WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
6 November 2017  
(17-6030) Page: 1/421 
Trade Policy Review Body  
5 and 7 July 2017  Original: English/Spanish  
anglais/espagnol  
inglés/español  
 
  
TRADE POLICY REVIEW  
THE EUROPEAN UNION 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG 
Addendum  
Chairperson: H.E. Mr. Juan Carlos Gonzalez (Colombia)  
This document contains the advance written questions and additional questions by WTO 
Members, and replies provided by  European Union .1 
 
 
Organe d'examen des politiques commerciales  
5 et 7 juillet 2017  
EXAMEN DES POLITIQUE S COMMERCIALES  
L'UNION EUROPÉENNE  
COMPTE RENDU DE LA R ÉUNION  
Addendum  
Président : S.E.  M. Juan Carlos Gonzalez (Colombie)  
Le présent document contient les questions écrites communiquées à l'avance par les 
Membres de l'OMC, leurs questions additionnelles, et les réponses  fournies par  Union européenne .1 
 
 
Órgano de Examen de las Políticas Comerci ales 
5 y 7 de julio de 2017  
EXAMEN DE LAS POLÍTI CAS COMERCIALES  
LA UNIÓN EUROPEA  
ACTA DE LA REUNIÓN  
Addendum  
Presidente: Excmo.  Sr. Juan Carlos Gonzalez (Colombia)  
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  Unión 
Europea .1 
  
                                                
1 In English and Spanish only./En anglais et espagnol seulement ./En inglés y español  solamente . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTI ONS FROM COLOMBIA  
 
INFORME DE LA SECRETARIA WT/TPR/S/357  
 
2. REGÍMENES DE COMERCIO E INVERSIÓN  
 
En la página 36 el numeral 2.15 señala que. “El principal objetivo de la política comercial de la UE 
es intensificar los esfuerzos para reducir los obstáculos no arancelarios y ampliar el comercio de 
servicios. La tecnología ha facilitado el suministro transfronterizo de servicios. Las a ctividades de 
fabricación también dependen en gran medida de todo tipo de servicios, como la formación, el 
transporte, la logística, los seguros y las telecomunicaciones. La UE subraya la importancia de 
hacer más hincapié en la necesidad de movilidad (por ejemplo, de expertos para instalar o 
mantener los bienes exportados, altos directivos y otros proveedores de servicios) y de 
reconocimiento mutuo de los títulos de aptitud profesional.”  
 
1. ¿Tiene la Unión Europea una agenda proactiva para la negociación d e nuevos acuerdos de 
reconocimiento mutuo de los títulos de aptitud profesional con terceros países? ¿Cuántos ARM de 
títulos de aptitud profesional están bajo negociación? y ¿cuántos en vigor?  
 
EU reply:  Inside the EU Single Market, professionals can move  based on EU rules regarding the 
recognition of professional qualifications. The legal basis is the Directive 2005/36/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional qualifications (O.J. L 
255, 30.09.2005, p.22) . This sy stem is built on the trust EU Member States have in each other's 
national education and training systems.  
 
In relation to third countries, the EU encourages recognition of professional qualifications through 
its bilateral FTAs. Bilateral FTAs between the EU and third country partners generally include a set 
of provisions outlining a framework for the future negotiations of Mutual Recognition Agreements 
(MRAs) in the individual professions. First step towards such negotiations is a joint 
recommendation by t he relevant authorities or professional associations for the MRA in their 
profession to the Joint Committee established by the Agreement. The EU is pleased, that joint 
recommendations for proposed MRAs are considered or are in preparation by the relevant 
authorities or professional associations in the context of several FTAs. None of the MRA 
negotiations in the context of the FTAs have been concluded to date.  
 
2.2 Objetivos de la política comercial  
 
En la página 36, numeral 2.16 se señala que  “Además, la U E quiere incorporar a sus acuerdos 
comerciales más amplios normas de inversión, incluidas disposiciones en materia de liberalización 
y protección. Antes de la entrada en vigor del Tratado de Lisboa, los acuerdos de protección de las 
inversiones eran negoci ados exclusivamente por los Estados miembros de la UE. Uno de los retos 
importantes a los que se enfrenta la política de inversión reformada de la UE es garantizar que los 
procedimientos de solución de diferencias sean justos e imparciales. Con ese fin se está aplicando 
un nuevo enfoque que aclara el contenido de las normas y reformas en materia de protección de 
las inversiones con respecto al sistema tradicional de solución de diferencias entre los inversores y 
los Estados, tal como reflejan los ALC recien temente concertados con el Canadá y Viet Nam.”  
 
2. Podría informar la UE, cuál es el nuevo enfoque sobre las normas y reformas en materia de 
protección de las inversiones, qué normas han sido modificadas y cuáles fueron negociadas en 
acuerdos comerciales r ecientes como e l de Canadá y Viet Nam?  
 
EU reply:  The so -called "new approach" to reforming EU investment protection standards has 
focused on ensuring that the goal of protecting and encouraging investment does not compromise 
the ability of the EU and its Member States to continue to pursue public policy objectives. With 
Canada and in other recent trade and investment agreements, the EU has made clear in  the 
preamble of each agreement that it preserves the right to regulate in order to achieve legitimate 
policy objectives.  
 
Secondly, the EU has defined key concepts like “fair and equitable treatment” and “indirect 
expropriation”, in order to prevent abus e. The EU therefore clarifies the content of "Fair and 
equitable treatment" through a precisely worded and closed text which is intended to remove the 
discretion available to arbitrators to interpret this standard in a manner which is not intended by WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  the Parties to the agreement. The EU has also given governments, not arbitrators, ultimate control 
over the interpretation of the rules. Under recent agreements, the EU and its trading partners can 
issue binding interpretations on how the provisions should be i nterpreted, and a Tribunal is obliged 
to respect those interpretations. These binding interpretations can also be made with respect to 
on-going cases.  
 
Finally, detailed language has been agreed upon to clarify what constitutes indirect expropriation, 
in a manner which excludes claims being brought against legitimate policy measures.  
 
2.3 Acuerdos y arreglos comerciales  
 
En la página 38, numeral 2.31 se plantea que: “La UE también ha iniciado negociaciones para la 
conclusión de acuerdos bilaterales de inv ersión independientes con China y Myanmar. Las 
negociaciones para un acuerdo de inversión global entre la UE y China tienen por objeto sustituir 
los 27 convenios bilaterales de inversión existentes entre los distintos Estados miembros de la UE 
y China por un acuerdo de inversión global”. De igual forma, el numeral 2.44 dice que “El 9 de 
enero de 2013 entr ó en vigor el Reglamento (UE) No.  1219/2012, que estableció disposiciones 
transitorias para mantener en vigor los CBI existentes de los Estados miembros ha sta que tenga 
lugar esa sustitución. Este Reglamento también permite que la Comisión autorice a los Estados 
miembros a negociar con terceros países a fin de modificar o concluir un CBI en determinadas 
condiciones…”  
 
3. Significa lo anterior que los BIT ex istentes se renegociarán y se hará uno sólo que cobije a 
todos los Estados miembros? Cómo se hará esto dado que existen diferencias en cada BIT 
negociado o por negociar y sería prioritario otorgar jerarquías a los nuevos BIT o a los que 
renegocie la UE con  los diferentes países del mundo.  
 
EU reply : 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 are replaced by EU agreements. Given that 
there are approximately 1400 of these existing BITs, the replacement process will be a gradua l 
process that takes place over time. Hence, Regulation No 1219/2012 grants legal security to the 
existing BITs 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 once the EU agreement with the same countries enters into force.  
 
4. En igual sentido, la Unión Europea también renegociará los convenios bilaterales de inversión ya 
en vigor con otros países como Colombia, tales como los efectuados con el Reino Unido o España, 
entre otros?  
 
EU reply : As previously mentioned, the replacement of existing BITs between EU Member States 
and third countries is a gradual process. It is certainly the ultimate goal to  eventually replace 
existing EU Member States' BITs with EU agreements. Given that investment protection is now a 
fundamental component of EU negotiations dealing with investment, the replacement of certain 
BITs has to take into account the trade and inves tment priorities of the EU, as well as priority 
interests in relation to investment.  
 
5. En el caso de los Estados Miembros que se encuentran negociando CBI en virtud de 
autorizaciones concedidas por la Comisión al efecto, y en materia del mecanismo de sol ución de 
controversias inversionista -Estado específicamente, ¿están dichos Estados Miembros incluyendo 
como propuesta la inclusión de un tribunal arbitral permanente en línea con la nueva política 
europea?  
 
EU reply : In their negotiations with third countr ies, EU Member States propose ISDS provisions 
which contain certain key elements of the EU approach, including transparency, a binding code of 
conduct for arbitrators, references to the future multilateral court and/or an appellate mechanism. 
Currently it is a policy choice to be made by the individual EU Member State as to whether to 
include provisions on standing arbitral tribunal in their BITs.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 4 - 
 
  3. POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES  
 
3.1.1 Procedimientos y requisitos aduaneros  
 
El numeral 3.10 indica que  “El CAU establece el derecho de recurso contra cualquier decisión 
adoptada por las autoridades aduaneras de los Estados miembros. Hay dos niveles de recurso, 
primero ante las autoridades aduaneras o ante una autoridad judicial; y, a continuación, ante un 
órgano superior independiente. Los órganos que existen concretamente dependen de las 
disposiciones específicas en vigor en cada Estado miembro. Los recursos deben interponerse en el 
Estado miembro en que se haya adoptado o solicitado la decisión. No se dis pone de información 
sobre el número de recursos, ya que los Estados miembros no tienen obligación de facilitar tal 
información”.  
 
6. De acuerdo al numeral 3.10 hay dos niveles de recurso, ante las autoridades aduaneras o ante 
una autoridad judicial; y, a c ontinuación, ante un órgano superior independiente. En estas 
instancias la normativa de la UE requiere el establecimiento en cada Estado Miembros de 
Tribunales Aduaneros Especializados a los cuales puedan acudir los operadores de comercio 
exterior cuando n o están de acuerdo con las determinaciones de la autoridades aduaneras?  
 
EU reply : EU legislation does not require Member States to establish Specialized Customs Courts 
for the appeals of foreign trade operators. Article 44(2)(b) UCC requires that operato rs must be 
able to appeal the decisions of the customs authorities in front of at least two instances: first, the 
customs authorities or a judicial body and, second, an independent higher body.  
 
However, each Member State may decide, in accordance with it s own rules and internal judicial or 
administrative organisation, whether this higher body is a judicial authority or an equivalent 
specialised body.  
 
7. Cuando una determinación en un Estado Miembro no es favorable para un operador de comercio 
exterior, e xiste alguna instancia ante la Comisión Europea?  
 
EU reply : No, foreign trade operators cannot appeal the decisions of the Member States customs 
authorities in front of the European Commission because the European Commission is not 
responsible for applying  the customs legislation, Member States are.  
 
The role of the European Commission is limited to supervising that Member States comply with the 
customs legislation. In order to facilitate this role, operators, or in general any citizen, can file a 
complaint with the European Commission if they are of the opinion that a Member State has 
breached the customs legislation. This breach, however, cannot concern a particular case 
(application of a customs rule to a specific case) but must be a general or s ystematic 
misapplication/ignorance of the rules. After analysing the complaint, the Commission might decide 
to start an infringement procedure against the Member State in question under Article 258 TFEU. 
However, the goal of that procedure would be that th e Member State complies with the legislation. 
The infringement procedure started by the European Commission would not have direct effect on 
the individual case of the operator.  
 
8. ¿Qué medidas está considerando la UE expedir para mejorar el funcionamiento  de las aduanas 
en la UE, lograr cierto nivel de estandarización, mejorar los problemas de transparencia en la 
gestión aduanera e imponer claras obligaciones al respecto en cabeza de los Estados Miembros?  
 
EU reply:  The EU is aware of the importance of a uniform application of the customs rules for 
foreign trade operators and for economic operators in general. It is of the opinion that the new 
customs rules (UCC) are contributing to this by further standardising and automating the customs 
processes, so tha t there is less room for divergent interpretations.  
 
In addition, the European Commission continues to work with its Member States and trade 
stakeholders to strengthen its long -standing practice of issuing guidance documents on the 
application of the custo ms rules.  
 
3.1.1.1.1 Resoluciones anticipadas, a saber, información arancelaria vinculante (IAV)/información 
vinculante en materia de origen (IVO) . 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Se menciona en el numeral 3.16  que “En cuanto a las decisiones IVO, el principal cambio ha sido 
que la decisión es ahora vinculante para el titular de la decisión, respecto de las autoridades 
aduaneras de la UE. Los detalles pertinentes de las decisiones IVO se comunican a la Comisión 
Europea de forma trimestral, y se reúnen en un archivo que se pone a cont inuación a disposición 
de todas las autoridades aduaneras de la UE.”  
 
9. De acuerdo a lo establecido en el párrafo 3.16 en cuanto a las decisiones IVO, el principal 
cambio ha sido que la decisión es ahora vinculante para el titular de la decisión, respecto  de las 
autoridades aduaneras de la UE. Estas IVO también se expiden en materia de origen no 
preferencial? O existe algún procedimiento especial en estos casos?  
 
EU reply:  The BOI decisions (advance rulings on the determination of origin) are also issued for 
non-preferential origin. The procedure to apply for a BOI decision for non -preferential purposes is 
the same, in some EU member states however BOI decisions for non -preferential purposes are 
issued by a different authority. The authorities are publishe d in the C -series of the Official Journal. 
Please see the link for the latest publication http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1496760872815&uri=CELEX:52017XC0128(05)  
 
3.1.3 Normas de Origen   
Establece el numeral 3.28 que “en cuanto a las nor mas preferenciales, con la adopción del CAU se 
han introducido menos modificaciones. Principalmente, se han aclarado las normas. En el Acto 
Delegado y el Acto de Ejecución del CAU se establecen las normas de origen para el SPG y para las 
medidas comerciale s autónomas. Las normas de origen preferenciales siguen siendo las 
establecidas en los acuerdos concretos”.  
 
10. En el numeral 3.28 se indica que las normas de origen preferenciales siguen siendo las 
establecidas en los acuerdos concretos. Una clausula usu al en los acuerdo comerciales establecidos 
por la UE es la emisión de certificados de circulación de mercancías EUR.1 con base en una prueba 
de origen emitida o elaborada previamente. Como controla la UE la reexpedición de los certificados 
de origen EUR.1 con el fin de garantizar su uso adecuado y trazabilidad?  Qué tan frecuente es esta 
práctica?  
 
EU reply : The rules on replacement proofs of origin are contained in Article 69 of the 
Implementing Act (Commission Implementing Regulation No 2015/2447). One of  the options is for 
the Member State of arrival of the goods to issue a replacement EUR.1 certificate for onward 
movement of goods under preference to another Member State. The issuing Member State details 
are available on the EUR.1 certificate and contact  can be made between customs authorities if 
checks are needed. The European Commission does not collect data about number of replacement 
certificates issued.  
 
En el párrafo 3.37 se señalar “Los aranceles no ad valorem representan alrededor del 11% de las 
líneas arancelarias y comprenden tipos específicos, combinados, mixtos y otras formas complejas. 
Pueden resultar engorrosos, ya que es posible que no se puedan calcular los equivalentes ad 
valorem y que sea complicado determinar la repercusión de los derech os.”  
 
11. La compleja arquitectura de las líneas arancelarias que representan dicho 11%, en particular 
aquellas del universo agrícola (en especial productos de temporada o productos compuestos con 
azúcar o leche) dificulta el cálculo de su impacto en los derecho s aduaneros, ¿existen planes en un 
futuro próximo para realizar una reforma tendiente a homogenizar y aplanar dicho aranceles?  
 
EU reply:  The EU's import regime for agricultural products, including the composition grid 
(Meursing table), is fully transparent and predictable and is contained in the EU's WTO schedule, 
as 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 to the bound tariffs in the 
schedule will result from successful multilateral negotiations. In the meantime, the EU will continue 
to respect its WTO commitments. Moreover, the E U has concluded and continues to negotiate 
ambitious FTA agreements to reduce agricultural tariffs in bilateral trade.  
 
Con respecto a lo expuesto en los párrafos 3.98 y 3.992; Favor explicar en mayor detalle:  
                                                
2 3.98. According to the Commission, around 25% of waste shipments sent from the EU to developing 
countries in Africa and Asia may be thought to contravene international regulations.97 the amendment to the WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 6 - 
 
  12. ¿Qué medidas de control e inspección en p uertos está tomando la UE para evitar la 
exportación de desecho a países?;  
 
EU reply : The Waste Shipment Regulation 1013/2006/EC includes requirements for inspections of 
waste shipments, which can be applied when inspections are made in ports, on roads or  at "up -
stream facilities" where waste is collected, sorted or stored (Article 50). The inspectors may 
reverse the burden of proof on the exporter by requiring certain documentary evidence, e.g. to 
demonstrate that the item shipped is a product and not was te and therefore fall outside the scope 
of the requirements of the regulation or is destined to a recovery facility which will ensure the 
environmentally sound management of the waste as required by Article 49 of the regulation. EU 
Member States are also r equired to draw up inspection plans based on a risk assessment covering 
specific waste streams and sources of illegal shipments and considering intelligence -based data 
such as data on investigations by police and customs authorities and analyses of crimina l 
activities. Furthermore, shipments of non -hazardous waste to non -OECD countries are subject to 
Regulation 1418/2007.  Under this legislation the export of non -hazardous waste is regulated so as 
to be consistent with any restrictions on imports of categori es of such waste in the destination 
country, based on information provided by that country.  
 
13. ¿Qué medidas domésticas considera emitir para alentar mejores prácticas de disposición de 
desechos electrónicos y otros desechos al interior de los Estados Mie mbros, incluyendo sanciones 
pecuniarias o penales?  
 
EU reply : The Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment 2012/19 (WEEE Directive) 
includes requirements for the separate collection of WEEE in the form of e.g. setting up systems 
allowing consumers to return WEEE free of charge; proper treatment of WEEE; recovery and 
recycling  targets; and shipments of WEEE. See  
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/legis_en.htm  
 
14. ¿Está considerando la UE incluir disposiciones en sus acuerdos comerciales que empoderen a 
los países destino de dichas exportaciones para investigar y sancionar a exportadores europeos?  
 
EU reply : Trade agreements can provide a general framework for dialogue and cooperation on 
trade -related environmental issues, including in the area of sound management of chemicals and 
waste. However, controls and penalties in the country of destination are a matter for that country's 
national law and the EU is not c onsidering the inclusion of provisions of the type mentioned in the 
question.  
 
3.3   Medidas que afectan a la producción y al comercio  
3.3.2  Medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias (Págs. 86 -92) 
 
Entre 2015 y 2016 la UE presentó 107 notificaciones al Comité MSF de la OMC, de las cuales 47 
eran adiciones, 8 medidas de urgencia, una notificación suplementaria y el resto notificaciones 
ordinarias.  
 
Durante este período los Miembros de la OMC plantear on al Comité MSF dos preocupaciones 
comerciales específicas relacionadas con medidas adoptadas en la UE o en un Estado miembro 
(modificación del Reglamento (CE) Nº 1829/2003 - limitación o prohibición del uso de alimentos y 
piensos modificados genéticament e y restricciones a las exportaciones de carne de porcino 
procedentes del Estado de Santa Catarina y así mismo abordaron ocho preocupaciones planteadas 
con anterioridad, entre éstas la propuesta de la UE para la clasificación de compuestos como 
perturbador es endocrinos (ID 382).  
 
Señala el párrafo 3.147 que “Según la Comisión, las MSF adoptadas en la UE normalmente se 
basan en normas internacionales o, a veces -por ejemplo en caso de ausencia de medidas 
internacionales -, en los dictámenes científicos de la EFSA.139”  
                                                                                                                                                  
waste shipment regulation (WSR) introduced through Regulat ion (EU) No. 660/2014 required member States 
to establish inspection plans for waste shipments by 1 January 2017. These inspections plans shall include a 
minimum set of elements and shall  be based on a risk assessment.  
3.99. According to data from 2012, ar ound 400,000 tonnes of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment 
(WEEE) could be illegally exported out of the EU annually.98 When waste arrives illegally at a destination 
country, that waste is often dumped or mismanaged in a way that causes serious negat ive impacts on human 
health and the environment.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 7 - 
 
  15. ¿Puede indicar la UE aquellos casos en que medidas europeas se han apartado de normas 
internacionales o de los dictámenes científicos de EFSA?  
 
EU reply : European Union measures are adopted in accordance with the principles of risk analysis.  
As a consequence, risk assessment is carried out independently from risk management. As the 
EU's risk assessor, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is an independent source of 
scientific advice and communication on risks associated with the food cha in. The risk managers 
(European Commission, the European Parliament and the EU Member States), acting on the basis 
of EFSA's risk assessments adopt the risk management decisions.  
 
Thanks to EFSA’s independence and broad remit – which covers food and feed safety, nutrition, 
animal health and welfare, plant protection and plant health – the EU risk managers have solid 
scientific advice on the basis of which to determine its chosen level of protection. It is also on this 
basis that the EU establishes its cont ribution to the standard -setting process at international level.  
 
As stated in the Secretariat report, EU measures are generally based on the relevant international 
standards. Where there are no such standards, the EU relies on scientific advice provided b y the 
EFSA. In accordance with Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement, the EU also relies on EFSA's scientific 
advice when it differ s from international standards.  
 
Any measures that are taken on the basis of EFSA's risk assessments, are not more trade 
restricti ve than necessary and are applied in a non -discriminatory manner both to intra -EU trade 
as well as to imports from third countries. The EU fully supports the activities of the international 
standard setting bodies, notably the OIE/CODEX/IPPC, and works ass iduously in the three sisters 
to help reach the objective of providing a comprehensive framework of standards at an 
international level.  
 
Señala el párrafo 3.161. “El Sistema de Alerta Rápida para los Productos Alimenticios y los 
Alimentos para Animales (R ASFF) permite a las autoridades de control de los alimentos y los 
piensos de los Estados miembros y de la Comisión intercambiar 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.152 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).”  
 
16. La UE puede proporcionar mayores detalles sobre la oportunidad y términos para que las 
autoridades sanitarias de los países exportadores del prod ucto afectado por un aviso RASSF 
reaccionen y provean explicaciones y/o medidas correctivas.  
 
EU reply:  It is already possible for contact points and authorities of non -EU countries to react to a 
RASFF notification sent by e -mail. This can be done by a sim ple reply e -mail, or by using online 
the "feedback" section of the "RASFF Window". Information can for instance be submitted about 
actions taken, or about the outcome of an investigation in relation to a notification received. Any 
relevant feedback to a no tification is transmitted by the Commission's contact point through the 
network as follow -up to the notification, and becomes accessible to all members of the network.  
 
The above possibility is already explained in the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to the 
RASFF ( https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/rasff_reg -guid_sops_01 -05_en.pdf ), 
in particular in SOP 6 point 6, page  34 of the document. The European Commission is willing to 
extend this document to provide more information to non -EU countries about the specificities of 
providing feedback in the RASFF.  
 
17.¿La UE tiene algún plan para establecer con claridad dichos proc edimientos de manera que 
tales países puedan ejercer su derecho al debido proceso de manera adecuada?  
 
EU reply : The European Commission considers cooperation with non -EU countries on rapid alerts 
very important and wishes to promote and improve such coop eration. It has done so already by 
establishing single contact points for the RASFF in non -EU countries, by providing support through 
the Better Training for Safer Food programme and through close collaboration with the 
International Food Safety Authoritie s network (INFOSAN), operated by the WHO. As suggested in 
the answer to question 16, the Commission's RASFF contact point is ready to update, if needed, WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 8 - 
 
  the RASFF Standard Operating procedures to provide more details on how the collaboration with 
non-EU co untries works in practice.  
 
Preocupaciones de Colombia relacionadas con nuevas medidas en materia MSF a ser adoptadas 
por la Comisión Europea:  
 
Dos preocupaciones comerciales específicas están relacionadas con las siguientes medidas 
notificadas a la OMC:  
 
1. Establecimiento de criterios para la definición de “disruptores endocrinos ”. 
 
La Comisión Europea realizará en muy corto plazo la votación para establecer criterios para 
identificar y regular los desórdenes endocrinos bajo el Reglamento de Productos Fit osanitarios y el 
Reglamento de Productos Biocidas.  
 
Colombia apoya los objetivos de protección de la salud pública de los consumidores y el bienestar 
del medio ambiente. No obstante, nos preocupan las medidas que se están considerando para 
alcanzar estos objetivos y, en particular, que la Comisión considere un enfoque basado en el 
peligro para establecer los criterios para identificar y regular los desórdenes endocrinos, en lugar 
de un enfoque científico y basado en el riesgo.  
 
Si bien el Acuerdo MSF de la OMC establece que los Miembros pueden adoptar las medidas 
requeridas para proteger la vida o la salud humana, animal o vegetal, también requiere que 
garanticen que las mismas no constituyan una restricción injustificada del comercio, se basen en 
princip ios científicos, no se mantengan sin pruebas científicas suficientes y se basen en una 
evaluación, según las circunstancias de riesgo para la salud o la vida de las personas, los animales 
o los vegetales.  
 
Un enfoque basado en el peligro para establecer lo s criterios para identificar y regular los 
desórdenes endocrinos omitiría elementos críticos del proceso de análisis de riesgo, como una 
evaluación de la exposición, que conduciría a la toma de decisiones reglamentarias sobre la base 
de conocimientos cient íficos incompletos o insuficientes. También contradice las conclusiones de la 
Autoridad Europea de Seguridad Alimentaria, en las que se señala que no hay nada exclusivo de 
los “disruptores endocrinos” que impida un enfoque basado en el riesgo.  
 
Las consecu encias adversas de un enfoque basado en el peligro para regular los desórdenes 
endocrinos serían significativas. Los productos fitosanitarios claves podrían ser retirados del uso 
aunque no existan pruebas científicas de que tengan un impacto adverso en la salud o el medio 
ambiente.  
 
Por lo tanto, como lo hemos manifestado anteriormente, es muy preocupante que la Comisión esté 
considerando un enfoque basado en el peligro, que perjudicaría su propia economía y la de sus 
socios comerciales, incluidos los país es en desarrollo, sin garantías de mejorar la salud pública ni 
la protección del medio ambiente.  
 
18. Favor explicar el estado actual del expediente de Perturbadores Endocrinos, y comentar sobre 
la importancia que le otorga la Unión Europea al respeto de s u obligación de regular la materia a 
partir de un enfoque de ‘evaluación de riesgo’ y no de ‘evaluación de la peligrosidad’, de 
conformidad con los preceptos del Acuerdo MSF.  
 
EU reply : Following the publication of the draft legal acts setting criteria to  identify endocrine 
disruptors in the context of the Plant Protection Products and Biocidal Products legislation in June 
2016, several consultation processes (EU Member States and experts, stakeholders, non -EU 
countries) took place.  
 
The notified draft act s are undergoing their planned legal procedures. The draft acts under the 
plant protection products legislation need to be voted on by EU Member States. In case of a vote 
in favour of the texts, the European Parliament and the Council have the right of scr utiny and the 
acts will eventually be adopted by the Commission if there are no objections from the European 
Parliament and/or Council.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 9 - 
 
  The draft act under the biocidal products legislation is being discussed in an expert group 
appointed by Member States and will be adopted by the Commission after this consultation with 
experts. The adopted act will then be notified to the European Parliament and to the Council for 
their scrutiny. The act will enter into force if there are no objections from the Parliament  and/or 
Council.  
 
During the on -going decision making, the Commission revised the draft acts to address the 
comments received. The revised criteria clarify the burden of proof and the scope of the criteria. 
No substantial change was introduced compared to the notifications submitted to the TBT and/or 
SPS Committee and this is the reason why the EU believes that there was no need to re -notify the 
draft acts.  
 
Moreover, the revised versions of the criteria are published on the Commission's website 
(http://ec.europa.eu/health/endocrine_disruptors/next_steps_en .), together with the minutes of 
the meetings with EU Member States and experts, ensuring the transparency of the process.  
 
The last meeting with EU Member States in the pesticides area took place on 30 May 2017 and in 
the biocides area on 7 April 2017.  
 
At the last meeting with Member States in the pesticides area, no vote on the criteria was taken as 
Member States needed additi onal time to establish their position and consult internally. A new 
meeting with Member States will be organised in the near future.  
 
In order to facilitate the decision -making, in December 2016, the plant protection products act has 
been split into two ac ts without change in content: one text containing the criteria and another one 
containing the technical amendment to the clause on negligible exposure. This offers EU Member 
States the possibility to express their opinion on each of them separately. This s plit also allows the 
Council and European Parliament to consider each draft act separately during the scrutiny period.  
 
The current discussions are focusing on the criteria. However, the Commission has committed 
itself to resume discussions on the amendmen t to the clause on negligible exposure once the 
criteria are adopted. This proposed amendment allows information on hazard, exposure and risk to 
be considered before a decision is taken on a given substance and is expected to lead to more 
certainty in term s of setting MRLs.  
 
19. Sin perjuicio de lo anterior Colombia solicita, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el Acuerdo 
MSF-OMC, que los criterios que sean aprobados por la Comisión para identificar los “disruptores 
endocrinos” se basen en pruebas científicas y evaluaciones del  riesgo que consideren la exposición 
real y los niveles de dosificación de los productos fitosanitarios. Este enfoque dará los mejores 
resultados en los objetivos de salud pública y de medio ambiente, evitando al mismo tiempo 
efectos comerciales y económic os innecesarios.  
 
EU reply : The European Union is aware of the potential trade and agricultural impacts the 
proposed criteria might have. Those potential impacts were analysed in the impact assessment 
report that was published on 15 June 2016  
(http://ec.europa.eu/health/endocrine_disruptors/impact_assessment_en ).This impact assessment 
also informs which active substances would be potentially identified under the d raft scientific 
criteria, and which are currently identified by the interim criteria legally applicable at the moment. 
The criteria that are proposed in both draft legal acts ensure a high level of protection of human 
health and the environment, are based on science, and are proportionate: the proposed criteria 
are based on the internationally agreed WHO definition of endocrine disruptors (EDs) which is 
widely supported by governments, scientists and stakeholders. They identify only EDs (neither 
suspected E Ds, nor endocrine active substances). The proposed criteria do not include potency 
(option 4 of the impact assessment), as this is an element of hazard characterisation and should 
not be considered at the hazard identification stage of EDs.  
 
In addition, t he proposed amendment to the clause on negligible exposure in the context of the 
plant protection products legislation allows information on hazard, exposure and risk to be 
considered before a decision is taken on a given substance and is expected to lead to more 
certainty in terms of setting MRLs.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 10 - 
 
  The Commission has committed itself to resume discussions with Member States on the 
amendment to the clause on negligible exposure once the criteria are adopted.  
 
2. Modificación de los anexos de la Directiva fi tosanitaria de la UE (Directiva del Consejo 
2000/29/CE)   
 
En esta modificación se enumeran los organismos nocivos reglamentados (plagas vegetales de 
cuarentena) y los anexos en los que se establecen disposiciones para la introducción y circulación 
en la Un ión de vegetales, productos de origen vegetal y otros objetos.  
 
Esta nueva medida puede tener un impacto potencial en las exportaciones de productos agrícolas 
colombianos  que actualmente cuentan con admisibilidad sanitaria en el mercado de la UE (frutas, 
hortalizas, flores y otros).  
 
20. Colombia solicita de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el Acuerdo MSF -OMC, que la modificación 
de los mencionados anexos de la Directiva del Consejo 2000/29/CE se base en pruebas científicas, 
en evaluaciones del riesgo y en g eneral no se constituyan en una barrera injustificada al comercio.  
 
EU reply:  The EU hereby confirms that the last amendments of the annexes of Directive 
2000/29/EC are technically justified and are based on scientific information. The EU’s objective is 
to protect the EU territory against new phytosanitary threats through measures which are 
proportionate to the threats and do not constitute an unjustified trade barrier.  
 
Empresas de Comercialización del estado a la luz del Articulo XVII del GATT  
 
Señala el párrafo 3.227: “También se han presentado informes sobre la reforma de las em presas 
de propiedad estatal en la UE, durante los últimos 15 años, en particular la disminución del control 
directo del Estado, la mejora del gobierno corporativo y la modificación del marco jurídico en el 
que operan. Muchas de estas mejoras pueden atribui rse a la adhesión a las Directrices de la OCDE. 
En particular, ha habido mejoras de la transparencia en Italia; de la separación entre propiedad y 
facultades reglamentarias en Lituania; de la selección de los consejos de supervisión en Croacia; y 
de las mo dalidades de presentación de informes en diversos Estados miembros.208 También 
existe una Directiva de la Comisión relativa a la transparencia de las relaciones financieras entre 
los Estados miembros y las empresas públicas para asegurar la transparencia d e los fondos 
públicos asignados a estas empresas.209 A pesar de que esta Directiva establece que la 
información debe comunicarse a la Comisión, los datos no estaban disponibles.”  
 
Adicionalmente el párrafo 3.223 se refiere a empresas de los Estados miembr os de la UE que 
tienen privilegios exclusivos y sobre las cuales la UE admite que “estas son empresas de comercio 
del estado de conformidad con el artículo XVII -del GATT - y ha indicado que las notificará a la OMC 
en un futuro.  
 
21. De las obligaciones de scritas en los párrafos precedentes, la UE podría explicar que planes, 
programas o medidas ha adoptado o piensa adoptar con miras a honrar los compromisos 
mencionados.  
 
EU reply:  the EU has already notified both Alko inc. and the British Wool Marketing Bo ard on 20 
April 2017 as circulated by document "G/STR/N/16/EU/Add.1". This notification was on the agenda 
of the last meeting of the Working Party on STEs held on 9 May 2017. Colombia could refer to this 
notification for further information on these two ST Es. 
 
Compras Publicas  
 
Señala el párrafo 3.239. Varios factores pueden explicar el reducido porcentaje de contratación 
pública publicado en el TED, por ejemplo, el pequeño valor de los contratos individuales y los 
diversos grados de centralización de los Estados miembros: la may oría de los poderes 
adjudicadores más pequeños tal vez no tengan nunca que realizar adquisiciones lo suficientemente 
importantes para entrar dentro del ámbito 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 publiquen en el Diario Oficial las invitaciones a licitar, porque la contratación tiende también a 
estar centralizada. La Comisión ha señalado además que los Estados miembros no están obligados 
a publicar  en el TED los contratos de un valor inferior al valor de umbral, y la práctica varía entre WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 11 - 
 
  los Estados miembros. En algunos Estados miembros, las entidades adjudicadoras publican los 
contratos de un valor inferior al umbral, mientras que en otros solo pub lican los contratos de un 
valor superior al umbral.  
 
22. Teniendo en cuenta la importancia de la transparencia como valor esencial de la política 
europea “Comercio para Todos”, y que actualmente según el informe de la Secretaría (párrafo 
3.238) sólo el 17 % de las contrataciones públicas se publican en el TED, ¿ está la UE considerando 
tomar alguna medida para aumentar el porcentaje de contrataciones publicadas en el sistema 
TED? En ca so afirmativo, ¿cuáles medidas?  
 
EU reply:  The EU Member States shall pub lish in TED all contracts with a total value above the 
GPA thresholds. The figure of 17 % mentioned in the secretariat report reflect the proportion of 
contracts published in TED over the total general government expenditures for goods, works an 
services f or all level of government which include expenditure which may not be classified as 
public procurement, for example, the costs of health care and medical products reimbursed 
through statutory health insurance funds or by government. The contracting authori ty may also 
publish below thresholds contract in TED on a voluntary basis.   
 
3.3.8 Derechos de propiedad intelectual  
3.3.8.2 Propiedad industrial  
3.3.8.2.5 Indicaciones geográficas  
 
En el numeral 3.256 se menciona que “la Comisión, en la Comunicación sobre  una Estrategia para 
el Mercado Único Digital de Europa, de 6 de mayo de 2015236, anunciaba iniciativas legislativas 
para armonizar más las legislaciones nacionales sobre derecho de autor y las excepciones 
correspondientes, para preparar el camino hacia un a ampliación para los usuarios de toda la UE 
del acceso en línea a obras, y para modernizar el régimen de observancia de los DPI. También 
pedía a los socios comerciales de la UE que velaran por que se respetaran efectivamente los DPI. 
La Comisión, en una C omunicación relativa a la mejora del mercado único (Estrategia para el 
Mercado Único), de 28 de octubre de 2015237, identificaba nuevas medidas para seguir 
consolidando el marco para los DPI en la UE.  
 
Entre estas medidas se incluye el apoyo a la utilizaci ón por las pymes de la propiedad intelectual. 
En noviembre de 2016, por ejemplo, se aprobó una iniciativa sobre las empresas emergentes y en 
expansión238, en la que se plantean medidas de política en apoyo al acceso y a la utilización de la 
propiedad intel ectual por las pymes en Europa…”  
 
23. Nos gustaría conocer más a fondo el desarrollo de la iniciativa denominada  Start-Up and Scale -
up, mediante la cual se proponen acciones de política para apoyar el acceso y la utilización de la 
propiedad inte lectual por  las PYME en Europa.  
 
EU reply:  The Start -up and Scale -up Communication announces the following measures: a) 
streamlining awareness on existing IP Support schemes for SMEs; b) developing an EU IP 
mediation and arbitration network for SMEs; c) encouraging t he creation of European -level 
insurance schemes for litigation and IP theft; d) improving coordination of IP support funding 
schemes, possibly by including guidance to Member States.  
 
Concerning measure a) the EU intends to work with Member States on the b usiness support 
initiatives to ensure they have coherent messages to SMEs on Intellectual Property. This will 
require coordination at EU and at Member State level of such support activities. A similar effort 
may be put into continuous development of common  training materials and a common information 
portal.  
 
Concerning measure b) the EU will work to ensure that existing and future IP mediation and 
arbitration services are more easily available to SMEs either on -line or through better contacts with 
proximity  services to SMEs. The EU is now mapping the existing services.  
 
Concerning measure c) the EU intends to stimulate the development of a market for IP litigation 
insurance. These services would be available to all firms, but special attention will be paid to SMEs. 
The entry into force of the Unitary Patent crates the potential of economies of scale that can allow 
making these insurance products affordable to SMEs. The EU is now mapping the existing services.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Concerning measure d) the EU wishes to check how  various business support schemes, including 
research and innovation funds allow paying for IP services. The aim of the measure is to improve 
the links between business support and IP services to encourage SMEs to use more systematically 
such services.  
 
Señala el párrafo 3.307. “Los procedimientos para la solicitud de registro de indicaciones 
geográficas de productos originarios de la UE han sido descritos en informes anteriores.321 En 
cuanto a las indicaciones geográficas de productos no originarios de la UE, se puede obtener 
protección mediante una solicitud directa o en virtud de un ALC. En el primer caso, la solicitud 
puede enviarse directamente a la Comisión, o a través de las autoridades del país en el que esté 
situada la zona geográfica. No se aplican  tasas a las solicitudes procedentes de terceros países. En 
los dos últimos años, el tiempo medio de registro de las indicaciones geográficas de la UE y 
extranjeras fue de unos dos años.”  En vista de lo expuesto agradeceríamos a la UE explicar lo 
siguiente :  
 
24. ¿si el tiempo promedio de registro de dos años es el mismo cuando se trata de indicaciones 
geográficas europeas?, y en caso negativo, ¿cuánto es el tiempo promedio para el registro de 
indicaciones geográficas europeas?,  
 
EU reply:  The average time  for registering a geographical indication (GI) for foodstuffs, 
agricultural products, wines and spirits is two years for all applicants, whether from an EU country 
or a third country.  
 
25. ¿Cuál es la razón para que exista un trámite o tratamiento distint o de las IG de terceros países 
en el sistema europeo de registro de IG?, y  
 
EU reply : Applications from the EU and applications from third countries are treated equally.  
 
26. ¿Quiere decir eso (la diferencia en el trato) que el nivel de protección es dife rente?,  
 
EU reply:  The protection given in the EU for EU GIs and for  third country GIs is the same.  
 
27. ¿Pueden las IG de terceros países hacer uso del logo europeo de IG protegida en el empaque 
de los productos? En caso negativo, ¿cuáles son las razones  jurídicas para la diferencia en el 
trato?,  
 
EU reply:  For products originating in third countries marketed under a GI registered in the EU, the 
respective symbols (logos) associated with "protected designations of origin" or "protected 
geographical indications" may appear on the labelling.  
 
28. ¿es el registro d e IG de terceros países sin acuerdo comercial con la UE igualmente gratuito?, 
y  
 
EU reply:  This is correct, there is no fee applicable.  
 
29. ¿cuáles son las razones para que el tiempo de registro sea dos años? y ¿qué medidas está 
tomando la UE para acorta rlo?  
 
EU reply:  Under the current EU domestic legislation for GI protection, it takes on average 24 
months to register a GI. The scrutiny and registration period depends on factors such as the type 
of goods and complexity of the dossier. The registration period can also depend on whether, after 
publication of the GI name in the Official Journal, a statement of opposition is lodged. The EU has 
a continual programme of review, evaluation and improvement to achieve better and more 
efficient policy, regulation  and administration.  
 
3.3.8.2.5.1 Productos agrícolas  
 
En la página 136, numeral 3.307 se menciona que  “… En cuanto a las indicaciones geográficas de 
productos no originarios de la UE, se puede obtener protección mediante una solicitud directa o en 
virtud de un ALC. En el primer caso, la solicitud puede enviarse directamente a la Comisión, o a 
través de las  autoridades del país en el que esté situada la zona geográfica. No se aplican tasas a WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 13 - 
 
  las solicitudes procedentes de terceros países. En los dos últimos años, el tiempo medio de 
registro de las indicaciones geográficas de la UE y extranjeras fue de unos d os años”.  
 
30. Dada la importancia de las indicaciones geográficas para el comercio de la UE, quisiéramos 
saber por qué en el Acuerdo comercial con Colombia, que entró en aplicación provisional el 1° de 
agosto de 2013, nueve de nuestras indicaciones geográ ficas, aparte del Café de Colombia, llevan 
casi cuatro (4) años sin obtener protección. Esto implica que no es ni tan claro ni tan real el 
tiempo medio del procedimiento de la UE en virtud de los Acuerdos comerciales?  
 
EU reply : The Agreement between the EU, and Peru and Colombia contains a list of Geographical 
Indications which have been protected since the entry into force of the Agreement. At the time of 
the negotiations, Colombia requested one GI to be protected under the Agreement and this 
protection has been effective in the whole territory of the Union since then.  
 
The Agreement provides for the addition of further Geographical Indications to the existing list to 
be protected under the Agreement, but it should be noted that modifying the Agreement is  not the 
sole competence of the European Union but of all the Parties to the Agreement, and that the 
Agreement itself sets out the procedures to make such modifications.  
 
En la página 140, numeral 3.314. y 3.315 se plantea que “La protección de las indicac iones 
geográficas de los productos no agrícolas no está armonizada a nivel de la UE y, por consiguiente, 
sigue rigiéndose por las diferentes leyes nacionales. 15 Estados miembros de la UE cuentan con 
sistemas nacionales de denominación. Además, estas indic aciones geográficas también pueden 
estar protegidas en calidad de marcas colectivas de la UE339, así como en virtud de la legislación 
sobre competencia desleal”.  
 
“La Comisión Europea siguió explorando la posibilidad de ampliar la protección de las indicaciones 
geográficas a los productos no agrícolas en toda la UE. En su comunicación "Mejorar el mercado 
único", de 28 de octubre de 2015, se comprometió a impulsar el trabajo sobre el modo de 
aprovechar al máximo los conocimientos técnicos europeos tra dicionales”  
 
31. Cómo se pretende avanzar en las IG no agrícolas en el conjunto de los Estados miembros de la 
UE y, cuándo será posible que los terceros países presenten sus IG no agrícolas para ser 
reconocidas y protegidas por la UE?  
 
EU reply : The Commi ssion is currently finalising an Inception Impact Assessment which describes 
the different possible approaches to protect geographical indications for non -agricultural products.  
 
Once it is published, the Commission will proceed to an in -depth impact asses sment, and decide 
on next steps, including a possible proposal which may address the issue of protection at EU level 
of geographical indications for non -agricultural products originating from third countries.  
 
4 POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES  
4.1 Agri cultura  
 
El párrafo 4.3 plantea que  “En 2013 había en la UE el equivalente a 9,5 millones de puestos de 
trabajo a tiempo completo en el sector agrícola; de esa cifra, cerca de 6 millones se encuentran en 
cinco Estados miembros (Polonia, Rumania, Italia, Es paña y Francia). Las estructuras agrícolas 
variaban considerablemente entre los Estados miembros: el tamaño medio de las explotaciones 
iba de 1,2 hectáreas en Malta a 133 hectáreas en la República Checa, y la producción estándar por 
explotación variaba de 3.303 euros en Rumania a 303.765 euros en los Países Bajos”.  
 
32. Podría la UE europea determinar el porcentaje de participación en el empleo agrícola de 
población migrante en todas sus modalidades, incluyendo refugiados, y establecer cómo ha sido el 
proceso de formalización laboral de poblaciones vulnerables?  
 
EU reply:  The EU does not have information from EU Member States as to how the vulnerable 
populations were employed.  
 
 
 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 14 - 
 
  4.1.2.1 Ayuda interna  
4.1.2.1.2 Medidas de sostenimiento del mercado interior  
La página 162, numerales 4.24, 4.25 y 4.26, se enuncia la ayuda monetaria que la UE y los 
Estados miembros dan a los productores de lácteos y carne en general, a raíz de las medidas 
adoptadas por la Federación de Rusia en agosto de 2014.  
 
33. Agra decemos se nos informe cuál es la vigencia de estas medidas de sostenimiento del 
mercado interior? Cómo pueden competir los terceros países en este sector, máximo cuando el 
sector lácteos representa el 14% de la producción agrícola total? Igual en otros se ctores de carne 
vacuno, carne ovino, caprino y porcino?  
 
EU reply : All subsidies provided under the CAP, including those which are product -specific, 
respect  the EU's WTO commitments and as such, are properly notified to the WTO via DS:1 
notifications. Inde ed, in the latest DS:1 notification (2013/2014) the EU reported very limited 
product -specific support in the amber box (less than Euro 6 billion).  On September 7, 2015, the 
European Union announced a €500 million comprehensive package of measures to suppor t 
European farmers because of the Russian ban. Out of this €500 million comprehensive package, 
€420 million aid went to the dairy sector.  
 
The remaining €80 million were allocated as follows:  
 €30 million for stocks distributed as emergency food aid  
 The rem ainder under private storage schemes for dairy products and pig meat with a 
budget of:  
o €11 million for an enhanced private storage scheme for SMP;  
o €10 million for private storage for cheese;  
o €29 million for private storage for pigmeat.  
4.2.4 Políticas  
 
En los numerales 4.64, 4.65 y 4.66 el Informe plantea que “en el marco de la política pesquera 
común (PPC), la UE tiene competencia exclusiva con respecto a la conservación de los recursos 
biológicos marinos”… “la política pesquera de la UE se rige por la PPC , que establece un conjunto 
de normas para gestionar las flotas pesqueras europeas y conservar las poblaciones de peces y  
que “la última reforma de la PPC entró en vigor el 1º de enero de 2014, tras varios años de 
negociaciones. El objetivo de la reforma e s asegurar a largo plazo la sostenibilidad ecológica, 
económica y social de las actividades pesqueras y acuícolas, así como la aplicación de un enfoque 
ecosistémico a la ordenación de la pesca”.  
 
34. En el contexto de lo señalado en el Informe, podría la U E aclarar qué decisión o qué posición 
tomará respecto de las medidas de conservación del atún rojo del mediterráneo, especie que 
desde el 2007 ha sido objeto de medidas de conservación y cuotas estrictas, que llevaron a su 
aumento. Se ha conocido que debid o a los buenos resultados de las medidas, en la ICCAT 
(Comisión Internacional para la Conservación del Atún del Atlántico) se planea discutir la 
eliminación o modificación de las cuotas de captura.  
 
EU reply:  The EU is considering reviewing some of the measures of the current recovery plan, 
pending the results of the stock assessment. This depends on the scientific advice provided by 
SCRS (Standing Committee for Research and Statistics) of ICCAT in their meeti ng of October 
2017. The EU is in any case against any proposal to eliminate quotas.  
 
INFORME DE LA UNIÓN EUROPEA  
Sobre el  Informe de la UE: WT/TPR/G/357  
 
La UE refiere en los siguientes párrafos de su informe lo siguiente:  
 
1.3 The EU trade policy is grou nded in broader European values – like promoting ambitious 
climate change mitigation, protecting the environment and guaranteeing food safety and security  
as well as the protection and promotion of labour rights . In line with the EU's Global Strategy, the 
EU trade policy is consistent with its wider foreign policy objectives - that are to pursue a policy 
that benefits society as a whole - and promotes European and universal standards and values 
alongside core economic interests, putting a greater emphasis o n sustainable development, human 
rights, consumer protection, responsible and fair trade and well as fair taxation.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 15 - 
 
  1.6 The EU is pursuing a progressive trade and investment agenda, where, besides increased 
transparency and better understanding and commun ication of the gains of trade, the following 
elements are crucial: (1) making sure that benefits from trade are shared more equally; and (2) 
establishing a comprehensive, fair and effective regulatory interface between trade and investment 
and issues such as labour or environment.  
4.26 The "Trade for All" Communication has broadened and deepened the agenda in areas like 
trade and sustainable development, human rights, anti -corruption, while establishing a reformed 
approach towards investment protection.  
Supporting inclusive growth in developing countries  
4.38 The EU is the most open market for developing countries' exports and is at the forefront of 
using trade policy to promote inclusive growth and sustainable development in the poorest 
countries. For examp le the Everything But Arms (EBA) initiative, opens the EU market in full to 
Least Developed Countries, without tariffs or quotas, has been effective. Studies3 have shown the 
EBA scheme has increased the exports of products granted duty -free access to the EU to Least 
Developed Countries by up to 10%.  
1. Los países en vías de desarrollo saludamos la reciente comunicación europea en materia de 
política comercial “ Comercio para todos”.  En efecto, la misma Comisaria Cecilia Malmström su 
prólogo de presentación de dicha comunicación afirma:  
 
“It is clear Europeans want trade to deliver real economic results for consumers, workers 
and small companies. However, they als o believe open markets do not require us to 
compromise on core principles, like human rights and sustainable development around the 
world or high quality safety and environmental regulation and public services at home. 
They also want to know more about tra de negotiations carried out in their name.”  
 
“Effectiveness also means that trade policy will make sure consumers, workers and small 
companies can take full advantage of - and adapt to - more open markets. It will help 
ensure consumers have confidence in t he products they buy; that SMEs needs are 
specifically addressed in all trade agreements; and that tools like the European 
Globalization Adjustment Fund are working at full capacity.”  
 
Nos gustaría saber si en desarrollo de la nueva comunicación “Comercio para todos”, y los fines 
expresados en este informe de la UE relativos a la promoción de un crecimiento inclusivo en países 
en desarrollo, debemos entender que al propender por un “comercio para todos”, la UE también 
busca que los beneficios del comercio i nternacional sean efectivos en nuestros países y que los 
mismos se repartan de una manera igualitaria entre nuestros ciudadanos y empresas de igual 
manera que para los ciudadanos y empresas europeas?  
 
EU reply : The EU is actively promoting trade policy as  a tool to deliver inclusive growth and 
sustainable development around the world. In this engagement, the multilateral rules -based 
system which offers trading opportunities to every country is the cornerstone of EU’s policy. 
Specifically as relates to deve loping countries, the EU unilateral preference schemes “Everything 
But Arms” and GSP+ both foster economic growth in full respect of sustainable development 
considerations. Ensuring distribution of trade gains within any country is the responsibility and 
prerogative of that country’s government. The EU’s trade engagement places an emphasis on the 
state’s right to regulate in the public interest. The EU is ready to share experiences and exchange 
on best practices relating to policy measures aimed at ensuring  the benefits of globalisation reach 
all citizens with all interested partners.  
 
La UE refiere en el párrafo 4.34 de su informe:  
 
4.34 The EU is in the lead on using trade policy to promote the social and environmental pillars of 
sustainable development. This is done in a positive, incentive -based way and moving on a range of 
projects and at different levels.  
 
                                                
3 http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/153595.htm . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 16 - 
 
  2. Colombia saluda las intenciones y objetivos de la UE, intenciones y objetivos que, por demás 
Colombia, y los demás países en desarrollo compartim os y promovemos en distintos foros 
internacionales.  Nos gustaría que la UE explicara en mayor detalle, ¿cómo piensa armonizar los 
actuales y futuros reglamentos europeos en materia de responsabilidad social corporativa, 
derechos humanos, protección al medi o ambiente en las cadenas de suministro, con sus 
obligaciones internacional multilaterales, y en concreto con la jurisprudencia establecida por el 
Órgano de Apelaciones de la OMC al respecto?  
 
