be entitled  to prevent 
third parties from bringing goods into the customs territory of the Union without 
being released for free circulation there, where such goods come from third 
countries and bear without authorisation a trade mark which is essentially identical to the European Union trade mark registered in respect of such goods.” 
 
Q32. In light of the above, India would like to kn ow the following information from the European 
Union: 
 
1. The latest texts of the proposed amendments to  the Trademark Regulation and Directive, as 
available in the Public domain are of Febr uary, 2014. As per this text, EU trademark 
holders have the right to claim infringement even against goods-in-transit. EU would like 
to clarify the following on the amendments proposed as of now: 
a. Is this an appropriate understanding of the amendments proposed? 
b. Is it correct that EU trademark holders can claim such infringement against goods-
in-transit even without a determination or allegation of actual infringement in the 
country of origin or the country of destination? 
c. Is it correct that EU trademark holders can claim such infringement against goods-
in-transit even without any evidence or suspicion re-enforced without evidence 
that such transit goods may be re-directed to the EU market? 
 EU reply to Q32.1.a,b,c:  In accordance with the compromise agreed with the EU legislators 
following the European Commission proposals for the amendment of the trade mark laws in the 
European Union, and once the corresponding am e n d i n g  l a w s  w e r e  a d o p t e d  a n d  i n  f o r c e ,  t h e  
proprietor of a trade mark would be entitled to pr event all third parties from bringing goods, in the 
course of trade, into the Union without being rele ased for free circulation there, also when these 
goods are not intended to be placed on the market of the European Union, where such goods come from third countries and bear without authorization a trade mark which is identical to the European 
Union trade mark registered in respect of such goods, or which cannot be distinguished in its 
essential aspects from that trade mark. The legislative proposal recalls the principle that appropriate measures should be taken with a vi ew to ensuring the smooth transit of generic 
medicines in line with the ‘Declaration on  the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health’. 
 
The proposed new trade mark provisions would apply only in respect of goods  which bear without authorization a trade mark which is identical to, or which cannot be distinguished in its essential 
aspects from, the European Union (whether nation al or EU) trade mark registered goods, and 
would not apply to confusingly similar trade mark goods. The proposed new trade mark provisions 
would not entitle the trade mark proprietor to pr event the transit of medicines on the basis that 
they bear similarities between the INN for the ac tive ingredient and the registered trade mark. 
 The entitlement of the trade mark proprietor to pr event transit of these goods into the EU territory 
would lapse if, during the subsequent proceedings initiated by the trade mark proprietor to 
determine whether the trade mark has been infringe d, evidence was provided by the declarant or 
the holder of the goods that the proprietor of the trade mark was not entitled to prohibit the 
placing of the goods on the market in the country of final destination. The trade mark proprietor 
could, moreover, be held liable, where the good s in question were subsequently found not to WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 309 - 
 
  infringe his trade mark, towards any holder of the goods or declarant who had suffered damage 
due to the detention of goods. 
 
2. In the Regulation 608/2013, it is mentioned in the preamble that in the case of goods-in-
transit that are medicines, customs authorities will "take account of any substantial 
likelihood of diversion of such medicines onto the market of the Union".  
a. Does this statement in the preamble crea te a binding obligation on the Customs to 
"take account of any substantial likelihood of diversion of such medicines onto the 
market of the Union" in every case involving generic medicines? How is “substantial likelihood” defined? 
b. What is the meaning of "take account of"? Does it imply that Customs has the 
discretion to detain such transit goods even without substantial likelihood of 
diversion of such medicines onto the market of the European Union? 
c. Does this imply that for goods-in-transit other than generic medicines, Customs 
does not even have to "take account" of any substantial likelihood of diversion of 
such goods and/medicines onto the market of the Union? 
 
EU reply to Q32.2.a,b,c:  In the Union legal order a preamble to a legislative act and the recitals 
of which it is comprised are interpretative tools, which help to explain the purpose and intent behind a normative instrument. The preamble to a Union act is not legally binding.  
In this context, Recital 11 of Regulation 608/2013 co nfirms that the EU is fully committed to all the 
efforts made to facilitate access to medicines for countries in need in accordance with the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, adopted by the Doha WTO Ministerial 
Conference on 14 November 2001 and reminds cust oms authorities of the need to have said 
Declaration in mind when dealing with "generic" medicines in transit.  
The European Union notes that under its intellectual property legislation as is currently in force in 
the European Union, all goods – including medicines - may be detained by customs authorities upon suspicion of infringement when, during their presence within the customs territory of the European Union without being released to free circ ulation, or even before their arrival in that 
territory, goods coming from non-Member States are the subject of a commercial act directed at 
the European Union market, such as a sale, offer for sale or advertising, or where it is apparent from documents (e.g. instruction manuals) or co rrespondence concerning the goods that their 
diversion to the European Union market is envisaged. Furthermore, other circumstances can lead 
to a temporary detention by the customs authorities of the Member States; such as, for instance, the existence of indications showing a concrete risk of fraudulent diversion to the European Union 
market. 
 
3. Under Regulation 608/2013, do EU customs au thorities retain jurisdiction to suspend 
clearance of goods-in-transit as well as to detain them on the basis of alleged infringement 
of EU trademark rights, even though they ar e only transit-goods without any evidence or 
suspicion of being re-directed into the EU market? If yes, then whether the EU Customs Authorities apply the law of the country of origin, or the law of the country of destination, 
or the EU law in making the determining whether such goods-in-transit allegedly infringe 
trademark rights? 
 
EU reply Q32.3: Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 contains procedural rules for customs authorities; 
it does not set out the criteria for ascertaining the existence of an infringement of an intellectual property right; these are regulated in substantiv e intellectual property laws applicable in the 
European Union.  
 
As explained in the reply to Question 32.1, the European Union is in the process of amending its trade mark legislation, which will – once in force – make it possible for customs authorities to 
detain infringing goods in transit. 
 C. EU Government Procurement and the relevant Directives 
 
Q33.  EU is one of the GPA members and as the information available in the WTO website, its GP 
market is substantial. India would like to understand from the EU the following information:   WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 310 - 
 
  1. Under the Government procurement, EU may please name the first five entities (taking all 
EU member states into consideration) and the relevant sub-sectors in terms of valuewise procurement of goods and services in the last 2 to 3 years?  
 
EU reply : We do not have information on the first five entities. Information on the public 
procurement markets in the EU could be found in the following two documents below: 
 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicpr ocurement/docs/modernising_rules/executive-
summary_en.pdf . 
 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/public procurement/docs/modernising_rules/20141105-
indicators-2012_en.pdf . 
 
2. In its GPA commitments, EU, like other members have provided the positive listing of 
the entities with certain exceptions on coverage. Can EU explain if there are any other 
exceptions to its GP commitment which are not at all part of its GPA coverage? 
 
EU Reply: Concerning GPA covered procurement, the EU exceptions are only those mentioned in 
the EU Appendix I to GPA. The EU coverage under  the revised GPA can be found at the following: 
 https://www.wto.org/english/trat op_e/gproc_e/gp_ app_agree_e.htm . 
 
3. EU may provide the list of countries (other than GPA signatories) with whom EU has entered into GP agreement or is negotiating for GP chapter under its FTAs.  
 
EU Reply : Since 2006, the EU is seeking to introduce GP chapters in all of bilateral trade 
agreements or association agreements containing developed trade sections. (see the WTO 
Secretariat report on EU bilateral trade) 
 Issues not covered in the Secretaria t as well as by the EU Report: 
ICT (intra-corporate transferee) Directive: 
A very important development since the last TP R of the EU has been the adoption of the 
ICT Directive on 13 May 2014 by the EU Counc il. India requests for responses on the 
following issues:  
 Question 34:  Will this directive be implemented across member states under the given timeline 
(of November 2016)? Is there a possibility that some member states will implement this directive 
earlier than prescribed deadline? If yes, then which are the best placed states?  
 EU reply:  Directive 2014/66/EU has to be implemente d by 29 November 2016, by EU Member 
States bound by it (all EU Member States exce pt the UK, Ireland and Denmark). Although it is 
indeed conceivable that several EU Member States will implement the scheme in advance of the agreed deadline, the Commission has not been notified of any such implementation to date and is 
not in a position to inform other parties which EU Member States have made the most progress . 
 Question 35:  Will the implementing Member States publish the draft guidelines in advance to give 
an opportunity to stakeholders to respond at the draft stage? It is informed that a number of 
concerns exist as the Member States seek to im plement this Directive. Some of these concerns 
include: (i) the potential for huge translation costs of supporting documents as required by host states in local languages in case of intra-EU mobility; (ii) potential quotas that Member States 
could apply; and (iii) the possibility for Member St ates to oblige that the transferee leaves the EU 
for six months once the initial three year permit has expired. It will be useful if the Member States implement the Directive in the most uniform manner possible, without imposing unnecessary costs 
on businesses.  
 EU reply: Directive 2014/66/EU obliges Member States to make information on its provisions and 
their implementation in that Member State easily accessible to applicants. The Commission is not 
aware of the planned publication of an y guidelines by the Member States in advance  of their actual 
implementation of this Directive, nor is this required by the Directive.  
Question 36:  In the current scenario, there is no harmonised work permit regime with each 
mission asking for different paperwork and requirements. Is EU looking to harmonise some of WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 311 - 
 
  these requirements in the short-term before ICT di rective is implemented to bring relief to non-EU 
countries?  EU reply: Common conditions for legal entry and stay for third-country nationals are not 
regulated only by the ICT Directive . The EU legislation on legal migration is made of 8 Directives 
regulating admission and stay, as well as rights, fo r different categories of third country nationals, 
i n c l u d i n g  w o r k e r s .  I t  i s  t r u e  t h a t  M e m b e r  S t a t e s  h a v e  s o m e  r o o m  f o r  m a n o e u v r e  i n  t h e  
implementation of the Directives, but admission co nditions are harmonised to a large extent. The 
first Directives approved on legal migration,  Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family 
reunification and Directive 2003/109/EC concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents set common conditions to define and protect rights for legally residing 
migrants and their families. 
 Specific procedures and admission conditions for study  purposes can be found in Directive 
2004/114/EC and for scientific research  in Directive 2005/71/EC (these two Directives are now 
being merged, a proposal with more attractive rules is under negotiation). As regards  labour 
migration , the EU has rules on highly skilled workers  (beyond the ICT Directive, the Directive 
2009/50/EC on the conditions of entry and residenc e of third-country nationals for the purposes of 
highly qualified employment, "Blue Card"). And for low-skilled  ones, rules (on admission 
conditions and rights) are enshrined in the 2014 Seasonal Workers Directive.  
Furthermore, the "EU Single permit" Directive  2011/98/EU simplifies procedures,  granting in a 
single application procedure (one stop shop) a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and caters for a common set of rights for third-country 
workers legally residing in a Member State. 
 Finally, to make practical information more accessible for all types of migrants, the Commission 
has been running for more than three years the EU Immigration Portal 
(http://ec.europa.eu/immigration/ ). 
 
Blue Card:  
Question 37:  The EU has recently announced a review of the Blue Card Directive. What will be 
the key elements of this review?  
EU reply:  The European Commission has published, in May 2014, a report on the implementation 
of the Blue Card scheme in which a number of the shortcomings have been highlighted already.  
The review will assess the EU Blue Card further in-depth and look at how to make the scheme 
more effective in attracting talent to Europe. Th e review will include looking at issues of scope 
such as covering entrepreneurs who are willing to invest in Europe, or improving the possibilities for intra EU mobility for Blue Card holders. For this purpose, the European Commission's Directorate-general for Home Affairs is conducting a public consultation on these issues, to which 
all stakeholders are invited to contribute. 
 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-is-new/public-
consultation/2015/consulting_0029_en.htm. 
 Question 38:  Does the EU intend to push for Blue Card regime instead of respective work permits 
by member-states which may lead to permanent migration? 
 EU reply: In some Member States, the EU Blue Card scheme exists in parallel to a national 
scheme for attracting highly-qualified workers. Depending on the provisions of such national 
schemes, the attractiveness of the Blue Card on potential migrants to those Member States may 
be affected. The relationship between the EU-wid e and national schemes, and its impact on EU 
attractiveness to highly skilled workers, will be co nsidered as part of the review of the EU Blue 
Card scheme. 
 Current visa regime:  
Question 39:  In the current regime business visa (Shenghen visa) offered by missions is for short 
duration - by some for just few days or weeks. Is there a way to extend the duration to at least one year validity including multiple entries?  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 312 - 
 
  EU reply:  The Visa Code, Article 24(2), allows for the issuing of multiple entry visas (MEVs) with 
a long validity (6 months to 5 years) to persons who has justified needs or intentions to travel frequently (e.g. for the purpose of business) to the Schengen area and who have proved his/her 
integrity and reliability by the lawful use of or previously issued Schengen visas. Additionally, COM 
has in its recent proposal on a recast of the Visa Code, proposed to facilitate further the 
mandatory issuing of MEVs with a long validity to persons holding 'bona fide' status. 
Data Security:  
India’s areas of concerns are: 
  EU Data Protection Directives, and procedures es tablished under it restricts international trade 
in services. Restrictions on transfer of data flows from EU to third countries, not deemed 
adequate as per EU assessment, significantly limits the ability of EU businesses to leverage 
hyper specialized services offered by outsourcing countries. Lead:  
 Adequacy condition is holding many companies, especially in the SME sector, from 
outsourcing. Many companies are not sure whether directive allows them to offshore projects 
to non-European nations or not and instead of erring on the wrong side of the law most of 
them decide against it.  
 Existing instruments of transfer (such as the Standard Contractual Clauses), which are 
available as options to adequacy, doesn’t really address the issue. Rather they raise cost of 
compliances, exposes companies to the complex liabilities, and deprive small and medium scale companies opportunities to scale and grow. Also, there is no uniformity on how member 
states treat SCC. Some member states mandate prior authorization of contract from the Data 
Protection Authority. Practices with respect to governing model contract are varied across the member states. 
 
Question 40:  
In view of the above, shouldn’t there be effort to  review and reform EU’s Data Protection Regime 
and existing instruments so that it removes barriers for businesses specially SMEs, given their 
rising share in economic contribution to global economy and overall increase in global trade in services.   
EU reply : The globalised nature of data flows calls for a strengthening of the individual’s data 
protection rights internationally. This requires strong principles for protecting individuals’ data, aimed at easing the flow of personal data across borders while still ensuring a high and consistent 
level of protection without loopholes or unnecessary complexity.  
 As a consequence the EU has proposed a comprehens ive reform of its data protection framework: 
In particular the EU Data Protection Regulation will create a more unified framework for data 
protection, ensure a better functioning of the EU's internal market, and provide for a more 
streamlined procedure for international data transf ers. It streamlines adequacy decisions, makes 
legitimate transfers easier and less burdensome  by reinforcing and simplifying other rules on 
international transfers, in particular by streamlining and extending the use of tools such as 
‘binding corporate rules’, so that they can be used to also cover data processors and within ‘groups of companies’, thus better reflecting the multiplicity of actors involved in data processing activities. 
 
The EU's data protection reform package will bo ost innovation in sustainable data services by 
enhancing legal certainty and strengthening trust in the digital marketplace. This way it will foster 
a virtuous circle between the protection of a fundamental right, consumer trust and economic 
growth. All states should join the European Union in contributing to trust in the digital and the internet by respecting and protecting the right to privacy and to protection of personal data.  
Simultaneously, it is worth mentioning that the Commission has set up an expert group comprised 
of experts from EU independent data protection au thorities, the aim of which is to identify any 
gaps in the Indian system and provide expertise wi th a view to further facilitating data transfers 
between the EU and India, by ensuring a hi gh level of protection of personal data. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 313 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM TURKEY 
 
THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 
 
Summary, pp. 10, para.16. 
It is stated in the Secretariat Report that “…To a large extent, distribution services are regulated 
by the member States through a combination of laws, including those relating to labour, 
competition, and establishment. However, severa l EU level laws are applicable, including the 
Services Directive and, in recognition of the import ance of distribution services to the EU economy 
and to the operation of internal market policy, further EU policies are currently being developed.” 
 
Considering the fact that distribution services are mostly regulated by the EU member states 
preventing a single market harmonization for the services sector, could the European Union 
provide further information regarding the future EU policies and legislative steps so as to ensure 
the operation of a more integrated internal market policy for the services sector? 
 EU reply:  The internal market is a competence shared by the Union and the Member States. In 
the absence of Union legislation, Member States may take measures justified by an overriding 
reason of public interest provided that the measures are necessary and proportionate to the objectives pursued. The provisions of the TFEU  and of the Services Directive 2006/123/EC (the 
Services Directive) are the main horizontal legal instruments to address restrictions to the freedom 
of establishment and the freedom to provide services  in distribution services. In addition, the legal 
framework relevant for distribution services al so includes harmonised rules on eg. consumer 
protection. 
 
1.1.1.  Overview of GDP Growth, pp 12-13, para. 1.5 
It is stated in the Report that “Investment remains weak in the EU. In 2014Q3, gross fixed capital 
formation continued to contract in the euro area, and remained broadly stable throughout the EU 
after a slight contraction the previous quarter. The slow growth in investment in equipment and 
construction were the main contributors to investment in the EU.3 In response to the weakness of investment, the EU launched an Investment Plan which is expected to mobilize at least €315 billion 
over the next three years, with an aim of suppo rting the real economy and SMEs. The Investment 
Plan is intended to support "strategic investme nts" in infrastructure, including broadband and 
energy networks, transport infrastructure, re newable energy, and research and innovation.”  
 
Could the European Union explain how the Investment Plan conforms with EU state aid rules? Could the European Union provide details about the studies which will determine the state aid rules 
to be implemented on the investment plan?  
 EU reply:  In November, President Juncker announced the creation of the European Fund for 
Strategic Investment (EFSI), with the objective to enhance investment in Europe by generating up 
to EUR 315 billion investment. The Commission will assess proposals for national co-financing 
under the EFSI from the perspective of EU state aid rules. Such potential national co-financing will be subject to an accelerated State aid assessment.  No specific studies are foreseen to determine 
the state aid rules to be implemented in the context of the investment plan. 
 2.4.1 Business environment, pp.33, para. 2.41  
It is mentioned in the Report that “ Despite the common provisions of the EU legislation, a business 
may face different regulatory restrictions dependin g on where it is established. It was estimated 
that up to one-third of the administrative burden linked to EU legislation stems from 
implementation measures in member States.56 Moreover, according to the OECD, the 
heterogeneity of rule-setting across member States and high national barriers, especially in some 
services sectors, makes it hard for businesses to  adapt to each national regulation.57 In June 
2013, Germany passed new immigration rules which aim to cut red tape for people in target 
industries, allowing them to easily obtain recogn ition of their qualifications in Germany. On the 
other hand, France passed a bill in the National Assembly in October 2013 imposing penalties on companies that shut down operations deemed ec onomically-viable; at end-March 2015 this bill 
was still under debate in the French Senate. ” 
 Considering the new immigration rules applied by Germany, could the European Union provide information whether there are any similar attemp t s  b y  o t h e r  E U  M e m b e r s  a n d  i f  s o ,  i n  w h i c h  
sectors and what steps have been taken to eliminate red tape? WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 314 - 
 
  EU reply:  The European Commission is aware of several initiatives by EU Member States to 
streamline immigration procedures, including, but not limited to, those adopted by Germany. The 
studies carried out by the European Migration Network, with the support of the European 
Commission, provide a comprehensive overview of the mechanisms in place to attract qualified 
migrants. 
 
 Admitting third country nationals for business purposes (2014) 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-
do/networks/european_migration_network/reports/docs/emn-
studies/emn_study_admitting_third_country_nationals_for_business_purposes_synthesis_
report_04may2015.pdf  
 Highly qualified migrants (2013) 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-
do/networks/european_migration_network/reports/docs/emn-
studies/attracting/emnsr_attractinghqworkers_finalversion_23oct2013_publication.pdf . 
 
2.4.1 Business environment, pp.33, para. 2.42  
It is mentioned in the Report that “Some member States such as France, Germany, and the United 
Kingdom maintain FDI review procedures for national security purposes. These procedures were amended during the period under review: in September 2013, Germany streamlined its review mechanism for FDI, reducing data requirements for sector-specific reviews; and in May 2014, 
France amended the list of activities subject to FDI review. In 2014, Italy and Portugal also 
amended or adopted new legislation to review investment in strategic sectors such as defence, energy, transport and communication.” 
 
Could the European Union provide information on country and sector specific basis, whether the measures are implemented for both intra-EU and outward coming FDI? Could the European Union 
also provide information on the parameters bein g used by the Member States to review the 
incoming FDI?   EU reply:  The areas and the scope for review mechanisms for FDI are listed in EU Member States' 
legislation. 
 With reference to Germany, Turkey could refer to the details contained in the recently published 
G20/OECD report: 
https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news 13_e/g20_oecd_unctad_report_dec13_e.pdf . 
 
The EU Member States' legislation establishing review mechanisms to FDI which are constantly 
monitored by the EU is in full conformity with the EU's international commitments.  3.1.1 Customs procedures  pp. 35, para. 3.10 
It is mentioned in the Report that “As indicated by the World Bank's Doing Business, the time 
ne e d ed  to comp le te  imp ort p roc es s  varie s  among  me mbe r State s : in more  than half of the  EU member States it takes lesstime than the OECD average; whereas for the others it takes more 
time; e.g. up to 19 days for Hungary. 
 Could the European Union elaborate on the reasons for the difference on import processes among 
its member States and whether it plans to facilitate and shorten the said process?  
 EU reply:  Differences in the time required for customs clearance are due mainly as a result of 
geographical and logistical factors; besides there may arise differences as the need for non-
customs related documentation may differ between Member States.   
 Customs procedures in the EU must be uniform ly implemented by the Member States' customs 
authorities in accordance with the Community Customs Code and its implementing provisions. 
Much effort is made in order to ensure a unifo rm implementation of customs and other border 
procedures.  
 
3.1.3.2. Preferential rules, pp.39, para. 3.24 It is mentioned in the Report that “Preferential rules of origin are those related provisions set out in unilateral trade arrangements (e.g. the GSP) [Generalised Scheme of Preferences] and 
reciprocal trade arrangements. The EU's preferential  rules of origin vary among different reciprocal WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 315 - 
 
  trade arrangements. However, there are general rules that are applied in most cases while 
exceptions to the application of the "general rules" differ from one trade arrangement to another. Compared to those previously applied, the new GSP rules of origin have been simplified and modernized. The Commission indicates that the EU has been considering expanding its GSP-style 
RoO [Rules of Origin] to other trade arrangements.” 
 Could the European Union explain how it envisages to expand its GSP-style RoO [Rules of Origin] 
to other trade arrangements?  
 EU reply:  The simplified structure and updated provisions recently introduced in the RoO for GSP 
form a good basis for future refo rms [in new or existing FTAs]. 
 
3.1.4.2 Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e – Measures Directly Affecting Imports – 
Tariffs –MFN Tariffs, pg. 42, para. 3.40 
It is mentioned in the Secretariat Report that “ The 2014 tariff schedule is coded on the HS 2012 
basis, comprising 9,379 lines at the eight-digit level…  Based on the relevant WTO definition, the 
average applied rate for agriculture fell to 14. 4% from 15.2% in 2011 and 17.8% in 2008. This 
reflects increases in prices of agricultural prod ucts and the resulting reduction in the AVEs of non-
ad valorem tariff rates applied on such products. ” 
 Considering gradual liberalization in the average applied tariff rate of agricultural products, could 
the European Union state whether any liberalization schedule is foreseen especially for sugars and 
confectionary products whose applied tariffs are quite higher than the average of agricultural 
products as indicated in Table 3.2? 
 
EU reply:  The EU has only a limited number of tariff  peaks, which were accepted and bound as 
part of the Uruguay Round Agreement. The EU has no plans to autonomously change its tariffs for 
agricultural products. Any change will result from a successful conclusion to the DDA. In the 
meantime, the EU will continue to respect its WTO commitments.  3.1.7.2 Anti-dumping and countervailing, pp. 48, para. 3.71 
It is mentioned in the Report that “In terms of sectors affected by AD measures imposed over the 
last five years, chemicals, and iron and steel accounted for most measures. Products subject to AD measures include biofuels, steel ropes and cables, oxalic acid, and tube and pipe fittings. Two 
measures on biodiesel that were imposed in November 2013 were subject to dispute settlement 
proceedings in the WTO.”  
Regarding iron and steel industry, two more antidumping investigations were initiated in the period 
of January - May 2015. Could the European Union kindly elaborate more on the effectiveness of the existing measures on iron and steel indu stry? Could the European Union provide further 
information whether there is an impact assessment study that analyzes the contribution of trade 
defence instruments to help iron and steel industry as well as chemicals industry to combat the 
negative effects of unfairly traded imports?   
EU reply:  The imposition of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures aims to offset the injurious 
effects caused by dumping and/or subsidization to the Union industry. Their effectiveness can only be ascertained by a review.  There is no impact assessment carried out to ascertain the impact or 
measures.  
 Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures are applied following an investigation which finds that dumping/subsidisation is taking place and is causing injury to the EU industry. In addition, in the 
EU, before adopting a final decision as to impose  measures or not, the Commission conducts the 
so-called 'Union Interest test'. Under this test, the Commission takes due account of the potential effect of the measures on interested parties. 
 
3.2.6 Diplomatic measures, pp. 63, para. 3.136, 3.137 
It is mentioned in the Report that “ Council Decisions on EU autonomous sanctions or EU additions 
to UN sanctions are reviewed at regular interval s, usually once a year, to ensure measures are 
adjusted as needed, in line with developments affe cting the stated objectives and the effectiveness 
of the measures.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 316 - 
 
  All EU restrictive measures can be found on the EEAS webpage.134 All measures and regulations 
are published in the Official Journal of the EU. According to the Commission, during the review period, the EU adopted new measures but has also reduced the scope of existing sanctions: … 
Russian Federation (since July 2014): embargo on arms and related materiel; embargo on dual-
use goods and technology if intended for military use or for a military end-user; ban on imports of arms and related materiel; ban on provision of certain services related to arms and related 
material; ban on provision of certain services related to dual-use goods and technology; (deep 
water, Arctic and shaleoil-related) controls on export of certain equipment for the oil industry; controls on provision of certain related services etc; …”  
Restrictive measures taken against some countries may have adverse effects on third countries. 
For example, some banks can face problems in te rms of trade finance because of the restrictive 
measures imposed on other countries. In this regard, could the European Union provide 
information if there are mechanisms or tools in order to manage and/or eliminate the negative 
impacts of sanctions on third countries?    
EU reply:  When adopting and reviewing restrictive measures, the Council makes an assessment of 
relevant factors. Among these, the Council takes into account, whenever possible and appropriate, 
the impact of restrictive measures on third countries not targeted by the measures.  
3.3.5 Government procurement, pp. 87-88-89, para. 3.214-3.215. 
It is mentioned in the Secretariat Report that “ Estimates made by the Commission put total public 
procurement expenditure by the general government sector on works, goods, and services 
(excluding utilities) for 2013 at €1,786.61 billion,  0.67% higher than in 2012. This 
represented 13.7% of EU GDP in 2013. A large pa rt of this procurement is subject to public 
procurement rules, either national or EU disciplines.  Public contracts subject to EU disciplines (i.e. 
above the thresholds) accounted for around €422.8 billion in 2013 including utilities, 5.3% more 
than in 2012. Excluding utilities,  the increase was 3.6% from €328.77 billion in 2012 to 
€340.72 billion in 2013.  All procurement carried out in th e EU above specified thresholds 
must comply with the requirements of the EU Directives on procurement, which are 
reflected in relevant legislation and re gulations of the EU member States.” 
 pp. 89, para. 3.220. 
Also, the Secretariat Report states that “Public procurement policy in the EU aims to achieve 
the best value for money through open, transparent and non-discriminatory procedures, 
consistent with the underlying obje ctives of the internal market.  The applicable rules also 
mention other aspects such as social, innovation, and environmental considerations that can be 
incorporated into technical specifications, selection and award criteria, as well as contract-performance clauses.”  
It is understood that the value of the procuremen ts above the thresholds represents 19% of total 
public procurement of European Union (excluding utilities). Given the level of procurements that EU Directives apply, could the European Union explain how it evaluates if the “best value for 
money” is effectively achieved?  
 EU reply:  In award of a contract the ‘most economical ly advantageous tender’ is the overriding 
concept, since all winning tenders should finally be chosen in accordance with what the individual 
contracting authority considers to be the economically best solution among those offered. Most economically advantageous tender could be assessed either on the basis of the price or costs or on the basis of the best price-quality ratio. The best price-quality ratio can be determined by 
reference to various criteria, including qualitative, environmental and/or social aspects, relating to 
the subject matter of the contract.   
The Directive clarifies that to identify the most  economically advantageous tender, the contract 
award decision should not be based on non-cost criteria only. Qualitative criteria should therefore always be accompanied by a cost criterion that could be either the price or a cost-effectiveness 
approach such as life-cycle costing. 
 It is up to contracting authorities to specify the relative weighting which they give to each of the criteria chosen to determine the most economically advantageous tender, except where this is 
identified on the basis of price alone. It is sp ecificed that award criteria have to ensure an WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 317 - 
 
  objective comparison of the relative value of the tenders in order to determine, in conditions of 
effective competition, which tender is the most economically advantageous tender. Therefore, it is a prerogative of the contracting authorities to determine the precise criteria for achieving the 'best value for money'. 
 
Could the European Union state whether it considers any improvements in coverage rate of procurements above the thresholds and what is o ffered by the new directive for the rest of the 
government procurements (i.e. under the thresholds)? 
 EU reply:  With the revision of the EU directives in the classical and utilities procurement sector 
and the adoption of a new EU directive on concession contracts, the scope of covered procurement 
was extended. In particular, the new directives set the principle that all services except for those 
which are explicitly excluded are covered by the EU rules, either under the full or 'light regime' of rules. Moreover, the new directive on concession contracts regulates concessions both for works or 
services. Previously only works concessions were partially regulated under the EU legislation. 
 3.3.5 Government Procurement, pp. 95, para. 3.246 
It is mentioned in the Report that “March 2012 the Commission tabled a proposal aimed at 
improving the conditions under which EU businesses can compete for public contracts in third countries, confirming the legal status of bidders, goods and services from countries that have an international agreement with the EU in the area of public procurement, and clarifying the rules 
applicable to bidders, goods and services not covered by these agreements. The proposal also 
foresees that, if an EU investigation were to show  "recurring and serious discrimination" against EU 
companies, the Commission should invite the third party to negotiations aiming at finding a 
solution. As a last resort, and only if the Partne r shows no willingness to engage, the EU would be 
able to temporarily close its market to goods and services from that third-country partner regarding public procurement contracts worth €5 million or more excluding VAT.” 
 
Could the European Union provide information on th e timeline to review and amend this proposal 
and how it foresees to avert criticisms of being protectionist in the government procurement market that some EU member states highlighted at the outset?  
 
EU reply: Turkey is in this question referring to the proposal for an International Procurement 
Instrument. This proposal is currently under review.  As noted in the Commission working 
programme for 2015, the Commission intends to amend it in accordance with the priorities of the 
new Commission in order to simplify it and to reduce the number of actors.  It is at this point in time not possible to say exactly when a revised proposal may be tabled.  
 
3.3.5 Government Procurement, pp. 95, para. 3.246 It is mentioned in the Report that “The EU has also signed a number of bilateral agreements that include chapters on government procurement with Albania (2006), Bosnia and Herzegovina 
(2008), Chile (2003 for goods, 2005 for services), FYROM (2004), Israel (2000), Jordan (2002), 
Republic of Korea ( 2011),Mexico (2000), Monteneg ro (2008 for goods, 2010 for services), South 
Africa (2000) andSwitzerland and Liechtenstein. The plurilateral European Economic Area (EEA) 
(1994) and EU CARIFORUM (2008) agreements, as well as the bilateral agreements with Iraq 
(2012), Georgia(2014) and Moldova (2014) also have substantial provisions on government procurement.” 
 
As regards to government procurement, could the European Union inform whether the countries, which have signed bilateral agreements including government procurement chapter with the EU, benefit from the enhanced EU commitments prov iding for further market access in the revised 
GPA?  
 EU reply: Countries which have signed a bilateral agreement with the EU including a chapter on 
public procurement, will not automatically benefi t from further market access via the GPA.  The 
GPA commitments relate only to other Parties of the GPA and include the specific coverage indicated in the Annexes of the agreement which may differ from one Party to the other.  
 
4.2.3.1 Domestic Suppo rt, pp. 125, para. 4.24 
It is mentioned in the Report that “Based on the limits applying to each member State, and the requirements to provide minimum or maximum levels of funding for different schemes, the 
Commission sets annual national envelopes for the Basic Payment Scheme which could be between WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 318 - 
 
  about 25% and about 70% of the na tional ceiling (Table 4.5) depending on how much the member 
State provides for other schemes of direct payments (Table A4.1).”  Could the European Union provide further information about the above mentioned program? Are 
the aforementioned limits country-specific? If that  is the case, how are these limits determined for 
each country?   
EU reply: According to Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, Member States decide on the shares of 
their financial ceiling (as set in its Annex II) they will use to grant: 1) the young farmer payment (up to 2%) 2) where applied, the redistributive payment (up to 30 %) 
3) where applied, the payment for areas with natural constraints (up to 5 %), and  
4) where applied, the voluntary coupled support (as a general rule up to 13 % + 2% for protein crops). 
 
The remaining amount, after deduction of the 30%  to be allocated to the "greening payment", 
forms the ceiling available for the basic payment scheme. Detailed information on financial shares 
of different direct payment schemes in 2015 can be  found in table 3 (page 7) of this document: 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct-support/d irect-payments/docs/implementation-decisions-
ms_en.pdf  
 
4.2.3.1 Domestic Support , pp. 127-128, para. 4.34 
1.7.  It is mentioned in the Report that “Under Regulation (EU) 1308/2013, public intervention 
(where the member State takes ownership of the product) may be used for common wheat, durum 
wheat, barley, maize, paddy rice, fresh or chilled beef and veal, butter, and skimmed milk powder. 
Private storage aids (where a private company takes ownership and has a storage contract with the authorities of the member State) may be used for white sugar, olive oil, flax fibre, fresh or 
chilled beef, butter, cheese, skimmed milk powder , pig meat, and sheep meat and goat meat.13 
As in the past, the use of either public interventi on or private storage aids is usually discretionary: 
only for common wheat,butter, and skimmed milk po wder is it required and then for a limited 
period for specified maximum quantities (Table 4.8). In most cases, the intervention prices and 
limits were not changed by the reform – except that the limit for butter purchases was increased 
from 30,000 to 50,000 tonnes while the period for buying-in butter and skimmed milk powder was increased from six to seven months (it now ends on 30 September). Furthermore, mature cheese 
and flax fibre have been added to the list of products eligible for private storage aids.” 
 Could the European Union provide further information about the above mentioned program? What 
is the reasoning behind the selection of mature cheese and flax fibre to be eligible for private 
storage aids?   EU reply:  The list of products eligible for market support in the form of public intervention and 
private storage aid was fixed in the 2013 CAP reform. The instruments now operate as safety net 
and in this regard buying-in to public interv ention has not occurred since 2009 (for cereals and 
dairy products) and since 2002 (for beef). Private Storage aid is fixed either by means of tendering 
procedures or by means of a fixed amount usually available for a limited period of time. 
 For fibre flax, the possibility to grant private st orage aid was added following the end of the aid 
regime for the production of fibre flax in 2012. 
 Cheeses with a protected designation of origin (PDO) or a protected geographical indication (PGI) are of particular importance for vulnerable rural regions which might face specific difficulties in 
case of a serious market imbalance. Private stor age for PDO/PGI cheeses can help rebalancing the 
market in those vulnerable regions.  
For further information see Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. 
 4.3.3 Distribution services, pp. 155, para. 4.112 
It is mentioned in the Report that “In terms of structure, EU grocery sales represent around 50% 
of the retail sector throughout the EU. In the non-grocery sector, home furniture is the leading category with 11% of total retail sales, followed by health and beauty (including pharmacy) with 
9%, and clothing and footwear with 8%. E-commerce is growing fast, but from very low initial 
levels: the size of the e-commerce market mo re than doubled between 2009 and 2014 (+119%); WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 319 - 
 
  but, while it represents an increasing share of the EU retail market, this proportion remains low 
(6.7% of the overall retail market in 2014 against 3.2% in 2009). It is nevertheless significant for specific segments such as books, music, second-h and items, and travel. There is also an emerging 
tendency towards multi-channel retailing using both internet and physical outlets in variable 
combinations (e.g. the "drive" system for grocery sales).” 
 Could the European Union elaborate on the main factors and obstacles, if any, affecting the 
development of e-commerce?  
 EU reply:  The Commission's scoping exercise preparing the Digital Single Market Strategy 
identified a number of regulatory barriers wit hholding the development of e-commerce in the EU. 
Tackling regulatory fragmentation (e.g. in consum er protection, security and data protection), 
providing legal uncertainty (e.g. taxation; liability) and bringing  down high compliance costs (e.g. e-Government instruments and online information) is a priority. In this regard the Commission will 
make a proposal before the end of 2015 (i) coveri ng harmonised EU rules for online purchases of 
digital content, and (ii) allowing traders to rely on their national laws based on a focused set of key mandatory EU contractual rights for domestic and cross-border online sales of tangible goods. To 
increase cross-border delivery options within the EU and make prices more competitive the 
Commission will launch measures in the first half of 2016 to improve price transparency and enhance regulatory oversight of parcel delivery.  
hen taken into consideration the factors such as transportation, data protection, information 
technologies, etc. affecting e-comerce, could the European Union evaluate how an integrated digital market would affect the development of e-commerce? 
 