EU reply:  One of the EU's priorities is to ensure that its legislation respects the WTO rules and 
principles and, more in general, its multilateral obligations in the fields of environment and human 
rights. In doing so, the EU pays due attention to the drafting of its legislation from the very first 
steps of each legislative procedure. The EU also adopts the needed actions to amend its legislation 
for ensuring that its law respects the case law laid out by the WTO’s AB.  
 
En materia de la Agenda de la UE para los océ anos se expresa en el párrafo 3.52 y siguientes del 
informe lo siguiente:  
 
An EU agenda for international ocean governance  
3.52 On 10 November 20164, the European Commission and the EU's High Representative, 
Federica Mogherini, set out a joint agenda for t he future of our oceans, proposing 50 actions for 
safe, secure, clean and sustainably managed oceans in Europe and around the world.  
3.53 The Joint Communication is an integral part of the EU's response to the 2030 Agenda for 
Sustainable Development, in pa rticular to the UN's Sustainable Development Goal 14 'to conserve 
and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources'. It builds on a widely shared 
understanding that the framework for ocean governance needs to be strengthened, that pressures 
on the  oceans need to be reduced and that the world's oceans must be used sustainably.  
3.54 The Joint Communication proposes ways the EU can step up and play a stronger role at 
global and regional level in shaping the way oceans are managed and used. It sets out  detailed 
actions to shape international governance in three priority areas:  
 improving the international framework for ocean governance;  
 reducing human pressures on the oceans and creating the conditions for a sustainable blue 
economy;  
 strengthening intern ational ocean research and data.  
3. ¿Podría la UE proveer mayor información sobre sus acciones para reducir y controlar (i) la 
demanda europea de pesca, y (ii) las actividades de explotación de su flota pesquera en aguas 
internacionales? MARE/TRADE F1 (Mar tin) [SR]  
 
EU reply : (i) The  definition of health policies, including recommendations on the quantities of fish 
that EU citizens should consume, is a competence of the EU's Member States. Thus, the EU does 
not intervene in this area. The EU would like to recall that the consumption l evels vary significantly 
among Member States, and that while some EU countries may have a very high level of 
consumption, in other countries fish consumption is very low and below recommended intake.  
 
(ii) Information on Management of the fishing capacity can be found in Articles 21 to 24 of the 
Common Fisheries Policy regulation:  
http://eur -lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:354:0022:0061: EN:PDF  
 
As RFMOs are concerned, managing capacity is also one of the main objectives upheld by the 
Communication on the External Dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy (COM/2011/0424 final). 
In RFMOs where it participates as a contracting party, the EU i s actively promoting, where 
applicable, capacity management schemes through a review of the best available scientific advice 
on sustainable levels of catch and consideration of measures to address it. Some examples are 
IATTC, IOTC or CCAMLR where the EU ha s supported initiatives to address capacity management 
in recent years. For the concrete case of IATTC, the EU promoted proposals to tackle over -capacity 
                                                
4 http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/ocean -governance_en . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 17 - 
 
  in 2015 and 2016, and in 2014 the EU co -financed in 2014 in Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, a 
Workshop of technical experts on the capacity of the tuna fishing fleet. At worldwide level, in 2014 
the EU hosted an international conference on sustainable fishing capacity management strengthen 
the EU's international commitment to addressing overcapacity at a gl obal level.  
 
The European Commission proposal for a Regulation on the Sustainable Management of the 
External Fleets that will be adopted in the coming weeks by the European Parliament and the 
Council is an important tool to cater for sustainable fisheries and the fight against illegal, 
unreported and unregulated fishing. The proposal is based on a harmonised and simplified system 
of fishing authorisation allowing better control and monitoring of EU external fishing fleets. The 
proposal also aims at regulati ng private agreements between ship -owners and third countries, to 
deter abusive reflagging, to regulate chartering of Union vessels and to create a database for 
fishing authorisations as to increase transparency of fishing operations.  
 
The proposal is bas ed on the principle of flag state responsibility and establishes provisions 
whereby flag EU Member States will screen vessels against a given eligibility criteria before these 
vessels are allowed to fish outside EU waters. A strong provision monitoring of the fleets will allow 
stopping from fishing EU vessels that do not comply with the rules.  
  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 18 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTI ONS FROM SINGAPORE  
 
PART I: QUESTIONS RE GARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT  
 
3.1.1 Customs procedures and requirements  
Page 41 (Para 3.7)  
 
1. The WTO Secretariat Report notes that the EU had made considerable efforts in simplifying the 
system of free zones and warehousing types, and had eliminated Type D warehouses and type II 
free zones. Could the EU elaborate on the reasons for eliminating Type D warehouses and type II 
free zones?  
 
EU reply:  In both cases the eliminations were made for the sake of simplification.  
 
3.1.1.1.2 Electronic systems  
Page 43 (Para 3.18)  
 
2. The WTO Secretariat Report notes that the first stage of the single window application for 
customs has progressed well. Could the EU clarify if the automated validation of supporting 
documents to the customs declaration means that:  
 
(i) Physical copies  of supporting documents will no longer be required during goods clearance as 
these documents would have already been uploaded onto the system?  
 
EU reply : Indeed, the objective is to move away from the use of paper supporting documents 
during good clearanc e. This is the general objective of a paper -free customs envisaged by the EU.  
Nevertheless, given the diversity and multiplicity of such supporting documents, paper certificates 
will continue to exist until their respective legislations are adapted.  
 
(ii) Does the EU envision paperless clearance in the future given the plan to implement the 
necessary infrastructure by 2020 (i.e. no physical documents required during goods clearance)?  
 
EU reply:  Indeed, paperless clearance is the objective as defined in the Union Customs Code.  
 
3.3.8.3.2 Enforcement within the EU  
Page 130 -131 (Para 3.340)  
 
3. What were the main challenges encountered in the review of the Enforcement Directive 
(2004/48/EC) with regard to enforcement strategy for counterfeit goods sold online?  
 
EU reply:  The European Commission is finalising its evaluation of the current legal framework for 
the enforcement of intellectual property rights. It is therefore too early to draw final conclusions on 
the functioning of Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforc ement of intellectual property rights (IPRED).  
 
The preliminary findings of the evaluation lead to the conclusion that the existing rules have 
helped effectively in protecting intellectual property rights (IPR) and preventing IPR infringements. 
IPRED prove d to be effective on a general and conceptual level, allowing for a broadly common 
legal European framework, the development of pan -European IPR enforcement strategies, and the 
cross-border exchange of litigation experience and good practice among judges a nd legal 
professionals.  
 
Page 131 (Para 3.342)  
 
4. We note that there were two MOUs signed between Internet Platforms and Rights Owners to 
tackle the enforcement of counterfeit goods sold in the EU. Could the EU explain the rationale for a 
second MOU in 2016, as opposed to simply adding more signatories  to the first MOU in 2011? 
What are the key differences between the scope and coverage of the first and second MOUs?  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 19 - 
 
  EU reply:  The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the sale of counterfeit goods via the 
Internet signed in 2011 (between certain rights -holders and internet sales platforms) provided for: 
(i) Notice and Take Down procedures for online offers which were likely to be infringing, (ii) 
Preventive and Pro -Active measures by the platforms to “filter” prior to publication of offers of 
obvious inf ringing goods and (iii) Commitments to exchange information so as to enhance the fight 
against repeat infringers. The 2016 MoU added specific “Key Performance Indicators” ("KPIs") and 
periods for the collection of data relating to said indicators, in order  to objectively measure the 
impact of the MoU. The new text (including KPIs) was then opened to existing and new signatories 
for signature on 21 June 2016.  
 
5. We note that in the 2011 MOU between Internet Platforms and Rights Owners (in footnote 383) 
(“2011 MOU ”) that there was a provision for an assessment of the MOU (paragraphs 40 and 41 of 
the 2011 MOU). Could the EU provide information on (i) the KPIs used for the assessment of the 
2011 MOU; and (ii) the assessment of the 2011 MOU based on these KPIs?  
 
EU reply:  In 2013, in accordance with the terms of the 2011 MoU, the Commission adopted a 
Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the functioning of the 
Memorandum of Understanding on the Sale of Counterfeit Goods via the Internet. For this report, 
signatories provided the Commission with a substantial amount of data demonstrating the 
functioning of the MoU and its impact on their business. Most of the data are considered 
confidential due to their commercially sensitive nat ure and cannot therefore be directly quoted.  
 
Many signatories invested in developing appropriate indicators (so -called Key Performance 
Indicators) in an attempt to measure progress, implementation and functioning of the MoU in a 
reliable and transparent w ay. As such indicators had to take account of the particular 
characteristics of different business models, as well as the goods and sectors involved, it was not 
possible to use a single set of indicators for measurements by the different signatories. 
Conse quently, for the 2013 report is was not possible to generate headline figures as a 
quantitative vector for assessing and communicating the effects of the MoU.  
 
The assessment of the MoU according to the 2013 report was that "The MoU has passed its 
probatio n period. It is operating satisfactorily due to the commitment of the Signatories to make it 
work. To date, there is no apparent need to amend the text of the MoU. The current provisions 
have been formulated in such a way as to accommodate swift actions ag ainst new phenomena. 
Nevertheless, improvements are still possible with regard to operational implementation if it is to 
become the recognised ‘best practice’ standard." [COM(2013) 209 final, p. 16]  
 
6. We note that there is a second MOU between Internet Platforms and Rights Owners (in footnote 
384) in 2016 (“ 2016 MOU ”), and that there are KPIs stated under this MOU (in the Annex). Could 
the EU provide information on the outcome of the assessment as referred to in para 40 of the 
2016 MOU?  
 
EU reply:  The da ta provided by the stakeholders to the EUIPO Observatory relating to the first 
data collection period (15 November – 15 December) has been aggregated by them and will be 
used as a benchmark against which to measure the results of the second data collection  period (15 
May to 15 June). After that, the Commission will draft the report mentioned in the text of the 2016 
MoU. The Commission expects to be in a position to publish this report after the summer.  
 
4.3.3.2 Regulatory Developments  
Page 177 (Para 4.134)  
7. We welcome the EU’s introduction of the European long -term investment funds (ELTIFs) 
framework, which provides opportunities for long -term investment undertakings in third countries 
to capitalise ELTIFs, to the mutual benefit of both parties. Could the EU clarify (i) if ELTIFs is in 
principle an equivalence regime like AIFM and MIFID; and (ii) whether there would be scope to 
extend the equivalence and mutual recognition concept of third country funds to other EU fund 
structures, such as the UCITS?  
 
EU re ply: (i) The framework on European long -term investment funds (ELTIFs) set out in 
regulation (EU) 2015/760 does not have an equivalence/passport regime. A fund can be set up 
and marketed under the ELTIF label only when domiciled in the EU and managed by an  EU 
management company. Funds replicating the characteristics of ELTIFs domiciled outside the EU WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 20 - 
 
  and/or managed by non -EU managers would fall under the scope of directive 2011/61/EU on 
Alternative investment fund managers (AIFM).  
 
(ii) Only investment fund s domiciled in the EU and managed by an EU management company can 
be marketed under the label under directive 2009/65/EC on Undertakings for collective 
investments in transferable securities (UCITS). Funds replicating the characteristics of any specific 
EU framework on investment funds, but domiciled outside the EU and/or managed by non -EU 
managers fall under the scope of the AIFMD and, as such, could be eligible under the AIFM 
directive for the third country passport regime. For example, this would be the case for the funds 
replicating the characteristics of the following frameworks:  
 
− UCITS directive  
− ELTIF regulation  
− Regulation (EU) 345/2013  on European venture capital funds  (EuVECA)   
− Regulation (EU) 346/2013 on European Social Entrepreneurship Funds  
− Commission proposal for a regulation on money markets funds  
 
Further information regarding these frameworks can be found at:  
https://ec.europa.eu/info/business -economy -euro/growth -and-investment/investment -funds_en  
 
4.3.4.2 – Air Transport Services  
Page 183 (Para 4.168)  
 
8. The WTO Secretariat Report notes that the EC plans to replace Regulation (EC) No. 868/2004. 
How will the new regulation affect existing air transport agreements (some which may or may not 
have provisions on fair competition) between the EU and its Member States, and other cou ntries?  
 
EU reply:  The proposed regulation foresees a provision stating that measures adopted under it 
shall be in line with the European Union or its Member States' commitments in the air transport or 
air services agreements, or any air transport or air s ervices provisions contained in a trade 
agreement with a third country.  
 
Existing obligations will therefore continue to apply and will not be amended by the new rules.  
 
It should be noted that at this stage only the Commission proposal has been adopted. I t will now 
be discussed and amended by the Council and the Parliament as co -legislators. The process until 
the adoption may take around two years.  
 
PART II:  QUESTIONS REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT REPORT  
Modernization of the EU Intellectual Property (IP) framew ork, including measures to support the 
use of IP by SMEs  
Page 6 -7 (Para 3.10)  
9. Regarding the EU IP mediation and arbitration network for SMEs, does the EU currently have an 
existing network of mediation and arbitration chambers which provide assistance/legal advice for 
SMEs?  
 
EU reply:  The EU does not have an existing network of mediation and arbitration chambers on IP. 
Additionally, this future initiative is not meant to provide assistance or legal advice to SMEs, but is 
just to provide media tion and arbitration services.  
 
The EU currently provides pre -legal assistance through the European IPR Helpdesk. This advice is 
of general, more preventive, nature and does not support dispute resolution.  
 
10. Does the EU foresee providing financial assis tance to SMEs to enable SMEs to tap on IP 
mediation and arbitration services?  
 
EU reply:  The EU currently does not intend to provide financial assistance to SMEs to enable them 
to use IP mediation and arbitration services.  
 
11. Regarding the European -level insurance schemes for litigation and IP theft, which insurance 
providers has the EU has approached/plan to approach for this scheme?  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 21 - 
 
  EU reply:  The EU is open to approach any interested insurance provider that operates in the EU 
on that issue. The EU Intel lectual Property Office (EUIPO) prepares a mapping of existing IP 
litigation insurance schemes that should be ready by the end of the year. On the basis of that 
mapping the European Commission will begin next year a dialogue with potential insurance 
provid ers. Initially, the insurance scheme would focus on European patents with unitary effect, but 
if this is not available the initiative will rely on current European Patents. If this market picks up, 
the Commission intends to discuss the possible expansion t o other IP rights.  
 
The EU’s actions on climate change  
Page 13 (Para 3.51)  
12. The agreement reached in October 2016 by the International Civil Aviation Organization 
(ICAO) on a global CO 2 offsetting scheme was for the ICAO to be the only market -based measure 
(MBM) addressing CO 2 emissions from international aviation in order to avoid market distortions 
arising from a patchwork of regional MBM schemes for aviation. How is the EU taking thes e 
considerations into account in the post -2020 reform of the EU -ETS, when the ICAO offsetting 
scheme commences?  
 
EU reply:  The EU is currently undertaking a revision of the EU Emission Trading System (ETS) for 
the period from 2017 onwards. This revision fu lly takes into account the outcome of the ICAO 
Assembly, namely the Resolution on a Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International 
Aviation (CORSIA) that should start being implemented from 2021.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 22 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTI ONS FROM THE REPUBLIC OF K OREA 
 
PART I: Questions Regarding the Secretariat Report  
 
Page32 (Para 2.14)  
 
The new trade policy supports the growth of global value chains, the increased importance of 
services trade, and the growth of e -commerce, which is seen as a promising area for more 
opportunities for SMEs to expand their markets.  
 
Question 1  
 
Please describe more details of incentives or benefits which e -commerce might bring for EU’s SMEs  
 
EU reply: Some of the potential benefits of e -commerce for traders, including SMEs, be it from the 
EU or other countries, are enhanced participation in the global value chains and the opportunity to 
trade globally and reach more remote markets. E -commerce also allows for improved internal 
efficiency, lower transaction costs, leading to improved  firm competitiveness.  
 
In terms of incentives for the SMEs and other EU operators to engage in e -commerce not in terms 
of financial aid or support but rather of conducive climate for doing business, one of the examples 
that the EU would like to mention is  the Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy. Given the 
importance of SMEs for the European digital economy, it is obvious that the actions and initiatives 
being proposed within that framework are of central importance in creating the right environment 
for SM Es to thrive and participate in e -commerce. For instance, the European Commission aims at 
boosting e -commerce by simplifying, clarifying and harmonising the EU’s regulatory framework. 
The actions are aimed to bring significant benefits both for consumers a s well as businesses. This 
from the perspective of opening the market for more cross -border online buying, therefore in 
particular benefitting SMEs which are often confined to their home market for example in terms of 
finding customers. The initiatives und er the DSM also aim at reducing costs and administrative 
burdens for large and smaller businesses alike, while increasing legal certainty for example 
through uniform contract rules across the EU. For further information on the DSM strategy, please 
refer to  the dedicated web -page of the European Commission:  
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/digital -single -market_en  
 
Page 35 (Para 2.26)  
 
The Commission also states th at any new trade agreements, concluded in the period 2016 -2020, 
will also include a special focus on SMEs.  
 
Question 2  
 
Most of FTAs include specific clauses on SMEs. What is key content of the special focus on SMEs 
which be concluded in the period 2016 -2020? Please describe more details about it.  
 
EU reply: SMEs are the dominant size of enterprises in all countries. Provisions in chapters 
relevant for SMEs should ensure that small companies from both sides benefit from FTAs. The EU 
envisages in new FTA neg otiations to include a dedicated SME chapter containing provisions to 
increase the transparency, notably provisions for sharing information through website information 
and a searchable database to find product specific import requirements. An appropriate 
institutional set -up would follow -up SME relevant issues with the committees responsible for the 
chapter of the FTA.  
 
Page 113 (Para 3.265)  
 
A proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market252: among others, the 
suggested introduction of  a negotiating mechanism is conceived to facilitate the conclusion of 
licensing agreements to support the availability of audiovisual works on Video on Demand (VoD) 
platforms. The proposed Directive also provides for mandatory exceptions in the field of ed ucation, 
research and preservation of cultural heritage to adapt them to the digital and cross -border 
environment, as well as rules to achieve a well -functioning marketplace for copyright , including 
rules to ensure that right holders are receiving adequate  remuneration. In particular, Article 11 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 23 - 
 
  suggests that neighbouring rights for press publishers be introduced into EU law for the digital use 
of their publications;  
 
Question 3  
 
Could EU please explain how exactly the “rules to ensure that right holders a re receiving adequate 
remuneration” are being stipulated under the proposed Directive and what are the reasons to 
specifically introduce such rules?  
 
EU reply: The Commission has identified that authors and performers, after transferring or 
licensing their rights to other parties on whom they rely for their exploitation (e.g. publishers or 
producers), are often unable to monitor the use and measure the success of  their works and 
performances. This is mostly due to a lack of transparency and has become even more difficult 
given the increasingly complex online distribution of works.  
 
In order to enable authors and performers to understand and follow the exploitatio n of their works 
and performances, the proposal for a Directive on copyright in the digital single market provides 
for targeted measures to increase transparency and balance in their contractual 
relationships . 
 
Authors and performers will be better informe d by their contractual partners  (such as their 
publishers or their producers) on the exploitation of their works. The Commission proposes 
keeping transparency obligations at a proportionate level and taking into account the differences 
between creative sec tors. 
 
The Commission also proposes a mechanism for authors and performers to rebalance 
contracts  where the agreed remuneration turns out to be disproportionately low compared to the 
revenues generated by the work, as well as a suitable forum for alternati ve dispute resolution.  
 
Page 113(Para 3.265)  
 
A proposal for a regulation laying down  rules on the exercise of copyright and related rights 
applicable to certain online transmissions of broadcasting organizations and 
retransmissions of television and radio programmes : inspired by the existing legal 
framework for traditional transmissions v ia satellite and retransmissions via cable255, the draft 
regulation proposes that similar conditions be put in place for online distribution of television and 
radio programmes, providing for a simple and fast clearance process regarding rights needed for 
certain online services; and  
 
Question 4  
 
Could EU please explain what exactly the “rules on the exercise of copyright and related rights 
applicable to certain online transmissions of broadcasting organizations and retransmissions of 
television and radio pr ogrammes” is about?  
 
EU reply:  The Commission has presented a proposal for a Regulation laying down rules on the 
exercise of copyright and related rights applicable to certain online transmissions of broadcasting 
organisations and retransmissions. The obje ctive of the proposed Regulation is to facilitate the 
clearance of rights for cross -border online transmissions of television and radio programmes and 
for retransmissions over closed networks, therefore fostering the cross -border distribution of 
television  and radio programmes in the EU. It aims to achieving this objective:  
 By establishing that the rights required in the EU for the online services of broadcasters 
that are directly related to their broadcasts (‘ancillary online services’, e.g. the online 
simulcasting of their satellite broadcast) are to be cleared for the broadcaster’s country of 
principal establishment (the principle of the ‘country of origin’ ). This will help broadcasters 
to make the vast majority of their content available online also i n other EU Member States.  
 By extending the system of  compulsory collective management  currently applicable to 
cable retransmissions (pursuant to Directive 93/83/EEC) to other equivalent digital 
retransmissions. This proposal will therefore make it easier for retransmission operators to 
clear the rights in programmes from other EU Member States in order to offer their users 
more channels from across the EU.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 24 - 
 
  PART II: Questions Regarding the Government Report  
Page 3 (Para 1.6)  
 
The EU is pursuing a progressive trade and investment agenda, where, besides increased 
transparency and better understanding and communication of the gains of trade, the following 
elements are crucial: (1) making sure that benefits from trade are shared more equally; and (2) 
establishing a comprehensive, fair and effective regulatory interface between trade and investment 
and issues such as labour or environment.  
 
Question 1  
 
The report says the EU considers a regulatory interface between trade and investment crucial. 
Could you explain why such an interface is so important for the EU?  
 
EU reply: This question seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the text under considerat ion. 
The report states that it's crucial to establish a regulatory interface between, on the one side, 
trade and investment and, on the other side, issues such as labour or environment. In this regard, 
the EU Trade for All Strategy seeks to ensure that tra de agreements create new economic 
opportunities while at the same time safeguarding and promoting values such as sustainable 
development, human rights, fair and ethical trade and the fight against corruption.  
 
This being said, like many other trading partn ers, the EU believes that there is a need to 
strengthen policy coherence between trade and investment, since they are increasingly 
complementary, interdependent and intertwined in today's global economy. The EU is supportive 
of initiatives aimed at making international trade and investment rules more integrated and global. 
In this respect, the EU endorses the work done by the G20 Trade and Investment Working Group, 
in particular the enhanced G20 policy coordination on investment issues which has led to the 
adoption of the Guiding Principles on Investment Policymaking. In the longer term, we support the 
incorporation of investment rules into the WTO, as an opportunity to simplify and update the 
current web of bilateral agreements to set up a clearer, more leg itimate and more inclusive 
system.  
 
Page 16 (Para. 4.25)  
 
The EU will propose dedicated SME provisions in all its ongoing and future negotiations for free 
trade agreements.  
 
Question 2  
 
The report says the EU will propose dedicated SME provisions in all o ngoing and future FTA 
negotiations. Wouldn’t such provisions hinder FTAs with entities for which SMEs are optimally not 
important?  
 
EU reply: SME provisions would be proposed and negotiated in areas relevant for SMEs of both 
sides.  As replied in the quest ions 1 and 2 above, many of the provisions of the FTAs aim at 
increasing transparency, reducing the cost of doing business and benefitting all operators including 
SMEs.  
 
Page 21 (Para. 4.70)  
 
Third, the EU believes that when multilateral progress is not p ossible, subsets of WTO members 
should be able to advance on given issues, while keeping the door open for interested WTO 
members to join at a later stage. This would allow for new plurilateral agreements under the WTO 
umbrella and would make it easier to anchor in the WTO those plurilateral agreements that are 
currently negotiated outside the organization.  
 
Question 3  
 
The EU claims that when multilateral progress is not possible, a subset of WTO members should 
make a progress, while maintaining the possib ility of other members to join at a later stage. But 
wouldn’t this create a permanent multi -tier structure among WTO members and hinder the 
convergence of all WTO members to complete trade liberalization?  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 25 - 
 
  EU reply:  The EU strongly believes in the importan ce of ensuring that the WTO functions as a 
viable, effective and efficient forum for trade negotiations, and in the need to pursue multilateral 
outcomes. Nevertheless, within an organization of 164 Members where trade negotiations have not 
advanced as quic kly as some Members would wish and where some issues have been prevented 
from being discussed even in an exploratory manner, there is also a necessity to look for 
alternative approaches which allow some Members to advance while giving others the possibilit y to 
join at a later stage. This approach is not new. It formed an integral part of negotiations under the 
GATT as well as being part of the overall WTO framework.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 26 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTI ONS FROM P. R. CHINA  
 
Part I. Questions based on Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/357)  
 
Summary, Para 3  
In October 2015, the European Commission issued a new trade and investment policy for the EU 
Trade for all: Towards a more responsible trade and investment policy . The new policy is intended 
to support the growth  of global value chains, services trade, and e -commerce. The main objectives 
include reducing non -tariff barriers and increasing trade in services, while benefiting from 
improved technology to facilitate cross -border provision of services and recognizing t he importance 
of labour mobility and mutual recognition of professional qualifications. While actively participating 
in the WTO, the EU has also continued to negotiate trade agreements, which cover trade in goods 
and services, intellectual property, invest ment, government procurement, access to energy and 
raw materials, customs and trade facilitation, competition, and regulatory cooperation. The 
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the EU was signed in 
October 2016. The EU -Singapore  Free Trade Agreement awaits approval, pending an opinion of the 
Court of Justice of the EU on a question of EU competence. Negotiations on a number of other 
trade and investment agreements are also under way.  
 
Question 1: Regarding the access to energy an d raw materials, customs and trade facilitation, 
does the EU have measures for increasing the transparency of anti -dumping and countervailing 
investigations to guarantee that relevant countries can obtain data to review the investigations 
carried out and t he decisions made by the EU?  
 
EU reply : The EU ensures the highest standards of transparency and rights of defence when 
conducting anti -dumping and anti -subsidy investigations, in full compliance with the WTO rules. 
During investigations due consideration is given to all relevant facts and arguments, access to the 
non-confidential investigation file is granted to all interested parties at all times via a web -based 
platform. Disclosure of provisional and definitive findings also ensures that the reasons expl aining 
why decisions are taken is communicated to all interested parties with sufficient time to comment.  
The European Commission also has a Trade Hearing Officer to safeguard the effective exercise of 
the procedural rights of the interested parties  in tra de defence investigations.   In addition the EU 
maintains the following website where information can be found on each individual trade defence 
case including all published documents: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/tdi/  
 
Question 2: Please specify the measures a nd the according effects thereof of to improve cross -
border services through technical means.  
 
EU reply:  As stated in the report global value chains, services trade, and e -commerce has 
developed dramatically over the last decades, changing the conditions f or cross -border trade in 
services. The EU has gradually improved its commitments related on cross -border services, as a 
reflection of these developments, as well as taking into consideration internal market 
developments. A prime example is international tr ansport services and logistics, where efficient 
just-in-time practices and global vibrant networks of transport service have progressively 
sustained trade. In the growing range of trade agreements concluded by the EU, international 
transport, auxiliary ser vices and other services that facilitate trade has been committed.  
 
At the same time, further integration of internal EU market offered possibilities for extending 
similar openness to a wider range of trading partners. This gradual process has taken place in 
services such as business services, professional services, construction, environmental services and 
a whole series of other services related activities. In addition, many services such as engineering, 
services incidental to manufacturing, and computer s ervices rely increasingly on complex 
processes where sub -activities – just like for manufacturing – can be prepared at different 
locations, to be complied at later stages. This also underpins the growth of cross -border services 
trade.  
 
Question 3: Please i ntroduce the practices and development in the mutual recognition of 
professional qualifications.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 27 - 
 
  EU reply: In the European Union, movement of qualified professionals is enhanced by EU Directive 
2005/36/EU on the mutual recognition of professional qualific ations.5 This Directive includes three 
systems of mutual recognition, among which an automatic recognition regime for seven 
professions for which the education and training requirements have been harmonised at a 
minimum level6, a system based on profession al experience for the crafts professions and a 
general system where the set of qualifications required in the home Member State is compared 
with what is required in the host Member State with the possibility for the host Member State to 
impose compensation  measures on the professional.  
 
Between the European Union and third countries, the recognition of professional qualifications is 
promoted within trade agreements. Bilateral FTAs between the EU and third country partner 
generally include a set of provisio ns outlining a framework for the future negotiations of the Mutual 
Recognition Agreements (MRAs) in the individual professions. First step towards such negotiations 
is a joint recommendation by the relevant authorities or professional associations for the MRA in 
their profession to the Joint Committee, established under the FTA. The EU is aware of the joint 
recommendations for the proposed MRAs that are being considered or are in preparation in the 
context of several FTAs.  
 
Page 32, Para 2.15  
Key objectives  of EU trade policy are to increase efforts to reduce non -tariff barriers and increase 
trade in services. Technology has facilitated the cross -border provision of services, and 
manufacturing operations also heavily depend on all kinds of services, such as training, transport, 
logistics, insurance, and telecommunications. The EU underlines the importance of placing more 
emphasis on the need for mobility (e.g. of experts to install or maintain exported goods, senior 
managers, and other service providers) and the mutual recognition of professional qualifications.  
 
Question 4: Does the EU facilitate movement of natural persons with third party countries or 
regions?  
 
EU reply: The EU includes mode 4 commitments in all its proposals, with recent agreements such 
as the EU -Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement providing for extensive and 
ambitious provisions for service providers as well as their family.  
 
In 2014 the EU adopted a flexible scheme for admitting intra -corporate transferees (managers, 
specialists and trainees), and set itself a 2.5 year deadline for implementing it. This scheme is now 
fully functional in several Member States, with the European Commission closely monitoring its 
rollout.  
 
The EU is currently reviewing its existing legal migration legislation and will consider whether 
additional initiatives are needed as regards categories of mode 4 service providers other than 
intra-corporate transferees. Stakeholders will be invited to contribute to this reflection, including 
through an online public consultation which is expected to run June -September 2017.  
 
More broadly, the EU aims to facilitate the mobility of highly -qualified staff and to that end the 
European Commission has proposed a revision of the EU Blue Card scheme in June 2016 . EU 
Member States and the European Parliament are now considering this proposal.  
 
In its 2015 Communication "Trade for all - Towards a more responsible trade and investment 
policy", the European Commission recognised that temporary movement of professiona ls has 
become essential for all sectors to conduct business internationally, and has explicitly linked trade 
and migration policies in order to achieve that aim.  
 
Question5: How does EU define and differentiate the movements of overseas service providers a nd 
of natural persons within a multinational corporation?  
 
EU reply: As referred to in the reply to Question 4, the EU recently adopted a flexible scheme for 
admitting intra -corporate transferees, part of mode 4 provision of services, and set itself a 2.5 
year deadline for implementing it. This scheme is now fully functional in several Member States, 
                                                
5 Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional 
qualification s, OJ. L 255, 30.09.2005, p.22.  
6 i.e. nurses, midwifes, doctors (general practitioners and specialists), dental practitioners, pharmacists, 
architects and veterinary surgeons.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 28 - 
 
  with the European Commission closely monitoring its rollout. This scheme allows non -EU workers 
to be transferred temporarily to the territory of the relevant M ember States as managers, 
specialists or trainees (not applied by Denmark, Ireland and the U.K.).  
 
Question 6: How is the system of mutual recognition of professional qualifications promoted 
between countries?  
 
EU reply: In the European Union, movement of  qualified professionals is enhanced by EU Directive 
2005/36/EU on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications.7 This Directive includes three 
systems of mutual recognition, among which an automatic recognition regime for seven 
professions for wh ich the education and training requirements have been harmonised at a 
minimum level8, a system based on professional experience for the crafts professions and a 
general system where the set of qualifications required in the home Member State is compared 
with what is required in the host Member State with the possibility for the host Member State to 
impose compensation measures on the professional.  
 
This system is based on common substantive and procedural rules, whose interpretation and 
implementation are subject to a supranational jurisdictional control, and relies on the close 
cooperation between the national authorities concerned.  
 
Its application is however limited to EU nationals with a professional qualification acquired inside 
the Union while the re cognition of qualifications acquired outside the EU remains a competence of 
the EU Member States. Once the third country qualification is recognised in a Member State of the 
Union, internal movement rights are attributed when the professional has acquired three years of 
professional experience inside the Member State that recognised his/her qualifications. Certain 
third country nationals can also benefit from the application of the 2005/36/EU Directive when 
they have a legal residence status in the EU based  on the EU Legal Migration Directives such as for 
example Directive 2003/109/EC on Long Term Residents and Directive 2009/50/EC on the EU Blue 
Card.  
 
As explained above, the EU bilateral FTAs with third country partners encourage professional 
association or relevant authorities to develop the joint recommendations for the mutual recognition 
agreements (MRAs) in their profession and set out a framework for negotiations of the MRAs 
between the Parties to the FTA.  
 
Page 36, Para 2.36  
“In return, beneficiary countries must ratify and effectively implement 27 core international 
conventions.”  
 
Question 7: How does the EU assess whether the GSP+ members have effectively implemented 
the multilateral environmental conventions in the fields of chemicals management a nd biological 
diversity.  
 
EU reply: In accordance with Article 9.1.b of EU Regulation 978/2012 (the GSP Regulation), the 
Commission examines whether a GSP+ applicant country has ratified all the conventions listed in 
Annex VIII of the GSP Regulation and as sess whether the most recent available conclusions of the 
monitoring bodies under those conventions do not identify a serious failure to effectively 
implement any of the conventions. This also applies to the conventions related to protecting the 
environmen t. 
 
Question 8: What measures the EU has taken to effectively implement multilateral environmental 
conventions.  
 
EU reply: The EU has implemented the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) 
through Council Regulation 338/97 and associated Commission Regulations, and ensures that 
these are enforced through regular follow -up with the EU Member States 
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/index_en.htm ). 
                                                
7 Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional 
qualificati ons, OJ. L 255, 30.09.2005, p.22.  
8 i.e. nurses, midwifes, doctors (general practitioners and specialists), dental practitioners, pharmacists, 
architects and veterinary surgeons.   WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 29 - 
 
  As regards the Conventi on on Biological Diversity (CBD), the EU has adopted multiple legislative 
and other measures, e.g. the Birds and Habitats Directives, legislation on trade in endangered 
species, on invasive alien species and on access and benefit sharing of genetic resourc es, the EU 
Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and the EU Wildlife Action Plan. An important part of implementation 
is through integrating the biodiversity concerns in other policy areas.  
 
The EU has adopted Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 on persistent organic poll utants, which 
transposes the obligations stemming from the Stockholm Convention into EU legislation. The EU 
also established and regularly revises the Union Implementation Plan, as required by the 
Convention. The EU has implemented the Basel Convention thr ough the Waste Shipment 
Regulation 1013/2006/EC.  
 
The EU ratified the Vienna Convention for the protection of the ozone layer on 17 October 1988 
and the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer on 16 December 1988. The 
four previous ame ndments to the Montreal Protocol were ratified on 20 December 1991, 20 
November 1995, 17 November 2000 and 25 March 2002. The ratification process for the recent 
Kigali Amendment is ongoing and the relevant Council decision is scheduled for September 2017.  
All EU Member States have ratified the Convention as well as the Protocol and its amendments. 
The phase -down of ozone depleting substances was implemented by Regulation (EC) No 
1005/2009 on substances that deplete the ozone layer that replaced earlier leg islation and 
completed the phase -out of the consumption of these substances 10 years ahead of the Montreal 
Protocol schedule (for details: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ozone_en ). Complianc e with the 
Kigali Amendment that includes a phase -down of HFCs to the control measures is ensured by 
Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases.  
 
Page 37, Para 2.42  
The differences between the BITs signed with different partners may be si gnificant, which has 
sometimes led to an uneven playing field for EU companies investing abroad.  
 
Question 9: Please elaborate on the differences, especially in terms of mining investment.  
 
EU reply:  Whilst MS share a common interest in protecting their in vestors when investing abroad 
through Bilateral Investment Treaties, since each country has negotiated on an individual basis in 
the past with third countries, and not on the basis of a common template, it is logical that the 
specific provisions of each BI T will be unique to that context. More generally, a number of 
standards of protection such as non -discrimination (national treatment and most -favoured nation 
treatment), fair and equitable treatment, compensation for expropriation, and freedom of 
transfers , are commonly found in most BITs but the specific wording and thus the effect of each 
provision may differ slightly. The definition of investment covered by the agreement may also 
differ. Most BITs of the EU Member States foresee investor -state dispute se ttlement, but the 
specific details as to scope and coverage may be different. There are also additional provisions in 
relation to investment, including provisions on co -operation, facilitation, and the promotion of 
investment, as well as the applicability to investment contracts of the State, which may or may not 
be addressed in a particular agreement. The new EU policy is to negotiate investment protection 
agreements on behalf of all EU Member States which provide a consistent and high level of 
protection for all EU investors. It is not the practice of EU Member States to negotiate specific 
provisions in relation to certain sectors, hence the provisions of each BIT normally apply equally 
irrespective of the sector concerned, including the mining sector.  
 
Page 37, Para 2.43  
In negotiations, the EU deals with investment rules both in free trade agreements with third 
countries, for example with Canada and Singapore, and also in stand -alone investment 
agreements, for example with China and Myanmar. With respect to such agreements, one as yet 
unresolved question concerns which aspects of investment now fall under exclusive EU 
competence: on the one hand there is the view that the common commercial policy covers only 
foreign direct investment and not portfolio inve stments; on the other hand, there is the view that 
the EU derives an implicit exclusive competence on portfolio investments from third countries from 
a rule in the internal market prohibiting the introduction of barriers at member State level to 
capital an d payment flows from third countries.  
 
Question 10: Please provide information on the implementation of rules on the extent of 
competence in investment management provided in the two types of agreements.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 30 - 
 
  EU reply:  The recent decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) confirmed the EU exclusive 
competence on foreign direct investment. Regarding portfolio investment, the ECJ decided that 
this was explicitly excluded from the scope of Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
EU because the latt er only mentions the term "direct foreign investment". Thus portfolio 
investment falls under the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU provisions on free movement of 
capital, which is a shared competence.  
 
Question 11: With regard to the two different views on the coverage of the common commercial 
policy, please clarify which view the EU takes.  
 
EU reply : The consequences of the Opinion 2/15 of the ECJ on future trade and investments 
agreements are currently being considered. The EU is not therefore in a posi tion to give a clear 
answer to this question at this stage.  
 
Page 38, Para 2.45  
The EU's investment policies aim to attract FDI by extending and deepening the single market, 
ensuring open and competitive markets inside and outside Europe, improving European and 
national regulation, and expanding and upgrading Europe's infrastructure and its scientific base. 
The EU aims to include high standards of investment protection in EU agreements containing 
investment provisions, namely: non -discrimination; fai r and equitable treatment; guarantees of 
prompt, effective, and adequate compensation in the event of expropriation; and the free transfer 
of funds.  
 
Question 12: With regard to mining investment, what measures does the EU take to achieve this 
goal?  
 
EU re ply: Natural resources fall under the specific competence of EU Member States. As such, the 
EU generally does not take measures in relation to attracting investment in the mining sector, 
other than horizontal measures in relation to transparency and non -discrimination with respect to 
the authorisation/licensing procedures for the access to and use of certain natural resources in the 
energy sector. In addition, EU state aid is regulated by EU legislation.  
 
Question 13: When examining and supervising foreign direct investment, do the EU and member 
countries distinguish between state -owned enterprises and non -state-owned enterprises? If yes, 
how to define a state -owned enterprise? What are the special policies for state -owned enterprises?  
 
EU reply: Provisions on free movement of capital under the EU Treaty (TFEU) do not distinguish 
between state -owned and non -state-owned enterprises. There is no EU -level mechanism for 
screening investment from third countries but  under Article 64(1) TFEU Member States may 
continue to apply their own restrictions towards third countries which existed at the end of 1993 
(or at the end of 1999 for Bulgaria, Estonia and Hungary, an d at the end 2002 for Croatia).  
 
EU Member States may also take measures to prevent infringement of nat ional laws or measures 
justified by public policy, public security or overriding reasons of public interest. Such measures 
may involve screening of foreign direct investment. Any measures taken in the context of 
screening have to be justified as explained previously and proportionate.  
 
Question 14: Are the foreign investment policies of the EU uniformly applicable to different 
industries? If not, how to define a special industry? What are the differential policies for special 
industries?  
 
EU reply:  Yes, th e foreign investment policy of the EU, which seeks to protect EU investors 
investing abroad and to secure market access opportunities for those EU investors in foreign 
markets, is uniformly applicable to different industries. Insofar as that policy applies  to foreign 
investors seeking access to the EU, the rules established in EU agreements in relation to 
investment protection and investment liberalisation are generally not specific to particular 
industries. However, EU Member States are responsible for att racting and promoting investment in 
their own countries, and it is generally national legislation which determines the specific conditions 
under which foreign investors are allowed to invest in each Member State, and these rules may be 
specific to certain industries.  
 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 31 - 
 
  Page 57, Para 3.55  
There are a number of prohibited or restricted products, with many of them attributable to 
international agreements, i.e. to protect the environment or similar . 
 
Page 64, Para 3.81  
The EU maintains restrictions and prohibit ions on exports to some countries and/or regions on the 
basis of foreign and security policy, and on some goods on the grounds of safety, the environment  
Question 15: We would like to know, apart from import and export control measures, what other 
specific  trade measures the EU has taken to protect the environment.  
 
EU reply: One example, a s mandated by the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the 
ozone layer, Regulation (EC) No 1005/2009 bans the production, import and export of controlled 
substances, subject to the exemptions foreseen by the Protocol. For further details, China could 
consult the EU notification of its Quantitative Restrictive measures, circulated as document:  
G/MA/QR/N/EU/3 . 
 
In addition to measures related to imports and exports, the EU is pursuing liberalization of trade in 
environmental goods and services in the Environmental Goods negotiations and in bilateral FTA 
negotiations.  
 
Page 58 & 59, Para 3.57 & 3.61  
In the EU's t rade defence sector, new regulations have been put in place for the main anti -
dumping, countervailing (also termed anti -subsidy by the EU), and safeguard rules during the 
review period.  
 
In addition, the EU has other regulations that pertain to the injurio us pricing of vessels, i.e. 
Regulation 2016/1035, and to unfair pricing and subsidies for airline services, Regulation 
868/2004.The regulation pertaining to airline services was being reviewed during 2013 -2015, as it 
did not adequately address the specific  characteristics of the aviation service sector, and thus, it 
was never applied. According to the authorities, a legislative proposal is expected to be presented 
in the first half of 2017, in which the new regulation will replace Regulation 868/2004 once t he EU 
decision -making process is completed. The regulation pertaining to vessels emanates from the 
OECD Shipbuilding Agreement and, while based on the WTO Anti -dumping Agreement, goes 
further to address the specific nature of ship -purchase transactions. Th is 2016 Regulation replaces 
the previous Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No. 385/96. The Regulation has never been used, 
as it will not enter into force until the Shipbuilding Agreement enters into force.  
 
Question 16: It is noted that the EU has put in place new anti -dumping regulations, and will use 
the new concept and standard of market distortion to replace the surrogate country approach in 
future anti -dumping investigations against WTO members. Please elaborate on the specific 
standards of the EU for identifying a country as market distortion.  
 
EU reply : It should be noted that the EU has not yet put in place new anti -dumping regulations 
and the legislative procedure is ongoing. The proposal to amend the Basic anti -dumping legislation 
introduces a  dumping calculation methodology for countries where significant distortions are 
deemed to exist.  The proposal sets out a non -exhaustive list of the types of distortions which could 
be considered relevant and have an impact in that context – an extract fro m the relevant 
provisions of the legislative proposal states:  
 
(b) Significant distortions for the product concerned may be deemed to exist, inter alia, 
when reported prices or costs, including the costs of raw materials, are not the result of 
free market  forces as they are affected by government intervention. In considering 
whether or not significant distortions exist regard may be had, inter alia, to the potential 
impact of the following: the market in question is to a significant extent served by 
enterp rises which operate under the ownership, control or policy supervision or guidance 
of the authorities of the exporting country; state presence in firms allowing the state to 
interfere with respect to prices or costs; public policies or measures discriminat ing in 
favour of domestic suppliers or otherwise influencing free market forces; and access to 
finance granted by institutions implementing public policy objectives.  
 
Question 17: Please provide brief information on the subsidies for airline services, incl uding the 
beneficiaries, scope, standards, sources of funding and application procedures.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 32 - 
 
  EU reply : EU Member State can grant subsidies for airline services if in line with the respective EU 
rules on State aid. The 2014 Aviation guidelines allow e.g. start -up aid to airlines for launching a 
new route with the aim of increasing the connectivity of a region, if all the requirements of the 
Aviation guidelines are met, such as the proportionality of the aid. For more detailed information 
please refer to our web site: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/transport/legislation_air_state_aid.htm l 
 
Furthermore, information on State aid approved by the Commission and implemented by EU 
Member States is publicly available on the dedicated web -page of the Direction General for 
Competition:  
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/scoreboar d/index_en.html  
 
Page 59, Para . 3.59.  
More recently, in November 2016, the European Commission adopted a proposal to the European 
Parliament and the Council to amend both the Anti -dumping and Anti -Subsidy Regulations. As of 
March 2017, the proposal was fol lowing the ordinary legislative procedure and would need a 
decision by both the European Parliament and the Council before entering into force.  
 
Question 18: Could the EU explain the reason for and purpose of amending the Regulations?  
 
EU reply:  The changes are designed to ensure the continued effectiveness of the EU's Trade 
Defence Instruments in the face of new global challenges.  
 
The changes proposed are to update the trade defence instruments to deal with the current 
realities, such as signif icant market distortions which exist in the economies of several countries. 
Despite changes in the global trading environment, the EU's trade defence instruments have 
remained unchanged for over 20 years.  
 
Question 19: According to the provisions of Artic le 15 of the Protocol on China's Accession to the 
WTO, after 11 December 2016, WTO members including the EU shall terminate the surrogate 
country methodology in anti -dumping investigations against Chinese imports. The EU has the 
obligation to comply with t he Article 15 completely and thoroughly. Could the EU explain the 
relevance of amending the Regulations to fulfilling the obligations under Article 15 of the Protocol 
on China's Accession to the WTO as well the compliance of the proposed regulation with Ar ticle 15 
and WTO rules, including the Anti -dumping Agreement?  
 
EU reply:  The proposal is fully consistent with the relevant WTO rules. The Union further notes 
that the legal interpretation of Section 15 of the Protocol of Accession of China to the WTO is t he 
subject -matter of two disputes (DS515 and DS516). The Union considers it therefore it is not 
appropriate to address this issue outside the framework of these two legal proceedings.  
 
Question 20: Could the EU explain the effects of the so -called "signifi cant distortion" (including raw 
materials), referred to in the proposal, on export prices and on domestic selling prices (i.e. normal 
value) and difference between such effects on export prices and domestic selling prices (i.e. 
normal value)? Could the EU explain the relationship between the so -called "significant distortion" 
and the particular market situation (PMS) in ADA Article 2.2? Please explain the consistency of the 
proposed new anti -dumping methodology with ADA Article 2.2.  
 
EU reply:  The proposal does not amend the rules concerning the determination of the export 
price. The concept of "significant distortions", is fully consistent wit h the relevant WTO legislation.  
 
Question 21: Could the EU clarify how to assess the extent of market distortion? Is  this 
assessment a quantitative analysis of specific indicators or qualitative analysis?  
 
EU reply:  Please see the reply to Question 16 for an answer.  
 
Question 22: Could the EU explain in detail the burden of proof of an applicant in different 
situation s? Please explain the consistency of the relevant burden of proof with ADA Article 5.2 (iii).  
 
EU reply:  The requirements which a complainant must fulfil when lodging a complaint are set out 
in Article 5(2) of the EU's basic Anti -dumping Regulation. These provisions reflect Article 5.2 of the 
ADA. The Commission's proposal does not include any changes to those provisions.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 33 - 
 
  Question 23: Could the EU provide the latest development on the amending of the regulations? 
Going forward, is there a clear timetable? I f there is, please specify.  
 
EU reply:  The Commission proposal is subject to the ordinary legislative procedure which means 
the proposal is being examined by the Council and the European Parliament. The outcome cannot 
be predicted.  
 
Page 60, Para . 3.62 
In 2013, the EU initiated procedures to modernize its trade defence instruments to make them 
more accessible and better targeted to certain unfair trading practices. However, the process 
stalled in 2014 but was later revived in 2015, and discussions were stil l continuing in the Council in 
late 2016.  
 
Question24: China noted the communication issued by the European Commission in October 2016, 
calling for members to support the legislative proposal on trade remedy modernization and the 
proposal on new anti -dumpi ng methodology. Could the EU explain the inherent relationship 
between the trade remedy modernization and the new anti -dumping methodology proposed in 
November 2016?  
 
EU reply:  There is no direct link between the November 2016 proposal to amend the anti -
dumping and anti -subsidy legislation and the Commission’s proposal on modernization from April 
2013. Modernisation deals with aspects other than the dumping calculation methodology such as 
timelines, transparency and the injury margin.  
 
Question 25: The Cou ncil of the European Union published the newsletter saying that on 13 
December 2016, EU member countries formed a unified position on the trade remedy 
modernization proposal. Could the EU provide details on the major differences between the unified 
positio n of the European Union Council, the European Commission proposal and the position paper 
adopted by the European Parliament in February 2014?Please provide a copy of the unified 
position of the European Union Council?  
 
EU reply:  After a position was reache d in the Council on 13 December2016, the legislative 
proposal to modernize the EU's trade defence instruments entered the last stage of the ordinary 
legislative procedure, the so called trilogues. During this phase the three institutions (the 
European Comm ission, the Council and the European Parliament) discuss in order to adopt a 
common position, which will then become law. While the Commission proposal and the Parliament 
position are publicly available documents, the Council compromise is a limited docume nt. 
 
Question 26: The proposal on trade remedy modernization suggests stopping using the lesser duty 
rule in case of market distortion in the raw material market. However, regarding market distortion 
in the raw material market, the new anti -dumping methodo logy allows using the production cost or 
sales of other appropriate countries to calculate the normal value. Could the EU explain the 
relationship between such changes made to the two mechanism and whether the concepts of 
market distortion are the same in the two mechanism?  
 
EU reply:  In the context of modernisation, the existence of distortions with regard to raw 
materials used in the production of a certain product will determine the manner in which the LDR 
will be applied. In this context the distortions  do not impact the calculation of the normal 
value/dumping margin.  
 
Question 27: Could the EU provide information on the latest development of trade remedy 
modernization process? Going forward, is there a clear timetable? If there is, please specify.  
 
EU reply:  See reply to Question 25.  
 
Page 63, Para . 3.72 
While there have been no safeguard investigations during the review period, the EU has invoked 
surveillance measures in 2016 pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2015/478 and Article 7 of 
Regulatio n (EU) 2015/755. The Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/670 put into 
force the surveillance measure one day after its publication, i.e. it runs from 30 April 2016 until 15 
May 2020, on certain iron and steel products. Citing significant increases  in imports of iron and 
steel between 2012 and 2015, from 41.8 to 55 million tonnes, global overcapacity, and the WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 34 - 
 
  vulnerable situation of the industry, the Commission determined there was a threat of injury to 
Union producers.  
 
Question 28: These import su rveillance measures regulate that the access of third -country iron 
and steel products into the EU market shall require import surveillance documents, and the 
importer must declare import and apply for surveillance documents in advance to the competent 
authorities of the member states. These measures will undoubtedly lengthen the import process, 
please explain how the EU can ensure that the additional import process will not place an 
additional burden on normal trade?  
 
EU reply:  As notified by the EU at the WTO (see EU annual notification of its import licensing 
procedures, document: G/LIC/N/3/EU/5) the purpose of the steel prior surveillance scheme is to 
collect information about the intention to import from all non -EU member countries (with the 
exception of  Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein). Rapid and anticipated trade data is necessary to 
deal with the vulnerability of the EU steel market to sudden changes on world steel markets. The 
automatic licensing scheme has been designed in accordance with the provi sions of the Import 
Licensing Agreement, and it is administered in a manner that it does not create any unjustified 
burden on normal trade. According to the EU rules, surveillance documents are issued within 5 
working days of presentation of an application . This is in line with Art. 2.2.a.iii) of the Import 
Licensing Agreement, requiring that a document be issued within 10 working days. Delays may 
only occur in case the relevant conditions required for the application were not met.  
 
Furthermore, the surveillance regulation was recently amended to increase the exemption 
threshold up to 5000 kg for certain products. This will reduce the number of transaction falling 
under surveillance.  
 
Question 29: The EU has taken anti -dumping measures or is conducting anti -dumping 
investigations against major iron and steel products, is it still necessary to implement surveillance 
measures? China notes that the surveillance period is five years, and if the situation is changed 
during the implem entation of the measures, the surveillance measures should be lifted in advance. 
Please detail the procedures for lifting the surveillance measures on the part of the EU. Does the 
EU plan to lift these measures in advance?  
 
EU reply:  Regulation 2016/670 la ys down that prior surveillance scheme applies from April 2016 
until 15 May 2020. It cannot be excluded that, depending on the evolution of the situation, the 
system may be interrupted before the end of this period. This is however impossible to predict at  
this stage. Any changes to the duration of the regulation require the adoption of an amending 
regulation.  
 
Page 68, Para . 3.101  
As noted in the previous Review, the EU WSR99 bans all exports of hazardous waste to non -OECD 
countries and all exports of wast e for disposal outside the EU/EFTA.  
 
Question 30: We would like to know whether the EU has assessed its effect since the 
implementation of the EU WSR99. If yes, please provide related assessment reports.  
 
EU reply: The European Commission is currently eval uating the Waste Shipment Regulation and 
intends to adopt a report on this evaluation in 2019. All feedback received on the roadmap for the 
evaluation is published at: http://ec.eu ropa.eu/environment/feedback_en.htm . Reports on the 
implementation of the Regulation, based on information provided by the EU Member States, are 
also available at: http://ec.europa .eu/environment/waste/shipments/reports.htm  
 
Page 73, Para . 3.117 -3.119  
There are three European standardization organizations (ESOs): the European Committee for 
Standardization (CEN); the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC);  
1.1.  Specific CEN activities cover: accessibility, air and space, bio -based products, chemistry, 
construction, consumer products, energy and utilities, food, Specific CENELEC activities cover 
electro -technical standardization in sectors including: electric vehi cles, smart grids and smart 
metering, household appliances.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 35 - 
 
  Question 31: What kind of organization are the ESOs? What specific rules have the ESO standards 
set, and what requirements have they set, in what aspects? Are they legally binding? What are 
their relations with regulations and directives? Please provide further information.  
 
EU reply:  CEN, CENELEC and ETSI are private, independent, regional and non -profit organisations 
recognised by the Regulation (EU) No. 1025/2012 on European standardisation as  European 
standardisation organisations (ESOs).  
 
CEN and CENELEC are associations, whose 34 national members are the national standards bodies 
of the EU Member States (28) and EFTA Member States (3) plus those of Serbia, Turkey and the 
Former Yugoslavian R epublic of Macedonia.  
 
ETSI is also a not-for-profit organization  with more than 800 member organizations  worldwide, 
drawn from 67 countries and five  continents.  
 
All 3 ESOs have their own statute, rules and procedures, agreed by their members completely 
independently from the EU institutions. In 2010, CEN and CENELEC have merged their Secretariat 
and aligned their internal regulations, although they a re still formally two separate organisations.  
Internal rules and procedures of the ESOs can be found on their respective websites:  
1-2 – CEN and CENELEC:  
 
https://boss.cen.eu/reference%20material/RefDocs/Pages/default.aspx  
 
3 – ETSI:  
 
http://www.etsi.org/about/how -we-work/how -we-organize -our-work/directives  
Whenever the  European Commission decides that standards are needed in support of EU 
harmonisation legislation, it can ask the ESOs to produce them via a 'request for standards'. 
Harmonised standards are voluntary in application, while their use provides for presumptio n of 
conformity with the requirements set in EU harmonisation legislation.  
 
Information on requests for standards can be found on the following European Commission 
webpage (notification system):  
 
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single -market/european -standards/notification -system_en  
 
Question 32: Regarding specific food safety standards, laws, regulations and directives, such as 
food product standards and food re lated product standards (e.g. food contact materials), what is 
their division of work and cooperation mechanism? What work are they respectively responsible 
for? 
 
EU reply:  With respect to Food Contact Materials ('FCM') the ESOs have a limited role in 
standardization of migration testing methods. There are no references in FCM legislation to a CEN 
method. However, under Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 a CEN method would need to be used for 
official controls if available. References can be found in the following  report: 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/mapping -industry -and-regulatory -frameworks -food-contact -
materials -support -better -regulation . 
 
Page 78, Para . 3.141  
Since the last Review in 2015, a new regulation on transmissible animal diseases (Animal Health 
Law) and a new law on plant pests (Plant Health Law) were adopted (Table 3.13). In addition, the 
European Commission n oted that a new regulation on official controls is close to adoption. The new 
regulation will replace Regulation (EC) No. 882/2004 and repeal Regulation (EC) No. 854/2004.  
 
Question 33: According to statistics, the EUs SPS/TBT measures on Chinese agricultu ral products 
have been on the rise. 3.141 and Table 3.13 have only listed part of the new regulations on animal 
and plant health implemented by the EU since the last Review in 2015, but not all the TBT and SPS 
measures for the agricultural product industry  since 2015, and in particular, not reflecting the 
frequent use of TBT measures on products such as Chinese tea in recent years. Could the EU 
explain the above situation?  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 36 - 
 
  EU reply:  Since 2015 the EU has not adopted any new SPS/TBT measure with regard to i mports 
of Chinese agricultural products. The measures currently in force have been in place since 2002 on 
peanuts (aflatoxins), since 2011 on tea, whether or not flavoured (pesticide residues), and since 
2012 on Brassica oleracea (pesticide residues). Thes e measures establish requirements that need 
to be fulfilled by the Chinese authorities and/or harmonized official control requirements for EU 
Member States with regard to the concerned foodstuffs imported into the EU.  
 
Page 81, Para . 3.145  
The Health and F ood Audits and Analysis Directorate (formerly known as 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, a nd plant health 
legislation within the EU, and compliance with EU import requirements in third countries exporting 
to the EU.  
 
Question 34: If a food product imported to the EU does not meet part of the standards or is not in 
conformity with relevant regulations and directives due to special production technique, will the 
FVO directly determine that the product is unqualified, or will it determine the product as qualified 
after the importer presents sufficient proof showing the food product is safe? If  the latter is the 
case, what proof and material are required to be provided?  
 
EU reply:  The EU would like to point out that it is the EU Member States' authorities that take 
decisions at the borders in accordance with EU import legislation with regard to a product to be 
imported into the EU.  
 
Where EU legislation lays down specific import conditions (e.g. special production process), the 
required health guarantees are gathered in model certificates that must accompany the imported 
goods. These official cer tificates constitute the documented evidence the importers must present 
at border inspection posts.  
 
If official certification does not meet the EU requirements then the consignment would be rejected.  
 
Question 35: Could the EU provide details on how it e xamines, approves and manages the import 
of food products not covered by regulations and standards?  
 
EU reply:  The EU examines, approves, and manages the import of food products not covered by 
specific regulations and standards according to general rules a pplicable to the type of products.  
 
Page 83, Para . 3.161  
The Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) allows food and feed authorities of the member 
States and the Commission to exchange information about measures taken in response to direct 
and indirect risks to human health from food, and human and animal health and the environment 
from feed. Member States notify risks detected in products already on the market (market 
notifications) and when products are refused entry into the EU (border reject ions).  
 
Question 36: Will the RASFF be synchronously notified to other WTO members in some way? What 
is the follow -up work mechanism of this system? How can it be open and transparent and minimize 
its effect on trade to the extent possible? Please give spe cific examples.  
 
EU reply:  The European Commission considers cooperation with third countries on rapid alerts 
very important and wishes to promote and improve such cooperation. It has done so already by 
establishing single contact points (CP) for the RASFF  in non -EU countries (such as China) and 
through close collaboration with the International Food Safety Authorities network (INFOSAN), 
operated by the WHO. As an example, from the 1st of May 2017, 30 messages concerning RASFF 
notifications have been sent t o the Chinese RASFF CP with information relevant to the country, and 
giving access to the mentioned information or documents in the RASFF Window. Through the 
feedback function in the RASFF Window, the Chinese RASFF CP has the possibility to provide 
feedbac k on their investigations and measures taken as well as to request information or actions 
by member countries. If appropriate, such feedback is transmitted through the RASFF network as 
a follow -up notification by the European Commission.  
 
 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 37 - 
 
  Page 95, Para . 3.209  
3.209. After being notified, the Commission has 25 working days to complete a Phase I 
investigation, at the end of which the merger is cleared with or without remedies or, if there are 
outstanding concerns, a Phase II investigation is opened. A Phase  II investigation is a much more 
detailed analysis of the effect of the merger on competition, including claims of efficiency gains 
that could result from the merger. The result of the Phase II investigation is to unconditionally 
clear the merger, approve it subject to remedies, or prohibit it.  
 
Question 37: According to the paragraph, in the Review of Concentration of Undertakings, the 
Phase II investigation will consider the effect of concentration on efficiency. Please provide 
information on how the EU a nalyses the efficiency resulted from concentration in the Review of 
Concentration of Undertakings.  
 
EU reply : In order to assess whether a merger (whether it is horizontal or non -horizontal) would 
significantly impede effective competition the European Com mission performs an overall 
competitive appraisal of the merger and, in doing so, it considers i.a. any substantiated efficiency 
claim made by the undertakings. However, in order to take efficiency claims into account, the 
efficiencies have to benefit cons umers, be merger -specific and be verifiable. These conditions are 
cumulative.  
 
For more detailed information about the cumulative conditions that efficiency claims have to fulfil, 
please refer to our guidelines on horizontal and non -horizontal mergers, ava ilable at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/legislation/legislation.html . 
 
Page 96, Para . 3.211,3.212  
The EU cooperates with other competition authorities, and has competition agreements and 
cooperation arrangements with a variety of countries as set out in previous reviews. During the 
review period, a new agreement was signed with South Africa in 2016. In addition, competition 
provisions have also been included in n umerous general cooperation or association agreements, or 
trade agreements.  
 
The EU has also been supportive of greater multilateral cooperation through the International 
Competition Network (ICN), the UNCTAD Intergovernmental Group of Experts on Competiti on 
Policy, and the OECD Competition Committee. The EU considers that these multilateral forums 
provide an important platform to promote open competition and fight protectionism; this enables 
competition authorities worldwide to respond to cases more effici ently through coordinated 
inspections across several jurisdictions.  
 
Question 38: Could the EU provide information on the measures taken to deepen cooperation on 
Review of Concentration of Undertakings with other jurisdictions.  
 
EU reply: On a bilateral le vel, the Commission generally includes provisions on cooperation on 
merger control in the different competition cooperation and coordination agreements and 
administrative arrangement that it signs.  
 
For more detailed information on the content of those pr ovisions please refer to our website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/international/bilateral/ . 
 
On a multilateral level, as stated in the WTO Secretariat's report, the EU has always been 
supportive of greater multilateral cooperation on merger control. It is for this reason that the 
European Commission, via DG Competition, actively participates in the discussions held in the 
different competition related multilateral fora. A clear exa mple of this is our involvement in the 
elaboration and revision of the working products of the ICN Merger Working Group (MWG) such as 
for instance the 2015 ICN Practical Guide to International Enforcement Cooperation in Mergers.  
 
For more information abou t the MWG's working products please refer to ICN's website: 
http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/working -groups/current/merger.aspx . 
 
Page 101, Para . 3.225  
The EU has no common definition of state -owned enterprises (SOEs), rather each member State 
has its own legal provisions, and there are various forms of state ownership. Thus, a direct 
comparison across member States is difficult to apply in many c ases due to lack of uniformity. WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 38 - 
 
  However, a 2016 institutional paper by the European Commission had, for its purposes, defined 
SOEs as companies where the state exercised control, regardless of the size of state ownership. 
Furthermore, it is the member Stat es that retain competence for SOEs, including their functioning, 
funding, and policy. Article 345 of the TFEU states that: "The Treaties shall in no way prejudice the 
rules in member States governing the system of property ownership". For example, the Trea ties 
will not interfere with a member State's choice to organize (part of) its economy on the basis of 
SOEs as opposed to private companies. However, general EU rules are applicable also to SOEs 
including, for example, rules on competition, freedom of esta blishment and non -discrimination. It 
is noted that, as many member States are also members of the OECD, they, in principle, follow the 
non-binding Guidelines on Corporate Governance of SOEs, which aims to provide transparency and 
disclosure, a rules -based environment, equitable treatment of shareholders, responsibilities for 
board members, rationales for state ownership, etc.  
 
Question 39: With regard to the 2016 institutional paper by the European Commission that had 
defined SOEs on the basis of control ri ghts, is the institutional paper binding and applicable to all 
members? Could the EU elaborate on how to identify an SOE according to the standard of control 
rights? Could the EU give any example?  
 
EU reply: The 2016 Institutional Paper by the European Com mission "State -owned enterprises in 
the EU: Lessons learnt and ways forward in a post -crisis context" uses, as a rule, the ESA2010 
definition of state -owned enterprises based on control rights. For the purpose of the empirical 
analysis, SOEs were identifie d using firm -level ORBIS data. These data contain information on the 
type of the ultimate firm owner (public authority or private entity), but – as acknowledged in the 
report – the data have their limitations and we have done some further screening to dete rmine 
ownership. Firms were then defined as SOEs whenever public authorities hold at least 20% of the 
shares. This should be seen as a mere working assumption, and the definition of SOEs on the basis 
of control rights is only used for research purposes and  has no legal relevance whatsoever. The 
paper explicitly acknowledges that there is no common definition of what is an SOE (p. 6 of the 
paper) and EU Member States are not  bound in any way by the paper.  
 
Question 40: According to the paragraph, general EU rules are applicable also to SOEs including, 
for example, rules on competition, freedom of establishment and non -discrimination. Are the rules 
applicable to the EUs SOEs and private companies unifor mly and on the same conditions?  
 
EU reply: The EU rules on  competition, freedom of establishment and non -discrimination generally 
apply in the same manner for all enterprises, i.e entities exercising economic activities, 
irrespective of whether they are publicly or privately owned. This has been confirmed by the 
European Court of Justice.9 
 
Page 101 -102, Para . 3.226  
SOEs continue to play a significant role in the EU by providing a large share of the output and 
employment, while significant disparities remain among member States as to the level and scope 
of public ownership. According to the EC's Institutional Paper on SOEs, most member States have 
significant participation of SOEs in the energy and rail sectors. In the new member States, there 
tends to be SOEs in many sectors of the economy due to historical legaci es, while in the EU -15, 
SOEs are more concentrated in the network sectors. While there has been a gradual overall 
reduction in SOEs in most member States over the last 15 years, there has been somewhat of a 
reversal during the financial crisis, when many m ember States intervened or took equity interests 
in financial sector companies in particular. This has prompted further scrutiny and examination of 
SOEs, particularly as to their financial performance and impact on fiscal balances. Concerns have 
been raise d as to their market functioning, public finances, and financial stability.  
 
Question 41: According to the paragraph, [the EU will have] further scrutiny and examination of 
SOEs, particularly as to their financial performance and impact on fiscal balances.  Concerns have 
been raised as to their market functioning, public finances, and financial stability. Is the scrutiny 
and examination mechanism also applicable to foreign SOEs investment in the EU, or only to EU 
SOEs? What are the specific provisions of the  scrutiny and examination mechanism?  
 
                                                
9 See e.g., for the applicability of competition rules with respect to both public and private enterprises 
Case C -163/99, Portugal/Commission, EU:C:2001:2613, para. 59.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 39 - 
 
  EU reply: The Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) aims to ensure that public finances of the EU 
Member State are on a sustainable path. Following from this, the scrutiny and examination of 
SOEs is necessary to the extent t hat such enterprises constitute a source of risks for EU public 
finances, which can only apply to SOEs which are majority owned or controlled by other means by 
central, state or local governments of EU Member States. Foreign SOE investment (i.e. investment  
from outside the EU) does not constitute such a fiscal risk for EU Member State governments and 
therefore does not fall under the scope of the scrutiny and examination of public finance impact 
mentioned in paragraph 3.226.  
 
As outlined in section 3.3.6.2,  the national statistical authorities of the EU Member States report to 
Eurostat - the statistical office of the EU - information pertaining to corporations which are 
controlled by central, state or local governments. In line with the requirements in the F iscal 
Frameworks Directive (2011/85/EU), information on liabilities of such public corporations is made 
public by means of national and Eurostat publications. The information required from the EU 
Member States with respect to the public corporations relate s to the total amount of liabilities as 
well as to the profit or losses. The collection of such data takes place once per year and collects 
data for the reference year t -1 (where the year t is the current year). A broader requirement for 
EU Member States t o present information on any implicit and contingent liabilities that could have 
a potentially large impact on general government accounts is also included in Regulation (EU) 
1175/2011 amending Regulation 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of  budgetary 
positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies (the preventive arm of the 
SGP) and in Regulation (EU) 473/2013 on common provisions for monitoring and assessing draft 
budgetary plans and ensuring the correction of excessive  deficit in the EU Member States forming 
the euro area. Such liabilities with a potentially large impact on general government accounts may 
also relate to public corporations.  
 
Page 102, Para . 3.227  
There have also been reports of the reform of SOEs in the  EU in the last 15 years, with reductions 
in direct government control, improved corporate governance, and modifications to the legal 
framework in which SOEs operate. Many of these improvements can be related to adhering to the 
OECD Guidelines. In particul ar, there have been improvements in transparency in Italy; separation 
of ownership and regulatory functions in Lithuania; progress in the selection of supervisory boards 
in Croatia; and improvement in reporting modalities in several member States. There is  also a 
Commission Directive on transparency of financial relations between member States and public 
undertakings to ensure the transparency of public funds made available to state -owned 
companies. However, while information is to be reported to the Commis sion pursuant to this 
Directive, it was not available.  
 
Question 42: According to the paragraph, [the EU has carried out] reform of SOEs in the last 15 
years, with reductions in direct government control, improved corporate governance, and 
modifications to  the legal framework in which SOEs operate. Many of these improvements can be 
related to adhering to the OECD Guidelines Does the EU have directives or other guidelines on the 
reform of SOEs? Are there overall reform goals and uniform major measures? If th ere are, please 
provide details. Should member states regularly or timely notify their reform to the EU?  
 
EU reply:  The EU does not have directives or other guidelines for the reform of SOEs, neither are 
there overall reform goals or uniform measures. Memb er States do not have any obligation to 
regularly or timely notify their reform of SOEs to the EU. It should be noted that the OECD 
Guidelines referred to in the report are only guidelines and do not impose any legal obligation on 
the EU or its Member Stat es. 
 
As regards the Commission Directive 2006/111/EC on transparency of financial relations between 
Member States and public undertakings (Transparency Directive) imposes a general transparency 
obligation on financial relations between public authorities a nd public undertakings. It also requires 
Member States to collect information according to the Directive and keep it at the disposal of the 
European Commission for five years. Where the Commission considers it necessary, the Member 
State shall provide the information, together with any background information. Finally, there are 
limited reporting obligations for public undertakings in the manufacturing sector.  
 
The Transparency Directive also extends transparency to the obligation of maintaining separate 
accounts for public and private undertakings which, on the one hand, operate services of general 
economic interest or are entrusted with special or exclusive rights and, on the other hand, also WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 40 - 
 
  carry out other activities. According to the Directive, such acco unts should show the distinction 
between different activities, the costs and revenues associated with each activity and the methods 
of cost and rev enue assignment and allocation.  
 
All EU Member States were required to transpose the Transparency Directive i n national law. 
Where Member States had not done so, the Commission had initiated infringement procedures, 
which were however closed in 2008, following the adoption by Member States of legislation 
implementing said Directive.  
 
Page 104, Para . 3.234  
In 2015 , total general government public procurement expenditure on works, goods and services 
in the EU (excluding utilities) was 2,015.3 billion, or over 13% of GDP, with 349.2  billion published 
on the Tenders Electronic Daily (TED) supplement to the Official Jo urnal of the EU. Including 
defence and utilities, the total value of government procurement in the EU and published on TED 
was 450.2 billion.  
 
Page 109, Para . 3.253.  
The total value of contracts covered by the GPA was 286.4 billion in 2012, of which 283.4 billion 
was attributed to the 27 member States (Croatia acceded to the EU in 2013) and 3billion to the EU 
institutions . 
 
Question 43: What's the share for foreign goods and services in public procurement of the EU?  
 
EU reply:  We do not have such information on share for foreign goods and services in public 
procurement of the EU. 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/publicprocurement/docs/modernising_rules/cross -border -
procurement_en.pdf . 
 
Question 44: Does the EU consider establishing a database c ontaining statistical information on 
purchasing of foreign products?  
 
EU reply:  There is not currently such a database containing statistical information on purchasing 
of foreign product. The EU does not have a consistent methodology to trace contracts awa rded to 
foreign companies as the existing data covers only direct cross -border procurement and not 
indirect cross border procurement (for example there were a large number of contracts awarded to 
suppliers that are subsidiaries of foreign companies or agen ts for foreign suppliers). Therefore, as 
these data as mentioned above do not cover indirect cross border procurement, they will not fully 
reflect the reality as to import penetration rates.  
 
Page 106 -107, Para . 3.240  
Under the Classical Directive, and the  Utilities Directive, the public authorities can choose among 
different procedures, including: Innovation partnership, which was introduced in 2014, under 
which a selection is made from suppliers that responded to the TED advertisement followed by 
negotiat ions for "search and innovation projects aimed at meeting the needs identified by the 
contracting authority that cannot be met by existing solutions"  
 
Question 45: How often does the EU use innovation partnership in procurement practices? What's 
the effectiveness of supporting innovation?  
 
EU reply:  The procedure concerning innovative partnership was introduced in 2014 with the 
modernization of the EU procurement directives. EU Member States had 24 months (by 18 April 
2016) to transpose the directives  into their national legislation. Therefore, at this point in time the 
Commission does not avail of information as to how often contracting authorities of the EU 
Member States have used this type of procedure.  
 
Innovative procurement is supposed to decreas e the level of spending, while increasing the quality 
of procurement outcomes and fostering sustainable economic growth.  
 
 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 41 - 
 
  Page 108, Para . 3.246  
E-procurement is becoming progressively mandatory, with electronic notification and access to 
tender documents  by April 2016; electronic submission of offers for central purchasing bodies by 
April 2017; and electronic submission of offers for all contracting authorities by October 2018.  
 
Question 46: Please detail the progress of the EUs full implementation of E -procurement . 
 
EU reply:  E-notification and e -access are fully implemented in all EU Member States. E -submission 
is already available in 2/3rd of the Member States.  
 
Page 110 Para . 3.255  
The recognition of the key role that IPRs play in the EU economy had also led the European 
Commission to adopt its comprehensive IP strategy in 2011.During the reporting period, a number 
of legislative measures were put in place that implement  the initiati ves announced in the 
Commission's earlier strategy. These include the adoption of the trademark reform package and of 
the Trade Secrets Directive. In addition, important work was undertaken to further modernize the 
legislative framework for copyright prote ction and enforcement with a particular focus on 
copyright -protected goods in the online environment. For this purpose, a number of legislative 
proposals were submitted by the European Commission in September 2016. Significant steps were 
also taken towards  the putting into place the unitary patent. Meanwhile, work progressed on the 
review of the IPR enforcement regime in the EU, again with a particular focus on the need to adapt 
the regime to respond to challenges in the online environment.  
 
Question 47: Co uld the EU further elaborate on the revisions made to specific laws and regulations 
in the EUs effort to modernize the legislative framework for copyright protection and enforcement?  
 
EU reply:  On 9 December 2015, the European Commission adopted a Proposal for a Regulation  of 
the European Parliament and of the Council on ensuring the cross -border portability of online 
content services in the internal market.  
 
On 14 Se ptember 2016, the European Commission adopted the following legislative proposals:  
 Proposal for a Directive  of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in t he 
Digital Single Market. It aims at adapting certain key exceptions to copyright to the digital 
and cross -border environment; improving licensing practices and ensuring wider access to 
content; and achieving a well -functioning marketplace for copyright.  
 Proposal for a Regulation  of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules 
on the exercise of copyright and related rights applicable to certain online trans missions of 
broadcasting organisations and retransmissions of television and radio programmes. Its 
objective is to facilitate the clearance of rights for cross -border online transmissions of 
television and radio programmes and retransmissions over closed n etworks, therefore 
fostering the cross -border distribution of television and radio programmes.  
 With the proposal for a Directive on certain permitted uses of works and other subject -
matter protected by copyright and related rights for the benefit of person s who are blind, 
visually impaired or otherwise print disabled, the Commission is implementing the 
Marrakesh Treaty into EU law through a new exception.  
 The Proposal for a  Regulation  of the European Parliament and of the Council on the cross -
border exchange between the Union and third countries of accessible format copies of 
certain works and other subject -matter protected by copyright and related rights for the 
benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled will make 
sure that the EU Member States may apply the provisions of the Marrakesh Treaty with 
third countries.  
 
Question 48: Could the EU further elaborate on the legislative measures ta ken for transaction of 
copyright -protected goods in the online environment?  
 
EU reply: Please see reply to Question 47.  
 
Page 139, Para . 4.8 
Since 1 January 2015, active farmers have had access to the compulsory schemes provided by all 
member States (the b asic payment or single area payment, the greening payment, and the young 
farmers' scheme) and, if the member State has so decided, the voluntary schemes (redistributive 
payment, support in areas with natural constraints, and coupled support). Member States  also WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 42 - 
 
  have the option of applying a small farmers' scheme, which is a simplified scheme that replaces all 
other direct payments and exempts eligible farmers from greening and cross -compliance controls. 
Apart from the small farmers' scheme, all direct payme nt programmes are subject to provisions to 
ensure compliance with basic standards relating to the environment, food safety, animal and plant 
health and animal welfare (cross -compliance).  
 
Question 49: How does the EU define small farmers?  
 
EU reply:  There is no specific legal definition regarding "small farmers" for the purpose of direct 
payments. Any farmer eligible for the basic payment scheme or the single area payment scheme in 
2015, irrespective of the size of the holding, was able to apply for partici pation in the small 
farmers scheme (SFS) in 2015 (see Article 61(1) and 62(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013). 
Farmers could apply for participation in the scheme only once (in 2015) and such participation is 
valid for the entire duration of the scheme, u nless farmers withdraw from it. It means that no new 
farmers can apply for participation in the scheme in 2016 or thereafter (the only exception is cases 
of inheritance, see Article 64(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013). However, whilst any farmer 
(irresp ective of the size of the holding) could opt for participating in the small farmers scheme, no 
farmer can receive a payment higher than the maximum limit set by Member States pursuant to 
Article 63 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 which in any case may not be not greater than €1 
250. Therefore, in practice this scheme is mainly attractive to farmers with smaller holdings. See 
also the reply to question 50.  
 
For more details on the small farmers ' scheme, please consult this information note: 
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/direct -support/direct -payments/docs/small -
farmers -scheme_en.pdf  
 
Question 50: What's the current population of small farmers? And what's the proportion thereof?  
 
EU reply:  Out of 28 EU member States, 15 opted for applying the small farmers scheme (SFS). 
According to European Commission data available, the current population of farme rs participating 
in the small farmers' scheme represent nearly 2.9 million farmers in 2015, which corresponds to 
around 50% of the farmers eligible for decoupled support in the 15 Member States implementing 
the scheme.  
 
As explained under question 49, entr ance in the small farmers' scheme was possible only in the 
year 2015, but farmers have the possibility to withdraw from the scheme in later years. The 
European Commission does not have data for years 2016 and 2017 yet. Nevertheless, it can be 
foreseen that  the total number of farmers participating in the SFS will slightly decrease due to 
withdrawal from the scheme by some farmers.  
 
At the same time it is worth to note that, in the year 2015, the area declared by farmers 
participating in the small farmers' s cheme represented only 7% of the eligible area declared in the 
15 Member States applying such scheme. On average, a farmer participating in this scheme has a 
holding of only 2.2 eligible hectares.  
 
Question 51: What's the implementation progress of the sma ll farmers' scheme?  
 
EU reply:  Data for 2016 and 2017 is not yet available. However, the following 15 EU Member 
States apply the small farmers' scheme: Malta, Romania, Poland, Italy, Portugal, Greece, Spain, 
Hungary, Latvia, Austria, Croatia, Bulgaria, Est onia, Germany and Slovenia.  
 
The maximum payment a farmer could receive under the small farmers' scheme in these Member 
States is as follows:  
 €500 lump -sum to any farmer participating in the scheme (irrespective of the size of 
his/her holding): Latvia and Portugal (from 2016 the lump -sum applied in Portugal is 
€600)  
 Payment equal to an "amount due to the farmer in 2015" (taking into account the size of 
the holding in 2015), which can never be more than:  
o €1 250: Spain, Italy, Hungary  
o €1 050: Slovenia  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 43 - 
 
   Payment  equal to an "amount due to the farmer each year" (taking into account the size of 
the holding every year), which can never be more than:  
o €1 250: Bulgaria; Germany, Estonia, Greece, Malta, Austria, Poland and Romania  
o €657: Croatia  
These are maximum payments; the actual payment to a farmer may be lower due to reductions 
applied (or due to his/her situation, in cases where the size of the holding matters for the 
payment).  
 
As mentioned in the reply to question 50, there are nearly 2.9 million farmers p articipating in the 
small farmer's scheme and this number can either remain unchanged or decrease as there is no 
possibility for new farmers to enter in the scheme after the year 2015, but there is a possibility to 
withdraw.  
 
Page 145 -147, Para . 4.254.26 T able 4.8 & 4.9  
Following the measures taken by the Russian Federation in August 2014, the EU took several 
measures to address the decline in demand for dairy products which included extending the 
buying -in period for intervention for butter and skimmed mil k powder (SMP) and introducing 
private storage aids for butter, SMP, and cheese, and increasing the quantities that may be bought 
into intervention. In addition, EU funding was made available for dairy, beef and veal, and sheep, 
goat and pig meat producers  with the potential for additional member State financing.  
 
The additional aid to producers of milk and milk products, beef and veal, and pig, sheep, and goat 
meat under these exceptional measures was allocated among the member States as shown in 
Table 4.9 . 
 
Question 52: From 2014 to 2016, the EU had issued several policy measures to stabilize the dairy 
industry, including extending and adjusting the buying -in period for intervention, introducing 
private storage aids for dairy products, and providing aid to  producers. Please detail the results for 
the implementation of these policies.  
 
EU reply: The measures taken to stabilize the dairy market from 2014 to 2016 can be 
summarized as follows:  
 
1- Public intervention  
For butter and skimmed milk powder, public i ntervention is open from 1 March to 30 September. 
Where quantities offered for public intervention during this period exceed 50 000 tons of butter or 
109 000 tons of skimmed milk powder, the Commission suspends buying -in at fixed price for the 
product conc erned. In that case buying -in is then carried out on the basis of a tendering procedure 
according to specifications to be determined by the Commission.  
 
An exceptional increase of quantities acceptable at fixed price was provided for in 2016 in view of 
the prolonged period of severe market imbalance experienced in the milk sector. Global demand 
for milk and milk products had deteriorated in the course of 2015, notably due to the introduction 
and prolongation of the Russian import ban and the weakening of im ports in China, the main world 
importer of dairy products. At the same time, milk supply had generally increased in the main 
exporting regions. In order to help the milk and milk products sector find a new balance in this 
exceptional market situation, the ceilings for the buying -in of butter and skimmed milk powder at 
a fixed price were increased to 100 000 tons of butter and 350 000 tons of skimmed milk powder 
for 2016.  
 
2- Private storage  
Aid for private storage may be granted to respond to a particular d ifficult market situation for:  
o butter produced from cream obtained directly and exclusively from cow's milk;  
o skimmed milk powder made from cow's milk;  
o Cheese benefiting from a protected designation of origin or from a protected geographical 
indication and  with a certain maturing period.  
Since the introduction of the Russian import ban, private storage aid was made available for 
butter, skimmed milk powder and cheese. The butter and cheese schemes came to an end on 30 
September 2016. The skimmed milk powder  scheme ended on 28 February 2017.  
 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 44 - 
 
  Results:  
 
1- Butter private storage scheme  
166 914 tons of butter were entered into the private storage scheme from September 2014, when 
the scheme was opened, until the end of 2015. In 2016 another 143  587 tons of butter have been 
offered under the scheme.  
 
The private storage scheme for butte r expired on 30 September 2016.  
4 250 tones were reported to be in stock at the end of March 2017.  
 
2- Skimmed milk powder private storage scheme  
61 168 tons of SMP were entere d into the private storage scheme from September 2014, when the 
scheme was opened, until the end of 2015.  
 
In 2016, another 89  156 tons of SMP were entered into the scheme (43  808 tones under the 
standard scheme – 210 days storage, and 45  348 tones under t he enhanced scheme – 365 days 
storage).  
 
The private storage scheme for SMP expired on 28 February 2017.  
 
3-Skimmed milk powder public intervention scheme  
SMP quantities were offered into intervention since week 29 of 2015. The total quantity offered 
until the end of 2015 was 40  280 tones.  
 
On 30 June 2016, buying -in at fixed price resumed under an increased ceiling (350 000 tones). In 
total, including the tenders, 334 551 tones were bought into intervention.  
 
The tender procedure for selling SMP out of pu blic intervention stocks is open since December 
2016. A quantity of 40 t has been sold so far.  
 
Cheese private storage scheme  
Out of the 100  000 tones made available under the scheme, 31 877 tones were applied for in the 
first round in October 2015. In th e second allocat ion round beginning of 2016, 52, 862 tones were 
applied for, resulting in a cumulative total applications of 84 739 tones. The scheme for cheese 
expired on 30 September 2016.  
 
Exceptional support measures  
The Commission may adopt exceptiona l measures against market disturbance caused by 
significant price rises or falls on internal or external markets or other events, and market support 
measures related to animal diseases and loss of consumer confidence due to public, animal or 
plant health r isks. In October 2015, temporary exceptional aid worth €420 million was made 
available to Member States in the form of national envelopes for distribution to livestock farmers. 
Member States had the possibility to provide a nationally -funded "top -up" of up  to 100% of these 
amounts. In the autumn 2016, in order to help the milk and milk products sector find a new 
balance, €150 million was made available to milk producers in the Union who voluntarily engaged 
in reducing cow milk deliveries for a 3 month perio d, starting in October 2016 .  
 
In parallel, in order to improve farmers' resilience, a one -time financial grant was made available 
in September 2016 to each Member State within an overall budget of €350 million for milk 
producers and farmers in other livestock sectors who engaged in one or more activities fostering 
economic sustainability and market stabilization. As in 2015, Member States had the possibility to 
provide a nationally -funded "top -up" of up to 100% of the allocated amounts. An overview of  
measures taken since 2014 in the wake of the Russian import ban is available at:  
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/m ilk/policy -instruments/global -
view_en.pdf . 
 
Question 53: What were the actual quantities of dairy products that were bought into intervention 
and were privately stored during the implementation of these policies?  
 
EU reply: See reply to question 52.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 45 - 
 
  Quest ion 54: How did the EU dispose the dairy storage? What 's the EU policy document subject to 
which the storage was disposed of? What were the quantities of storage exported to the 
international market, and that used for free aid?  
 
EU reply:  As regards the pu blic intervention stock of skimmed milk powder, amounting at 351 
000 tones at the end of 2016, the sale by tendering procedure were opened by Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 of 25 November 2016 ( http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2016.321.01.0045.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2016:321:TOC ). So far 
40 ton nes were sold by means of Regulation (EU) 2016 /2264, fixing the minimum selling price for 
skimmed milk powder for the first partial invitation to tender. ( http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -
content/EN/TXT/PDF/? uri=CELEX:32016R2264&from=EN ). The Commission is not aware of the 
use or destination of the released quantities. There exists no policy document describing or 
providing how the products released from public or private storage are to be used.  
 
The following  quantities were subject of the private storage schemes during the years 2014 to 
2016.  
 
The Commission has no information on the use or the destination of the quantities released from 
storage. The operators have the choice to release it on the internal market, to export it, or to keep 
it in storage.  
 
Page 176, Para . 4.126  
The second, still un -adopted, proposal of this pillar is a proposal for a regulation on structural 
measures improvin g the resilience of EU credit institutions. The goal of this proposal is to stop the 
biggest and most complex banks from engaging in the risky activity of proprietary trading. The 
new rules would also give supervisors the power to require those banks to se parate certain 
potentially risky trading activities from their deposit -taking business if the pursuit of such activities 
compromises financial stability.  
 
Question 55: Please give more information about the progress of this proposal and the specific 
timeta ble for its implementation.  
 
EU reply: The proposal is under co decision and the Commission cannot predict the outcome.  
 
Question 56: How to define the biggest and most complex banks that are subject to this proposal?  
 
EU reply: The regulation would apply only to the largest and most complex EU banks with 
significant trading activities. Articles 3 of the Commission's proposal stated that these were banks 
that are either identified as being of global systemic importance or exceed certain thresholds in 
terms of total size (EUR30bn) and trading assets (more than EUR70bn or 10% of total assets). 
This was upheld by the Council.  
 
Question 57: Do the regulatory rules prohibit all banks from engaging in the risky activity of 
proprietary trading? Is there an exceptio n? 
 
EU reply:  It would only apply to those banks that fall within the scope of the regulation (see 
previous response).  
 
 
 
 Private storage schemes           in 
tonnes  
Quantities contracted and released 
from store       
  2014 2015 2016 
  entries  released  entries  released  entries  released  
Skimmed milk 
powder  17,341 1,338 50,886 33,954 90,694 57,673 
Butter  22,188 12,847 140,948 110,278 143,046 169,491 
Cheeses  0 0 30,619 3,649 2,691 18,796 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 46 - 
 
  Page182 Para . 4.166  
The regulatory framework of commercial aviation services in terms of licencing (granting of Airline 
Operating Cer tificate), ownership rules, and intra -EU market access rules remains governed by 
Regulation (EC) 1008/2008 which is a recast of the 1992 third liberalization package  
 
Question 58: Is there access restriction on foreign investment in civil aviation transpor t services, 
such as transport aviation, general aviation, airport, air traffic control, aircraft maintenance, 
ground service, aviation fuel and computer reservation system? If there is, what are the 
measures? Is there any plan or timetable for further open ing up?  
 
EU reply:  
As regards legislation governing the provision of services in the sectors mentioned, there exist in 
the EU no restrictions on foreign investment other than the following:  
 
Regulation 1008/2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community 
provides that, in order for an undertaking to obtain an operating license from an EU Member State, 
it must comply inter alia  with the condition that "Member States and/ or nationals of Member 
States own more than 50% of the undertaking and effectively control it, whether directly or 
indirectly through one or more intermediate undertakings, except as provided for in an agreement 
with a third country to which the Community is a party".  For the purposes of this Regulation, 
‘operating licence’ means an authorisation granted by the competent licensing authority to an 
undertaking, permitting it to provide air services as stated in the operating licence.  
 
As for ground -handling s ervices, Directive 96/67/EC allows member States to restrict the number 
of service providers in certain airports and for certain services, and to limit market access for 
foreign service providers on the basis of reciprocity.  
 
Access to the investment marke t for the remaining services is not regulated at EU level and some 
Member States may impose restrictions on foreign investors.  
 
Regulation 1008/2008 is currently being evaluated as envisaged in the 2015 EU aviation strategy, 
while Directive 96/67 is due f or evaluation in 2018. The EU will consider the need for revision 
based on the results of these evaluations.  
 
Part II Questions based on Report by the EU (WT/TPR/G/357)  
 
Page 3 Para . 1.5 
The EU is furthermore committed to concluding the Environmental Goods  Agreement (EGA) 
considering that such an agreement would support efforts to address urgent climate and 
environmental challenges.  
 
Page 11 Para . 3.37 
In January 2016, the European Commission adopted the Anti -Tax Avoidance Package defining new 
rules to coordinate an EU wide response to corporate tax avoidance, following global standards 
developed by the OECD in autumn 2016.  
 
Question 59: Regarding to the Anti -Tax Avoidance Package issued in January, 2016, how do the 
EU Members adopt this policy? What are  the political effects and market influence in those 
Members who have adopted the policy and issued corresponding domestic policies?  
 
EU reply: The Anti -Tax Avoidance Package (ATAP), which was presented on 25 January 2016, 
contained concrete measures to pr event aggressive tax planning, boost tax transparency and 
create a level playing field for all businesses in the EU. These concrete measures are: a proposal 
for an Anti -Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD), a revision of the Administrative Co -operation Directive  
(DAC 4) and a recommendation on tax treaties.  
 
The ATAD responds to the finalisation of the project against Base Erosion and Profit Shifting 
(BEPS) by the G20 and the OECD as well as to demands for a stronger and more coherent EU 
approach against corpora te tax abuse. The ATAD contains five legally -binding anti -abuse measures 
and addresses the most widespread forms of aggressive tax planning. The ATAD creates a 
minimum level of protection against corporate tax avoidance throughout the EU, while ensuring a WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 47 - 
 
  fairer and more stable environment for businesses. The ATAD was adopted on 12 July 2016. All 
Member States should apply these rules as from 1 January 2019.  
 
DAC 4 provides for rules on country -by-country reporting between Member States' tax authorities 
on key tax -related information on multinationals operating in the EU. These transparency 
provisions will allow all Member States the information that they need to detect and prevent tax 
avoidance schemes. DAC 4 was adopted by the ECOFIN Council on 25 May 2016 . Member States 
have to apply these rules since 5 June 2017.  
 
The Recommendation on Tax Treaties advises Member States how to reinforce their tax treaties 
against abuse by aggressive tax planners, in an EU -law compliant way. It covers the introduction 
of general anti -abuse rules in tax treaties and the revision of the definition of permanent 
establishment.  
 
Page 12 Para . 3.40 
In October 2016, the European Commission proposed another Package of corporate tax reforms. 
This included the re -launch of the Common  Consolidated Corporate Tax Base and a single EU 
system for companies to calculate their taxable profits. The European Commission also proposed 
improved mechanisms for resolving double taxation disputes in the Single Market, as well as 
measures to tackle h ybrid mismatch arrangements in relation to non -EU countries.  
 
Question 60: With respect to the package of corporate tax reforms, please list other measures 
besides Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base. How does the Common Consolidated 
Corporate Tax Base policy developed, such as the number of Members who adopted the policy, the 
political effect and market influence?  
 
EU reply: The October Package is part of the EU's political priority to clamp down on tax evasion 
and avoidance and promote fair taxation. I t includes these corporate tax measures:  
 
• The Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base - CCCTB - proposals are still being negotiated, 
and are designed to have a cross -border dimension, companies will only have to deal with one set 
of rules to calculate the ir tax base. The proposals should be implemented in two steps. In the first 
step, the common base should be implemented. Consolidation should be put in place afterwards. 
Discussions are still ongoing.  
 
• The Double Taxation Dispute Resolution proposal, des igned to enhance tax certainty in the 
EU which focuses on improving existing dispute resolution mechanisms, has not yet been adopted.  
 
• The ATAD 2 (Anti -Tax Avoidance Directive 2) which was adopted by the ECOFIN Council on 
29 May 2017 extends the hybrid mismatch rules to deal with situations involving third countries. 
The ATAD 2 rules have not yet been implemented in the EU Member States. The rules will come 
into force on 1 January 2020, with a longer phasing -in period of 2022 for one article (Art. 9a on 
reverse hybrid mismatches.)  
 
Page 8 Para . 3.20 
On 29 January 2016, the European Commission adopted a revised proposal for an International 
Procurement Instrument, a tool aiming at promoting open access to public procurement markets 
around the world. This p roposal is currently in the legislative process.  
 
Question 61: It's understood that the EU proposal on international public procurement policy 
mainly responds to the access of third -country goods and services to the EUs public procurement 
market. If a thir d country does not enter into a bilateral or multilateral international agreement 
with the EU on the open access to public procurement markets, and when the European 
Commission initiates an investigation and assesses that the country has taken discriminato ry or 
restrictive measures against EU suppliers, the goods and services from the third country shall be 
subject to price penalties. That is, when the goods and services originating in a third county 
exceed 50% of the total value of the tenders, the EU will  apply the price adjustment measures to 
the price of the tenders. The proposal uses the legislative model of the Regulation, and once 
adopted, it shall apply to contracts covered by the three existing procurement directives of the EU, 
and shall directly ap ply to the EU member states without being converted into domestic laws, 
which will have great impact on the access of third -country suppliers, goods and services to the 
EUs public procurement market.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 48 - 
 
  Question 62: What's the basis for the European Commissi on to initiate an investigation on a third -
country public procurement market?  
 
Question 63: How to determine that the proportion of goods and services from a third country has 
exceeded 50%?  
 
Question 64: Will the goods produced and services provided in the  EU by a company invested by a 
third country be affected?  
 
Question 65: What are the remedies for a third country if it does not accept the investigation 
results of the Commission?  
 
Question 66: What are the remedies for a supplier if it does not agree on the determination 
whether the third -country goods and services has exceeded 50% of the total value of its tender or 
the tenders of other suppliers?  
 
Question 67: What’s the legislative progress of this proposal?  
 
EU reply to questions No 61 to No 67:  The E uropean Commission remains convinced of the 
need to further open -up third country procurement markets. Therefore, the Commission adopted 
on 29 January 2016 a revised proposal for a Regulation on the access of third -country goods and 
services to the Union's  internal market in public procurement and procedures supporting 
negotiations on access of Union goods and services to the public procurement markets in third 
countries (COM(2016)0034 – C8-0018/2016 – 2012/0060(Cod)/ the International procurement 
Instrumen t (IPI). The revised proposal represents both an elaboration and a simplification of the 
original proposal. The Commission has submitted the revised proposal to the two legislative bodies 
– the European Parliament and the Council. The negotiation and adopt ion procedure is currently 
on-going. The Commission proposal may be modified during this process.  
 
Page 11  Para. 3.33 
Market intervention measures are maintained in the current CAP but only as a safety net 
mechanism, which means that they will only be used  in the event of a serious crisis in the market. 
At the same time, long -term price developments on global markets also contributed to the reduced 
role of the EU's market intervention measures. For instance, the EU has abolished the last quota 
systems in th e CAP. After having ended the dairy quotas in March 2015, the EU will end the sugar 
quota by September 2017.  
 
Question 68: Please specify the meaning and manifestation of a serious crisis in the market, and 
the situation and effect of market intervention m easures after the introduction of the Common 
Agricultural Policy.  
 
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" or in cases of "serious market distu rbances directly attributed to a loss in 
consumer confidence due to public, animal or plant health and disease risk". In determining 
whether such circumstances exist, the Commission will refer to all available information and data.  
 
Page 15 Para . 4.17 
In D ecember 2016, the European Council reached a compromise regarding the European 
Commission's 2013 proposal to modernize its trade defence instruments (TDI). This enables the 
Commission, Council and Parliament to start discussions with a view to finding a co mpromise on 
the Commission's 2013 proposal. On 9 November 2016, the European Commission presented a 
proposal introducing changes to the EU's anti -dumping and anti -subsidy legislation, and which 
would allow the EU to adapt its trade defence instruments (TDI s) to deal with current realities of 
unfair trade practices in particular due to state induced market distortions in the international 
trading environment, while fully respecting the EU's international obligations in the legal 
framework of the WTO.  
 
Questi on 69: China believes that the countries have different national conditions, development 
stages, cultural traditions, economic development models and economic management models, its WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 49 - 
 
  neither allowed to set up market distortion criteria beyond the WTO rules,  nor take anti -dumping 
measures deviating from the WTO rules. The WTO anti -dumping rules do not regulate the concept 
of market distortions and the criteria thereof, please detail how to maintain the consistency 
between this method and the WTO rules and the  dispute resolution thereof, as well as the non -
discriminatory application to all the member states.  
 
EU reply : See replies to question 19 and 20.  
 
Page 16 Para s. 4.30-4.31 
The EU is modernizing its traditional approach to investment protection and the ass ociated 
investment dispute resolution system, introducing changes to ensure that the right of governments 
to regulate is guaranteed in its bilateral trade and investment agreements and that it replaces the 
current private investor -state dispute settlement system by an investment court system, thereby 
improving transparency, accountability, consistency and legitimacy.  
 
This reformed approach to investment dispute resolution and to investment protection rules 
provides a stronger focus on the state's right to regulate, and is embedded in the CETA and the 
EU-Vietnam agreements. It is the intention of the EU to include these reforms in all future trade 
and investment deals.  
 
Question 70: When will the investment court system by established? Could the EU provide 
information on an expected timetable and the jurisdiction of such system?  
 
EU reply : The creation of a permanent international court will require building consensus with 
other likeminded countries. The multilateral court would need to be a legal entity unde r 
international law but it is too early to say whether it would be a new stand -alone body, or be 
docked into an existing international organisation. We will work with our partners to identify the 
best way forward.  
 
Question 71: What effects will the plan h ave on the on -going China -EU Bilateral Investment Treaty 
(BIT)?  
 
EU reply:  The Investment Court System is part of the EU's reformed approach to investment 
protection, which is proposed as an investor -state dispute settlement mechanism in all its 
negotiatio ns, which include investment protection rules. Accordingly, it is also proposed for the 
China -EU Bilateral Investment Agreement.  
 
Question 72: Does enhancing the regulatory power of governments mean increasing government 
intervention in investment, merger and acquisition? If not, what measures will the EU take to 
prevent regulation from forming investment barriers, and ensure equal treatment for foreign 
investment and EU investment?  
 
EU reply:  The EU reformed approach is not aimed at enhancing the regulatory power of 
governments in any sphere of influence, rather it is intended to preserve the right of the EU and its 
Member States to continue to pursue public policy objectives, by making it clea r that such rights 
are not affected by trade and investment agreements. The European Commission acts as the 
guardian of Treaty obligations, including Articles 64 and 65, which foresee that Member States are 
obliged to allow freedom of capital movement, inc luding from third countries, thus generally 
preventing barriers to foreign investment from arising in the EU.  
 
Page 22 Para . 4.84 
During the period under review, the EU together with 22 other WTO members was actively 
engaged in the negotiations for a Trade  in Services Agreement (TiSA), aiming to enhance market 
access and establish strong, transparent and effective horizontal and sectoral disciplines facilitating 
global trade in services. The EU is ready to advance negotiations further in 2017.  
 
Question 73:  Could the EU describe the overall objectives, policy progress and specific measures of 
TiSA in the Movement of Natural Persons (Mode 4) and Cross -Border Services (Mode 1)?  
 
EU reply: TiSA negotiations have been paused since November 2016, including discus sions on 
aspects related to Mode 4 and Mode 1.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 50 - 
 
  With respect to Mode 4, the EU's main objectives are to allow EU professionals, which are among 
the best qualified in the world, to export services where they are most needed, to allow EU 
business to benefit from expertise and skills of foreign professionals in the global race for talent - 
without competing with local labour, and for EU companies present in other TiSA countries to allow 
them posting their own managers and experts (so called intra -corporate tra nsferees) to those 
countries.  
 
With respect to Mode 1, the EU's objective is to obtain ambitious commitments by TiSA partners to 
enable a smooth cross -border trade, inter alia in the area of electronic commerce, while preserving 
sensitivities in sensitive sectors, where necessary.  
 
Question 74: Please introduce the latest development in promoting the opening of services 
market.  
 
EU reply: With respect to trade agreements, the EU has been engaging in various trade 
negotiations to further open up global servi ces markets. This includes initiatives at various levels:  
1) At the multilateral level, the EU has been actively promoting negotiations of the regulatory 
disciplines that could positively impact services trade (i.e. in the areas of e -commerce and 
domestic re gulation);  
2) At the plurilateral level, the EU has been an active player and co -chair of the negotiations 
for a Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), trying to set an ambitious benchmark with 
respect to services liberalisation, together with 22 other partners  sharing the EU's ambition 
in this respect. While TiSA negotiations have been paused, the EU remains ready to 
resume negotiations when the political context allows;  
3) At the bilateral level, the EU has been engaging in a number of trade negotiations with 
individual partners or regional groupings, to further open up services markets and create a 
level playing field amongst the trading partners.  
 
OTHER QUESTIONS  
Question 75: Please describe the EU -level implementation of the Single Resolution Mechanism 
(SRM) an d the common Deposit Guarantee Scheme (DGS), and explain the EUs policy 
considerations for pooling bank restructuring or disposition funds, and the guidance or 
coordination scheme on the collection of bank liabilities or deposits -related tax for purpose of  
pooling relevant funds. It's understood that some member states impose similar bank tax on the 
local branches of foreign banks (including foreign banks that have been registered in the other EU 
member states), such enforcement may be contrary to non -retroactivity" and "anti -discrimination" 
principles, and may result in double taxation.  
 
EU reply: The European resolution regime sets the principles and governance for dealing with 
failing banks in an orderly and structured way and sets the regulatory objectiv es to be achieved 
(i.e. fostering global financial stability and averting the risks of systemic disruption, identifying and 
protecting the critical functions provided by the financial institutions in distress in a way that 
ensures customers’ continued acce ss to these critical functions, ensuring that the costs of 
resolution are born by owners of capital, creditors, management and not by the public and 
ensuring the efficient management of resolution funding at EU level).  
 
These policy objectives have been ac hieved through the design of principles detailing the 
functioning of a resolution regime – the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation (SRMR) for the 
Banking Union and the related rule book dealing with the recovery and resolution of banks across 
the entire  EU single market – the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD). The European 
framework is in line with the Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes developed by the 
Financial Stability Board (FSB) as best practice, which specifies the core fea tures that a resolution 
regime is expected to have. The Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive creates new national 
resolution authorities and the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation creates the Single 
Resolution Board for the Banking Union.  
 