EU reply:  The DSM Strategy adopted on May 6 defines the Digital Single Market as where the free 
movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured and where individuals and businesses 
can seamlessly access and exercise online activiti es under conditions of fair competition, and a 
high level of consumer and personal data protection, irrespective of their nationality or place of residence. But fragmentation and barriers that do not exist in the physical Single Market are holding the EU back in the digital realm. It is estimated that bringing down these barriers within 
Europe could contribute an additional EUR 415 bil lion to European GDP. These gains mainly come 
from increased cross-border e-commerce activity . In 2014 only 15% of consumers bought online 
from other EU countries, while 44% did so domestically. EU consumers If could choose from a full 
range of EU goods and services when shopping on line, it is estimated that they could save €11.7 
billion each year. It is also estimated that at present small online businesses wishing to trade in another EU country face around €9,000 extra costs for having to adapt to national laws. 
 
Could the European Union provide further information about the share of trade in services and goods in e-commerce and the development of both sub-sectors?  
EU reply:  E-commerce is growing rapidly in the EU at an average annual growth rate of 22%, 
surpassing EUR 200 billion in 2014 and reaching a sh are of 7% of total retail sales. Out of this, 
40% of sales are by pure Internet retailers which operate only online and around 14% corresponds 
to mobile commerce. Online sales are concentrated on a limited number of products such as 
apparel and footwear, consumer electronics and appliances and media products, which represent 
nearly half of all online e-commerce transactions (49%). WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 320 - 
 
  Chart 1. Evolution of total and online re tail sales in goods in the EU, 2000-2014 
(EUR billion) 
0.050.0100.0150.0200.0250.0
2700.02750.02800.02850.02900.02950.03000.03050.0
200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014Total Online (right scale)
 
Source: Duch-Brown and Martens (2015a). 
Online sales represent a much larger proportion of services. For instance, in the travel and tourism 
sector – one of the activities most affected by the Internet revolution – online sales represent 
some 40% of total retail sales. In 2013 in the EU , online sales in this sector reached a volume 
close to EUR 70 billion. For goods, online sales in this sector increased steadily during the period 2000-2013 despite the sharp fall in total retail sales registered after 2007.  
Chart 2. Evolution of total and online retail sales in travel 
and tourism services, 2000-2014 (EUR billion) 
 
Source: Duch-Brown and Martens (2015a). 
For more detail and sources see "A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe - Analysis and Evidence" SWD(2015) 100.  4.3.3.2 Regulatory Framework, pp. 158, para. 4.121 
It is mentioned in the Report that “As regards e-commerce in particular, the Directive on electronic 
commerce sets down common rules on the establishment, information requirements, commercial communications, liability of intermediaries, and pre-contractual requirements necessary for the 
starting up and development of cross-border information society services as well as applying the 
country of origin control principle. It is worth noting that the country of origin principle does not apply to contractual obligations in consumer contracts and the e-commerce Directive does not 
cover the issue of differing national taxation regimes or the other main obstacles to cross-border 
retailing of physical goods.”  As stressed in the Secretariat Report, there are obstacles to cross-border e-commerce in the 
European Union. Could the European Union state whether it plans to revise e-Commerce Directive WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 321 - 
 
  to overcome these obstacles? If so, could the Eu ropean Union provide information about the issues 
having priority and the timetable envisaged for the revision?  EU reply:  The Commission has conducted a public consultation in 2010 on the necessity to review 
the e-Commerce Directive and another public consulta tion on the functioning of the special liability 
regime for intermediaries in 2012. The majority of respondents have found that the e-Commerce 
Directive in general and the rules on liability in particular fulfil their role. However, the digital 
sector moves quickly, therefore the Commission continuously monitors the fitness of relevant EU 
acquis, including the e-Commerce Directive. This exercise will be continued under the Digital Single Market Strategy as well. In the Strategy it was announced that the Commission will launch before the end of 2015 a comprehensive assessment of the role of platforms, including in the 
sharing economy, and of online intermediaries, which will cover issues such as (i) transparency 
e.g. in search results (involving paid for links an d/or advertisement), (ii) platforms' usage of the 
information they collect, (iii) relations between platforms and suppliers, (iv) constraints on the 
ability of individuals and businesses to move from one platform to another and will analyse, (v) 
how best to tackle illegal content on the Internet.   
 
4.3.4.3 Legislations aimed at completing the Banking Union to strengthen the Euro, 
pp.167, para. 4.166 It is mentioned in the Report that "The division of powers of the Single Resolution Board and 
national resolution authorities broadly follows the division of supervisory powers between the ECB 
and national supervisors in the context of the SSM . The decision to resolve a failing bank will in 
most cases start with the ECB notifying that a bank is failing to the Board, the Commission, and the relevant national resolution authorities.  The Board will then adopt a resolution scheme 
including the relevant resolution tools and any use of the Fund. Before the Board adopts its 
decision, the Commission will assess its compliance with State-aid rules. The Commission will then assess the Board's decision against the resolution objectives and either endorse or object to the 
resolution scheme. Only when the Commission significantly modifies the amount of resources 
drawn from the Single Fund or contests the public  interest in resolving the bank and considers it 
could be put into normal insolvency instead, will this be subject to approval or objection by the 
Council (silence procedure). Where the Council or the Commission object to the resolution scheme, 
the Board will have to amend the resolution scheme. The resolution scheme will then be 
implemented by the national resolution authoritie s, in accordance with national law, including 
relevant provisions transposing the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive." 
 
Promptness of procedures is crucial when dealing with failing financial institutions, since huge downfalls may occur in a short time span in such situations. Therefore, the process of resolving 
failed banks in the EU, which involves the Commission, ECB, the Single Resolution Board as well as 
national resolution authorities, gives the impression that the number of actors involved in the process may hinder the prompt reaction that might be essential. Could the European Union elaborate whether there are any precautions designed to expedite such processes?  
 
EU reply:  The Single Resolution Mechanism does not create conflict of authorities but rather 
complementarities. The key institutions are indeed the SRB and national resolution authorities, and 
they have different roles in a proce ss of resolution, if one should happen.  
 A stream-lined decision-making process will be ensured through close coordination by all actors 
involved, including of the specific roles the ECB and Commission play in the process. 
 THE GOVERNMENT REPORT 
 
3 DEVELOPMENTS IN THE INTERNAL MARKET – A NEW EU ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION 
PROGRAMME AND CLIMATE CHANGE OBJECTIVES , PG. 7, PARA. 3.10 
I t  i s  s t a t e d  i n  t h e  G o v e r n m e n t  R e p o r t  t h a t  “ On 20 November 2013, the EU adopted its 7th 
Environment Action Programme (EAP) to 2020. It is a common strategy for both EU institutions 
and Member States and shall guide environment policy. ” 
 
Within the framework of climate change objectiv es, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has 
an important role. Given its importance, could the European Union make an assessment concerning allowances allocated freely especially during 1
st and 2nd phases of the EU ETS within 
the context of WTO Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement?  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 322 - 
 
  EU reply: The EU considers that the EU complies with its obligations under WTO rules, including 
the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  3.3.4 Developments in the Internal Market pp.6, para. 3.4 
It is mentioned in the Report that “The recently-appointed President of the European Commission, 
Mr Jean-Claude Juncker, started his mandate by giving priority to strengthening the EU's competitiveness and stimulating investment so as to create jobs. As a first action, President 
Juncker launched an 'Investment Plan'. This will unl ock public and private investment in the real 
economy of up to €300 billion over the next three years (2015-2017).”  Could the European Union provide further informatio n on the projections and possible tools of this 
plan and its outreach to candidate/third countries?  
 EU reply: In the context of the Investment Plan for Europe, the EU is interested in 'crowding-in' 
and leveraging private capital in favor of investments in the EU's real economy. For this purpose 
the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) is being established. The opportunity for financing EFSI investments is open to investors from third countries, for instance via Investment 
Platforms or project cofinancing, in compliance with EFSI Regulation (which enters into force in 
July 2015).  The EFSI may support investments involving entities established in one or more Member States 
and extending to countries within the European Neighborhood policy, the Enlargement policy, the 
European Economic Area, EFTA and OCTs.  
Public procurement: new improv ed rules, pp. 7, para. 3.7. 
It is stated in the Government Report that “ In February 2014, new rules on public procurement 
and the award of concessions were adopted. These new rules have three main objectives: 
simplification, flexibility and legal certainty. Throug h this reform, public authorities will be in a 
better position to optimise the use of public money. Public procurement, which represents almost 19 % of the EU GDP, could be an even more effici ent driver of the economy. The EU is convinced 
that the simplification and greater flexibility of the new procedures, their capacity to better serve 
other important public-sector policies (like environmental protection, support for SMEs), along with 
the possibility of the best value for money, will ma ke public procurement more efficient and more 
strategic, while respecting the principles of tran sparency and competition to the benefit of both 
public purchasers and businesses. The rules on concessions will create a common framework for a 
major tool of public management in Europe, thus also contributing to the conditions set out for stimulating investment in major public services of the future.” 
 
Could the European Union provide data on intra-EU public procurement statistics, particularly share of newly acceded EU Member states in the EU public procurement market?   
EU reply: The data on intra-EU public procurement statistics are made available to the public 
within the EU commuinication as provided for by the GPA. Please find a link to the latest available information under the WTO GPA webpage. The Commission is currently preparing the submission 
for the following years. 
https://www.wto.org/english/tr atop_e/gproc_e/gpstat_e.htm  
 
A new EU environmental action programme an d climate change objectives, pg. 7, para. 
3.10 It is stated in the EU’s Report that, “On 20 November 2013, the EU adopted its 7th Environment 
Action Programme (EAP) to 2020. It is a common strategy for both EU institutions and Member 
States and shall guide environment policy. The EAP identifies three key objectives to be achieved 
by 2020: • to protect, conserve and enhance the Union’s natural capital; 
• to turn the Union into a resource-efficient, green, and competitive low-carbon economy; 
• to safeguard the Union's citizens from environment-related pressures and risks to health and wellbeing. 
In addition, four so-called 'enablers' will help Europe deliver on these goals: 
• better implementation of legislation; • better information by improving the knowledge base; • more and wiser investment for environment and climate policy; 
• full integration of environmental requirements and considerations into other policies. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 323 - 
 
  Could the European Union provide further information about the state of play of the applicability of 
the Program? Are there any reports/studies prepared to monitor the level of delivering these goals through these “enablers”?  
EU reply:  The 7
th Environment Action Programme entered into force in January 2014. The 
relevant EU institutions and the Member States are responsible for taking appropriate action, with a view to the delivery of its priority objectives. One and a half years into the programme, several 
initiatives are well underway, whereas others are still in preparation.  
 The Commission monitors the implementation of the 7
th EAP in the context of the regular 
monitoring process of the Europe 2020 Strategy . This process is informed by the European 
Environment Agency's indicators on the state of the environment as well as indicators used to 
monitor progress in achieving existing environment and climate-related legislation and targets.  
European environment policy has delivered many improvements but substantial challenges remain 
in each of the priority areas, as defined in the 7
th EAP. The European Environment Agency's latest 
State of the European Environment Report  (SOER 2015) highlights that more needs to be done to 
protect, conserve and enhance Europe's natural capital. See the report for more details. 
 The 7th EAP stipulates for an evaluation of the pr ogramme to be carried out in due course before 
the end of the 7th EAP. 
 
3. Developments in the Internal Market, pg. 8, para. 3.11 It is stated in the Government Report that, “ The EU has revised its industrial policy, making sure 
to further integrate it with the other EU policies and acknowledging that industrial modernization 
ought to be pursued by investing in innovation, resource efficiency, new technologies, skills and 
access to finance. The Communication promotes a more business-friendly Europe through actions 
to simplify the legislative framework and to improve the efficiency of public administration at EU, 
national and regional levels. Easier access to non-EU markets through the harmonisation of international standards, open public procurement,  patent protection and economic diplomacy are 
also key issues.” 
 
Could the European Union provide further information about the above-mentioned revised industrial policy and its main pillars?  
 
EU reply:  Following the Communication from 2014, Commissioner Bie ńkowska has addressed on 
23 June 2015 EU Ministers and Parliament in order to clarify the new Commission's actions 
promoting industrial competitiveness. They are structured along three axes or pillars: 
  First of all, our actions aim to help EU firms integrate in European and global value chains. The 
Internal Market Strategy, which will be propos ed by the end of the year, will present some 
steps forward in breaking down barriers within  the EU. In order to create better growth 
opportunities in international markets, the upcoming EU trade strategy will provide further details on how to open up market access in third countries. 
 Secondly, the modernisation of European industri es by promoting innovation and the adoption 
of smart and clean technologies. The Digital Si ngle Market and Energy Union packages will 
deliver important steps in this regard. 
 Thirdly, measures are implemented to create a favourable environment for deploying business 
activities, including for industry and SMEs. Better Re gulation plays a key role in this respect, as 
well as the modernisation of public administrations. Access to finance should be improved with the upcoming Capital Markets Union and the Investment Plan for Europe. 
4.1.1 The EU’s Bilateral Agenda, pg. 10, para. 4.3 
It is stated in the Government Report that, “Since the 2006 Global Europe strategy, the EU has 
sought to promote economic growth and job creation by engaging in negotiations to open up trade 
with its industrialised and emerging trade partners. The EU aims to boost competitiveness and 
ensure trade contributes more to economic growth. While tariff cuts on industrial and agricultural goods remain important, the brunt of the challenge lies elsewhere. In a world of global value 
chains, it is increasingly important to address behind-the-border measures which affect market 
access for services and investment, access to public procurement and the protection of intellectual WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 324 - 
 
  property rights. The EU also aims to secure an  unrestricted supply of raw materials and energy, 
and overcome regulatory barriers, includin g by promoting international standards.” 
 Could the European Union provide further information about the policies that are developed to 
ensure unrestricted supply of raw materials? 
 EU reply:  The European Union is implementing an integrated strategy for raw materials in line 
with the priorities set out in its 2008
99 and 2011100 Communications on raw materials. Sustainable 
access to raw materials on world markets at undistorted conditions is the first pillar of this European Union integrated strategy. For this purpose, the European Union has defined a three-pronged strategy which involves the following: 
 
- securing agreement on binding disciplines on export restrictions including export duties in bilateral and multilateral (WTO accession) negotiations; 
- effectively enforcing international rules and tackling export restrictions, through dialogue, in the 
market access strategy, and as a last resort through the World Trade Organisation (WTO) dispute resolution process; 
- raising non-EU countries’ awareness of policies on trade in raw materials and developing best 
practice through bilateral dialogue as well as  in international fora such as the G8/G7, G20, Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). 
 
4.1.1 The EU's bilateral agenda, pg. 11, para. 4.15 It is stated in the Report that, “ The EU and the U.S. launched negoti ations on a Transatlantic Trade 
and Investment Partnership (TTIP) in 2013. Eight rounds of talks had taken place by February 
2015. The EU's objective is to reach an "ambitio us, comprehensive and mutually beneficial trade 
and investment agreement". TTIP would address the challenges of today's global trading 
environment and contribute to a stronger transatlantic partnership.” 
 EU states on every related platform that EU always remains committed to the further development of the multilateral trading system within the WTO. However, there are also criticisms raised 
arguing that such a comprehensive agreement betw een the EU and the US is going to reduce the 
importance of the multilateral tradin g system and the WTO, accordingly.  
 
Could the European Union comment on criticisms about TTIP’s impact vis-à-vis the multilateral 
trading system and the WTO after its completion?   
EU reply:  The EU's engagement in TTIP is not going to reduce the importance of the multilateral 
trading system and the WTO. Rather, an ambitious FTA with the US would be a clear signal of our joint willingness to open markets on goods and se rvices as well as tackling complex regulatory 
issues, and could help providing new focus for negotiations in Geneva. 
Through TTIP, the EU aims at providing a contributi on to the development of global rules in areas 
where we have not been able to agree so far at the multilateral level. This is potentially a unique 
laboratory for filling the gaps in the multilateral rulebook and developing regulatory solutions that 
can be a basis for subsequent work at multilateral level.  
The benefits of the TTIP to the EU and the US will not be achieved at the expense of the rest of the 
world.  The potential positive spill-over effects are captured in our economic modelling of the TTIP, 
carried out by the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR). The study finds that the agreement would increase GDP in our trading partners by almost €100 billion.  
4.3.1 Aid for Trade, pg. 13, par a. 4.32 of the Government Report 
It is stated in the Report that  “The narrower category of Trade Related Assistance (TRA) includes 
core trade activities such as trade policy and pl anning, trade facilitation, trade negotiations and 
trade development . The EU committed EUR 2.5 billion in 2012 (approximately EUR 1.9 billion 
from the Member States and EUR 0.6 billion from the European Commission) demonstrate that the 
EU is exceeding its overall pledge given at the 2005 Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong to provide EUR 2 billion in TRA assistance by 20 10. Representing almost 60% of total TRA 
                                               
99 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0699:FIN:EN:PDF . 
100 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0025:FIN:en:PDF . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 325 - 
 
  commitments in 2012 among all OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) donors, the EU 
and its Member States remain the fi rst provider of TRA in the world.  
 2.3.3 Unilateral preferences, pp. 20, pa ra. 2.30. of the Secretariat Report 
Also in the Secretariat Report  “The new "Generalized Scheme of Preferences" (GSP) began to 
apply on 1 January 2014.34 According to the Commission, the new GSP focusses preferences on countries-most-in-need and addresses the issue of preference erosion. The GSP concentrates the 
benefits on fewer eligible countries - countries classed as high or upper middle income for the 
most recent three years by the World Bank or countries having equivalent or better preferential access under other arrangements were removed from the list of beneficiary countries.35 Hence, the number of GSP beneficiaries decreased from 178 under the previous GSP to the current 92, 
and is expected to decrease further. However, some of the removed countries will be covered by 
other preferential arrangements such as free-trade agreements or economic partnership agreements (see section 2.3.2).” 
 
The Government report maintains that the EU provides considerable assistance related directly to trade. Also, the report details the trade related a ssistance, having “trade development” as one of 
the main parts of the assistance scheme.  
 In the Secretariat report, furthermore, there is a section dedicated to preferential trade, and 
dwells into the GSP/GSP+ in special. The Syst em of Preferences as well as the graduation 
mechanism is mentioned in length. It is underst ood that the countries inside the System are 
spared from preferences.   
Could the European Union specify the role of as sistance and the preferences within the greater 
picture of global value chains? There is a seminal literature on the risk of GVCs in locking developing countries into lower rungs of the value chains ladder. Despite the fact that graduation 
mechanism is promoted in supporting countries gain competitiveness and in ensuring that the 
system is targeting certain countries, “ because LDCs often lack production capacities and 
capabilities to meet demand, research suggests that suppliers located in these countries are rarely 
in a position to work in the first tier of global value chains “101 Could the EU provide more 
information on how “trade” and “development” is ensured to go hand in hand?  
 EU reply:  The EU’s policy on trade and development is set forth in the European Commission 
Communication on Trade Growth and Development
102 and the associated Council Conclusions103. 
In addition with Article 208 of the Lisbon Treaty , policy coherence for development (PCD) became 
a treaty obligation. The article states that "The Union shall take account of the objectives of 
development cooperation in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing 
countries". The Commission produces a biannual report on PCD outlining the steps taken to ensure this coherence. Trade is one of five priority policies covered by the report.   
With regard to trade-related assistance; as a co mponent of the broader ca tegory of Aid for Trade 
and therefore Official Development Assistance (ODA) this support is programmed according to 
beneficiary needs. In keeping with the principle of ownership, it is up to the recipient country to 
analyse their priorities (with support from the EU) and to articulate them within their national 
development plans. This process can and should be undertaken in the context of other domestic 
policy considerations linked to access to and participation in global value chains including:  
 Ensuring low import tariffs, for the supply of components 
 Engagement in regional trading agreements (RTAs) 
 Inward FDI openness  
 Logistics performance, including trade facilitation  
 Intellectual property protection  
 Quality of infrastructure  
 Quality of institutions 
                                               
101 See more at: http://www.tradeforum.org/ article/opportunities-and-pitfalls-of-ldcs-in-value-
chains/#sthash.U8rLnRJe.dpuf . 
102 http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/january/tradoc_148992.EN.pdf . 
103 http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/june/tradoc_149615.pdf . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 326 - 
 
  These considerations are identified in a recent OECD study, funded by the European Commission, 
on the Participation of Developing Countries in Global Value Chains: Implications for Trade and Trade-Related Policies.
104 Domestic policy decisions related to the prioritisation of creating a 
supportive environment for integration to global value chains can therefore be aligned with the 
similarly-domestic process of identifying the prio rity sectors for EU ODA, including Aid for Trade 
and trade-related assistance.  
With regard to the provision of unilateral pref erences through the EU’s GSP, such provision is 
made according to a country’s level of economic  development, as determined by World Bank 
statistical analysis. Graduation applies to product sectors which are competitive enough and do not need GSP preferences to access the EU market. This  is undertaken with the objective of facilitating 
access to the EU market with the aim of supp orting sustainable and inclusive trade-driven 
economic growth. Indeed, with regard to global value chains, primary factors are import tariffs or non-tariff barriers limiting access to a country for intermediate inputs and therefore not the 
subject of preferences given under the GSP.  
                                               
104 http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/t rade/participation-o f-developing-countri es-in-global-value-
chains_5js33lfw0xxn-en . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 327 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM BRAZIL (1) 
PART I:  QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 
 3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1.7 CONTINGENCY MEASURES 
Page 46 (Para 3.61), Footnote 68  
Importers/users will benefit from greater predic tability regarding the anti-dumping and anti-
subsidy measures. They will be informed in advance of any decision to impose provisional anti-dumping or anti-subsidy duties and of an intention not to impose such measures. This will make business planning easier for importers. 
 
Question: 1. Which importers/users would receive in advance the information regarding the decision to 
impose provisional measures or the intention not to impose such measures? Would that include 
only importers considered interested party in the relevant investigation or would it encompass all importers which may be affected by the imposition of the measure, including those which imported 
only after the period of investigation?  
 EU reply: The exercise of modernising the EU’s TDI is under co-legislative procedure. Therefore, 
the EU cannot, at this stage provide more information on the various elements that would be 
implemented, simply because such details have not been finalized yet.  
 2. Besides importers/users, other interested parties would also have the information beforehand? 
More specifically, would producers/exporters be noti fied of the decision at the same time importers 
do?   
3. Would Importers/users also be informed in advance of decisions to impose definitive anti-
dumping or anti-subsidy duties?   EU replies to the two questions above: Please see answer to question 1. 
 
Page 50 (Para 3.78) Under the relevant safeguard legislation, the commission may decide to impose surveillance if the 
“trend in imports of a product originating in a third country threatens to cause injury to EU 
producers”. During the period under review, no  surveillance measures were applied to WTO 
Members. Simple surveillance is applied to textile imports from Belarus and DPR Korea on the 
basis of Regulation No. 517/94. 
 Question: 4. In order to impose surveillance, what factors should be considered in the examination of the 
trend in imports of a product originating in a third country that threatens to cause injury to EU 
producers?   
EU reply: As stipulated by Article 9 (1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/478
105 on common rules for 
imports, the examination of the trend in imports and of the conditions in which they take place shall cover in particular the following factors: 
 
(a) the volume of imports, in particular where there has been a significant increase, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the Union;  
(b) the price of imports, in particular where there has been a significant price undercutting 
as compared with the price of a like product in the Union. 
Furthermore, as stipulated by Article 9(2) of the above mentioned Regulation, where a threat of 
serious injury is alleged, it also has to be examined whether it is clearly foreseeable that a 
particular situation is likely to develop into actual injury. In this regard account may be taken of 
factors such as:  
(a) the rate of increase of the exports to the Union;  
                                               
105 Regulation (EU) 2015/478 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 83, 27.3.2015, p.16. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 328 - 
 
  (b) the export capacity in the country of origin or export, as it stands. 
3.3.6 - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 
Page 96 (Para 3.253) Paragraph 3.253 states that the European Patent Office recorded a 3.1% increase in patent filings 
in 2014 when compared with 2013 and a 3.1% decrease in the number of patents granted in 
2014, in comparison with 2013.  
Question: 
5. Could the EU please elaborate on the strategies  and policies put in place, if any, in order to 
address this increased demand of both patent filings and applications, and their effect on the quality of the examination and grant procedure carried out by the EPO?  
 
EU reply:  The EPO has published its quality policy online: http://www.epo.org/about-
us/office/quality.html and  
http://www.epo.org/about-us/annual-reports-st atistics/annual-report/2014/quality.html. 
 Page 102 (Para 3.269) 
Regarding the European patent with unitary effect, it can be inferred from Paragraph 3.269 that 
Poland participated in the enhanced cooperation that allowed the adoption of two 2012 Regulations, but the country has not signed the Ag reement on the Unified Patent Court, the third 
component of the unitary patent package. In the opposite direction, Italy signed the Treaty, but 
did not take part in the enhanced cooperation. 
 Question: 
6. Could the EU please explain the implications  for the unitary patent system of these two 
situations? In the cases of Italy and Spain, could th e EU please confirm whether, in the light of the 
EU Treaties, these countries are entitled to adhere  to the enhanced cooperation, if they wish so, 
even after the conclusion of the process?   
 EU reply: Italy is not a member of the enhanced cooperation and therefore the unitary patent will 
not produce effect in its territory. Italy has signed the Unified Patent Court Agreement, which 
means that in case of disputes relating to a classical European patent validated in Italy, the future 
Court will have jurisdiction.  
Poland joined the enhanced cooperation and therefore adopted the two regulations. As it stands, 
since Poland has so far not signed the UPC Agreement, the future court will not have jurisdiction in case of disputes relating to a classical European patent validated in Poland and the unitary patent 
will not deploy its effects in Poland. However, Poland might sign and ratify the UPC Agreement at 
any time and the Court which will then be entrusted with disputes relating to classical European patent validated in Poland and the Unitary patent would have effect in Poland.  
Italy, Spain and Croatia might join the enhanced cooperation in the field of patent at any time 
according to the TFEU. A formal request has to be addressed to the Commission with copy to the Council. 
 
Page 103 (Para 3.275) Paragraph 3.275 refers to two decisions by the Enla rged Board of Appeal of the European Patent 
Office, of 25 March 2015, which confirmed the patentability of plants, seeds and parts of plants, 
directly obtained from essentially biological processes, even if the processes are not patentable.   Question: 
7. Given the economic and political consequences of these rulings, which were based on a strict 
interpretation of article 53(b) of the European Patent Convention, could the EU please indicate 
policies in this field, if any, that might be intended to limit the scope of the patentability of plants, 
in order to address either the concerns raised by the industrial sector and civil society or the 
recommendations issued by the European Parliament in its 10 May 2012 Resolution?   
 
EU reply: In the context of Article 16 of the Direct ive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of 
biotechnological inventions (the 'Biotech Directive'), the Commission established in November 2012 an expert group on the development and implications of patent law in the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering (the 'Expert Group'). The Expert Group started its work in 
December 2013. It is set to provide the Commission with analyses and position papers on issues WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 329 - 
 
  considered of relevance for the application of the Biotech Directive. The Expert Group focusses 
inter alia on the questions of patentability of biological material from plants and the notion of breeders' exemption in relation to all currently available breeding techniques. Publicly available information on the composition and the work of the Group can be found online: 
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/ind ex.cfm?do=groupDetail. groupDetail&groupID=297
3&NewSearch=1&NewSearch=1  
Page 105 (Para 3.283) 
In Paragraph 3.283, it is stated that in recent years the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) has considerably reduced the time needed to process applications.  
Question: 
8. Could the EU please comment on the strategies and policies being adopted to achieve these results?  
 
EU reply: The considerable drop in time needed to process applications in OHIM in recent years is 
mainly the result of substantial investments by OHIM in IT systems as well as improvements in the 
working methods which allow users to file better applications and facilitate examiners' work (e.g. 
TMview, DSview, TMclass and CESTO). Additionally , a new fast track publication option for CTM 
application has been introduced end 2014 which allow users to benefit from a significant faster publication of their CTM Applications from 8-11 weeks to 3-4 weeks. Over one fourth (26%) of 
CTM Applications are already filed as fast track thus complying with the applicable conditions 
defined to generate operational efficiencies above mentioned. The European Union very much welcomes this development, as trade mark users beneficiate from a service that is both quicker 
and of high quality, as shown by the key performance indicators developed by OHIM.   
 Page 106 (Paras 3.285 and 3.305) 
Paragraph 3.285 refers to provisions comprised in  the reform package of the European trademark 
system and aimed at enforcing trademark substa ntive rights and improving the fight against 
counterfeit goods transiting the EU’s territory (Artic le 9(5) of the draft Regulation and Article 10(5) 
of the draft Directive). It also refers to procedur e rules (more specifically, Recital 11 of Regulation 
(EU) 608/2013) applicable to in-transit medicines. 
 Questions: 
9. How can the EU ensure that Member States’ cu stoms authorities will not seize in-transit goods 
that were legally produced in the country of manufacture and destined for legitimate and lawful use in the final country of import?  
 
EU reply: In accordance with the compromise agreed with the EU legislators, the trade mark 
legislation should foresee that the entitlement of the trade mark proprietor to prevent the entry of 
goods bearing without authorization a trade mark which is essentially identical to the protected 
trade mark into the EU territory  without being released for free circulation should lapse if, during 
the proceedings initiated by the trade mark proprietor to determine whether the trade mark has been infringed, evidence is provided by the declar ant or the holder of the goods that the proprietor 
of the trade mark is not entitled to prohibit the placing of the goods on the market in the country 
of final destination. The trade mark proprietor co uld be held liable, where the goods in question 
are subsequently found not to infringe an intellectual property right, towards any holder of the 
goods or declarant who has suffered dama ge due to the detention of goods. 
 Once the new Trade Mark legislation enters into force, a Staff Working Document will be issued by the Commission Services to provide guidelines for European customs officers to ensure the smooth 
transit of legitimately traded goods across the EU territory. 
 10. In the specific case of medicines, how are th e draft Regulation and Draft Directive consistent 
with the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, which states that the TRIPS 
Agreement " can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO members' right to protect public health and, in pa rticular, to promote access to medicines for all"?  
 
EU reply: The legislative proposal on trademarks makes express reference to the principle that 
appropriate measures should be taken with a vi ew to ensuring the smooth transit of generic 
medicines throughout the EU in line with the ‘Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public 
Health’. Once formally adopted, the new trademark provisions will not apply in respect of WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 330 - 
 
  confusingly similar trademarks or other IPR, such as patents or designs. Besides , the proposed 
text will not prevent the transit of medicines on the basis that they bear similarities between the 
INN for the active ingredient and the registered trade mark. Thus, the new regulation as drafted does not impede access by patients – and in particular those from developing and least-developed 
countries - to legitimately traded medicines routed through the EU territory. In accordance with 
the compromise agreed by the EU legislators, the proprietor of a European Union trade mark 
should be entitled to prevent third parties from br inging goods, in the course of trade, into the 
Union without being released for free circulation there, solely where such goods bear without 
authorization a trade mark which is essentially identical to the European Union trademark registered in respect of such g oods, or that cannot be distinguished in its essential aspects from 
the said trademark. A Staff Working Document will be issued by the Commission Services to 
provide guidelines for European customs officers  to ensure the smooth transit of legitimately 
traded goods across the EU territory.  
Page 106 (Para 3.286) 
It can be inferred from Paragraph 3.286 that, within the new legal framework on trademarks, rightholders will no longer be required to prove that the goods are directed at EU consumers as a 
pre-requisite to take action against in-transit counterfeit products. Considering that Note 14 to 
Article 51 of the TRIPS Agreement states that "counterfeit trademark goods" are those goods which infringes the rights of the owner of th e trademark under the law of the country of 
importation, not under the law of the country of transit, and that Article 41 of the TRIPS 
Agreement states that enforcement procedures "sha ll be applied in such a manner as to avoid the 
creation of barriers to legitimate trade and to provide for safeguards against their abuse", please answer: 
 
Questions:  11. How does the EU intend to curb unjustified or bad faith actions by trademark owners against 
legitimate goods, in particular those not directed to the European market? Has the EU assessed 
the impacts of the new legal framework over legitimate in-transit traffic, such as delays and unjustified restrictions? What measures or policies, if any, does the EU consider putting in place to minimize those risks?  
 
EU reply: During the whole legislative procedure, the EU has taken into consideration all of the 
elements indicated in the question to avoid raising obstacles to the trade in non-infringing goods.  
In accordance with the compromise agreed with th e EU legislators, the new trade mark provisions 
regarding goods in transit would apply only in re spect of goods which bear without authorization a 
trade mark which is identical to, or which cannot be distinguished in its essential aspects from, the 
European Union (whether national or EU) trade mark registered goods, and would not apply to 
confusingly similar trade mark goods or other IPR, such as patent or design rights.  Those rights 
should lapse if and when it is proven by the decl arant, during the subsequent proceedings initiated 
by the trade mark proprietor to determine whether the trade mark has been infringed, that the 
proprietor of the trade mark is not entitled to pr ohibit the placing of the goods on the market in 
the country of final destination. The trade mark pr oprietor could, moreover, be held liable, where 
the goods in question were subsequently found not to infringe an intellectual property right, 
towards any holder of the goods or declarant who had suffered damage due to the detention of 
goods.   
Customs controls for the purposes of IPR enforcement on goods not intended for the EU market 
are based on risk analysis. Under Regulation (EU) No 608/2013, the decision on detention is taken by customs authorities, and not by the right ho lder, where those authorities have reasonable 
indications that those goods are prima facie IPR in fringing goods. The declarant or holder of the 
goods is notified of the detention of the goods within one working day of that suspension or 
detention. The declarant or holder of the good would then have the right to appeal such decision.  
Once the new Trade Mark legislation enters into force, a Staff Working Document will be issued by 
the Commission Services to provide guidelines for European customs officers to ensure the smooth transit of legitimately traded goods across the EU territory. 
 
12. What criteria are to be adopted in order to define whether a product transiting in the EU territory is counterfeit or not, in order to warrant possible actions against it? Under the new legal framework, will the jurisdiction of the respective  import country be taken into account to assess 
the counterfeit nature of the seized goods? If so, how?  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 331 - 
 
  EU reply: Please see reply to Q 11. 
 
13. How can the EU ensure a balance between the ri ghts of the owner of the in-transit goods and 
of the proprietor of a trademark during customs procedures? What is the legal basis that enable 
the proprietary of legitimate goods to initiate ju dicial procedures for redressing damages caused 
by unjustified or bad faith actions by Community trademark owners?  
 
EU reply: Please see reply to Q 11.  
 
14. Is there any opportunity for interested parties to present proof that such goods are not protected by trademarks under the law of the country of importation? If not, how does this lack of 
opportunity comply with Article 41 of the TRIP S Agreement, which requires that procedures 
concerning the enforcement of intellectual proper ty rights be fair and equitable and that such 
procedures be applied in such a manner as to avoid the creation of barriers to legitimated trade?  
 
EU reply: Please see reply to Q 11.  
 
Page 110 (Para 3.298) 
In Paragraph 3.298, it is stated that the Commission organized a conference in January 2015 to present the initial results of public consultations on a possible extension to the European level of Geographical Indication protection for non-agricultural products. 
 
Question: 15. Are there any conclusions so far on the potential impact that a new European system for non-
agricultural products could have on EU trade with developing countries? Does the European 
Commission already foresee the next steps to be taken in this field? If so, what would they consist of?   
 
EU reply: The impact on EU trade relations with third countries is addressed in the report on the 
results of the public consultation available since 2 June under the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8254. 
 The Commission has not yet decided whether and how to create a system of geographical indication protection for non-agricultural products at European Union level.  
 
Page 110 (Para 3.300) Paragraph 3.300 refers to the Commission’s 2013 proposal on protection of trade secrets. 
 
Question: The impact on EU trade relations with th ird countries is addressed in the report on the 
results of the public consultation available since 2 June under the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/ne wsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8254.  
 
The Commission has not yet decided whether and how to create a system of geographical indication protection for non-agricultural products at European Union level.  
 
16. Are there any conclusions so far on the potent ial impact that a new system for the protection 
of trade secrets could have on EU trade with developing countries?  
 
EU reply: There is no new system in place for the protec tion of trade secrets. There is however an 
ongoing legislative process following the European Commission's proposal for a Directive harmonizing the national laws of the EU Member States on protection of trade secrets against 
misappropriation. The European Commission is no t anticipating an evaluation of the possible 
impact that this proposal, if adopted, may have on EU trade with developing countries.  
 
Page 117 (Para 3.316) 
Paragraph 3.316 states that Intellectual Property dialogues with key third countries should be enhanced, within the framework of the “Communication on IP Strategy for the Protection and 
Enforcement of IPRs in Third Countries”, adopted by the Commission on 1 July 2014. 
 17. Question: Could the EU specify the enhancemen t initiatives and the third countries which are 
envisaged in this strategy?  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 332 - 
 
  EU reply: The list of Intellectual Property dialogues with key third countries and public data is 
available here: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/ doclib/docs/2013/april/tradoc_151009.pdf. 
 PART II: OTHER QUESTIONS 
REGULATIONS ON SAFEGUARDS 
According to art. 16 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 260/2009, definitive safeguard measures imposed by the European Union must take one of the following forms: 
a) Surveillance; or 
b) Quantitative restrictions on imports.  Moreover, art. 8 of the aforementioned regula tory act provides that provisional safeguard 
measures should be adopted by increasing the existing level of customs duty. 
 Questions: 
18. Can definitive safeguard measures adopted by the European Union take the form of custom 
duty increase?  
 
EU reply: According to the EU legislation, provisional measures shall indeed take the form of an 
increase in the existing level of the customs duty. There is however no such restriction for definitive safeguard measures. In fact, the EU pr actice so far has been to impose definitive 
safeguard measures under the form of a tariff quota, by which additional duties are applied only 
for the quantities imported above a specific threshol d. As examples for this practice please refer to 
the 3 definitive safeguard measures ever imposed by the EU on certain steel
106, citrus fruits107 and 
farmed salmon108. 
 
19. If a safeguard measure is imposed by means of a tariff increase under GATT Article XIX, will any value be charged on preferential imports?  
 
EU reply: According to Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 260/2009, provisional safeguard 
measures shall take the form of an increase in the level of customs duty,  whether the latter is 
zero or higher . By analogy, as the case may be, this would also apply to definitive safeguard 
measures, thus any such measure would in principle also be charged against preferential imports. 
 20. Taking into account the parallelism principle,  mooted by the Dispute Settlement Body of the 
World Trade Organization, will imports covered by exemption or immunity from customs duty be 
included in the analysis of increased imports and serious injury?   
EU reply: In the absence of specific references to any WTO case law, the EU understands that 
Brazil refers to the hypothetical situation of ex clusion of certain preferential imports from the 
scope of the application of safeguard measures. The EU has so far never come across such a situation, but is obviously committed to strictly follow the WTO rules, including the relevant 
jurisprudence, to the extent it would be applicable to the specific circumstances if such a case 
would ever arise.  
                                               
106 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1694/2002, OJ L 261, 28.9.2002, p.1. 
107 Commission Regulation (EC) No 658/2004, OJ L 104, 8.4.2004, p.67. 
108 Commission Regulation (EC) No 206/2005, OJ L 33, 5.2.2005, p.8. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 333 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM BRAZIL – 2nd Batch 
 
PART I: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT SUMMARY 
Page 9 – Paragraph 8 
In paragraph 8, the report of the Secretariat in forms that the process of harmonization of EU 
standards and technical requirements has continued with the Alignment Package of eight directives 
in February 2014, which included directives on low voltage electrical equipment and 
electromagnetic compatibility. in addition, other legislation adopted in 2013 and 2014 covered alignments of standards in other areas, including radio equipment and recreational craft.  
Question: 
1. Has the EU already collected enough data to assess the impact of those measures in terms of trade?  
 
EU reply: The European Commission conducted an Impact Assessment ( http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSer v.do?uri=SEC:2011:1376:FIN:EN:PDF ) prior to the proposal of 
the 'Alignment Package'. Accordin g to the impact assessment: " The obligations of economic 
operators as such do not constitute new technical trade barriers. Instead, they guarantee the free movement of safe goods, regardless of origin.(…) Responsible importers who establish clear commercial relations with their trading parties and responsible manufacturers located in third 
countries will not be negatively affected by these provisions. Increased transparency may 
encourage distributors to buy imported products and may facilitate international trade. " Key data 
are showed in the document. Following the adoption of the Alignment Package, the EU does not 
envisage to collect any data. The impact assessment showed that an increased harmonisation of 
the EU standards and technical requirements will imply a simplification of the legal environment 
and consequently have a positive impact on the economic operators active on the EU market.  
 
Page 9 – Paragraph 11 According to paragraph 11, a series of new dire ctives related to government procurement were 
agreed in 2014 which have reformed the legal framework and their provisions are being 
transposed into national laws in the Member States. The package is intended to improve 
transparency and enforcement, and simplify procedures.  
Question: 
2. Does the EU intend to publish updated statistical data regarding government procurement, since the last information available at the EUROSTAT website covers only up to 2013?  
 
EU reply: Under the GPA, GPA Parties are obliged to co llect and provide to the GPA Committee on 
an annual basis, statistics in relation to procurements undertaken by that Party that are covered by the Agreement. Statistics to be provided include statistics on the number and estimated value 
of contracts awarded. The last data that EU has su bmitted in the context of the GPA is for the year 
2011. Please find below the relevant link:  https://www.wto.org/english/tratop _e/gproc_e/notnat_e.htm#statPro 
 
1. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT Page 13 – Paragraph 1.10 
Paragraph 1.10 refers to new rules put in place in order to enhance economic governance in the 
field of fiscal consolidation.  Question: 
3. Could the EU please comment on further initiatives foreseen, if any, to improve or to strengthen 
the surveillance of fiscal consolidation efforts at the European level?  
 
EU reply: The evidence shows that significant fiscal consolidation has been undertaken by EU 
Member States in recent years, despite difficult  economic conditions. These considerable efforts 
are now bearing fruit, with the budget deficit in  the EU brought under 3% of GDP in 2014 for the 
first time since 2008, while the deficit for the euro area stood at 2.4% of GDP. 
 One can recall that the financial crisis has led the EU to examine the economic governance framework in place and to reform it (this was described in previous WTO Secretariat report, S 284 
rev 2). For memory, the enforcement of the Stab ility and Growth Pact (SGP) was strengthened WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 334 - 
 
  considerably under the Six Pack in 2011, with the introduction of sanctions for euro area countries 
at all stages in the Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP), and the possibility of sanctions under the Significant Deviations Procedure (SDP) under the preventive arm of the Pact. A new voting procedure – reverse qualified majority voting – means that these rules will be considered adopted 
unless a qualified majority is against them. In ad dition these measures were reinforced by two 
other initiatives: the adoption of an additional package of measures known as the Two Pack, which 
provides for increased monitoring and the fiscal compact through national correction mechanisms. 
 
In accordance with the Two Pack, the Commission in autumn presented its comments on the Draft Budgetary Plans submitted by Member States. These draft budgetary plans set out the main 
aspects of the budgetary situation of the general government and its sub-sectors for the year 
ahead. Worth stressing that all euro area Member States that are not subject to a macroeconomic 
adjustment programme also had to submit their draft budgetary plans by mid-October. Even if still relatively new, the exercise already seems well rooted in the budgetary policy coordination and 
surveillance framework of the euro area. In fact  all of the Member States concerned submitted 
their plans on time and no infringement being found.  
Regarding the general rules, let's recall that in cases where the Commission identifies "particularly 
serious non-compliance" with the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact, the Commission can request the Member State to present a revised plan within two weeks of the plan's initial submission. That being said, the Commission does not have the right to veto or change draft 
national budgets, as the ownership of the final adopted budget remains with the national 
parliaments. The purpose is rather to feed and en rich the debate in the national parliaments with 
an independent opinion before the final adoption of the budget. For instance, last October the 
Commission carried out consultations with Austria, Finland, France and Italy to request further 
information or to highlight some initial concerns related to the plans they submitted. But worth stressing that none of the DBPs showed "particularly serious non-compliance" with the 
requirements of the SGP.  
 Page 20 – Paragraph 1.32 Regarding extra-EU trade in services, the report of  the Secretariat states, in paragraph 1.32, that 
it has been argued that the EU's services trade wo uld be significantly larger if services embedded 
in manufactured goods exports were taken into account.  
Question: 
4. Does the EU intend to take this debate into account in order to modify its statistical methodology regarding this issue?  
 
EU reply: The EU is paying particular attention to the quality of statistical data as they constitute 
an indispensable tool for trade policy analysis an d policy making. In this framework, we are in 
constant cooperation with other international organisations like for example the Organisation for 
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the World Bank. Moreover, we work closely 
with the respective authorities in the EU member states so as to ensure data accuracy and comparability. The improvement of the statistical methods used regarding data collection and 
dissemination is one of our main areas of concern, paying due consideration to the constraints in 
terms of resources availability.   
The fact that a significant and increasing share of services is embodied into the manufacturing 
sector exports
109 is an important feature highlighted. The statistical methodology which makes 
possible to account for the share and amount of se rvices embodied into the manufacturing sector 
exports already exists and is widely used by in ternational organizations and research bodies. For 
example the Trade in Value-Added (TiVA) data base developed jointly by the OECD and WTO 
addresses this issue by considering the value adde d by each country in the production of goods 
and services that are consumed worldwide (data are available for selected economies in 1995, 
2000, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011).  
 Any attempt to separate the services' value from the manufactured goods' value in our trade 
statistics would need to ensure that the final data are accurate, comparable and regularly updated.  
                                               
109 Lucian Cernat, and Zornitsa Kutlina-Dimitrova ( 2014), Thinking in a box: A 'Mode 5' approach to 
services trade, Journal of World Trade, vol 48(6), pp. 1109-26. Viewed at: https://www.kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=TRAD2014039 . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 335 - 
 
  2. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
Page 28 – Paragraph 2.14 In paragraph 2.14, the report of the Secretariat states that the European Commission carries out impact assessment analysis to support its decision-making for all proposals with significant direct 
impact. 
 Question: 
5. Could the EU please explain why the European Commission has decided not to carry out an 
impact assessment analysis in relation to its proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) 1829/2003 as regards the possibility for the Member 
States to restrict or prohibit the use of geneti cally modified food and feed on their territory, 
notified to the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade on May 20th 2015, through document 
G/TBT/N/EU/284, taking into account the potential trade impacts of this measure?  
 
EU reply:  The proposal merely establishes a legal basis for Member States to act, if they so wish. 
The impact of future decisions would depend on how many Member States would restrict genetically modified food or feed in their territo ry and on the scope of the measures taken, and 
this is impossible to know ex-ante. Therefore it was not considered relevant to make an impact 
assessment.  Pages 27/28 – Paragraph 2.12 
The report of the Secretariat reminds that, since its last Trade Policy Review, the objectives of the 
EU’s trade policy remain largely unchanged, which sees trade as a “powerful engine for growth and job creation” and will “tailor trade and investment policy for those countries most in need”. 
 
Questions: 6. The Council of the EU has requested the Europe an Commission to present a new project for the 
EU’s trade policy, which should reflect the curr ent political context of global trade and the 
structural challenges of the globalized economy.  Could the EU anticipate the changes the Council 
foresees for the EU’s new trade policy?   
EU reply:  These conclusions are available on this link:   
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_ data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/145908.pdf   
 
EU reply: The "focus on implementation" does not mean a reorientation of the negotiating 
agenda, but stems from two considerations: 1) the fact that several agreement negotiated by the 
EU have been concluded and are now in their "implementation phase", with more coming over the 
next few years; and 2) the need to accompany the implementation of trade agreements with 
concrete steps at EU and national level and by the business community to ensure that the potential opportunities offered by the agreements are translated into real benefits in terms of growth and jobs. This Commission paper for discussion with Council focuses on the 
"implementation" aspects of free Trade Agreements: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/ 
015/march/tradoc_153270.pdf . 
 
Page 33 – Paragraph 2.42 
The report of the Secretariat informs that some Member States such as France, Germany, and the 
United Kingdom maintain FDI review procedures for national security purposes. These procedures 
were amended during the period under review: in September 2013, Germany streamlined its 
review mechanism for FDI, reducing data requirements for sector-specific reviews; and in May 2014, France amended the list of activities subject to FDI review. In 2014, Italy and Portugal also 
amended or adopted new legislation to review investment in strategic sectors such as defense, 
energy, transport and communication. 
 Question: 
8. Considering that the TFEU provides that foreign investment policy is an integral part of the 
common commercial policy, does the EU intend to establish a unique set of review procedures for all Member States?  
 
EU reply: See reply to Question raised by the Russian Federation on paragraph 2.42 
Page 33 – paragraph 2.43 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 336 - 
 
  According to the OECD, in 2013, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovenia, Romania, and the Czech 
Republic had the most open foreign investment regimes among the Member States of the EU, while Poland and Austria are above the OECD average for restrictions.  
Question: 
9. Considering that the TFEU provides that foreign investment policy is an integral part of the common commercial policy, does the EU intend to establish a common FDI policy?  
 
Page 33 – paragraph 2.46 According to the report of the Secretariat, there were some 1,400 bilateral investment treaties (BITs) between the EU Member States and third countries before the TFEU entered into force. 
Questions: 
 10. Does the EU intend to replace the BITs of the Member States with third countries for treaties 
signed by the EU?  
 EU reply to questions 9 and 10: Foreign direct investment policy is an integral part of the 
common commercial policy, which is remains an ex clusive competence of the EU; therefore new 
investment negotiations with third countries can only be carried out at the EU level. The existing BITs between EU Member States and third countries will be preserved until they are replaced by EU agreements. In this respect, Regulation No 1219/2012 grants legal security to the existing BIAs 
between the EU Member States and third countries until they are replaced by EU-wide investment 
Agreements. Under certain conditions, set out in Article 9 of the Regulation 1219/2012, the EU Member States may negotiate or re-negotiate exis ting bilateral investment agreements. However, 
the Regulation does not provide for the co-existence of Member States and Union investment 
agreements with the same third country and Member States agreements will cease to apply when the EU agreement with the same countries enters into force. 
 
11. In which cases would the EU intend to have investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses?  
 EU reply:  The EU is carrying out a process of reform of its investment policy; in this regard 
Thailand may find it useful to consult the conc ept paper “Investment in TTIP and beyond – the 
path for reform ” recently published by the European Commission. For the rest, the EU does not 
comment on ongoing negotiations. 
 
3.  TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE Page 37 – Paragraph 3.13 
The EU has signed authorized economic operator  (AEO) mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) 
with a number of countries between 2009, but on ly two of them since 2012 (the US and China). 
 Questions: 
12. Could the EU indicate the criteria used for th e selection of customs administrations with whom 
it decides to sign AEO MRAs?  
 
EU reply:  When deciding on engaging discussions towards the mutual recognition of AEO 
programmes with a potential partner the EU will take account of several aspects including the development of a comparable AEO programme taking into account in particular the WCO SAFE 
Framework, the intensity of the trade relation an d the existence of bilateral customs cooperation 
mechanisms. The completion of the mutual recognition process involves the establishment of the equivalence of the respective programmes in place.  
Page 57  –  Paragraphs 3.100 and 3.104 
According to paragraph 3.100, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is an independent risk assessment body of the EU, which provides scientific advice on existing and emerging risks related 
to SPS matters, including food safety, and the authorization of genetically-modified organisms. In 
paragraph 3.104, the report of the Secretariat states that, according to the European Commission, SPS measures adopted in the EU are normally base d on international standards or, in other cases, 
on the scientific opinion of the EFSA.  
 Questions: 13. In a scientific opinion disclosed on February 21st 2014 following a risk assessment on 
“Phyllosticta citricarpa”, the organism which causes citrus black spot, the EFSA concluded that “for WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 337 - 
 
  the Tahiti lime fruit without leaves, this risk [that “Phyllosticta citricarpa” would enter the EU via 
import of citrus plants] is considered very low as such spores [produced by the fungus pathogen] 
have never been observed forming on the fruit peel  of this citrus species”. Given the EFSA opinion, 
is the EU considering removing phytosanitary requirements regarding “Phyllosticta citricarpa” to 
imports of Tahiti lime (“Citrus latifolia”)?  
 EU reply: On the basis of EFSA pest risk assessment on Phyllosticta citricarpa  (McAlpine) Van der 
Aa, the European Commission together with EU Member States has initiated the revision of the 
current import requirements regarding this pest and specifically the status of Citrus latifolia  in 
relation to P. citricarpa . Any amendments of the current import requirements will be notified to the 
WTO for third countries comments before the adoption.
 
 14. The proposal of the European Commission for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of 
the Council amending Regulation (EC) 1829/2003 as  regards the possibility for the Member States 
to restrict or prohibit the use of genetically modified  food and feed on their territory, notified to the 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade on May 20th 2015, through document G/TBT/N/EU/284, allows the Member States to take into account other considerations than those assessed by the 
EFSA under the EU authorization process to restrict or prohibit the use of genetically modified food 
and feed on their territory. How does this proposal conform to the statement that SPS measures adopted in the EU are based on th e scientific opinion of the EFSA?  
 
EU reply: The proposal does not fall within the scope of the SPS agreement. Indeed, under the 
proposal, EU Member States are allowed to opt out from an authorisation granted at EU level based on compelling grounds which are distinct to considerations linked to risks to health and to 
the environment. The proposal will not affect the SPS-related parts of Regulation (EC) No 
1829/2003, and in particular the authorisation procedure at EU level. EFSA will continue to assess applications for authorisation and the Commission will continue to present draft decisions to the 
relevant committees based on EFSA opinions. 
 Page 57  –  Paragraphs 3.102 and 3.104 Paragraph 3.102 informs that the EU is a member of Codex Alimentarius. In paragraph 3.104, the 
report of the Secretariat states that, according to the European Commission, SPS measures 
adopted in the EU are normally based on international standards or, in other cases, on the scientific opinion of the EFSA. 
 
Question: 15. Considering that in July 2012 the Codex Alimentarius Commission adopted an international 
standard setting maximum residue levels (MRLs) for ractopamine when used as food additive for 
cattle and pigs destined for human consumption and also that the WTO SPS Agreement (Article 3.1) provides that "Members shall base their sanitary or phytosanitary measures on international standards, guidelines or recommendations, where th ey exist", could the EU please explain why it 
does not follow this standard, maintaining its prohibition of imports of meat with ractopamine 
residues within the MRLs?  
 
EU reply: In line with Article 3(3) of the SPS Agreement, the EU maintains its measure vis-à-vis 
ractopamine on the basis of the EFSA scientific opinion available on the following website: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1041.htm. 
 4. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR Page 130 – Paragraph 4.45 In paragraph 4.45, the report of the Secretaria t informs that the system of annual production 
quotas for sugar is to come to an end in September 2017 along with the minimum price system for 
sugar beet.  
Questions: 
16. Given the liberalization of the internal market for sugar production, does the EU intend to revise its tariffs on sugar imports, which currently guarantee a high level of protection for its sugar 
beet producers? In this context, does the EU in tend to reconsider the EUR 98 per ton duty applied 
to raw sugar imported under the CXL quotas? If not, how does it plan to deal with the distortions generated by the maintenance of high import restrictions in a context of internal market liberalization?  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 338 - 
 
  EU reply:  The EU has no plans to autonomously change its tariff structure for agricultural 
products. Any change will result from a successful conclusion to the DDA. In the meantime, the EU will continue to respect its WTO commitments.
 
 
17. How does the EU intend to address its quantita tive export limits for sugar after the end of the 
system of annual production quotas in September 2017?  
 
EU reply: Following the abolition of the sugar production quotas in 2017 there will be no 
applicable export limits for sugar.  
 Page 132 – Paragraph 4.51 
According to paragraph 4.51 of the report of the Secretariat, in July 2013, all export subsidy rates 
were set at zero, and the new rules on the Common Organization of Markets state that "without prejudice to the application of exceptional measures , the [export] refund available should be zero". 
 
Question: 18. Does the EU intend to eliminate the possibi lity of adopting export subsidies, even as 
exceptional measures?   
EU reply: As referred in Paragraph 3.129 of the report of the secretariat, the EU set export 
refunds at zero for all agriculture products on 13 July 2013. Further, the current CAP provides that "…the refund available … shall be EUR 0" (see Ar ticle 196(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013). 
The EU's new Common Agricultural Policy provides that export subsidies cannot be used other than 
as an exceptional measure. The EU has no current plans to further modify its export subsidy legislation other than as a result of a successful conclusion to the DDA. 
 
PART II: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE REPORT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION 3.  DEVELOPMENTS IN THE INTERNAL MARKET 
Page 6 – Paragraphs 3.1 and 3.3 
In paragraph 3.1, the European Union states that a better functioning of the internal market is a 
key ingredient for European growth and for creating and maintaining transparent trade practices and open markets to the benefit of companies an d consumers. In paragraph 3.3, the European 
Union says that it is constantly working on the adoption and/or enforcement of initiatives to 
integrate and complete its internal market, and, in so doing, to further open its market.  
Question: 
19. Could the EU please elaborate on the compatibili ty with the internal market of the proposal of 
the European Commission for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 
amending Regulation (EC) 1829/2003 as regards the possibility for the Member States to restrict 
or prohibit the use of genetically modified food  and feed on their territory, notified to the 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade on May 20th 2015, through document G/TBT/N/EU/284?  
 
EU reply:  The proposal provides a legal basis for the EU Member States, which so wish, to adopt 
national measures to restrict or ban the use of ge netically modified food an d feed after that they 
have been authorised at EU level. 
 
It sets out strict conditions to ensure compliance with EU law and international obligations: any national measure adopted should be based on compelling grounds (overriding reasons of public 
interest) and be in accordance with the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination. EU 
Member States cannot use grounds which interfere with the EU wide risk assessment of GMOs.   Page 6 – Paragraph 3.5   
In paragraph 3.5, the European Union informs of the revision of its Common Agricultural Policy, 
continuing the reform process of the last 25 year s and promoting the use of less trade-distorting 
policy instruments.  
 
Question: 20. Does the EU intend to further reform its CAP, in order to eliminate trade-distorting policy 
instruments still in place, such as voluntary coup led support, besides the possibility of using export 
refunds as exceptional measures?  
 EU reply: The EU has no current plans for future CAP reforms. In relation to the use of export 
refunds, see reply to question 18.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 339 - 
 
  Page 7 – Paragraph 3.9 
The report by the EU informs that the Union Customs Code (UCC), adopted in 2013, lays down rules that modernize and streamline the EU’s automated customs procedures. The UCC will apply from May 2016. 
 
Question: 21. Does the EU anticipate any difficulties on customs clearance during the transition period?  
 
EU reply:  Customs clearance during the transition period is duly safeguarded under the 
implementing provisions of the UCC (Title IX fr om the Commission Implementing Regulation to be 
adopted in last quarter of 2015). 
 
As regards the elements of customs clearanc e under the UCC that require the update or 
deployment of the relevant IT systems and will not be applied on 1 May 2016 , those will be 
governed by a Delegated Act on Transitional IT Measures that is currently being prepared and 
should be adopted in last quarter of 2015.  
4. THE KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN EU TRADE AND INVESTMENT POLICY (2013/2014) 
Page 15 – Paragraphs 4.39 and 4.40  Questions: 
22. Could the EU provide advanced informatio n on the conclusions of the report on the 
implementation of the GSP+, which is expe cted to be issued by the end of 2015?  
 
EU reply:  By 1 January 2016, the Commission must prod uce a Report to the European Parliament 
and the Council on the application of the Sp ecial Incentive Arrangement for Sustainable 
D e v e l o p m e n t  a n d  G o o d  G o v e r n a n c e  ( G S P + ) .  I t  i s  n o t  p o s s i b l e ,  a t  t h i s  s t a g e ,  t o  p r o v i d e  
information on what the potential conclusions might be at that time. 
 23. The EU claims that the removal of GSP preferences from numerous competitors of LDCs has allowed the EBA (“Everything But Arms”) initiative to be more effective and to offer additional 
export opportunities to the LDCs. Could the EU provide data on this subject?  
 EU reply: The Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) has been revised in order to maintain its 
relevance as a pro-development tool by focusing help on the countries most in need. However, as 
the revised scheme only entered into force on 1 January 2014, it is too early to provide an assessment of its impact on beneficiaries. Th e Commission will, however, carry out such an 
assessment - in the form of a report to the European Parliament and the Council - in 2017. 
 PART III: OTHER QUESTIONS Reference: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 593/2013 Tariff Quotas for High-Quality 
Beef Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 593/2013 opens and provides for the 
administration of tariff quotas fo r high-quality fresh, chilled and frozen beef and for frozen buffalo 
meat. Article 2 of this Regulation sets out the definitions of the beef to which the quota is 
applicable. These definitions vary according to the country of origin of the beef. Regarding beef 
originating from Brazil, the quota is applicable to selected cuts from steers or heifers having been exclusively fed with pasture grass since their weaning. 
 
Question: 24. Is there any scientific justification for the application of different criteria according to the country of origin?  
 
EU reply: The different tariff quota specifications derive from the implementation of EU 
commitments undertaken in the WTO framework with the corresponding trade partners.  
 
Reference:  Council Directive (CE) 22/1996 Prohibitio n of the Placing on the Market of Meat from 
Animals Treated with Beta-Agonists. 
 
Given the EU's prohibition of imports of meat from animals treated with ractopamine, the EU requires the establishment of a verification syst em for imports of pigmeat from Brazil which is 
based on the laboratorial analysis of urine samples. However, the EU verification system for 
ractopamine residues within its territory does not require urine samples in laboratorial test, but WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 340 - 
 
  uses other, less sensitive, testing methods, which are also applicable to imports from third 
countries.  Question: 
25. Is there any scientific justification for the ad option of such different testing requirements?  
 EU reply:  R e s i d u e s  o f  r a c t o p a m i n e  m a y  b e  t e s t e d  f o r  i n  a  n u m b e r  o f  d i f f e r e n t  m a t r i c e s ,  b o t h  
edible (e.g. muscle and liver) and inedible (e.g. urine). The same testing requirements apply to 
Brazil and to the EU Member States in that residu es of beta-agonists such as ractopamine must be 
tested for in animals and animal products.  
The situation in the EU and in Brazil is not comparable since ractopamine is neither allowed nor 
available on the EU market. EU Member States can and do test urine samples for ractopamine in addition to edible tissues such as liver, animal feeding stuffs and drinking water. Brazil also tests 
edible tissues (muscle) from cattle and pigs in its national residues control programme (PNCR). 
 As regards the Brazilian system to verify that pigs eligible for potential export to the EU have not 
received ractopamine at any stage of their production, testing of urine is suitable as it can be 
applied to on-farm testing and residues of the drug can be readily detected in this matrix at low levels. If residues are found, this would indicate  that the pigs in question have either been 
administered ractopamine (in contravention of the Brazilian split-system) or have inadvertently 
been exposed to the drug by means of cross contaminated feeding stuffs. Regardless of the root 
cause, such findings would question the effectiveness of the split-system.  
Reference: Directive 2009/28/EC Renewable Energy Directive  
The RED determines that by 2020 Member States mu st meet at least 10% of the national energy 
demand in road transport through renewable energy sources, including biofuels. 
 
Question: 26. Have Member States indicated if they will fulfill this target? If so, have Member States outlined how they will meet this target?  
 
EU reply:  Yes, all Member States have submitted National Renewable Energy Action Plans 
(NREAPs) as required by Article 4 of the Renewa ble Energy Directive. The NREAPs set out each 
Member State's national targets for the share of energy from renewable sources consumed in 
transport, electricity and heating and cooling. They  also set out measures to be taken to achieve 
the targets.  In addition, all Member States su bmit, on a biannual basis, progress reports under 
Article 22 of the Renewable Energy Directive. Both the NREAPs and the progress reports are 
available on the following websites: (NREAPs: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-
energy/national-action-plans ) (Progress reports: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-
energy/progress-reports ) 
 
Reference: Directive 98/70/EC as amended by 2009/30/EC Fuel Quality Directive.  
The FQD defines the permitted level of emissions derived from fossil fuels and includes an 
obligatory target of 6% of GHG emission reductions in fuels, to be achieved by Member States by 2020. 
 
Questions: 27. Does the EU have updated information concerning Member States fulfillment of such a key target?  
 
EU reply:  The Commission does not have yet updated information with regards to the 6% 
greenhouse gas emissions reduction in the FQD. This is because a method for calculating the 
greenhouse gas emissions of fuels and other energy from non-biological sources based on default 
values of the fuels' life cycle carbon intensity and the modalities by which fuel suppliers report was formally agreed only by April 2015 – see Council Directive (EU) 2015/652 of 20 April 2015 laying 
down calculation methods and reporting requirements pursuant to Directive 98/70/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels.  Based on 
the methodology contained in the Council Directive (EU) 2015/652  the Commission will receive reports with regards to the reduction effect as soon Member States will have transposed the 
Directive. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 341 - 
 
  28. The FQD further determines the amount and conditions under which ethanol can be used in 
petrol, currently with a maximum limit of 10% ethanol by volume in petrol. Does the EU have updated information on why Member States are not completely fulfilling the E10 mixture target?  
 
EU reply: Neither Directive 98/70/EC as amended by  2009/30/EC Fuel Quality Directive nor 
Council Directive (EU) 2015/652 set a mandatory 10% / E10 target for Member States. The greenhouse gas emissions reduction obligation is to be achieved by fuel suppliers. These have 
various compliance options including the various forms of biofuels, but also low carbon fossil fuels, 
renewable electricity and upstream mission reductions (notably the reduction of flaring and venting).  
 
Reference: Amendments to Directive 2009/28/EC  (RED) and Directive 98/70/EC as amended by 
2009/30/EC (FQD)   
Questions: 
29. What are the expected impacts on EU trade of the approved amendments to the EU Fuel 
Quality Directive (98/70/EC as amended by 20 09/30/EC) and of the EU Renewable Energy 
Directive (2009/28/EC)?    
 EU reply: The review of the Renewable Energy Directive is  still in the legislative process. The main 
elements of the possible outcome of the on-going legislative process is to limit the contribution 
food crop based biofuels can make towards the target for renewable energy in 2020 at max 7%. 
The 7% limit applies regardless of the origin of the food crop based biofuels. There is no limit as to the entry of sustainable biofuels into the EU market. The 10% target for renewable energy in 
transport in 2020 is maintained.  
 30. How will these amendments impact trade on bi ofuels and bioenergy feed stocks, particularly 
considering current provisions on sustainability criteria and new default values attributed to ILUC 
effects?  
 EU reply:  The sustainability requirements imposed on food crop based biofuels remain unchanged. 
Instead, estimated ILUC emission values will be  used by fuel suppliers and the Commission for 
reporting purposes only. As outlined in the reply to the previous question, the impact of the compromise text comes from the introduction of a limit on the contribution food crop based 
biofuels can make in 2020. Compared to projection s based on current policy, demand for food crop 
based biofuels in 2020 will be slightly lower with the ILUC compromise, translating into both reduced domestic EU as well as import demand.  The mandatory sustainability criteria as set out in 
Art 17 RED imposed on all biofuels and the corresponding default values in Annex V RED remain 
unchanged. Instead, estimated ILUC emission values will be used by fuel suppliers and the Commission for reporting purposes only.  
Reference:  Regulation (EU) Nº 995/2010 FLEGT. 
 Questions: 
31. What is the current state of implementation  of such Regulation, particularly whether the 
penalties applicable to infringements are effective, proportionate and dissuasive?  
 
EU reply:  On 3rd March 2013, the EU Timber Regulation became applicable in all 28 EU Member 
States. The European Commission works closely with the MS Authorities to develop guidance 
documents and standard approaches to apply EUTR provisions in an effective and uniform manner all across the EU. Since last year, we noticed a steady improvement in the level of compliance by Member States with EUTR provisions, particularly the adoption of the required national provisions 
for the effective application of the EUTR particularly concerning checks by national authorities and 
the administrative and penal sanctions in case of infringements. A specific communication platform, including a database regarding releva nt legislation and substantiated concerns, was 
created to help enforcement bodies to m eet the requirements of the regulation. 
 32. To what extent would global private schemes of  certification, such as the Forest Stewardship 
Council (FSC) and the Program for Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), constitute sufficient 
proof of legality?  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 342 - 
 
  EU reply:  When assessing the risk of a product, as a part of their due diligence obligation under 
the EUTR, operators can take into account, amongst other things, if a product is certified (e.g. against FSC/PEFC). However, certified companies an d/or certified products are not considered as 
automatically legal, and therefore competent authorities can still ask for additional proofs of 
legality. 
 33. Could the EU please elaborate on the role of third country national programs of certification 
and their acceptance as proof of origin?  
 EU reply:   When assessing the risk of a product, as a part of their due diligence obligation under 
the EUTR, operators can take into account, amongst other things, if a product is certified by a third 
country national program. However, this kind of certification is not considered as automatically 
legal, except in case of FLAGT-licensed timber  and CITEs exception, and therefore competent 
authorities can still ask for additional proofs of legality. 
 
Reference:  Regulation (EU) Nº 1907/2006 REACH.  
Successful REACH applicants are, according to Title VII of Regulation (EU) Nº 1907/2006, the ones 
capable of providing good quality application, which includes the justification for granting an authorization and a clear view of the costs and benefits of a granted authorization.  
Question: 
34. Besides measures related to fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals Agency ( E C H A ) ,  w h a t  o t h e r  m e a s u r e s  i s  t h e  E U  e n v i s a g i n g  t o  e n s u r e  t h a t  S M E s  i n  p a r t i c u l a r  a v o i d  o r  
minimize burdensome dossier preparation costs and remain competitive?  
 EU reply:  The European Commission is currently working on measures to simplify the 
authorisation procedure, both in general and for specific cases (e.g. where substances in Annex 
XIV are used only in low volumes or for the production of legacy spare parts and other specific uses) in order to minimize the costs for the preparation of the dossiers. Among others, a public consultation was conducted until 30 April 2015
110 and the European Commission intends to bring 
forward an Implementing Regulation to set out the simplified rules by the end of this year. 
Reference: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)  
The Bertelsmann study (2013) forecasts the impact of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment 
Partnership (TTIP) on per capita income for third countries. In the “deep liberalization” scenario, where an ambitious TTIP focuses on NTBs and stan dardization, the study predicts a pronounced 
effect on third countries, in terms of a trade diversion phenomenon. 
 Question: 35. Does the EU plan to mitigate the negative effects of TTIP on third countries?  
 
EU reply: Given that the EU and the US are the world' s two most important economic powers and 
the TTIP will create the largest free trade zone in the world, it is clear that its implications will go 
beyond the bilateral relationship. 
 But the benefits of the TTIP to the EU and the US w ill not be achieved at the expense of the rest of 
the world. The potential positive spill-over effects are captured in our economic modelling of the 
TTIP, carried out by the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR). The study finds that the agreement would increase GDP in our trading partners by almost €100 billion.   
All trade agreements make producers inside the ne w open market relatively more competitive than 
those outside it. Yet, with TTIP this effect will be very small for low and lower middle income countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. These countries, in fact, export different products to 
the US and Europe than those that are traded ac ross the Atlantic. In general terms, developing 
countries are not competing against European and American producers on either market.   
                                               
110 http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tool s-databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8081&lang=en 
&title=REACH%2DAuthorisation%2D%2D%2DConsultation%2Don%2Dapplications%2Dfor%2Dlow%2Dvolume
s%2Dand%2Don%2Dextension%2Dof% 2Dtransitional%2Darrangements%2 Dfor%2Duses%2Din%2Dlegacy%2
Dspare%2Dparts%2D.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 343 - 
 
  According to a report by CARIS (University of Sussex for the Department for International 
Development), the largest low income countries traders specialise in textile, clothing and footwear, which dominate their top 20 exports (counting for 70% of their whole exports) to the EU and the US. Nevertheless, "the EU and US show no indication of being competitive suppliers of these 
products in each other’s markets. Nor do they look capable of imposing large losses in market 
share on LIC exporters of non-fuel goods after a TTIP".
111  
 
To be very specific, if you take the 10 first expo rt products to the EU of LDCs or of African 
countries, none in common to the top 10 US export products. This means that the negative trade diversion is going to be much less relevant with the US than with other partners.  On the contrary, third countries will benefit from the trade creation effects that the transatlantic agreement will 
produce.  
 Furthermore, it is important to recall that, despite the economic crisis, the EU has pursued an 
ambitious trade agenda with developing countries. We are not turning our back to developing 
countries. Just in 2014 we concluded Economic Partnership Agreement negotiations with West Africa, the Eastern African Community (EAC) and with the SADC group.  
 
                                               
111 "Potential Effects of the Proposed Transatlanti c Trade and Investment Pa rtnership on Selected 
Developing Countries", Centre for the Analysis of Regional Integration at Sussex, University of Sussex, 2014.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 344 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM BRAZIL – 3rd Batch 
 
PART I:  QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 4. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
2. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
Page 27 (Para 2.11)  
During the period under review, Croatia became  the 28th member State of the EU. Accession 
negotiations are ongoing with Turkey, Montenegro , and Serbia while negotiations with Iceland 
have been on hold since May 2013.  
Question: 
1. Croatia became a member State of the EU in July 2013. Since then, the EU is holding bilateral 
negotiations under article XXVIII with a number of WTO Members, including Brazil. After two 
years, negotiations with Brazil are not yet concluded. Considering that Brazil is entitled to 
compensations and that negotiations seem to be st alled, even though Brazil has already signaled 
that it would accept compensations in poultry and sugar, when does the EU intend to resume 
negotiations? Page 29 (Para 2.18)   
 EU reply:  The negotiations with Brazil are not stalled. Brazil raised a number of unusual and 
complex issues during the negotiations which have require careful assessment, including as 
regards legal or statistical questions. Stakeholders  had also to be consulted. The EU is committed 
to concluding a fair ag reement in good time. 
 
Question: 
2. When are the provisions of the TFA expected to be implemented in the European Union?   
 
EU reply:  In February 2015, the EU began the process of accepting the protocol for the 
amendment to the Marrakesh Agreement for the WT O Agreement on Trade Facilitation (TFA). The 
TFA will be implemented upon its entry into forc e of the agreement. The EU plans to ratify the 
agreement before MC10. 
 