The establishment of effective and uniform resolution rules and equal conditions of resolution 
financing across EU Member States ensures a level competitive playing field and improves the 
functioning of the internal market.  
 
The Single Resolution Fund (SR F) is an essential element of the Single Resolution Mechanism 
Regulation. The Single Resolution Fund helps to ensure a uniform administrative practice in the WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 51 - 
 
  financing of resolution and to avoid the creation of obstacles for the exercise of fundamental 
freedoms or the distortion of competition in the internal market due to divergent national 
practices. The Single Resolution Fund replaced the resolution financing arrangements of the 
participating EU Member States in the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation  for banks 
incorporated in their territories, and is financed by bank contributions raised at national level and 
pooled at EU level in accordance with an intergovernmental agreement on the transfer and 
progressive mutualisation of those contributions. Bank s incorporated in a non -participating EU 
Member State as well as branches of third -country banks pay contributions to the national 
resolution financing arrangement of the EU Member State in which they are located, and not to the 
Single Resolution Fund. In either case, the same rules of Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD) apply with 
regard to the calculation of the individual contributions and any double payment of contributions is 
excluded. The contribution of each bank is pro -rata to the amount of its liabilities (excluding own 
funds) less covered deposits, with respect to the aggregate liabilities (excluding own funds) less 
covered deposits of all banks authorised in the Banking Union (for the Single Resolution Fund) or 
the EU Member State in question (for the nat ional resolution financing arrangement). In addition, 
the individual contributions are adjusted in proportion to the risk profile of the bank in accordance 
with Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63.  
 
It is important to note that the obligation to p ay contributions applies equally to any bank 
established in the EU and without any retroactive effect.  
 
Regarding the Deposit Guarantee Scheme Directive (DGSD), this implies a contribution scheme at 
the level of each EU Member State which is completely sep arate from the contributions to the 
resolution funds.  
 
The key objective of the Deposit Guarantee Scheme is to protect covered deposits (i.e. up to 
100,000 euro) against the consequences of insolvency of a credit institution. However, Deposit 
Guarantee Sch emes should also assist in the financing of the resolution of credit institutions in 
accordance with Directive 2014/59/EU (BRRD), i.e. the Deposit Guarantee Scheme concerned is 
required to make a cash contribution in the amount by which covered deposits wo uld have been 
written down had they not been exempted from the bail -in. 
 
It should also be possible, where permitted under national law for a Deposit Guarantee Scheme to 
go beyond those functions and to use the available financial means in order to prevent  the failure 
of a credit institution or to preserve access of depositors to covered deposits in the context of 
national insolvency proceedings, both measures with a view to avoid the costs of reimbursing 
deposits.  
 
In conclusion, the functions of the reso lution funds and those of the Deposit Guarantee Schemes 
are different and not overlapping. The former is focused on financing resolution specific actions, 
while the latter is related to the compensation of covered deposits in the event of a payout or to 
contributions of a Deposit Guarantee Scheme to resolution. In this context, it cannot be inferred 
that these bank levies constitute double taxation as the levies serve different and complementary 
purposes.  
 
It should also be noted that the calculation method s for both schemes are closely related: For the 
DGS, covered deposits serves as a calculation base, whereas for resolution funds covered deposits 
are deducted from total liabilities to determine that base. In other words, an institution’s covered 
deposits will influence its payments to both funds in different direction; also that simple mechanic 
helps preventing ‘double taxation’.  
 
Regarding branches, it should be said that Member States have the obligation to ensure that 
deposits that have been made with s uch branches are protected at an equivalent level with that of 
deposits in branches in EU banks. In case this is not confirmed, the Member State can ask the 
branch to join the local Deposit Guarantee Scheme. The local branch would then have to pay 
contribu tions to the applicable, local Deposit Guarantee Scheme. But deposits would in return 
receive protection by that Deposit Guarantee Scheme. The premium would be paid for this 
protection and hence n ot represent ‘double taxation’.  
 
For resolution financing ar rangements, it is important to note that the powers of EU resolution 
authorities to act also apply to EU branches of third -country institutions. Resolution schemes can 
be adopted for such branches irrespective of whether they are subject to resolution proc edures in WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 52 - 
 
  the third country. Hence, the framework for financing resolution has been set up for those 
branches comparable to other banks and thus they also need to pay contributions.  
 
Question 76: China notes that the European Commission issued a communicat ive document (COM 
(2016) 155 final): Steel: Preserving progress jobs and growth in Europe" on 16 March 2016, which 
states that the Commission will continue to strengthen trade defence against steel imports, 
including opening investigations based on a threa t of injury , registering imports prior to the 
adoption of provisional measures , accelerating the process to take measures in the earlier stage, 
and launching a prior surveillance system on steel products . 
 
EU reply: While there is no question posed, the EU  understands that China seeks confirmation of 
the accuracy of this statement. The EU confirms that the statement is correct . 
 
Question 77: This document lists all the possible trade protection measures for steel products in 
the EU. Could the European Commi ssion explain whether these measures are systematic measures 
for all trade remedies or only for that of steel products? If these measures are only applicable to 
steel products, how can the Commission ensure that the stakeholders have a normal expectation 
of the investigation process and a full right of defense?  
 
EU reply:  The steel communication enumerated the tools available under the Trade Defence 
Instruments (TDI) and possible ways to strengthen them in view of the currently unprecedented 
situation in th e steel sector. While the Communication addressed specifically the challenges of the 
steel sector, these tools are not limited to the steel sector and could equally be used for unfair 
imports of any other types of products. Conversely, steel surveillance o nly covers imports of 
products listed under Annex I of Commission Impleme nting Regulation (EU) 2016/670.  
 
Question 78: China understands that ADA Article 3.7 sets out the determination of the probabilities 
of a threat of injury , including: "The determinati on of a threat of injury  shall be based on the facts, 
not just on the basis of the allegations, speculation or minimal possibility. The change in 
circumstances which would create a situation in which the dumping would cause injury must be 
clearly foreseen and imminent. The authorities must consider the following factors specifically 
when determining the threat of substantial injury ". Please explain the provisions of the EUs anti -
dumping basic regulation on the threat of injury  and their consistency with ADA ? Is the objective 
of the Commission to propose the issue of threat of injury  in particular against steel products 
based on policy or technical consideration?  
 
EU reply : The provision relating to 'threat of injury" in anti -dumping cases is contained in Article 
3(9) of the EU's Basic anti -dumping regulation which reflects Article 3.7 of the ADA. The 
Commission deals with any cases based on threat of injury taking fully into account the 
requirements as set out in the legislation. These provisions are appli cable to all sectors should th e 
necessary conditions be met. Their use in the steel sector was based on the legal and technica l 
merits in the case concerned.  
 
Question 79: Please explain the provisions of the EUs anti -dumping basic regulation on import 
registration and its consistency with the ADA, in particular Article 10.6. How can the Commission 
authorities avoid improper intervention and impact on normal trade by non -essential import 
registration measures?  
 
EU reply:  The provisions regarding the registr ation of imports and any retroactive application of 
duties are set out in Article 14(5) and Article 10(4) of the EUs anti -dumping basic regulation.  The 
latter fully reflects the provisions of Article 10.6 of the ADA and ensures that, only where justified 
can dumping d uties be imposed retroactively.  
 
Question 80: EU Conflict Minerals Regulation was published on 19 May 2017. In the process of its 
implementation, what effects will it have on the EUs rules of origin and trade policies on relevant 
mineral produc ts? Since the regulation requires carrying out trade control on conflict minerals such 
as tungsten, tin, tantalum and gold by means of compulsory certification, what specific measures 
will the EU take to avoid violating WTO principles of free trade?  
 
EU re ply: Regulation EU 2017/821 requires the Union importers in scope of this regulation to 
conduct due diligence according to the due diligence guidance for responsible supply chains of 
minerals developed by the Organization for Economic Co -operation and Deve lopment (OECD). The WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 53 - 
 
  same due diligence standard has been used by the China Chamber of Commerce of Metals, 
Minerals & Chemicals Importers & Exporters responsible mineral supply chain guidelines. The EU 
regulation is fully in compliance with WTO obligations and does not impact the EU’s rules of origin 
as it applies to importers regardless of the origin of the goods they source.  
 
Question 81: Since 2016, the EU has implemented a number of new regulations to limit pesticide 
residues in tea.  
 
One, higher sampli ng rate. Regulation (EU) 2015/2383 amended Regulation (EC) No. 669/2009, 
and increased the sampling rate of trifluralin (limit: 0.05 mg/kg) in Chinese tea (whether or not 
flavored) to 10%, applying from 1 January 2016.  
 
Two, stricter limits. (EC)No396/2005  was revised. The limit on fenhexamid, kresoxim -methyl 
guazatina , desmedipham and phenmedipham was changed from 0.1 ppm to a stricter 0.05 mg/kg, 
boscalid from 0.5 mg/kg to 0.01 mg/kg, tolclofos -methyl from 0.1 mg/kg to 0.05 mg/kg, 
mesotrione from 0.1 mg/k g to 0.05 mg/kg, and the maximum residue of fosetyl -aluminium from 5 
mg/kg to 2 mg/kg.  
 
Three, anthraquinone detection. When the cause of anthraquinone residues in tea and the risks 
are unclear, and the detection technology is immature, the EU carries out anthraquinone detection 
only for tea imported from China, using a tough standard of 0.02 mg/kg.  
 
Four, pesticide residue detection methods. Under the maximum residue limits provided by 
98/82/EG in 1998, the EU remains insistent on detecting pesticide resid ues in dry tea (solid), that 
is, detecting the content of pesticide residue in dry tea per kg rather than that in tea infusion. Tea 
needs to be infused so as to be drunk. The maximum residue limits hence should be determined 
on the basis of the released am ount of pesticide residue in the tea infusion. The two methods have 
very different results, because only 10% of the pesticide residue is released in the infusion. The 
EUs detection method has resulted in the many situations of excessive pesticide residues.  
 
The above measures are not listed in Table 3.13 of the EUs report. Could the EU provide 
information of the policies and the basis?  
 
EU reply:  Table 3.13 provides a non -exhaustive list of EU main legislation. The above mentioned 
regulations are examples of specific regulations developed within the general framework of the EU 
General Food Law (Regulation (EC) 178/2002).  
 
With regard to the first comment made by China, Regulation (EU) 2015/2383 was not relevant for 
the sampling rate of tea under Regulation (EC) No. 669/2009. The sampling rate was set at 10% 
on 1 October 2011 and is still at 10%.  
 
Now on the apparently high number of MRLs revisions during the recent years, this is due to the 
on-going review process of EU -MRLs, which is carried out on basis of  a provision foreseen in the 
EU legislation (Article 12 of Commission Regulation (EC) No . 396/2005).  
 
During this so called " Article 12 revision ", on-going since 2012, most existing maximum residue 
levels are reviewed to assess the consumers' safety. The revision is based on a scientific opinion of 
the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and all opinions are published on the EFSA website at 
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/publications  
 
In order to explain this review process more in detail, the EU prepared a specific note that was 
also submitted to all WTO members in June 2016 (G/SPS/GEN/1494 ). 
 
In the note, simple and schematic information are given about the on -going reviewing process of 
all EU -MRLs; the procedural steps in which non -EU countries may intervene, submit additional data 
or information on substances on which they may have a spec ial interest; the list of substances 
which will be reviewed in the next two years' time and the "rapporteur member state" designated 
for each substance.  
 
The EU highly recommends non -EU countries authorities and stakeholders to check this Note 
regularly, i n order to know in advance for which substances the EU -MRLs are going to be revised in 
the near future.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 54 - 
 
  The note can be found on the SANTE website at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/plant/docs/pesticides_mrl_guidelines_mrl -review_en.pdf . 
 
Furthermore, EFSA publishes on its website the updated list of the substances which will be subject 
to the reviewing process. It is updated on a quar terly basis and can be found at 
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/pesticides -MRL-review -progress -report.pdf . 
 
As regards China's last commen t, tea maximum residue levels in the EU are established for tea 
leaves, therefore the compliance with MRLs must be c hecked against the leaves analys ed as such. 
When EFSA carries out a consumer exposure assessment to see whether there is any risk for 
consum ers, the fact that tea is consumed as brewed beverage is taken into account.  
 
Question 82: The EU has regulations limiting the amount of aflatoxin in peanuts.  
 
One, the sampling rate for Chinese peanuts is higher than those of other countries. Chinese 
peanut products have the same quality as those of the US and Argentina. However, among all the 
peanut supplying countries for the EU, China has the highest sampling rate, at 20%, which is 
discriminatory treatment. The EU authorities carry out random sampling i nspection for arrived US 
goods, and have no mandatory sampling rate for Argentina, the rates used by local inspection 
institutions ranging from 3% -10% and mostly being 5%.  
 
Two, the limit standard for inspection is not reasonable enough. The aflatoxin cont amination 
distribution in peanuts is extremely uneven. As a result, it is impossible to obtain fully 
representative samples, and the aflatoxin detection result has high uncertainty. The European 
Commission has raised the limit on aflatoxin in other nuts fo r direct human consumption, but has 
not raised the limit on aflatoxin in peanuts.  
 
Could the EU provide information of the policies and the basis?  
 
EU reply:  The frequency of sampling rate is determined taking into account the frequency of non -
compliance f ound.  
 
The special import conditions concerning aflatoxins in peanuts imported from China have been put 
in place since 2002 to protect public health of the European consumers. Although the measures 
were already alleviated before, the measures have been str engthened again as from 1 January 
2010 following the worsening of the situation and very high level of non -compliance detected in 
2008. Although the situation regarding RASFF notifications on aflatoxins in peanuts imported from 
China has improved since the  year 2008, the number of RASFF notifications remained significant 
since 2009 (more than 50 per year). From 2015 onwards the situation worsened again.  
 
Given the continued significant number of RASFF notifications as regards aflatoxins in peanuts 
from Chin a between 2009 and 2017, it is not appropriate and possible to alleviate the measures as 
regards peanuts from China. However the measures are continuously kept under review and if the 
situation as regards the presence of aflatoxins in peanuts from China im proves in a consistent 
manner, then the Commission shall consider a possible alleviation of the current import conditions 
by e.g. lowering the sampling rate at import. However this is not yet the case.  
 
The maximum level for aflatoxins in peanuts ready -to-eat is currently under discussion in Codex 
Alimentarius Commission (CAC). In case a maximum level for aflatoxins in peanuts ready -to-eat is 
adopted by the CAC at a level that has been accepted by the EU, the EU will propose amending EU 
legislation accordi ngly as has been done for aflatoxins in almonds, hazelnuts, pistachios, Brazil 
nuts and dried figs.  
 
Question 83: Does the EU have a timetable for ratifying and joining the Beijing Treaty on 
Audiovisual Performances?  
 
EU reply:  The European Union signed the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances on 19 June 
2013. The European Commission has not put forward a proposal for a Council decision for the 
conclusion of the Treaty yet. Internal discussions on this issue are still ongo ing. 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 55 - 
 
  Question 84: Please introduce the legislation and regulatory framework relating to cyber security 
in EU. How EU and its member states protect personal information or privacy, any specific rules or 
regulations for cross border transfer of import data?  
 
EU reply: On cyber security:  While cybersecurity competence lies mainly at the national level in 
the EU’s Member States, the EU’s approach to cybersecurity is governed by the NIS (Network & 
Information Systems) Directive ((EU) 2016/1148) , which was adopted in July 2016 and which 
entered into force in August 2016. The EU Directive is currently being transposed into national 
laws and implemented by the 28 EU Member States. The implementation of this Directive will not 
only promote better coo peration, but also provide for cyber -security capacity building of 
competent Member States' authorities and cross -border incident notification. The EU Agency for 
Network and Information Security (ENISA) also contributes to the EU's response to cybersecurit y 
issues by working towards a high level of network and information security.  
 
The overall strategy is based on a Joint Communication by the European Commission and the 
European External Action Service in 2013 (JOIN (2013) 1), which is currently being rev iewed 
under the DSM (Digital Single Market) Strategy, as described in the TPR Reports.  
 
The 2013 EU Cybersecurity Strategy defines the principles that the EU is to follow in cybersecurity 
and promotes a comprehensive approach, based on five strategic prior ities: Achieving cyber 
resilience; Drastically reducing cybercrime; Developing cyber defence policy and capabilities 
related to the Common Security and Defence Policy; Develop the industrial and technological 
resources for cybersecurity; and Establish a co herent international cyberspace policy for the 
European Union and promote core EU values. In order to combat cybercrime, the EU has 
implemented legislation and supported operational cooperation, as part of the implementation of 
the 2013 EU Cybersecurity St rategy.  
 
Several EU legislative actions contribute to the fight against cybercrime. These include:  
 The Directive 2013/40 on attacks against information systems, which aims to tackle large -
scale cyber -attacks by requiring Member States to strengthen nationa l cyber -crime laws 
and introduce tougher criminal sanctions;  
 The Framework Decision 2001/413/JHA on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non -cash 
means of payment, which defines the fraudulent behaviours that EU States need to 
consider as punishable crimi nal offences.  
 
On personal data protection:  The General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) 
and the 2009 ePrivacy Directive constitute the EU data protection legal framework with respect to 
data processing by companies . The GDPR was adopted in May 2016 and will become fully 
applicable on 25 May 2018. It provides for a harmonised and simplified set of rules (data 
protection principles, rights and obligations) across the EU (e.g. by abolishing most prior 
notification and authorisation requirements , including for international transfers) and puts in place 
a modern governance system of data protection authorities (e.g. by introducing a "one -stop-shop" 
and consistency mechanism that will ensure that companies only have to deal with one authority, 
even in cross -border cases, and that a consistent application of the Regulation will be ensured). 
The ePrivacy Directive particularises and complements the GDPR for the electronic communications 
sector. A proposal to replace the Directive and align it with the  GDPR was put forward in January 
2017 (COM(2017)10) and is undergoing the EU's legislative process.  
 
Regarding international data transfers from the EU to third countries, t he GDPR provides for a 
number of flexible transfer tools (Commission findings with respect to the adequate level of data 
protection in third countries, contractual instruments, codes of conduct and certification 
mechanisms, so -called derogations allowing transfers in specific situations, for example based on 
consent or for the performanc e of a contract) that can be specifically adapted to different business 
models/processing operations and thus the needs of different economic sectors or industries. Their 
application has been further explained in the European Commission's Communication "Ex changing 
and Protecting Personal Data in a Globalised World" of 10 January 2017 (COM(2017)7). These 
rules show that a high level of data protection can go hand in hand with a policy of facilitating 
international data flows.  
 
Question 85: Please elaborate t he legislation and regulatory framework of e -commerce in EU, any 
special regulatory requirement for the online third -party platform services suppliers (such as WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 56 - 
 
  Amazon) and online payment services (such as Paypal), any specific requirement for foreign 
services suppliers?  
 
EU reply:  As stated in the TPR Reports, the EU is currently addressing issues concerning online 
platforms and specifically their role as part of the ongoing Digital Single Market (DSM) initiative. 
The regulatory regime of e -commerce within the EU has been described in detail, as a sub -
segment of distribution services, in the last TPR report and has not substantially changed since 
(see e -commerce Directive 2000/31/EC). However, in the framework of its DSM Strategy, COM 
(2015) 192 final, the E uropean Commission presented 16 legislative and non -legislative actions 
which are subject to the ordinary legislative procedure and therefore their exact outcome cannot 
be foreseen. On 10 May 2017, the European Commission published its Communication on the  Mid 
Term Review of the Digital Single Market Strategy, giving an up to date status of the single 
proposals.  
 
Online platforms will fall under any potential proposals resulting from this process and these will 
be valid for all enterprises (EU and non -EU) p roviding services in the European Economic Area (i.e. 
the EU plus the European countries parties to the EEA Agreement, Iceland, Liechtenstein and 
Norway. In particular, in its May 2016 (COM(2016)288), the Commission identified two specific 
issues for furth er investigation: 1) study platform to business trading practices in order to ensure a 
fair and innovation -friendly business environment; and 2) ensure that illegal content online can be 
easily reported and effectively removed.  
 
The Commission has developed several dialogues with online platforms within the DSM (e.g. EU 
Internet Forum, Code of Conduct on illegal online hate speech, and Memorandum of Understanding 
on the Sale of Counterfeit Goods over the Internet). One of the aims here is to move fo rward with 
the procedural aspects and principles on removal of illegal content – notice and action – based on 
transparency and protecting of fundamental rights.  
 
With regard to online payment services:  
In 2015 the EU adopted a new directive on payment serv ices (PSD 2) Payment services (PSD 2) - 
Directive (EU) 2015/2366 to improve the existing rules and take new digital payment services into 
account. The directive will become applicable on 13 January 2018. It includes provisions to  
 
•make it easier and safer  to use internet payment services  
•better protect consumers against fraud, abuse, and payment problems  
•promote innovative mobile and internet payment services  
•strengthen consumer rights  
•strengthen the role of the European Banking Authority (EBA) to coor dinate supervisory authorities 
and draft technical standards  
More information:  
https://ec.europa.eu/info/ business -economy -euro/banking -and-finance/consumer -finance -and-
payments/payment -services/payment -services_en . 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/payment -services -psd-2-directive -eu-2015-2366_en . 
 
Question 86: Please introduce the policies and practices relating to free zone and customs 
warehouse in EU.  
 
EU reply: In the EU, free zones are provided for under the Union Customs Code (UCC). Member 
States may designate parts of the customs territory of the Union as free zones in accordance with 
Article 243 of the Code. Any person, driven by an economic need, may apply to the customs 
authorities for a part of the customs territory of the Union to be designated as a free z one. It is up 
to the Member State concerned to decide whether the request can be accepted or not. Such zones 
are areas that are considered to be outside the customs territory of the EU even though they are 
physically located in the EU. Free zones have to b e enclosed, and there are rules covering building, 
access and activities allowed there.  Entry and exit points are supervised by customs.  When 
persons, goods and means of transport enter or leave free zones and come into the EU they may 
be subject to custom s controls.  
 
Any person, driven by an economic need, may apply to the customs authorities for storage 
facilities to be authorized for customs warehousing of goods. If the person meets all the required 
conditions, customs authorities must grant the authoriz ation. The main conditions are: the person 
must be established in the EU, has to keep records and has to provide a guarantee for a potential WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 57 - 
 
  customs debt. An authorization is not needed if the storage facility is operated by the customs 
authority itself.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 58 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTI ONS FROM SWITZERLAND  
 
Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/357)  
 
1.1.4 EU economic governance and structural reforms  
 
In the report by the Secretariat of the WTO, it is stated (1.24 on page 20/21) that progress in 
structural reforms rema ins slow in the EU and that the reform momentum for structural reforms 
has even slowed down recently. However, decisive implementation of structural reforms is crucial 
to increase growth potential.  
 
What do you intend to do in order to remedy that?  
 
EU reply:  A number of actions have been put in place in order to foster reform adoption. In 
particular, in these last years, the European Commission has implemented several changes to the 
European Semester, the EU's annual cycle of economic surveillance, in o rder to increase its 
effectiveness. The European Semester has been streamlined, in order to focus on the key 
challenges faced by each Member State. Moreover, benchmarking and peer review activities have 
been stepped up in the various Council formations.  
 
Furthermore, the Commission has engaged with governments, national Parliaments, social 
partners and other stakeholders and held bilateral meetings with national authorities to discuss 
their policy priorities. The Commission has also set up the Structural Re form Support Service 
(SRSS) and a dedicated EU instrument – Structural Reform Support Programme (SRSP) – to 
provide targeted reform assistance to the Member States, at their request, both in terms of human 
and financial resources. The SRSS and SRSP are aim ed at assisting Member States with the design 
and implementation of institutional, structural and administrative reforms, including reforms that 
are recommended in CSRs.  
 
2.1 Legal and Institutional Framework  
Under para.  2.4, the report states regarding negotiating procedures the process for negotiating 
and concluding a new international trade agreement begins with discussions among all three EU 
institutions and a Commission impact assessment, including a public consultat ion on the content 
and options for any future trade accord.  
 
Who can participate to the public consultation, in particular which private persons and public 
organizations in and outside the EU can access to the future trade agreement and can notify 
observa tions?  
 
EU reply:  The public consultations are conducted on -line, and are in principle open to anyone 
inside or outside the EU. More specifically, the European Commission's minimum standards and 
guidelines for public consultation indicate that the service which organizes the consultation should 
pay particular attention to consulting: those who will be directly, indirectly, or potentially affected 
by the proposed agreement; those who will have to implement the agreement, or whose help is 
needed in order to i mplement it; and those with a stated inter est in the proposed agreement.  
 
Regarding the question of distribution of competences (para 2.9 of report), in July 2015 the 
Commission requested an opinion 2/15 from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to clarify the 
scope of EU competence to conclude the EU -Singapore Free Trade Agreement.  
 
Which are the consequences of the opinion 2/15 of 16th May 2017 that concludes the new 
generation free trade agreement between EU and Singapore is under shared competence betwe en 
Union and Member States?  
 
EU reply:  The consequences of this Opinion on future trade and investments agreements are 
currently being considered. The EU is not therefore in a position to give a clear answer to this 
question at this stage.  
 
The Secretaria t’s report notes in its para. 2.11 that the exact timing for provisional application of 
CETA is not yet certain. From the Canadian side, the Royal Assent was give n on 17 May 2017.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 59 - 
 
  Could the EU update the information regarding the internal requirements and  a possible 
provisional entry into force of the CETA?  
 
EU reply:  The EU has completed the internal requirements clearing the way for the provisional 
application of CETA and has accordingly notified Canada. On the Canadian side, CETA has been 
ratified by th e Canadian Parliament and Canada is now in the process of adopting a series of 
implementing regulations. After Canada notifies the EU that it has completed its internal 
requirements and procedures, CETA will be provisionally applied in accordance with the time frame 
established in Article 30.7.3 of the Agreement.  
 
2.2 Trade Policy Objectives  
Box 2.1 Objectives of the updated trade and investment policy strategy (p. 33):  
 
It is noted that “The EU will focus attention on, inter alia, achieving (…) a trade and investment 
policy based on values by (…) expanding measures to support sustainable development, fair and 
ethical trade, and human rights, including by ensuring effectiv e implementation of related FTA 
provisions (…)”.  
 
Could the EU give more information as to what is meant by “ensuring effective implementation of 
related FTA provisions”?  
 
EU reply : The EU has and is negotiating an important number of FTAs, and pays atten tion to how 
they are implemented. The European Commission is working to ensure that the FTAs function well 
and that they deliver the full benefits to EU operators and other stakeholders. Once a year the 
Commission will produce a report on how its different  FTAs are being implemented. After each FTA 
has entered into force, commitments have been phased in and sufficient time has passed to gather 
evidence, the Commission carries out an ex -post evaluation of its impact.  
 
p. 2.17 (p. 33): It is noted that “It wi ll also step up its efforts to promote a fact -based debate 
within the member States and enhance its dialogue with civil society”.  
 
What does the EU mean concretely by “enhance its dialogue with civil society”?  
 
EU reply : The Civil Society Dialogue fits into the EU's general policy framework on consultation. 
Article 11 of the Lisbon Treaty, states that “institutions shall maintain an open, transparent and 
regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society”.  The European Commission 
ensures therefore that trade policy is based on consultations with all parts of European civil 
society, and that this process is both transparent and accountable.  
 
During recent years, outreach activities have become important for trade policy, as it increasingly 
attracts attention from beyond trade and development specialists. In response, DG Trade has 
stepped up its outreach and reaffirmed its willingness to engage with civil society and to listen to 
their opinions and concerns. T his has boosted the membership of the Civil Society Dialogu e (CSD). 
Two hundred new organiz ations have registered in the last three years and the number of 
participants for each CSD meeting has more than doubled. DG Trade has also stepped up outreach 
to Eu ropean and national parliamentarians, governments, outside experts, consumer groups, 
unions, NGOs, business and industry bodies.  
 
The current process of the trade CSD provides a regular and structured approach to discussing EU 
trade i ssues with civil socie ty organiz ations. CSD discussions take place in more than 20 face -to-
face meetings a year with Commission officials, including meetings with the Commissioner on a 
regular basis. Meetings with the Commissioner are web -streamed in order to reach the widest 
possible audience. DG Trade continues to develop further the interaction and feedback 
mechanisms of civil society participation in the field of trade agreements and trade policy in 
general. The large scale information events call ed Trade Policy Days are org anized regularly to 
respond to the call for more fundamental debates on trade issues.  
 
The negotiations for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the US that 
started in 2013 were largely the catalyst for increased public interest in trade policy. Stakeholder 
events, broader in scope tha n the CSD meetings, were organiz ed as part of the TTIP negotiation 
rounds. In addition, an advisory group of specialists was set up in the context of TTIP in view of 
taking onboard specific interests of  civil society.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 60 - 
 
  Since the EU -Korea trade agreement entered into force in 2011, the Commission is setting up civil 
society advisory groups in all new trade agreement with the aim of providing advice to the Parties 
on the implementation of the sustainable de velopment chapter. The advisory groups, set up in the 
EU and in the partner country, are composed of organi zations dealing with labour, environmental 
and business issues.  
 
p. 2.17 (p. 33): The report notes that “the EU also wants to do more to show the imp act of an FTA 
after it has been applied”.  
 
Could the EU explain how does it plan “to do more to show the impact (…)”?  
 
EU reply : The EU has and is negotiating an important number of FTAs, and pays attention to how 
they are implemented. The European Commis sion is working to ensure that the FTAs function well 
and that they deliver the full benefits to EU operators and other stakeholders.  Once a year the 
Commission will produce a report on how its different FTAs are being implemented. After each FTA 
has enter ed into force, commitments have been phased in and sufficient time has passed to gather 
evidence, the Commission carries out an ex -post evaluation of its impact.  
 
2.3.2.1 Reciprocal preferences  
 
p. 2.29 (p. 35): The report notes that “FTA negotiations with  Malaysia (…) and India are on hold”.  
How the EU assess the possibility that the negotiations with Malaysia and India can be resumed? 
What are the main challenges/difficulties in these negotiations?  
 
EU reply:  In October 2010, negotiations for an EU-Malaysia Free Trade Agreement were launched. 
Negotiations were put on hold in April 2012 at Malaysia's request. Since 2016, a stocktaking 
exercise is taking place to assess the prospect to resume negotiations. The EU is looking forward 
to an early re -launch of negotiations for a comprehensive and ambitious FTA, as was reached with 
Singapore and Vietnam.  
 
FTA negotiations with India were launched in 2007 and de facto put on hold in 2013. The EU 
remains committed to concluding an ambitious and comprehensiv e FTA with India. Discussions on 
a possible re -launch and its parameters are ongoing.  
 
At this stage, it is too early to present the main challenges/difficulties in the negotiations with 
these countries as they have still to re -start.  
 
3.1 Measures Directl y Affecting Imports  
3.1.1 Customs procedures and requirements  
Para 3.4  
According to this para, it is envisaged that full implementation of all the changes of the UCC will be 
completed by 2020.  
 
Taking into consideration the complexity of the changes envis aged and the multiplicity of the 
actors concerned, notably the thousands of traders, which will have to adapt their database and 
systems to respond to the new requirements of the UCC, is it still reasonable to table on an 
application of the UCC for 2020?  
 
EU reply: The target date 2020 was discussed among all the stakeholders, where Trade was 
included. Nevertheless, implementing all the UCC IT systems by 2020 is posing a big pressure not 
only on the EU and its Member States but also on Trade. Therefore care ful analysis is made of the 
feasibility of the existing plans for delivery of the IT.  
 
Para 3.6 and table 3.1  
This para and the table 3.1 list the changes contained in the UCC compared to the current 
legislation. Among other changes, UCC will imply the al ignment of the data catalogue to the one of 
the World Customs Organisation (WCO). This means that the economic operators that provide data 
for all customs procedures will have to adapt their databases to implement the new data 
requirements.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 61 - 
 
  • Has the EU est imated the costs caused by the planned changes for the business 
community (importers, exporters, brokers, freight forwarders, etc.) in the EU and in all 
countries interlinked with the EU systems, for example in the Transit procedure?  
 
EU reply:  An impact a ssessment was carried out and published together with the Commission 
initial proposal for the Regulation on the Modernised Customs Code. The impact assessment was 
based on a study of the overall costs and benefits linked to that proposal which was carried out by 
an external contractor.  As the UCC was not more than recast", a new impact assessment was not 
performed. The Regulation itself outlined that the electronic implementation of the Code should 
give priority to align to international standards such as t hose of the WCO in order to ensure 
harmonization of interfaces within the EU. As such, the EU Customs Data Model was established in 
close collaboration with MS and trade associations. Being closely linked to the WCO data model, it 
is envisaged to be more a daptive to the actual handling of data by the business community in the 
world.  
 
• Does the EU foresee that the business community has to comply with these new 
requirements by 2020? Alternatively, does the EU foresee a grace period for the traders’ 
community or to develop technical features to “translate” old data elements provided by 
the traders?  
 
EU reply:  The implementation of the IT pillar of the UCC will occur gradually between May 2016 
and December 2020. A grace period is established for each of the systems required for the 
implementation of the UCC. It is implemented by means of transitional rules unti l the deployment 
dates of each of the systems and by means of deployment windows (linked to the specific system 
migration needs) as defined in the UCC Work Programme. The transitional rules envisage to keep 
the status quo, where possible, so to avoid big c hanges during the transition period and to allow 
MS and EO to concentrate on the implementation of the new IT requirements. Currently, 
discussions are ongoing on the feasibility of fully implementing the IT pillar of the UCC by 2020.  
 
Para 3.8  
This para s tates, “As of September 2016, the EU had five such mutual recognition agreements 
covering the AEOS status in force with China, Japan, Norway, Switzerland, and the United States”. 
Why are such mutual recognition agreements limited to AEOS?  
 
EU reply: The m utual recognition concept as laid down in the WCO SAFE Framework of Standards 
applies only to AEO that fulfil security and safety standards, i.e. the AEOS.  
 
Would a mutual recognition of AEOC status not bring more benefit to traders, especially to SMEs, 
since the main obstacle of the customs procedures (compared to the security requirements) could 
be simplified on both sides of the border?  
 
EU reply:  The objective of the WCO SAFE Framework of Standards is to secure international trade 
supply chains. Therefo re, the security and safety component of the AEO is the fundamental 
element for Mutual Recognition. Within this context, however, the EU is in favour of extending the 
scope of mutual recognition to priority treatment of customs clearance and has proposed t his to 
partners of mutual recognition agreements.  
 
Para 3.77  
According to this para “new customs simplifications, such as centralized clearance, require the 
development of new system functionalities in the AES.”  
 
The utmost simplification of border crossin g procedures between two customs territories could be 
obtained by introducing the “coordinated border management” (CBM). The simplifications of CBM 
would be beneficial to the customs administrations as well as to trade.  
 
• Does the EU have plans to develop a n interaction between its customs systems with the 
one of some partner countries? If yes, could the EU give some details?  
 
EU reply:  In the current planning Multi -Annual Strategic Plan (MASP), such kind of interaction is 
not foreseen. In case, partner cou ntries see the need/possibility to apply CBM, information 
sessions with the EU could be requested.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 62 - 
 
  • Does the EU foresee in its technical developments linked to the implementation of the UCC 
and simplifications such as centralized clearance the possibility of establishing stepwise 
CBM?  
 
EU reply : Currently, the EU does not foresee such kind of technical development, centralized 
clearance (supervising customs office/presentation customs office) is being developed for the use 
in Member States only.  
 
3.1.3 Rul es of Origin  
 
Questions: Section 3.1.3 does not address the issues of applicability of non -preferential rules of 
origin or certification of non -preferential origin:  
 
• Which non -preferential rules of origin does an EU exporter have to comply with: the EU 
non-preferential RO or the non -preferential RO of the country of importation?  
 
EU reply:  Please note that section 3.1 deals with '3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Import s' and 
does not treat export. In the EU, the origin is not a mandatory data element in the export 
declaration. Ultimately it is the third country of importation which determines the non -preferential 
origin at importation.  
 
• Certificates of non -preferential origin are usually issued by chambers of commerce of the 
exporting country (say EU member states). Those chambers of commerce work on the basis 
of their national (or regional) legislations. Then, is it correct to assume that certificates of 
origin for EU e xporters are issued by chambers of commerce on the basis of the EU non -
preferential RO?  
 
EU reply:  Please note that section 3.1 deals with '3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports' and 
does not treat export. For customs purposes, it is not mandatory for E U exporters to have a non -
preferential certificate of origin. Regarding non -preferential origin for export Article 61(3) UCC 
states that 'Where the exigencies of trade so require, a document proving origin may be issued in 
the Union in accordance with the rules of origin in force in the country or territory of destination or 
any other method identifying the country where the goods were wholly obtained or underwent 
their last substantial transformation.'  
Ultimately it is the third country of importation whic h determines the non -preferential origin at 
importation.  
 
• Except for purposes of imposing trade defense measures, such as antidumping measures or 
countervailing measures, for what other reasons would a proof of non -preferential origin be 
required at the EU  border?  
 
EU reply:  Proof of origin in the form of a non -preferential certificate of origin is not requested, 
including in case trade defense measures are imposed, EU customs authorities will verify the 
declared origin based on Article 188 UCC, where they  can require the declarant to provide 
documents proving the origin. A certificate of non -preferential origin should not be requested.  
 
The only exception where a certificate of origin is to be presented is where the Union legislation 
specifically refers to  the presentation of a certificate of origin for products subject to special non -
preferential import arrangements (e.g. tariff quota) as laid down in Article 57 UCC -IA. The form is 
set out in Annex 22 -14 UCC -IA and is issued by the competent authorities of  the third country 
where the products originate or by a reliable duly authorized agency.  
 
• For imported products that are not subject to trade defense instruments, would the EU be in 
a position to recognize the certificate or any other proof of non -preferen tial origin?  
 
EU reply:  Building up on the reply to question 18, EU customs authorities require where necessary 
all documents to verify the non -preferential origin. A certificate of non -preferential origin should 
not be requested. Except for the special non -preferential import a rrangements where the Union 
legislation specifically refers to the certificate of origin laid down in Art 57 UCC -IA, in this case 
administrative cooperation arrangements are in place enabling the subsequent verification of the 
certificate of origin.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 63 - 
 
  • Does the EU require a proof of non -preferential for any import into the EU? Is there any 
exception? Would the EU consider to not require a proof of origin for small value shipments?  
 
EU reply:  The EU only requires a proof of non -preferential origin in the  form of a certificate of 
origin as laid down in Article 57 UCC -IA where the Union legislation specifically provides for the 
presentation of the certificate of origin as laid down in that Article. This is the case for a number of 
tariff quotas.  
 
Besides t he aforementioned case, the EU does not require a proof of non -preferential origin in the 
form of a certificate of origin. Where the customs authorities exercise their right to verify the non -
preferential origin, which is a mandatory data element in the de claration for release for free 
circulation they can require the declarant to provide documents proving the origin.  
 
Para 3.24, second bullet point, states that “ Goods, the production of which involves more than one 
country or territory, shall be deemed to originate in the country or territory where they underwent 
their last, substantial, economically -justified processing or working, in an undertaking equipped for 
that purpose, resulting in the manufacture of a new product or representing an important stage of 
manufacture. ” 
 
Questions:  
What does the EU mean by substantial transformation? Could the EU give some examples of 
substantial transformation?  
 
EU reply:  The principle of substantial transformation is not a new principle used for the 
determination of t he origin of a product.  
 
Substantial transformation means the working or processing resulting in the manufacture of a new 
product or representing an important stage of manufacture.  
 
Example:  
Sugar originating in country X, flour originating in country Y, d airy products originating in country 
Z are taken to country A and undergo manufacturing, the final products are cookies.  
 
The input materials underwent a substantial transformation in such a way that a new type of 
product resulted from the processing oper ation, the final product 'cookies' originate in country A.  
 
Product listed in Annex 22 -01 UCC -DA: 
Yarn originating in country X is weaved in country Y. Obtained fabrics (classified under HS 5112)  
are exported to country Z. Cutting is made in country Z. The se pieces of fabrics are imported in 
the EU.  
 
According to Annex 22 -01 of the DA, the primary rule for HS 5112 reads 'manufacture from yarn',  
this rule is not fulfilled in country Z. Therefore the chapter residual rule applies ' Where the 
country of origin cannot be determined by application of the primary rules, the country of origin of 
the goods shall be the country in which the major portion of t he materials originated, as 
determined on the basis of the value of the materials. The major portion in value of the materials 
used originates in country Y, so at release into free circulation in the EU of the cut pieces of fabric, 
country Y has to be decl ared as the country of origin.  
 
For a given product, on which basis does the EU define the substantial transformation that 
conferred the origin to that product?  
 
EU reply : Based on the general principle of substantial transformation, there are 2 possibili ties: 
 
Article 32 UCC -DA specifies the notion of “last substantial processing or working”. This article 
provides that “goods listed in Annex 22 -01 UCC -DA shall be considered to have undergone their 
last substantial processing or working, resulting in the m anufacture of a new product or 
representing an important stage of manufacture, in the country or territory in which the rules set 
out in that Annex are fulfilled or which is identified by those rules”.  
 
The Annex 22 -01 DA provides for primary rules and res idual rules for a limited number of products 
listed there. For products not listed in Annex 22 -01 UCC -DA the origin is assessed on a case by WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 64 - 
 
  case basis by application of the principle of last substantial transformation as defined in reply to 
the previous q uestion.  
 
Does the EU intend to notify its new non -preferential rules of origin to the WTO?  
 
EU reply:  With respect to non -preferential rules of origin the EU has complied with the notification 
requirement laid down in Article 5 (1) of the Agreement on ru les of origin (ARO). Article 5(2) of 
the ARO only states the obligation to publish new non -preferential rules of origin prior to entry into 
force, which was respected. The ARO does not provide for a new notification in case of changes to 
the applicable non -preferential rules of origin. The EU has sent a courtesy information note to the 
WTO secretariat regarding the changes, however not in the form of a formal notification.  
 
3.1.7.1 Anti -dumping and anti -subsidy measures  
Para. 3.59:  
The European Commission adopted in November 2016 a proposal to amend the anti -dumping and 
anti-subsidy legislation.  
 
Can the EU elaborate on the major changes that the amendments will introduce and on their 
relationship with the Commission’s proposal on modernisation of EU’s tra de defence instruments?  
 
EU reply:  Regarding the Basic anti -dumping legislation, the November 2016 proposal concerns the 
way dumping will be calculated in anti -dumping investigations on imports from WTO members 
where there are significant market distortion s or where the State has a pervasive influence on the 
economy impacting on prices and costs.  The draft proposal sets out a non -exhaustive list of the 
types of distortions which could be considered relevant and have an impact in that context.  
 
The November 2016 proposal also codifies the procedure to investigate new subsidies revealed in 
the course of an investigation.  
 
There is no direct link between the November 2016 proposal to amend the anti -dumping and anti -
subsidy legislation and the Comm ission’s proposal on modernization from April 2013. 
Modernisation deals with aspects other than the dumping calculation methodology such as 
timelines, transparency and the injury margin.  
 
3.1.7.2 Safeguards  
Para. 3.73:  
The Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 2016/670 has been in effect since 30 April 
2016.  
 
Does the EU foresee to adapt this regulation? If yes, what is the time horizon and what are the 
envisaged changes?  
 
EU reply:  The regulation was amended on 2 0/6/2017. The changes to the surveillance system 
were published on the OJ L 158 of 21.6.2017 ( http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2017.158.01.0008.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2017:158:TOC ) and it 
will apply from 11 July 2017. The amendments aim at facilitating the import procedures, in 
particular for the imports of products typically traded in numerous but relative ly small sized 
transactions and often operated based on a just -in-time system. For those products the exemption 
threshold has been increased.  
 
The regulation provides that the surveillance document be issued within five working days by 
authorized national authorities. All EU Member States however do not respect this deadline in all 
cases.  
 
How does the EU ensure that delays in issuing the surveillance documents do not have a trade -
restrictive effect, especially with regard to cross -border supply chains ope rating under the “just -in-
time” model?  
 
EU reply : According to the EU rules, surveillance documents are issued within 5 working days of 
presentation of an application. This is in line with Art. 2.2.a.iii) of the Import Licensing Agreement, 
requiring that a document be issued within 10 working days. Delays may only occur in case the 
relevant conditions required for the application are not met.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 65 - 
 
  Furthermore, as mentioned in the reply above, the increase in the exemption threshold for certain 
products will red uce the number of transaction falling under prior surveillance. The EU considers 
that the prior surveillance document is administered in a way not to have trade -restrictive effect 
and that it is in full compliance with the provisions of the Import Licensin g Agreement.  
 
How does the EU plan to address this problem?  
 
EU reply:  The amended Steel prior surveillance regulation explicitly encourages national 
authorities to accept electronic versions of the surveillance document.  
 
3.3.3.2.2 Non -crisis state aid  
Table 3.15 “Non -crisis related state aid” shows an increase of over 270% in the area of 
environmental protection and energy saving from the year 2013 to 2014. The report mentions in 
footnote 173 that one reason for this development is the adoption of the 20 14 Energy and 
Environmental Aid Guidelines.  
 
What are the main sectors that benefit from this increase in state aid in the area of renewable 
energy?  
 
EU reply:  The European Commission regularly publishes State aid Scoreboards. The State aid 
Scoreboards c omprise aid expenditure made by Member States (up to the end of a specific period 
of time) which falls under the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU. The data is based on the annual 
reporting by Member States pursuant to Article 6(1) of Commission Regulation (EC)  794/2004 and 
it is split by Member State. There is also aggregated data at EU level. The last State aid 
Scoreboard dates from 2016.  
 
According to the 2016 State aid Scoreboard (reflecting consolidated data for the year 2015), there 
was a decrease of abou t 0,5% between 2015 and 2014 expenditures ( - EUR 465 million) for the 
EU-28. With the inclusion of Renewable Energy Sources support schemes in the provisions of the 
"State aid guidelines for energy and environmental protection 2014 -2020", about 46% of tota l 
subsidies assessed under State aid control was allocated to the environmental and energy sectors. 
However the European Commission does not hav e data disaggregated by sector.  
 
More information about the 2016 State aid Scoreboard is available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/scoreboard/index_en.html . 
 
What development does the Commission expect in the coming years with regard to expenditures 
for state aid for environmental protection and energy saving?  
 
EU reply:  The European Commission cannot make a forecast of what will be the amount of State 
aid for  environmental protection and energy saving in the coming years. While the European 
Commission has the exclusive competence to approve State aid, it is in the first place for the 
Member States to decide on spending public money for environmental protection  and energy.  
 
Energy prices from non -renewable sources are determinant for the competitiveness of renewable 
energy. Subsidies for fossil fuel production may have considerable effects on trade by affecting the 
rate and timing of development of new fields, which is likely leading to an extra production and 
thus depressing fossil fuel prices.  
 
Energy prices from non -renewable sources are determinant for the competitiveness of renewable 
energy. Subsidies for fossil fuel production may have considerable effect s on trade by affecting the 
rate and timing of development of new fields, which is likely leading to an extra production and 
thus depressing fossil fuel prices.  
 
What is the policy in the EU and its Member States on fossil fuel subsidies, the exemption of  
sectors such as agriculture or mining from fossil fuel taxes and its reduction or elimination?  
 
EU reply : Member States are free to choose their fuel mix according to Article 194 (2) of the 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Member S tates may grant State aid in 
compliance with Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU and the respective EU acquis. As regards 
support to coal mines, the Member States can grant State aid only in order to facilitate the closure 
of uncompetitive coal mines in order  to alleviate the social and environmental impact of their WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 66 - 
 
  closure (cf. EU Council Decision 2010/787/EU  on State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive 
coal mines). The Council Decision requires that a mine receiving closure aid must cease mining 
activities by the end of 2018 at the latest.  A number of Member States (such as Hungary, Spain) 
have been closing down uncompetitive mines.10 
 
Fossil fuels may indirectly benefit from state aid through capacity mechanisms which aim to ensure 
security of elec tricity supply. These currently constitute approximately EUR 1.3 bn per year11. Such 
capacity mechanisms have however to meet the strict conditions of the Energy and Environmental 
protection State Aid Guidelines 2014 -2020, such as establishing a clear neces sity to introduce such 
mechanisms, ensuring technology neutrality and giving a preference for low carbon solutions in 
case of equivalent technical and economic performance. State aid in the form of tax exemptions 
and reductions for fossil fuels, preferenti al VAT rates, etc. are allowed under the General Block 
Exemption Regulation if in line with the EU Energy Taxation Directive (2003/96/EC).  The Directive 
includes a common EU framework for taxing motor fuels, heating fuels and electricity. It defines 
minimu m tax rates for commercial and industrial purposes, such as agriculture (art 8.2) and some 
options for exemptions for use of energy products and electricity (Article 15). All Member States 
apply tax rates much above the minima provided by the Directive.  
 
More information is available at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/energy/legislation_en.html . 
 
Referring to table 3.15, p. 88 of the Secretariat’s report, please elaborate on some 
illustrative/typical examples of projects supported in the categories “regional development” as well 
as “R&D/Innovation”, and indicate in which regions such state aid are provided.  
 
EU reply : Information on State aid approved by the Commission and implemented by EU Member 
States is publicly available.  
 
All competition policy areas are covered on DG Competition's website, where State aid can i.a. be 
searched by primary obj ective and General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER) objective, such as 
"regional development" and "researc h, development and innovation".  
http://ec.europa.eu/c ompetition/elojade/isef/index.cfm?clear=1&policy_area_id=3 . 
 
In addition, the state aid transparency public search page gives access to state aid individual 
award data provided by Member States, and there users can also search by objective:  
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/competition/transparency/public/search/home?lang=en . 
 
For illustrative examples of projects supported in the categories "regional development" an d 
"research, development and innovation", please refer to those websites.  
 
3.3.4.1 Anti -trust  
In the report by the Secretariat, it is stated (3.200 on page 94) that the 2014 directive on 
antitrust damages actions was to have been implemented by the Member States through their 
legal systems by 27 December 2016.  
 
32. Has this process already been completed and to what extent do the related regulations of the 
member states go beyond of the provisions of the directive?  
 
EU reply:  The 2014 directive on antitrust  damages actions has been implemented by most 
Member States. As of 9 June 2017, 17 Member States have communicated to the Commission that 
they have fully transposed the Directive. The European Commission is now examining whether the 
communicated measures h ave transposed the Directive completely and correctly, and takes all 
necessary measures to ensure that the directive is implemented also in the remaining Member 
States as soon as possible. Some Member States went beyond the provisions of the directive, for  
example as regards the disclosure of evidence, or the binding effect of final infringement decisions 
by national authorities of other Member States. More information on the national legislation is 
available at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/directive_en.html  
 
                                                
10 E.g. http://europa.eu/rapid/press -release_IP -13-35_en.htm , http://europa.eu/rapid/press -
release_IP -16-4462_en.htm , http://europa.eu/rapid/press -release_IP -16-1910_en.htm . 
11 c.f. EC Generation Adequacy guidance document, sum of annual expenditure in Greece, Ireland, Italy, 
Spain, Sweden, Finland.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 67 - 
 
  3.3.6.2 State -owned enterprises  
In the report by the Secretariat of the WTO, it is stated ( 3.226 on page 101/102) that during the 
financial crisis many member States intervened or took equity interests in financial sector 
companies in particular. This has prompted further scrutiny and examination of SOEs, particularly 
as to their financial perfo rmance and impact on fiscal balances. Concerns have been raised as to 
their market functioning, public finances, and financial stability.  
 
How does the EU specifically react to this development in the financial sector compared to the 
supervision of other sectors (e.g. energy or rail sector)?  
 
EU reply:  The decade that has passed since the onset of the financial crisis has seen 
unprecedented efforts across economies to stabilise  markets and contain negative externalities, 
followed by a period of intense con structive dialogue by international bodies, legislators, Member 
States, industry stakeholders and consumer groups, aiming to improve regulation and raise it to a 
level of maturity appropriate to handle future crises and market failures.  
 
The crisis reveale d issues that had accumulated in our global financial system, whose complexity 
had not been captured by the supervisory tools available at the time of the crisis. These 
supervisory tools did not provide for well -structured action plans in case of failure b ased on ex -
ante prepared scenarios. This forced regulators and supervisors into unchartered territory, such as 
bail-outs through asset relief programs, capital injections, guarantees and provision of liquidity 
directly into the financial system, “lender of  last resort” operations, nati onaliz ations as  a 
temporary measure to stabiliz e systemic banks, or capital controls to reduce the effects of liquidity 
flight and buy time to devise restructuring and restoration plans.  
 
As a response to these issues, the EU has built a new regulatory architecture for its financial 
system, with a single rulebook for all financial actors across the single market.  
 
This first wave of measures were finalised  in 2013 and set the foundation of the Banking Union, 
implementing Basel  III in Europe through the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) and the 
revised Capital Requirements Directive (CRDIV). The first recovery and resolution regime for banks 
to include a bail -in tool (the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD)) as wel l as the 
Deposit Insurance Scheme Directive  were adopted in 2014, followed by a proposal for an EU -wide 
depositor protection scheme in 2015.  
 