Pages 30 e 31 (Paras 2.30 e 2.31) The new "Generalised Scheme of Preferences" (G SP) began to apply on 1 January 2014. According 
to the Commission, the new GSP focusses prefer ences on countries-most-in-need and addresses 
the issue of preference erosion. The GSP concentrates the benefits on fewer eligible countries classed as high or upper middle income for the most recent three years by the World Bank or 
countries having equivalent or better preferenti al access under other arrangements were removed 
from the list of beneficiary countries. Hence, the number of GSP beneficiaries decreased from 178 under the previous GSP to the current 92, and is ex pected to decrease further. However, some of 
the removed countries will be covered by other preferential arrangements such as free-trade 
agreements or economic partnership agreements (see section 2.3.2). On the criterion of income 
level, 20 countries (or customs territories) were removed from the revised GSP list of beneficiaries. Moreover, Azerbaijan and Iran (since 23 February  2014); China, Ecuador, Maldives, and Thailand 
(since 1 January 2015) no longer benefit from th e GSP, and Botswana, Namibia, and Turkmenistan 
will cease to benefit from 1 January 2016. On the criterion of alternative market access, 34 countries are no longer GSP beneficiaries as from the outset, while, Colombia, Costa Rica, El 
Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, and Peru will not be among the GSP 
beneficiaries from 1 January 2016.   Question: 
3. Can the EU provide trade statistics to show that  EU imports from LDCs have increased after the 
reform of the GSP in 2014? To what extent have the remaining LDCs benefited from the GSP scheme since its reform in 2014?   
 
EU reply: As the revised scheme only entered into force on 1 January 2014, it is too early to 
provide an assessment of its impact on benefici aries. However, the available statistics for 2014 
show that imports from LDCs under the Everything-But-Arms (EBA) have increased by 4.6% in 
comparison to 2013 i.e. 38,149 million euros in 2014 as opposed to 36,456 million euros in 2013.   All LDCs are covered by EBA. The graduation criteria do not apply to LDCs. 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 345 - 
 
  3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
Page 55 (Para 3.99)  (…) However, on 6 May 2013 the Commission adopted a proposal for a package of measure which, 
according to the Commission, allows for simplification, modernization, increased consistency, and 
convergence with international standards of EU health and safety standards for the agri-food 
chain.  
 
Question: 4. Does the European Union consider to inform that the requirement for animals to stay at least 40 days in the last property approved before slaugh ter is in accordance with the SPS Agreement?  
 
EU reply:  The residence of three month in the foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) free area and at 
least 40 days on the last holding is required for animals destined for slaughter for export of fresh 
meat to the European Union in order to ensure a verifiable animal health status of the animals on 
a holding under veterinary surveillance and to guarantee their traceability. The requirement is a precondition to attest the absence of certain diseases in accordance with the Union import 
certificate for fresh meat and thus implements certain aspects of surveillance provided for in the 
OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code (the Code). The three months residence in the FMD free area follows the recommendations of the OIE and is indeed less stringent than the requirement in 
Article 8.7.23 of the Code. 
EFSA evaluated the EU animal health import strategy
112 and concluded that it was vital to maintain 
the current measures as they successfully protect the EU against the introduction of FMD through imports of live animals and products of animal origin. 
Page 57 (Para 3.102) 
EU member States are members of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), and contracting parties to the International Plant Protection Convention 
(IPPC). 
 Questions: 5. Why does the European Union determine a FMD free zone more restrictive than the one 
established by OIE? Are the requirements imposed on Brazil regarding errors in holding 
registration, animal identification and movement controls also applied to EU Member States?   
EU reply:  The EU has previously recognized areas of B r a z i l  a s  " f r e e  o f  F M D  w i t h  v a c c i n a t i o n "  
which were not included in the OIE list of FMD fr ee zones where vaccination is practised. For the 
States of Rondônia, Tocantins and the Federal District, which are listed by the OIE as FMD free 
zones where vaccination is practised, the European Commission has not yet received the 
necessary information about the guarantees on registration of holdings and traceability of animals provided for in EU import requirements. 
The required registration of Brazilian holdings dispatching bovine animals for slaughter for export 
of fresh meat to the EU is the direct conseque nce of shortcomings observed by a number of FVO 
inspections on the spot.
113. 
In the EU live bovine animals are individually iden tified and registered, holdings are registered and 
movements between holdings are recorded. In the ca se of intra-EU trade, the certified movement 
is recorded in the TRACES system. All this forms part of the comprehensive system of traceability from birth to the supermarket shelves.
114 The EU does not impose such system on third countries. 
6. Are EU requirements that animals stay at leas t 40 days in the last property approved before 
slaughter (if the incubation period  for FMD is only 14 days) in accordance with the OIE rules?  
                                               
112 EFSA Journal (2006) 313, Risk assessment on Foot and Mouth Disease, 
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/ en/efsajournal/doc/313.pdf.  
113 http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/audit_reports/index.cfm . 
114 Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 
establishing a system for the identifi cation and registration of bovine an imals and regarding the labelling of 
beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 346 - 
 
  EU reply:  In accordance with Council Directive 2003/85/EC on Community measures for the 
control of FMD115, the incubation period for FMD in small ruminants is set at 21 days. Keeping the 
animals under veterinary surveillance for a double  incubation period is a requirement to support 
and ensure that the OIE rules are properly implem ented. The same principle is provided for in 
Article 8.7.8. of the Code. The rules are in force for more than 20 years116 and had been 
appropriately notified to the WTO SPS. 
Page 95 (Para 3.248) 
As reported in the previous Review, in March 2012 the Commission tabled a proposal aimed at 
improving the conditions under which EU businesses can compete for public contracts in third countries, confirming the legal status of bidders, goods and services from countries that have an international agreement with the EU in the area of public procurement, and clarifying the rules 
applicable to bidders, goods and services not covered by these agreements. The proposal also 
foresees that, if an EU investigation were to show "recurring and serious discrimination" against EU companies, the Commission should invite the third party to negotiations aiming at finding a 
solution. As a last resort, and only if the Partner shows no willingness to engage, the EU would be 
able to temporarily close its market to goods and services from that third-country partner regarding public procurement contracts worth €5 million or more excluding VAT. 
 
Questions: 7. According to the new Directive, in case of a "lack of substantial reciprocity" the EU can 
discriminate against foreign bidders. To assess whether a lack of substantial reciprocity exists, the 
Commission shall examine the following: (a) to what degree public procurement laws of the 
country concerned ensure transparency in line with international standards in the field of public procurement and preclude any discrimination against Union goods, services and economic 
operators; (b) to what degree public authorities and/or individual procuring entities maintain or 
adopt discriminatory practices against Union goods,  services and economic operators. Considering 
that national legislations on public procurement vary considerably, and that the criteria set on 
Article 6:5 of the Directive are fairly general, how is the EC to define objective criteria for 
assessing reciprocity? Could the EU develop further on the concepts of ""serious and recurring discriminations" and "transparency in line with international standards"?   
EU reply to the three sub questions above : The proposal for an international procurement 
initiative is currently under review. As noted in the Commission working programme for 2015, the 
Commission intends to amend it in accordance with the priorities of the new Commission in order 
to simplify it and to reduce the number of actors. It is at this point in time not possible to say 
neither exactly when a revised proposal may be tabl ed nor what the exact content will be.  The EU 
will of course ensure to honor its international commitments.  
 
8. According to Article 9 of the Directive, when a third party is engaged in "substantive negotiations" with the EU for an agreement on government procurement, the EC can adopt measures to avoid goods and services of this part y being excluded from the public biddings in the 
EU. How does the EU determine at what stage a negotiation can be called "substantive"?  
 EU reply:  same as above 
 
4. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR Page 121 (Para 4.12) 
Trade in agricultural products is important to th e EU economy: contributing 6.6% to total good 
export and 5.5% to total import in 2013.   Questions: 
9. Could European Union explain how the allocation of the Hilton Quota is determined?  
 EU reply:  The allocations of the Hilton Beef Quota derive from the implementation of the EU 
concessions set out in Schedule CXL drawn up in  the wake of the conclusion of the GATT XXIV.6 
negotiations and the successive agreements reached with the different trade partners. 
                                               
115 Council Directive 2003/85/EC of 29 September 2003 on Community measures for the control of foot-
and-mouth disease repealing Directive 85/511/EEC an d Decisions 89/531/EEC and 91/665/EEC and amending 
Directive 92/46/EEC (OJ L 306, 22.11.2003, p. 1). 
116 Commission Decision of 10 June 1993 concerning animal health conditions and veterinary 
certification for imports of fresh meat from South American countries (OJ L 179, 22/07/1993 P. 11 ). WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 347 - 
 
  10. Could European Union inform if there have been any changes in the definition of the Hilton 
Quota to any country that has access to quota? (a) In case of an affirmative answer, please indicate what is this change, where it can be found and the reason of the change; (b) please 
explain how this process of change was made.  
 
EU reply: Changes in the specifications of the Hilton  Beef Quota have been introduced in the 
framework of the implementation of the EU conce ssions set out in Schedule CXL drawn up in the 
wake of the conclusion of the GATT XXIV.6 negotiations and the successive agreements reached 
with the different trade partners.  Such changes are reflected in the recasts and am endments of Commission Regulations (EC) No 
936/97, and (EC) No 810/2008 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 593/2013 and 
can be consulted in the Official Journal of The European Union.  
11. Why do Brazilian exporters of high quality beef  need to comply with Article 13 of Regulation 
(EC) No 1760/2000 while other producers of high  quality beef are not subject to the same 
obligation?  
 
EU reply: The provisions of Article 13 and Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 are 
applicable to all beef imported into the EU, within or outside tariff quotas and regardless of the country of origin. 
 
Page 124 (Para 4.20) Under the new system of direct payments, farmers may be eligible for payments under a number 
of different schemes including:  the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) or the SAPS; agricultural 
practices beneficial for the climate and the environment (Greening); payments for young farmers; payments for areas with natural constraints; redistributive payments; and voluntary support 
coupled to production. With the exception of voluntary coupled support, eligibility under the BPS or 
SAPS is a precondition to qualifying for support under the other schemes.  Questions: 
12. Could the European Union provide the lega l basis, functioning details and the amounts 
disbursed (total and by country) under the schemes  of "voluntary support coupled to production"? 
 
EU reply: Within the framework of decoupled direct payments under the CAP, the voluntary 
coupled support (VCS) is an optional scheme, limited in terms of both percentages available for its financing and objective, and compatible with WTO requirements. In addition, the introduction of 
VCS coincides with the abolition of EU coupled support schemes in the beef and veal and sheep 
and goat sectors in place until 2014.  The principles governing VCS can be summarized as follows: EU Member States may decide to use 
a limited percentage of their national ceilings for direct payments for financing coupled support 
where in a determined region or sector specific types of farming or specific agricultural sectors that are particularly important for economic, social or environmental reasons undergo certain 
difficulties in terms of risk of decline or of ab andonment of production. Payments shall be granted 
within defined quantitative limits and based on fixed areas and yields or on a fixed number of animals, and may only be granted to the extent necessary to create an incentive to maintain 
current levels of production. 
 On the basis of the Member States notifications made to the Commission by 1 August 2014, the total amounts allocated for financing coupled support in the year 2015 by all the Member States 
implementing the scheme are indicate d per sector in the table below: WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 348 - 
 
   
VCS Sectors - Amount allocated by sector – 2015 
(in € million)  
Beef and veal 1.732  
Cereals 87 
Flax 1 
Fruit and vegetables 204 
Grain legumes 6 
Hemp 2 
Hops 5 
Milk and milk products 829 
Nuts 14 
Oilseeds 1 
Olive oil 70 
Protein crops 443 
Rice 57 
Seeds 5 
Sheepmeat and goatmeat 478 
Silkworms 1 
Starch potato 18 
Sugar beet 174 
 4.127  
 
13. Could the European Union inform whether the schemes of "voluntary support coupled to 
production" were notified to the WTO? If so, under which category? If not, why? If these schemes 
were not notified because they were implemented or put in place after the last EU notification, 
please inform under which category these schemes will be notified to the WTO?   
EU reply: The 2015 calendar year is the first year when EU farmers can apply Voluntary Coupled 
Support and as such, it will be part of the relevant domestic support notification.  
Page 133 (Para 4.56) 
The last notification from the EU on domestic support commitments was for the marketing year 2011/12. This, along with earlier notifications, sh owed a steep change in the pattern of support 
following the successive reforms of the CAP with support in the Amber and Blue Boxes declining 
while Green Box support increased. 
 Questions: 
14. When does the European Union intend to submit new notifications concerning domestic 
support commitments?  
EU reply: The EU would like to refer to its most recent WTO notification on domestic support 
DS:1. See WTO notification G/AG/N/EU/20 of 22 October 2014 (covering the marketing year 2011/2012). The notification covering the marketing year 2012/2013 will be submitted in the near future.   
 
15. Is there any public website that publishes information about the current agricultural subsidy programs and the amounts disbursed by the EU an d its member States under each one? If so, 
which?   
 EU reply: Information on the execution of the EU budget for agriculture expenditure (including 
documents for expenditure within both EAGF and EA FRD) is available on the following web-site:  
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-funding/index_en.htm.   WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 349 - 
 
  Page 133 (Para 4.57) 
Within each Box the structure of support has also  changed. Within the Amber Box, along with the 
decline in the current total AMS in 2002/03, 2007/08, and again in 2010/11 compared to each preceding year, support for beef, fruits and vege tables, sugar, and olive oil has declined or 
disappeared. The change in the structure of suppo rt in the Blue Box is not as marked but the 
decline in the overall level of support, from over €27 billion in 2004/05 to less than €3 billion in 
2011/12, is considerable. Support notified in the Green Box has increased reaching nearly €71 
billion in 2011/12. 
 Questions: 16. The European Union has changed the structure of its agricultural subsidies in the past few 
years and there was a considerable shift to Green Box subsidies during this period. According to 
the EU notification concerning domestic support commitments for marketing year 2011/2012 (G/AG/N/EU/20, 22 October 2014), the EU grante d €70,976.8 billion of Green Box subsidies in 
2011/12. Thus, could the European Union: 
 a. Provide further information on the legal basis, functioning and consistency with Green Box 
requirements for each of the specific programs falling within the category "decoupled income 
support", which amounts to €32,756 billion?   EU reply: The EU would like to refer to its DS:2 notification G/AG/N/EU/11 of November 2012. 
 
b. Provide more information on the legal basis, functioning and consistency with Green Box requirements for the schemes falling within the ca tegory "income insurance and income safety-net 
programs", which amounts to €31,4 billion?  
 EU reply: The amount in EU notification G/AG/N/EU/20 is € 31.4 million (and not billion). These 
amounts are paid out according to national rules and concerns Member states contribution to 
national schemes, guarantee funds for income insurance schemes and contributions for farmers' pension schemes.  
c. Provide more information on the interest rates, eligibility and amounts disbursed by the 
schemes falling within the category "structural adjustment assistance provided through investment aids", mainly those related to the "aid for modernization" and the "purchase of machinery, 
equipment, animals, buildings and plantations"?  
 EU reply: Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 and Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 provide general level 
of eligibility criteria. On top of EU legislation, more detailed rules for the eligibility criteria are set 
at national or regional level (see Article 71(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005).   The most import legal references for these measures can be found at: 
- Articles 22, 26, 28, 29, 34, 35, 35a, 53 and 54 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. 
- Articles 17, 19, 20, 23, 24 of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006  
These provisions cover not only eligibility criteria , but also the purpose of the measure, types of 
actions supported and maximum aid rates. Furthe r, Article 55 of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 
covers the eligibility of expenditure for investments.  
 
Support for investment operations may be paid partially or totally in the form of interest rate support. Detailed rules are available at Article 49 of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006, according to which Member States indicate in their programs the method for calculation of the interest rate 
subsidy to be used. In general, the value of the interest rate subsidy is the difference between the 
market rate and the subsidised rate, whether paid directly to reduce the rate or via a preferential loan. The value depends on the prevailing mark et rate and chosen reduced rate within the 
individual programs. 
 PART II: OTHER QUESTIONS 
Article 2.7.b, COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No  1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 (basic anti-
dumping Regulation <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/146035.htm>) Description and specific information. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 350 - 
 
  The Basic Regulation provides that one or more producers, located in non-market economies, may 
claim market economy treatment if it is proved that  market economy conditions prevail  for  this  
producer  or producers in respect of the manufac ture and sale of the like product concerned.  
 
Questions: 
17. Does the EU record how many cases and producers were granted Market Economy Treatment?  
 
EU reply:  In the period 2006-2015, the EU has granted Market Economy Treatment, in the 
context of new anti-dumping investigations, to around 30 exporting producers.  18. If so, could the EU please list the producers to which this treatment was granted?  
 
EU reply:  The Commission does not keep a specific register with the names of each of the 
companies that have been granted MET in the context of trade defence investigations.  
 
Nevertheless, the exporting producers that ha ve been granted Market Economy Treatment, 
together with the examination of their MET claims , are detailed in every Regulation imposing anti-
dumping measures.  
 Article 9.5. COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 (basic anti-dumping Regulation <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/146035.htm>) 
Description and specific information 
 In WTO Dispute Settlement 397 (EC — Fasteners), th e Appellate Body considers article 9.5 of the 
Basic Regulation inconsistent with AD Agreement Articles 6.10 and 9.2.  In spite of that, the 
provision is still formally included in the Basic Regulation.  
Questions: 
19. Does the EU have any plans to formally chan ge this article in order to comply with the 
Appellate Body’s recommendation?   
EU reply:  Following the publication of the Appellate  Body Report in the dispute (DS397 EC-
Fasteners), and in order to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute in a manner that respects its WTO obligations, the EU amended Article 9(5) of the Basic Anti-
Dumping Regulation through Regulation (EU) No  765/2012 of the European Parliament and the 
Council, of 13 June 2012, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of  the European Community (OJ L 237, 3.9.2012, 
p.1). The EU notified this amendment to the WTO Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices 
(G/ADP/N/1/EU/1/Rev.1/Suppl.1)  20. If so, could the EU please elaborate on these plans and the anticipated timeframes?  
 
EU reply:  Please see answer to question 19. 
 
PART II – QUESTIONS REGARDING THE EUROPEAN UNION REPORT 
4. THE KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN EU TRADE AND INVESTMENT POLICY Page 14 (Para 4.35) 
4.35. The EU is also contributing to the WTO Tr ade Facilitation Agreement Facility which became 
operational with the adoption of the Trade Facilitation Protocol in November 2014. 
 Questions: 
21. When does the EU intend to implement Ar ticle 23.2 of the TFA, which establishes that 
members would create a National Trade Facilitation Committee?  
EU reply:  Article 13.2 of the TFA will be implemented upon the entry into force of the agreement. 
22. Will the EU create a single Committee or will each member State create its own?   
EU reply:  There will be a National Committee on Trade Facilitation in the EU in accordance with 
Article 13.2. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 351 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM BRAZIL – 4th Batch 
 
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
Page 55 (Para 3.99) 
Since last review, the Commission stated that has adopted measures to increase consistency and convergence with international standards of EU health and safety standards for the agri-food 
chain. 
 Page 57 (Para 3.102) EU member States are members of the Codex Alimentarius Comission, the OIE and contracting 
parties to the IPPC. 
 Page 57 (Para 3.104) 
The Commission affirms that SPS measures taken in the EU are normally based on international 
standards, or, in other cases, based on scientific opinion of the EFSA.  
Questions: 
1. Brazil understands that the EU's prohibition of pig and cattle products which used ractopamine 
during production does not conform to the releva nt international standard, approved by the Codex 
Alimentarius, as mandated by Articles 2 and 5.6 and Annex C (C.1a and C.1c) of the SPS 
Agreement. Besides not observing the relevant Codex standard, the EU does not allow imports of 
p o r k  f r o m  B r a z i l  p r o d u c e d  u n d e r  a  s p l i t  s y s t e m  t h a t  e n s u r e s  p o r k  p r o d u c t i o n  w i t h  n o  u s e  o f  ractopamine, nor provides sufficiently detailed information on its own control programs for 
ractopamine. The EU has taken measures beyond the appropriate level of protection of human 
health according to the SPS Agreement, since it ha s failed to present a sound scientific justification 
to support these decisions, as required under Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement. In this context and 
based in the "COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCU MENT on the implementation of national 
residue monitoring plans in the Member States in  2011 (Council Directive 96/23/EC)", Brazil would 
like to enquire:  
a. When will the EU allow imports of pork from Brazil which are produced under a split system for 
the use of ractopamine?  
 
EU reply:  If the European Commission is in a position  to verify that the split system is working 
properly – which was patently not the case during previous FVO audits of the system in Brazil – 
then a recommendation could be made to the EU Member States that EU legislation is modified to 
permit such imports. Moreover, a residue monitori ng plan has to be approved by the European 
Commission, as well as the list of establishments in Brazil willing to export to the EU.  b. When will Brazil receive the information requ ested from the EU about the frequency of the 
ractopamine control programs and the sample material type/matrix used for laboratorial analysis 
in beef, pork and feed? The information reques ted includes the monitoring and verification 
procedures (sampling plan) carried out by producer s and official authorities in each one the EU 
Member States and the laboratory results obtained for beef, pork and feed in the last five years.  
 EU reply: The most up to date results from the EU Member States are collated here: 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/chemicalsaf ety/residues/docs/workdoc_2012_en.pdf. 
The data for 2013 are due to be published later this year. 
2. Brazil has been liaising with the competent EU  areas seeking the accreditation of three states 
(Federal District, Tocantins and Rondonia) in order to export beef. These states are officially 
recognised by the OIE as free of FMD. In not allowing beef imports from these areas, the EU has 
not taken into account the available scientific evidence, relevant processes and production methods, relevant inspection, sampling and test me thods, the prevalence of FMD, the existence of 
FMD-free area, the relevant ecological and environmental conditions, and quarantine or other 
treatment. In doing so, the EU runs counter the provis ions of Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.3, 5.1, 
5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 6.1 and 6.2 and Annex A (A.3b and A.6) of the SPS Agreement. When will the 
EU grant recognition of FMD-free of these area s in order to allow exports of beef from 
establishments located in these states?  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 352 - 
 
  EU reply: The States of Rondônia, Tocantins and the Federal District are listed by the OIE as foot-
and-mouth disease (FMD) free zones where vaccination is practised117. Brazil requested in March 
2010 the Commission for authorisation of these zones for the export of fresh bovine meat to the European Union. 
 
The control of the production of bovine meat intended for export to the EU was audited by the FVO that year
118. However, traceability of bovine animals and the processes for de-boning and 
maturation, which are key risk mitigating measures for FMD, were excluded from this audit by the 
Brazilian authorities prior to the FVO mission. It was decided at that time that the missing aspects will be verified during  a future FVO mission. 
 
Another FVO audit was scheduled in October 2014, with the three states included in the scope of 
the mission. However, as the European Commission did not receive the necessary information from the Brazilian authorities concerning the three states, the scope of the audit was limited to the 
existing authorised states. 
 An audit of Brazil is planned to be carried out by the FVO in 2016, including in the three proposed 
states. They will be authorised for export of fresh bovine meat, when the European Commission 
has received the necessary information and will verify the information during the audit with satisfactory results. Then the European Co mmission would start the procedure authorizing 
Rondônia, Tocantins and the Federal District to export bovine meat to the EU. Moreover, a residue 
monitoring plan has to be approved by the European Commission, as well as the list of 
establishments willing to export to the EU.  
3. Since 2007, the EU imposed sanitary requirements on meat product imports, delimiting the 
territory of origin of the animals and the fresh raw material according to the sanitary status for certain diseases, resulting in the restricted trade of meat-based products, despite the provisions of 
Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement. The measure is beyond what could be deemed necessary for 
protecting human and animal health and has no scientific justification, since the products to be exported are processed in a manner that eliminat es the agent identified as a risk by the EU. 
Moreover, is does not comply with the relevant recommendations of the OIE Terrestrial Animal 
Health Code. Brazil is one of the largest exporter s of meat products in the world and there is no 
evidence that any of our trade partners has suffered FMD outbreaks as a result of Brazilian exports. The adoption of OIE standards is a reas onably available choice to the EU, and does not 
involve technical difficulties or an unfeasible ec onomic burden, while at the same time achieving 
the EU`s appropriate level of protection and being significantly less trade restrictive. When will the 
EU apply the OIE provisions and amend the measure in order to allow imports of meat-based 
products from FMD free zones (24 states) demonstrated to the OIE as free of viral circulation?  
 EU reply: The requirements for specific treatments of meat products, currently laid down in the 
Commission Decision 2007/777/EC
119 have been in force for more than 20 years120 and include the 
treatments recommended in the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code to eliminate the potential 
animal health risk carried by the fresh meat used in the preparation of the meat products. 
 
The requirement for a specific treatment applies in the case of Brazil also for meat products from 
the areas listed by the OIE as a FMD free zone where vaccination is not practised, i.e. Santa Catarina
121, because live animals for slaughter and fresh meat from areas with a lower animal 
health status can enter this zone as well as the areas included in the EU regionalisation and 
considered FMD free with vaccination. Consequently, there is a risk that meat not eligible for export to the EU is processed next to meat  which is eligible for export to the EU. 
                                               
117 http://www.oie.int/en/animal-health-in-the-world/official-disease-status/fmd/list-of-fmd-free-
members/#c10686. 
118 http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/audit_reports/details.cfm?rep_id=2473. 
119 Commission Decision 2007/777/EC of 29 November 2007 laying down the animal and public health 
conditions and model certificates for imports of cert ain meat products and treated stomachs, bladders and 
intestines for human consumption from third countries and repealing Decision 2005/432/EC (OJ L 312, 30.11.2007, p. 49). 
120 Commission Decision 91/449/EEC of 26 July 1991 laying down the specimen animal health 
certificates in respect of meat products imported from third countries (OJ L 240, 29.8.1991, p. 28–35). 
121 http://www.oie.int/en/animal-health-in-the-world/official-disease-status/fmd/list-of-fmd-free-
members/#c10686. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 353 - 
 
  4. It has not been possible to identify inform ation about US auditing in FVO reports or non-
conformities in RASFF. Does the EU have a specific phytosanitary and sanitary agreement with the US and/or other countries? If so, more information regarding this would be appreciated.  
 
EU reply: The Agreement between the EU and the US on sanitary measures to protect public and 
animal health in trade in live animals and animal products is publicly available: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2003/october/tradoc_111716.pdf. 
 
The FVO audit reports, and there are several of them concerning the US, can be found here: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/audit_reports/index.cfm.  
The RASFF contact point in the USA is the FDA, and they are notified systematically on each RASFF 
notification related to their country (see the last years data below), and they are also requested to give feedback. All this exchange of information is covered by an existing confidentiality 
arrangement between the European Commission and the FDA. 
 RASFF notifications, products originated in the USA 
COUNTRY/YEAR 2013 2014 
The USA 101 164 
 
Source: RASFF Annual reports 2013, 2014, available at  web page of “Previous RASFF Annual Reports”: 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/rasff/ reports_publications/index_en.htm. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 354 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM BRAZIL – 5th Batch 
 
PART I: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
Page 162 (Paragraph 4.137) 
The Regulation creates the so-called "single rulebook " i.e. the single set of harmonized prudential 
rules which banks throughout the EU must respect. EU heads of state and government had called 
for a "single rulebook" in the wake of the crisis. It is aimed at ensuring uniform application of Basel 
III in all member States, at closing regulatory loopholes, and thus at contributing to a more effective functioning of the internal market. Th e new rules remove a large number of national 
options and discretions from the CRD,  and allow member States to apply stricter requirements 
only where these are justified by national circumstances (e.g. real estate), needed on financial 
stability grounds or because of a bank's specific risk profile.  
Question: 
1. Which institutions are invested with the authority to judge which "national circumstances" 
would allow stricter requirements? 
 
EU reply : The Regulation provides different situations where stricter criteria can be applied. 
‐ The Regulation (article 124 “Exposures secure d by mortgages on immovable property”) 
allows a competent authority, defined in the Regulation (article 4-40) as “a public authority 
or body officially recognised by national law, which is empowered by national law to 
supervise institutions as part of the supervisory system in operation in the Member State concerned”, to “set a higher risk weight or stricter criteria than those set out in Article 
125(2) and Article 126(2), where appropriate, on the basis of financial stability 
considerations.” The amplitude of the chan ge is framed by the Regulation, and the 
competent authority shall consult the European Bank Authority on the change it would 
apply. The EBA is also in charge of defining the criteria that should be taken into account 
by competent authorities in such situation. 
‐ Article 458 of the Regulation also envisages the possibility of stricter national measures in 
case of “changes in the intensity of macroprudential or systemic risk in the financial 
system with the potential to have serious negative consequences to the financial system 
and the real economy in a specific Member St ate”. In such scenario, competent authorities 
at national level must be authorized by the Council of the EU, on the basis of a proposal of 
the European Commission, to adopt the draft national measures. The authorization can be 
tacit. 
 
Please note also that article 459 of the Regulation allows the Commission to adopt, for a period of 
one year, stricter prudential requirements “where  this is necessary to address changes in the 
intensity of microprudential and macroprudential risks which arise from market developments in the Union or outside the Union affecting all Member States, and where the instruments of this 
Regulation and Directive 2013/36/EU are not sufficient to address these risks”. 
 Page 163 (Paragraph 4.142) 
The seventh element of the first pillar is the Ba nk Recovery and Resolution Directive, BRRD. It 
harmonizes and upgrades the tools for dealing with bank crises across the EU. Banks will be required to prepare recovery plans to overcome financial distress, while authorities will lay out 
plans to resolve failed banks in a way which preserves their most critical functions and avoids 
taxpayers having to bail them out.   Authorities are granted a set of powers to interv ene in the operations of banks to avoid them 
failing. If they do face failure, authorities ar e equipped by the directive with new comprehensive 
powers and tools to restructure them, allocating losses to shareholders and creditors following a clearly defined hierarchy. 
 
Question: 
2. Which are the hypotheses that authorize the pre- emptive intervention in a bank, in order to 
prevent its failure?  
 EU reply : As stated by Article 27-1 of the Directive, authorities should have the possibility to 
intervene pre-emptively “where an institution infringes or, due, inter alia, to a rapidly deteriorating 
financial condition, including deteriorating liquidity situation, increasing level of leverage, non-WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 355 - 
 
  performing loans or concentration of exposures, as assessed on the basis of a set of triggers, 
which may include the institution’s own funds requirement plus 1,5 percentage points, is likely in the near future to infringe the requirements  of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013, Directive 
2013/36/EU, Title II of Directive 2014/65/EU or any of  Articles 3 to 7, 14 to 17, and 24, 25 and 26 
of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014” 
 PART II: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT REPORT 
1 THE EUROPEAN UNION IN THE GLOBAL TRADING SYSTEM 
Page 4 (Paragraph 1.9) Thirdly, the EU is one of the key active player s working towards an ambitious and open Trade in 
Services Agreement (TiSA). For the EU, trade in serv ices is of strategic importance as the sector 
accounts for some three-quarters of EU gross domestic product (GDP) and EU jobs. Broadly 
speaking, the EU's aim in the negotiations is to raise the level of ambition of all participants - current and the future - so that the level of commitment they will take on market access and 
national treatment is similar for everyone. The Ag reement is being negotiated on the basis of the 
GATS architecture and the EU trusts that once critical mass of participants will be reached, it will be integrated into at the WTO. 
 
Question: 
3. How does EU coordinates/reconcile post financial crisis guidelines strengthening financial 
regulation (G20, FSB, BIS, Basel III) and financial services liberalization on TiSA 
negotiation?  
 EU reply : The EU is indeed one of the main proponents for an ambitious Annex on Financial 
Services in the context of TiSA. The EU has managed, as mentioned in our last Trade Policy Review 
from 2013, to maintain a high level of openness of  our financial markets while largely modernizing 
and overhauling the financial regulatory and supervisory frameworks, in particular by 
implementing the G20 and FSB’s promoted approach of mutual deference for equivalent regulatory 
frameworks, instead of pushing for an extra-territorial application of our rules.  The EU proposes in all its Free Trade Agreementss, and in the TiSA, to make a reference to the 
necessary international regulatory playing field for financial regulation. We propose therefore a 
best endeavor commitment by Parties to implemen t standards designed by the main international 
standards-setting bodies. As an engaged member of G20, FSB, and the main bodies in question, 
together with our Member States, we strongly be lieve that the use of a common reference is key 
to ensure that sound prudential regulation is in place throughout the globe, and that the openness of financial markets throughout the world is not achieved through regulatory dumping. 
 
Services negotiations are about allowing access of foreign providers to services markets. They are 
not about deregulation. Therefore, TiSA will not limit the general ability of the Parties to regulate, 
provided that such regulation does not discr iminate between domestic and foreign services 
providers. In addition to this general right to regulate, TiSA (like GATS and all of the EU's FTA) will 
contain a safeguard, the so called 'Prudential Carve Out', which allows Parties to take measures for prudential reasons irrespective of their commitments in TiSA.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 356 - 
 
  EU RESPUESTAS A LA REPÚBLICA DOMINICANA 
Párrafo 2.2.  
¿De qué forma la adopción de medidas nacionales en las áreas de competencia compartidas afectarían al comercio con los países no comunitarios? 
 
EU reply:   Whereas the Member States remain entitled to take national measures in areas of 
shared competence, such measures remain subject to the obligations imposed by trade 
agreements concluded by the Union. For example, whereas the competence with respect to tax 
measures is shared, such measures must be consistent with Article III of the GATT.    Párrafo 2.8.   
¿Esta comisión tendrá alguna función con los acuerdos ya suscritos por la Unión Europea?  
 EU reply:  Yes, in external trade relations the Commi ssion ensures the external representation of 
the Union. In general, the Commission monitors the fulfilment of obligations and represents EU 
interests in fora under trade agreements.   
Párrafo 2.9.   
¿Qué sucede cuando no hay inmunidad respecto a una modificación de un acuerdo que se ha 
negociado con la otra parte?  
 
EU reply: International agreements to which only the Union is a party must be approved by the 
Council with the consent of the European Parliament.  In the case of trade agreements, the Council decides by qualified by majority. In the case of  mixed agreements, to which both the Union and 
the member States are parties, the agreement mu st be approved by the Union and by all the 
Member States, each according to its own international procedures  
Párrafo 2.14.  
¿Esta evaluación se ha hecho para el Acuerdo de Asociación Económica CARIFORO-Unión Europea (EPA, por sus siglas en inglés)?  
 
EU reply:  The Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA ) of the Economic Partnership Agreements 
(EPAs) between the EU and the African, Caribbean  and Pacific (ACP) countries was launched in 
September 2002, together with the opening of the EPA negotiations, and finalised in August 2007. 
A summary of the SIA and all reports produced can be downloaded at the Commission's website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/policy-making/analysis/sustainability-impact-assessments/assessments/ 
 
An evaluation was done also after the first five years of implementation of the agreement (dated 
September 2014).  The study is available under the following links: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/october/tradoc_152824.pdf 
 
Párrafo 2.33.   
¿Puede un país o grupo de países al mismo tiempo ser beneficiarios de estos tratamientos y 
también ser parte de un Acuerdo comercial con la Unión Europea?  
 EU reply:  A country which benefits from preferential  access to the EU market under a bilateral 
trade agreement can no longer enjoy GSP benefits. Such a country will be graduated from GSP 
after a transitional period of 2 years after the date the trade agreement enters into force. The above does not apply to least-developed-countries (LDCs) which can enjoy GSP and trade 
agreement benefits in parallel.  
 
Párrafo 2.45.   
En este sentido, ¿está considerando la Unión Europea negociar los tratados bilaterales de inversión 
con sus miembros individuales, para incorporarlos en los Tratados Bilaterales de Inversión con 
toda la Unión Europea?  
 
EU reply:  There are no such plans – within the EU the rules of the internal market applies. 
 Párrafo 2.47.   
¿Esta disposición es obligatoria para todos los Tratados Bilaterales de Inversión o solo una guía 
abierta a la negociación con la contraparte?  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 357 - 
 
  EU reply: The legal framework for the operation of an ISDS mechanism is in principle set out in 
the respective agreement in which it is included. Furthermore, within the EU the Financial Responsibility Regulation (Regulation No 912/2014  of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor-
to-state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the 
European Union is party. OJ 2014 L 257/121) contains detailed rules to manage the financial responsibility of the EU and Member States linke d to ISDS for international agreements to which 
the EU is a party. It also establishes a procedure to determine who shall act as the respondent in 
investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS). Where the EU loses a case, it will carry out the necessary internal steps to ensure implementation  of the award in accordance with EU rules. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 358 - 
 
  EU RESPUESTAS A LAS PREGUNTAS DEL ECUADOR 
 Informe Secretaría de la OMC.-  
1. De conformidad con la página 39, párrafo 3.6. 
 ¿ P o d r í a  l a  U E  i n d i c a r n o s  c u á l  e s  e l  t i e m p o  n o r m a l  d e  n a c i o n a l i z a c i ó n  d e  u n a  m e r c a d e r í a  s i  s e  
presenta la ENS por vía electrónica y a tiempo?  
 EU reply:  If the ENS has been lodged electronically and on time the security and safety risk 
analysis will be finalized before the arrival of th e shipment in the territory of the EU. In the case 
goods upon their arrival to the EU territory do not require any customs controls to be carried out, 
there is no impact on the release time of the shipment (the time it takes Customs to process a customs declaration from its acceptance to the release of goods), as the shipment is automatically 
released to the next procedure. 
 2. De conformidad con las páginas 40 y 41, párrafos 3.11 y 3.13, referente a: 
 
“Los Estados miembros de la UE pueden otorgar la condición de operador económico autorizado (OEA), sobre la base de criterios comunes, a lo s operadores económicos interesados que realicen 
actividades abarcadas por la legislación aduanera. Existen tres tipos de certificados OEA: OEA-C 
(certificado OEA de simplificaciones aduaneras); OEA-S (certificado OEA de protección y 
seguridad); y OEA-F (certificado OEA completo). Las ventajas de la condición de OEA dependen del tipo de certificado que se otorgue al operador económico, y pueden comprender una reducción de 
los controles aduaneros o un mejor acceso a las simplificaciones aduaneras. La participación en los 
programas de operadores económicos autorizados es voluntaria, y solo está abierta a los operadores económicos establecidos en la UE. Los operadores económicos de terceros países 
pueden solicitar un certificado si tienen filiales es tablecidas en la UE que lleven a cabo actividades 
relacionadas con las aduanas”.  ¿Podría la UE indicarnos si, mediante estos tipos de certificados OEA, se estaría otorgando una 
ventaja o privilegio (reducción de los controles aduaneros o un mejor acceso a las simplificaciones 
aduaneras) a los productos importados originarios de los países beneficiarios que tienen filiales establecidas en la UE? y ¿cómo esta medida se ajusta a las disposiciones en materia de no 
discriminación?  
 EU reply:  On the basis of the current EU Customs legislation (art 5a of the Regulation (EEC) No 
2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code and art. 14a to 14x of Regulation (EEC) No 
2454/93), the AEO status can be granted to any  ec onomic operator established in the EU customs 
territory who is involved in activities covered by the customs legislation. Pursuant to art. 4 (2) (b) 
of the Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, a legal person or an association of persons is established in 
EU territory if it has a registered office, its central headquarters, or a permanent business 
establishment. Following this provision the subsidiaries established in the EU territory in the form of a "legal person" or "association of persons" may apply for an EU/AEO status. 
 