Regarding the prudential supervision of credit institutions, in which the State holds equity interest 
following ac tions taken during the financial crisis, it should be noted that it follows the same rules 
(i.e. CRR/CRDIV) as the ones that are applicable to any privately -owned credit institution. 
Similarly, as far as the application of the resolution framework is conce rned, the framework to be 
applied is the same, irrespective of the type of institution (whether privately held or State -owned).  
 
Public financing provided to the financial or to other sectors can involve State aid. Such State aid 
in the financial, but also  in other sectors, can be provided to both private and public entities. 
According to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) the European 
Commission is neutral as regards the ownership of entities receiving State aid.  
 
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 restructuring aid for financial institutions, for environmen tal protection and energy, 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.  
 
3.3.7 Gov ernment procurement  
Par. 3.251  
With regard to the evaluation of the operation of the Remedies Directives, the Commission stated 
that “the follow -up to the evaluation can be expected to contribute to the proper implementation 
of the GPA as well”.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 68 - 
 
  In which respect the EU believes that such follow -up to the evaluation can be useful for the GPA 
implementation?  
 
EU reply:  Article XVIII of the revised GPA stipulates that each Party should put in place domestic 
review procedures, fulfilling certain conditions, to which suppliers originating in the other GPA 
Parties should have access to. The EU respects this GPA obligation t hrough the application of the 
EU Remedies Directives. The rules of these Directives go further than the GPA obligations and 
provide for enhanced challenge rights of suppliers (such as for example the standstill period). Thus 
provisions aimed at: strengthen ing the cooperation and exchanges of best practices (in particular 
via a network of first instance remedies bodies), the establishment of Remedies Scoreboard based 
on objective indicators to promote the collection of data, providing guidance documents to e ase 
the practical implementation of the Remedies Directives will also improve the rights of suppliers 
originating in other GPA Parties within the EU.  
 
And apart from the issue of the evaluation of the Remedies Directives, are there any other ongoing 
or fut ure evaluation of specific aspects of the operation of EU directives (f.i. in the field of 
sustainable procurement) that, according to EU perspective, may contribute to the proper 
implementation of the GPA?  
 
EU reply : The EU has modernised its procurement  rules in 2014. Currently the focus is on the 
proper implementation of the new rules. Therefore, sufficient time should pass before the 
evaluation of the new rules will be conducted in due course when sufficient elements to ensure 
proper evaluation are ava ilable.  
 
4.1.2.1 Domestic support  
Page 139, Paragraph 4.8:  
Since 1 January 2015, active farmers have had access to the compulsory schemes provided by all 
member States (the basic payment or single area payment, the greening payment, and the young 
farmers' scheme) and, if the member State has so decided, the voluntary schemes (redistributive 
payment, support in areas with natural constraints, and coupled support). Member States also 
have the option of applying a small farmers' scheme, which is a simplified s cheme that replaces all 
other direct payments and exempts eligible farmers from greening and cross -compliance controls. 
Apart from the small farmers' scheme, all direct payment programmes are subject to provisions to 
ensure compliance with basic standards relating to the environment, food safety, animal and plant 
health and animal welfare (cross -compliance).  
 
Question:  
Could the European Union please explain the rationale behind the small farmer’s scheme and 
especially why they chose to exempt it from gree ning and cross -compliance controls?  
 
EU reply:  Simplification is a core objective of any EU policy proposal. Recital (54) of Regulation 
(EU) No 1307/2013 states that Member States may establish a simple and specific scheme for 
small farmers in order to re duce the administrative costs linked to the management and control of 
direct payments. In its impact assessment for the CAP post -2013 reform (SEC(2011) 1153 final), 
the European Commission recognized that the EU agricultural sector is characterized by a ve ry 
large number of small farms (more than 70% of farms have less than 5 ha). It also concluded that 
many such farms are unprofitable and uncompetitive from an economic perspective. Yet, they are 
of crucial social importance in certain Member States and rur al regions. Small farms also provide a 
number of environmental benefits. In the impact assessment, it is stated that "generally small 
farms play an important role in maintaining a varied landscape with a diverse pattern of perennial, 
natural and planted ve getation. This variety, when accompanied by the presence of retained 
landscape features such as field margins, hedgerows, stonewalls, meadows, small woods and 
watercourses, is valuable for biodiversity through ensuring connectivity between semi -natural 
habitats and cultivated areas. It also contributes to the resilience of the landscape in the face of 
climate change."  
 
The share of direct payments available to smaller holdings is rather low (due to the size of such 
holdings). Moreover, it was concluded that  the administrative burden on small farmers is in 
general disproportionately high in relation to the amount of support they receive.  
 
Taking into account these reasons, a specific simplified small farmers' scheme was proposed, in 
order to strengthen the vi ability of smaller farms. Due to the characteristics of such farms it was WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 69 - 
 
  deemed unnecessary to impose on them the additional environmental activities promoted by the 
greening payment and it was also deemed disproportionate to apply to these farmers sancti ons 
related to cross -compliance.  
 
Current assessments of the implementation of the small farmers ' scheme in 2015 suggest that the 
simplification offered by the scheme is widely welcomed by smaller farmers. Around 50% of 
farmers eligible for decoupled direc t payments in the 15 Member States applying the small 
farmers ' scheme opted for participation in this scheme in 2015. At the same time, the area of 
these farmers represents only 7% of eligible area declared in those 15 Member States.  
 
Further information on the scheme as such is available at:  
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/direct -support/direct -payments/docs/small -
farmers -scheme_en.pdf  
 
Does this mean that farmers under this scheme do not comply with basic standards relating to the 
environment, food safety, animal and plant health and animal welfare?  
 
EU reply:  No. Exemption from the cross -compliance sanctions does not mean that such farms do 
not have to comply with environmental, food safety, animal and plant health and animal welfare 
requirements. The exemption means that, should a non -compliance case be detec ted, the small 
farmer payment of non -complying farmer would not be reduced.  Currently, the risk of non -
compliance by farmers participating in this scheme is assessed as being low.  On the contrary, as 
mentioned in response to question 36, it is presumed tha t, due to the structure of such farmers 
and their agricultural practices, they generally already apply the necessary environmental 
practices. Besides, due to their size, farmers participating in the scheme often do not provide a 
significant supply to the m arket. In any event, general law on the environment, food safety, 
animal and plant health and animal welfare would still apply.  
 
What was the budget used for the small farmer’s scheme in the past years?  
 
EU reply:  The small farmers' scheme does not have a pre-fixed annual financial ceiling; it is 
financed by deductions from other direct payment schemes (see Article 65 of Regulation (EU) No 
1307/2013). The small farmers' scheme was implemented in calendar year 2015 for the first time. 
Since direct payments i n calendar year N are financed in budget year N+1 this means that there 
was no expenditure in financial year 2015. The final expenditure for the small farmers scheme in 
2016 was €1 330 million. Expenditure in financial year 2017 is still not known. The 201 7 budget 
amounts to €1 347 million.  
 
Page 144, Table 4.7  
According to Table 4.7 the EU purchased through th e public intervention regime 40,280 and 
334,551 tonnes of skimmed milk powder  in 2015 and 2016 respectively.  
 
Could the EU indicate how these stocks  will be disposed of? How does the EU avoid market 
distortions when disposing such stocks?  
 
EU reply:  Article 16(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No . 1308/2013 provides that the disposal of 
products bought in under public intervention shall take place in such a w ay as to avoid any 
disturbance of the market. Within this framework, the Commission is in a continuing process of 
assessing how best to release products onto the market, in terms of timing, quantities and prices. 
The decision is taken together with EU Memb er States. S ale by tendering procedure was opened 
by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2080 of 25 November 2016. So far 40 tonnes 
were sold by means of Regulation (EU) 2016/2264, fixing the minimum selling price for skimmed 
milk powder for the f irst partial invitation to tender.  
 
4.1.2.2 Export subsidies  
 
Page 151, Paragraph 4.39:  
The European Commission stated that no export subsidies have been granted by the EU since July 
2013. The most recent notification from the EU for the 2014/15 marketing year shows that no ex -
port refunds were provided in that year, although the EU continued  to notify exports of out -of-
quota sugar as being subsidized although no export refunds are provided.21 As noted above, 
production quotas for sugar will be abolished from end -September 2017. Furthermore, although WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 70 - 
 
  Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013 does provide for the export refunds in exceptional situations, the 
refund rates were set at zero in 2013 and have not changed, and the European Commission stated 
that the EU applies the Decision of the Nairobi Ministerial Conference on the elimination of export 
subsidi es.  
 
Question: The European Commission assured application of the Decision of the Nairobi Ministerial 
Conference on the elimination of export subsidies. Can the European Union give an update on the 
internal process for the implementation of the Nairobi De cision?  
 
EU reply:  EU legislation on export subsidies is already and explicitly limited by the EU's 
international commitments, which include the Nairobi outcome (see Article 196(1) of Regulation 
(EU) No . 1308/2013). It thus fully conforms to the Nairobi ou tcome.  
 
When will the European Union be able to represent this in its schedule of commitments?  
 
EU reply: The EU is actively preparing a draft updated EU -28 schedule which will include 
scheduling the Nairobi outcome as regards export subsidies, which it ho pes to submit soon in 
2017.  
 
4.1.5 OECD monitoring and evaluation of agricultural policies  
Page 154, Paragraph 4.49:  
Overall, the percentage PSE (that is support as a percentage of gross farm receipts), has been 
fairly stable over the 2011 -15 period, ranging from 20.0% to 18.1%, considerably below the levels 
of the 1990s. Market price support increased to nearly €21 bill ion, from a low of €11 billion in 
2011. The increase in the value of market price support is the result of several factors, including 
lower commodity prices as domestic producers in the EU are, to some extent, protected from 
changes in world market prices by tariffs. As a result, market price support for common wheat, 
and sugar increased from zero in 2011 to €3.9 billion and €1.4 billion respectively in 2015.  
 
Question: The Secretariat states in its report that market price support increased to €21 billion  due 
to several factors including lower commodity prices. What other factors contributed to the fact that 
market price support nearly doubled since 2011? Does the European Union expect this trend to 
continue?  
 
EU reply:  The EU takes note of the OECD repor t, and that the method used to calculate MPS leads 
to some extraordinary results even when internal support policy is kept stable and EU market 
prices converge to world market price.  
For illustration below see how EU market prices have converged to World market prices.  
 
Ratio between EU and world prices in euro  
 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 71 - 
 
  
 
Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, based on European Commission and London 
International Financial Futures and Options Exchange  
 
 
Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, based on European Commission and USDA  
 
 
Note:  EU: young bulls (R3), Brazil: AVG Arroba do Boi (6 St), US: Omaha Carcass . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 72 - 
 
  Source:  DG Agriculture and Rural Development, based on European Commission, Pecuària.com.br 
and USDA . 
 
Furthermore as can be seen from the EUs DS:1 notifications, EU market price su pport, as 
measured by the AMS calculation, has been very stable/slightly increasing (mainly due to 
increased production).  
 
Report by the European Union (WT/TPR/G/357)  
 
2.1 The EU economic environment and its macroeconomic policy  
 
The EU wrote in its report  that a European Fund for Strategic Investments was created in 2015 
(2.6 on page 4), with an initial €21 billion backed by the EU and that until today, this Fund 
apparently helped to mobilize over €154 billion of new investments across the EU.  
 
Are all of those investments really new and triggered by this Fund or would some of them have 
taken place even without this fund?  
 
Could you give an estimate of the share of genuine new investments?  
 
EU reply to questions 43 and 44: When selecting projects for use of the EU budget guarantee, 
the independent European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) Investment Committee uses 
strict criteria laid down in the EFSI Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2015/1017  http://eur -
lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2015.169.01.0001.01.ENG ) and 
agreed by Member States and the European Parliament. The EU budget guarantee can only be 
extended t o projects which provide additionality and fulfil all the criteria of the EFSI Regulation.  
 
Notably, EFSI projects must be 'additional' in the sense that they point to a market failure or 
suboptimal investment situations and therefore would – in principle – not have been financed in 
the same period by the European Investment Bank without the EFSI support, or not to the same 
extent. Not all EFSI projects are equally risky or innovative but all projects have to pass this 
general additionality test. The level of risk is an essential element of how to assess the 
additionality of projects supported by the EFSI guarantee. The EFSI has fundamentally changed 
the way the European Investment Bank is doing business,  with the volume of so -called “special 
activities”, wh ich represent projects with a higher risk profile, increasing substantially from EUR 4 
billion to EUR 20 billion per year. Almost all EFSI operations to date are special activities.  
 
Common agricultural policy  
Page 10 -11, Paragraph 3.31 – 3.34:  
Question: S witzerland welcomes the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, implemented by 
the European Union over the past 25 years. With no doubt, this reform process will be continued 
with the new CAP. Can the European Union already give first indications about t he direction of the 
new CAP and the main changes that will be implemented? Are there any plans to leave more policy 
space to the Member States when it comes to coupled support measures?  
 
EU reply to questions 45 and 46:  In relation to the next CAP reform,  the EU is currently under 
discussions with the different stakeholders.  It is therefore too soon to anticipate any adjustments 
of a future CAP reform.  
 
For the same reason, it would also be premature trying to predict the future of coupled aid within 
direct payments. In general terms, however, it is worth recalling that the policy intention of 
decoupling has been a vital element of the CAP in the last decades. The European Union gradually 
worked toward the present very high share (approximately 90%) of deco upled aid within all direct 
payments.  
 
4.1.2 An effective EU trade policy that tackles new economic realities  
 
4.21. The EU has fully complied with the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition since 
the date of adoption of the Decision. No export subsidies have been granted during the period in 
question – all export refund rates have remained at zero sinc e July 2013. There are no agricultural 
exporting state -trading enterprises or export financing schemes benefiting agricultural products in WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 73 - 
 
  the EU apart from a few horizontal export financing programmes run by certain EU Member States, 
where the share of ag ricultural exports is marginal.  
 
Question: Could the EU equally confirm its compliance with the provisions concerning international 
food aid of the Nairobi decision on Export Competition?  
 
EU reply:  The EU confirms its compliance with the provisions concer ning international food aid of 
the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition, as reflected in its notifications and responses to the 
WTO Secretariat questionnaire on export competition.  
 
Paragraphs 4.24 and 4.25  
In its report, the EU indicates that it will pr opose SME provisions in all ongoing and future free 
trade negotiations.  
 
In relation to government procurement, how would such kind of provisions specifically facilitate 
SME’s access to government procurement markets for EU and third countries businesses?   
 
EU reply:  The chapters on government procurement of current FTAs promote transparency and 
non-discrimination in public procurement. Such chapters do not normally contain provisions 
specifically to SMEs. Provisions in chapters relevant for SMEs should ensure that sm all companies 
from both sides benefit from FTAs. This includes areas such as customs and trade facilitation, rules 
of origin, technical regulations and certifications, IPR and procurement etc. and address issues 
such as transparency.  
 
The concerned SME pro visions could contain, for example, information sharing obligations through 
which each Party should establish a dedicated website informing SMEs on market opportunities, 
and including notably information related to rules on public procurement, to the datab ase 
containing public procurement notices as well as any other relevant information concerning public 
procurement opportunities.  
 
Supporting inclusive growth in developing countries  
Para. 4.41  
The report states that, „the EU committed itself to further co ordinate development cooperation 
programms (such as Aid for Trade) with trade policy tools to support sustainable development, 
including inclusive growth.“  
 
Could it be further elaborated, how this coordination is envisaged and what it would concretely 
entail? 
 
EU reply:  The EU uses both development cooperation programs and trade policy instruments as 
complementary tools to support inclusive growth and sustainable development around the world. 
To this end, the EU has been better adapting its trade policies to the needs of developing 
countries, in particular by systematically including specific chapters on Trade and Sustainable 
Development (TSD) in all its new or revised trade agreements. In parallel, the EU aid for trade 
strategy (common to the EU and its Me mber States) is currently undergoing a review, in order to 
take account of changing economic and trade realities (for example the growing importance of 
global value chains), of renewed global policies (such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable 
Development), and of evolving EU trade policies (dense network of trade agreements with 
expanding scope, including TSD chapters). In quantitative terms, the EU is and will remain the first 
world contributor of Aid for Trade, currently with more than EUR 13 billion per y ear. 
 
Para. 4.42  
What are the regional mechanism used by the EU to deliver trade facilitation -related measures?  
 
EU reply : Support for the implementation of the WTO Agreement on Trade Facilitation will be 
done through the multi -annual regional programmes ( Asia, ACP, Neighbourhood countries and 
Latin America). The EU is currently formulating programmes in the different regions which will 
become operational in 2018. For example, we have already identified a €53 Million programme for 
the member states of COMES A which will be implemented through the COMESA secretariat. The 
EU has also made a €9.6 Million contribution to the World Bank Trade Facilitation Support 
programme in order to cover needs until our regional programmes will enter into force.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 74 - 
 
  Para. 4.43  
What does the EU understands concretely under “recent development oriented FTAs”? What is the 
specifically development -oriented character?  
 
EU reply : By development oriented FTAs the EU means FTAs concluded or negotiated with 
developing countries that to t he highest extent possible takes into account specificities, needs and 
interests of developing countries, including taking commitments in sectors and modes of supply 
indicated as priorities by our trading partners from developing countries.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 75 - 
 
  PERU EU REPLI ES TO QUESTIONS FROM  THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TER RITORY OF 
TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINM EN AND MATSU  
 
PART I: REGARDING TH E SECRETARIAT REPORT  (WT/TPR/S/357)  
1.3 FOREIGN DIRECT I NVESTMENT  
Page 27 （Para 1） 
1.37. The EU remains in a dominant world position in terms of investment – it has the largest 
investment inflows and outflows. However it has been impacted significantly by the economic crisis 
in which its share of world FDI flows fell from about 50% before the crisis to 20% in 2014.  74 from 
2009, the EU witnessed a steady increase in FDI that began to reverse in 2013 with FDI flows 
reaching the lowest levels in recent history in 2014. However, both inflows and outflows 
rebounded significantly in 2015 (Table 1.3).75 The decline, in particular in 2014, can be attribute d 
to large disinvestments in/by traditional partner countries.76 Most of the EU's FDI is attributed to 
special -purpose foreign -owned financial holding companies engaged in financial transactions. While 
these financial vehicles usually have little activity in the member State of residence, they are 
typically used as "European hubs" for their investments – into the EU for non -EU companies, and 
out of the EU for EU companies. While the share of FDI through special purpose entities varies 
from year to year, it can be as high as 50% in some years and has been volatile during the period.  
 
Question ： 
1. Which countries in EU need to review in advance when foreigners invest in those countries?  
 
EU reply:  Some member States such as France, Germany, and the United King dom maintain FDI 
review procedures for national security purposes. Italy and Portugal may also review investment in 
strategic sectors such as defense, energy, transport and communication.  
 
2 TRADE AND INVESTME NT REGIME  
2.1 LEGAL AND INSTIT UTIONAL FRAMEWORK  
Page 32 (Para 2.8)  
The text of the trade agreement itself provides the details for the actual entry into force of the 
agreement. In the case of a "mixed agreement", i.e. including elements falling under Member 
state competence, the agreement can only ente r into force when all parties including the 28 
member States have ratified the agreement. If one (or more) of the member States does not ratify 
the agreement, it will not enter into force. If the Council decides to provisionally apply the 
agreement, it wil l remain provisionally applicable until terminated upon notification by the EU to 
the other negotiating party after the Council has taken that decision.  
 
Question(s):  
2. Will European Union consider splitting future trade agreements so that the elements o f trade 
agreements falling under European Union’s exclusive competence can be fast -tracked?  
 
EU reply : The consequences of this Opinion on future trade and investments agreements are 
currently being considered. The EU is not therefore in a position to give  a clear answer to this 
question at this stage.  
 
3. Under what circumstances might the European Union give its agreement to provisionally apply a 
“mixed” trade deal?  
 
EU reply : The issue of provisional application have not been affected by the Opinion of the ECJ.I If 
an agreement provides for such a possibility; this would need to be approved by the Council . 
 
2.3 TRADE AGREEMENTS  AND ARRANGEMENTS  
2.3.2 REGIONAL AND P REFERENTIAL AGREEMEN TS  
Page 35 (Para 3.32)  
As from 2017, an annual report on the implementation of the EU FTAs will be produced. The 
reports are intended to give greater visibility and coherence to the work already under way in this 
area for each individual FTA in place between the EU and a given t hird-country or region.  
 
Question:  
4. Would  EU please describe the criteria, if any, to evaluate the implementation and achievements 
related to Trade and Sustainable Development made under the EU FTAs?  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 76 - 
 
  EU reply:  EU is paying attention to the effective implementation of the agreements implemented 
so far. The European Commission is working to ensure that the FTAs function well and that they 
deliver the full benefits to EU operators and other stakeholders.  Once a ye ar the Commission will 
produce a report on how its different FTAs are being implemented. After each FTA has entered into 
force, commitments have been phased in and sufficient time has passed to gather evidence, the 
Commission carries out an ex -post evaluat ion of its impact. The Commission will evaluate against 
the specific provisions in each of the SD that we have.  
 
2.4 F oreign Investment Policy  
Page 37(Para 2.44)  
The EU's comprehensive investment policy is being introduced on a progressive basis so that th e 
many member State BITs providing investment protection to European investors will be preserved 
until they are replaced by EU agreements. On 9 January 2013, Regulation (EU) No. 1219/2012 
came into force which established transitional arrangements to maint ain in force existing member 
State BITs until their replacement. This Regulation also allows for the Commission to empower 
member States to negotiate with a third country to amend or conclude a BIT under certain 
conditions. The relatively high number of au thorizations granted shows that member States 
remain active in negotiating BITs.  
 
Question:  
5. Member States are able to negotiate with third countries under certain conditions, but what are 
those conditions? If a conflict were to arise over the scope of the BIT a member state signed with 
a third country and the BIT the EU signed with a third country, which BIT will be signed first?  
 
EU reply:  Foreign direct investment policy is an integral part of the common commercial policy, 
which remains an exclusive c ompetence of the EU. New investment negotiations with third 
countries can only be carried out at the EU level or with EU authorisation. The existing BITs 
between EU Member States and third countries will be preserved until they are replaced by EU 
agreement s. In this respect, Regulation No 1219/2012 grants legal security to the existing BITs 
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 Regulati on 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 P RACTICES BY MEASURE  
3.1.7.7 Anti -dumping and anti -subsidy measures  
Page 59 (Para 3.58)  
The most significant change from 2014 is that now the Commission has responsibility for imposing 
anti-dumping and anti -subsidy measures, with no formal involvement of the Council. Member 
States are, however, consulted through a number of different types of  procedures which apply 
under the EU's comitology rules, including an appeals procedure.  
 
Question:  
6. Could the EU elaborate on how the Commission consults with Member States during the process 
of anti -dumping and anti -subsidy measures?  
How do the opini ons of member states affect the Commission’s decisions?  
 
EU reply : The Trade Defence Instruments Committee assists the Commission in the exercise of 
the implementing powers in the area of trade defence instruments, by giving opinions on draft 
implementing acts. The committee is composed of representatives of all the Member States and 
chaired by a representative of the Commission. In particular, the Commission seeks the opinion of 
the committee on the following stages of the investigation:  
• whether or not t o impose provisional or definitive measures  
• whether or not to initiate expiry review proceedings  
• amendments and extension of existing measures.  
 
The committee delivers its opinion via two types of procedures: advisory (e.g. imposition of 
provisional me asures, initiation of expiry reviews) or examination (e.g. imposition of definitive 
measures, amendments/extension of existing measures). Under the advisory procedure, the 
committee’s opinion, delivered by simple majority, is not binding on the Commission.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 77 - 
 
  Nevertheless, it is an important element in the decision -making process, as it allows the 
Commission to seek the views of Member States. Where the examination procedure applies, the 
committee’s opinion is delivered by qualified majority.  
 
There is a possi bility of referral to an appeal committee, which also consists of Member States and 
is chaired by the Commission. Member States can only block the adoption of a draft implementing 
act by qualified majority. The appeal committee is not a permanent body, but  gives Member States 
the opportunity to have a second discussion on the draft implementing act at a higher level. All 
aspects of the consultations are confidential.  
 
3.1.7.7 Anti -dumping and anti -subsidy measures  
Page 59 (Para 3.59)  
More recently, in Nove mber 2016, the European Commission adopted a proposal to the European 
Parliament and the Council to amend both the Anti -dumping and Anti -Subsidy Regulations.70 As of 
March 2017, the proposal was following the ordinary legislative procedure and would need a  
decision by both the European Parliament and the Counc il before entering into force.  
 
Question:  
7. Could EU foresee when the proposed anti -dumping regulation will enter into force?  
 
EU reply:  The ordinary legislative procedure is ongoing. The EU is unable to indicate when the 
proposal to amend the anti -dumping legislation will enter into force.   
 
Page 59(Para 3.60)  
The other main elements of the EU anti -dumping and anti -subsidy rules remain th e same. The 
Commission investigates allegations of dumping or subsidies based on a complaint from producers, 
but it may also self -initiate investigations.  
 
Question:  
8. According to the above -mentioned text, the Commission may initiate anti -dumping 
investigations itself without complaints from producers. Could EU explain that under which 
conditions the Commission will self -initiate an anti -dumping investigation?  
 
EU reply: The currently applicable legal framework already provides for the possibility for the 
Commission, in special circumstances, to initiate anti -dumping investigations itself without having 
received a complaint. However, this can only be done on the basi s of sufficient evidence of 
dumping, injury and a causal link, as described in Article 5(2) of the basic anti -dumping 
Regulation. Accordingly, the level of evidence available to the Commission should be comparable 
to the level of evidence which would be re quired from a complainant to justify the initiation of an 
anti-dumping investigation.  
 
9. And in practice, what is the percentage of anti -dumping cases which are self -initiated by the 
Commission among all the investigations?  
 
EU reply : It is exceptional t hat the Commission initiates anti -dumping cases by itself.  Since 2012, 
of the 196 anti -dumping cases initiated by the EU (new cases and reviews) 23 were initiated ex 
officio (just under 12%): 12 were re -openings to implement judicial decisions, 7 interim r eviews 
and 4 anti -circumvention investigations. Since 2012, of the 35 anti -subsidy cases initiated by the 
EU (new cases and reviews) 2 were initiated ex officio, both were 7 interim reviews.    
 
Page 63(Para 3.73)  
Thus, importers of certain iron and steel products are required to submit a surveillance document 
(obtained automatically upon a simple request) before the products can be released for free 
circulation, in order to provide advanced statistical information allowing for the rapid analysis of 
import trends.  
 
Question:  
10. Are all importers of certain iron and steel products required to submit a surveillance 
document? If not, what is the criteria to choose who should summit the documents? What is the 
next step  when Commission receive those documents?  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 78 - 
 
  EU reply:  As mentioned in Article 1 of Regulation 2016/670 the release for free circulation in the 
Union of certain iron and steel products shall be subject to prior Union surveillance in accordance 
with Regulati on (EU) 2015/478 and Regulation (EU) 2015/755. All importers of iron and steel must 
indeed submit a surveillance document provided that the imports concern one of the products 
listed under Annex I of the regulation and that the weight of the products conce rned by the 
transaction exceeds 2.500 kilograms (as from July 2017 a specific ceiling of 5.000 Kilograms 
applies to fasteners). Products originating in Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are exempted from 
surveillance.  
 
4. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR  
3.3.7 Gov ernment procurement  
Page 104 (para.3.234)  
In 2015, total general government public procurement expenditure on works, goods and services 
in the EU (excluding utilities) was €2,015.3 billion  
 
Question:  
11. To enhance its position in promoting liberalization of GPA markets worldwide, could the EU 
indicate the estimated import penetration rates of its GPA market in recent years?  
 
EU reply:  The EU has not yet found a consistent methodology to trace contracts awarded to 
companies from other GPA Parties. In terms  of nationality of the winning bidders, the existing data 
covers only direct cross -border procurement and not indirect cross border procurement (for 
example there are a large number of contracts awarded to suppliers that are subsidiaries of 
foreign compani es or agents for foreign suppliers). Therefore, as these data as mentioned above 
do not cover indirect cross border procurement, they will not fully reflect the reality as to import 
penetration rates. The EU remains ready to engage in in -depth discussions with GPA parties to 
determine how to measure market penetration by companies from countries that are Parties to the 
Agreement.  
 
PART 2: TRADE POLICY  REVIEW REPORT BY THE  EUROPEAN UNION PURSU ANT 
(WT/TPR/G/357)  
3 DEVELOPMENTS IN THE INTERNAL MARKET: THE SINGLE MARKET STRATEGY  
 
Page 5 (Para 3.3 -3.4) 
3.3. On 28 October 2015, the European Commission presented a new Single Market Strategy5 
which aims at unlocking the full potential of the Single Market.  
 
3.4. The Strategy aims at reviving and modernizing the  Single Market in a way that improves the 
functioning of the markets for products and services, and guarantees appropriate protection for 
citizens. It is made up of targeted actions in three key areas:  
 
creating opportunities for consumers, professionals and businesses;  
encouraging and enabling the modernization and innovation that Europe needs;  
ensuring practical delivery that benefits consumers and businesses in their daily lives.  
 
Question:  
12. Regarding to the new single market strategy (SMS) presented by the European commission, 
what are the differences from the preceding version of SMS?   
 
EU reply: Single Market Act of April 2011  
In April 2011 the Commission presented the Single Market Act, in which it set out twelve levers to 
further develop  the Single Market. This Act was built on a widely shared political vision for the 
further development of the Single Market and reflected a comprehensive approach. In October 
2012, the Commission proposed a second set of priority actions (Single Market Act  II) taking 
account of the evolving of the crisis and the emergence of new challenges.  
 
Single Market Strategy of October 2015  
In October 2015, the Commission presented the Single Market Strategy. This Strategy gives the 
Single Market a new boost with a nu mber of ambitious and pragmatic actions focused on three 
main areas, representing a further fine -tuning of the Single Market. It relies on economic evidence 
and focusses on the economically most important obstacles. Sectoral initiatives of the Commission 
need to be complemented by a true European Single Market, particularly for goods and services WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 79 - 
 
  adapting it to reflect today's realities where innovative ideas and new business models must find 
their place too. Thus, the Single Market Strategy of 2015 contain s practical measures helping 
small and medium -sized enterprises and start -ups to grow and expand, promoting innovation, 
unlocking investments and empowering consumers.  
 
13. What are the measures o f each three key areas of sms?  
 
EU reply : For a detailed ov erview of the actions envisaged under the umbrella of the Single 
Market Strategy, we refer:  
 
 to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Upgr ading 
the Single Market: more opportunities for people and business (COM(2015) 550 final),  
 
 as well as to the Commission Staff Working Document: A Single Market Strategy for 
Europe Analysis and Evidence Accompanying the document Upgrading the Single Market: 
more opportunities for people and business (SWD(2015) 202 final).  
 
In order to provide some examples of measures already taken, we would like to point out the 
following:  
 
Creating opportunities for consumers, professionals and businesses:  
 
In support of a balanced development of the collaborative economy, the Commission presented 
the European age nda for the collaborative economy (COM(2016) 356 final) in June 2016.  
 
Making the market without borders for services a practical reality is another objective, which has 
led to – among other initiatives – the very recent proposals presented by the Commissi on in 
January 2017 on the European Services e -card (directive and regulation) as well as a 
proportionality assessment of national rules regarding the access to and the exercise of 
professional services and a guidance on national reform recommendations for regulation of 
professions.  
 
Encouraging and enabling the modernisation and innovation that Europe needs:  
 
Modernisation of our standards system is pursued by the "Joint Initiative on Standardisation under 
the Single Market Strategy", presented in January 2016. Building on the existing legal framework, 
it is not legally binding itself, but sets out a shared Vision for European Standardisation.  
 
Europe's intellectual property framework will be consolidated by the unitary patent, which is in its 
final steps.  
 
Ensuring practical delivery that benefits consumers and businesses in their daily lives:  
A culture of compliance and smart enforcement are key to deliver a true Single Market. To this 
end, an entire package of measures has just been presented by the Comm ission in May 2017. 
These include the Single Gateway, the Single Market Information Tool and the SOLVIT Action Plan 
in order to make it easier for people and companies wanting to work, live or do business in 
another EU country.  
 
With particular regard to t he Services Directive (Directive 2006/123/EC), the proposed reform of 
the notification procedure currently discussed among the co -legislators aims to further improve 
delivery.  
 
14. How to make balance between the goals about “creating opportunities and enc ouraging 
innovation” and “guaranteeing appropriate protection for citizens” when implementing SMS?  
 
EU reply:  The Single Market Strategy embodies the three key areas mentioned above, which 
represent major objectives on the way to the Single Market. Prioritisation of objectives and 
balance of interests are exercises constantly undertaken by the European Union inst itutions, 
already when proposing initiatives, further when putting them into legislative measures and also 
when finally exercising judicial control over them. This exercise needs to be done on a case -by-WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 80 - 
 
  case basis, taking account of the very specific circu mstances of the sector and the interests at 
hand.  
 
To give examples for a general assessment:  
- with regard to collaborative economy : Innovative services  and new business models bring 
benefits to citizens and companies alike and help optimising the use of existing resources. 
However, questions arise whether existing regulations are still fit for purpose or whether new rules 
are needed. At the same time, we  need to make sure that public policy objectives such as 
consumer protection are respected and tax and labour law complied with.  
 
- with regard to retail: the Union's effort will contribute to identifying best practices for facilitating 
retail establishmen t and reducing operational restrictions in the retail sector. At the same time, it 
should also support Member States in identifying the most efficient solutions to reach public policy 
objectives.  
 
DIGITAL SINGLE MARKE T STRATEGY (DSM)  
Page 10 (Para 3.29(f) ) 
 
In January 2017, the European Commission proposed to update its ePrivacy policy rules, enabling 
better online protection and new business opportunities. As a further DSM cornerstone, it also 
adopted a Communication on building a European data economy, w hich tackles rules and 
regulations impeding the free flow of data and unjustified data location restrictions, as well as 
outlining legal issues regarding access to and transfer of data.  
 
Question(s):  
15. While stating in the communication “Building a Euro pean Data Economy" that “The EU data 
protection rules cannot be subject of negotiations in a free trade agreement. As explained in the 
Communication on exchanging and protecting personal data in a globalised world dialogues on 
data protection and trade neg otiations with third countries have to follow separate tracks.”, how 
will EU respond to other countries’ need to protect personal data with measures which can 
potentially impede the free flow of data?  
 
EU reply:  The EU indeed considers that trade negotiat ions are not the right place to deal with data 
protection. In our constitutional system, data protection and privacy are fundamental rights that 
are not 'negotiable' in trade agreements (or otherwise).  
 
This being said, ensuring a high level of data protec tion does not require impeding cross -border 
data flows, including of personal data. In fact, t he EU data protection rules prove that a high level 
of protection can go hand in hand with a policy of facilitating such data flows. The EU's current as 
well as f uture data protection rules (the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)) provide 
business operators with a number of flexible transfer tools (for example Commission findings with 
respect to the adequate level of data protection in third countries, contr actual instruments, codes 
of conduct and certification mechanisms, so -called derogations allowing transfers in specific 
situations, for example based on consent or for the performance of a contract), some of which can 
be specifically adapted to different b usiness models/processing operations and thus the needs of 
different economic sectors or industries. Their application has been further explained in the 
European Commission's Communication "Exchanging and Protecting Personal Data in a Globalised 
World" of 10 January 2017 (COM(2017)7).  
 
The EU fully respects – and in fact encourages – that other countries also implement safeguards 
for the protection of personal data. At the same time, countries should not implement protectionist 
measures that are merely labe lled as data protection but in reality pursue different (e.g. 
economic) objectives. Therefore, the Commission will seek to use trade agreements to set rules for 
e-commerce and tackle new forms of digital protectionism (such as data localisation 
requirement s), in full compliance with and without prejudice to the EU’s data protection rules.  
 
NEW MEASURES FOR FAI R TAXATION  
Page 11 (Para 3.38)  
While taxation remains under the competence of each EU Member State, the Package called on 
Member States to take a more  coordinated stance against companies that seek to avoid paying 
their fair share of tax and to implement the international standards against base erosion and profit 
shifting. The key features of the new proposals include:  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 81 - 
 
  I. legally -binding measures to block the most common methods used by companies to avoid 
 paying tax (adopted by Member States in June 2016);  
 
II. a recommendation to the EU Member States on how to prevent tax treaty abuse;  
III. a proposal for the EU Member St ates to share tax -related information on multinationals 
 operating in the EU (adopted by Member States in March 2016);  
IV. actions to promote tax good governance internationally;  
V. a new EU process for listing third countries that refuse to play fair. The  first EU list will be 
 published by the end of 2017.   
 
Question(s):  
16. Regarding the first EU list of “non -cooperative tax jurisdictions”, what would be the 
consequence for the jurisdictions being listed?  
 
EU reply:  Work is ongoing to explore possible d efensive measures at EU level. Such defensive 
measures are considered in both tax and non -tax areas and should be endorsed by end 2017, 
together with the EU list of non -cooperative jurisdictions. These sanctions should be an incentive 
for these countries t o improve their tax system and also protect Member States' tax bases in the 
meantime. It is for Member States to decide what the sanctions will ultimately be.  
 
17. As the EU participates in the OECD Global Forum actively, what would be the essential 
difference between the listing initiatives of OECD and the EU?  How will the EU avoid the 
overlapping and contradiction between the two?  
 
EU reply:  The EU listing process is fully compatible with G20 commitments and OECD work on 
taxation and there is no duplicat ion of work. The EU list will take stock of the OECD and Global 
Forum work. This will prevent the risk of duplication or contradiction at the same time still giving 
the EU listing process an added value compared to the G20 process because the EU criteria g o 
further than transparency. The same approach will apply for preferential tax regimes which are 
potentially harmful. Where a jurisdiction is a member of the BEPS Inclusive Framework, the EU will 
take stock of the work carried out by the BEPS Inclusive Fra mework. This will ensure that there is 
no duplication of work. Close and regular contact with the OECD and Global Forum on these issues 
has been created and will be maintained to ensure work is mutually complementary. The EU list is 
not intended as a compe titor to the OECD transparency list but rather as a complementary tool to 
that. 
 
The EU's actions on climate change   
Page12 (Para 3.49)  
Climate change has been central to the EU's actions for several years. In this respect, as an 
integral policy of the European Energy Union, the EU has developed the "EU Climate action - 
decarbonizing the economy for implementing at EU level the measures ai med at reaching the goals 
set in COP21, as well as in the Agenda 2030.  
 
Question:  
18. Is there any undergoing legislation concerning gas emissions reduction which will have an 
impact on trade between EU and its trading partners?  
 
EU reply : No, there is n o undergoing legislation concerning gas emissions reduction which will 
have an impact on trade between EU and its trading partners.  
 
4. TRADE AND INVESTM ENT POLICY DEVELOPME NTS SINCE 2015  
4.1.2 An effective EU trade policy that tackles new economic realities  
Page 15 (Para 4.17)  
 
On 9 November 2016, the European Commission presented a proposal introducing changes to the 
EU's anti -dumping and anti -subsidy legislation, and which would allow the EU to adapt its trade 
defence instruments (TDIs) to deal with current realities of unfair trade practices in particular due 
to state induced market distortions in the international trading environment, while fully respecting 
the EU's international obligations  in the legal framework of the WTO.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 82 - 
 
  Question:  
We noticed that a Proposal amending the EU Regulation 2016/1036 was tendered on Nov.9 of 
2016.  
 
19. What is the anticipated procedure of this amending Proposal? Does EU have an expected 
timeline or date of p assing this Proposal?  
 
EU reply : See reply to question 7.  
 
4.1.3.2 A REFORMED A PPROACH TO INVESTMEN T PROTECTION POLICY  
Page 16  
The EU is pursuing the concept of setting up a multilateral investment court. The idea is that, over 
time, such a multilateral investment court could replace the bilateral investment court systems 
included in EU agreements and the investment dispute settlement mechanisms included in EU 
Member States' investment treaties.  
 
Question:  
20. Could EU indicate its workplan and possible t imeline for the establishment of the multilateral 
investment court, and its likely relationship with the WTO?  
 
EU reply:  The creation of a permanent international court will require building consensus with 
other likeminded countries. The multilateral cour t would need to be a legal entity under 
international law but it is too early to say whether it would be a new stand -alone body, or be 
docked into an existing international organisation. We will work with our partners to identify the 
best way forward.  
 
4.1.3.3 The EU's trade policy and sustainable development, human rights and good 
governance  
Page 17 (Para 4.33)  
The EU Treaties require that the EU promotes its principles and values, including the development 
of poorer countries, social and environmental protection, and respect for human rights, in its 
external action.  
 
Question:  
21. Is there any undergoing legisl ation concerning sustainable development which will have an 
impact on trade between EU and its trading partners?  
 
EU reply:  While there is no EU legislation envisaged on sustainable development per se, it should 
be recognised that sustainable development is a very broad concept and thus any legislation 
concerning economic, social or environmental matters could potentially be considered as 
concerning sustainable development. All EU legislative proposals are subject to internal screening 
by Commission servic es, including with regard to the potential trade impact of any measures, as 
well as a rigorous impact assessment process and public consultation that is open to third 
countries as well as individuals or organisations within the EU.  
 
4.1.4.3 THE BILATERA L NEGOTIATING AGENDA  
Page 23 (Para 4.94)  
Negotiations between the EU and the U.S. for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership 
(TTIP), launched in 2013, continued during the years under review. Fifteen rounds of talks had 
taken place by October 2016. The negotiations were launched in order to contribute to addressing 
the challenges of today's global trading environment, to deliver growth, including in third 
countries' markets and to reinforce the transatlantic partnership  
 
Question(s):  
22. On May 10, 2017, the European Court of Justice ruled in favour of a “Stop TTIP” anti -trade 
petition that demanded that the European Union’s trade negotiations with the U.S. and  Canada be 
stopped. Could European Union comment on what impact that court ruling would hav e on EU trade 
negotiations?  
 
EU reply:  The European Union's institutions are in the process of analysing the Court judgement 
in case T -754/14. After conducting its assessment, the Commission would decide the form of 
action that it would take, if any.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 83 - 
 
  EU R EPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES  
 
WT/TPR/S/357  
 
II. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME  
(1) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK  
 
Page 32, Paragraph 2.11 : The Secretariat’s report states that CETA can be provisionally applied 
following the European Parliame nt’s vote to approve the agreement on 15 February 2017.  
 
1. Can the EU explain the extent to which CETA will be provisionally applied, specifically with 
respect to the protection of GIs (detailed on page 125, paragraph 3.312)?  
 
EU reply:  The EU has completed the internal requirements clearing the way for the provisional 
application of CETA and has accordingly notified Canada. On the Canadian side, CETA has been 
ratified by the Canadian Parliament and Canada is now in the process of adopti ng a series of 
implementing regulations. After Canada notifies the EU that it has completed its internal 
requirements and procedures, CETA will be provisionally applied in accordance with the time frame 
established in Article 30.7.3 of the Agreement. IPR p rovisions will be not excluded from provisional 
application, therefore they will be provisionally applied as well.  
 
Pages 35 -36, Paragraphs 2.34 and 2.35:  Please provide a complete list of all reciprocal trade 
agreements (interim and comprehensive) with Af rican countries that are in force, even 
provisionally.  
 
2. Please indicate which agreements have been notified to the WTO.  For those that have not been 
notified, please explain why not and indicate when the Membership can expect transparency on 
these agree ments via the RTA Transparency Mechanism.  
 
EU reply:  The EU has notified to the WTO all the agreements that are currently applicable.  
Please refer to the RTA database of the WTO where all notified EU agreements are listed:  
http://rtais.wto.org/UI/PublicMaintainRTAHome.aspx . 
 
The Agreements that are not yet applied are listed in the RTA database of the WTO under the 
section 'Early announcements'. In accordance with § 3 of the 2006 Transpare ncy Mechanism 
decision for RTAs, the EU will notify, any agreement before the application of preferential 
treatment between the parties.  
 
Pages 35 -36, Paragraphs 2.34 and 2.35 :  
3. Please provide or indicate where Members can access the texts of all Econom ic Partnership 
Agreements (interim and comprehensive) with African countries that ar e in force, even 
provisionally.  
 
EU reply:  The text of the Agreements is publicly available both:  
 
1) on the EU web -page: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries -and-regions/regions/africa -
caribbean -pacific/ . 
 
For example, following the link of the EU -Caribbean or any oth er EU Agreement at the bottom of 
the page, anybody can accede to the texts of the agreements.  
 
2) and on the WTO RTA database:  
http://rtais.wto.org/UI/PublicShowRTAIDCard.aspx?rtaid =605 . 
 
Page 35, Paragraphs 2.35 : 
4. Please provide or indicate where Members can access the texts of the “so -called stepping stone 
EPAs” with Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana that entered into provisional application in September and 
December 2016, respectively.  
 
EU reply: Please refer to the reply to the question above.  The texts of EPAs with Ghana and Ivory 
Coast can be found following the link 'West Africa' of the above mentioned EU web -page.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 84 - 
 
  Pages 35 -36, Paragraphs 2.34 and 2.35 : ECOWAS countries charge a comm unity levy of 0.5% 
in order to finance the activities of ECOWAS Commiss ion and Community institutions.  
 
5. Do EU exporters pay that community levy or are they exempt via any reciprocal agreements 
with ECOWAS countries?  
 
EU reply:  EU exporters are not exemp ted of community levy by any reciprocal agreements with 
ECOWAS countries.  
 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE  
(1) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS  
(i) Customs procedures and requirements  
 
Page 42, Paragraph 3.9:  The EU stated that it has intro duced a common customs risk 
management framework into its customs legislation, with the aim of harmonizing application of 
customs  control across Member States.  
 
6. Does this legislation include a standard de minimis  threshold for duty f ree treatment for all 
members?  
 
EU reply : As set out in the report the common customs risk management framework is laid down 
in Article 46 of the Union Customs Code (UCC). The UCC does not include thresholds for duty free 
treatment. EU legislation concerning allowances can be found in Council Directive 2007/74/EC of 
December 2007 (as far as VAT and excise duties are concerned) and in Regulation 1186/2009 as 
far as customs duties are concerned.  
 
7. Does the EU have a draft copy of the legislation available?  
 
EU reply:  The UC C is introduced in paragraph 3.3 on page 39/40 including references to the 
publication.  
(http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R0952 &from=EN ). 
 
8. Will stakeholders have an opportunity to provide comment and input before final approval, and 
if so, at what stage of the legislative process will stakeholders be abl e to provide comment and 
input?  
 
EU reply : Stakeholders had the opportunity  to provide comments and will have the opportunity 
when this customs legislation is amended.  
 
9. What is the current status of the legislation in the approval process, and when does the EU 
estimate this legislation will be finalized and approved?  
 
EU reply : As set out in the report the UCC is applicable since 1 May 2016.  
 
Page 42, Paragraph 3.13 : The EU stated that it prioritizes trade facilitation in terms of aid 
programming.  
 
10. What specific obligations or aspects of the Trade Facilitation Agreemen t (TFA) does the EU 
consider to be a top priority?  
 
EU reply:  For the EU, the success of the TFA, in general, is a priority, this covers the special and 
differential treatment part of the Agreement i.e. the capacity based implementation model, but 
substant ive aspects, too, like:  transparency, advance rulings and  authorized economic operators.  
 
(iii) Rules of origin  
 
Page 47, Paragraph 3.29:  The Secretariat report notes that the EU has not notified the latest 
modifications to its preferential rules of origin  to the Committee on Rules of Origin.  
 
11. When does the EU intend  to notify these modifications?  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 85 - 
 
  EU reply : The EU will notify the latest modifications to its preferential rules of origin to the 
Committee on Rules of Origin as quickly as possible.  
 
12. In  addition, Paragraph 4.2 of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision "Preferential Rules of Origin for 
Least Developed Countries" (WT/MIN(15)/47 - WT/L/917) requires developed Preference -granting 
Members to inform the Committee on Rules of Origin (CRO) of the meas ures being taken to 
implement t he provisions of that Decision.  Does the EU intend to notify the CRO of the measures 
that the EU is taking, and if so, when?  
 
EU reply : The EU will notify as soon as possible the Committee on Rules of Origin (CRO) with the 
measures that have been taken, according to Paragraph 4.2 of the Nairobi Ministerial decision 
"Preferential rules of origin for least -developed countries".  
 
Page 48, Paragraph 3. 34 : The Secretariat’s report notes that the EU’s WTO bound tariff 
schedule was  last updated in December 2016, to reflect its enlargement to 25 Members, and to 
include HS2002 nomenclature changes.  
 
13. When does the EU intend to notify a revised WTO schedule in a more updated HS 
nomenclature that will incorporate the many changes th at have been made in the EU Combined 
Nomenclature but which are not yet notified or incorporated into its WTO bound commitments?  
 
EU reply : The EU is currently drafting, in HS 2017 nomenclature, a newly updated EU -WTO bound 
schedule that will reflect its enlargement to the current 28 Members. The EU intends to submit its 
draft Schedule CLXXV for certification in the coming months.  
 
(2) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING EXPORTS  
(iv) Export credit, insurance and promotion  
 
Page 67, Table 3.10, and page 206, Table A3.2: The Secretariat’s report lists selected official 
Export Credit Agencies for Member States for which no information was submitted or information 
was incomplete for the WTO/Committee on Agriculture Export Competition survey 
(G/AG/W/125/Rev.6/Add.2, dat ed 10 May 2017).  
 
 14. What steps is the EU taking to collect information from those EU Member States who 
failed to report required information in response to the export competition questionnaire 
prepared by the WTO/Committee on Agriculture Export Competiti on? 
 
Member State:    Export Credit Agency (ECA) name:   
 
Belgium     ONDD - Office National du Ducroire  
Greece     ECIO - Export Credit Insurance Organization of Greece  
Italy     SACE  
Lithuania     INVEGA credit insurance  
Luxem bourg     ODD - Luxembourg Export Credit Agency  
Portugal     COSEC - Companhia de Seguro de Creditos, SA  
Romania     EXIM - Eximbank of Romania  
Slovenia     SID - SID Bank Inc  
Spain  CESCE (Compania Espanola de Seguros de Credito a la 
Exportacion)  
 
EU reply:  We are revi ewing the situation and we will come back to you in detail in the CoA.  
 
 15. What steps is the EU taking to collect required information from the EU Member States 
for the specific entities listed below that were not reported in the export competition 
questi onnaire based on the structure contained in the Annex of the Nairobi Decision on 
Export Competition?  
 
Member State:    Export Credit Agency (ECA) name:  
 
Croatia  HAMAG -BICRO - Croatia Agency for SMES Innovation and 
Investment  
Czech Republic    CEB - Czech Export Bank  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 86 - 
 
  Germany     KfW IPEX -Bank 
Poland     BKG - Polish Development Bank  
Sweden     SEK - Swedish Export Credit Corporation  
 
EU reply:  We are reviewing the situation and we will come back to you in detail in the CoA.  
 
 16. What steps is the EU taking to collect required information from the EU Member States 
listed below whose reporting was incomplete in the export competition questionnaire per 
the Nairobi Decision?  
 
Mem ber State:    Export Credit Agency (ECA) name:  
 
Austria    OeKB -Oesterreichische Kontrolbank Aktiengensellschaft  
Bulgaria     BAEZ -Bulgarian Export Insurance Agency  
Croatia     HBOR -Croatian Bank for Reconstruction and Development  
Czech Republic    EGAP -Export Guarantee and Insurance Corporation  
Denmark     EKF-Eksport Kredit Fonden  
Estonia     KredEx -KredEx Credit Insurance Ltd  
Finland     FINNVERA  
France     Bpifrance Assurance Export  
Germany     Euler Hermes  
Hungary  MEHIB -Hungarian Export -Import Bank & Hungaria Export -Credit 
Insurance  
Latvia      LGA-Latvian Guara ntee Agency Ltd  
The Netherlands    Atradius  
Poland  KUKE S.A. -Export Credit Insurance Corp. Joint Stock Company of 
Poland  
Slovak Republic    Eximbanka Sr -Exportno -Importna Banka Slovenskej Republiky  
Sweden     EKN-Swedish Export Credits Guarantee Board  
United Kingdom    UKEF-U.K. Export Finance  
 
EU reply:  We are reviewing the situation and we will come back to you in detail in the CoA.  
 
(3) MEASURES AFFECTING PRODUCTION AND TRADE  
(i) Standards and other technical requirements  
 
Page 71, Paragraph 3.109 : The EU s tates that under its “New Approach” technique to technical 
regulations and standards, “technical specifications aimed at achieving … essential requirements 
are contained in vo luntary harmonized standards.”  
 
17. Can the EU please explain how the New Approac h technique to developing technical 
regulations is in accordance with WTO commitments to use relevant international standards as a 
basis for technical regulations under Article 2.4 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade?  
 
EU reply:  The EU New Appr oach system is driven towards delivering effective market access for 
goods, no matter the point of entry into the EU territory, through EU -level harmonisation of 
technical product requirements and the related supporting standards.  
In the EU New Approach th e content of legislation is limited to ‘essential requirements’. European 
harmonised standards, where available and fully applied, provide a presumption of conformity, but 
manufacturers remain free to use alternative technical solutions to demonstrate comp liance with 
regulatory requirements.  
For more information please consult: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single -market/goods_en . 
Page 71, paragraph 3.110 : Paragraph 3.110 states that “Market o perators are free to use 
alternate routes to demonstrate compliance with EU regulatory requirements.”  
 
18. If a manufacturer chooses not to use a harmonized standard, is the manufacturer required to 
work with a notified body to demonstrate that its produc t meets the essential requirements of the 
applicable legislation?  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 87 - 
 
  EU reply:  The EU system resulting from the New Legislative Framework opts for a modular 
approach fully transposing the conformity assessment toolbox developed by the ISO Conformity 
Assessment Committee (CASCO). This provides a wide range of conformity assessment so lutions 
(from Supplier's Declaration of Conformity (SDoC) to full third -party product verification or 
assessment of quality management systems), from which the legislator can choose in relation to 
its specific regulatory needs.  
 
In the majority of cases wh ere the manufacturer chooses not to use the harmonized standards, 
the manufacturer may use the same conformity assessment procedures as would be used to show 
the product is manufactured in compliance with harmonized 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.  
 
19. Must a manufacturer that produces to a non -harmonized sta ndard undertake the process of 
demonstrating compliance for every shipment to the EU, or can an initial demonstration of 
compliance be used for future shipments of products manufactured to the alternate standard?  
 
EU reply:  The specific conformity assessm ent procedure depends on the product and is prescribed 
in EU harmonized legislation. In total there are three possibilities:  
 
— There is no third -party involvement. This may concern the case where, according to the 
legislator, a declaration (accompanied by  the relevant technical examinations and documentation) 
of the manufacturer is enough to ensure the conformity of the product(s) in question against the 
relevant legislative requirements. In this case the manufacturer himself carries out all required 
controls and checks, establishes the technical documentation and ensures the conformity of the 
production process.  
 
— Conformity assessment is performed with the involvement of an accredited in -house conformity 
assessment body that forms a pa rt of the manufactu rer's organiz ation.  
 
— In some other cases the legislator may consider the intervention of a third party, i.e. notified 
body, necessary.  
 
20. Which entities in the EU are responsible for reviewing products that are not manufactured to 
harmonized standard s to determine if they meet the essential requirements of applicable 
legislation?  
 
EU reply:  Under Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 national market surveillance authorities of EU 
Member States have clear obligations to proactively control the compliance of pro ducts made 
available on the market with EU harmonized legislation irrespectively of whether they are 
manufactured in compliance with harmonized standards or not.  
 
Page 71, Paragraph 3.111 : The EU notes its “Old Approach” to product legislation is still app lied 
for certain products such as motor vehicles.  
 
21. Can the EU provide a comprehensive list of the products subject to the “Old Approach” product 
regulation?   
 
EU reply:  The so -called "old approach" based on detailed product -specific technical requirements 
is currently applied in the motor vehicles sector. Other specific approaches to EU harmonization 
have been developed in sectors such as pharmaceuticals, chemicals, cosm etics, construction 
products, tailored to their particular needs.  
 
Page 72, Box 3.1 : Box 3.1 appears to characterize standards under the EU system as developed 
through “full open and transparent public consultation” and “based on co nsensus of interested 
parties.”  
 
22. Please describe how harmonized standards designed to meet EU essential requirements are 
developed through “full open and transparent public consultation.”  What opportunities are 
available for the public to participate in the development of such standards?  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 88 - 
 
  EU reply:  Any stakeholder from anywhere in the world can provide comments on draft European 
standards once they are up for public enquiry: the drafts are  accessible online and free of charge 
on the websites of the main National Standardisation  Bodies (NSBs).  
 
23. Please describe how harmonized standards designed to meet EU essential requirements are 
based on consensus of interested parties.  Does the EU con sider trading partners or other entities 
based outside of the EU to be “interested parties”?  
EU reply:  Please see the previous answer.  
 
Page 73, paragraph 3.115:  According to paragraph 3.115, one of the shared objectives of the 
Joint Initiative on Standardization is to “promote European and international standardization.” 24. 
Please explain how the promotion of European regional standards outside of the EU support s the 
implementation of WTO Members’ obligations to use relevant international standards as required 
under Article 2.4 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.  
 
EU reply:  A strong feature of European standards is that they do not conflict with the international 
standards prepared in ISO and IEC thanks to special working agreements between CEN and ISO, 
and between CENELEC and IEC. On the contrary they try as much as possible to be identical, 
which is supported by high percentage of CEN and CENLEC sta ndards identical to ISO/IEC.  
 
Accordingly, the promotion of European regional standards is also contributing to fulfilling WTO 
Members' obligations to use relevant international standards  as required under Article 2.4 of the 
Agreement on Technical Barriers  to Trade.  
 
Page 73, para 3.116 : 
25. In terms of standards development, please provide any updates on implementation of 
measures contained in the “Standardization Package on European Standards for the 21st Century” 
from June 2016, as well as any potential for adopting a more cross -sectoral approach to standards 
development, as recommended in the RISE report “Europe’s Future: Open Innovation, Open 
Science, Open to the World” of March 2017. In particular, are there any potential new avenues 
that will be open for international participation in development of EU standards beyond what is 
currently available?  
 
EU reply:  The “Standardisation Package on European Standards for the 21st Century” from 1 June 
2016 was followed by a Joint Initiative on Standardisation, signed on 13 June 2016, setting out a 
shared vision for European standardisation with the aim to speed up and better prioritise standard -
setting across the board.  
 
With respect to participation in the development of EU standards, f or the ICT sector, mostly  
quoted in the RISE report, ETSI has a direct membership business model, so participation in ETSI -
led European standardisation process is already completely open to both regional and international 
stakeholders.  
 
For the more traditional sectors in CEN and CENELEC (working on the national delegation model as 
ISO and IEC) there are several avenues of participation of third countries' stakeholders.  
 
  (a) Institutional Framework  
  (1) ESOs  
 
Page 74, paragraph 3.123 : Paragraph 3.123 states that 72% of all CENEL EC standards are 
identical to IEC standards and 32% of CEN standards are identical to ISO standards.  
 
26. Are the remaining 38% of CENELEC standards and 68% of CEN standards based on other 
international standards?  
 
EU reply:  The Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 on European standardisation is very clear on this 
point: the international counterparts of CEN, CENELEC and ETSI are considered only ISO, IEC and 
ITU respectively, and consequently only ISO, IEC and ITU standards are consi dered as 
international standards. The reason for this approach is to facilitate market access on the largest 
possible scale, while avoiding duplication of work or, worse, conflicting/competing standards 
leading to fragmentation of global markets. The EU's objective is to offer a predictable 
environment to stakeholders, with a coherent corpus of standards (i.e. one product, one standard, WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 89 - 
 
  with no conflicting or competing standards), whose application is always voluntary (with very 
limited exceptions, restrict ed to the construction sector).  
 
27. If not, how does CEN/CENELEC ensure compliance with Article F of the Code of Good Practice 
for the Preparation, Adoption and Application of Standards, which calls on standardizing bodies to 
use international standards a s a basis for the standards it develops?  
EU reply:  Where a requested European standard or a requested European standardisation 
deliverable is developed, revised or amended, the relevant ESO should verify that the development 
processes are based on the principles recognised by the World Trade Organization in the field of 
standardisation (the WTO TBT Agreement Annex 3 principles). When executing requests, the ESOs 
should, as far as possible, take into account relevant existing international standards and globally 
used technical specifications developed by ot her standardisation organisations in line with the WTO 
TBT Agreement Annex 3 principles . For more information please consult SWD(2015) 205 final of 
27/10/2015, Vademecum on European standardisation in support of Union legislation and policies 
(http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single -market/european -standards/vademecum /). 
 
Page 74, paragraph 3.123:   
28. Can the EU please explain how the development of regional (CEN/CENELEC) stand ards are in 
accordance with WTO obligations, specifically with regard to participation of WTO members in the 
development of these standards under the Code of Good Practice (Annex 3, Paragraph L) of the 
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade?  
 
EU reply:  Please see the answers to question 22 and question 24.  
Moreover, all standardisation bodies in the EU (the three ESOs and all national standardisation 
bodies fulfil the WTO criteria and are listed in the ISO list of standardisation bodies having signed 
up to those criteria – see https://tbtcode.iso.org/sites/wto -tbt/list -of-standardizing -bodies.html ).  
 
 (e) Transparency  
 
Page 78, paragraph 3.137:  Paragraph 3.137 states that “the EU submitted 176 notifications 
under Article 10.6 to the TBT Committee, and individual Member States submitted another 52.”  
 
29. Please explain under what circumstances an individual EU Member State submits a notification 
to the TBT Committee.  
 
EU reply:  EU Member States as WTO Members and in accordance with the WTO TBT Agreement 
notify legislation which could potentially contain technical barriers to trade at draft stage to the 
other WTO Members.  
 
30. If a Member State’s regulation may have an impact on trade within the Single Market as well 
as with other WTO Members, does the Commission or the Member State that is responsible for the 
regulation notify the measure to the TBT Committee?   
 
EU reply:  It is the EU Member State  that is responsible for notifying the measure to the TBT 
Committee.  
 
Page 78, paragraph 3.137:   
31. At what stage of the EU regulatory process are measures notified to the TBT Committee? 
Please explain how comments received by the Commission in response to notifications are taken 
into account within the meaning of Article 2.9.4 of the Agreement on Te chnical Barriers to Trade.  
 
EU reply:  In line with Articles 2.9.2 and 5.6.2 of the TBT Agreement, notifications of draft 
technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures take place at an early appropriate 
stage, when amendments can still be intr oduced and comments taken into account.  
Notifications, therefore, take place at a draft stage, when the text is sufficiently mature to be 
analysed by other WTO Members, but where at the same time the text is not finalized and changes 
can still be introduce d. 
 (ii) Sanitary and phytosanitary measures  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 90 - 
 
  Page 78, paragraph 3.139 : The Secretariat report states “As noted in the last report, to a large 
extent SPS measures in the EU have been harmonized, and most measures are taken by the EU, 
although Member States may, and sometimes do, take specific measures in specific 
circumstance s.” 
 
32. Are Member States considered the competent authority for implementation and enforcement of 
their own food safety control systems? -If so, please explain the differences that exist among 
Member States in terms of implementation and enforcement of S PS measures.  
 
EU reply:  Member States are responsible for the implementation of harmoni zed EU legislation. 
This implementation is done consistently across the EU and in accordance with the relevant 
legislation. Consistency of implementation is overseen and  audited by the European Commission – 
DG SANTE.  
 
Information on the national competent authorities and the organization of official controls in each 
Member State is available in this page:  
http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/country_profiles/index.cfm  
 
33. Please explain the formal process on how trading partners are to raise their concerns when 
Member States implement SPS measures differently and why the procedures for acceptance of SPS 
certificates upon food products imported into the EU are not harmonized across Member States.  
 
EU reply:  Trading partners should use the appropriate SPS channels to raise their concerns in 
case of issues with the implementation of SPS measures.  
Also, pleas e see the answer to question 32.  
 
34. Have requirements for specific types of paper, ink, etcetera been removed  from the updated 
requirements?  What products have yet to be harmonized? Please provide relevant HTS codes.  
 
EU reply:  Regarding the first part of the question, there is no EU requirement on the types of 
paper and ink used for certificates accompanying imported goods. The requirements on certificates 
accompanying imports are laid down in Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 and Annex I to 
Regul ation (EC) 136/2004.  
 
Regarding the second part of the question, the requirements on import of products of animal origin 
from third countries are laid down in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No . 853/2004. Model certificates 
are not yet established for certain food of animal origin, especially the ones for which no specific 
requirements are laid down in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No . 853/2004. In such cases, the 
import of these products must com ply with the national public health conditions of the Member 
State concerned, until 31 December 2020, which is the end of the transitional period laid down in 
Article 3(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No . 2017/185.  
 
It is not technically possible to provi de a comprehensive list of HS codes.  
 
35. Please also explain the criteria Member States use when setting or amending standards that 
are more restrictive than both EU and WTO recognized international standards.  
 
EU reply:  The Treaty on the Functioning of t he European Union (TFEU) lays down the division of 
competence between the European Commission and EU Member States. While S PS measures are 
largely harmoniz ed at the EU level, very few areas in t he SPS field remain non -harmoniz ed. These 
relate to less commo nly consumed or traded commodities. In these areas, Member States may 
adopt national provisions in conformity with the provisions of the TFEU and in compliance with 
WTO obligations.  
 
Page 78, paragraph 3.141 : Regarding sanitary and phytosanitary measures, the Secretariat 
report describes new regulations and refers to Table 3.13, Principal SPS legislation in the EU in 
2017.  
 
36. Please explain the omission of Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005 and Regulation (EC) No.  
1107/2009 from Table 3.13, Principal SPS legislation in the EU in 2017.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 91 - 
 
  These regulations factor significantly into the EU’s application of SPS measures with regards to 
MRLs/import tolerances and plant protection product authorizations.  
 
EU reply:  Table 3.13 provides a non -exhaustive list of EU main legislation. The above mentioned 
regulations are examples of specific regulations developed within the general framework of the EU 
General Food Law (Regulation (EC) 178/2002).  
 
37. Please explain how the EU fu lfils its directive under Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005 to evaluate 
MRLs and import tolerances on the basis of risk when hazard -based criteria established under 
Regulation (E C) No. 1107/2009 are triggered.  
 
EU reply:  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on 
the market introduced criteria related to human health for the approval of active substances used 
in plant protection products. Active substances cannot be approved or renewed if they are 
classified as carcinogen ic, genotoxic, or toxic for reproduction following Regulation (EC) No . 
1272/2008, or if they have endocrine disrupting properties, and if they do not benefit from 
derogations set in the legislation for a potential restricted approval.  
 
Regulation (EC) No 3 96/2005 on maximum pesticide residues in food and feed allows for the 
setting of MRLs and also import tolerances, which are maximum residues levels set for imported 
products. This Regulation was adopted before the adoption and the entry into force of Regul ation 
(EC) No 1107/2009, follows the four -step risk assessment approach and does not address the 
particular situation of substances where the criteria set in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 would be 
applicable.  
 
Until today, due to the transitional measures o f Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and the delays in 
the renewal programmes of the approved active substances, the EU does not have yet any 
experience on MRL and import tolerance setting for substances falling under these criteria.  
 
38. In particular, for subs tances meeting hazard -based cut -off criteria under Regulation (EC) No. 
1107/2009 (carcinogens, mutagens, reprotoxins, endocrine disruptors), will the EU establish MRLs 
and import tolerances on the basis of risk assessments as stipulated under Regulation (E C) No. 
396/2005, consistent with Member obligations under the WTO SPS Agreement?  
 
EU reply:  Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 only allows for the setting of MRLs for active substances 
authoriz ed in the EU. However, import tolerances can be set even for unapproved active 
substances, if the active substance is not approved for reasons other than public health. Given the 
regulatory situation described in the answer to question 37, the EU will carefully evaluate on a 
case by case basis, the import tolerance requests for the active substances falling under the 
criteria of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, considering the objectives of consumer protection of the 
EU pesticide legislation but also the EU's international obligations arising from the WTO Agreement 
on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.  
 
Page 81, paragraph 3.147 : The Secretariat report states that “According to the Commission, 
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 sc ientific opinion of the EFSA.” 
39. Can the EU explain the process or criteria used when EFSA indicates that a product is safe 
based on standards that are more restrictive than existing international sta ndards?  
 
EU reply:  European Union measures are adopted in accordance with the principles of risk analysis. 
As a consequence, risk assessment is carried out independently from risk management. As the 
EU's risk assessor, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is an indepen dent source of 
scientific advice and communication on risks associated with the food chain. The risk managers 
(European Commission, the European Parliament and the EU Member States), acting on the basis 
of EFSA's risk assessments adopt the risk management decisions.  
 
Thanks to EFSA’s independence and broad remit – which covers food and feed safety, nutrition, 
animal health and welfare, plant protection and plant health – the EU risk managers have solid 
scientific advice on the basis of which to determine it s chosen level of protection. It is also on this 
basis that the EU establishes its contribution to the standard -setting process at international level.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 92 - 
 
  As stated in the Secretariat Report, EU measures are generally based on the relevant international 
standards. Where there are no such standards, the EU relies on scientific advice provided by the 
EFSA. In accordance with Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement, the EU also relies on EFSA's scientific 
advice when it differs from international standards.  
 
Any measur es that are taken on the basis of EFSA's risk assessments, are not more trade 
restrictive than necessary and are applied in a non -discriminatory manner both to intra -EU trade 
as well as to imports from third countries. The EU fully supports the activities of the international 
standard setting bodies, notably the OIE/CODEX/IPPC, and works assiduously in the three sisters 
to help reach the objective of providing a comprehensive framework of standards at an 
international level.  
 
 (a) Plants and plant products  
 
Page 81, paragraph 3.149 : The Secretariat report states that Regulation (EU) No. 2016/2031 
includes measures to tackle pests from outside the EU under which the Commission will be able to 
implement precautionary measures for emerging risks from plants com ing from certain non -EU 
countries.  To accomplish this, the EU has created a category for “high risk” plants, which are at 
“unacceptable levels for the EU,” and will be “prohibited pending the completion of a full risk 
assessment.”  
 
40. Please provide the d efinition of “high risk” and “unacceptable levels.”  
 
EU reply:  High risk plants, plant products and other objects are defined in Article 42(1) of 
Regulation (EU) 2016/2031, as plants, plant products or other objects originating in a third 
country and whic h are not listed in accordance with Article 40 or not sufficiently covered by the 
requirements referred to in Article 41 or not subject to the temporary measures of Article 49 and 
which, on the basis of a preliminary assessment, present a pest risk of an u nacceptable level for 
the Union territory.  
 
The acceptability of a risk is a risk management decision. The management of the risks of all pests 
regulated under Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 will respect the principles of Section 2, Annex II of 
that Regulation (necessity, proportionality, minimal impact, non -discrimination, technical 
justification and feasibility).  
 
41. Please also provide the criteria used to justify the implementation of these seemingly 
protectionist measures?   
 
EU reply:  Those measures are p urely of phytosanitary nature.  
The criteria to be taken into account for the assessment of high risk plants, plant products or other 
objects are split between criteria for plants for planting and criteria for other plants, plant products 
or other objects.  Those criteria are listed in Annex III of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031. It is not 
necessary that all of them apply, nor enough if only one applies, in order to designate a plant, 
plant product or other object as high risk plants. They will be taken into acco unt, as appropriate 
for the nature of the respective commodity.  
 
The list of high risk plants, plant products or other objects can be amended (either reduced or 
expanded), on the basis of any new scientific or technical evidence.  
 
42. How do these measures  differ from an emergency measure that would have to be notified to 
the WTO?  
EU reply:  According to Article 42(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031, these measures will be 
temporary measures adopted on the basis of a preliminary assessment, until a full risk as sessment 
is carried out. They will also be notified to the WTO like all other measures affecting exports into 
the EU in accordance with the WTO transparency provisions.  
43. Will exporters be alerted if a product has been listed as “unacceptable,” and is th ere a 
provision to allow for regionalization and continuation of the flow of goods?  
 
EU reply:  Yes, exporters will be informed like all other parties through the notification to the WTO.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 93 - 
 
  According to Article 42 of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031, the measures a pply to third countries, 
groups of third countries or specific areas of third countries.  
 
 (b) Live animals and animal products  
 
Page 82, paragraph 3.158 : The Secretariat report states that an establishment in a third 
country that would like to export to the EU needs to be added to t he list of eligible exporters. It 
must inform its national authorities, which may then make a request to the Health and Food A udits 
and Analysis Directorate in the EU, after they have verified that production in the establishment is 
compliant with, or equivalent to, the requirements laid down in the EU legislation.  
 
44. Please explain what products are not required to be on an el igible establishment list?  
 
EU reply:  The products that are NOT required to be coming from a listed establishment are all the 
products of animal origin for which NO specific requirements have been laid down in Annex III of 
Regulation (EC) No 853/2004. If o n the contrary, such specific requirements exist in that Annex, 
then products must come from an eligible establishment, listed by the competent authority of the 
establishment's country.  
 
45. Are there any products that do not have harmonized requirements b ut do have some type of 
listing requirement?   
 
EU reply:  Yes. In the specific case of composite products (mixing products of animal origin and of 
non-animal origin), establishments exporting composite products to the EU are NOT required to be 
listed. HOWEV ER, these establishments MUST make sure that the processed products of animal 
origin they purchase as raw material for the production of their composite products come from 
listed establishments.  
 
Page 83, paragraph 3.159 : The Secretariat report states that  imports of live animals and animal 
products must be accompanied by a health certificate issued by the competent authorities of the 
exporting country that states that the animals or products meet EU import requirements.  Before 
their arrival on EU territory, the approved Border Inspection Post (BIP) of arrival must be notified 
through TRACES (at least 24 hours before arrival for live animals) using the Common Veterinary 
Entry Document (CVED).  At the BIP, the consignment must undergo official control s, including 
documentary, identity, and physical checks, which  may include laboratory tests. Depending on the 
risks associated with the animal product concerned, physical checks may be reduced.  
 
46. Do  more than one competent authority need to issue this certificate or can it be “issued by a 
competent authority of the exporting country”? Please provide illustrative examples and the 
relevant criteria whereby physical checks might be reduced.  
 
EU reply:  The certificate must be issued by the competent authority of the exporting country.  
Physical checks: The reduction in the frequency of physical checks is currently regulated by 
Decision 94/360/EC. Illustrative examples may be found in Annex I to that Deci sion. The system 
will be reviewed through the implementing acts that the Commission will adopt according to Article 
54 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 on official controls.  
 
They will also be notified to the WTO like all other measures affecting exports into t he EU in 
accordance with the WTO transparency provisions.  
 
Page 83, paragraph 3.160 : The Secretariat report states that when a recurrent problem has 
been identified with a specific animal product from a third country, special import conditions may 
be appli ed, such as reinforced testing or pre -export testing in the country of origin.  
 
47. If special import conditions are applied, who is informed that those conditions are being 
implemented?  
 
EU reply:  Re-enforced checks at the borders: According to Article 24  of Directive 97/78/EC, a 
program of re -enforced checks at EU borders is set in motion when a serious infringement of EU 
legislation is notified through the RASFF system to the Member States and to the Commission. A 
re-enforced check is applicable to the s ubsequent 10 consignments of the same category of WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 94 - 
 
  product from the same establishment of origin for the same laboratory test. This information 
appears in the RASFF notification.  
 
Pre-export requirements may be required as part of safeguard measures against  non-EU countries. 
In that case, the legal act establishing the safeguard measures is published in the Official Journal. 
The Commission informs the competent authorities of the concerned country about the 
requirements.  
 
48. Is there a process to request th ose conditions be repealed or rescinded?  
 
EU reply:  Regulation (EC) 854/2004, which currently regulates matters of specific import 
conditions for food of animal origin, will be repealed by Regulation (EU) 2017/625 on Official 
Controls as of 14 December 201 9. The latter contains (in Article 126) an empowerment for the 
Commission to establish new or similar import conditions as considered necessary.  
 
Re-enforced checks at the borders: All details on the re -enforced checks system and the different 
ways of lifting the measures can be found in the Guidance Document available at the following 
webpage: http://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/vet -border -control/reports -and-guidelines_en . 
 
49. Are there specific criteria that must be met before the special import conditions are applied?   
 
EU reply:  Re-enforced checks at the borders: All details on the criteria used in the re -enforced 
checks system can be found in the Guidance Document avai lable at the following webpage:  
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/vet -border -control/reports -and-guidelines_en.  
 
 (c) Rapid Alert System for  Food and Feed  
 
Page 83, paragraph 3.161 : The Secretariat report states that the Rapid Alert System for Food 
and Feed (RASFF) allows food and feed authorities of the Member States and the Commission to 
exchange information about measures taken in response to direct and indirect risks to human 
health from food, and to direct and indirect risks to human and animal health and the environment 
from feed. Member States notify risks detected in products already on the market (market 
notifications) and when product s are refused entry into the EU (border rejections).  
 
50. Is the competent authority of the exporting country notified w hen a product is refused entry?  
Is the exporter notified if the product is refused entry?  
 
EU reply:  The European Union considers cooper ation with non -EU countries on rapid alerts very 
important and wishes to promote and improve such cooperation. The RASFF contact point in the 
US (the FDA Office of Crisis Management) is notified systematically on each RASFF notification 
related to the US, with all the data and documents available, and is also requested to give 
feedback. Feedback is very rarely received from this contact point. The EU would like to encourage 
the US to make regular use of this mechanism to help minimizing the trade impact.  
 
51. Is there an appeal mechanism if the exporter believes the product was in compliance with EU 
requirements/regulations?   
 
EU reply:  Regulation (EC) No . 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on official 
controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health 
and animal welfare rules (OJ L 165, 30.4.2004, p. 1) provides for such right of appeal in its Article 
19(4).  
 (d) SPS Committee in the WTO  
 
Page 84, paragraph 3.162 : The Secretariat report states that the EU and each Member State 
have notified enquiry points under the SPS Agreement.  The Directorate -General for Health and 
Food Safety (DG SANTE)  is the EU notification authority.  
 
52. Please clarify who has the obligation to notify a measure to the WTO under the following 
different scenarios.   First, in the case where an EU Member State sets an MRL lower than the level 
set by the Commission, who s hould notify the measure to the WTO?  Where the EU has not set an 
MRL, but an EU Member State has determined the need, who should notify the measure to the WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 95 - 
 
  WTO? For either of these scenarios, is there a requirement to provide the justification for the EU 
Member State deviating from the harmonized requirement or EU practices?  
 
EU reply:  The European Union is responsible for setting MRLs based on Regulation (EC) 396/2005. 
Member States are only allowed to adopt MRLs in very limited cases. Such measures need to  be 
motivated on the basis of a serious health risk. Member States measures are to be notified to the 
European Commission and to be compatible with the WTO Agreement on the Application of 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.  
 
53. What recourse does a compa ny have if they export to Member State A, the product is shipped 
to Member State B, and it is tested and found not to meet the more stringent MRL?  
 
EU reply:  Decisions on consignments are subject to the right of appeal in accordance with Article 
19(4) of Regulation (EC) No . 882/2004.  
 
 (vii) Government Procurement  
 
Page 104, Paragraph 3.235 : The Secretariat report notes that the three main directives on 
public  procurement in the EU entered into force on 17 April 2014 with a timeline of 24 months for 
transposition into domestic law by all Member States. The report also notes that just 12 Member 
States have transposed all three directives into national law.  
 
54. What work is being done with each of the remaining EU Member States to ensure that the new 
directives are being transposed into national law?  
 
EU reply:  Currently 17 EU Member States have completed transposition for all three Directives; 3 
Member States  did so for the "classical" and "utilities" Directives, but not for the Concessions 
Directive; 8 Member States  that have not completed transposition for any of the three Directives. 
The Commission has provided and still continues to provide enhanced assistance to Member 
States.  
 
55. Is there an estimate as to when this will be completed?  Does the EU monitor whether or not 
the requirements of the three main procurement directives are being followed by the 16 Member 
States that have not transposed these  directives into national law?  
 
EU reply: The European Commission monitors closely the transposition process which is being 
conducted by the EU Member States.  
 
Page 105, Paragraph 3.238 : The Secretariat report notes that 17% of the total value of public 
procurement in the EU was advertised on the Tenders Electronic Daily (TED) in 2015.  
 
56. Are there Member States that have not yet adopted laws, regulations, or policies that ensure 
all procurements above the thresholds set out in the appropriate EU Directi ves in TED?  
 
 (vi) State trading, state -owned enterprises, and privatization  
 (b) State -owned enterprises  
 
EU reply : All EU Member States have adopted national rules to ensure that all procurements 
above thresholds are published in TED.  
 
Page 102, para. 3. 229: As explained in the Secretariat report, there remains a significant 
number of State -Owned Enterprises (SOEs) in the telecommunications sector.  
 
57. What steps, if any, does the EU intend to take to reduce government ownership in the 
telecommunications  sector?  
 
EU reply:  As stated in Article 106(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, EU 
Member States must apply the rules of the Treaty, in particular those regarding non -discrimination 
and competition (including the regulation of State aid), to public undertakings.  
 
Furthermore, the EU Framework for electronic communications sets strict rules regarding the 
independence of national regulatory authorities, including that in cases where Member States WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 96 - 
 
  retain ownership or control of und ertakings providing electronic communications networks and/or 
services, they must ensure effective structural separation of the regulatory function from the 
activities associated with ownership and control (Article 3(2) of the Framework Directive 
2002/21/E U). Furthermore national regulatory authorities responsible for market regulation or for 
the resolution of disputes must act independently and not seek or take instructions from any other 
body in relation to the exercise of tasks assigned to them (Article 3(3a) of the same Directive).  
 
As equal treatment is ensured, no steps are envisaged to reduce government ownership in the 
telecommunications sector.  
 
 (viii) Intellectual property rights  
 
Page 109, Paragraph 3.254 : The Secretariat report notes that intellectual property rights (IPR) 
continue to be very important for the EU economy with over 40% of GDP generated by IPR -
intensive industries from 2011 -2013.  The trademark -intensive industry made the most significant 
contribution to both employment and GDP followed by patent -intensive and design -intensive 
industries.  
 
58. What was the contribution of the Geographical Indications -intensive industries to the GDP and 
employment figures? How do these figures support EU trade policy of emphasizing comprehensive 
GI section s above all other forms of IPR?  
 
EU reply:  Based on data from 2011 -2013 – direct and indirect contribution of GI intensive 
industries to employment – in case of GI -intensive industries, the contribution is 399  815 jobs12 
and the share of total employment is 0.2%. Regarding the contribution of GI -intensive industries 
in average is €18  109 million, it is 0.1% of share of total EU GDP (data from 2011 -2013).  
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 p roducts outside the 
EU were €11. 5 billion, accounting for 15% of all extra -EU trade for food and beverages.  
Detailed figures on the shar e of national GIs in the EU food and drink industry and by Member 
State are available in the study: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/external -studies/2012/val ue-
gi/final -report_en.pdf . 
Generally, the EU firmly believes in the protection of IPR. Specifically on GIs, EU trade policy 
promotes GI protection in support of EU producers of very competitive products sold domestically 
and at international level. However, GIs are not an EU -only interest. Many countries, including 
developing countries, find that GI protection adds value to the product – by giving consumers a 
guarantee of quality and distinctiveness linked to the origin – which strengthens the brand image 
of the country's products and has a potentially positive impact on export sales and revenue.  
The reciprocal protection of GIs under bilateral trade agreements, also ensuring appropriate 
enforcement of the rights, helps to secure the intellectual prop erty rights of producers, prevent 
unfair competition, and meet consumer expectations for such products. It should also be noted 
that under the agreements, prior right holders' interests are respected and generic terms in either 
territory are excluded from protection.  
Page 110, Paragraph 3.255 and Page 120, Paragraph 3.295 : The Secretariat report notes 
that the EU adopted a trademark reform package. Certification marks were included in that 
package.  59. Will the EU grant certification marks to a certifying institution or organization to 
permit adherents to an applicable certification system to use a mark to demonstrate compliance 
with certification requirements related to geographic origin? If not, what is the rationale for 
refusing such forms of certificati on marks?  
 
 (a) Copyright and related rights  
 
                                                
12 https://euipo.europa. eu/tunnel -web/secure/webdav/guest/document_library/observatory/documents 
/IPContribution Study/performance_in_the_European_Union/performance_in_the_European_Union_full.pdf . 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 97 - 
 
  EU reply:  The new provisions on EU certification marks will not allow for these marks being used 
to demonstrate compliance with certification requirements related to geographic origin. The Union 
legislator con sidered sui generis protection of geographical indications to better serve that purpose 
all the more so as in some Member States of the European Union the parallel protection of 
geographical indications by certification or collective marks on one hand and sui generis protection 
systems on the other is excluded.  
 
Page 113, paragraph 3.265 : The Secretariat report notes that the Commission’s legislative 
proposals on copyright are yet to be discussed by the European Parliament and the Council of the 
European Un ion. 
 
60. Does the Government have any additional information regarding the expected timeframe for 
consideration of these proposals by the Parliament and the Council?  
 
EU reply: On 14 September 2016, the European Commission put forward the legislative proposals 
referred to in this paragraph. Such proposals are subject to the ordinary legislative procedure 
which means the proposal is being examined by the Council and the European P arliament. The 
outcome cannot be predicted. Those proposals concern:  
 
 The Regulation ensuring the cross -border portability of online content services in the 
internal market has been formally adopted by the co -legislators. The text has not been 
published in  the Official Journal of the EU yet.  
 A political agreement on the proposed directive and regulation implementing the 
Marrakesh Treaty within the EU legal framework was reached between the co -legislators in 
May 2017. The text has not been formally adopted y et. 
 Both the proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market and the proposal 
for a regulation laying down rules on the exercise of copyright and related rights applicable 
to certain online transmissions of broadcasting organizations and  retransmissions of 
television and radio programmes are now under discussion in the Intellectual Property 
Working Party of the Council. In the European Parliament, the Committee of Legal Affairs, 
responsible for both instruments, has scheduled the vote on both reports on 28 September 
2017.  
 
Pages 113 -114, paragraphs 3.266 -3.267 : The Secretariat report notes two recent decisions by 
the CJEU regarding the concept of “communication to the public” under the Information Society 
Directive and the interpretation o f substantive provisions and remedies available under the 
Enforcement Directive, respectively.  
 
61. Could either of these decisions impact the legislative proposals on copyright submitted by the 
Commission to the European Parliament and the  Council of the European Union?  If so, please 
describe any potential impacts.  
 
EU reply : The Commission considers that the decisions referred to in paragraphs 3.266 and 3.267 
and the legislative proposals referred to in paragraph 3.265 are two different issues, the former  
having no impact on the latter. The legisl ative proposals referred to in paragraph 3.265 do not 
address the issues on which the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled in such decisions.  
 
 (b) Industrial property  
 (1) Patents  
 (i) Unitary Patent  
 
Page 114, Paragraph 3.270 : The report notes that the UPC Agreement has not been ratified by 
Germany or the United Kingdom and their acceptance is required for entry into force.  
 
62. Why have they not notified?  
 
EU reply:  The ratification procedure is stil l ongoing in Germany and the United Kingdom and is 
close to be completed.  
 
63. Can you please provide an update on the required steps for and the status of the United 
Kingdom’s ratification of the Agreement? Assuming that the United Kingdom will ratify as WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 98 - 
 
  expected, would the UPC Agreement need to be revised to include a non -EU member, or could the 
United Kingdom be accommodated under the existing Agreement as the U.K. anticipates?  
 
EU reply: On 29 March 2017, the U.K. Government formally notified the Europ ean Council of its 
intention to withdraw from the European Union pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on European 
Union. An agreement on the U.K.'s withdrawal will be negotiated following the rules established in 
the Treaty on European Union (TEU).  
On 29 April 2017 the European Council adopted guidelines defining the framework for negotiations 
under Article 50 TEU and setting out the overall positions and principles that the Union will pursue 
throughout the negotiation. The adoption of the European Council  guidelines was followed by a 
Commission proposal on 3 May for a Council Decision authorising the Commission to open 
negotiations, and proposing negotiating directives. The Council Decision including negotiating 
directives were adopted on 22 May by the Cou ncil of the European Union.  
Negotiations will start after the general elections in the U.K. on 8 June. They will focus in a first 
phase on the withdrawal arrangements notably on citizens' rights, financial settlement and new 
external borders. An agreement must be reached by October 2018, in order to allow for the 
ratification process to be completed and the U.K. to withdraw from the Union by the end of the 
two-year deadline, at the end of March 2019.  
Until its withdrawal, the U.K. remains a Member State of  the European Union with all rights and 
obligations of a Member State. The EU Treaties continue to apply to the U.K. and in the U.K. 
during that period. Until its withdrawal, the  U.K. continues to be bound by the Union's exclusive 
competence in respect of the common commercial policy pursuant to Article 3 of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union and, more generally, the principle of sincere cooperation 
pursuant to Article  4(3) TEU.  
The EU will engage with the U.K. in a cooperative manner in order to guarantee an orderly process 
leading up to the withdrawal of the U.K. from the EU.  
The EU will revert to the WTO Membership after engaging with the U.K. bilaterally on any WT O 
related aspect of the U.K.'s withdrawal from the EU.  
64. Is there any consideration to allow participation in the system of other states that are 
members of the EPC but not EU Member States should they wish to join?  
 
EU reply: As it stands now, Article 1  second paragraph of the UPC Agreement lays down that the 
Unified Patent Court shall be a court common to the Contracting Member States.  
 
 (2) Supplementary protection certificates  
 
Page 118, Paragraph 3.284 : The Secretariat report notes that the European Commission 
Communication on Upgrading the Single Market, of 28 October 2015, calls for exploring the 
introduction of a Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) manufacturing waiver to allow EU -
based generic and biosimilar manufacturers to produce for exp ort during the lifetime of an SPC.  
 
65. Has the Commission conducted legal and e conomic studies regarding SPCs?  If so, please 
provide copies of these studies.  What options are under consideration for changing the SPC 
framework and creating a manufacturing waiver?  
 
EU reply : The European Commission is currently conducting legal and economic studies  in order 
to evaluate the SPC framework in the EU. Those legal and economic studies will be published when 
concluded. On the basis of the outcome of these studies and together with a public consultation, 
the Commission is considering the following options: possible creation of a unitary -SPC, 
improvements in the Bolar patent exemption (i.e., to give maximum certainty to innovators when 
conducting health technology as sessment), introduction of a SPC manufacturing waiver without 
curtailing SPC protection in the EU and if needed, adaptation of the SPC to new trade and 
innovation models (e.g., whether the scope of protection should be extended to other types of 
innovation ). At this stage, however, it is too early for the Commission to prejudge the outcome of 
possible future SPC initiatives.  
 
66. The report also notes that such a waiver is included as an option in the CETA.  Do other EU 
trade agreements permit such a waiver?  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 99 - 
 
  EU reply:  The waiver included as an option in Article 20.27 paragraph 9 of CETA is not included in 
other bilateral free trade agreements of the EU.  
 
 (4) Trademarks  
 
Page 120, Paragraph 3.297 : The Secretariat report notes that with respect to ex officio customs 
enforcement against counterfeit goods in transit, the ex officio entitlement lapses if the declarant 
or holder of the goods provides evidence in subsequent proceedings before the EU trademark court 
that the right holder is not entitled to prohibit the placing of the goods on the market of the 
country of final destination.  
 
67. How is the “country of final destination” determined? What are the roles of the right holder, 
customs authority, and relevant authorities in the country of final destination in the proceedings  
before the EU trademark court?  
 
EU reply:  It is for the right holder to initiate the proceeding before the competent EU trade mark 
court to determine whether the relevant right has been infringed. Reversely, it is for the declarant 
or ho lder of the goods to specify and prove before that court the country of final destination where 
the goods are intended to be placed on the market and that the right holder is not entitled to 
prohibit the placing of the goods in the market of that country o f final destination.  
 
There is no (particular) role foreseen in that context for EU customs authorities or authorities in 
the country of final destination.  
 
68. Are dangerous or unsafe counterfeit goods permitted to transit through the EU if the declarant 
or holder of the goods demonstrates that the right holder is not entitled to prohibit the placing of 
the goods on the market of the final destination?  
 
 (5) Geographical indications  
 (i) Agricultural products  
 
EU reply : If in proceedings to determine the infringement it is decided the right holder is not 
entitled to prohibit the placing of the goods on the market of the final destination and the decision 
is given that the customs authorities shall grant the release of the goods or put an end to their 
deten tion, they shall do so immediately after completion of all customs formalities. If the goods 
are also liable to health or safety requirements for which customs authorities have a competence 
to control, customs authorities will then have to ensure that the requirements are fulfilled before 
the goods can be released or put an end to their detention.  
 
Page 122, Paragraph 3.307 : The Secretariat report states that GIs of products of non -EU origin 
may be protected in the EU through direct application.  
 
69. What documentation must the non -EU applicant submit in order to secure protection as a GI in 
the EU?  
 
EU reply:  Applicants from outside the EU supply the same application files as those within the EU, 
plus proof that the name proposed for protection in the EU as a geographical indication is 
protected in its country of origin. The application thus comprises:  
 the name and address of the applicant and of the authorities or control bodies that verify 
compliance with the product specification;  
 the product specificat ion and a summary of it, the latter drawn up with a view to 
publication for opposition;  
 the proof that the name of the product is protected in its country of origin.  
70. Does protection by a certification mark, collective mark, or other protection meet th e 
requirement that an alleged non -EU GI will be protected in the EU?  
 
EU reply:  The EU requires a proof that the name which meets the definition of a GI is protected in 
its country of origin so that it can only be used to describe the specific product. Proof of protection WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 100 - 
 
  can be under a GI regime, or certificate of trade mark registration, or specific governmental 
measure. However a figurative mark or restrictive trade mark, incorporating for example an 
organization's name, that does not protect in the country of origin the exact name qualifying as a 
GI, would not suffice.  
Page 123, Paragraph 3.308 : The Secretariat report notes that nearly 3,400 EU GI names are 
registered in four databases maintai ned by the European Commission.  In addition, in December 
2016, the EUIPO database listed another 1,500 third -country GIs that are protected pursuant to 
bilatera l agreements concluded by the EU with a number of countries.  
 
71. How many third -country GIs are protected as a result of direct application rather than as a 
result of inc lusion in bilateral agreements?  
 
EU reply:  28 GIs (as of 8 June 2017).  
Page 123, Para graph 3.310 : The recent decision from the CJEU that the use of “Verlados” for 
hard cider from Finland infringes the term “Calvados” for spirits from France relied on a broad 
interpretation of “evocation.” The CJEU found that the scope of protection against  “evocation” is 
determined by a legal fiction – the so -called “European consumer” – rather than the consumer in 
the relevant Member State. The court also found that infringement on “evocation” grounds may 
occur even when there is no likelihood of confusion . 
 
72. Can you provide an explanation of the CJEU’s rationale for interpreting these goods “infringing” 
where there is no likelihood of confusion?  
 
EU reply:  The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C -75/15 Viiniverla is 
available  in all EU languages at: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?&num=C -75/15 . The 
judgment sets out exhaustively the Court's reasoning in the case. The Court ruled:  
1. Article 16(b) of Reg ulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of 
geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576 /89 must 
be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether there is an ‘evocation’ within the 
meaning of that provision, the national court is required to refer to the perception of the average 
consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonab ly observant and circumspect, that 
concept being understood as covering European consumers and not only consumers of the Member 
State in which the product giving rise to the evocation of the protected geographical indication is 
manufactured.  
2. Article 16( b) of Regulation No 110/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to 
assess whether the name ‘Verlados’ constitutes an ‘evocation’ within the meaning of that provision 
of the protected geographical indication ‘Calvados’ with respect to similar pro ducts, the referring 
court must take into consideration the phonetic and visual relationship between those names and 
any evidence that may show that such a relationship is not fortuitous, so as to ascertain whether, 
when the average European consumer, reas onably well informed and reasonably observant and 
circumspect, is confronted with the name of a product, the image triggered in his mind is that of 
the product whose geographical indication is protected.  
3. Article 16(b) of Regulation No 110/2008 must be i nterpreted as meaning that the use of a 
name classified as an ‘evocation’ within the meaning of that provision of a geographical indication 
referred to in Annex III to that regulation may not be authorised, even in the absence of any 
likelihood of confusio n. 
73. Does the EU, or will the EU subsequent to the CJEU’s decision, advance the “evocation” 
standard with its trading partners, including those that have homogenous markets with relatively 
homogenous consumers?  
 
EU reply:  The EU already pursues protectio n against “evocation” with trade partners, notably in 
the framework of Free Trade Agreements.  
 
Page 124, Paragraph 3.311 : The Secretariat report notes that the Commission has sought to 
include a comprehensive section on GI protection for agricu ltural prod ucts in recent FTAs.  We WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 101 - 
 
  understand some EU FTAs include opportunities for both parties to provide for opposition 
procedures.  
 
74. Can you confirm that all EU FTAs require parties to allow for opposition by interested parties 
including trademark holders and  users of common names? If all EU FTAs do not allow for 
opposition procedures, please identify those EU FTAs that do not include such procedures and 
provide an explanation as to why the EU elected not to include these procedures in these FTAs.  
 
EU reply:  Opposition procedures are not an obligation under TRIPS, nor any other international IP 
rule. As such opposition procedures are a matter for the internal policy of a country and territory. 
The EU considers that opposition procedures are indeed desirable and  always conducts such a 
process in the course of examining GIs of trade partners whether under direct applications or 
within negotiations of bilateral agreements.  
 
 (c) Enforcement  
 (1) Economic impact  
 
Page 129, Paragraph 3.335 : As referenced in the Secretariat report, an OECD study in 2016 
estimated that the value of imports of counterfeit and pirated goods into the EU amounted to the 
equivalent of 5% of all imports into the EU.  
 
75. What policies, border enforcement measures, or enhancements is the EU considering to 
address the threat that counterfeit and pirated goods, including such goods from China, pose to 
the marketing of legitimate products in the EU?  
 
EU reply:  The protection of IP is an essential element for the success of the Single Market and 
plays a role not only for promoting innovation and creativity, but also for developing employment 
and improving competitiveness. IP -infringing activities, in particular those carried out on a 
commercial scale (where the infringer makes money on the bac k of the right holder's investment), 
dissuade investment in innovation, undermine job creation and put consumers and businesses at 
risk. A comprehensive enforcement policy is required to successfully combat IP infringements at 
EU and national level, especi ally given the borderless nature of the internet.  
 
The Commission is exploring whether the current legal framework for the civil enforcement of IPR, 
in particular Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, is fully fit for 
purpose, in particular in view of the challenges for enforcing IPR in the online environment.  
 
The Commission is also engaging in setting up voluntary cooperation agreements, based on the 
so-called "follow the money" approach. Voluntary cooperation agreement s between right holders 
and intermediary service providers can include a set of principles and rules aimed at identifying 
and disrupting the revenue stream for commercial scale infringements of intellectual property 
rights. The first Memorandum of Understa nding brokered by the Commission in 2011 on the sale 
of counterfeit goods via the internet was reviewed in June 2016 to include Key Performance 
Indicators that will allow for the impact of the Memorandum of Understanding to be objectively 
quantified. A new  agreement between the advertising industry, right holders and advertisers is 
expected to be signed by the summer of 2017.  
 
 (2) Enforcement within the EU  
 
Page 131, paragraph 3.340 : It is stated that consultations on the civil enforcement of IPRs in 
the E U, including the operation and possible review of the Enforcement Directive, have been 
ongoing since 2011.  
 
76. Can you provide an update on the status of the review, any anticipated legislative or oth er 
outcomes, and the timeline? What is the relationship  between consultations and reviews related to 
the civil enforcement of IPRs and the Enforcement Directive on one hand and the EU’s review and 
modernization of its legislative framework for copyright protection and enforcement (detailed on 
pages 112 -113, pa ragraphs 3.264 -3.266) on the other?  
 
EU reply:  The modernisation of EU rules on copyright and on enforcement of intellectual property 
rights are essential elements of the Digital Single Market Strategy, outlined in the Commission's 
Communication "A Digita l Single Market Strategy for Europe".  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 102 - 
 
  The European Commission is finalising its evaluation of the current legal framework for the 
enforcement of intellectual property rights. It is therefore too early to draw final conclusions on the 
functioning of Directi ve 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPRED) and 
whether the current legal framework is fully fit for the challenges of the online environment.  
 
The preliminary findings of the evaluation lead to the conclusion that the existing  rules have 
helped effectively in protecting intellectual property rights (IPR) and preventing IPR infringements. 
IPRED proved to be effective on a general and conceptual level, allowing for a broadly common 
legal European framework, the development of pan -European IPR enforcement strategies, and the 
cross-border exchange of litigation experience and good practice among judges and legal 
professionals. However, the evaluation has also shown that further progress could be possible.  
 
Depending on the final out come of the evaluation, and if necessary, the Commission will propose 
measures to modernise the enforcement framework, including the Directive.  
 
 (3) Enforcement at the EU's external borders  
 
Page 133, Paragraph 3.349 : It is stated that customs may act ex officio  if they susp ect that 
goods infringe an IPR.  However, this ex officio  authority applies only to the initial detention. 
Thereafter, according to the report, the right holder must submit an application for action; if not, 
the goods are released.  
 
77. Are goods released even if they pose a threat to the health and safety of the general 
population in the absence of an application from the right holder? If the answer is no, is there an 
ex officio  process for removing such goods from the stream of comm erce? If such a process exists, 
please describe it.  
 
EU reply: In accordance with article 18(4) of Regulation (EU) No 608/201313 the customs 
authorities shall grant the release of the goods or put an end to their detention, immediately after 
completion of all customs formalities, where they have not received an application for action from 
the right holder. If the goods are also lia ble to health or safety requirements for which customs 
authorities have a competence to control, customs authorities will then have to ensure that the 
requirements are fulfilled before the goods can be released for free circulation.  
 
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR  
(3) SERVICES  
(iii) Audiovisual services  
 
Page 168, para 4.100 and 4.101 : The Secretariat report notes that the 25 May 2016 proposal 
to amend the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) includes provisions to promote 
European works by establishi ng European content quotas and prominence requirements for video -
on-demand (VOD) services and allowing Member States to ask VOD services to contribute 
financially to European works.  
 
78. Can you explain (1) how European content will be defined/measured and  (2) how the 
requirement for European content does not contradict WTO national treatment principles?  
 
EU reply:  (1) Article 1(1)(n) AVMSD sets out the definition for 'European works'. Article 1(2), (3) 
and (4) AVMSD provide more guidance on this. The prov ision laid down in Articles 13, 16 and 17 
AVMSD are subject to reporting obligations. The Commission has issued Revised Guidelines for 
Monitoring the Application of Articles 16 and 17 of the Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) Directive 
(see https://ec.europa.eu/digital -single -market/en/news/revised -guidelines -monitoring -
application -articles -16-and-17-audiovisual -media -services -avms ). 
 
(2) This matter falls under the EU’s MFN exemptions on audiovisual services.  
 
Page 169, Para 4.103:  This paragraph describes the desire to enhance “prom otion of European 
works by  allowing Member States to impose financial  contributions on providers of on -demand 
                                                
13 Regulation (EU) No. 608/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 1352/2013 . OJEU L 181/15, 29 June 2013, also notified to the WTO in 
document IP/N/1/EU/E/1, 10 July 2013; and OJEU L 341/10, 18 December 2013.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 103 - 
 
  services established in other Member States (but only on the turnover generated in the imposing 
country)”:  
 
79. How will Member States use the financial contributions?  
 
EU Reply:  Member States may require provider s of on -demand audiovisual media services under 
their jurisdiction to contribute financially to the production of European works, including via 
direct investment in content and contributions to national funds . Member States may 
require providers of on -dema nd audiovisual media services, targeting audiences in their territories, 
but established in other Member States to make such financial contributions… " (emphasis added). 
The Audiovisual Media Services Directive is a minimum harmonisation directive, which me ans that 
the way Member States use the financial contributions is primarily up to the individual Member 
States, in line with the subsidiarity principle. However, any financial contribution shall comply with 
Union law, in particular with State aid rules.  
 
80. Is the imposing Member State allowed to promote its own w orks over other European works?  
 
EU reply:  Please see the reply to question 78 for the definition of reference to definition of 
European works in Article 1(1)(n) AVMSD. Furthermore, the European C ourt of Justice has ruled in 
C-222/07 (UTECA v Administración General del Estado, judgment of 5 March 2009) that the 
obligation for television operators to finance works produced in one of the official languages of a 
Member State is not contrary to Union l aw. 
 
81. What is the rationale for requiring distributors to bear a further financial responsibility for 
creating programming?  Why is the distribution function, in which platforms license European 
programming developed by others and increase access to such  programming, not viewed as 
promoting European programming?  
 
EU reply:  The requirements concerning the promotion of European works in on -demand services 
are not necessarily about production. Please see also the reply to question 82.  
 
82. Is the financial -contribution provision related to the statement in paragraph 4.101 that on -
demand service providers invest a low share of revenues in original programming (1%)? If so, 
would a VOD that creates original European programming still be sub ject to a mandatory 
contribution?  
  
EU reply:  Please see Article 13(2) of the Commission proposal: " Member States may require 
providers of on -demand audiovisual media services under their jurisdiction to contribute financially 
to the production of European  works, including via direct investment in content and 
contributions to national funds . Member States may require providers of on -demand 
audiovisual media services, targeting audiences in their territories, but established in other 
Member States to make su ch financial contributions… " (emphasis added). Hence, the imposition of 
financial contributions is a possibility for MS to impose; only the share of catalogue in combination 
with prominence would be an obligation.  
 