The AEO status gives access to simplifications provided for by the customs rules and /or facilitation with regards to customs control relating to security and safety. In particular, as provided by art. 
14b (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93), if  the hold er of an AEOC or AEOF certificate  applies for 
one or more of the authorisations for customs simp lifications provided by the same Regulation, the 
customs authorities must not re-examine  the conditions already examined for granting the AEO certificate, avoiding unnecessary administrative burdens for both customs and trade. 
 
3. De conformidad con la página 43, párrafo 3.24, referente a lo siguiente: 
 
“La Comisión señala que la UE ha estado considerando la posibilidad de ampliar sus normas de 
origen del tipo del SPG para abarcar otros regímenes comerciales”.   
¿Podría explicarnos la UE, con mayor detalle, a qué se refiere esta posibilidad y cuáles serían los 
otros regímenes comerciales considerados para esta iniciativa?  
 EU reply:  The revised GSP rules may, to a certain extent, serve as a basis in determining the 
initial EU position when negotiating new free trade agreements or modifying rules of origin in WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 359 - 
 
  existing agreements (e.g. the rules of origin laid down in the Regional Convention on pan-Euro-
Mediterranean preferential rules of origin(1)). For example, the EU systematically tries to introduce 
or replace the direct transport condition with a non-alteration rule providing more flexibility to trade.  
 
4. De conformidad con la página 45, párrafos 3.38 y 3.40, referente a lo siguiente: 
 
“las variaciones de los tipos medios solo reflejan los cambios de códigos arancelarios y de los 
precios mundiales de determinados productos sujetos a tipos no ad valorem ”; y, el promedio de 
los tipos aplicados a los productos agrícolas se redujo al 14,4%, frente al 15,2% en 2011 y el 17,8% en 2008. Esto refleja los aumentos de los precios de los productos agrícolas y la 
consiguiente reducción de los EAV de los tipos arancelarios no ad valorem aplicables a dichos 
productos”.  
¿Podría indicarnos la UE si se ha considerado para las variaciones de los tipos medios arancelarios 
aplicados no ad valorem otras variables adicionales al aumento del precio mundial de los productos agrícolas? y ¿cómo se llevó a cabo el ajuste de los tipos no ad valorem en virtud de los 
compromisos de la UE en materia de concesiones arancelarias?  
 EU reply: Although world price fluctuations are a likely explanation, the detailed methodology 
used by the Secretariat to make the calculations would need to be taken into account as the 
calculation of AVEs can be influenced by a range of elements.  
 While the calculation of the AVEs changes from one year to the other depends on the data chosen 
for the calculations, the EU tariffs have not change d, as they were accepted and bound as part of 
the Uruguay Round Agreement.  
5. De conformidad con la página 45, párrafo 3.37 sobre aranceles consolidados, referente  a lo 
siguiente:  “La Lista de concesiones certificada actual es la de la UE-15. La UE ha distribuido la lista 
correspondiente a la UE-25 en la OMC.” 
 ¿Cuándo está prevista la distribución de la lista correspondiente a la UE-28?  
 
EU reply: A few Members asked for clarifications and some technical corrections on the EU-25 
schedule. The EU has answered all of them and consequently hopes that the EU-25 schedule will 
be certified without further substantial delay.  Ne xt logical step will be the submission of a EU-27 
schedule that will incorporate, amongst others, th e modifications to the EU schedule agreed after 
conclusion of the Article XXIV:6 negotiations resulting from the EU enlargement to Rumania and Bulgaria.  
 
6. De conformidad con la página 48, párrafo 3.44 relativo a suspensiones y contingentes 
arancelarios, referente a lo siguiente: 
 
“La Comisión señala que se pueden conceder suspensiones arancelarias para productos que no se puedan obtener en la UE, y contingentes arancelarios para productos producidos en cantidades 
insuficientes en la UE. Estas medidas permiten la exención total o parcial de los derechos 
aduaneros aplicables a las mercancías importadas en una cantidad ilimitada (suspensión arancelaria) o en una cantidad limitada (contingente arancelario). No se conceden suspensiones ni contingentes arancelarios con respecto a productos acabados.” 
 
Adicionalmente el informe manifiesta en el punto 3.48 que: “La mayor parte de los contingentes arancelarios NMF se asignan según el orden de recepción de las solicitudes.” 
 
¿Podría informarnos la UE si ha previsto, o aplica, otro método de administración de contingentes que permitan preservar una asignación que se ajuste a la participación comercial de los países 
importadores Miembros, según las disposiciones en materia de distribución de contingentes del 
GATT de 1947?   WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 360 - 
 
  EU reply: All MFN autonomous tariff quotas are allocated on a "first-come, first-served" basis. A 
different method of quota management (license ba sed) is used for some sensitive agricultural 
products as defined under point “4.2. Agriculture”.  
7. De conformidad con la página 50, párrafo 3.54, referente a lo siguiente: 
 “Se mantiene un sistema de vigilancia previa con arreglo al Reglamento No 260/2009 del Consejo, 
pero en 2013 y 2014 no se aplicó a ningún producto. La Comisión utiliza este sistema de vigilancia 
con el fin de "aumentar la transparencia de las tendencias de las importaciones de dichos productos, pero sin intención alguna de limitar el acceso a los mercados de la Unión". Sobre esta base, pueden realizarse controles con fines estadísticos y nuevos controles sobre el origen de los 
productos”. Las normativas en materia de salvaguardia que aplica la UE son el Reglamento 
260/2009 y el Reglamento 625/2009 (párrafo 3.61), 
 
¿En qué casos se utilizan las disposiciones del Reglamento 260/2009 (hablando del tema de vigilancia previa y salvaguardias) y en cuales el 625/2009?, ¿de qué manera se relacionan estas 
dos disposiciones comunitarias en materia de salvaguardias? 
 EU reply: Regulation 260/2009 covers possible safeguard and surveillance measures concerning 
imports from WTO Member countries. The reference to the most recent, codified version of this 
Regulation is (EU) No 2015/478, published on 27 March 2015. Regulation 625/2009 covers non-
WTO countries. Please note that the list of countries contained in the Annex 1 of this regulation was recently amended. Countries which have joined  the WTO since the date of publication of this 
regulation were removed from Annex 1 with the “recast” exercise (Regulation (EU) No 2015/755 
published on 19 May 2015).   
8. De conformidad con la página 50, párrafo 3.53, referente a los impuestos especiales de 
consumo:  “Los tipos aplicados a estos productos varían de un Estado miembro a otro, pero deben ser, al 
menos, iguales a los tipos mínimos establecidos en la legislación de la UE”. 
 ¿Podría indicarnos la UE qué medidas ha adoptado  para que los productos importados no se vean 
sujetos a una carga fiscal superior a la aplicada a los productos similares nacionales, debido a la 
variación que existe en los tipos aplicados entre los Estados Miembros y la disposición de que los tipos aplicados deben ser, al menos, iguales a un tipo mínimo?  
 
EU reply:  Excise duty is payable upon 'release for consumption.' Release for consumption occurs 
on production of excise goods or upon release form customs supervision (release for free circulation) unless the goods are immediately placed under an excise duty suspension regime 
(warehousing or movements under excise duty suspension). 
 Chargeability operates in the same way for domestic and imported goods. There is no possibility 
for differentiated excise duty rates. 
 9. De conformidad con la página 55, párrafo 3.75. 
 
¿Podría la UE explicarnos por qué no pueden aplicar medidas antidumping y compensatorias a Islandia, Liechtenstein y Noruega?   
EU reply:  The scope of application of anti-dumping and countervailing measures is defined by 
Article 26 and Protocol 13 to that Agreement. Provisions relating to fish products are contained in Protocol 9.  
 
Article 26 of the EEA Agreement states:  
Anti-dumping measures, countervailing duties and measures against illicit commercial 
practices attributable to third countries shall not be applied in relations between the 
Contracting Parties, unless otherwise specified in this Agreement.  
Protocol 13 states:  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 361 - 
 
  The application of Article 26 of the Agreemen t is limited to the areas covered by the 
provisions of the Agreement and in which the Community acquis is fully integrated into the Agreement.  
Moreover, unless other solutions are agreed upon by the Contracting Parties, its application 
is without prejudice to any measures which may be introduced by the Contracting Parties to avoid circumvention of the following measures aimed at third countries: 
 
- anti-dumping measures; - countervailing duties; - measures against illicit commercial practices attributable to third countries.  
 
Article 8.3 of the European Economic Area Agreement ('EEA Agreement') defines the scope of the products subject to the free movement of goods amongst EEA countries. 
 
Article 8.3 states that:  
Unless otherwise specified, the provisions of this Agreement shall apply only to:  
(a) products falling within Chapters 25 to 97 of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, excluding the products listed in Protocol 2;  (b) products specified in Protocol 3, subject to the specific arrangements set out in that 
Protocol.  
 
The relevant Protocols can be found at: 
http://www.efta.int/legal-texts/eea /protocols-to-the-agreement. 
 
10. De conformidad con la página 63, párrafo 3.105. 
 
¿Podría la UE indicarnos cómo se inicia el proceso de aprobación de un tercer país para que obtenga el derecho de exportar animales vivos o productos de origen animal a la UE? y ¿Cuánto 
tiempo toma este proceso?  
 EU reply:  The whole procedure is described in the Secretariat report WT/TPR/S/317, point 3.105, 
page 59. 
 To be eligible to export live animals and products of animal origin into the EU, the exporting country must submit an official application which will be assessed by the European Commission's 
services to verify that all imports meet the same high standards as products from EU Member 
States, in matter of animal and public health.  
A complete sequence of assessment is followed, wh ich includes the submission of questionnaires 
and copies of the legislation of the exporting country in the concerned field. For certain food products which may pose a risk to public health (such as meat and aquaculture), the European 
Commission must approve the residue monitoring  programme, the salmonella control programme 
for poultry and poultry products, and other requirem ents depending on the animal and/or product. 
If the European Commission is satisfied with the information provided, a visit on-the-spot is generally organised by the European Commission au dit service, the Food and Veterinary Office 
(FVO). If the outcome of the audit is satisfac tory, the European Commission prepares draft to 
amend the import rules to add the third country, territory, zone or compartment to the lists for animal and public health status, provided the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and 
Feed agrees. 
 The complete process is described in EU legislation, e.g. in Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 
854/2004 for public health or Chapter II of Di rective 2002/99/EC for animal health rules. 
Additional information is available on the Commission Website: http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/international_affairs/trade/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/international_af fairs/trade/docs/guide_thirdcountries2009_en.pdf. 
 
The time needed for the complete assessment cannot be defined in advance, as it depends on the health status of the exporting country and the possi ble issues that might be raised in the process. 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 362 - 
 
  11. De conformidad con la página 72, párrafo 3.142. 
 Se indica que las ayudas estatales que favorezcan a determinadas empresas o a la producción de determinadas mercancías están prohibidas en general por su incompatibilidad con el mercado 
interior. Sin embargo hay varias excepciones. 
 ¿Podría indicarnos la UE dónde se puede revisar dichas excepciones?  
 
EU reply:  As a general rule, Article 107 of Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union reads 
as follows:  
1. Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State 
resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between 
Member States, be incompatible with the internal market. 
 2. The following shall be compatible with the internal market: 
 
(a) aid having a social character, granted to individual consumers, provided that such aid 
is granted without discrimination related to the origin of the products concerned; 
 
(b) aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences; 
 
(c) aid granted to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany 
affected by the division of Germany, in so far as such aid is required in order to 
compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by that division. Five years after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Council, acting on a proposal from the 
Commission, may adopt a decisi on repealing this point. 
 3. The following may be considered to be compatible with the internal market:  
(a) aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is 
abnormally low or where there is serious und eremployment, and of the regions referred to 
in Article 349, in view of their structural, economic and social situation; 
 
(b) aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State; 
 
(c) aid to facilitate the development of certai n economic activities or of certain economic 
areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest; 
 
(d) aid to promote culture and heritage conservation where such aid does not affect trading conditions and competition in the Union to an extent that is contrary to the 
common interest; 
 
(e) such other categories of aid as may be specified by decision of the Council on a 
proposal from the Commission. 
 Thus the TFEU prohibits State aid because of its potential negative effects on trade and competition. Despite the general prohibition of State aid, in some specific circumstances 
government intervention can be necessary for a well-functioning and equitable economy. 
Therefore, the TFEU leaves room for a number of policy objectives for which State aid can be granted. The secondary legislation sets out these exemptions to the general prohibition, for 
instance environmental aid, regional aid, aid for R&D. The Commission only allows State aid to be 
given under certain well-specified conditions, such as a clear public policy objective, an incentive effect, proportionality and a limitation of negative effects. In this secondary legislation the 
Commission specifies the conditions for granting State aid. 
 For more detailed information on State aid legislation please consult DG Competition's website:  
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/legislation.html . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 363 - 
 
  12. De conformidad con la página 72, párrafo 3.143, primer bullet point, referente al vínculo entre 
las ayudas estatales y la estrategia de crecimiento Europa 2020 y el objetivo de: “Mejorar los controles para limitar el falseamiento de la competencia y mejorar el funcionamiento del mercado interior”. 
 
Al respecto, ¿Podría indicarnos la UE qué medidas de subvenciones se han tomado para conseguir este objetivo y si éstas han sido notificadas? De ser el caso, ¿Bajo qué disposición de la normativa 
multilateral se sustentan estas medidas?  
 EU reply:  By July 2014, several regulatory changes entered into force that make it easier to grant 
aid for growth-promoting projects and aid that has minimum distortionary effects in the Single 
Market. These new provisions are supported by higher agreed standards of transparency and 
accountability of state aid. These common standards will be ensured by Member States in close partnership with the Commission. 
 
As part of the SAM package, the Commission has adopted 10 guidelines (on e.g. R&D and innovation; broadband connections; energy and environment; risk financing of SMEs and midcaps; 
regional aid, etc.), based on common principles. The Commission has also adopted 5 regulations to 
make State aid control instruments and procedures more efficient.   In principle, support measures which are su bject to the ASCM (Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures) definition of subsidies are notified to the WTO. 
 For a comprehensive overview of State Aid Modernisation please see the Commission 
website: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/modernisation/index_en.html . 
 
On the State Aid Modernisation please consult the Competition Policy Brief: 
 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/cpb/2014/011_en.pdf  
 
13. De conformidad con la página 92, párrafo 3.192. 
 
¿Podría la UE indicarnos si han considerado analizar el impuesto sobre la renta para todos los países miembros de la UE?  
 
EU reply:  Detailed analyses of personal income tax for all Member States plus Iceland and Norway 
can be found in the report "Taxation Trends in the European Union". The report looks at the latest 
data for the taxation of labour (pages 28-30), and also contains detailed descriptions of the latest 
national tax reforms (including personal income tax) for the 30 countries covered. (http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/gen_info/economic_analysis/tax_structures/index
en.htm ) 
 
Further analyses in relation to labour taxation can be found in the annual publication "Tax Reforms in the EU Member States". The report scrutinises reform trends in the EU countries and provides 
in-depth analysis of challenges and possible solutions in key areas of tax policy. 
(http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/gen_info/economic_analysi
s/tax_papers/taxation_paper_48.pdf ) 
 
Each year in the context of the European Semester the Commission also publishes a series of country reports analysing Member States' economic policies, which includes some analysis of policies and trends in relation to personal income tax. 
(http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/making-it-happen/country-specific-
recommendations/index_en.htm ) 
 
14. De conformidad con la página 128, párrafo 3.305, sobre la manipulación de los medicamentos 
en tránsito por el territorio de la UE.  Regl amento (UE) Nº 608/2013 “el considerando (11) del 
Reglamento dispone lo siguiente: "[C]onviene que,  a la hora de evaluar el riesgo de que se 
produzcan vulneraciones de los derechos de propiedad intelectual, las autoridades aduaneras 
tengan en cuenta cualquier probabilidad import ante de desvío de dichos medicamentos [en 
tránsito] hacia el mercado de la Unión". Sin esos indicadores, no habría fundamentos suficientes para que las autoridades aduaneras sospecharan la existencia de una infracción de derechos de 
propiedad intelectual por el mero hecho de que lo s medicamentos genéricos transitaran por la UE”. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 364 - 
 
  ¿Podría informarnos qué parámetros o variables se utilizan para determinar la probabilidad de 
desvío de los medicamentos en tránsito al mercado de la UE, que sirven, a su vez, de base para evaluar el riesgo de vulneración de los derechos de propiedad intelectual?   
EU reply:  In the Union legal order a preamble to a legislative act and the recitals of which it is 
comprised are interpretative tools, which help to explain the purpose and intent behind a normative instrument. The preamble to a Union act is not legally binding. 
 
In this context, Recital 11 of Regulation 608/2013 co nfirms that the EU is fully committed to all the 
efforts made to facilitate access to medicines for countries in need in accordance with the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, adopted by the Doha WTO Ministerial 
Conference on 14 November 2001 and reminds cust oms authorities of the need to have said 
Declaration in mind when dealing with "generic" medicines in transit.  
The European Union notes that under its intellectual property legislation as is currently in force in 
the European Union, all goods – including medicines - may be detained by customs authorities upon suspicion of infringement when, during their presence within the customs territory of the 
European Union without being released to free circ ulation, or even before their arrival in that 
territory, goods coming from non-Member States are the subject of a commercial act directed at the European Union market, such as a sale, offer for sale or advertising, or where it is apparent from documents (e.g. instruction manuals) or co rrespondence concerning the goods that their 
diversion to the European Union market is envisaged. 
 In addition to the existence of a commercial act already targeted at the European Union market, 
other circumstances can also trigger temporary detention by the customs authorities of the 
Member States. A customs authority to which an application for action is made may, as soon as there are indications available to it giving grounds for suspecting that such an infringement exists 
suspend the release of or detain those goods. Those indications may include, inter alia, the fact 
that the destination of the goods is not declared whereas the suspensive procedure requested requires such a declaration; the lack of precise or reliable information as to the identity or address of the manufacturer or consignor of the goods (whereas the customs legislation requires to provide 
such information), a lack of cooperation with the customs authorities or the discovery of 
documents or correspondence concerning the goods in question suggesting that there is a likelihood that they will be diverted to the European Union market. 
 
De acuerdo al artículo 37 del Reglamento (UE) Nº  608/2013, ¿Existe alguna información preliminar 
sobre los incidentes producidos en la aplicación de ese Reglamento en relación a los medicamentos 
en tránsito por el territorio aduanero de la Unión? 
 EU reply: The Regulation (UE) 608/2013 became applicable on 1 January 2014.  No incidents 
have been reported in regards of medicines brou ght into the customs territory of the European 
Union and not intended for the market of the European Union. 
 15. De conformidad con la página 148, párrafo 4.45, referente a lo siguiente: 
 
“Para fortalecer la posición negociadora de los cultivadores, el Reglamento (UE) Nº 1308/2013 exige contratos por escrito entre los productores y los transformadores”. 
 
¿Podría indicarnos la UE cómo esta prescripción se ajusta a las disposiciones en materia de trato nacional? ¿Considera la UE que estos contratos, al suscribirse entre productores y transformadores, podría convertirse en una medida que condiciona la compra de productos 
nacionales? ¿Cómo esta medida se ajusta a las disposiciones del Acuerdo sobre las Medidas en 
Materia de Inversiones Relacionadas con el Comercio? ¿Bajo qué disposiciones de la normativa multilateral se justifica este tipo de prescripción? 
 
EU reply: Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 introduces a common framework at Union level in case a 
Member State decides to introduce a requirement for written contracts between producers and 
processors or distributors.  However, Member States are free to decide whether or not to introduce 
such a requirement.  Even where a Member States chooses to introduce written contracts, processors or distributors remain enti rely free as regards the choice of their supplies, 
including for imported goods.  The only difference is that if a processor or distributor buys from WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 365 - 
 
  producers outside the territory of the Member State concerned, a written contract requirement 
does not apply.  16. De conformidad con las páginas 150 y 151, párrafo 4.52, referente a lo siguiente: 
 
“Se han adoptado varios actos de ejecución del Reglamento (UE) Nº 1308/2013 con respecto a los derechos de importación aplicables al trigo, el centeno, el maíz y el sorgo de grano, así como 
reglamentos diarios por los que se establecen va lores de importación a tanto alzado para la 
determinación del precio de entrada de determinadas  frutas y hortalizas procedentes de diferentes 
países, pero en la práctica no se han introducido cambios importantes en el método utilizado para calcular los aranceles sobre los cereales ni en el régimen de precios de entrada de determinadas 
frutas y hortalizas”. 
 Al respecto, parecería que los reglamentos diarios que establecen precios de importación replican 
una especie de lista de precios referenciales para ciertas frutas y hortalizas. 
 ¿Podría indicarnos la UE si estos precios se utilizan como base para el pago de aranceles de los 
productos importados, y cómo esta medida se ajusta a las disposiciones en materia de valoración 
en aduana?  EU reply: Commission Regulation (EU) No 642/2010 lays down the rules for calculating the import 
duty on the cereals sector. The import duty is calculated on a daily basis by the Commission (see 
Article 2(1)) on the basis of the import price dete rmined in accordance with the method provided 
for in Article 5. 
 
For fruits and vegetables, the entry price system is contained in the EU schedule, resulting from the Uruguay Round Agreement. The system is fu lly transparent and predictable. The system 
makes it possible to reduce the duty if the price declared for the concerned products is above the 
entry price as referenced in the EU Schedule. As fruit and vegetable are perishable goods and their value at the moment of customs clearance is not always established, the standard import value can be used for the purpose of checking the veraci ty of the declared entry price of a consignment 
with view to accelerating the custom clearance procedures. This procedure is fully in line with 
Article VII GATT.  
For further information see Regulation (EU) No 499/2014. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 366 - 
 
  EU RESPUESTAS A LAS PREGUNTAS ADICIONALES DEL ECUADOR 
 
Informe Secretaría de la OMC. 
1.De conformidad con la página 64, párrafo 3.109 se hace referencia a los Sistemas de Alerta 
Rápida para los Productos Alimenticios y los Alimentos para Animales (RASFF).   ¿Podría la UE explicarnos si se clasifican las alertas en base a una evaluación de riesgos? y ¿Éstas 
alertas en qué magnitud afectarían al comercio de productos alimenticios para animales si el país 
no ha contemplado ese tipo de riesgo dentro de sus niveles de regulación?  
¿Podría la UE indicarnos en dónde se puede obtener información sobre el registro, control y uso de 
insumos agrícolas, que podrían afectar el intercambio comercial?   
EU reply:  Notifications circulated by the RASFF are always related to risk for health according to 
the EU law, or in absence of harmonised rule s, evaluated by a case-by-case scientific risk 
assessment. Last year the “RASFF Standard Operat ing Procedure” (SOP) was concluded; it is a 
complementary guidance for members of the network on how to implement the rules of the 
RASFF. For example, last year the European Comm ission decided, after consulting the notifying 
countries, not to upload 111 notifications onto the system because, after evaluation, they were found not to satisfy the criteria for a RASFF notification. 
 
Any foodstuff for animals, or feed, coming to the EU needs to respect the EU regulations. The EU 
regulations for feed are harmonised within the EU , and any effect on trade would be the same for 
a Third Country than for an EU Member. 
 All relevant information regarding sanitary and phytosanitary regulations in the EU can be found in the webpage of the Directorate General for Health and Food Safety at this address: 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_food-safety/index_es.htm . 
 
2. De conformidad con la página 63, párrafo 3.105, se menciona que para “La incorporación de un 
tercer país, territorio, zona o compartimiento a la lista de exportadores aprobados; en el caso de 
determinados productos alimenticios que puedan plantear un riesgo a la salud pública (como los 
productos cárnicos y de acuicultura), la Comisión debe aprobar el programa de control de 
residuos, el programa de lucha contra la Salmonella para las aves de corral y sus productos, y 
otros requisitos según el animal y/o producto de que se trata”.   ¿Podría la UE informarnos en qué Reglamento o Directiva existe en detalle, por animal y producto, 
los registros para cada uno de ellos? 
 EU reply: Before third countries can export live poultry, breeding eggs and table eggs to the EU, 
their specific control programmes on Salmonella in the primary production have to be approved by 
the European Commission. These programmes should comply with the requirements of Annex II to 
Regulation (EC) No 2160/2003 and with requirements  of Regulation (EC) No 200/2010 (breeders),  
517/2011 (layers) and 1190/2012 (breeders of tu rkeys). Furthermore the application of live 
vaccines is restricted and antimicrobial substances may not be allowed for Salmonella control as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1177/2006.  If the programmes are approved, third countries can be listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2 008 in case requirements on animal health and 
residue monitoring are also met. 
 For the import of poultry meat, no specific approved Salmonella control programmes are 
necessary. However the Union food safety criteria as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 
have to be respected for fresh poultry meat, minc ed meat and meat preparations. These criteria 
define the acceptability of foodstuffs placed on the market and can be checked by Member States 
at import controls. 
 3. De conformidad con la página 64, párrafo 3.108, se menciona que “Por motivos fitosanitarios, las importaciones de ciertos vegetales y productos vegetales, deben ir acompañados de un 
certificado fitosanitario expedido por la autoridad competente del país exportador y están sujetas a 
prescripciones especiales, o pueden ser prohibidas si son originales de determinadas zonas”. Se hace referencia al pie de página 114: “Directiva del Consejo 2009/29/CE, anexos III, IV y V. 
 
En la Directiva del Consejo 2009/29/CE no se incluyen los anexos IV y V. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 367 - 
 
  ¿Podría la UE indicarnos en qué documentos se encuentran los mencionados anexos? 
 EU reply: Annexes IV and V are included in the Council Directive 2000/29/EC. Please see in the 
following link (in Spanish), page 70, fo r Annex IV and page 154 for Annex V:  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/TX T/PDF/?uri=CELEX:0200 0L0029-20140630&from=EN  
 
4. De conformidad con la página 71, párrafo 3.138 se hace referencia a que el Fondo Europeo 
Agrícola de Garantía (FEAGA) prevé pagos directos y medidas de mercado relacionadas con la 
agricultura.  ¿Podría la UE informarnos si existe un análisis sobre el impacto que genera el Fondo Europeo 
Agrícola de Garantías (FEAGA) a las exportaciones de productos agrícolas de otros países 
miembros de la UE?  
EU reply:  The EU is a single market where all products, including agricultural products, can move 
freely between EU Member States without controls at the borders, inspections or custom checks. Trade in agricultural products between EU member states is therefore not considered to be export 
but intra-EU trade movement and is not treated as "export" in EU trade statistics. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 368 - 
 
  EU RESPUESTAS A LAS PREGUNTAS PLANTEADAS POR GUATEMALA 
 
1. En la sección 3.1, relativa a las Medidas que afectan directamente a las importaciones, se hace referencia a la utilización de Contingentes Arancelarios para permitir el ingreso de 
mercancías, que pueden ser dentro del marco de un Acuerdo comercial vigente. En este sentido, 
¿podría la Unión Europea comentarnos en dónde se indica que estos contingentes arancelarios, cuando alcanzan un 90% del total asignado, deben pagar una fianza para garantizar que dicha 
cantidad asignada para un año determinado, no ha sido superada?  ¿Se han evaluado las 
dificultades que pueden  enfrentar los países en desarrollo para hacer uso del contingente asignado, en vista de que la fianza pued e llegar a ser de un millón de euros?  
 
EU reply : The Article 308c of the implementing provisions of the Customs Code (Regulation 
2454/93) reads as follows:  
Article 308c  
1. A tariff quota shall be considered as critical as soon as 90 % of the initial volume has been used, or at the discretion of the competent authorities. 
 
The critical state of a tariff quota implies that a guarantee equivalent to the amount of customs duties applicable out of the tariff quota should be lodged. This guarantee has to be lodged by the 
EU importer and will be released as soon as the volume requesting the benefit of the tariff quota 
will be allocated (2 working days after the acceptance of the customs declaration by the EU 
customs authorities). This guarantee could take the form of a bank guarantee and is a common practice at request for entry into free circulation of goods that could benefit of a tariff quota. 
 
2. En el numeral 3.2, la Unión Europea señala que el 1 De mayo de 2016 pondrá en aplicación las disposiciones sustantivas para la aplicación plena del Código Aduanero de la Unión (CAU). 
¿Podrían indicarnos  cómo se espera que esta disposición beneficie las importaciones en la 
administración de los Acuerdos Comerciales vigentes?  EU reply : The full implementation of the Union Customs Code will not only enable economic 
operators to use new simplifications, but also promote a paperless environment for customs and 
trade through the extensive use of electronic data-processing techniques which ensures trade facilitation and reduces costs for business. There are no specific facilitations foreseen for 
originating products under free trade agreements. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 369 - 
 
  EU RESPUESTAS A LAS PREGUNTAS ADICIONALES DEL PERÚ 
 Preguntas formuladas por la Comisión de Defe nsa de la Libre Competencia al Informe de 
la Secretaría de la OMC: 
 
1.¿Cuál es la relación entre el procedimiento de transacción regulado en la Comunicación de la 
Comisión sobre las transacciones (“Comunicación de la Comisión sobre el desarrollo de los 
procedimientos de transacción con vistas a la adopción de decisiones con arreglo a los artículos 7 y 
23 del Reglamento (CE) no 1/2003 del Consejo en casos de cártel”) y el programa de clemencia 
regulado en la “Comunicación de la Comisión relativa a la dispensa del pago de las multas y la 
reducción de su importe en casos de cártel”? En particular, ¿cuáles son las condiciones que deben 
verificarse para que un solicitante de clemencia pueda acceder también al beneficio de reducción 
de multa derivado de la transacción, tal como lo dispone el punto 33 de la Comunicación de la 
Comisión sobre las transacciones?   
 
EU reply:  Both programs are complementary and theref ore both reductions on fine can be added 
provided that the conditions for both programmes are complied with.  
For settlement, please see conditions laid down in settlement legislation: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/legislation/settlements.html.  
 
For leniency, please consult the Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines 
in cartel cases:  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TX T/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52006XC1208(04)&from=EN.  
2. ¿La incoación del procedimiento de transacción ha tenido algún impacto en la política de 
clemencia aplicada por la Comisión? 
 EU reply:  As mentioned above, both programmes are complementary and not mutually exclusive. 
Therefore, companies can apply for both schemes. One does in principle not impact the other, 
separate conditions apply.  
Párrafo 3.172 (Página 86) 
 
3. En el acápite sobre prácticas de abuso de posición de dominio, se señala que la Comisión puede 
adoptar compromisos con las partes en los casos donde existan preocupaciones respecto a la 
competencia efectiva en el mercado. En ese sentido, ¿cuáles son los criterios que considera la 
Comisión para determinar la existencia de situaciones que generan preocupación sobre la 
competencia en un mercado?  
 
EU reply:  The Commission will assess whether the behaviour could be caught by Article 102 TFEU 
in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case.  
Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of th e European Union: "Any abuse by one or more 
undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between  
 
Member States. Such abuse may, in particular, consist in: 
(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading 
conditions; (b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers; (c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby 
placing them at a competitive disadvantage; 
(d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no 
connection with the subject of such contracts." 
 More information can also be found in Articles 115 to 133 on commitment procedures, including 
the 'market test', of the Best Practices in proceedings concerning articles 101 and 102 TFEU, OJ C 
308, 20.10.2011, p. 6-32  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte nt/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52011XC1020(02).  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 370 - 
 
  4. ¿Cuáles son los aspectos que considera la Comisión para utilizar el mecanismo de compromiso y 
no continuar con un procedimiento?  
 EU reply:  This question relates to the possibility for the Commission to adopt a so-called 
"commitment decision" (article 9 of Regulation 1/2003). Such a decision requires that an 
infringement be brought to an end and that the undertakings concerned offer commitments to meet the concerns expressed to them by the Commission in its preliminary assessment. Such a 
decision may be adopted for a specific period and shall conclude that there are no longer grounds 
for action by the Commission. 
Contrary to prohibition decisions, commitment decisions do not constitute decisions in substance 
and therefore do not determine the infringement in a legally binding way. 
5. ¿La Comisión ha utilizado el mecanismo de compromiso de manera frecuente y con éxito en 
casos de abuso de posición de dominio? ¿Cuáles son los principales casos que ha tenido la 
Comisión?  
 
EU reply:  Please see Commission decisions listed on DG Competition's website. 
Example: Antitrust: Commission accepts legally binding commitments by Samsung Electronics on 
standard essential patent injunction:  
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-490_en.htm?locale=en  
Párrafos 3.183 y 3.184 (Página 89-90) 
En el acápite referido a fusiones y adquisiciones, se hace mención a la propuesta de la Comisión de 
implementar un “régimen de transparencia específico”, aplicable para las adquisiciones de 
participaciones minoritarias  que pudiesen generar un "vínculo significativo en términos de 
competencia". 
 
Sobre el particular, entendemos que el actual Re glamento (CE) N° 139/2004, solo obliga a las 
empresas a notificar actos de concentraciones cuando estos involucren un cambio de control, 
entendiendo por control, la posibilidad de ejercer una influencia decisiva sobre una empresa. 
 
En ese sentido, bajo la legislación actual,  ¿la Comisión ha podido evaluar casos en los que una 
empresa, sin adquirir el control de otra empresa, podría haber incrementado o tenido una 
influencia significativa en términos de competencia sobre esta última? De ser el caso:  
EU reply:  As it currently stands, the Merger Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 139/2004) only 
applies to “concentrations”. These are defined as acquisitions of control by one or more person(s) 
or undertaking(s) over one or more other undertakings or parts of undertakings. When the 
acquisition of a minority shareholding is unrelated to an acquisition of control, the Commission 
cannot investigate or intervene against it.  
 
In its White Paper "Towards more effective EU merger control" issued in July 2015, the 
Commission did indeed consider that the Commission should be enabled to review certain 
acquisitions of non-controlling minority shareholdings that could potentially raise competition 
concern under a procedure described as a "targeted transparency system". However, in view of 
concerns expressed by stakeholders in comments to the White Paper, the Commission is currently 
further reflecting on how to ensure proportionality of any proposal concerning minority 
shareholdings. The Commission will decide at a la ter stage whether to make a legislative proposal 
for a review of the Merger Regulation and, if so, how to deal in such a proposal with the issue of 
minority shareholdings. 
 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-con tent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52014DC0449  
 
6. - ¿Qué supuestos específicos han podido evaluar bajo esta modalidad? 
 EU reply: see above replies to previous questions. 
 
7. - ¿Bajo qué interpretación del Reglamento lo han podido analizar?  
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 371 - 
 
  EU reply: see above replies to previous questions. 
 
8. - De haberse analizado estos casos bajo otro s supuestos de prácticas anticompetitivas, ¿Bajo 
qué figuras o posibles infracciones anticompetitivas lo han enfocado?  
 
EU reply: see above replies to previous questions. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 372 - 
 
  EU REPLY TO THE QUESTION FROM EL SALVADOR 
  
En el informe de la secretaría, párrafo 3.298, respecto de la protección de indicaciones 
geográficas, se establece que se está considerando la posibilidad de ampliar la protección 
comunitaria de este tipo de protección a productos no agrícolas y se espera un decisión de la Comisión sobre cómo se habrá de continuar el tema. Es nuestro interés conocer si en el análisis 
que se está haciendo para ampliar la protección de indicaciones geográficas a productos no 
agrícolas, se prevé incluir esa ampliación para los productos no agrícolas de origen extranjero.  EU reply: The Commission ran a public consultation last summer. Its recently published report 
(http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/10565/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/nativ
e) shows that many stakeholders consider that a sy stem of geographical indication protection for 
non-agricultural products at European level would allow non-EU products to be granted protection 
in the EU. The decision whether and how to create such a new system will be made in due time 
including on the basis of the results of the consultation. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 373 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO FOLLOW-UP WR ITTEN QUESTIONS FROM JAPAN 
 Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/317)  
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 3.1.1 Customs Procedures 
 
(Question 1: Page 38, Paragraphs 3.15-3.16) [related to Japan’s Question 2 of advance 
written questions]  
 
(1)  Regarding the reply provided by the EU to question 2(1), it was mentioned in paragraph (a) 
that “Currently this advice is not enshrined in the legislation but such searches in the database will become a legal obligation once the UCC becomes applicable”.  Could you 
provide us with the relevant provisions, rules or guidelines of the UCC?  If they could not be 
provided at the moment, when would you expect they would become available?  Moreover, could you provide us with the time frame when the UCC will enter into force? 
 