83. In the United States, many VOD suppli ers view original programming as critical for 
differentiation and long -term viability, and some make investments in excess of  100% of current -
year revenues.  Across all platforms, the number of original scripted television series has more than 
doubled in the past seven years.  Explain why the EU feels that policy interventions are necessary 
to compel production of original European works?  
 
EU reply:  The require ments concerning the promotion of European works in on -demand services 
are not necessarily about production. Please see also the reply to question 82. Several Member 
States already have obligations on VOD players in place to contribute financially to the p roduction 
and rights acquisition of European works.  
 
Moreover, this matter falls under the EU’s MFN exemptions on audiovisual services.  
 
Page 169, Para 4.103 : This paragraph further describes the intent to require on -demand 
suppliers to “promote European content to a limited level through a minimum quota obligation 
(20% share of the audiovisual offer of their catalogues)”:  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 104 - 
 
  84. What is the problem that this policy intervention is seeking to fix?  Do market signals suggest 
that on -demand suppliers would main tain much lower levels of European content in the absence of 
a requirement?  
 
EU reply:  As a result of the low level of harmonisation laid down in the current version of Article 
13 AVMSD, Member States have taken very diverse approaches ranging from very ex tensive and 
detailed measures to a mere reference to the general obligation to promote European works in 
their national legislation. Please see the document "Promotion of European works in practice" 
(2014) which presents a summary of the different approach es of the Member States. 
(https://ec.europa.eu/digital -single -market/en/promotion -and-distribution -european -works ).  
 
85. Would the measure prevent Memb er States from i mposing quotas higher than 20%?  
 
EU reply:  The Audiovisual Media Services Directive is a minimum harmonisation directive and in 
accordance with Article 4(1) of the Commission proposal, Member States shall remain free to 
require media servic e providers under their jurisdiction to comply with more detailed or stricter 
rules relating to the promotion of European works, provided that such rules are in compliance with 
Union law.  
 
86. Representatives of the digital technology industry in Europe ha ve expressed significant concern 
about the AVMSD provisions described in this paragraph, including with respect to the proposed 
minimum content quotas, which they say, by overriding consumer -centered business models, risks 
being counterproductive and reduc es the sustainability of businesses that provide European 
consumers the ability to access a wider variety of both European and international  
 
EU reply:  As a result of the low level of harmonisation laid down in the current version of Article 
13 AVMSD, Member States have taken very diverse approaches ranging from very extensive and 
detailed measures to a mere reference to the general obligation to promote  European works in 
their national legislation. To ensure a level -playing field - a common baseline across the European 
Union - the Commission's proposal aims to strike a balance: making a share of catalogue of 
European works in combination with giving prom inence to those works obligatory in each Member 
State, while allowing business models based on consumer preferences to continue. Moreover, this 
matter falls under the EU’s MFN exemptions on audiovisual services.  
 
Page 169, Para 4.103 : This paragraph furthe r describes the intent to require “an obligation to 
give prominence to European works in their catalogues”:  
 
87. How would “prominence” be achieved?  
 
88. What requirements would the obligation to give prominence to European works entail?  
 
89. The quality  of personalized recommendations and search results is a fundamental part of the 
customer experience for some online services.  Would such recommendations and search results be 
subject to this obligation?  If so, how would this not affect the quality of the results and the quality 
of the service?  
 
EU reply to questions 87, 88 and 89:  
The Audiovisual Media Services Directive is a minimum harmonisation directive, and the way of 
achieving prominence is up to the individual Member States, in line with the subsid iarity principle. 
A document presenting a summary of the different approaches of the Member States has been 
posted on the European Commission's website in July 2014.  (see: https://ec.europa.eu/digital -
single -market/en/promotion -and-distribution -european -works ) 
 
WT/TPR/G/357  
 
III. DEVELOPMENTS IN THE INTERNAL MARKET: THE SINGLE MARKET STRATEGY  
 
Page 8, Paragraph 3.20:  In the Government Report, the EU notes that the Commission adopted 
a revised proposal for an International Procurement Instrument in 2016.  
 
90. Can the EU please identify what the next steps are in the legislative process prior to the 
potential adoption o f this proposal?  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 105 - 
 
  Page 8, Paragraph 3.20 : The definition section of the draft International Procurement 
Instrument proposal defines “restrictive and/or discriminatory procurement measure or practice” 
as measures or practices that “result in a serious and r ecurrent impairment of access of Union 
goods, services, and/or economic operators” in government procurement markets.  
 
91. Will the EU determine a “serious and recurrent impairment of access” through the use of 
country of origin data reported by foreign co untries, or will the EU develop its own data sources to 
determine a “serious and recurrent impairment of access”?  
 
Page 8, Paragraph 3.20 : The draft International Procurement Instrument proposal uses a value 
test to determine whether a tender originates f rom a “third country.”  
 
92. Can the EU confirm that tenders submitted by an EU economic operator where the total value 
of goods and/or services from a third country exceed 50% of the total value of the tender will still 
be subject to the poten tial price ad justment measures?  
 
EU reply to questions 90 to 92:  The European Commission remains convinced of the need to 
further open -up third country procurement markets. Therefore, the Commission adopted on 29 
January 2016 a revised proposal for a Regulation on the access of third -country goods and 
services to the U nion's internal market in public procurement and procedures supporting 
negotiations on access of Union goods and services to the public procurement markets in third 
countries (COM(2016)0034 – C8-0018/2016 – 2012/0060(Cod)/ the International procurement 
Instrument (IPI). The revised proposal represents both an elaboration and a simplific ation of the 
original proposal.  The European Commission has submitted the revised proposal to the two 
legislative bodies – the European Parliament and the Council. The negoti ation and adoption 
procedure is currently on -going. The European Commission proposal may be modified during this 
process.  
 
Page 9, para. 3.29 :  
93. What options exist under EU law for the transfer of data to countries if they have not received 
an “adequacy ” determination from the EU?  
 
EU reply:  As EU data protection rules have always recognised, there is no one -size-fits-all 
approach to international data transfers. While adequacy determinations are available to those 
third countries that meet the relevant criteria (and then treat the respective third country, for data 
protection purposes, like it was part of the EU internal market), the EU data protection rules 
provide for a number of other transfer tools that can be specifically adapted to different busine ss 
models/processing operations and thus the needs of different economic sectors or industries.14 The 
available options have been further broadened through the General Data Protection Regulation 
(GDPR) that will be fully applicable in May 2018.  
 
With the GD PR, international transfers can for instance be based on contractual arrangements 
such as Standard Contractual Clauses  (SCCs) targeted at the requirements of a particular sector 
(e.g. health, finance, etc.), or of a specific type of processing activities p revalent in certain third 
countries (e.g. sub -processing). Specific sectorial needs can also be accommodated through 
Binding Corporate Rules  (BCRs) that apply to members of a corporate group or groups of 
companies involved in a joint economic activity. Fur thermore, t he GDPR now also offers the 
possibility for industry -driven instruments such as codes of conduct  or certification mechanisms , 
again with a lot of flexibility in their design. Finally, a separate legal basis exists for transfers in 
specific situations, for example based on consent or for the performance of a contract.  
 
The Commission is actively working with industry, civil soc iety and the data protection authorities 
of the EU Member States with a view to harnessing the full potential of the GDPR toolkit for 
international transfers.  
 
IV. TRADE AND INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 2015  
 
Page 14, para 4.6 : Despite new opportunities for public “feedback” and debate in the early 
phases of rulemaking as part of the “Better Regulation” program, U.S. companies and other 
                                                
14 This has been further explained in the European Commission's Commun ication "Exchanging and 
Protecting Personal Data in a Globalised World" of 10 January 2017 (COM(2017)7).  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 106 - 
 
  stakeholders continue to struggle in their efforts to obtain detailed draft text and key information 
in a timely manner concerning the Commission’s legislative proposals.  To what extent is the 
Commission looking at further improvements to Better Regulation, specifically in the following 
areas:  
 
94. Having all regulations subject to an impact assessment that is published bef ore the legislative 
proposal is approved by the College of Commissioners, i ncluding the data that is analys ed in the 
impact assessment.  
 
EU reply: The European Commission carries out impact assessments whenever economic, 
environmental or social impacts of  EU action are likely to be significant. This requirement includes, 
but is not limited to, legislative proposals, but can also cover delegated or implementing acts, 
recommendations for negotiation of international agreements, policy communications (of a bi nding 
nature), etc. The benchmark criterion of "significant impacts" applies both to the macro - and the 
micro -level. This implies that an impact assessment is not only required for proposals expected to 
have far -reaching impacts on the economy or society a s a whole, but also for initiatives likely to 
have a significant impact on a particular sector, societal group or geographical area.  
 
For any impact assessment it is required to provide references to underlying data, statistics, 
information, expert contrib utions and stakeholder views. In particular, the impact assessments 
should contain a dedicated compulsory annex with a description  of the analytical models used.  
 
The European Commission publishes its impact assessment at the same time as it adopts the 
related proposal. However, it consults on all major impact assessment elements in the preparatory 
phase and also allows stakeholders to provide feed -back on the Commission's proposals and 
impact assessments once published, which is then fed into the legislati ve process.  
 
95. Subjecting proposed legislation (prior to approval by the College of Commissioners) and the 
draft impact assessment, including underlying data, to public notice and comment.  
 
EU reply: There are ample of opportunities for any person to pr ovide input to the development of 
Commission legislative proposals and the accompanying impact assessments:  
 
o First, at the very early stage of development, an inception impact assessment sets out 
ideas for new laws and policies. They describe the policy context, the objectives, the 
options to be considered and a preliminary outline of the types of impacts that ar e 
expected. These inception impact assessments are published on -line with a possibility for 
stakeholders to provide feedback for 4 weeks.  
o Second, open 12 -week internet -based stakeholder consultation is part of every impact 
assessment process. It is based on a consultation document and a questionnaire, which 
should address all main impact assessment elements.  
o Finally, once the Commission has adopted the proposal, any person can submit its views 
on the proposal and, where relevant, accompanying impact asses smen t during the period 
of 8 weeks.  
 
It should be also noted that the European Commission adopts proposals, which are further 
considered and may be amended by the European Parliament and the Council. There is, therefore, 
still ample opportunity for stakeho lders to comment on them in that process.  
 
96. Reviewing consultation tools and “feedback” opportunities for effectiveness, neutrality, and 
consistency, and providing more information to the public on how their input is taken into account 
by the Commissio n when developing legislative proposals and draft delegated and implementing 
acts.  
 
EU reply: The European Commission is very transparent about the feedback it receives:  
 
o All contributions received in 12 -week open public consultations are published online  on 
consultation website.  
o A report outlining the overall results of the consultation work and providing feedback 
(synopsis report) is published on the consultation website and, where applicable, added 
as an annex to the impact assessment/evaluation report . This report also summarises 
relevant feedbacks received in parallel (e.g. on inception impact assessment).  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 107 - 
 
  o In addition, for legislative proposals, the explanatory memorandum should reflect how far 
the main contributions have been taken into account in th e draft policy initiative.  
o For delegated acts the key outcomes of the consultation process are reflected in the 
explanatory memorandum, which should give a short and proportionate summary of the 
consultation.  
o For implementing acts the Committee is inform ed about the outcome of the consultation 
and the discussion will be reflected in the minutes of the meeting, which are public.  
o The Commission also collects the feedback on its legislative proposals and accompanying 
impact assessments, and presents it to th e Parliament and Council.  
 
Page 14, paragraph 4.4 : The Government report states th at the EU values transparency.  
 
97. Could you provide an update on the status of the outstanding U.S. applications for traditional 
terms for wine that have been pending with  no update for seven years?  
 
EU reply:  The recast of EU secondary legislation on wine labelling and traditional terms is still 
under consideration in the context of the complex legal changes necessary following the adoption 
of the EU Lisbon Treaty. Theref ore, precise deadlines cannot be given at this stage.  
Page 18, para 4.42 : 
98. Could the EU provide more specificity in how it is allocating its Trade Related Assistance to 
help countries meet their commitments under the WT O Trade Facilitation Agreement?  Are there 
examples of successful assistance grants that have  improved regional integration?  
 
EU reply: EU support to trade facilitation is channelled through its regional development 
programmes, primarily under the European Development Fund (EDF) for African, Caribbean and 
Pacific countries, the European Neighborhood Instrument (ENI) for the Eastern and Southern 
neighbouring countries and the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) for other developing 
countries.  
 
While there are specific envelopes id entified to support trade and regional integration, the exact 
amounts allocated for trade facilitation are still under discussion, as they depend on the ongoing 
evaluation of needs and categoriz ation of commitments. This is a process which takes place in t he 
country in question as part of the overall programming of European assistance and is a 
collaborative process between host governments and the respective European Delegation.  
 
At the same time, the European Union has contributed to multilateral instrumen ts, namely the 
World Bank Trade Facilitation Agreement and the WTO Trade Facilitation Facility to ensure that any 
country with immediate needs can be supported in the short term and without having to before 
completion of the programming of their relevant E uropean development instrument.  
 
An example of a successful EU -funded regional integration project:  
 
Uganda Northern Corridor Road (NCR) Improvement Project  
Grant Amount: €167m (EC contribution €122 m)  
Duration: 2009 -2014 
 
Objective: To reduce transport co sts and travel time on the Northern Corridor Route in Uganda 
with the aim to promote economic and social development and facilitate international and transit 
trade and thereby boost regional integration. The Northern Corridor links Burundi, DRC, Rwanda 
and Uganda, as well as Southern Sudan to Kenyan port of Mombasa.  
 
Results:  
1. Reduction of travel time by 25%  
2. Reduction of direct vehicle operating costs by 17%  
3. Lower road maintenance costs & extension of its lifetime to 20 years  
 
Many more project e xamples can be identified using the online EU Aid Explorer tool  searching for 
projects with 'regional integration' as part of their name, or as a keyword.  
 
Page 22, para 4.81 : In addit ion to good regulatory practices and transparency in trade, 
increased customs de minimus  levels can also encourage and  support small business trade.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 108 - 
 
  99. What benefits might be achieved from having higher EU de minimus  levels for SMEs seeking to  
trade with partners in the EU?  
 
EU reply:  We have no evidence that SMEs would stand to benefit more than larger enterprises 
from high customs de minimis  levels. The policy objective followed by the EU is to simplify and 
reduce the cost of collection for companies - including SMEs - and authorities through the efficient 
use of electronic systems. This will minimize costs and could ultimately render de mini mis 
thresholds unnecessary.  
 
Other questions (i.e. issues not covered by either report)  
 
Discriminatory international termination charges : Several suppliers in EU Member States, including 
suppliers in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Estonia, Greece, Hu ngary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, 
Portugal, and Slovenia, charge higher rates for the termination of international traffic originating 
outside the EU, or in some cases outside the European Economic Area, than for the termination of 
international traffic or iginating wit hin the EU or EEA.  The rate that an EU telecommunications 
services supplier charges a foreign telecommunications services supplier to terminate the call on 
an EU supplier’s network and deliver the call to a local consumer is one of the main co st 
components of an international telephone call from a foreign country to an EU Member State. The 
discrepancies in rates in the EU Member States identified above results in higher costs for foreign 
carriers and higher prices for foreign consumers.  It also  disadvantages enterprises in these EU 
Member States for which international communications are a key part of business ( e.g., traders, 
hotels).  
 
100. What is the policy rationale for these discrepancies in rates?  
 
EU reply:  National Regulatory Authorities of each Member State of the EU are competent to 
decide whether to regulate fixed and mobile termination rates (i.e. the fees that 
telecommunication operators charge each other to deliver phone calls to each other's subscrib ers). 
In 2009 the European Commission recommended that regulated rates be calculated on the basis of 
"pure bottom up long run incremental cost models", i.e. taking into account only the costs 
immediately related to the provision of termination services. As  a result the termination charges 
that EU -based operators charge each other within EU internal market have fallen significantly in 
recent years. These rates are typically significantly below the levels encountered in other non -EU 
countries (e.g. Russia, As ian and African countries). Given the reciprocal nature of termination 
payments, this leads to significant out -payments to non -EU based operators. To counteract such 
regulatory imbalances some NRAs do not apply the strict price control mechanism for termin ation 
of non -EU originated voice calls; termination of such calls must be provided, but the level of 
termination charges is negotiated between EU and non -EU operators on a commercial basis.  
 
101. The EU, on behalf of its Member States, committed in its GAT S schedule to the regulatory 
principles included in the Reference Pape r on Basic Telecommunications. The Reference Paper 
includes disciplines designed to ensure that the termination rate for international traffic is cost ‐
oriented, rea sonable, and non -discriminatory.  Please explain how the approach of the previously 
identified Member States is consistent with their obligations under the GATS?  
 
EU reply:  The EU complies with the obligations under the GATS Reference Paper on Basic 
Telecommunications, in parti cular those covering interconnection (which apply to major suppliers). 
Beyond this general statement, it is not clear what part of the GATS Reference Paper on Basic 
Telecommunications the U .S. is concerned with in relationship to the termination rates for 
international traffic. The European Union could provide more specific information if the U .S. 
provided additional information regarding the specific commitments and related aspects of the 
termination rates that are of concern.  
 
EU FTA required adoption of European regulation and standards :  
 
102. How does the EU justify the approach in its free trade agreements or other agreements that 
require its partners to adopt European regulations and standards to the exclusion of all oth er 
regulations and standards? Is this not imped ing free and fair global trade?  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 109 - 
 
  EU reply:  EU reply: The EU is not requiring its partners in free trade agreements to adopt 
European regulations and standards. European neighbours naturally consider regional integration 
with the EU as being conducive, and the best and fastest path, to their econom ic development.  
 
The EU Single Market based on one set of harmonised rules (as opposed to potentially 28 different 
sets of national requirements) is benefitting all companies around the globe and has been a 
powerful dismantler of technical barriers to tra de. Its governance mechanism effectively prevents 
new national barriers from being introduced.  
 
A wider Single Market including EU neighbours will only amplify those benefits. It is difficult to see 
the trade -restrictive effect of a process of regulatory h armonisation (and simplification) that 
replaces different and diverging national technical regulations, standards and conformity 
assessment procedures with a single set of harmonised requirements.  
 
A strong feature of European standards is that they do not  conflict with the international standards 
prepared in ISO and IEC thanks to special working agreements between CEN and ISO, and 
between CENELEC and IEC. On the contrary they try as much as possible to be identical, which is 
supported by high percentage of  CEN and CENLEC standards identical to ISO/IEC.  
 
Accordingly, the promotion of European regional standards is also contributing to fulfilling WTO 
Members' obligations to use relevant international standards  as required under Article 2.4 of the 
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 110 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTI ONS FROM PERU  
 
Sobre la base de lo señalado en el documento WT/TPR/S/357 del 17 de mayo de 2017, el Perú 
tiene las siguientes preguntas:  
 
Pregunta 1. - 
 
3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES  
3.1 Medidas que afectan directamente a las importaciones  
3.1.7 Medidas antidumping, compensatorias y de salvaguardia  
3.1.7.1 Medidas antidumping y antisubvenciones  
Párrafo 3.61. Además, la UE tiene otros reglamentos, como e l Reglamento Nº 2016/1035 sobre 
protección contra las prácticas perjudiciales en materia de precios en la construcción naval, o el 
Reglamento 868/2004  relativo a la protección contra las subvenciones y las prácticas tarifarias 
desleales que en los servicios aéreos. El reglamento relativo a los servicios de transporte aéreo 
estuvo en proceso de revisión entre 2013 y 2015, ya que no abordaba de manera adecuada las 
características específicas del sector de los servicios de aviación, por lo que no se ll egó a aplicar 
nunca.  Según las autoridades, está previsto que durante el primer semestre de 2017 se presente 
una propuesta legislativa para sustituir el Reglamento Nº 868/2004 por uno nuevo, en cuanto se 
haya ultimado el proceso decisorio en la UE. El regl amento relativo a los buques deriva del 
Acuerdo sobre Construcción Naval de la OCDE y, aunque se basa en el Acuerdo Antidumping de la 
OMC, va más allá, pues aborda la naturaleza específica de las transacciones de compra de buques. 
Este Reglamento de 2016 s ustituye al anterior Reglamento (CE) Nº 385/1996 del Consejo. Nunca 
se ha aplicado, ya que no entrará en vigor hasta que lo haya hecho el Acuerdo sobre Construcción 
Naval.  
 
Pregunta 1. - Anteriormente se consideró que el Reglamento 868/2004, relativo a la p rotección 
contra las subvenciones y las prácticas tarifarias desleales que causan perjuicios a las compañías 
aéreas comunitarias en la prestación de servicios de transporte aéreo desde los países no 
miembros de la Comunidad Europea, no se adecuaba a las ca racterísticas específicas del sector de 
la aviación. Debido a esto, el Perú desea conocer cuáles son las principales modificaciones que la 
Unión Europea ha contemplado introducir mediante el nuevo reglamento que será presentado 
durante el primer semestre d e 2017.  
 
EU reply:  The Commission has presented in June 2017 a proposal to revise its existing rules 
(Regulation 868/2004).  
 
The main difference between the current rules and the proposed ones lies in the scope. The 
current Regulation focuses on unfair pri cing practices, while the proposed one focuses on 
discriminatory practices such as market distorting practices. The scope of the proposed Regulation 
is therefore better adapted to the reality of the air transport sector.  
 
It should be noted that at this st age only the Commission proposal has been adopted. It will now 
be discussed and amended by the Council and the Parliament as co -legislators. The process until 
the adoption may take around two years.  
 
Pregunta 2. - 
 
3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES  
3.3 Me didas que afectan a la producción y al comercio  
3.3.7 Contratación pública  
3.3.7.1 Directivas de la UE sobre contratación pública  
Párrafo 3.243. El poder adjudicador podrá dividir un contrato previsto en lotes pero, si el valor 
total de estos lotes es superior al umbral, se aplicarán las normas de la UE a la adjudicación de 
cada lote, salvo si se trata de lotes pequeños, cuyo valor sea inferior a los siguientes niveles de 
minimis:  
 80.000 euros para los suministros o servicios; o  
 1 millón de euros para l as obras; y  
 siempre que el valor agregado de los lotes que deban excluirse de la agregación no sea 
superior al 20% del valor total.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 111 - 
 
  Pregunta 2. - De acuerdo a lo enunciado por el presente informe, no queda claro si para caso de los 
lotes que posean un valo r inferior a 80,000 euros, se siguen aplicando las normas de la UE 
correspondientes si la suma de los lotes se encuentran sobre los umbrales respectivos contenidos, 
o en todo caso, si simplemente no se aplican dichas normas. ¿Podría la Unión Europa profund izar 
en este aspecto?  
 
GROW PP/TRADE B3 PP. (What rule applies if the sum of the small lots is above the thresholds)?  
 
EU reply:  Article 5 of the EU Directive 2014/24/EU and Article 16 of EU Directive 2014/25/EU 
stipulate that where a proposed work, a prop osed provision of services, an acquisition of supplies 
may result in contracts being awarded in the form of separate lots, account has to be taken of the 
total estimated value of all such lots. Where the aggregate value of the lots is equal to or exceeds 
the thresholds, the provision of the Directives shall apply to the awarding of each lot.  
 
Lots with a value below 80.000 EUR are taken into account in the calculation of the total estimated 
value. The Directives do not apply to those lots providing that the y do not account for more than 
20% of the total estimated value. If their value is exceeding 20% of the total estimated value, the 
directives would apply to a limited number of those lots representing 20% of the total estimated 
value.  
 
Pregunta 3. - Otro su puesto de excepción para la no aplicación de las normas de la UE es “siempre 
que el valor agregado de los lotes que deban excluirse de la agregación no sea superior al 20% del 
valor total”. Al respecto, el Perú desea conocer el alcance de esta disposición y cómo la misma es 
compatible con las obligaciones asumidas por la UE en el Acuerdo  sobre Contratación  Pública  (ACP) 
de la OMC, así como en sus respectivos acuerdos comerciales vigentes.  
 
EU reply:  As mentioned in question 2, De minimis exemption applied t o individual contracts which 
are lower than 80.000 EUR  providing that they do not account for more than 20% of the total 
estimated value. This provision is not aimed at exempting small lots from procurement rules but to 
reduce the administrative burden for  small lots.  
 
Pregunta 4.  
 
3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES  
3.3 Medidas que afectan a la producción y al comercio  
3.3.7 Contratación pública  
3.3.7.1 Directivas de la UE sobre contratación pública  
Párrafo 3.244. Se aplica un régimen simplificado a los contratos de servicios enumerados en el 
anexo XIV de la Directiva clásica que tengan un valor estimado inferior a 750.000 euros, para los 
que no se prevé ninguna norma de procedimiento aparte de los requisitos de publicación 
anticipada, igualdad de trato p ara los licitadores y anuncio de los resultados.  
 
Pregunta 4. - ¿Podría dar la Unión Europea mayor explicación sobre cuáles son los alcances del 
nuevo régimen simplificado para la contratación de servicios por debajo de 750,000 euros? 
Asimismo, cómo dicho régimen es compatible con las demás Directivas de la UE, con las 
obligaciones del bloque en el marco del ACP de la OMC y de sus acuerdos comerciales vigentes.  
 
EU reply:  To take account of the specific characteristics of social, health and education servic es in 
EU countries, the new public procurement Directives provide a ‘light touch regime’ with the 
following simplifications:  
 
- only tenders with a value of above 750 000 € must be published at EU level.  
- rules implementing the corresponding procurement p rocedures in EU countries no longer have to 
incorporate EU rules on technical specifications  
- only the obligations related to transparency and publicity have to be respected, namely: ex ante 
(through prior information notice) and (existing) ex post (contr act award notice) publicity.  
 
Those services are not covered by the EU schedules in the WTO GPA.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 112 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTI ONS FROM UKRAINE  
 
PART I: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT  (WT/TPR/S/357)  
SUMMARY  
Page 12 (Para 19)  
According to the Report in some cases, complying with EU requirements may add to the cost of 
doing business.  
 
Question:   
1. Does the EU have any plans to substantially simplify complying with EU requirements, 
particularly for small and medium -sized companies to reduce  the cost of doing business?  
 
EU reply:  Making compliance with EU requirements simpler in order to reduce the cost of doing 
business, especially for SMEs is an EU objective. For this reason, the European Commission has 
launched the Better Regulation Agenda.  
 
This initi ative is aimed at improving the EU policy and law -making system to make the European 
legislation more effective, easier and at a minimum cost for citizens. Better Regulation promotes 
an impact -targeted legislation with the least possible regulatory burdens  for businesses, and 
specifically SMEs. By reducing administrative burdens, especially for SMEs, the EU makes it 
simpler for them to comply with the EU requirements, lowers the cost of doing business, raises 
competitiveness, and contributes to jobs creatio n. 
 
The Better Regulation entails a transparent and open decision -making, and public consultations. It 
encompasses both, the existing and the new EU legislation and, it 's Regulatory Fitness and 
Performance (REFIT) Programme includes evaluations to determin e the efficiency of EU laws in 
bringing benefits at minimum costs.  
 
2. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME  
2.1 Legal and Institutional Framework  
Page 32 (Para 2.12)  
The Report says that “The European Commission took note of the outcome of the U.K. referendum 
on EU membership held in June 2016. The Commission has set up a taskforce that will take charge 
of preparing and conducting Brexit negotiations with the U.K., taking account of the framework for 
the U.K.'s future relationship with the EU.”  
 
EU reply: On 29 Ma rch 2017, the U .K. Government formally notified the European Council of its 
intention to withdraw from the European Union pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on European 
Union. An agreement on the U .K.'s withdrawal will be negotiated following the rules e stablished in 
the Treaty on European Union (TEU).  
 
 On 29 April 2017 the European Council adopted guidelines defining the framework for 
negotiations under Article 50 TEU and setting out the overall positions and principles that the 
Union will pursue throug hout the negotiation. The adoption of the European Council guidelines 
was followed by a Commission proposal on 3 May for a Council Decision authorising the 
Commission to open negotiations, and proposing negotiating directives. The Council Decision 
includin g negotiating directives were adopted on 22 May by the Council of the European Union.  
 Negotiations will start after the general elections in the U .K. on 8 June. They will focus in a first 
phase on the withdrawal arrangements notably on citizens' rights, fi nancial settlement and new 
external borders. An agreement must be reached by October 2018, in order to allow for the 
ratification process to be completed and the U .K. to withdraw from the Union by the end of the 
two-year deadline, at the end of March 2019.   
 Until its withdrawal, the U .K. remains a Member State of the European Union with all rights and 
obligations of a Member State. The EU Treaties continue to apply to the U .K. and in the U .K. 
during that period. Until its withdrawal, the  U.K. continues to be bound by the Union's exclusive 
competence in respect of the common commercial policy pursuant to Article 3 of the Treaty on 
the Functioning of the European Union and, more generally, the principle of sincere cooperation 
pursuant to Article  4(3) TEU.  
 The EU will engage with the U .K. in a cooperative manner in order to guarantee an orderly 
process leading up to the withdrawal of the U.K. from the EU.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 113 - 
 
   The EU will revert to the WTO Membership after engaging with the U .K. bilaterally.  
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE  
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports  
3.1.1 Customs procedures and requirements  
Page 39 (Para 3.2)  
The Report states that “Most of the customs procedures are now done electronically, as more than 
98% of customs declarat ions were submitted electronically in 2015. It should also be noted that, 
in some cases, accompanying documents were required in paper form.”  
 
Question:   
3. Would the EU please clarify cases, when accompanying documents for the customs procedures 
are requi red in paper form?  
 
EU reply: The EU objective as regard supporting and accompanying documents for the customs 
procedures is to move away from the use of paper supporting documents during good clearance. 
This is the general objective of a paper -free custom s envisaged by the EU.   
 
Nevertheless, given the diversity and multiplicity of such supporting documents, paper certificates 
will continue to exist until their respective legislations are adapted.  
 
Ukrainian authorities should check with each competent au thority the respective status of the 
supporting and accompanying documents, whether it is paper based or electronic.  
 
Page 42 (Para 3.8)  
The Report mentions about five mutual recognition agreements covering the AEOS status (as of 
September 2016).  
 
Question:   
4. Could the EU kindly inform with which countries the EU has started or is going to start 
negotiations to conclude such mutual recognition agreements in future?  
 
EU reply: The EU is currently negotiating with Canada and preliminary discussions  have started 
with Hong Kong.  
 
3.1.4 Tariffs  
3.1.4.4 Tariff quotas (TQ) and administration  
Page 52 (Para 3.46)  
The Report notes that “Many TQs have undergone revision since the last Review as a result of the 
removal of quotas for certain agricultural prod ucts and quotas added for new FTAs. As of October 
2016, there were 1,006 categories of TQs applied on a variety of products. The majority of the TQs 
were country - or regional -specific TQs to implement FTA commitments, and about 230 were open 
to all importe rs as autonomous quotas. The TQs open to all importers are mainly applied on fish, 
agricultural products, chemicals, metals, machinery and equipment. Other TQs apply bilaterally to 
certain countries for individual products or to certain sectors such as han dicrafts.”  
 
Questions:   
5. Could the EU kindly provide information on the exhausting list of TQs (name of goods, CN 
codes, rate of duty) open to all importers (as the link referred to in footnote 51 doesn’t work)?  
 
EU reply:  The list (by CN codes, with th e rate of duty, the quantity, etc.) of erga omnes tariff 
quotas is to be found in Council Regulation (EU) No 1388/2013 of 17 December 2013 opening and 
providing for the management of autonomous tariff quotas of the Union for certain agricultural and 
indust rial products, and repealing Regulation (EU) No 7/2010. This regulation is regularly 
amended. The list of amendments, including the legal references to the Official Journal of the EU is 
to be found under the following link:  
http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32013R1388&qid=1497625809152 . 
 
A consolidated up to date version can also be consulted under:  
 
http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/?qid=1497625809152&uri=CELEX:02013R1388 -
20170101 . 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 114 - 
 
  6. Would it be possible for the FTA countries to participate in utilization of these TRQs?  
EU reply:  TRQs contained in FTAs are naturally only available to the parties to the agreement. 
TRQs bound in a WTO schedule are available for imports from all Membe rs for erga omnes TRQs or 
from the countries concerned in the case of country -allocated TRQs.  
 
7. Are there any special conditions for the products?  
 
EU reply:  Each TRQ is for a particular product, which may have specific conditions attached in the 
defini tion of the TRQ.  
 
8. Are tariff quotas allocated on a "first -come, first -served" basis?  
 
EU reply:  Agricultural TRQs are managed on a "first -come, first -served" basis or by a licencing 
system.  
 
9. Can they be consulted on an Internet database?  
 
EU reply:  "First -come, first -served" TRQs can be consulted at TAXUD internet website:  
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds2/taric/quota_consultation.jsp?Lang=en . 
 
A unique access point for agricultural TRQs managed by licensing is under preparation.  
 
10. Could the EU kindly elaborate on the rationale for sub -division of the WTO tariff quotas and the 
diversity of methods used to allocate the tariff quotas for agricultu ral products, as well as 
complexity of the system?  
 
EU reply:  The EU strives to use the management system which is the most appropriate for the 
market conditions.  
 
11. Does the EU have any intentions to implement changes to this system taking into account the 
insufficient levels of utilization of the agricu ltural tariff quotas and their e ffect on the smooth trade 
flows?  
 
EU reply:  The EU does not consider that the management system for any of its TRQs causes low 
fill rates. Fill rates are determined by prev ailing economic conditions. The EU notes that many 
TRQs managed on a "first -come, first -served" basis have low fill rates. The EU seeks to apply the 
TRQ management method most appropriate to each TRQ to ensure smooth trade flows and the 
lowest possible adm inistrative burden.  
 
3.1.6 Import prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing  
Page 58 (Para 3.56)  
According to the Table 3.9 one of the categories of products subject to import licensing is ozone -
depleting substances.  
 
Questions:   
12. Could the EU kindly describe the non -automatic  import licensing procedure for such category 
as ozone -depleting substances (ODS)?  
 
EU reply: This scheme is described in details in the EU annual notification of its import licensing 
(WTO document: G/LIC/N/3/EU/5). The following legal act is implemented across the Member 
States of the European Union to control the import and export of (ozone -depleting substances) 
ODS:  
 
Regulation (EC) No . 1005/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 
2009 on substances that deplete the ozone layer.  
 
Based on Art 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No . 1005/2009, the European Commission operates an 
electronic licensing system and approves or rejects the import and export licences for ODS for the 
European Union.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 115 - 
 
  European applicants submit a licence request electronically via the ODS Licensing System 
(https://ec.europa.eu/clima/po licies/ozone/ods_en ). They receive a licence within 30 days (if 
applicable).  
For further information please refer to the EU notification.  
 
13. What are authorization requirements for ODS import licence granting?  
 
EU reply: Import of ODS into the European Union is prohibited. Art 15 of Regulation (EC) No 
1005/2009 specifies the exemptions to this prohibition (e.g. import for laboratory use or feedstock 
use is allowed). Art 18(3) lists the elements of the licence request form (e.g. address of importer 
and ex porter, quantity of good, CN code, customs of import/export). For further information please 
refer to the EU notification.  
 
14. What authority is responsible for control of prohibited or restricted ODS goods?  
EU reply: The European Commission, Direction G eneral of Climate Action, Unit A2 is responsible 
for overseeing the control of ODS in the European Union.  
 
15. How is such control organized considering provisions of Montreal Protocol?  
 
EU reply: The information above is for the European Union, a Regional  Economic Integration 
Organisation (REIO) under the Montreal Protocol. The licensing system is in line with the 
requirements of the Montreal Protocol.   
 
3.2 Measures Directly Affecting Exports  
3.2.4 Export credit, insurance and promotion  
Page 68 (Para 3.96)  
The Report notes that “Trade promotion organizations (TPOs) exist in different forms in many 
countries, including EU member States, and act as an effective tool to support companies abroad. 
TPOs support the internationalization of SMEs  in member State countries by providing consulting 
services, basic market information, advisory services and information about trade fairs or 
development aid projects.”  
 
Question:   
16. Would the EU kindly provide examples of TPOs activity in EU countries and indicate key sectors 
of economy of the EU, development of which was the most successful due to trade promotion 
during the past five years?  
 
EU reply:  Trade promotion organizations (TPOs) are playing an important role for businesses, and 
in particular S MEs, to expand their operations across borders and to integrate into global value 
chains. In addition, TPOs can also serve as an entry point for foreign businesses and investors 
interested in developing relationships with local suppliers in a particular co untry.  The support 
provided by TPOs to businesses aiming at exporting goods and services often comes at different 
stages and levels depending on the existing capacities of a given enterprise. TPOs usually provide 
services such as awareness -building, inform ation and training in exporting, market analysis, and 
market access conditions. Many TPOs also have a toolbox from which they would apply a range of 
remedies such as capacity building, training, and advice on how to export and how to prepare the 
firm to co mpete in the international marketplace. TPOs cover all sectors of the economy.  
 
3.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade  
3.3.8 Intellectual property rights  
3.3.8.2 Industrial property  
3.3.8.2.1 Patents  
3.3.8.2.1.1 Unitary patent  
Pages 114 - 115 (Para 3.270)  
The Report notes that “the international Agreement on the Unified Patent Court (UPC Agreement) 
… was signed by 25 EU member States (except Croatia, Poland and Spain) in early 2013. It 
establishes the framework for a specialize d court with exclusive competence for litigation regarding 
European patents, European patents with unitary effect ('unitary patent'), supplementary 
protection certificates issued for a product covered by such a patent, and European patent 
applications. Acc eptance by 13 member States, including the 3 member States with the highest 
number of European patents in force (Germany, France and the U.K.) is required for its entry into 
force. By December 2016, 11 member States had ratified the UPC Agreement, includin g France, WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 116 - 
 
  but not Germany or the U.K. On 28 November 2016, the U.K. Government confirmed that it was 
proceeding with preparations to ratify the UPC Agreement, and thus to participate in the system, 
also noting that the UPC was not an EU institution, but an  international patent court.”  
Questions:   
17. Would the EU kindly inform if there is any progress in the process of UPC Agreement 
ratification?  
 
18. What measures has the EU taken to provide that the Unified Patent Court will be operational 
soon?  
 
EU repl y to questions 17 and 18:  In February 2017, Italy transmitted its instrument of 
ratification to the Secretariat of the EU Council. By consequence, to date 12 Member States have 
ratified the UPC Agreement. Significant progresses in terms of ratification of the UPC Agreement 
have been observed in 2017 in many Member States including Latvia, Estonia and Germany. The 
Commission together with participating Member States are in close contacts (including regular 
discussions at the EU Council) with the view to ensu re that the unitary patent package will be 
operational in the coming months.  
 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR  
4.1 Agriculture  
4.1.2 Agricultural policies  
4.1.2.1 Domestic support  
4.1.2.1.2 Internal market support measures  
Sugar  
Page 148 (Para 4.31)  
The Report s tates that “For market years 2013/14 to 2016/17, out -of-quota sugar production has 
averaged about 3.7 million tonnes. According to the European Commission, out -of-quota sugar 
was used for industrial uses, ethanol and exports within the limits set out in th e EU's export 
subsidy commitments. Production quotas for sugar are to be abolished on 30 September 2017.”  
 
Question:   
19. Would the EU please elaborate on its further developments in the sugar industry following the 
abolishment of sugar production quotas?  
 
EU reply:  The end of the production quotas in the sugar and isoglucose sectors by 30 September 
2017 was confirmed already in 2013 as part of the CAP reform and is in itself the most important 
and logical consequence of the reform process of the EU sugar p olicy which started in 2006. It 
means the end of the system of annual production quotas for sugar and isoglucose which is to 
come to an end along with the minimum price system for sugar beet. Following the abolition of the 
sugar production quotas in 2017 t here will be no applicable export limits for sugar. It ensures that 
EU farmers can respond to market signals. As a consequence, EU prices are likely to be further in 
line with world prices.   
 
PART II: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE REPORT  BY THE EUROPEAN UNION 
(WT/TPR/G/357)  
Page 3 (Para 1.4), Page 15 (Para 4.20)  
 
The Report states that “The EU ratified the Trade Facilitation Agreement in October 2015 and has 
established its National Trade Facilitation Committee. Furthermore, the EU start ed delivering on its 
promise to provide technical assistance to developing countries by donating to international 
organizations involved in mapping A -B-C commitments, like the World Bank, and performing needs 
assessments and donor -recipient match making, l ike the WT O Trade Facilitation Facility.”  
 
Questions:   
20. Could the EU kindly provide some more details about the National Trade Facilitation Committee 
(including general procedure of its operation, main functions, related legal policy framework) and 
inform what measures are planned by this Committee to ensure compliance with the TFA 
provisions?  
 
EU reply:  The European Union and its Member States have acquitted themselves of the obligation 
in Article 23.2 of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) to se t up a National Committee on 
Trade Facilitation (NCTF), by designating the Trade Policy Committee  (TPC), the Expert WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 117 - 
 
  Committee on Aid for Trade  (ECAT) and the Customs Expert Group  (CEG) (including possible 
joint meetings with the Trade Contact Group) as the  mechanism for coordinating TFA related 
matters.  
21. Has the EU already implemented all TFA provisions?  
 
EU reply:  Yes. 
 
22. Would the EU please describe the forms of the technical assistance provided to developing 
countries for implementation of the TFA provisions?  
 
23. How is such necessary technical assistance provided?  
 
EU reply to questions 22 and 23: EU support to trade facilitation is channeled through its 
regional development programmes, primarily under the European Development Fund (EDF) for 
African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, the European Neighborhood Instrument (ENI) for the 
Eastern and Southern neighbouring countries and the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) 
for other developing countries.  
 
While there are specific envelopes id entified to support trade and regional integration, the exact 
amounts allocated for trade facilitation are still under discussion, as they depend on the ongoing 
evaluation of needs and categoriz ation of commitments. This is a process which takes place in t he 
country in question as part of the overall programming of European assistance and is a 
collaborative process between host governments and the respective European Delegation.  
 
At the same time, the European Union has contributed to multilateral instrumen ts, namely the 
World Bank Trade Facilitation Agreement and the WTO Trade Facilitation Facility to ensure that any 
country with immediate needs can be supported in the short term and without having to before 
completion of the programming of their relevant E uropean development instrument.  
For more details on available amounts per region and some project examples, please refer to the 
following EU presentation  delivered in the context of a workshop on TFA Implementation Support 
organised by the WTO Trade Facilitation Facility.  
 
Page 4 (Para 2.6)  
The Report mentions about the Investment Plan, which is expected to mobilize over €154 billion of 
new investments across the E U, from large infrastructure projects to local small and medium -sized 
companies in need of capital to expand their ideas.  
 
Question:   
24. Would the EU please clarify measures stipulated in the Investment Plan for attracting investors 
and explain the success and the effectiveness of such measures with regard to increase of 
investments?  
 
EU reply:  The Investment Plan for Europe consists of three Pillars, which reflect collective and 
coordinated effort at European level to encourage investment in the rea l economy in order to boost 
job creation and economic growth; meet the long -term needs of the economy and increase 
competitiveness; and help strengthen Europe’s productive capacity and infrastructure.  
 
At the heart of the Investment Plan for Europe is the First Pillar, namely the European Fund for 
Strategic Investments (EFSI), launched in July 2015 as a joint initiative of the European 
Commission and the European Investment Bank Group with the aim of backing up innovative 
projects that may need risk -coverag e. By providing a total guarantee of EUR 21 billion under two 
Windows – Infrastructure and Innovation Window and SME Window – for business and 
infrastructure projects, of which EUR 16 billion is from the EU budget and EUR 5 billion is from the 
European Inv estment Bank, the EFSI aims to unlock additional investment of at least EUR 315 
billion over 3 years (mid -2015 to mid -2018). As of May 2017, 499 projects supported by the EFSI 
have been approved by the European Investment Bank Group for a total investment value of EUR 
194 billion, or 62% of the target amount, across all EU Member States. More than 416 000 smaller 
companies are expected to benefit. Given the success of the EFSI, the European Commission 
adopted in September 2016 a legislative proposal to incr ease the EFSI investment target to at 
least EUR 500 billion by end -2020 and also introduce some enhancements based on lessons learnt.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 118 - 
 
  The Second Pillar is aimed at making sure that this extra investment reaches the real economy by 
enhancing the transparen cy of investment opportunities and technical assistance for project 
structuring. With regards to the former, the European Investment Project Portal (EIPP) is a web 
portal provided and hosted by the European Commission enabling EU -based projects worth at le ast 
EUR 1 million – public or private – to reach potential investors worldwide. There are currently over 
160 projects published. With regards to the latter, the European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH) 
is a joint European Commission – European Investment Ba nk initiative to accelerate investment, 
offering a single access point to wide ranging support for projects and investments at all stages of 
the project cycle. The EIAH has already dealt with 413 requests.  
 
The Third Pillar aims at removing bottlenecks to investment, both at the European level and at the 
level of individual Member States. Work is underway to address barriers with an EU and Single 
Market dimension, as well as regulatory and non -regulatory investment challenges at national 
level.  
 
Page 12 (Pa ra 3.46)  
As it is said in the Report, the Timber Regulation and related Forest Law Enforcement Governance 
and Trade (FLEGT) Voluntary Partnership Agreements are the most prominent examples of EU 
instruments with environmental objectives, addressing trade in illegal timber.  
 
Question:   
25. Would the EU please shortly describe measures, stipulated in mentioned documents and also 
in the EU FLEGT Action Plan for improvement of forest governance, and explain the results of its 
implementation?  
 
EU reply: The FLEGT Action Plan covers both supply and demand side measures to address illegal 
logging, and has produced two key pieces of legislation: 1) the FLEGT Regulation adopted in 2005, 
allowing for the control of the entry of timber to the EU from countries ente ring into bilateral 
FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPA) with the EU; and 2) the EU Timber Regulation 
adopted in 2010 to ensure that only legally harvested timber is placed on the EU market.  
 
The first VPA to be signed was with Ghana, followed by t he Republic of Congo, Cameroon, 
Indonesia, the Central African Republic and Liberia. Negotiations are ongoing with Côte d'Ivoire, 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Guyana, Honduras, Laos, Malaysia, Thailand and 
Vietnam. Indonesia is the first countr y to start issuing FLEGT Licenses on the 15 November 2016. 
The EU FLEGT licensing scheme is described in detail in the EU annual import licensing notification 
(WTO document: G/LIC/N/3/EU/5).  
 
The EU response has not been limited to legislative measures. Th e EU has sought to increase 
demand for legal and sustainable timber and timber products by encouraging both private and 
public sector procurement policies that give preference to legally harvested timber and timber 
products. An increasing number of EU Memb er States are adopting green public procurement 
policies requiring timber and timber products to be from legal and sustainable sources. Many EU 
private sector timber trade and retail federations and companies have made commitments through 
Codes of Conduct to eliminate illegally harvested timber from their supply chains. In addition some 
banks have put in place policies to ensure their clients are not associated with illegal logging 
activities.  
 
Capacity building is also an important element of the FLEGT Ac tion Plan, particularly for developing 
countries. The EU is working to provide such capacity building through development cooperation 
instruments including support to NGOs and private sector actions. Ukraine is also supported in the 
Capacity building has a lso been supported in Ukraine in the context of the ENPI FLEG project 
(http://www.enpi -fleg.org).  
 
Page 15 (Para 4.15)  
Since November 2015, businesses can use a new tool in the Export Helpdesk and in the Market 
Access Database to identify the specific rul es of origin applied to their products.  
 
Question:   
26. Would the EU please clarify information concerning such new tool in the Export Helpdesk and 
in the Market Access Database and give appropriate web -link?  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 119 - 
 
  EU reply:  The Market Access Database (MADB) is part of the EU Market Access Strategy and is 
designed to support the internationalisation efforts of EU businesses, in particular of SMEs. It is an 
internet based information service on import conditions in c ountry mar kets outside the EU. The 
database offers at product level information on import duties and taxes applied to specific products 
as well as the formalities needed for customs clearance. The MADB has recently been enhanced 
with information at tariff line level  on the “Rules of Origin” applied in order to benefit from 
preferential treatment in case there is a trade agreement between the EU and a partner country. 
The data base is freely accessible to users located in the EU. The publication of the data contained 
in the applied tariffs and import formalities sections is subject to strict conditions defined in the 
contracts binding the European Commission and its external data providers. One of these 
conditions is that the user must be personally located within one of the  Member States of the 
European Union or the candidate countries. Users located in the Ukraine have therefore no access 
to those protected sections.  
 
Page 16 (Para 4.23)  
Since 2015, the EU has been updating its approach on digital trade by covering ne w areas such as 
electronic procurement, electronic contracts and online consumer protection.  
 
Question:   
27. Could the EU kindly explain its approach on digital trade in such areas as electronic contracts 
and online consumer protection?  
 
EU reply:  On elect ronic contracts, the EU's approach is based on Article 11 of the UNCITRAL Model 
Law on e -commerce, thus simply seeking to guarantee that the parties allow contracts to be 
concluded by electronic means and that they do not maintain legal requirements that c reate 
obstacles to electronic contracts. Concerning online consumer protection, the EU's approach seeks 
to have the parties recognise the importance of maintaining measures contributing to consumer 
trust, and consequently to foster measures by the parties that effectively contribute to consumer 
trust, which include but are not limited to consumer protection laws that shield consumers from 
fraudulent and deceptive commercial practices.  
 
PART IIІ: OTHER QUESTIONS  
28. Could the EU provide an update in regards  of implementation of Directive 1107/2009 
establishing endocrine disruptors’ regulation?  
 
EU reply:  Following the publication of the draft legal acts setting criteria to identify endocrine 
disruptors in the context of the Plant Protection Products and Bioc idal Products legislation in June 
2016, several consultation processes (EU Member States and experts, stakeholders, non -EU 
countries) took place.  
 
The notified draft acts are undergoing their planned legal procedures. The draft acts under the 
plant protect ion products legislation need to be voted on by EU Member States. In the case of a 
vote in favour of the texts, the European Parliament and the Council have the right of scrutiny and 
the acts will eventually be adopted by the Commission if there are no obj ections from the 
Parliament and/or Council.  
 
The draft act under the biocidal products legislation is being discussed in an expert group 
appointed by Member States and will be adopted by the Commission after this consultation with 
experts. The adopted act will then be notified to the European Parliament and to the Council for 
their scrutiny. The act will enter into force if there are no objections from the Parliament and/or 
Council.  
 
During the on -going decision making, the Commission revised the draft acts  to address the 
comments received. The revised criteria clarify the burden of proof and the scope of the criteria. 
No substantial change was introduced compared to the notifications submitted to the TBT and/or 
SPS Committee and this is the reason why the E U believes there was no need to re -notify the draft 
acts. 
 
Moreover, the revised versions of the criteria are published on the Commission's website 
(http://ec.europa.eu/health/endocrine_disruptors/next_steps_en .), as well as the minutes of the 
meetings with EU Member States and experts, ensuring transparency of the process.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 120 - 
 
  The last meeting with EU Member States in the pesticides area took place on 30  May 2017 and in 
the biocides area on 7 April 2017.  
 
At the last meeting with Member States in the pesticides area, no vote on the criteria was taken as 
Member States needed additional time to establish their position and consult internally. A new 
meeting with Member States will be organised in the near future.  
 
In order to facilitate the decision -making, in December 2016, the plant protection products act has 
been split into two acts without change in content: one text containing the criteria and another one 
containing the technical amendment to the clause on negligible exposure. This offers EU Member 
States the possibility to express their opinion on each of them separately. This split also allows the 
Council and European Parliament to consider each draft  act separately during the scrutiny period.  
 
The current discussions are focusing on the criteria. However, the Commission has committed to 
resume discussions on the amendment to the clause on negligible exposure once the criteria are 
adopted. This propose d amendment allows information on hazard, exposure and risk to be 
considered before a decision is taken on a given substance and is expected to lead to more 
certainty in terms of setting MRLs.  
 
29. With respect to the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performa nces (this Treaty not yet in force), 
adopted on June 26, 2012 and signed by the EU on June 19, 2013, what are the EU intentions to 
join this instrument?  
 
EU reply:  The European Commission has not put forward a proposal for a Council decision for the 
conclu sion of the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances yet. Internal discussions on this issue 
are still ongoing.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 121 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTI ONS FROM ARGENTINA  
 
I.- INFORME DE LA SECRETARÍA (WT/TPR/S/357)  
 
2 REGÍMENES DE COMERCIO E INVERSIÓN  
 
2.1 Marco jurídico e institucional  
 
El Informe de la Secretaría al abordar el  alcance de la competencia de la UE para firmar y concluir 
acuerdos comerciales, aborda en el párrafo 2.8 la cuestión relativa a la entrada en vigor de los 
acuerdos comerciales. Allí indica que “ El propio texto del acuerdo comercial especifica los detalles 
sobre su entrada en vigor. Si se trata de un "acuerdo mixto", es decir, que incluye elementos que 
son competencia de los Estados miembros, el acuerdo solo entrará en vigor cuando todas las 
partes, incluidos los 28 Estados miembros, lo hayan ratificado. Si uno o más de los Estados 
miembros no lo ratifican, el acuerdo no entrará en vigor. Si el Consejo así lo decide, el acuerdo se 
aplicará provisionalmente hasta su rescisión, una vez que la UE lo noti fique a la otra parte 
negociadora con posterioridad a la decisión del Consejo.”  
 