EU reply: Regulation (EU) 952/2013 (the Union Customs Code (UCC)) was published in Official 
Journal L269 of 10 October 2013 and entered into force on 30 October 2013, but will only apply from 1 May 2016. The specific provision referred to in the answer to question 2(1) is contained in 
the Implementing provisions which are curr ently going through the adoption process. 
Consequently it is not possible to provide a final version of the text at present.   
Concerning the reply to question 2(1), it was explained in paragraph (b) that “The Committee will 
take whatever measures are deemed necessary to ensure uniform classification in the Union”.  Could you give us more detailed information for ensuring uniform classification in the Union?  Does 
it mean that, for example, the Committee publishes a document or publication such as 
Classification Opinion provided by the WCO?  EU reply:  The primary purpose of the Customs Code Committee (CCC), Nomenclature Section is 
to resolve classification problems and consequently ensure the uniform classification of goods in 
the 28 Member States. In situations where there is  a lack of consensus in the views of the Member 
States, the CCC will vote a classification regulation which will be submitted for adoption by the 
Commission and once adopted will become legally binding on all Member States. If, on the other 
hand, the Member States unanimously agree with a specific classification there is no need for the CCC to take further measures. Such  decisions will be recorded in  the minutes of the CCC meeting 
during which the matter was finalised. 
 
(2)  Regarding the CCC, is the conclusion of the CCC the final decision with a binding effect on 
the EU member States?  If yes, could you provide us information on how to make its 
decision obligatory among the EU member States? 
 EU reply:  No. The Committee votes on regulations which are then submitted for adoption by the 
Commission. The legal nature of classification regulations means they are binding in their entirety 
and directly applicable in all Member States.  
3.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade 
3.3.5 Government Procurement  (Question 2: Page 92, Paragraph 3.237) [rel ated to Japan’s Question 5 of advance 
written questions] 
 The EU replied that “there are various mechanisms on the national level put in place by Member 
states to enforce the applicable legislation. These mechanisms have to fulfil some essential 
requirements imposed by the EU legislation and de pend on the administrative and judiciary system 
of each Member state.” What are “some essential requirements” in this case? And which EU laws 
or regulations stipulate the requirements? Also, could you provide us with some examples of 
“various mechanisms” in the EU member states, such as France, Germany, Italy, and the UK?  EU reply:  The requirements as referred to above are stipulated in particular in article 2 of both the 
Remedies Directive for the utilities sector (Directive 92/13/EEC) and for the public sector (Directive WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 374 - 
 
  89/665/EEC) as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC. These are related to the introduction of 
interim or set aside measures, the award of damages, the conditions to be fulfilled by review bodies, etc. All Member States have transposed these directives into national legislation and have put in place the necessary administrative and/or judiciary mechanisms. 
 
3.3.6 Intellectual Properties 3.3.6.3 Enforcement 
3.3.6.3.1 Legal basis at EU level 
 (Question 3:  Page 112-113, Paragraph 3.306) [relat ed to Australia’s Question 18b of 
advance written questions] 
 
The EU's reply to Question 18b states that "In order to supervise the supply chain customs uses risk management to implement effective and efficient controls, avoid unwarranted disruption to 
legitimate business and deploy resources efficiently." In order to achieve effective and efficient 
control at the border over passengers and over th e goods they are carrying, it has become more 
important to effectively utilise advance information, such as Passenger Name Record (PNR). Japan 
would like to hear the EU's views on the utilisation of PNRs in this context. 
 Japan is aware that there have been discussions over  the collection of PNRs versus personal data 
protection within the EU.  Japan would like to know if there is any penalty imposed on those EU 
airlines that submit their PNRs in violation of  the legislation of the EU Member States that 
stipulates personal data protection. If so, please provide us with specific provisions related to such penalty. 
 
EU reply:  "Sanctions, both for the violation of the national law implementing the provisions of 
Directive 95/46/EC and, if any, for the violation of other national provisions in the field of Data 
Protection, are stipulated in the national legislations of the EU Member States. The type and the 
amount of such sanctions are not harmonised at the European level."  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 375 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM THE P. R. CHINA (2ND Batch) 
EU replies to follow up questions (6 July) 
 Part I. Questions based on Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/317) 
 
Page 32, Para 2.35 …the current threshold for product graduation is 17.5% (and 14.5% for textiles). Product 
graduation applies only to standard GSP beneficiaries, not to GSP+ and EBA countries. A total of 
44 sectors from eight countries were set to graduate in the period of 2014-16. However as some of these countries qualified for GSP+ and/or exit ed the scheme due to income criterion in the 
meantime, currently only 11 sectors from four countries have effectively graduated…. 
 
Question 1: How does EU ensure that the objectivity of the temporary withdrawal arrangements of safeguards 
and not negative effect is imposed on the export from other countries? 
 EU reply:  The product graduation thresholds are defi ned in Article 8 of the GSP Regulation (EU 
Regulation 978/2012). The thresholds are a math ematical calculation which covers only GSP 
beneficiary countries. It applies when a product sections for a given GSP beneficiary becomes so 
competitive comparing to imports from all GSP beneficiaries, that it does not longer need preferences to penetrate the EU market. GSP pref erences will only be withdrawn from product 
sections after they have met the parameters for three consecutive years. That provides the GSP 
beneficiary country with an early-warning before any graduation action is undertaken by the EU.  
Question2: 
Please specify the particular products from a developing country that no longer have preferential access when exceeding a certain level of importation/exportation? Do their percentages in the total 
imports of that product from all GSP beneficiaries serve as a criteria? 
 EU reply:  The beneficiary countries and product sections for which GSP preferences are withdrawn 
are listed in Commission implementing Regulati on (EU) No. 1213/2012 of 17 December 2012. That 
list is valid for the period running from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2016. The Commission will 
review the list of product sections every three year s and, the following list will be published at the 
beginning of 2016. 
 
Page 33, Para 2.47 The Commission considers that investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms ensure 
effective enforcement of investment agreements. Investor-to-state dispute settlement forms a key 
part of member States' BITs, and will be included  in future EU investment agreements with other 
countries.   
Question 3: 
Please provide more details on the ISDS mechanism in the above paragraph.   
EU reply:  The P.R. China may find it useful to consult the concept paper “Investment in TTIP and 
beyond – the path for reform ” recently published by the European Commission. For the rest, the 
EU does not comment on ongoing negotiations. 
 
Question 4: What is the coverage of this mechanism? Is it applicable to all the non-EU countries which have investment cooperation wi th EU member States?  
 
EU reply:  See above reply to Question 3. The term "investment cooperation" is unclear, but the 
EU investment reform will be taken into account in Agreements including investment protection 
disciplines. 
 Question 5: 
What is the legal validity of this mechanism? Is its application mandatory?  
 EU reply:  See above reply to Question 3. The dispute mechanism will be binding on its Parties and 
application will be ensured. 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 376 - 
 
  Page 36, Para 3.5 
In accordance with the relevant provisions, declarants may be authorized, subject to conditions, to lodge incomplete declarations, simplified declarations, or declarations under local clearance procedures. Persons that are not established in the EU may lodge customs declarations for transit 
or for temporary admission. 
 Question 6: 
Please elaborate respectively on the definitions of incomplete declaration, simplified declaration 
and declaration under the local clearance procedure.   EU reply:  An incomplete declaration is a declaration omitting certain particulars or some of the 
documents. A simplified declaration is a commercial or administrative document, accompanied by 
request for the goods to be placed under a customs procedure. A declaration under the local clearance procedure is a customs declaration lodged by means of an entry in the records. 
 
Page 36, Para 3.6 …the carrier of imported goods must lodge at the "customs office of first entry" electronic Entry 
Summary Declarations (ENS) for goods from outside the EU, except for goods from countries that 
have a security agreement with the EU, i.e. No rway, Switzerland, Liecht enstein, and Andorra. 
 Question7: 
Can the EU provide more details on this provision?  Is it solely applied to carriers, or must all 
import declarations for free circulation be filed at the first port of arrival or first entry?  
 
EU reply : The detailed provision -article 36b of Regulation (EC) states that:  
"3. The summary declaration shall be lodged by the person who brings the goods, or who assumes responsibility for the carriage of the goods in to the customs territory of the Community. 
4. Notwithstanding the obligation of the pers on referred to in paragraph 3, the summary 
declaration may be lodged instead by: (a) the person in whose name the person referred to in paragraph 3 acts; or (b) any person who is able to present the goods in question or to have them presented to the 
competent customs authority; or 
(c) a representative of one of the persons referred to in paragraph 3 or points (a) or (b)."  
This means that although the primary responsible is the carrier, the Entry Summary Declaration 
(ENS) can also be presented by other persons. In the EU the developed IT system allows to inform 
the carrier of the lodgement of an ENS for a consignment when the ENS is not lodged by the 
carrier. 
 Concerning the scope of this declaration, the details can be found in Article 36a paragraph1 which details that: "Goods brought into the customs territory of the Community shall be covered by a 
summary declaration, with the exception of good s carried on means of transport only passing 
through the territorial waters or the airspace of the customs territory without a stop within this 
territory." .  
 
This means that an ENS declaration is necessary for all goods entering the customs territory independently on whether they are to be imported in the EU or not. The import declarations are 
normally presented at the place of presentation ( unload from the mode of transport) which can be 
different from the point of first entry into the EU.  Page 36, Para 3.7 
When customs procedures involve more than one customs authority in the EU, a single 
authorization may be granted for a customs procedure with economic impact (e.g. customs warehousing, inward processing, processing und er customs control, temporary importation, 
outward processing) or end-use relief. A person may also apply for a single authorization for 
simplified procedures which allows the applicant to use local clearance procedures or the simplified declaration procedure in more than one member State. The current single authorization for 
simplified procedures will be replaced by auth orization for centralised clearance under the UCC. 
 Question 8: Please clarify what “a single authorization” refers to? And which authority should the application be 
submitted to?  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 377 - 
 
  EU reply : Single authorisation means: an authorisation involving customs administrations in more 
than one Member State for one of the following procedures:  
— the simplified declaration procedure pursuant to Article 76(1) of the Code, or  
— the local clearance procedure pursuant to Article 76(1) of the Code, or  
— customs procedures with economic impact pursuant to Article 84(1)(b) of the Code, or  
— end-use pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Code. 
 
Question 9: 
Please specify the differences between the authorization for centralized clearance and a single authorization. Does the difference only lies in the authority accepting the cases? Or is there any other differences? When will the authorization for simplified procedures be replaced? Does the EU 
have a timetable in this regard?  
 EU reply : The concept of single authorization is defined in our answer to the previous question.  
The authorization for centralized clearance allows the holder of the authorization to lodge a 
customs declaration at a customs office responsible for the place where he is established.  The goods which are covered by the customs declaration may be presented to customs at another 
customs office. Centralised Clearance can, however,  only be fully applicable once the common IT 
systems are in place between the MSs, allowing exchanges of information in a timely manner. 
According to the current work programme of development of IT customs systems, it is planned for 2020. 
 
term 'single authorisation' has been replaced by 'authorisation which involves more than one Member State'. It is possible to grant such an  authorisation for centralized clearance which 
involves more than one Member State. An authorisation which involves more than one Member 
State may be granted only after prior consultation of the Member State(s) concerned.  
Page 37, Para 3.13 
The EU has signed AEO mutual recognition ag reements (MRAs) with Switzerland (July 2009), 
Norway (September 2009), Japan (October 2010), Andorra (January 2011), the United States (June 2012), and China (May 2014).Benefits of mu tual recognitions vary among different MRAs, 
but in general they include fewer physical and documentary controls so as to avoid duplication of 
security and compliance controls. The MRAs on AEOs concerns only holders of AEO-S and AEO-F certificates in the EU. 
 
Question 10: What are the differences among the three types of AEO certificates?  
 
EU reply : On the basis of the current EU Customs legislation (art. 14a (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 
2454/93), the AEO status  is granted under one of the following certificate: 
 
- AEOC, which is requested by economic operators who would like to benefit from simplifications 
specifically provided for under the EU customs legislation and who fulfil the common criteria related to a "record of compliance with customs re quirements", a "satisfactory system of managing 
commercial and, where appropriate transport re cords" and a "proven financial solvency", 
respectively provided by articles 14h, 14i and 14j of the mentioned EEC Regulation;  
 
- AEOS, which is requested by economic operators who would like to benefit from particular 
facilitations of customs controls relating to security and safety and who fulfil, in addition to the above mentioned criteria, also that related to appropriate security and safety standards as provided by article 14k of the ECC Regulation. 
 
- AEOF, which is requested by economic operator s who would like to benefit from both, customs 
simplifications and facilitations related to customs controls, and who fulfil the criteria provided by 
Articles from 14h to 14k of the ECC Regulation  
 Question 11: 
Which type of AEO certificate is under the mutual recognition agreement signed by China?  
 EU reply : Only the AEOS and AEOF certificate are subject to Mutual Recognition with third 
countries, including the MR decision signed with Chin a. In addition to the security related benefits WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 378 - 
 
  the MRA with China contains benefits regarding customs simplifications for eligible operators 
(AEOS and AEOF).  Page 38, Para 3.19 
The transaction value is the primary basis for customs value determination. The transaction values 
used are c.i.f. values. Around 95% of all import declarations are accepted in accordance with the transaction value method. 
 
Question 12: Taking into consideration the importance of the customs valuation, please elaborate on how the transaction value and CIF value are determined by the EU.  
 
EU reply: The transaction value of imported goods is determined in accordance with the customs 
valuation legislation in force. This legislation is based upon, and incorporates, the relevant 
provisions of the WTO Customs Valuation Agreement.  In accordance with Article 8(2) of that 
Agreement, the costs of transport etc. to the EU are included in the customs value, hence the use 
of the term "cif value". To ensure clarity and transparency, detailed rules relating to the inclusion 
in the customs value of the above-mentioned costs are in force.  
 Page 42, Para 3.40 Table 3.1 Structure of MFN tariffs in the EU-27: Footnotes a, b, and c state that ad valorem 
equivalents (AVEs) were estimated based on import data at the eight-digit tariff from Eurostat 
database. In the case of unavailability, the ad va lorem part is used for compound and alternate 
rates. 
 
Question 13: Can the EU describe the cases in which data is unavailable and why? 
 
Question 14: Can the EU estimate how many ad valorem tariffs ar e used in lieu of compound or alternative rates 
in the absence of import data?  
 
EU reply to questions 13 and 14: Table 3.1 has been prepared by the WTO Secretariat, 
including the methodology and calculations for AVE estimation. The EU understands that 
unavailability of data relates mainly to absence of import data. For a more precise answer to these 
questions please address them to the WTO Secretariat.  
Page 46, Para 3.57 
In principle, imports (and exports) of such Oz one Depleting substances (ODS) are prohibited but 
there are exemptions to that prohibition, and thos e exemptions are subject to an import licensing 
scheme. 
 
Question 15: In order to reduce the risk of exports to the EU , please provide the list of ODS (Ozone Depleting 
Substance) and clearly identify exemptions to the list.  
 EU reply: Controlled Ozone Depleting Substances are listed in Annex I of Regulation (EC) No1005 
/2009 on substances that deplete the ozone layer : 
 
Group Substance Ozone-depleting 
potential  
Group I CFCl 3  CFC-11 Trichlorofluoromethane 1,0 
CF2Cl2  CFC-12 Dichlorodifluoromethane 1,0 
C2F3Cl3  CFC-113 Trichlorotrifluoroethane 0,8 
C2F4Cl2  CFC-114 Dichlorotetrafluoroethane 1,0 
C2F5Cl CFC-115 Chlorope ntafluoroethane 0,6 
Group II CF3Cl CFC-13 Chlorotrifluoromethane 1,0 
C2FCl5  CFC-111 Pentachlorofluoroethane 1,0 
C2F2Cl4  CFC-112 Tetrachlorodifluoroethane 1,0 
C3FCl7  CFC-211 Heptachlorofluoropropane 1,0 
C3F2Cl6  CFC-212 Hexachlorodifluoropropane 1,0 
C3F3Cl5  CFC-213 Pentachlorotrifluoropropane 1,0 
C3F4Cl4  CFC-214 Tetrachlorotetrafluoropropane 1,0 
C3F5Cl3  CFC-215 Trichloropentafluoropropane 1,0 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 379 - 
 
  Group Substance Ozone-depleting 
potential  
C3F6Cl2  CFC-216 Dichlorohexafluoropropane 1,0 
C3F7Cl CFC-217 Chloroheptafluoropropane 1,0 
Group III CF2BrCl halon-1211 Bromochlorodifluoromethane 3,0 
CF3Br halon-1301 Bromotrifluoromethane 10,0 
C2F4Br2  halon-2402 Dibromotetrafluoroethane 6,0 
Group IV CCl 4  CTC Tetrachloromethane (carbon 
tetrachloride) 1,1 
Group V C2H3Cl3  1,1,1-TCA 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (methylchloroform) 0,1 
Group VI CH 3Br methyl 
bromide Bromomethane 0,6 
Group VII CHFBr 2  HBFC-21 B2 Dibromofluoromethane 1,00 
CHF 2Br HBFC-22 B1 Bromodifluoromethane 0,74 
CH2FBr HBFC-31 B1 Bromofluoromethane 0,73 
C2HFBr 4  HBFC-121 
B4 Tetrabromofluoroethane 0,8 
C2HF2Br3  HBFC-122 
B3 Tribromodifluoroethane 1,8 
C2HF3Br2  HBFC-123 
B2 Dibromotrifluoroethane 1,6 
C2HF4Br HBFC-124 
B1 Bromotetrafluoroethane 1,2 
C2H2FBr 3  HBFC-131 
B3 Tribromofluoroethane 1,1 
C2H2F2Br2  HBFC-132 
B2 Dibromodifluoroethane 1,5 
C2H2F3Br HBFC-133 
B1 Bromotrifluoroethane 1,6 
C2H3FBr 2  HBFC-141 
B2 Dibromofluoroethane 1,7 
C2H3F2Br HBFC-142 
B1 Bromodifluoroethane 1,1 
C2H4FBr HBFC-151 
B1 Bromofluoroethane 0,1 
C3HFBr 6  HBFC-221 
B6 Hexabromofluoropropane 1,5 
C3HF2Br5  HBFC-222 
B5 Pentabromodifluoropropane 1,9 
C3HF3Br4  HBFC-223 
B4 Tetrabromotrifluoropropane 1,8 
C3HF4Br3  HBFC-224 
B3 Tribromotetrafluoropropane 2,2 
C3HF5Br2  HBFC-225 
B2 Dibromopentafluoropropane 2,0 
C3HF6Br HBFC-226 
B1 Bromohexafluoropropane 3,3 
C3H2FBr 5  HBFC-231 
B5 Pentabromofluoropropane 1,9 
C3H2F2Br4  HBFC-232 
B4 Tetrabromodifluoropropane 2,1 
C3H2F3Br3  HBFC-233 
B3 Tribromotrifluoropropane 5,6 
C3H2F4Br2  HBFC-234 
B2 Dibromotetrafluoropropane 7,5 
C3H2F5Br HBFC-235 
B1 Bromopentafluoropropane 1,4 
C3H3FBr 4  HBFC-241 
B4 Tetrabromofluoropropane 1,9 
C3H3F2Br3  HBFC-242 
B3 Tribromodifluoropropane 3,1 
C3H3F3Br2  HBFC-243 
B2 Dibromotrifluoropropane 2,5 
C3H3F4Br HBFC-244 
B1 Bromotetrafluoropropane 4,4 
C3H4FBr 3  HBFC-251 
B1 Tribromofluoropropane 0,3 
C3H4F2Br2  HBFC-252 
B2 Dibromodifluoropropane 1,0 
C3H4F3Br HBFC-253 Bromotrifluoropropane 0,8 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 380 - 
 
  Group Substance Ozone-depleting 
potential  
B1 
C3H5FBr 2  HBFC-261 
B2 Dibromofluoropropane 0,4 
C3H5F2Br HBFC-262 
B1 Bromodifluoropropane 0,8 
C3H6FBr HBFC-271 
B1 Bromofluoropropane 0,7 
Group VIII CHFCl 2  HCFC-21  Dichlorofluoromethane 0,040 
CHF 2Cl HCFC-22  Chlorodifluoromethane 0,055 
CH2FCl HCFC-31 Chlorofluoromethane 0,020 
C2HFCl 4  HCFC-121 Tetrachlorofluoroethane 0,040 
C2HF2Cl3  HCFC-122 Trichlorodifluoroethane 0,080 
C2HF3Cl2  HCFC-123    Dichlorotrifluoroethane 0,020 
C2HF4Cl HCFC-124    Chlorotetrafluoroethane 0,022 
C2H2FCl3  HCFC-131 Trichlorofluoroethane 0,050 
C2H2F2Cl2  HCFC-132 Dichlorodifluoroethane 0,050 
C2H2F3Cl HCFC-133 Chlorotrifluoroethane 0,060 
C2H3FCl2  HCFC-141 Dichlorofluoroethane 0,070 
CH3CFCl 2  HCFC-141b 1,1-Dichloro-1-fluoroethane 0,110 
C2H3F2Cl HCFC-142 Chlorodifluoroethane 0,070 
CH3CF2Cl HCFC-142b 1-Chloro-1,1-difluoroethane 0,065 
C2H4FCl HCFC-151 Chlorofluoroethane 0,005 
C3HFCl 6  HCFC-221 Hexachlorofluoropropane 0,070 
C3HF2Cl5  HCFC-222 Pentachlorodifluoropropane 0,090 
C3HF3Cl4  HCFC-223 Tetrachlorotrifluoropropane 0,080 
C3HF4Cl3  HCFC-224 Trichlorotetrafluoropropane 0,090 
C3HF5Cl2  HCFC-225 Dichloropentafluoropropane 0,070 
CF3CF2CHCl
2  HCFC-
225ca  3,3-Dichloro-1,1,1,2,2-
pentafluoropropane 0,025 
CF2ClCF 2CH
ClF HCFC-
225cb  1,3-Dichloro-1,1,2,2,3-
pentafluoropropane 0,033 
C3HF6Cl HCFC-226 Chlorohexafluoropropane 0,100 
C3H2FCl5  HCFC-231 Pentachlorofluoropropane 0,090 
C3H2F2Cl4  HCFC-232 Tetrachlorodifluoropropane 0,100 
C3H2F3Cl3  HCFC-233 Trichlorotrifluoropropane 0,230 
C3H2F4Cl2  HCFC-234 Dichlorotetrafluoropropane 0,280 
C3H2F5Cl HCFC-235 Chloropentafluoropropane 0,520 
C3H3FCl4  HCFC-241 Tetrachlorofluoropropane 0,090 
C3H3F2Cl3  HCFC-242 Trichlorodifluoropropane 0,130 
C3H3F3Cl2  HCFC-243 Dichlorotrifluoropropane 0,120 
C3H3F4Cl HCFC-244 Chlorotetrafluoropropane 0,140 
C3H4FCl3  HCFC-251 Trichlorofluoropropane 0,010 
C3H4F2Cl2  HCFC-252 Dichlorodifluoropropane 0,040 
C3H4F3Cl HCFC-253 Chlorotrifluoropropane 0,030 
C3H5FCl2  HCFC-261 Dichlorofluoropropane 0,020 
C3H5F2Cl HCFC-262 Chlorodifluoropropane 0,020 
C3H6FCl HCFC-271 Chlorofluoropropane 0,030 
Group IX CH2BrCl BCM Bromochloromethane 0,12 
 
All isomers of these substances are controlled, including radioactively marked substances. 
Additionally, mixtures containing any of these substances are controlled. Also, Products & equipment containing or relying on these substances may not be imported, in principle.  
 
The exemptions from the import ban are listed in  Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 on 
substances that deplete the ozone layer. They  serve to allow imports of ozone depleting 
substances (ODS) listed in Annex I for uses considered critical or essential, for destruction or to 
provide other Parties, with less stringent phas e-out requirements, with ODS. Importers and 
exporters of exempted ODS require licenses. For that purpose the Directorate-General for Climate 
Action in the European Commission operates an ODS licensing system. Exempted uses and 
exemptions from the general import ban include: 
 
a) laboratory and analytical uses; 
b) feedstock use; 
c) process agents use; 
d) for destruction by certain technologies; WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 381 - 
 
  e) hydrochlorofluorocarbons repackaged and subsequently re-exported to a Party where the 
consumption or import is not prohibited; 
f) methyl bromide for emergency uses, for repackaging and subsequent re-export for 
quarantine and pre-shipment applications; 
g) recovered, recycled or reclaimed halons, under the condition that they are only imported for 
certain critical uses 
h) products and equipment containing or relying on controlled substances for destruction 
i) products and equipment containing or relying on controlled substances to satisfy laboratory 
and analytical uses; 
j) products and equipment containing or relying on halon to satisfy critical uses 
k) products and equipment containing hydrochlorofluorocarbons for which the placing on the 
market has been specifically authorised 
 Furthermore, virgin and reclaimed hydrochlorofluorocarbons may still be exported from the EU for 
other uses than destruction. 
 Page 50, Para 3.81 
Since 1985, the EU approach to technical regulations and standards has been to set out in 
legislation the essential requirements for a particular product. Harmonized standards are then developed as a means to meet these essential requirements. Compliance with the relevant harmonized standard is voluntary but provides a presumption of conformity with the essential 
requirements. A product which does not comply with the relevant harmonized standards, but 
meets the essential requirements may be marketed in Europe.In the majority of such cases, the producer may use the same conformity assessment procedures as would be used to show the 
product is manufactured in compliance with harmon ized standards. However, for toys, high-risk 
machinery, and specific issues related to the use of radio frequencies, third-party conformity assessment is required if the product is not manufactured in compliance with harmonized 
standards (see below). In the absence of more specific safety legislation at EU level, consumer 
goods are subject to the safety requirements se t out in the General Product Safety Directive. 
These goods include, inter alia, childcare products, textiles, and several other consumer goods.  
Question 16: 
Please clarify the standard for the high-risk machinery.   
EU reply : The conformity assessment procedure applicable to a given product falling in the scope 
of the Machinery Directive depends on whether or not it belongs to one of the categories listed in Annex IV and whether or not the manufacturer ha s used the harmonised standard. In case the 
product falls into the category of Annex IV but the manufacturer has not used the harmonised 
standard type C that covers all essential health and safety requirements related to that specific machinery (for the list of harmonised standards see: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-
market/european-standards/harmonised-standards/machinery/index_en.htm ) a third party 
conformity assessment by a Notified body is required. 
 Question 17: 
Do the harmonized standards only of voluntary complication include those related to foods? If yes, 
please provide the list of such food-related standards.    
EU reply:  This paragraph refers to technical regulations and standards developed under the New 
Legislative Approach, which only applies to indu strial products. No food-related standards are 
developed under this framework.  
Page 54, Para 3.94 
Under the Rapid Alert System for non-food dangerou s products (RAPEX), the authorities of the EU 
member States and the EFTA countries exchange in formation on products deemed to pose a risk 
to health and safety and measures taken to addr ess these risks. Measures taken by producers and 
distributors are also reported.  
Question 18: 
How does EFTA harmonize the standards adopted by the EU member states and those established by Codex Alimentarius Commission?  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 382 - 
 
  EU reply:  All the EFTA countries participate in the European standardisation activities through 
their national standardisation bodies (Liechtenstein via the Swiss standardisation system). Through the EFTA Secretariat and the EFTA Council, EFTA  supports standardisation work along with the 
European Commission. The basis for this support is laid down in the General Guidelines for Co-
operation between EFTA, the European Commission and the European Standardisation 
Organisations. Regarding standards adopted by  the Codex Alimentarius Commission the EFTA 
countries themselves and the EFTA Secretariat are the best placed to provide the most accurate 
answer. 
 Page 56, Para 3.100 The main regulatory committee involved in the development of SPS measures in the EU is the 
Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (which replaced the Standing Committee 
on the Food Chain and Animal Health, and the Standing Committee on Plant Health). The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is an independent risk assessment body of the EU, which 
provides scientific advice on ex isting and emerging risks related to SPS matters, including food 
safety, and the authorization of genetically-modif ied organisms. The Food and Veterinary Office 
(FVO) of the Commission is responsible for audits, inspections, and related activities to assess 
compliance with EU food safety and quality, animal  health and welfare, and plant health legislation 
within the European Union, and compliance with EU import requirements in third countries exporting to the EU.  
Question 19:  
After the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, and the Standing Committee on Plant Health were replaced by the Standing  Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, 
have the personnel composition and responsibili ties of the above-mentioned committee changed? 
If yes, what are these changes? Has the change  of the committee had any impact on the legal 
framework of the overall EU food safety regulatory system? 
 
EU reply : No, there has been no such impact since the responsibilities and the overall legal 
framework of the Committees are regulated by Re gulation (EU) No 182/2011. This includes the 
composition of Committee and its responsibilities. 
 
Question 20: How does FVO conduct compliance assessment among the EU member states?  What is the legal 
basis for assessing the compliance of third countries exporting to the EU with the EU import 
requirements?   
EU reply : The FVO carries out audits, inspections and related non-audit activities to ensure that 
EU legislation on food safety, animal health, animal welfare, plant health and in the area of medical devices is properly implemented and enforced.  
The FVO’s primary role is to conduct audits or insp ections to ensure the national authorities of EU 
Member States are fulfilling their legal obligations. This can be done during on-the-spot audits, or by desk based exercises or collation of Member  States data. The audit is on the system not 
individual premises and it culminates in a written,  publicly available report. The FVO also produces 
overview reports that provide a summary of a series  of audits conducted in a certain sector. This 
provides information to all stakeholders and contri butes to the development of the EU legislation. 
On the basis of a multi-annual programme, each year the FVO publishes a work programme. This 
is produced in consultation with other European Commission services and with EU Member States. It considers risk and trade factors, plus the status of legislation, to prioritise actions. The programme provides a balance between EU Member States and third countries. The auditing of 
third countries is based on the Regulation EC/882/ 2004, Article 46, which is in line with the WTO 
SPS agreement.  
Question 21:  
It is said that the EU member states also conduct regulatory compliance and impact assessment on the domestic food safety. How does FVO coordinate its investigation with the regulatory 
compliance and impact assessment of the EU member states themselves? Are there any 
cooperation between the FVO and EU member states in this regard?   EU reply:  Based on the requirements of Regulation EC/882/2004, each EU Member State has to 
put in place a Multiannual Annual Control Plan coveri ng all the production areas. The FVO will carry WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 383 - 
 
  out audits or inspections to EU Member States to  ensure the national authorities are fulfilling their 
legal obligations.  A typical audit will cover visit to the control authority, a number of regional and local authorities, 
laboratories and a number of accompanied site visits (e.g. to farms, processors, feed units, 
slaughterhouses and retailers). The information is gathered to provide a series of findings which are presented at a closing meeting. 
 
FVO reports may make recommendations to assist the Competent Authorities in taking corrective measures. The actions made are followed up either administratively, in general follow-up audits in EU Member States, or by on the spot audits. 
 
If non-compliances are sufficiently serious, stronger actions may be taken by the European Commission in agreement with EU Member States. This may include legal action, restrictions or 
even bans on the movement of certain goods or animals. 
 Question 22:  
We suppose that the EU food safety regulation tends to gradually replacing the directives of 
specific products with general. How to reflect the quality-related feature indicators in the original product directives in the general directives?  
EU reply:  The EU does not understand the question  therefore cannot provide the answer. 
 Page 59, Para 3.113 
Traders or their representatives must log, eith er in writing or electronically, pre-departure 
declarations for safety and security purposes. The pre-departure declaration can be based on the export declaration complemented, where appropriate by security-related data, or on an exit 
summary declaration. 
 Question 23: What kind of information is cla ssified as security-related data? 
 
EU reply : The data is referred to in Annex 30a of Commission Regulation (EEC) n° 2454/93.  
 
Question 24: 
How does the data obtained affect the export declaration? Lead: TAXUD – F1 Levente - MF  
EU reply : See answer to Question 23. 
 Page 59, Para3.114 The EU does not impose export-related duties or  taxes. Inward processing under the drawback 
system will be eliminated when the UCC applies. 
 Question 25: 
Could the EU kindly elaborate on reasons for the decreased attractiveness of the inward processing 
under the drawback system?   
EU reply:  The purpose of the inward processing proced ure under the drawback system is to allow 
the processing of goods which are not necessarily  intended for re-export. Processing of goods 
under inward processing – suspension system may take place under the condition that goods are intended for re-export. The inward processing pr ocedure under the drawback system is not needed 
anymore because when the UCC applies any goods in tended for re-export or not may be processed 
under the inward processing procedure.  
Page 65, Para 3.142 
Under Articles 107 to 109 of the TFEU, state aids which favour certain undertakings or production of certain goods are, in general, prohibited as incompatible with the internal market. However, 
there are a number of exemptions and the Commissi on is responsible for preparing detailed rules 
on compatibility of state aids with the internal  market, examining notifications of aid schemes 
(which should be approved before aid may be provided), setting general exemptions from the 
notification requirements, and recovering incompatible state aid. 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 384 - 
 
  Question 26: 
If the state-aid has an impact on the competit ion between enterprises of the EU and other WTO 
members, how does EU ensure that the state-aid policy is consistent with relevant rules of the SCM Agreement? 
 
EU reply:  EU state aid rules are in compliance with the SCM Agreement. EU state aid rules apply 
to interventions likely to affect trade between EU  Member States only. These EU state aid rules are 
in fact more rigorous than the rules of the SCM Agreement. 
 Page 73, Para 3.158 Subject to certain conditions, the parties can bring an action for annulment of Commission 
decisions before the General Court (on grounds of fact or law). Appeals on points of law only may 
be brought before the Court of Justice against judgements and orders of the General Court.  
Question 27: 
What do the certain conditions refer to? In other words, under what conditions, can’t the Commission decisions be annulled? 
 
EU reply:  There are certain conditions which must be fulfilled for an applicant (other than by the 
institutions) to bring an annulment action against an EU measure:  
(i) the EU measure must be an existing act; 
(ii) the EU measure must be "binding", i.e., intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties (ii) (other than those brought by the "privileged applicants" (the EU Institutions)), actions brought 
by private parties must consist of ‘natural and legal persons' (nationality does not matter) that are 
either direct addressee of the act or otherwise "d irectly and individually concerned" by the act.  
Where these conditions are not met, an action could not be brought. 
 
Page 78, Para 3.181 Therefore, all concentrations with a "Communi ty dimension" are subject to review by the 
Commission before being approved. A merger with  a "Community dimension" is defined as a 
merger where the parties have a combined worldwide turnover of €5 billion and each party has a 
Community-wide turnover of €250 million. In accordan ce with the stand-still obligation, no merger 
with a Community dimension may proceed unless approved by the Commission. 
 
Question 28: Please confirm, whether the concentration, whose tu rnover is lower than the said standard, is not 
subject to the Commission’s approval.  
 EU reply : Concentrations have a Community dimension if the conditions of Art. 1 (2) a) and b) of 
the Merger Regulation (Council Regulation No 139/2004; OJ 29.1.2004 L 24/1) are met.  
 
In addition to the thresholds of Article 1 (2) me ntioned above, under Article 1 (3) a concentration 
can also have a Community dimension when: 
 
(a) the combined aggregate worldwide turnover of all the undertakings concerned is more than EUR 2 500 million; 
 
(b) in each of at least three Member States , the combined aggregate turnover of all the 
undertakings concerned is more than EUR 100 million;  
(c) in each of at least three Member States included for the purpose of point (b), the aggregate 
turnover of each of at least two of the undertakings concerned is more than EUR 25 million; and 
 
(d) the aggregate Community-wide turnover of each of at least two of the undertakings concerned 
is more than EUR 100 million. 
 
When the conditions of Article 1 of the Merger Regulation are not met, the concentration would 
indeed not need to be notified to the Commission, save for the application of Art. 22 of the Merger Regulation (Referral to the Commission). 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 385 - 
 
  Page 78, Para 3.182 
On 1 January 2014, the merger simplification package entered into force.  Question 29: 
Please describe in details the regulatory requir ements under the merger simplification package. 
 EU reply : For details regarding the regulatory requirements under the simplified merger 
procedure, please refer to the following links:  
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/legislation/simplified_procedure.html . 
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-1098_en.htm . 
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-1214_en.htm . 
 
Page 86, Para 3.204 As in other countries, there are some enterprises in the member States of the EU which are 
wholly- or partly-owned and/or controlled by a member State or other public authority or which 
have been granted some right or privilege and which provide goods or services to businesses or the public which could be provided  by the private sector but, for a variety of reasons, the private 
sector many not offer adequate covera ge or may not be involved at all. 
 Question 30: Do the state-owned enterprises mentioned above include the state-owned enterprises of non-EU 
member states? Can the state-owned enterprises of  non-EU member states have the same market 
positions as those of EU member states? Lead : Tiina, Ass: COMP, Ch ristophe, Milena - FH 
 
EU reply : "The EU understands that Para 3.204 of th e Secretariat's report refers to enterprises 
that are owned or controlled by EU member states  and not others. The EU Treaty is neutral on the 
issue of ownership, including ownership of public undertakings. In other words, market positions of 
different types of enterprises are not regu lated on the basis of their ownership. 
 Page 87, Para 3,214 Estimates made by the Commission put total pu blic procurement expenditure by the general 
government sector on works, goods, and services (excluding utilities) for 2013 at €1,786.61 
billion, 0.67% higher than in 2012. This represente d 13.7% of EU GDP in 2013. A large part of this 
procurement is subject to public procurement rule s, either national or EU disciplines. Public 
contracts subject to EU disciplines (i.e. above the thresholds) accounted for around €422.8 billion 
in 2013 including utilities, 5.3% more than in 2012. Excluding utilities, the increase was 3.6% from €328.77 billion in 2012 to €340.72 billion in 2013. 
 
Question 31: Are the EU member states and non-EU economies treated differently in the field of government procurement? In other words, are there any other restrictions imposed on non-EU member states?  
 
EU reply:  In the EU contracting authorities are obliged to treat goods or companies from third 
countries with which the EU has an agreement in the field of public procurement, (either GPA or 
any other international agreement on public procurement) in a way which is not less favourable 
than what is accorded to the works, supplies, services and economic operators of the Union.  
Page 102, Para 3.270 
Issues related to the patenting of biotechnological inventions continue to play a key role in EU legislation and jurisprudence. As noted in th e previous TPR report, the Commission therefore 
decided to set up an expert group to assist it in preparing its annual reports on the development 
and implications of patent law in the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering as required 
under Directive 98/44/EC on the Legal Protection  of Biotechnological Inventions.Following the 
appointment of members of the expert group in December 2013, the group has held nine meetings 
between December 2013 and February 2015. Th e two main topics of discussion are the 
patentability of human stem cells and of plant-related inventions.  
Question 32: 
Please provide more details on the provisions, if any, of EU regulations regarding the disclosure of 
the origin of genetic resources and traditional knowledge involved in patent applications.   WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 386 - 
 
  EU reply:  There are no EU regulations requiring the di sclosure of the origin of genetic resources 
and traditional knowledge involved in patent applications.  Page 107, Para 3.290 
In the EU, there are three main approaches for protecting GIs: as protected designations of origin 
(PDOs) or protected geographical indications (PGIs)  for wine, spirits, and agricultural and foodstuff 
products (Table A3.6); as collective Community trademarks; and through national appellation 
systems in EU member States. At EU level, unitary GI protection has been established for wines 
(1970), spirits (1989), aromatized wines (1991) and other agricultural products and foodstuffs 
(1992). Through these systems, protected names for the products covered enjoy far-reaching protection throughout the EU based on a single application process. The key provisions are laid 
down for wine in Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013 of 17 December 2013 , for spirits in Regulation 
(EC) No. 110/2008 of 15 January 2008 , and for agricu ltural products and foodstuffs in Regulation 
(EU) No. 1151/2012 of 21 November 2012. 
 
Question 33: Which of these three main approaches for protecting  GIs allows the registration of the same GI in 
different countries? 
 EU reply: The possibility to submit cross-border applications for registration is provided for in 
each of three relevant EU Regulations (Article 49 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Article 95 of 
Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 716/2013). A collective 
Community trade mark allows the registration of  the same GI in different countries as well. 
 
Question 34: 
Which authorities in the Commission are held responsible for the three approaches to protect GI respectively?  
 
EU reply:  The European commission is a single legal entity. In practice, the European 
Commission's Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development is in charge of dealing with the applications for registration of geographical indications in the field of agricultural products 
and foodstuffs, wine and spirit drinks. A collective Community trade mark is registered at the 
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM). Registration of national appellations systems in EU Member States is managed by Member States authorities.  
 
Page 123, Para 4.17 Direct payments linked to production applied only to suckler cows, sheep and goats, and (for four 
member States) cotton. 
 Question 35: Please provide more information on how the direct payments applied to these four products are 
provided.  
 EU reply: Direct payments granted in a limited number of Member States to suckler cows and 
sheep and goats productions were abolished at end 2014. From 2015, all direct payments under 
the CAP are granted without any link with a determined production, with the exception of cotton that remains implemented, under the same rules as before, in the four Member States having 
implemented it in the previous period. 
 EU legislation now provides for an optional scheme called voluntary coupled support (VCS) which is limited in terms of both percentages available for its financing and objectives. 
 
The principles governing VCS can be summarized as follows: EU Member States may decide to use a limited percentage of their national ceilings for direct payments for financing coupled support 
where in a determined region or sector specific types of farming or specific agricultural sectors that 
are particularly important for economic, social or environmental reasons undergo certain difficulties in terms of risk of decline or of ab andonment of production. Payments shall be granted 
within defined quantitative limits and based on fixed areas and yields or on a fixed number of 
animals, and may only be granted  to the extent  necessary to create an incentive to maintain 
current levels of production.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 387 - 
 
  For further information on sectors and productions eligible for VCS the EU would refer to the WTO 
secretariat report (paragraph 4.31 and tables A4.1 and A4.2).  In the case of cotton, it is produced in practice only in three Member States on around 300 000 ha. 
Greece is the main cotton grower, with 80% of Eu ropean cotton growing area, followed by Spain 
with a share of 20%. Bulgaria produces cotton on less than 1 000 ha. As reflected in Table 4.6 of 
the WTO secretariat report, crop-specific payments for cotton remain available under CAP in four 
Member States: Bulgaria, Greece, Spain and (if production resumed) Portugal, in accordance with 
Article 58 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013. Furthe r information is available in table 4.6 of the 
WTO secretariat report.  
Page 123, Para 4.18 
With the application of new rules on direct paymen ts applying from 2015, transitional rules applied 
in 2014 under Regulation (EU) No. 1310/2013 which provided for a continuation of direct 
payments under the Single Payment Scheme and the SAPS and allowed member States to provide 
additional payments for the first hectares (up to 30 ha or the national/regional average). It also 
allowed member States to increase coupled specific support from 3.5% to 6.5% of their national 
ceilings. 
 Question 36:  National ceilings and national envelopes are frequently mentioned as for domestic support. Please 
provide more information on the calculation methods, and data for each member state.  
 EU reply: 27 EU Member States have decided to implement voluntary coupled support: 12 will use 
less than 13% of their national ceiling while 11 will use 13% of their national ceiling with 9 of them 
also using all or part of the additional 2% available to support the protein crops sector, 3 are entitled to use a higher percentage on approval of the Commission and they are specific rules for 
Malta due to the particular size and structure of  its agriculture sector. See the table below for 
detail. 
IE NL LU UK AT DK EE EL CY IT ES RO SK SE LV BG CZ FR HR LT HU PL SI BE FI PT MT 
0.2%  0.5%  0.5%  1.7%  2.1%  2.8%  4.2%  7.4%  7.9%  11% 12% 12% 13% 13% 14% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 17% 20% 21% 57% 
 
When implementing voluntary coupled support, Member States must fix a quantitative limit which 
reflects at least one year of the five years prec eding the year of implementation of the scheme. 
The limit reflects the objective of maintaining current levels of production in the region or sector concerned. Member states define the eligibility criteria and ensure consistency between VCS and 
measures implemented under other EU support instru ments, as well as measures funded by state 
aids and avoid cumulation of support with such other measures. They must also ensure that the 
support measures they implement are verifiable and controllable. 
 
Criteria for approval of VCS by the Commission are laid down in Article 55 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014.  
Page 123, Para 4.19 
The new direct payments scheme has applied since 1 January 2015 as set out in Regulation (EU) No. 1307/2013, and implementing legislation in Commission Regulations (EU) Nos. 639/2014, and 
641/2014. Although, the net amounts for direct payments in each member State were initially 
linked to the previous system of national enve lopes, the new system includes convergence in 
support among member States, allows member States to divert some funding from rural 
development (EAFRD) to direct payments (and vice versa), and provides some flexibility for 
funding various direct payment programmes (see Table 4.5 for the net amounts for direct payments in each member State).  
Question 37:  
Are member states allowed to divert to the direct payments linked with productions?  
EU reply: As a general rule, EU Member States may decide to use a limited percentage of their 
national ceilings for direct payments for financing coupled support. However, EU legislation does not limit on how much voluntary coupled support can go to specific sectors as it is considered that WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 388 - 
 
  Member States are in the best place to identify difficulties and needs for support on their territory 
and to target one or several sectors or types of farming accordingly, within the limit of the maximum allowed percentage of the national ceiling.  Also, the fact that the support can only be 
granted to the extent necessary to maintain current levels of production ensures that no sector is 
over-compensated. 
 Part II.  Questions based on Policy Stat ement by EUROPEAN UNION (WT/TPR/G/317) 
Page 3, Para 1.1 
 The EU promotes a trade policy that aims at ensu ring reliable, transparent and enforceable trade 
rules that foster sustainable growth and development. 
 
Question 38: What measures will be taken by the EU to ensure the transparency, reliability and enforceability of 
its trade policies?  
 EU reply:  EU Trade policy measures benefit from a high degree of transparency, reliability and 
enforceability as the rest of EU law: all measures are public, they are changed through transparent 
and inclusive processes, and are subject to judicial or administrative review.   In the last year the transparency  of negotiating processes has also increased, for example for TTIP 
the negotiating mandate has been made public an d many EU proposals are published online. The 
new strategy communication foreseen for the autumn should look at further transparency initiatives.  
 
Page 6, Para 3.4 The recently-appointed President of the European Commission, Mr Jean-Claude Juncker, started 
his mandate by giving priority to strengthening the EU's competitiveness and stimulating 
investment so as to create jobs. As a first action, President Juncker launched an 'Investment Plan'.  This will unlock public and private investment in  the real economy of up to €300 billion over the 
next three years (2015-2017). Another flagship project for the new European Commission is a 
Capital Markets Union (CMU). This aims to create deeper and more integrated capital markets in 
the EU's 28 Member States. With the CMU, the Co mmission will seek to reduce fragmentation in 
financial markets, diversify financing sources, st rengthen cross-border capital flows, and improve 
access to finance for businesses, particularly SMEs. 
 Question 39: 
Please describe in details the concept of “investment plan”.  
 EU reply:  The Investment Plan is based on three mutually reinforcing strands. First, the 
mobilisation of at least EUR 315bn in additional investments over the next three years, maximising 
the impact of public resources and unlocking private investment. Second, targeted initiatives to 
make sure that this extra investment meets the needs of the real economy. Third, measures to provide greater regulatory predictability and to remove barriers to investment, making Europe 
more attractive and thereby multiplying the impact of the Plan. 
 A new European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFS I) is being set up in partnership between the 
Commission and the EIB group. Public and private en tities can present projects for financing to the 
EIB Group, and the EFSI is geared to maximize the mobilization of private sector capital.  In the context of the Investment Plan for Europe, the EU is interested in 'crowding-in' and 
leveraging private capital in favor of investments in the EU's real economy. For this purpose the 
European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) is  being established. The opportunity for financing 
EFSI investments is open to investors from third countries, for instance via Investment Platforms 
or project co-financing, in compliance with EFSI Regulation (expected to enter into force in July 
2015).  
Moreover, the EFSI may support investments involving entities established in one or more Member 
States and extending to countries within the European Neighborhood policy, the Enlargement 
policy, the European Economic Area, EFTA and OCTs.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 389 - 
 
  More details on Investment plan can be consulted at: http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/jobs-growth-
investment/plan/index_en.htm  
 
Page 6, Para 3.5 
The EU has reformed its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for the period 2014-2020. The 
measures adopted at the end of 2013 continue the CAP reform process of the last 25 years and promote the use of less trade-distorting policy inst ruments. They contribute to the EU's broader 
growth policy, and will at the same time help EU farmers compete more effectively on the world 
market and benefit from the expected in crease in demand for their products. 
 Question 40: 
Please give more information about the Common Agricultural Policy. Does the EU intend to reform 
its market access policies and reduce its current high level of protection for agricultural products?  
EU reply:  see reply to question 41. 
 Question 41: 
As reforms are expected to continue towards market-orientated policies, is the EU contemplating 
other measures besides the CAP reform that will  eventually improve the conditions for market 
access into the EU market?   
EU reply to questions 40 and 41: The EU is the world's largest importer of agriculture products, 
with imports of €98 billion € in 2014. The EU's tari ff schedule was accepted and bound as part of 
the Uruguay Round Agreement. The EU has concluded and continues to negotiate ambitious FTA 
agreements to reduce agricultural tariffs in bilateral trade. A successful conclusion of the DDA 
would lead to a reduction in tariffs on a Most Favoured Nation basis. In the meantime the EU will continue to respect its WTO commitments and has no plans to autonomously change its tariff 
schedule. 
 Question 42: How does the EU view the CAP reform aimed at im proving competitiveness in the face of growing 
world demand for food, and how will the CAP respond to agricultural markets with increasing 
demand, e.g. Asia?   
EU reply: Successive reforms of the CAP have increased the market orientation of European 
agriculture while improving the integration of environmental requirements and reinforcing support for rural development. The main direction of the policy in recent years has been the decoupling of 
support which has given the incentive to farmers to  produce to market needs while providing them 
with a certain level of income support to ensu re provision of basic public goods desired by 
European society. The CAP for the period 2014-2 020 continued on this path of reform. Among 
others, the last reform introduced a new architecture of direct payments; better targeted, more 
equitable and greener, while concluding the full ma rket orientation of the CAP by abolishing the 
last remaining production quotas (e.g.: dairy -April 2015- and sugar -2017).   
Increasing exports EU agricultural products is evidence of improved competitiveness of the EU 
agri-food industry.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 390 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO ADDITIONAL WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM MALAYSIA 
 GENERAL QUESTION  
1. It is noted that for her services offers under GATS, the EU did not schedule all her Member 
States (MS) across all the services sectors offered – in other words, for most of the sectors scheduled, one or, in most cases, a number of MS was carved out of the offer. Will the EU adopt a 
similar approach in TISA? Or, is the EU ready to  make EU-wide offers without any reservations 
made for specific MS?   EU reply:  The EU (at the time: European Communities ) submitted in 1994 the GATS schedule that 
corresponded to the commitments of 12 EU Member States (EU-12). Other (current) EU Member 
States joined the WTO with their individual GATS schedules. After the accessions to the EU of Austria, Finland, Sweden (in 1995), and Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovak Republic and Slovenia (in 2004), the GATS schedules (EU-12 and 
13 individual schedules) have been consolidated and certified (EU-25).   
Please note that following the accession of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007, second consolidation 
has been submitted to the WTO, though the process has not been finalised yet. TISA offer covers all EU Member States.  
SECRETARIAT REPORT 
Para. 2.1 (Legal and Institutional Framework)  
2. In paragraph 2.10 , it is stated that "the Council may agree to the provisional application of a 
trade agreement, where Parliamentary consent is not required."   
 
Could the EU provide possible situations or examples where the Council has, or is likely to, 
exercise such authority and provisionally apply a trade agreement?   EU reply:  All matters concerning provisional application are decided on a case-by-case basis. 
Provisional application is used in particular when EU agreements also require ratification by EU 
Member States. For example, in the case of the Korea-EU FTA, the Council agreed to provisional application of that Agreement. 
 
Para. 2.4.2 (Foreign Investment Regime)  
3. With reference to paragraph 2.47 , could the EU provide updates on the direction it intends to 
take vis-a-vis investment protection agreements? Is the EU more inclined to establish "permanent 
courts" to hear investment disputes rather than being subjected to  the ISDS mechanism?  
 
EU reply:  Malaysia may find it useful to consult the concept paper “Investment in TTIP and 
beyond – the path for reform ” recently published by the European Commission. 
 
Para. 3.3.5.1 (GPA and International Procurement) 
 4. For the period of review, what was the value of GP projects awarded to non-EU countries, 
particularly those that have concluded bilateral agreements containing a GP Chapter with the EU, 
as listed in paragraph 3.246 ? 
 EU reply:  The EU does not have such specific information. You might find some information on 
import from some non-EU countries in a 2011 study on cross border procurement  
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicproc urement/docs/modernising_rules/cross-border-
procurement_en.pdf  
 
5. With reference to paragraphs 3.248 and 3.249  regarding the Commission’s proposal to 
improve the conditions regulating access into the EU’s public procurement regime, Malaysia wishes 
to seek clarifications as to the status of this proposal and when does the EU expect the European 
Parliament to vote on, and eventually approve the same?   EU reply:  THE IPI is currently under review by the Commission. It is not possible to foresee any 
timing for vote. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 391 - 
 
  3.3.6.2.5 (Geographical Indications) 
 6. With reference to paragraph 3.298 , and specifically GI protection for non-agricultural 
products, what is the status of the detailed report which was supposed to be published in the first 
quarter of 2015?  Does the report envisage protecti ng GIs for handicrafts, traditional works of arts, 
etc.?   
EU reply:  The report has been published on 2 June 2015 and is available under the following link: 
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8254 .  
 
The Commission has not yet decided whether and how to create a system of geographical 
indication (GI) protection for non-agricultural products at European Union level. 
 3.3.6.2.7 (Undisclosed Information) 
 
7. With reference to paragraph 3.303 , Malaysia seeks clarifications as to how the EU intends to 
reconcile disclosure of clinical trial data with her regime of data exclusivity that allows for 
protection up to 11 years?  
 EU reply : “Data exclusivity” provisions refer to a period  of up to 11 years starting from the date of 
the marketing authorisation of a reference product during which no generics can be placed on the 
market by relying on the results of pre-clinical tests and of clinical trials submitted for the 
authorisation of the reference product. The disclosure of non-confidential clinical trial data has no impact on these provisions. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 392 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS FROM CANADA 
 Report of the Secretariat,  Part III, Paragraph 3.99  
Original question from Canada: 
6. Could the EU explain why it departed from  typical international practice and adopted a 
hazard-based approach?  
EU reply:  The Regulation 1107/2009 was adopted in 2009 by the European Parliament and the 
Council, on a Commission proposal from 2006, and is applied from 14 June 2011. Each step of the EU internal legislative process was duly notified to the WTO, including the final adoption (G/SPS/N/EEC/289/Add.3). No comments were re ceived from Canada within WTO framework 
following this notification. 
 Follow-Up Question: 
Canada thanks the EU for the review of the process for adoption of Regulation 1107/2009 and 
commends the EU for having notified it through the WTO. Canada notes that the WTO notification process is not the only opportunity provided to WTO members to raise questions on member state 
measures, and would still appreciate a substant ive response to the question of why the EU 
departed from typical international practice in ad opting a hazard-based approach with respect to 
Regulation 1107/2009.  
reply:  The EU clarifies that for most of the approval criteria for active substances to be used in 
plant protection products the approach is risk-based because in the case of certain classifications not only hazard but also exposure to the substance is taken into account. In detail: substances 
identified as cancerogenic, toxic for reproduction or having endocrine disrupting properties can be 
approved if exposure to them is negligible. In addition, if the respective active substances are needed to control a serious danger to plant health which cannot be contained by other available 
means, they may be approved under certain conditio ns for a time period not exceeding five years. 
In general, one of the main aims of Regulation 1107/2009 is to maintain a high level of protection 
for human and animal health and the environment.  Therefore substances which are persistent in 
the environment, accumulating in living organisms or very toxic should not be approved for use in 
plant protection products. The same applies to exposing farmers or consumers to substances 
which are proven to be mutagenic.  
Report of the Secretariat,  Part III, Paragraph 3.99 
Original questions from Canada:  
11. As technology progresses at an ever-inc reasing pace, and with the growing need for 
renewals due to the EU’s policy to allow GM au thorizations to expire after ten years, how 
will  EFSA keep up with the increased demand s for scientific opinions and how will this 
be done in a timely manner so as not to create further bottlenecks to the GM 
authorization process? 
 12. Could the EU comment on the length of time it takes for EFSA reviews, including 
information on how long, on average, EFSA re views currently take in comparison to the 
past?  
reply to questions 11&12: 
[…] 
The timelines for the risk assessment depend on the quality of the dossiers. If EFSA identifies a need for additional information, the clock is  stopped pending submission of the requested 
information. The timelines in which applicants respond and the quality of the additional data 
provided contribute to the overall timelines for th e risk assessment. Each dossier is specific and 
therefore, it is difficult to compare or to dr aw conclusions on the trend of the timelines. 
[…] 
 Follow-Up Questions: 
1) The EU has stated that the clock is stopped pending submission of information in response 
to a question from EFSA.  Could the EU confirm whether the clock starts again once the requested information has been submitted to EFSA by the applicant? If the clock is not re-started at that time, could the Commission elaborate on when the clock will start again? 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 393 - 
 
  EU reply:  Currently, the additional information is first evaluated by EFSA and if there is no need 
for further clarification, the clock is restarted. However, the policy of EFSA is to not reiterate the same question, therefore the clock may be restarted even if the additional information is not satisfactory. 
 
2) While we understand that all cases are unique and it is difficult to compare them, if the clock does not start again on submission by the applicant to EFSA of the requested information, could 
the EU provide data on how much of the delays beyond the 6 month deadline is as a result of EFSA 
waiting for additional information they have requested and how much is attributable to EFSA requiring more time in order to review this information?  
EU reply:  In the vast majority of cases EFSA meets the six months legal deadline to deliver its 
opinion. Any additional time that is needed to complete the opinion is composed of 1) waiting for the data from the applicant 2) time needed to evaluate data before the clock is restarted. EFSA 
has no statistics on the time spent to review the additional data due to the complexity of the 
procedure. The standing Working Groups of the EF SA GMO Panel work in parallel on the evaluation 
of applications and can stop the clock independently of a need for additional information. 
Consequently, the answer package often includes information that is evaluated by separate 
Working Groups at different times. Furthermore, while the clock is stopped by a question from a Working Group, other Working Groups keep progressing with the assessment that may result in further questions from their specialist areas. Th ese are sent to the applicant keeping the clock 
stopped. Thus, at any given time some Working Gr oups may be evaluating additional information 
from the applicants while the others are waiting fo r the additional information they had requested. 
 
Report of the Secretariat,  Part III, Paragraph 3.271 
Original question form Canada  
41. How will the Court of Appeal be ensured that the law is applied uniformly across the 
local and regional divisions? The Agreement on a Unified Patent Court states that the 
Court shall base its decisions on a) Union La w, b) the UPC Agreement, c) the EPC, d) 
other international agreements and e) national  law. On which sources of law will it base 
its decisions?  
 EU reply to question 41:  The Unified Patent Court will consist of panels that have a multinational 
composition, composed of both legally qualified judges and technically qualified judges. These 
judges shall have the highest standard of compet ence, have proven experience in the field of 
patent litigation and thus guarantee that all divisions of the UPC are equally competent and of a 
balanced composition. All divisions will be go verned by the same rules of procedure and the 
jurisprudence of the UPC Court of Appeal. This will to as large extent minimize the risk of forum shopping, and to ensure that the law is applied uniformly across the divisions.  
As stated in the question, the Unified Patent Cour t will base its decisions on Union law, The UPC 
Agreement, the Convention on the Grant of European Patents (EPC), other international 
agreements applicable to patents and binding on all the Contracting Member States and national 
law (Article 24 of the UPC Agreement). 
 Follow-up question:  
According to Article 24 of the UPC Agreement, the Unified Patent Court will base its decisions on 
Union law, the UPC Agreement, the Convention on  the Grant of European Patents (EPC), other 
international agreements applicable to patents and binding on all the Contracting Member States and national law. Which law will take priority in  the event where a conflict arises between one of 
these laws/agreements? EU reply:  Article 20 of the UPC Agreement states that the Court shall 
apply Union law in its entirety and shall respect its primacy.  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 394 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FR OM THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF 
TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU 
 PART I: REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT (WT/TPR/S/317) 
 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.3  Measures Affecting Production and trade 
3.3.5 Government procurement 
 Page 88 (Para 3.217) There are “aggregation rules” in the procur ement Directives regarding below-threshold 
procurement. For example, contracting authorities are required to aggregate the value of separate 
contract lots for works or services to be awarde d at the same time for a particular project. The 
value of each of the individual contracts may be less than the relevant EU financial threshold, but, 
the total value of these contracts may exceed the threshold. In such a case, the Directive will 
generally apply to the award of each sub-threshold contract.  
Question(s): 
According to Para 3.217, given that separate contract lots for works or services will be awarded at the same time for a particular project, the Directiv e shall apply when the total value of each of the 
individual contracts exceeds the threshold. 
 
Do the “aggregation rules” become inapplicable when separate contract lots for works or services are to be awarded at different times for a particular project?  
 
EU reply: The 'aggregation rules' are applied by contra cting authorities at the moment when the 
value of the total contract is estimated. Once it is determined that this contract falls under the 
Directive, the 'aggregation rules' continue to apply even when the lot contracts for supplies, 
services and works are to be awarded at different times.  
 Page 94 (Para 3.244) 
The value of EU contracts covered by the GPA for the most recent years available is described in  
Table 3.21 EU procurement and GPA key figures, 2009-11 3.21. 
 
Table 3.21 EU procurement and GPA key figures, 2009-11 (€ billion) 
EU procurement 2009  2010 2011  
Value of contracts covered by GPA 250.84  227.94 237.18  
Value of contracts above thresholds 353.40  318.81 335.37  
Value of contracts awarded under Article XV GPA 
(i.e. limited tendering contracts) 14.45  9.87 7.26  
Total expenditures on goods and services 2,346.01  2,416.55 2,405.88  
Source: WTO documents GPA/108/add 7 and GPA/114/add 5, both dated 22 October 2014.  
Question(s): 
The official website of the WTO ( www.wto.org/english/tratop _e/gproc_e/ gp_gpa_e.htm ) indicates 
that: “the GPA parties have opened procurement activities worth US$1.7 trillion annually to 
international competition,…” However, according to the values of EU contracts covered by the GPA for 2009-11 in Para. 3.244, the average value of EU contracts covered by the GPA per year was 
only around €238.6 billion. Was the estimate of US$1.7 trillion for procurement activities opened 
by GPA parties too high?  
 EU reply:  The estimates published on the WTO website as referred above concern the total 
procurement opened by the GPA parties and not only that opened by the EU. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 395 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES 
 Follow-up question regarding the Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/317)  
Page 29, paragraph 2.21:  The Secretariat’s report states that “at end-December 2014, the EU had 
notified to the WTO 37 regional trade agreements (RTAs) in force.”  However, paragraph 2.28 
notes the existence of “interim EPAs that some of the [African EPA] partners had concluded with 
the EU.”   The EU’s website appears to indicate that these interim EPAs have been in force since 
“the legal expiry of the Cotonou trade regime and [the] WTO waiver that covered it” (see: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/january/tradoc_142188.pdf ), yet these interim 
agreements do not appear in the WTO RTA database to have been notified to the WTO.  The RTA 
Transparency Mechanism states in paragraph 3 that “[t]he required notification of an RTA by 
Members that are party to it shall take place as early as possible.  As a rule, it will occur no later than directly following the parties' ratification of the RTA or any party's decision on application of 
the relevant parts of an agreement, and before the application of preferential treatment between 
the parties.”   
Could the EU please explain why these agreements have not been notified even though 
preferential treatment has been applied for years be tween the parties?  When does the EU plan to 
notify these agreements, as required under the WTO Transparency Mechanism?     
EU reply: As described in the document mentioned by the US, negotiations over EPAs are 
currently ongoing with all African and Pacific regions. The EU had notified all the ACP EPAs that had been signed or ratified including those with Cameroon, CARIFORUM, four Eastern and 
Southern Africa (ESA) countries, Papua New Guinea and Fiji. These are available in the WTO 
database. The on-going negotiations have been communicated to the WTO Secretariat and are available under "early announcement" section of  the WTO database. The EU will notify the 
remaining EPAs as soon as they are signed and applied.  
 Follow-up questions related to the EU’s Responses to TPR Questions (RD/TPR/459)  
Patent Questions: 
 RD/TPR/459*, pp. 207-208 of the EU’s answers: 
 
The EU’S Responses read:   
“3.3.6.2.7 Undisclosed information 
 Pages 110-112, Paragraphs. 3.301-3.303: We understand that a publicly accessible EU 
database containing all information submitted in clinical trials applications and during assessment 
procedures will be set up and maintained by the EMA in order to ensure an appropriate level of 
transparency in clinical trials.  How will the EU en sure that generic manufacturers in third countries 
are not able to rely on this information?  Please describe any safeguards that have been built into 
this system to ensure compliance with TRIPS Article 39.3? 
 EU reply: Article 81 of Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 (“the Clinical Trials Regulation”) establishes 
an EU database to be set up by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The information contained 
in the database will be publically accessible unless covered by the provisions of article 81(4). This article provides for the non-disclosure of commercially confidential information taking into account the Marketing Authorisation (MA) status of the me dicinal products in question unless there is an 
overriding public interest in disclosure. EMA is developing specific rules for the publication of 
information contained in the EU database.”  
Follow-up question:  When the specific rules for the publication of information contained in the 
EU database will be available for review? Will the EMA solicit public comments on the new rules? 
 
EU reply: The functional specifications for the EU port al and database to be audited were agreed 
and published in December 2014, following a public consultation in October 2014. A specific proposal sets out rules and criteria for the applic ation of the disclosure rules, taking into account 
the exceptions outlined in the Clinical Trials Regulation. This proposal was also subject to public 
consultations from 21 January until 18 February 2015. Currently EMA, in collaboration with the WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 396 - 
 
  European Commission and the EU Member States, is in the process of finalising the proposal 
following the comments received during the public consultation.  Page 111, Paragraph 3.301: The Secretarait report states: “In principle, this information shall 
be publicly accessible unless the confidentiality of the information can be justified for any of the 
following grounds: protection of commercially confidential information; protection of personal data; protection of confidential information communication between member states in relation to 
the preparation of the assessment report; or the need to ensure effective supervision of the 
conduct of clinical trials by member states.” Who will make a determination on whether the confidentiality of the information is justified, and when and how will that determination be made?  Will the confidential information be redacted from  the documents submitted by the innovators? If 
so, by whom, and at what point in the process? What are the procedures for requesting such 
redactions?  
EU reply: EMA in collaboration with the European Commission and the EU Member States is 
currently developing the specific rules for the publication of information in accordance with the Clinical Trials Regulation.” 
 
Follow-up question: When the specific rules for the publication of information in accordance with 
the Clinical Trial Regulations will be available? Will the EMA solicit public comments on the new rules? 
 
EU reply: See above. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 397 - 
 
  EU RESPONSES TO FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS FROM THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA 
 
Korea has follow-up questions on government procurement122, as follows: 
 Question 1 
 The plan to consider not only the price but also the quality of procurement has a favorable impact 
for international bidders. However, taking into consideration ‘life-cycle costing’ or ‘other public 
policy objectives such as social inclusion or innovation’, these can be seen as barriers for third 
country participants. Does the EU have a specific plan to control the objective application of these new elements in the bidding process?   
EU reply: The EU Public Procurement Directives stipulate that contracting authorities can take into 
account social, innovative and environmental consid erations in public procurement procedures but 
these should be in line with principles of non-discrimination and transparency. In particular, 
 
o Those have to refer to subject of the contract in question o They must be disclosed in advance  
o They apply equally to all operators that should be established in advance in an objective and 
 non-discriminatory manner and be accessible to all interested parties.  The general monitoring mechanisms put in place by the EU will apply to this requirement. 
 
Question 2 
 
Would this new directive have a direct impact on innovative SMES with limited track records in the 
process of meeting life-cycle costing or other public policy objectives and what special considerations are given to the cases of such start-ups or SMES in the tendering or application of 
qualification criteria in selecting suppliers?   
 EU reply : At this early stage it is difficult to state whether the new rules will have a direct impact 
on innovative SMEs with limited track records in the process of meeting life-cycle costing or other 
public policy objectives. The new Directives do not provide for special rules for start-ups or SMEs. 
However, a number of provisions exist in the EU Public procurement Directives that are aimed at 
encouraging SMEs participation, such as: 
 
1) Division into lots The division of contracts into lots is encouraged  through the “apply or explain” principle, meaning 
that contracting authorities are encouraged to divide the contracts into lots, but  when contracting 
authorities deem that the division would not be ap propriate, they must indicate in the individual 
report or in the procurement documents the main reasons for the contracting authority’s choice. Such reasons could for instance be that the contracting authority finds that the division could risk 
rendering the execution of the contract excessively technically difficult or expensive, or that the 
need to coordinate the different contractors for the lots could seriously undermine the proper execution of the contract. 
 
The division of public purchases into lots facilitate s access by SMEs both quantitatively (the size of 
the lots may better correspond to the productive capacity of the SME) and qualitatively (the 
content of the lots may correspond more closely to the specialised sector of the SME). 
 2) Maximum turnover requirements Overly demanding requirements concerning economic and financial capacity frequently constitute 
in the EU an unjustified obstacle to the in volvement of SMEs in public procurement.  
 Contracting authorities should accept all bidders with an adequate financial status for the contract. 
In the future, the required annual turnover should normally not be higher than twice the contract 
value as specified below.  
With regard to economic and financial standing, contracting authorities may impose requirements 
ensuring that economic operators possess the necessary economic and financial capacity to 
                                               
122 The questions are related to para 3.228 & 3.229 on page 91 of the Secretariat Report. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 398 - 
 
  perform the contract. For that purpose, contracting authorities may require, in particular, that 
economic operators have a certain minimum yearly turnover, including a certain minimum turnover in the area covered by the contract. In addition, contracting authorities may require that economic operators provide information on their annual accounts showing the ratios, for instance, between 
assets and liabilities. 
 The minimum yearly turnover that economic operat ors are required to have shall not exceed two 
times the estimated contract value, except in duly justified cases such as relating to the special 
risks attached to the nature of the works, serv ices or supplies. The contracting authority shall 
indicate the main reasons for such a requirement in the procurement documents. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 399 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FR OM TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO 
 Report by the World Trade Organization (WTO) Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/317) SECTION 3: TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURES  
(3.1) Measures directly affecting imports 
(3.1.1) Customs procedures  
(a) Paragraph 3.5 (page 36): The Report informs of the requirement for traders, or their 
representatives that are established in the EU to lodge customs declaration either electronically or 
in writing. Are there further stipulations attached to the temporary admission of imports? What provisions of EU law govern incomplete or simplified declarations?  
 
EU reply: Conditions for temporary admission are the following:  
 prior customs authorization is required;  
 goods must be intended for specific use and re-export; 
 goods must not be intended to undergo any change; goods can be identified;  
 guarantee must be provided in certain cases. 
 
The EU legal basis for incomplete or simplified declarations is Article 76 of the Customs Code and Articles 253 to 289 of the Commission Regulation (EEC) n° 2454/93.  
(3.1.6) Import controls and restrictions 
 (b) Paragraph 3.58 (page 46):  The Report mentions the EU entering into bilateral “Forest Law 
Enforcement Governance and Trade Voluntary Partnership Agreements” with a number of 
countries, through which imports of specific timber and timber products from such countries will be subjected to a licensing scheme. Trinidad and To bago notes that Wood and articles of wood 
represent one of CARICOM’s top 20 exports to the European Union. As such, can the EU elaborate 
how this newly introduced licensing scheme may affect market access concessions and its commitments under the EU-CARIFORUM Economic Partnership Agreement? Further, would the European Union provide notification to CARIFORUM states on the timber and timber products 
covered under the “Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade Voluntary Partnership 
Agreements”?   
EU reply: The Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Voluntary Partnership 
Agreements are bilateral trade agreements that aim at ensuring that only legally harvested timber 
is imported into the EU from countries agreeing to take part in the FLEGT licensing scheme. The 
scheme applies only between the Parties to the Ag reement. The agreements do not include tariff 
or other market access concessions and thus do  not affect EU-CARIFORUM EPA commitments in 
this regard.  Article 190 of the EPA does however provide for cooperation on interalia "facilitation 
of trade between the Parties in natural resources,  including timber and wood products, from legal 
and sustainable sources". CARICOM member Guyana is currently negotiating a FLEGT Voluntary 
Partnership Agreement with the EU. The timber an d timber products covered by such agreements 
are the subject of negotiation with each partner country. 
 
SECTION 4: TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR (4.2) Agriculture 
(4.2.3) Agricultural policies 
(4.2.3.1) Domestic support (4.2.3.1.1) Direct Payments  
(a) Paragraph 4.24 (page 125):  The Report notes the rates at which the Commission sets the 
annual envelopes for the Basic Payment Scheme. Having regard for the EU’s commitment to fairer terms of trade and use of less trade-distorting instruments, has the Union considered establishing 
a national envelope in which the amount budgeted for domestic support for agriculture decreases? 
 EU reply: Most CAP support to farmers is now granted in the form of decoupled income support 
with no obligation to produce which allows farmers to produce to market needs. Reflecting this, the 
Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) is also decoupled from production and non-trade distorting. The 
national ceilings for BPS are contained within the overall national envelopes for direct payments, and any changes to the ceilings for BPS will not entail changes to these overall national envelopes 
but will be offset by the amounts available for ot her schemes to the extent necessary. The national WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 400 - 
 
  envelopes for direct payments for the coming years are already fixed following the 2013 CAP 
reform. Given the essentially non-trade distorting character of these payments, the EU does not have any current plans to reduce the envelopes. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 401 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM INDONESIA 
 GOVERNMENT REPORT 
3 DEVELOPMENTS IN THE INTERNAL MARKET 
New Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies 
Page 6 Para 3.6 
 
“In the framework of its new Common Fisheries Policy, the EU has modernised its main market 
policy for fisheries and aquaculture products – the Common Market Organisation (CMO) – as of 1 January 2014. This new policy instrument:  
• significantly reduces the number and modalities of market interventions; 
• improves the empowerment of producers' organizations at a more local/regional level and gives them full responsibility for setting up production and marketing plans; 
• improves the information available to consumers on the kind of fisheries and aquaculture 
products they can buy; • sets up an inclusive market intelligence strategy.” 
 
Question: 
1. Would the European Union provide further in formation on the implementation of its 
modernized policy for fisheries and aquaculture products, particulary on how this new 
policy impacts imports of fisheries and aquaculture products that enter EU’s market? 
 EU reply:  The main impact of the new policy on the imports of fisheries and aquaculture products 
(FAPs) concerns the information to consumers. The Common Organization of the Markets 
establishes the specific information that must accompany fishery and aquaculture products sold to consumers and mass caterers. It applies to all fishery and aquaculture products marketed within 
the EU, irrespective of their origin or of their marketing method. The new rules have become 
applicable on 13 December 2014.  3 DEVELOPMENTS IN THE INTERNAL MARKET 
A New EU Environmental Action Progra mme and Climate Change Objectives 
Page 7 Para 3.10 
 
“On 20 November 2013, the EU adopted its 7th Environment Action Programme (EAP) to 2020. It 
is a common strategy for both EU institutions and Member States and shall guide environment policy. The EAP identifies three key objectives to be achieved by 2020: 
 
• to protect, conserve and enhance the Union’s natural capital; • to turn the Union into a resource-efficient, green, and competitive low-carbon economy; • to safeguard the Union's citizens from environment-related pressures and risks to health and 
wellbeing. 
 In addition, four so-called 'enablers' will help Europe deliver on these goals: 
• better implementation of legislation; 
• better information by improving the knowledge base; • more and wiser investment for environment and climate policy; 
• full integration of environmental requirements and considerations into other policies.” 
 Question: 2. Would the European Union provide further elaboration on the implementation of the new EU 
environmental action programme and climate change objectives, particulary on how it impacts 
imported products that enter EU’s market?    
EU reply:  Since the EU Environmental Action Programme entered into force in January 2014, the 
EU institutions and the Member States have started to ensure it is implemented with the view of meeting the priority objectives by 2020. An import ant part of this implementation includes setting 
ambitious climate objectives on which the EU is well on track. These are targets for green gas 
emissions reductions (20%), the share of renewa ble energy (20%) and improvements in energy 
efficiency (20%).  WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 402 - 
 
  The impact of the initiatives which are take n to implement the EU Environmental Action 
Programme is assessed by the European Commission through impacts assessments which aim to assess the need for EU action and the potential economic, social and environmental impacts of 
alternative policy options. Moreover, the European Commission identifies likely impacts on third 
countries, international trade or investment. These are set out in a preliminary fashion in inception 
impact assessments. The Commission Better Regulation guidelines and accompanying toolbox provides further guidance on how to assess impacts on external trade and investment and 
developing countries (see further information at the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-
regulation/guidelines/index_en.htm )." 
 
3 DEVELOPMENTS IN THE INTERNAL MARKET 
Reforms to Complete the Internal Market in Services 
Page 9 Para 3.18 
In July 2014, the EU adopted a regulation on el ectronic identification and trust services for 
electronic transactions in the internal market  (eIDAS Regulation 910/2014). The Regulation sets 
conditions for mutual recognition of electronic identification in a legal instrument directly applicable in all EU Member States. This means that if one Member State recognises an electronic signature 
or trust services provider, then the 27 other Member States have to recognise it as well, without 
additional checks. The regulation is also technologically neutral. It prevents any requirements to use a specific technology, and an open standard-setting policy will ensure interoperability. The regulation aims at helping to build an e-commerce arena without geographic boundaries and in 
doing so will foster an environment of trust and confidence in the use of electronic commerce, 
which in turn should enable more trade and on-line transactions. Citizens will be able to carry out secure cross-border electronic transactions, and take full advantage of their rights across the EU - 
for example, by enrolling in a foreign university.  This will reduce red tape for businesses, for 
example by enabling them to participate online in public calls for tender across the EU. The 
regulation entered into force in September 2014. The adoption of relevant implementing acts is 
expected by mid-2015, and thereafter Member States may voluntarily recognise notified e- 
Identification from the other Member States. The rules for trust services will apply from 1 July 
2016. The mandatory mutual recognition of e-IDs will apply from mid-2018  
Question: 
3. Would the European Union provide further in formation on the implementation of the new 
regulation for non-member states, for example schengen visas holders or permanent residents?   
 
EU reply : As a first remark, the Regulation applies as such (1) to the mutual recognition of 
electronic identification schemes / means deployed  /issued in one of the 28 MS and (2) to trust 
service providers and the trust services they provide (both qualified and non-qualified) established 
on the territory of one of the 28 MS. Regarding th e question on the implementation of electronic 
identification schemes / means, the Commission will detail in implementing acts the rules applicable to levels of assurance and to the interoperability framework. Documents held by 
permanent residents and visas are issued by Member States under their sole responsibility. It is 
equally their sole decision to decide whether or not to notify them as eID means to be recognised cross-border (provided that these documents m eet the requirements of the Regulation and 
associated implementing acts). In addition, wi th regard to trust service providers and trust 
services established on the territory of a non-EU country, we would like to clarify the distinction between the rules applicable to qualified and non-qualified ones: 
 
1. Non-qualified trust services provided by a trust provider established in a non-EU country are free to circulate in the EU. No specific implementation would be needed. 
2. According to article 14 of the Regulation, trust services provided by trust service  
providers established in a non-EU country will be recognised as equivalent to EU qualified ones only following an international agreement between the EU and the 
third country from where the trust servic e originates. Therefore, implementation 
rules will therefore be detailed in the international agreement. 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 403 - 
 
  SECRETARIAT REPORT 
2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.4 Investment Regime 2.4.1 Business environment 
Page 32 Para 2.39 
 
“The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) prohibits restrictions on capital 
movements among EU member States, and between EU and non-EU members53; it also prohibits 
restrictions on payments among EU member States and between member States and third countries. Exceptions for applying restrictions  may be granted in "exceptional 
circumstances" when such measures are stri ctly necessary; and the measures must not 
be applied for longer than six months .” 
 Question: 
4. Would the European Union provide further information on “exceptions circumstances” for 
applying restrictions on capital and payments movement?   
EU reply:  Any FDI review procedure at MS level has to  be compatible with the limited number of 
exceptions to the fundamental freedom of capital movement enshrined in the TFEU (articles 64 to 
66) or be justified for overriding reasons in the public interest, as strictly interpreted in the publicly-available jurisprudence of the Court of justice of the EU. 
 
2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 2.4 Investment Regime 
2.4.1 Business environment 
Page 33 Para 2.41 
 
“Despite the common provisions of the EU legislation, a business may face different regulatory 
restrictions depending on where it is established. It was estimated that up to one-third of the administrative burden linked to EU legislation stems from implementation measures in member States. Moreover, according to the OECD, the he terogeneity of rule-setting across 
member States and high national barriers, espe cially in some services sectors, makes it 
hard for businesses to adapt to each national regulation . In June 2013, Germany passed 
new immigration rules which aim to cut red tape for people in target industries, allowing them to 
easily obtain recognition of their qualifications in Germany. On the other hand, France passed a bill 
in the National Assembly in October 2013 imposing penalties on companies that shut down operations deemed economically-viable; at end-Ma rch 2015 this bill was still under debate in the 
French Senate.” 
 Question: 5. Could the European Union explain the reasons of  the heterogeneity of rule-setting with member 
states? 
 6. How will the European Union overcome the hete rogeneity of rule-setting across member States 
and high national barriers in the future? 
 EU reply to questions 5 and 6:  See answer to question 4. (Article 65 TFEU allows MS to limit 
capital movements within the EU and from outsid e the EU on the grounds of public policy and 
public security which is defined individually by MS. In general, this is interpreted as a means to protect the fundamental interests of society, and is assessed on a case-by-case basis). Therefore 
the question about "high national barriers" as suggested by Indonesia is unclear as none such 
barriers haven't been observed in the EU wh ich is most open to foreign investment. 
 3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
3.1.1 Customs procedures Page 37 Para 3.10 
 “As indicated by the World Bank's Doing Busi ness, the time needed to complete import 
process varies among member States: in more  than half of the EU member States it 
takes less time than the OECD average; wherea s for the others it takes more time; e.g. 
u p  t o  1 9  d a y s  f o r  H u n g a r y .  T h e  C o m m i s s i o n  pointed out that this time measurement WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 404 - 
 
  covers the activities of customs as well as  other bodies involved in the importing 
process (e.g. inland transport, port and term inal handling), and is calculated "from the 
vessel's arrival at the port of entry to  the cargo's delivery at the warehouse".  As reported 
by the Commission, a pilot project was carried out for measuring the time needed for customs to 
process a standard import customs declaration (from acceptance to the release of goods), which 
showed that 88% of import declarations lodged electronically under normal procedures were processed within one hour. Furthermore, customs procedures must be uniformly implemented 
although some variations in administration may occur. According to the Commission, any practices 
in a member State that are not in compliance with the EU customs legislation will be investigated by the Commission, and infringement procedures may be launched if necessary.  
Question: 
7. How will the European Union equalize the time needed to complete import process among member states?  
 
EU reply:  Customs procedures in the EU must be uniformly implemented by Member States' 
customs authorities in accordance with the Community Customs Code and its implementing 
provisions. Different measures are taken to ensure a uniform implementation of customs and other 
border procedures, such as monitoring actions in Member States. Nevertheless, differences may arise due to many reasons, including the size of  trade inflows, types of goods that are being 
handled, the prevalent status of trade partners (trusted business operators or not), non-customs 
related documentation that is needed, etc. Safety , security and risk management aspects play an 
important role as well. The import process is sped up within the customs union due to a high degree of electronic input of import declarations  throughout the EU. In 2014, electronic input for 
import declarations in the EU reached a level close to 90%. The vast majority of declarations is 
cleared quickly. Indeed, the figures of 2014 show that 84% of customs declarations (import under 
normal procedures) are processed within one hour  and more than 70% even within five minutes. 
These figures were calculated without distinguishing  between declarations subject to control, which 
normally have longer processing times,  and those that were not controlled. 
 3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
3.1.4 Tariffs 3.1.4.1 MFN tariffs 
Page 43 Para 3.41 
 
 “Around 11% of tariff lines are non-ad valorem, mostly on agricultural products (Table 3.1 and 
section 4.2). Agricultural imports continue to face co mplex tariff structures such as entry 
price systems and the "Meursing Table".  On average, non-ad valorem rates continue to 
provide higher protection than ad valorem rates. All rates above 100% are AVEs relating to agricultural goods, applying to, inter alia, whey and modified whey (635%), prepared or preserved 
poultry (288.9% and 143.2%), prepared or preserved mushrooms (183.5% and 159.5%), live 
poultry (156.4%), isoglucose (119.7%), and grape juice (116.2%) (Table 3.2). Apart from agricultural products, non ad valorem tariff rates apply on 35 tariff lines, including mostly glass 
and watches, watch and clock movements, and watch cases.” 
 Question: 
8. What measures will European Union implement to  simplify the complexity of tariff structures for 
imports of agricultural products?  
 EU reply: The EU's agricultural tariff system is bound in the EU schedule resulting from the 
Uruguay Round Agreement. An explanation is given in its Annex 1. The EU has no plans to 
autonomously change its tariff structure for agricultural products. Any change will result from a successful conclusion to the DDA. In the mean time, the EU will continue to respect its WTO 
commitments. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 405 - 
 
  3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 3.1.4 Tariffs 3.1.4.3 Tariff suspensions and tariff rate quotas 
Page 44 Para 3.44 
 
 “The Commission note that tariff suspensions may be granted for products unavailable within the 
EU, whereas tariff quotas for goods produced in insufficient quantities within the EU. These 
measures permit the total or partial waiver of duties applicable to imported goods for an unlimited quantity (tariff suspension) or a limited quantity (tariff quotas). No tariff suspensions or quotas are granted for finished products.”  
 
Question: 9. Could the European Union give a list of prod ucts that has been granted tariff suspensions?  
 
10. Could the European Union give a list of products that has been granted tariff quotas?  
 
EU reply to questions No 9 and 10: The list of existing autonomous tariff suspensions can be 
found under the following link (consolidated version of the Official Journal of the European Union: "COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) No 1387/2013 of 17 December 2013 suspending the autonomous 
Common Customs Tariff duties on certain agricultural and industrial products and repealing 
Regulation (EU) No 1344/2011"): 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte nt/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02013R1387-
20150101&qid=1433835938761&from=EN  
 
Information on the requests for autonomous tariff suspensions under discussion can be found under the following link 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds2/susp/susp_consultationchapter.jsp?Lang=en 
 
11. What is the usual period of time given for the total or partial waiver of duties in relation to tariff suspensions and tariff quota? 
 
EU reply: Generally, the period of time is 4, 5 to 5 years for suspensions and 0,5 to 1 year for 
quotas. 
 
It is important to note that there is always the option to close measures almost immediately (after 6 months) after their publication (that is to say that by one regulation a measure is opened, and 
through an amending regulation, half a year  later, the same measure can be closed). 
 12. Have the tariff suspension and tariff quota been revoked by the authorities and under which 
circumstances?  
 
EU reply Due to justified economic objections forwarded by the Member States as well as 
concerns raised by internal Commission services some measures will be suppressed. In addition, 
the Commission removes existing measures which are not used anymore. 
 3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
3.1.6 Import controls and restrictions Page 46 Para 3.58 
 
“Another case of import restrictions based on environmental grounds is the controls and 
restrictions stemming from the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The EU has entered into bilateral "Forest Law Enforcement Governance 
and Trade Voluntary Partnership Agreemen ts" with a number of countries, through 
which imports of specific timber and timber products from such countries will be subject 
to a licensing scheme.” 
 
Question: 13. Indonesia has signed the Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade Voluntary Partnership Agreement (FLEGT VPA) in 2013, which has been rati fied by both the EU and Indonesia. Indonesia 
ensures the legality of the timber products from Indonesia which are exported to all export WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 406 - 
 
  destinations with a Wood Products Verification  and Legality System (SVLK). But until now the 
agreement has not yet been fully implemented.  Furthermore, the EU has applied the European Un ion Timber Regulation (EUTR) since March 2013, 
which has not been fully implemented to all impo rters but with a checking requirement of 15%. 
With regard to the implementation of EUTR and the requirements of SVLK in Indonesia, Indonesia 
products find it difficult to compete with other exporting countries, as other countries could enter 
EU market without burdened with other additional payment for a certificate that guarantees the 
environmentally friendly products.  
When will EU impose the EUTR as a compulsory requirement to all exporting countries?  
 
EU reply : Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the Europe an Parliament and of the Council of 20 
October 2010 laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on 
the market, also known as EU Timber Regulation (EUTR) entered into application on 3
rd March 
2013. The Regulation prohibits the placing on the EU market of illegally harvested timber or timber 
products derived from such timber and requires operators to exercise due diligence to minimize 
the risk of illegal timber entering their supply  chain. The Regulation applies both to timber 
harvested in the EU and imported from any country.  The European Commission works closely with the co mpetent authorities of EU Member States that 
are responsible for enforcement of the Regulation , in order to ensure its uniform and effective 
implementation across the EU. Since last year, we have noticed a steady improvement in the level 
of compliance of EU Member States with EUTR provisions, particularly concerning the adoption of 
procedures for checks by national authorities and of administrative and penal sanctions in case of 
infringements.  
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 3.1.7 Contingency measures 3.1.7.2 Anti-dumping and countervailing 
Page 49 Para 3.72 
“Some of the highest definitive AD duties that  resulted from original investigations or 
reviews between July 2012 and June 2014 concern, inter alia , certain iron and steel 
fasteners from China (74.1%), molybdenum wires (64.3%), certain tungsten electrodes from 
China (63.5%), certain open-mesh fabrics of glass fi bres from Chinese Taipei, India and 
Indonesia (62.9%),  solar panels from China (64.9%), and peroxosulphates from China 
(71.8%).” 
 Question: 14. In relation to the imposition of 62.9% Anti-Dumping (AD) duties for certain open-mesh fabrics 
of glass fibres  from Indonesia, Indonesia would like to have information on the status of the 
imposed AD duties for Indonesia products with the result of joint verification which was conducted by the OLAF as EU’s authority in 2014 concerning a lleged falsification of Certificate of Origin for 
imported product in EU from Indonesia? 
 EU reply: Anti-dumping duties were imposed on impo rts of certain open-mesh fabrics of glass 
fibres from the People's Republic of China (PRC ) in August 2011. These measures were extended 
to imports of these products consigned from, inter alia , Indonesia in December 2013 following a 
finding that circumvention of the duties on imports from the PRC was taking place. The measures that were extended to imports from Indonesia will remain in place for so long as the measures on 
imports from the PRC are in place. Regarding investigations by OLAF into the alleged falsification 
of Certificates of Origin for imports of these products from Indonesia, these investigations concern imports that took place before the measures were extended to imports from Indonesia in 
December 2013. If the result of these investigations shows that certificates of origin were falsified 
and that the origin of the products was in fact the PRC, then those imports will be retroactively subject to the anti-dumping duty applicable to imports from the PRC. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 407 - 
 
  3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 3.1.9 Sanitary and phytosanitary measures Page 55 Para 3.99 
“There have been no major changes to the legisl ative framework for SPS measures since the last 
Review. However, on 6 May 2013 the Commission adopted a proposal for a package of 
measures which, according to the Commission, allows for simplification, modernization, 
increased consistency, and convergence with international standards of EU health and 
safety standards for the agri-food chain.  The package of proposals was notified to the SPS 
Committee of the WTO on 17 May 2013 and, at the beginning of 2015, was going through the 
normal consultative and legislative process fo r regulations of the European Parliament and 
Council.” 
 Question: 
15. Would the European Union provide further info rmation on the EU package proposal related to 
health and safety standards for the agri-food chain?  
 
EU reply:  The legislative initiatives contained in the package “Smarter rules for safer food” 
proposed in May 2013 are in different stages of the ordinary legislative procedure in the EU. A political agreement on the Animal Health proposal was reached on 1 June 2015. The official controls proposal and the plant health proposal  are being discussed by the European Parliament 
and the Council. The proposal on plant reproductive  material has been withdrawn by the European 
Commission in March 2015.  
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Affecting Production and Trade 3.3.1 Subsidies 
3.3.1.2 State aid 
Page 65 Para 3.142 
 “Under Articles 107 to 109 of the TFEU, state aids which favour certain undertakings or production 
of certain goods are, in general, prohibited as incompatible with the internal market. However, 
there are a number of exemptions and the Commission is responsible for preparing detailed rules on compatibility of state ai ds with the internal market, examining 
notifications of aid schemes (which should be approved before aid may be provided),  
setting general exemptions from the notification requirements, and recovering incompatible state 
aid.” 
 
Question: 16. Would the European Union provide more in formation on the number of exemptions and 
prohibitions from state aids?  
 
reply: As a general rule, Article 107 of Treaty on th e Functioning of the European Union reads as 
follows:  
"1. Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through 
State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade 
between Member States, be incompat ible with the internal market.  
 2. The following shall be compatible with the internal market:  
(a) aid having a social character, granted to individual consumers, provided that such aid 
is granted without discrimination related to the origin of the products concerned;  
(b) aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences; 
 (c) aid granted to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany 
affected by the division of Germany, in so  far as such aid is required in order to 
compensate for the economic disadvantages caus ed by that division. Five years after the 
entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt a deci sion repealing this point 
 WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 408 - 
 
  3. The following may be considered to be compatible with the internal market: 
 
(a) aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is 
abnormally low or where there is serious und eremployment, and of the regions referred to 
in Article 349, in view of their structural, economic and social situation; 
 (b) aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or 
to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State; 
 (c) aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to 
the common interest; 
 (d) aid to promote culture and heritage conservation where such aid does not affect 
trading conditions and competition in the Union to an extent that is contrary to the 
common interest;  
(e) such other categories of aid as may be specified by decision of the Council on a 
proposal from the Commission."  
Thus the TFEU prohibits State aid because of its potential negative effects on trade and 
competition.  
 Despite the general prohibition of State aid, in some specific circumstances government 
intervention can be necessary for a well-functioning and equitable economy. 
 Therefore, the TFEU leaves room for a number of policy objectives for which State aid can be 
granted. The secondary legislation sets out these exemptions to the general prohibition, for 
instance environmental aid, regional aid, aid for R&D. The Commission only allows State aid to be 
given under certain well-specified conditions, such as a clear public policy objective, an incentive effect, proportionality and a limitation of negative effects. In this secondary legislation the 
Commission specifies the conditions for granting State aid. 
 For more detailed information on State aid legislation and exemptions please consult DG 
Competition's website which equally includes statistics and scoreboard on application of these 
rules: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/legislation.html  
 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.2 Agriculture  4.2.4 Domestic support levels 4.2.4.2 OECD monitoring and evaluation on agricultural policies 
Page 133 Para 4.60 
 
“The OECD data shows that despite reforms up to, but not including, the reforms of 
2014, support to agricultural producers in the EU, while close to the OECD average, 
remains high in absolute terms and has not declined significantly over the past few 
years, mainly because, for some products, high tariffs continued to protect producers 
from changes in international prices as seen by  the relatively high levels of market price 
support and the producer net-protection coefficients (producer NPC). However, as noted 
by the Commission, the EU has reduced the "potentially most distorting support" from 92% in 1986-88 to 26% in 2011-13.” 
 
Question: 17. Would the European Union elaborate further whether it intends to lower the support to its 
agricultural producers?  
 EU reply: The EU has since the beginning of the 1990s reformed its agriculture policy, whereby it 
has significantly moved from price support to deco upled direct payment and so reduced its use of 
Amber Box support. The EU recently adopted the last CAP reform in December 2013 which is still being implemented. It is therefore too soon  to anticipate any further adjustments. WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 409 - 
 
  4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
4.3 Services 4.3.3 Distribution services 4.3.3.2 Regulatory Framework 
Page 157 Para 4.115 
 
“Distribution services are essentially regulated at the member State level by a mix of regulation at 
the national level (labour laws, competition, establishment rules, zoning) and of local, mostly 
municipal, rules (in particular on establishment and zoning). There is also an EU–wide level of regulation beyond the traditional area of competition, as retail, being a service, falls within the ambit of the Services Directive. The general prohib ition of economic needs tests and the principles 
relating to authorization procedures and criteria  established by the 2006 Services Directive have 
been of particular relevance for the retail sector . The transposition of the Services Directive was 
finalized in 2009 and it fully benefits third country  retailers provided they are established within 
the EU.” 
 Question: 
18. Does the EU have a plan on harmonizing national level and EU-wide level regulations to 
facilitate service supplier entering its market?   EU reply : The Services Directive has already contributed significantly to facilitating market entry 
in the retail sector and the EU is continuously examining its implementation. In this context the 
European Commission commissioned a study on retail establishment throughout the 28 Member States which will be available soon. 
 
19. Would the EU please further inform on how the Services Directive finalized in 2009 can fully benefits third country retailers?  
 
EU reply : As a general rule the Services Directive (2006/123/EC) is not applicable to third 
countries. As such, third country nationals cannot benefit from the provisions therein. However, in line with Recital 36 of the Services Directive, with reference to Articles 49 and 54 of the Treaty on 
the Functioning of the European Union, a third co untry company acting as services provider can 
benefit from the freedom to provide services provid ed that the company in question is constituted 
in accordance with the laws of a Member State and has its registered office, central administration 
or principal place of business within the EU. Acco rdingly, a retail company from a third country 
that is incorporated and established in EU Member State(s) can enjoy the same general benefits as EU providers in terms of easier establishment, easier provision of cross-border services, and 
simplified procedures and formalities.” 
 OTHERS: 20. Would the EU engage in more comprehensive ne gotiations concerning Geographical Indication 
to expand the market for Indonesia’s coffee products in EU’s market?  
 EU reply : The EU system of protection for Geographic al Indications (GIs) - Regulation (EU) No 
1151/2012- is open to other countries' GIs. In that respect Indonesian GIs could be protected in 
the EU provided the application is made in due form and examination according to the legislation is positive. The EU may also protect other countries' GIs via bilateral agreements although no such 
bilateral negotiations with Indonesia are underway at present. 
 21. Would the EU engage in more comprehensive negotiations of Mutual Recognition Arrangement 
(MRA) with Indonesia for organic foods products concerning the certification of food standards, 
Government assistance in organic certification processes, and soft loan for both domestic and 
foreign investments?    
EU reply: The EU legal framework for the organic production sector (dating from 2007) is 
currently under review. The objective of this review is to adjust EU legislation to the current situation in the EU organic market, which has quadrupled in size over the last 10 years. The 
adjustment is necessary so that the sector can further develop and respond to future challenges. 
The review seeks to improve the current system pu tting both producers' and consumers' concerns 
at the heart of the new proposals. The review includes also provisions related to imports of organic products from other countries, aiming at improving the level playing field for the EU and other 
organic operators located outside the EU. The new rules are aimed at replacing one of the options WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 410 - 
 
  for importing organic products into the EU (via the unilateral recognition of equivalent with non-EU 
countries) by reciprocal equivalence recognition through international agreements.  To facilitate the transition to the new scheme of  recognition based on international agreements, 
the EU is not currently accepting any new unilateral request for recognition under the existing 
scheme. In the meantime the Indonesian authorities (and any other WTO member) are encouraged to use the existing and working system of  recognition of certifying bodies which is also 
open to government authorities as an alternative system of equivalency recognition. 
 22. Would the EU give more information concerning the rejection for Indonesia’s nutmeg commodity in EU’s market on the basis of Aflatoxin content on those Indonesia’s products? 
 
EU reply : Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 provides for a coordinated and uniform control approach 
at the EU border on imports of certain feed and food of non-animal origin from third countries 
when a known or emerging risk has been identified. Imports listed in Annex I to this Regulation 
are subject to prior notification of their arrival to the EU and have to enter through Designated 
Points of Entry. These imports are subject to 100% documentary checks while a lower frequency 
(e.g. usually 10%, 20% or 50%) is foreseen for physical checks, including laboratory analysis. The 
inclusion of certain food and feed in Annex I to  the Regulation ("listing") is the outcome of a 
decision of the European Commission and the EU Memb er States, in their role of risk managers. It 
is based on the latest scientific and factual information available, including data resulting from 
notifications received through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF), reports and 
information resulting from the activities of the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) of the European Commission, scientific opinions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) or of other relevant 
scientific bodies, as well as information supplied by third countries' competent authorities. The list 
of imports of feed and food of non-animal or igin subject to an increased level of border 
surveillance is reviewed on a quarterly basis, taking into account all information available, 
including the submitted results of the controls  performed by EU Member States’ competent 
authorities on the products listed in the Annex I.  Nutmeg from Indonesia (hazard: aflatoxins) is currently listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 
669/2009 and is subject to physical checks at a frequency of 20%. Results contained in the 
quarterly reports by EU Member States indicate a level of non-compliance which after almost three 
years of increased controls remains highly unsatisfactory. The non-compliance rate for this 
commodity in the 2
nd half of 2014 was 15.5% and already 6 RASFF notifications of non-compliance 
were issued since the beginning of 2015.  
23. Would the EU reduce the applied tariff for Indonesia’s cocoa products up to 0% equal to 
measures which are given to other African’s countries?  EU reply:  Indonesia continues to benefit from the EU GSP scheme and its unilateral preferences to 
access the EU market, which in 2014 allowed Indonesia to export a total of € 4.5 billion under GSP 
scheme out of total €14.2 billion in exports to the EU.  
Indonesia therefore benefits from preferential tr eatment on cocoa products as compared to MFN 
customs duty rates. In particular, for the Headings 1803 until 1804 it benefits from a reduction of 3,5% percentage point and for 1805 the MFN duty is decreased by 65%. 
 
International trade rules do not allow considering specific preferences beyond those granted under the GSP system. Any specific trade concessions co uld only be considered in the context of a 
possible Free Trade Agreement. 
 
24. In relation to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) assessment of acrylamide and caffeine content in food on the health concerns, Indonesia would like to inquire how will this policy 
not create an unnecessary obstacle for import, e.g. Indonesia’s coffee products, to the EU?  
 EU reply:  EFSA confirmed in its very recent scientific opinion
123 that acrylamide is a carcinogenic 
substance and that current levels of dietary exposure to acrylamide indicate a concern with respect 
to the carcinogenic effects. Taking into account th e outcome of the scientific opinion on the risks of 
acrylamide, the European Commission shall consid er, together with the competent authorities of 
                                               
123 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/ efsajournal/pub/4104.htm . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 411 - 
 
  the EU Member States, regulatory measures to re d u c e  t h e  p r e s e n c e  o f  a c r y l a m i d e  i n  f o o d  t o  
ensure a high level of human health protection. As the discussions on the possible EU measures are only to be started, it is too early at th is stage to speculate on their eventual nature. 
 
With respect to caffeine, EFSA recently published a scientific opinion
124 which advises on a safe 
caffeine intake from all sources. In this opinion EFSA does not pronounce itself on the caffeine content in food. As a first step the European Commission will take a decision on the authorisation 
of five health claims on caffeine wh ich is currently pending. Then it will consider on the basis of the 
EFSA scientific opinion whether any additional action is required in this regard.  25. In related to Indonesia’s Bio-diesel products, Indonesia would ask the EU to give more 
information concerning: 
 
-  The imposition of AD duties for Indonesia’s bio-diesel products?  
 
EU reply: The EU imposed AD duties on biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia on 27 
November 2013. The Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 contains all relevant 
details. The Regulation can be consulted at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/L exUriServ/LexUriServ. 
do?uri=OJ:L:2013:315:0002:0026:EN:PDF . 
 
- The growing impediments on Indonesia’s palm oil in the EU’s market? 
 
EU reply: The EU is an open and welcoming market fo r palm oil, there are no impediments or 
barriers. There is a positive trend in imports of palm oil, in general (+ 40% since 2011), in which 
Indonesia has been fully participating. Indonesi a keeps the lion's share on the EU market, with 
52% of total imports in 2013 and 54% in 2014. Almo st half of total imports of palm oil from 
Indonesia enter the EU duty free. This trend do es not apply to biodiesel, where imports from 
Indonesia decreased following imposition of anti -dumping duties in November 2013. Indonesia 
challenged the EU over the anti-dumping duties on biodiesel before the WTO and requested the establishment of a panel on 30 June 2015. 
 
- 26. Would the EU reduce the applied tariff for Indonesia’ Fisheries products, especially 
for Tuna and Shrimp, because compare to other countries in ASEAN, the applied tariff for Indonesia’s fisheries products are still higher than those countries? 
 
EU reply:  Indonesia, as a lower-middle income country according to the World Bank classification, 
continues to benefit from the reformed EU GSP scheme. For tuna and shrimps, the EU Most 
Favoured Nation (MFN) customs tariffs are indeed se t at a relatively high level for certain products, 
but it should be noted that under the GSP Indone sia benefits from a preferential rate. Under the 
GSP, prepared shrimps enter the EU with a tariff of 7% (instead of MFN 20%); frozen shrimps with a tariff of 4.2% (instead of MFN 12%) and canned t una benefits from a tariff of 20.5% (instead of 
MFN 24%). The EU GSP has been reformed in 2014 to target countries most in need, meaning 
low-income and lower-middle income countries. This has meant that some countries in your region have lost GSP preferences; on the other hand, other countries with a vulnerable and non-
diversified economy, are eligible to apply to the more generous GSP Plus scheme. International 
trade rules (compatibility with WTO) do not allo w considering specific preferences beyond those 
granted under the GSP system. Any specific trade concessions could only be considered in the 
context of a possible Free Trade Agreement. 
 27. In relation to the EU revised proposal for categorization of compound as endocrine disruptors, Indonesia would ask the EU to give more information on the revised proposal, and what actions 
are necessary be in-line with existing obligations in the proposal? 
 EU reply : The EU is systematically informing WTO Members on its work on endocrine disruptors 
within WTO SPS and TBT Committees. It has to be reminded that currently there is no legislative 
proposal on the table. Following the publicatio n of the road map the European Commission is 
carrying out a comprehensive impact assessment to analyse different options for defining the 
criteria for the identification of endocrine di sruptors. These are standard rules for impact 
assessments in the context of EU policy maki ng. The first supportive studies of the impact 
assessment are ongoing, others are planned. Eventu al legislative proposal, if any, will be made 
                                               
124 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/ efsajournal/pub/4102.htm . WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 412 - 
 
  once the impact assessment is concluded and duly notified to the WTO for comments of third 
countries to be taken into account. More information on the EU’s work on endocrine disruptors can be found at the European Commission’s website: http://ec.europa.eu/health/endocrine_disruptors/policy/index_en.htm 
 28. In relation to the EU Directive No. 1169/20 11, Indonesia would ask the EU to give more 
information on the measures imposed on food labeling which may cause unnecessary barrier to 
trade for imported products. 
 EU reply : The question is understood as concerning EU requirements and not as “unnecessary 
barrier to trade”. Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 which entered into application on 13 December 
2014 provides for harmonised rules on food inform ation to consumers. The Regulation confirms 
and maintains a large number of provisions of the previous EU rules on food labelling, which were laid down in Directive 2000/13/EC, and on nutrition  labelling, previously in Directive 90/496/EEC. 
The Regulation provides for modernisation (food business operators can use other means of 
informing consumers than the label) and improves protection of EU consumers in relation to legibility of labels, allergen labelling and certain specific information on ingredients and handling of 
the food prior to being offered to the consumer. Th e Regulation also provides for mandatory origin 
labelling for fresh meat from pigs, sheep, goats and poultry and for the mandatory indication of the vegetable origin of refined oils and fats. The Regulation is applicable to products offered for sale within the EU, whether they originate in the EU or they are imported from any third country. 
The Regulation has come into force with a long transitional period, which still runs for products 
labelled in accordance with previous rules until stocks are exhausted, and it will introduce a mandatory nutrition declaration for all products only as of 13 December 2016. 
 
29. Would the EU give more information concerning the barrier to trade for Indonesia’s poultry products, seafood and other fisheries products, fr esh meat and meat products in EU’s market?  
 
EU reply : The question is understood as concerning EU SPS requirements and not as “barrier to 
trade”. The procedure to access the EU market fo r poultry products, seafood and other fisheries 
products, fresh meat and meat products from an y third country is described in the Secretariat 
report WT/TPR/S/317, point 3.105 on page 59. It can be found in the EU legislation, e.g. in 
Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 for public health or Chapter II of Directive 2002/99/EC for animal health rules. Additional information is available on the European Commission website: 
 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/international_affairs/trade/index_en.htm 
 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/international_af fairs/trade/docs/guide_thirdcountries2009_en.pdf 
 
To be eligible to export live animals and products of animal origin into the EU, the exporting country must submit an official application which will be assessed by the European Commission's 
services to verify that all imports meet the same high standards as products from EU Member 
States, in matter of animal and public health.  
A complete sequence of assessment is followed, wh ich includes the submission of questionnaires 
and copies of the legislation of the exporting co untry in the concerned fields. For certain food 
products which may pose a risk to public health (such as meat and aquaculture), the European 
Commission must approve the residue monitoring  programme, the salmonella control programme 
for poultry and poultry products and other requirem ents depending on the animal and/or product. 
If the European Commission is satisfied with the information provided, a visit on-the-spot is generally organised by the European Commission au dit service, the Food and Veterinary Office 
(FVO). If the outcome of the audit is again sati sfactory, the European Commission prepares draft 
to amend the import rules to add the third country, territory, zone or compartment to the lists for animal and public health status, provided the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and 
Feed (composed of EU Member States SPS experts) agrees. 
 The time needed for the complete assessment cannot be defined in advance, as it depends on the 
health status of the exporting country and the possi ble issues that might be raised in the process. 
 30. In related to the policy of the Plain/Stan dardized Packaging of Tobacco, which has been 
applied in United Kingdom, Ireland, and France and also other countries which will impose the 
similar policy, what is the scientific evid ence of the effectiveness of the policy?   WT/TPR/M/317/Add.1 
 
- 413 - 
 
  EU reply:  The above-mentioned EU Member States have  highlighted a growing body of scientific 
evidence supporting the public health benefits of such a measure and pointing to the important 
role played by tobacco packaging in the promotion of tobacco products. Much of this evidence is 
publically available.125 It demonstrates that standardised packaging has been shown to increase 
the noticeability and effectiveness of health warnings, to substantially reduce the attractiveness 
and appeal of tobacco products and smoking (b oth to smokers and potential smokers) and to 
undermine false beliefs about the risks associated wi th different brand variants. It also highlights 
that the effects are likely to be particularly strong in young people and with regard to initiation. In 
addition, the positive impact of the Plain Packagin g Regulations in Australia (sustained increase in 
calls to quit lines, as well as decreases in tobacco sales volumes and smoking prevalence) has been documented.
126 
 
30.a Will the EU consider suspending the implementati on of this policy until there is a final decision 
making by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in the case of Indonesia, Ukraine, Honduras, 
Rep. Dominican and Cuba with Australia? 
 EU reply:  The EU respects fully its WTO obligations. The EU monitors closely all developments at 
the WTO and international level in respect to plain/standardized Packaging of tobacco. 
 Unless there is a final ruling at the WTO level clearly declaring that plain packaging is incompatible with the WTO law, EU Member States are lawful ly entitled to introduce and maintain such 
measures, taking into account adequate evidence and after considering whether there are less 
stringent measures. In this light the EU will not encourage its EU Member States to suspend the introduction of plain packaging until the dispute with Australia is concluded. 
 
The EU would also like to point out that Ukraine no longer raises any objections against the Australian measure 
__________ 
 
                                               
125 http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/ 12/2014-Ireland-Plain-Pack-Main-Report-Final-
Report-July-26.pdf ; http://www.kcl.ac.uk/health/10035-TSO-2901853-Chantler-Review-
ACCESSIBLE.PDF?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_ campaign=standardised-packaging-of-tobacco-
report-of-the-independen t-review-undertaken-by-sir-cyril-chantler-pdf ; http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-
databases/tris/en/search/?trisaction=search.detail&year=2015&num=241 . 
126 http://medianet.multimediarelease.com.au/bundles/00c88263-2031-4fd8-bc0d-d7ee8dd8ed0b