A continuación, en el párrafo 2.9, el Informe hace referencia a la distribución de competencias y a 
la solicitud de la Comisión Europea de un dictamen del Tribunal de Justicia  de la UE (TJUE)  para 
que aclare el alcance de la competencia de la UE para concluir el Acuerdo de Libre Comercio entre 
la UE y Singapur (lo que tiene implicaciones para otros acuerdos comerciales) de conformidad con 
el párrafo 11 del artículo 218 del TFUE  (Dictamen 2/15).  
 
1. ¿En un “Acuerdo Mixto”, que pasaría en el caso de que alguno de los países miembros 
de la UE decida o no esté en condiciones de ratificar dicho Acuerdo durante numerosos 
años?  
 
EU reply : Individual ratification by all EU Member States  is required for the entry into force of a 
so-called "mixed" agreement.  
 
2. ¿La aplicación provisional de dichos Acuerdos puede continuar indefinidamente? Un 
Estado miembro o grupo de Estados miembros podrían oponerse a la aplicación 
provisional?  
 
EU reply : The issue of provisional application have not been affected by the Opinion of the ECJ. If 
an agreement provides for such a possibility, this would need to be approved by the Council.   
 
3. ¿Teniendo en cuenta el dictamen del 16 de mayo de 2017 del Pleno d el Tribunal de 
Justicia de la UE respecto al Acuerdo Acuerdo de Libre Comercio entre la República de 
Singapur y la UE, es aún posible que la UE concluya Acuerdos de Libre Comercio con 
terceros países que sean celebrados exclusivamente por la Unión (no «mix tos»)?  
 
EU reply : This will depend on the content of the agreement. The Opinion of the Court stated that 
the following areas covered by the FTA with Singapore fall under the Union's exclusive 
competence: trade in goods and services; protection of foreign direct investment; IPR; public 
procurement; competition; trade and sustainable development; transparency; State -to-State 
Dispute Settlement when applied to these areas. Therefore, any agreements covering all or some 
of these matters, to the exclusion of an y other matters not falling within the Union's exclusive 
competence, would have to be signed and concluded by the Union alone. According to the Opinion 
of the Court, only non -direct (ex. portfolio investment) and Investor -to-State dispute settlement 
(ISDS)  fall under the realm of competences shared with the Member States.  
 
4. ¿En caso de que la respuesta anterior sea positiva, cuál de los Acuerdos que la UE ha 
concluido de negociar (Por ejemplo con Vietnam) o se encuentra negociando 
actualmente, estima que serán de competencia exclusiva de la UE?  
 
EU reply : This would depend on the specific content of the agreement, as previously explained.  
 
El Informe de la Secretaría, en el párrafo 2.12, señala que la Comisión Europea tomó nota del 
resultado del referéndum  celebrado en el Reino Unido en junio de 2016 sobre su permanencia en 
la UE. Agrega que la Comisión ha creado un equipo de trabajo que se encargará de preparar y WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 122 - 
 
  llevar a cabo las negociaciones del Brexit con el Reino Unido, teniendo en cuenta el marco de las 
futuras relaciones del Reino Unido con la UE.  
 
Recientemente la Comisario de Comercio, Cecilia Malmstrom, habría señalado a un medio 
periodístico que se necesitarán varios años para negociar los detalles de un Acuerdo de Libre 
Comercio con el Reino Uni do y que no es realista pensar que se podrá tener dicho Acuerdo en 
vigor el 1 de abril de 2019.  
 
5. ¿En función de lo antes mencionado, bajo qué condiciones y régimen accederían los 
productos sujetos a contingentes actualmente en el mercado de la UE28, al resultante 
mercado UE27 y al Reino Unido?  
 
6. A lo largo del proceso de negociación con el Reino Unido, la Unión Europea prevé 
tomar contacto con los socios comerciales, a los fines de asegurar que los compromisos 
actuales de la UE28 no sean menoscabados p or el resultado de la  futura división UE27 - 
Reino Unido?  
 
EU reply to questions 5 and 6: On 29 March 2017, the U.K. Government formally notified the 
European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union pursuant to Article 50 of 
the Treaty on European Union. An agreement on the U.K.'s withdrawal will be negotiated following 
the rules established in the Treaty on European Union (TEU).  
 
On 29 April 2017 the European Council adopted guidelines defining the framework for negotiations 
under Article 50 TEU and setting out the overall positions and principles that the Union will pursue 
throughout the negotiatio n. The adoption of the European Council guidelines was followed by a 
Commission proposal on 3 May for a Council Decision authorising the Commission to open 
negotiations, and proposing negotiating directives. The Council Decision including negotiating 
directives were adopted on 22 May by the Council of the European Union.  
 
Negotiations will start after the general  elections in the U.K. on 8 June.  They will focus in a first 
phase on the withdrawal arrangements notably on citizens' rights, financial settlement  and new 
external borders. An agreement must be reached by October 2018, in order to allow for the 
ratification process to be completed and the U.K. to withdraw from the Union by the end of the 
two-year dead line, at the end of March 2019.  
 
Until its withdrawal, the U.K. remains a Member State of the European Union with all rights and 
obligations of a Member State. The EU Treaties continue to apply to the U.K. and in the U.K. 
during that period. Until its withdrawal, the  U.K. continues to be bound by the Union's exclusive 
competence in respect of the common commercial policy pursuant to Article 3 of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union and, more generally, the principle of sincere cooperatio n 
pursuant to Article 4(3) TEU.  
 
The EU will engage with the U.K. in a cooperative manner in order to guarantee an orderly process 
leading up to the withdrawal of the U.K. from the EU. The EU will revert to the WTO Membership 
after engaging with the U.K.. 
 
2.2 Objetivos de la política com ercial  
En el párrafo 2.13, el informe menciona que en octubre de 2015 la Comisión Europea hizo pública 
una nueva política de comercio e inversión para la UE titulada “Comercio para todos”: Hacia una 
política de comercio e inversión más responsable. La UE s e propone incorporar todos los principios 
establecidos en este documento normativo a sus iniciativas de comercio e inversión, incluidos los 
acuerdos de libre comercio (ALC), cuyo resultado está sujeto al acuerdo mutuo entre las partes.  
 
7. Es de interés d e Argentina conocer cuáles son los lineamientos en materia de 
inversiones de la nueva política en la materia, establecida en el documento “Comercio 
para todos”  
 
EU reply:  The "Trade for All" Communication introduces a number of important guiding principles  
for the EU's trade and investment policy, including promoting greater transparency through better 
engagement with stakeholders, the public at large, and European and national Parliaments as well 
as a more open policymaking process, and ensuring that trade  and investment agreements and 
trade and investment policy reflect European values and promote the inclusive growth and WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 123 - 
 
  development of poorer countries, sustainable development, human rights and good governance . In 
relation to investment policy, the EU is leading reforms to the global investment regime, by 
modernising provisions in our bilateral agreements and transforming investor -state dispute 
settlement into a public Investment Court System, while in parallel , engaging with our partners to 
build consensus for a permanent Multilateral Investment Court.  
 
2.3 Acuerdos y arreglos comerciales  
2.3.1 OMC  
En el párrafo 2.18 el informe explica que aunque la UE reitera la importancia de la OMC como foro 
central y princ ipal para elaborar y hacer cumplir las normas del comercio mundial, se ha alejado 
del enfoque del "todo único" al anunciar que tratará de mejorar gradualmente las normas 
comerciales internacionales mediante un mayor número de negociaciones multilaterales b asadas 
en cuestiones específicas y menos iniciativas plurilaterales.  
 
8. ¿Podría explicar la UE en que cuestiones específicas planea la UE realizar un mayor 
número de negociaciones?  
 
EU reply: The EU believes that the WTO needs to provide an effective and efficient forum for 
discussions and negotiations on issues of interest to its Members. While negotiations have been 
taking place on some issues, in certain other areas there has been little or no progress. And in 
certain cases, Members have even refused to engage in exploratory talks, which is extremely 
worrying. The multilateral rulebook needs to reflect new trade dynamics as well as the new ways 
of doing trade, which would be an important step  towards the strengthening of the multilateral 
trading system and the WTO. Noting that the WTO rulebook has not adequately evolved since the 
Uruguay Round, the EU would see benefits in filling the gaps on a number of issues, including e -
commerce and digita l trade, domestic support in agriculture, fisheries subsidies, services with 
domestic regulation as a first priority, non -tariff barriers including transparency and good 
regulatory practices, horizontal subsidies and investment.  
 
En el párrafo 2.18 se men ciona que la Comisión considera asimismo que las negociaciones 
internacionales con otros Miembros de la OMC acerca del Acuerdo sobre el Comercio de Servicios 
(TISA) de carácter plurilateral, el Acuerdo sobre Tecnología de la Información (ATI) y el Acuerdo 
sobre Bienes Ambientales (ABA) sirven de base a una mayor liberalización en la esfera del 
comercio de mercancías y servicios, así como en lo que se refiere a los aspectos de los derechos 
de propiedad intelectual relacionados con el comercio.  
 
9. ¿Podría explicar cuál es el estado actual de las negociaciones plurilaterales sobre 
comercio de servicios y bienes ambientales así como también las expectativas de la UE 
al respecto? ¿Podría indicar la UE si el TISA será notificado a la OMC al amparo de l 
artículo V del Acuerdo sobre el Comercio de Servicios (GATS)?  
 
EU reply:  TiSA has been one of the priorities for the EU. The EU therefore regrets that 
negotiations have been paused and is ready to resume negotiations when the political context 
allows. H owever, such date has not been identified and no negotiating agenda has been set out for 
the remainder of 2017. In view of the substantial progress TiSA Parties have achieved to date, the 
EU is optimistic that TiSA can be brought to conclusion soon, once n egotiations resume.  
 
2.3.2 Acuerdos regionales y preferenciales  
2.3.2.1 Preferencias recíprocas  
En el párrafo 2.26 el Informe menciona que la Comisión ha señalado que en todos los nuevos 
acuerdos comerciales que se celebren durante el período 2016 -2020 se prestará también una 
atención especial a las PyMEs.  
 
10. ¿Podría la UE explicar de qué manera s e prestará una atención especial a las PyMEs 
en los nuevos acuerdos comerciales y con qué objetivo?  
 
EU reply : SMEs are the dominant size of enterprises in all countries. Provisions in chapters 
relevant for SMEs should ensure that small companies from both  sides benefit from FTAs. The EU 
envisages in new FTA negotiations to include a dedicated SME chapter containing provisions to 
increase transparency, notably provisions for sharing information through website information and 
a searchable database to find p roduct specific import requirements. An appropriate institutional WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 124 - 
 
  set-up would follow -up SME relevant issues with the committees responsible for the chapter of the 
FTA. 
 
Sobre los acuerdos regionales y preferenciales, Argentina detalla a continuación varia s preguntas:  
11. ¿Podría la UE explicar las nuevas disposiciones respecto al mecanismo de solución 
de diferencias entre inversores privados y los Estados?  
 
EU reply:  The proposal for the new court system includes major improvements such as:  
- a public Invest ment Court System composed of a first instance Tribunal and an Appeal 
Tribunal would be set up;  
- judgements would be made by publicly appointed judges with high qualifications, 
comparable to those required for the members of permanent international courts s uch as 
the International Court of Justice and the WTO Appellate Body;  
- the new Appeal Tribunal would be operating on similar principles to the WTO Appellate 
Body;  
- the ability of investors to take a case before the Tribunal would be precisely defined and 
limited to cases such as targeted discrimination on the base of gender, race or religion, or 
nationality, expropriation without compensation, or denial of justice;  
- governments’ right to regulate would be enshrined and guaranteed in the provisions of the 
trade and investment agreements.  
- proceedings will be transparent, hearings open and comments available on -line, and a 
right to intervene for parties with an interest in the dispute will be provided;  
- forum –shopping is not possible;  
- frivolous claims will be dismissed quickly;  
- a clear distinction between international law and domestic law will be maintained;  
- multiple and parallel proceedings will be avoided.  
 
12. Con respecto a los BIT´s actualmente en negociación con China, ¿se encuadran en 
acuerdos de última generación que incluyen disciplinas como e -commerce y medio 
ambiente?  
 
EU reply:  The EU and China are negotiating a Comprehensive Agreement on investment since 
November 2013. In line with the agreement reached on scope in January 2016, the EU and China 
agreed that their  future agreement will cover investment protection and market access, while it 
will also address key challenges of the regulatory environment, incl uding those related to 
transparency, licensing and authoriz ation procedures. The agreement will also include rules on 
environmental and labour -related dimensions of foreign investment .  
 
13. Con respecto a las negociaciones para el establecimiento de la Alianza Transatlántica 
de Comercio e Inversión (TTIP). ¿Cuál será la posición de la UE, teniendo en cuenta el 
cambio de estrategia de EEUU, respecto a la continuación  de la negociación de este 
acuerdo?  
 
EU reply:  Following three years of intense talks, TTI P negotiations are now effectively on hold. 
The EU stays committed to ensuring a strong trade and investment relationship with the US but 
the new US administration is still in the process of defining its trade policy.  
The economic and strategic case for T TIP stands. But before any decision to re -launch the 
negotiations, the EU needs clarity that there is sufficient common ground for taking the 
negotiations to conclusion in a balanced manner.  
 
3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES  
3.1. Medidas que afectan dir ectamente a las importaciones  
3.1.1 Procedimientos y requisitos aduaneros  
En el párrafo 3.4 se menciona que, con el establecimiento y la entrada en vigor de nuevos 
reglamentos se inicia una etapa en la que se incorporan muchos cambios y se adoptan muchas 
medidas para introducir el despacho de aduana electrónico y la armonización de los procesos de 
TI. El CAU tiene por objetivo racionalizar y modernizar los procedimientos aduaneros, así como 
armonizar mejor las normas aduaneras con los nuevos tratados de la UE. Está previsto que en 
2020 finalizará la aplicación plena de todas esas modificaciones.  
 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 125 - 
 
  14. ¿Podría explicar la UE con mayor detalle mediante qué medidas el CAU logrará el 
objetivo de racionalizar y modernizar los procedimientos aduaneros?  
 
EU reply:  Under the UCC all exchange of information between economic operators and customs 
authorities are to be done using electronic data processing techniques, which means that there will 
be a real switch to a full electronic customs environment where only few s pecific cases of paper -
based handling will remain. Such an environment will ensure a proper risk -based control approach 
and a smooth processing of declarations and notifications.  
 
En el párrafo 3.6 se menciona que otras modificaciones que derivan del CAU afectan a los 
procedimientos aduaneros en casi todos sus aspectos y suponen además la modificación de otras 
normas, como las de valoración en aduana, normas de origen, etc. La infor mación que aquí se 
facilita es solo indicativa de los principales cambios y no tiene carácter exhaustivo.  
 
15. ¿Podría explicar la UE cuál es el objetivo de los cambios mencionados?  
 
EU reply:  One of the objectives of these changes is simplification. For instance, Processing under 
Customs Control procedure has been eliminated because it allows the same activities than can be 
done by today's Inward Processing procedure. Another example is the fa ct that the Inward 
Processing procedure (drawback system) has also been eliminated in order to avoid import duties 
to be paid and then reimbursed, so today only Inward Processing procedure (suspension system) 
stands.  
 
Another objective is the enhancement of customs control. To that extent, the fact that the end -use 
becomes a special procedure makes it mandatory to have an authorisation granted by the customs 
authority and to provide a guarantee for debts that may incur. This fact allows enhancement of 
customs control.  
 
En el párrafo 3.8 se explica que en 2015, la condición de OEA fue otorgada en la UE a más de 
14.000 operadores económicos y que, en septiembre de 2016, la UE tenía cinco acuerdos de 
reconocimiento mutuo que abarcaban la condición de OEAS, con  China, Estados Unidos, Japón, 
Noruega y Suiza, habiéndose iniciado o están previstas negociaciones con otros países.  
 
16. ¿Podría explicar la UE con mayor detalle que requisitos deben tener los operadores 
económicos extra -comunitarios para obtener recipr ocidad? ¿Con qué otros países se 
están desarrollando negociaciones para el reconocimiento mutuo de esta condición?  
 
EU reply:  By concluding mutual recognition agreements with a partner country the EU agrees to 
recognise the authorisation issued to economic  operators under the other programme. Both 
programmes should operate in the context of the WCO SAFE Framework of Standards and the 
requirements for granting an authorisation to economic operators should be compatible; the 
requirements of Union customs legi slation are laid down in Article 39 of the UCC and Article 24 -28 
of the UCC IA. The EU is currently negotiating with Canada and preliminary discussions have 
started with Hong Kong.  
 
3.1.4. Aranceles  
3.1.4.3 Suspensión de derechos y trato arancelario especial  
En el Informe, en el párrafo 3.40. se detalla que “De conformidad con los Reglamentos (UE) Nº 
1387/2013 y 1388/2013 del Consejo, la UE prevé suspensiones y contingentes arancelarios para 
permitir  a las empresas utilizar materias primas, productos semiacabados o componentes sin la 
obligación de pagar los derechos normales. Estas suspensiones o contingentes pueden tener 
carácter permanente o temporal. En julio de 2016, había en vigor 2.497 suspensio nes de derechos 
y 102 contingentes, lo que representa un aumento con respecto a los últimos años. Las 
suspensiones de derechos se concentran en los sectores de las industrias químicas o de las 
industrias conexas (Sección VI del SA), las máquinas y aparatos  y material eléctrico/electrónico 
(Sección XVI), y el plástico (Sección VII). [..]”  
 
Estas medidas comerciales autónomas son revisadas por la UE cada 6 meses (con la excepción de 
los contingentes para los productos de la pesca que se realiza cada 3 años) y no otorgan seguridad 
y previsibilidad para los proveedores de terceros países  que hagan uso de dichas ventajas 
comerciales.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 126 - 
 
  17. ¿Cómo podrían los proveedores de terceros países de la UE de estos productos, en 
muchos casos pequeñas y medianas empresas (P ymes), tomar conocimiento, con la 
debida anticipación, de las futuras eliminaciones o modificaciones, a los fines de reducir 
los eventuales perjuicios económicos de dichos cambios?  
 
EU reply:  The Commission manages a website (see link below) where information related to new, 
amended or removed autonomous tariff suspensions or quotas is freely available to the public: 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds2/susp/susp_home.jsp . 
 
Furthermore, a "Notice to economic operators" is published every semester in the C series of the 
Official Journal of the EU, focussing on new requests:  
http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2017.123.01.0010.01.ENG&toc=OJ:C:2017:123:TOC  
 
18. En el caso del Reglamento (UE) 2015/2265 relativo a la apertura y modo de gestión 
de los contingentes arancelarios autónomos de determinados productos pesqueros para 
el período 2016 -201 ¿cómo podrían las autoridades de terceros países tener 
conocimiento en cuanto a que s us países hacen uso o no de estos contingentes, cuando 
están clasificados por el NC TARIC a 10 dígitos?  
 
EU reply:  The fisheries products under the autonomous tariff quotas provided by Regulation 
2015/2265 are meant to be used by EU industry and importers.  The quotas are opened in the 
beginning of each year on an erga -omnes first -come first -served basis. In the operational process, 
there is no particular intervention from third countries authorities other than the sanitary 
certification and the flag state c ertification.  
 
19. ¿De no encontrarse disponible dicha información “online”, podría la Comisión 
Europea implementar un sistema de notificación a las Misiones de un tercer país ante la 
UE respecto a la modificación o eliminación de una medida comercial autó noma, cuando 
afectará a empresas proveedoras de dicho tercer país?  
 
EU reply:  The information is available online and can be checked at any moment through the 
QUOTA system, by introducing the quota code number:  
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds2/taric/quota_consultation.jsp?Lang=en . 
 
En el párrafo 3.45 se menciona que la UE aplica contingentes arancelarios a las im portaciones de 
tres tipos: para productos agrícolas, NMF autónomos y en el marco de acuerdos preferenciales. 
Además, conforme a un reglamento de la UE de 2012/47, la UE ha establecido contingentes 
arancelarios para la carne vacuna de calidad superior, que se aplican únicamente a las 
importaciones procedentes de determinados países. Muchos contingentes arancelarios NMF se 
asignan por orden de recepción de las solicitudes.  
 
20. ¿Podría detallar los demás criterios en virtud de los cuales pueden asignarse esto s 
contingentes además de la recepción por orden de llegada?  
 
EU reply:  The country allocations of the Hilton Beef Tariff Quotas 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.  
Changes in the specifications of the Hilton Beef Quota were made in the framework of the 
implementation of the EU concessions set out in the Schedule drawn up in t he wake of the 
conclusion of the GATT XXIV.6 negotiations and the successive agreements reached with different 
trade partners.  
 
Such changes are reflected in the recasts and amendments of Commission Regulations (EC) No . 
936/97, and (EC) No . 810/2008 and Co mmission Implementing Regulation (EU) No . 593/2013.  
EU management of the Hilton Beef Tariff quotas is carried out on the basis of Article 184 of 
Regulation (EU) No . 1308/2013 and in accordance with the provisions of Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 593/2013.  
 
All these Regulations can be consulted on EUR -LEX ( http://eur -lex.europa.eu ). 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 127 - 
 
  21. ¿En qué medida alterará la salida de Gran Bretaña de la UE a los volúmenes 
asignados en virtud de estos contingentes?  ¿Qué medidas tiene pensado tomar la UE en 
este sentido?  
 
EU reply : See reply to question 5.  
3.1.7 Medidas antidumping, compensatorias y de salvaguardia  
3.1.7.1 Medidas antidumping y antisubvenciones  
El Informe menciona en el párrafo 3.59. que  en noviembre de 2016, la Comisión Europea adoptó 
una propuesta dirigida al Parlamento Europeo y al Consejo para modificar los reglamentos 
antidumping y antisubvenciones, aclarando que en marzo de 2017, la propuesta seguía el 
procedimiento legislativo ordi nario.  
 
22. ¿Podría la UE indicar en qué etapa del trámite legislativo comunitario se encuentra 
actualmente la propuesta de reforma, y si es posible, su fecha prevista de adopción y 
entrada en vigor?  
 
EU reply:  The Commission proposal is subject to the or dinary legislative procedure which means 
the proposal is being examined by the Council and the European Parliament. The EU Commission 
cannot predict the outcome.  
 
23. ¿Podría indicar si para las modificaciones propuestas, contenidas en el documento 
de la propuesta (COM(2016) 721 final) se ha tenido en cuenta la jurisprudencia más 
reciente de los Grupos Especiales y el Organo de Apelación, especialmente en relación al 
cálculo del Valor Normal en las investigaciones anti -dumping?  
 
EU reply:  The proposal is f ully consistent with relevant WTO rules and jurisprudence.  
 
3.2 Medidas que afectan directamente a las exportaciones  
3.2.4 Créditos a la exportación, programas de seguro, y promoción de las exportaciones  
En el párrafo 3.90 se menciona que la UE facilita créditos a la exportación con ayuda oficial a 
través de agencias de crédito a la exportación (ACE). El apoyo, de acuerdo a lo que se especifica, 
puede ser concedido mediante préstamos a compradores extranjeros, garantías de préstamo y 
seguros de crédito, e ntre otras herramientas.  
 
24. ¿Cuál es la compatibilidad de dichas medidas con las decisiones ministeriales, 
comprendidas en el Paquete de Nairobi (WT/MIN(15)/44 -WT/L/979), en las cuales los 
Miembros hacen explícito su compromiso a no otorgar créditos a la  exportación, 
garantías de créditos a la exportación o programas de seguro para las exportaciones de 
los productos agropecuarios?  
 
EU reply:  We are reviewing the situation and we will come back to you in detail in the CoA.  
 
3.2.5 Régimen comercial de los traslados de residuos  
El Informe señala en su párrafo 3.98 que, según la Comisión, podría considerarse que alrededor 
del 25% de los traslados de residuos enviados de la UE a países en desarrollo de África y Asia 
infringe los reglamentos internacionales. A continuación agrega que la modificación del 
Reglamento relativo a los traslados de residuos introducida mediante el Reglamento (UE) Nº 
660/2014 obliga a los Estados miembros a establecer planes de inspección de los traslados de 
residuos, a más tardar, el 1 º de enero de 2017. Estos planes de inspección deben incluir una serie 
mínima de elementos y basarse en una evaluación de riesgos.  
 
Asimismo, en el párrafo 3.99, se indica que según datos correspondientes a 2012, es posible que 
se estén exportando ilegalme nte desde la UE unas 400.000 toneladas anuales de residuos de 
aparatos eléctricos y electrónicos (RAEE).  Cuando los residuos llegan ilegalmente a un país de 
destino, esos residuos suelen depositarse en vertederos o gestionarse mal, de manera que tienen 
un grave efecto negativo en la salud de las personas y en el medio ambiente.  
 
25. ¿Podría la UE informar qué acciones están desarrollando para reducir o eliminar los 
envíos de residuos remitidos desde países de la UE a países en vías de desarrollo, que 
puede n ser considerados como contrarios a la normativa internacional?  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 128 - 
 
  EU reply: In May 2014, by the means of Regulation (EU) No 660/2014, the Waste Shipment 
Regulation 1013/2006/EC was strengthened with regard to inspections (Article 50 of the 
Regulation). Ins pection plans now have to be drawn up taking into account risk assessments. 
Inspectors are also given powers to reverse the burden of proof on exporters as regards e.g. 
whether an item to be shipped is waste or not, or whether the shipment is destined for 
environmentally sound management. Furthermore, a table has been adopted and published with 
the correlation between customs codes and waste entries, which is expected to facilitate controls 
of waste shipments by customs officials.  
 
26. ¿Tiene la UE un regis tro de la eventual exportación ilegal de toneladas de residuos 
de equipos eléctricos y electrónicos por parte de países miembros de la UE?  
 
EU reply: No, the EU does not have such a register.  
 
27. ¿De ser así, podría la UE comentar respecto a las medidas tomadas durante los 
últimos años sobre esta cuestión de la exportación ilegal de residuos de equipos 
eléctricos y electrónicos?"  
 
EU reply: See answer to question 25 above.  
 
3.3 Medidas que afectan a la producción y al comercio  
3.3.1 Normas y otras prescripciones técnicas  
Si bien el Informe no hace mención a la Iniciativa sobre “metodología para medir la Huella 
ambiental de los productos” (PEF, por sus sigla en inglés), se entiende que, tras la conclusión de la 
fase piloto de esta iniciativa,  la UE t endría previsto elaborar un "policy paper" con las conclusiones 
de las experiencias de dicha fase piloto, hacia principios de 2018. En dicho documento la CE 
clarificaría como se aplicaría el instrumento (la metodología).  
 
28. ¿Cuáles serían las opciones de Regulación (Europea) que estaría considerando?  
 
EU reply: The Environmental Footprint pilot phase will be concluded by the end of 2017. It has 
not been decided yet if there will be a policy follow up on Product Environmental  Footprint (PEF) / 
Organizational Environmental Footprint (OEF). If that is the case, then the Commission will analyse 
the full range of possible ways of using the PEF and OEF methods either in the context of existing 
policy tools or as part of new legisla tion. It is premature to consider at this stage which options 
would be analysed further if and when the Commission decides to carry out such an Impact 
Assessment.   
 
29. ¿Podría aclarar la Unión Europea los próximos pasos previstos en el mediano plazo 
con r especto a esta iniciativa PEF?  
 
EU reply: As mentioned in reply to question 28 above, the European Commission will take a 
decision in the coming months about a possible policy follow up of the Environmental Footprint 
pilot phase. This means a full -fledged Impact Assessment looking into the economic, social and 
environmental implications of different policy options. These options may range from business as 
usual (i.e. do nothing), to using the PEF /OEF method in existing policy tools (e.g. EU Ecolabel, 
EMAS,  GPP, etc) or using PEF/OEF in new policies.  
 
In the meantime, from January 2018 till December 2020, the European Commission will (1) 
monitor the implementation of the environmental footprint methodologies and indicators (2) 
facilitate the development of m ethodologies and indicators for some additional categories if 
industry is interested and (3) continue work on some methodological issues.  
 
3.3.2 Medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias  
Si bien el Informe de la Secretaría no menciona la propuesta revisada de la UE para la clasificación 
de compuestos como perturbadores endocrinos, se estima necesario referirnos a ella en virtud de 
su potencialmente elevado impacto en la comercialización de  productos agrícolas.  
 
30. Al respecto, podría la UE indicar porqué está dispuesta a privilegiar supuestas 
limitaciones de mandato de la CE bajo el Derecho de la UE por sobre compromisos de la 
OMC al proponerse aprobar una propuesta que aplica un enfoque basado en peligro en WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 129 - 
 
  lugar de un enfoque que contemple el análisis completo de riesgo  conforme lo estipula el 
AMSF?  
 
EU reply:  Article 5(3) of the Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR) and point 3.6.5 of Annex II to the 
Plant Protection Products Regulation (P PPR) provide the legal basis for the Commission to adopt 
measures specifying scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine -disrupting properties. 
Within these mandates the basic regulatory approach for endocrine disruptors (EDs) already set in 
the PPPR and the BPR, adopted in 2009 and 2012 respectively, cannot be changed. The European 
Union informed WTO Members about this regulatory approach by notifying the proposals of these 
Regulations to the WTO.  
 
31. ¿Podría la UE fundamentar porqué se optó po r los criterios de la opción 2 
(identificación del peligro basado en la definición WHO/IPCS) en lugar de la opción 4 
(identificación del peligro basado en la definición WHO/IPCS +  potencia) siendo está 
última menos gravosa en términos de impacto comercial y agrícola, teniendo en cuenta 
además que ambas garantizan el mismo nivel de protección de la salud humana, según 
surge de su propia evaluación de impacto?  
 
EU reply:  The EU is aware of the potential trade and agricultural impacts that the proposed 
criteri a might have. Those potential impacts were analysed in the impact assessment report that 
was published on 15 June 2016.15 This impact assessment also informs which active substances 
would be potentially identified under the draft scientific criteria, and wh ich are currently identified 
by the interim criteria legally applicable at the moment.  
 
The criteria that are proposed in both draft legal acts ensure a high level of protection of human 
health and the environment, are based on science, and are proportiona te: the proposed criteria 
are based on the internationally agreed WHO definition of endocrine disruptors (EDs) which is 
widely supported by governments, scientists and stakeholders. They identify only EDs (neither 
suspected EDs, nor endocrine active substa nces). The proposed criteria do not include potency 
(option 4 of the impact assessment), as this is an element of hazard characterisation and should 
not be considered at the hazard identification stage of EDs.  
 
El Informe alude en su párrafos 3.141 a 3.143  a la nueva legislación sobre sanidad animal, plagas 
de los vegetales y controles oficiales (en ese momento a punto ser adoptado) que forma parte del 
paquete sobre salud animal y vegetal adoptado por la Comisión en mayo de 2013.  
  
El nuevo Reglamento (UE) N° 625/2017 sobre controles oficiales que sustituirá el Reglamento  (CE) 
N°854, mantiene la práctica de fragmentación de los controles en los diferentes Estados 
miembros. La Argentina considera que, para los terceros países, sería más beneficioso contar con  
un sistema uniforme, con criterios más previsibles y definidos para la finalización de los controles 
reforzados cuando estos son activados.  
 
El Articulo 73 del Reglamento (UE) N°625/2017 regula la “autorización de los controles previos a la 
exportación desde los terceros países a la UE”.  
 
32. Significa esto que la UE aceptará las garantías que el tercer país ofrezca en estos 
controles previos,  evitando en tal sentido el control a nivel de frontera UE cuando la 
mercadería llegue a la UE?  
 
EU reply:  The new Regulation (EU)  2017/625 on official controls has provided the European 
Commission with respective empowerments. A written communication has been sent by the EU to 
the WTO SPS Committee on 12 June 2017 that provides information on this new Regulation 
(G/SPS/GEN/1551).  
 
33. Si fuera el caso, los Estados miembros estarán facultados para realizar  controles 
adicionales?  
 
EU reply:  This is subject t o the rules to be agreed on the basis of the empowerments provided.  
 
                                                
15 http://ec.europa.eu/health/endocrine_disruptors/impact_assessmen t_en. WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 130 - 
 
  Por otra parte, el Titulo VI, Capitulo II (Artículos 125 al 129) se refiere a las “condiciones para la 
entrada de mercaderías a la UE”. El Reglamento deroga el Reglamento 854/2004, el cua l, entre 
otros aspectos cubre el llamado “ prelisting de establecimientos habilitados por terceros países para 
exportar a la UE” y “listado de terceros países autorizados a exportar a la UE (Art 126 y 127, que 
derogan y reemplazan el Art 12 del Reglamento 854/2004). Esto puede tener un impacto 
significativo en los procedimientos actuales mediante los cuales los te rceros países exportan a la 
UE. 
 
34. En función de lo expuesto, la UE considera mantener estas provisiones del 
Reglamento 854/2004 para los tercer os países que exportan a la UE?  
 
EU reply: As stated in the question, the procedure for the approval of non -EU establishments to 
export to the EU is currently established by Regulation No  854/2004. This Regulation is derogated 
by the new OCR and the EU is  now at the stage where it has to establish (via implementing 
legislation) the new procedures for this approval.  
 
Finalmente, en cuanto a las “equivalencias” (Art. 129):  
35. Mantendrá la UE un enfoque holístico, que abarque tanto “equivalencias de medidas  
específicas”, como también “equivalencias horizontales integrales de sistemas de 
producción y controles”?  
 
EU reply:  The EU will continue to implement equivalence in line with Article 4 of the WTO SPS 
Agreement and the WTO SPS Committee decision on the im plementation of this Article 
(G/SPS/19/Rev.2).  
 
3.3.2.1 Vegetales y productos vegetales  
En el párrafo 3.153. el Informe alude  a la propuesta de Reglamento del Parlamento Europeo y del 
Consejo para modificar el Reglamento (CE) N° 1829/2003 en lo que respecta a la posibilidad de 
que los Estados miembros prohiban el uso de alimentos y piensos genéticamente modificados en 
su territorio.  
 
36. ¿Podría la UE informar cuál es el estado de avance de la propuesta en el marco del 
procedimiento legislativo, en p articular en el Consejo de Ministros? ¿Cuándo se estima 
que la propuesta podría ser adoptada?  
 
EU reply:  In October 2015, the European Parliament rejected the Commission's proposal, calling 
on the European Commission to submit a new one. The Council has n ot adopted any position on 
the proposal yet.  
 
En cuanto a las aprobaciones de OMG en la UE, el Informe señala en su párrafo 3.154 que “a 
finales de 2016 se había autorizado la entrada de un OMG para cultivo (cuya autorización está 
actualmente pendiente de renovación) y de 72 para uso como alimentos y piensos. Además, 
estaban pendientes de autorización las solicitudes relativas a tres OMG para cultivo y a 47 para 
uso como alimentos y piensos. Se ha autorizado la entrada de cinco tipos de flores modificadas 
genéticamente para su venta en la UE”.  
 
37. ¿ Por qué el actual sistema se continúa aplicando sin respeto estricto al marco y 
plazos establecidos en el mismo para la autorización de eventos OGM, aun cuando la 
EFSA ha dado su opinión favorable respecto a la seguridad de los eventos evaluados?  
 
EU reply : All applications are processed in line with the EU legislative framework on GMOs. The 
Commission is proceeding with all the applications having a positive risk assessment performed by 
the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). In a few cases where the ap plicants informed the 
Commission about new scientific or technical information which might influence the GMO safety 
assessment (e.g. an error in the sequencing of the event), EFSA has been mandated to assess this 
new information, prior to any action regard ing an authorisation Decision by the Commission.  
 
38. ¿No considera la UE que la modificación propuesta el 14 de marzo pasado del 
Reglamento 182/2011 relativo al procedimiento de “Comitologia” adicionará más 
tiempo al procedimiento en virtud de razones pol íticas, empeorando la situación de 
demoras indebidas en las autorizaciones de los organismos genéticamente modificados 
(OGM)? Podría fundamentar su posición?  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 131 - 
 
  39. ¿No considera la UE que esta propuesta enfatiza la discusión política menoscabando 
el rol prim ordial de la evidencia científica y la evaluación de riesgos en el marco del 
procedimiento de autorización de OGMs?  
 
40. ¿Cuáles son los beneficios de esta propuesta a la luz de los objetivos de la protección 
de la vida y la salud humana pers eguidos por la  Regulación OGM?  
 
41. ¿Podría la UE informar cuál es el estado de situación de esta propuesta en el marco 
del procedimiento legislativo? Cuándo se espera que sea aprobada?  
 
EU reply to questions No 38 -41: The proposal to amend the Comitology Regulation pre sented 
by the European Commission on 14 February 2017 is currently subject to the ordinary legislative 
procedure, thus requiring agreement by the European Parliament and the Council. The EU 
therefore cannot comment on timing or content at this stage. Until  an agreement is found the 
existing rules continue to apply. The intention is to improve the current system, addressing 
specific concerns that arise where Member State representatives are unable to take a position on a 
draft implementing act presented to t hem by the European Commission. The proposed 
amendments concern a very specific part of the Comitology arrangements – the appeal committee 
procedure.  Other parts of the Comitology Regulation are not open for review.  
 
3.3.2.2 Animales vivos y productos de origen animal  
3.3.2.3 Sistema de Alerta Rápida para los Productos Alimenticios y los Alimentos para 
Animales  
 
El Informe explica en su párrafo 3.161 que “El Sistema de Alerta Rápida para los Productos 
Alimenticios y los Alimentos para Animales (RASFF) per mite a las autoridades de control de los 
alimentos y los piensos de los Estados miembros y de la Comisión intercambiar información sobre 
las medidas adoptadas en respuesta a riesgos directos e indirectos planteados por los alimentos 
para la salud de las pe rsonas, y por los piensos para salud de las personas y los animales y para el 
medio ambiente.152 Los Estados miembros notifican los riesgos detectados en relación con los 
productos ya comercializados (notificaciones relativas a la comercialización) y en ca so de que se 
deniegue la entrada de productos a la UE (notificaciones de rechazo en frontera)”.  
 
A pesar de los esfuerzos realizados por la Comisión Europea en pos de una mayor uniformidad de 
criterios e implementación (Reglamento 16/2011 y Guía sobre los Procedimientos), la aplicación 
del Sistema RASFF por parte de los Estados miembros no es siempre uniforme, y existe un grado 
de discrecionalidad de cada Estado miembro, con decisiones diferentes en cuanto a los rechazos, 
como en cuanto al posterior “refuer zo” de los controles en las partidas sucesivas (“controles 
reforzados”). Otro aspecto con impacto negativo incluye las alertas RASFF imputadas por error a 
un tercer país y las consecuentes demoras para darlas de baja, con el impacto que esto tiene para 
esa compañía puntualmente o para el producto en general.  
 
42. Podría la UE informar si están considerando medidas para mejorar los aspectos 
antes señalados? Si lo estuvieran haciendo, podría indicar qué medidas concretas se 
hallan bajo consideración?  
 
EU reply:  The EU notes that the statements in this question are very general and not supported 
by any concrete evidence. Concerning reinforced controls on products of animal origin, the 
monitoring procedure is included in the IT -system used across the EU for all imported 
consignments (through the TRACES system), and it is supervised by the competent EU service. 
Also, when a reinforced control is ended, the RASFF registers this fact as a follow -up notification, 
and informs the country involved by sending an e -mail to the relevant authorities.  
 
If there is a mistake on the origin of the product, which may occur in rare occasions, a public 
corrigendum is immediately registered in RASFF and the countries involved are notified without 
any delay. Furthermore, it has to be noted that when the origin of the product (or its raw material) 
is indicated, this does not mean that the country or operator of origin is "blamed" for the findings 
reported in the notification. The information given enables carrying out an investiga tion and taking 
appropriate measures, and also provides the opportunity to the country involved to give feedback 
through the RASFF system.  
 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 132 - 
 
  3.3.8. Derechos de propiedad intelectual  
En el párrafo 3.255 se señala que, durante el período de examen, la Comisi ón Europea adoptó 
medidas de modernización del marco legislativo en 2016 y se avanzó, asimismo, en el 
establecimiento de una patente unitaria.  
 
43. En este contexto, ¿Cuáles han sido las modificaciones legislativas implementadas en 
2016 y cuál es el impact o esperado? ¿Cuáles son los principales inconvenientes que 
encuentra la UE para el establecimiento de una patente unitaria?  
 
EU reply:  Preparatory Works aiming at conferring full competence to the EPO for granting 
European patent with unitary effect ('unit ary patents') and at fixing the price of the future unitary 
patent have been completed in 2016 by the Select Committee of the European Patent Organisation 
as foreseen by article 9(2) of regulation 1257/2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the 
area of the creation of unitary patent protection. In parallel, the Preparatory Committee of the 
Unified patent Court has prepared all the instruments necessary for the functioning of the future 
Court. When the patent package will be in force it will offer to the users an additional tool for 
protecting inventions within the EU and also a unique Court handling with disputes relating to the 
unitary patents but also to the classical European patents.  
 
On 14 September 2016, the European Commission adopted the following  legislative proposals on 
copyright:  
 Proposal for a Directive  of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the 
Digital Single Market. It aims at adapting certain key exceptions to copyright to the digital 
and cross -border environment; improving licensing practices and ensuring wider access to 
conten t; and achieving a well -functioning marketplace for copyright.  
 Proposal for a Regulation  of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules 
on the exercise of  copyright and related rights applicable to certain online transmissions of 
broadcasting organisations and retransmissions of television and radio programmes. Its 
objective is to facilitate the clearance of rights for cross -border online transmissions of 
television and radio programmes and retransmissions over closed networks, therefore 
fostering the cross -border distribution of television and radio programmes.  
 With the proposal for a Directive on certain permitted uses of works and other subject -
matter pro tected by copyright and related rights for the benefit of persons who are blind, 
visually impaired or otherwise print disabled, the Commission is implementing the 
Marrakesh Treaty into EU law through a new exception.  
 The Proposal for a Regulation  of the European Parliament and of the Council on the cross -
border exchange between the Union and third countries of accessible format copies of 
certain works and other subject -matter protected by copyright and related rights for the 
benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled will make sure 
that the EU Member States may apply the provisions of the Marrakesh Treaty with third 
countries.  
 
Such prop osals are subject to the ordinary legislative procedure which means the proposal is being 
examined by the Council and the European Parliament. The outcome cannot be predicted.  
 
En el párrafo 3.260 del informe se hace referencia a la competencia de la UE pa ra concluir 
acuerdos internacionales en la esfera de los DPI.  
 
Sin embargo, a la luz del Dictamen del Tribunal de Justicia 2/15, de 16 de mayo de 2017, este 
órgano jurisdiccional considera que las disposiciones del Acuerdo entre la UE y Singapur, del 20 de 
septiembre de 2013, relativas a las inversiones extranjeras distintas de las directas, así como las 
relativas al arreglo de controversias entre inversores y Estados no son de la competencia exclusiva 
de la Unión, por lo que el Acuerdo no puede celebrars e en su forma actual sin la participación de 
los Estados miembros.  
 
44. ¿Cómo impacta esta decisión en los acuerdos que contengan disposiciones sobre 
propiedad intelectual? ¿Es posible una entrada en vigor “provisional” de los mismos 
teniendo en cuenta est e caso?  
 
EU reply : As regards areas covered under the Free Trade Agreement with Singapore, the Court, in 
Opinion 2/15, determined that IPR is one of the areas falling under the EU exclusive competence. 
The issue of provisional application of an Agreement has not been affecte d by the Opinion. If an WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 133 - 
 
  agreement provides for such possibility, the provisional application would need to be approved by 
the Council.   
 
3.3.7 Contratación pública  
En el dictamen 2/15 del 16 de mayo de 2017, el Tribunal de Justicia de la UE, señaló, en el 
apartado 77, que los contratos públicos de servicios de transporte marítimo internacional, de 
transporte ferroviario, de transporte por carretera y de transporte por vías navegables, así como 
los contratos públicos de servicios ligados a esos servicios de transporte, en relación al acuerdo 
UE-Singapur,  no se encuentran incluidos en el ámbito de la política comercial común.  
 
45.¿Cuál es el alcance de hecho de la disposición mencionada sobre los acuerdos de 
compras públicas vigentes que incluyen esos servicios y qué impacto tiene sobre la 
capacidad de la Comisión Europea para negociar acuerdos de Compras Públicas con 
terceros países?  
 
EU reply : the EU would like to draw Argentina's attention to the fact that the main conclusions of 
the Opinion 2/15 on this issue are contained in paragraphs 219 to 224, to which paragraph 77 
refers to. There the Court concluded that the EU has exclusive external competence pursuant to 
Article 3(2) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in respect of the internati onal 
commitments contained in the Government Procurement Chapter of the EU -Singapore Agreement 
with reference to public procurement in respect of international maritime transport services, rail 
transport services, road transport services and internal water ways transport services, and to public 
procurement in respect of services inherently linked to those transport services.  
 
En el párrafo 3.246 se menciona que progresivamente la contratación electrónica se está volviendo 
obligatoria, destacando que para 20 18 será obligatoria para todos los poderes adjudicadores la 
presentación electrónica de ofertas. Al mismo tiempo, en el párrafo 3.239 se afirma la presencia 
de factores que explican el reducido porcentaje de contratación pública publicado en el Tenders 
Electronic Dialy (TED) . 
 
46. ¿Cuál es la diferencia entre el Tenders Electronic Dialy y el Diario Oficial de la UE en 
materia de acceso a la información acerca de las Contrataciones Públicas? ¿Qué otros 
factores explican el reducido porcentaje de contratación  publicado en el TED?  En el 
marco de una progresiva obligatoriedad a la utilización de medios digitales para la 
Contratación Pública: ¿Cuáles son las potenciales dificultades en el marco de una no 
obligatoriedad del uso del TED?  
 
EU reply: TED is the 'Supplement to the Official Journal of the EU ("OJ S"), dedicated to European 
public procurement. Tenders Electronic Daily (TED) has been set up as a system for publicizing 
contracts online. Contracting authorities of Member States and EU entities are obli ged 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 winni ng offer. The contracting authority may also publish 
below thresholds contract in TED on a voluntary basis. The low proportion of contracts above 
threshold is due to the structure of the EU procurement market where the value of the majority of 
the contract s is below thresholds and do not fall under the obligation of publication in TED.  
 
En el párrafo 3.247, se señala que los Estados miembros tenían hasta abril de 2016 para 
incorporar la Directiva 2014/55/2014 a su legislación. En la misma, las autoridades s e 
comprometen a mantener actualizada la información relativa a los certificados exigidos en los 
procedimientos nacionales en la base de datos e -CERTIS.  
 
47. ¿Cuál ha sido el grado de adhesión, hasta el momento, de los Estados miembros a la 
normativa mencio nada?  
 
EU reply:  The Directive 2014/55/EU on electronic invoicing in public procurement applies to 
electronic invoices issued as a result of the performance of contracts to which Directive 
2009/81/EC, Directive 2014/23/EU, Directive 2014/24/EU or Directive  2014/25/EU applies. The 
Directive introduces a 'European Standard' for e -invoicing in response to the many e -invoice 
formats used across the EU.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 134 - 
 
  The Directive was signed on 16 April 2014 and came into force on the twentieth day following that 
of its publ ication in the Official Journal of the EU. The European Standard is due to be published in 
September 2017. In line with Article 11 of the Directive, EU Member States shall adopt, publish 
and apply the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessa ry to comply with this 
Directive 18 month after the publication of the standard. They shall forthwith communicate the 
text of those measures to the Commission.  
 
On the other hand, e -certis is a mapping tool used to identify and compare certificates requested 
in public procurement procedures across the EU. E -certis is also integrated with the European 
Single Procurement Document (ESPD), a self -declaration form used  in public procurement 
procedures by public buyers and businesses in the EU, introduced by the 2014 EU Public 
Procurement Directives and implemented starting 2016. Before the introduction of the ESPD, 
companies were required to submit various documents to prove that they fulfil the exclusion and 
selection criteria of a tender, for example have paid taxes and have not been convicted of criminal 
activity. With the introduction of the ESPD, companies are able to meet these obligations with a 
single ESPD self -declaration form. The actual documents will only have to be provided by the 
winner of the tender.  
 
3.3.8.2 Propiedad industrial  
3.3.8.2.5 Indicaciones geográficas  
3.3.8.2.5.2 Productos no agrícolas  
El Informe menciona en su párrafo 3.315 que la Comisión Europea sigue explorando la posibilidad 
de ampliar la protección de las indicaciones geográficas a los productos no agrícolas en toda la UE. 
Agrega que en su Comunicación "Mejorar el mercado único", d e 28 de octubre de 2015, se 
comprometió a impulsar el trabajo sobre el modo de aprovechar al máximo los conocimientos 
técnicos europeos tradicionales.  
 
48. ¿Tiene previsto la UE presentar durante el próximo año una propuesta legislativa 
destinada a establ ecer un sistema europeo único de protección de las indicaciones 
geográficas para los productos no agrícolas?  
 
EU reply: The work of the Commission on geographical indication protection at EU level for non -
agricultural products is still in its preparatory a nd analytical phase.  
 
49. ¿De no ser el caso, cuales son los próximos pasos que la UE  tiene previsto realizar en 
relación con esta cuestión?  
 
EU reply: The Commission is currently finalising an Inception Impact Assessment which describes 
the different poss ible approaches to protect geographical indications for non -agricultural 
products.  Once it is published, the Commission will proceed to an in -depth impact assessment, and 
decide on next steps, including a possible proposal which may address the issue of pr otection at 
EU level of geographical indications for non -agricultural products originating from third countries.  
 
4 POLITICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES  
4.1. Agricultura  
4.1.2. Políticas agrícolas  
4.1.2.2 Subvenciones a la exportación  
 
En el párrafo 4.39, se indica que la UE no ha otorgado subvenciones a la exportación desde Julio 
de 2013. En él mismo párrafo se explica que el Reglamento (UE) 1308/2013 prevé la concesión de 
restituciones a la exportación  en situaciones excepcionales.  
 
50. ¿Qué criterio util iza la UE para determinar el grado de excepcionalidad que amerita 
la concesión de restituciones a la exportación? ¿Podrían indicar ejemplos concretos de 
este tipo de concesión en el periodo bajo examen?  
 
EU reply:  The relevant EU legislation (Article 196(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013) also 
provides explicitly that export subsidies can only be used within the limits resulting from 
international agreements, which includes the Nairobi Decision. Therefore, the EU is bound by the 
commitments of the Nairobi Decision on export subsidies. There are no such examples as the EU 
has indeed granted no export subsidies since July 2013.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 135 - 
 
  4.1.2.3. Acceso a los mercados  
La Argentina desearía destacar que  varias solicitudes de registro de Expresiones Tradicionales 
Garantizadas (ETG) para vinos, entre ellos, una solicitud de la Argentina, se encuentran 
paralizadas hace numerosos años por parte de la Comisión Europea, con el correspondiente 
perjuicio económico que esto ocasiona a los productores que no pueden utilizar dichas ETG. En el 
caso de la solicitud argentina, el dossier se encuentra paralizado desde marzo de 2012, habiendo 
concluido toda la etapa de evaluación técnica.  
 
51. ¿Podría indicar la UE cuál es la justificación leg al de la Comisión Europea para no 
actuar, a pesar de los numerosos reclamos planteados por los Miembros afectados?  
 
EU reply: An internal assessment on traditional terms has been carried out within the EU with 
stakeholders and experts from the Member Stat es, in accordance with Article 114(3) of Regulation 
(EU) No 1308/2013, in view of simplifying EU rules on traditional terms.  
 
The EU will continue to make all possible and necessary efforts to simplify its current policy on 
protection of traditional terms and their indication on the labels of wines, taking into account inter 
alia trade partners' concerns. This simplification exercise goes beyond the current recast of the 
wine labelling regulation, which mainly concerns the simplification of the procedures f or the 
registration of new traditional terms.  
 
The final result of this complex simplification exercise will be instrumental for the treatment of 
pending applications.  
 
52. Desde hace más de tres años que la UE viene anunciando que está en un proceso de 
revisión el uso de los términos tradicionales a los fines de la simplificación. ¿Podría la UE 
indicar cuándo se publicará la propuesta de reforma del Reglamento 607/2009?  
 
EU reply:  The recast of EU secondary legislation on wine labelling and traditional te rms is still 
under consideration in the context of the complex legal changes necessary following the adoption 
of the EU Lisbon Treaty. Therefore, precise deadlines cannot be provided at this stage.  
 
53. Durante este proceso de revisión, la UE puede afirmar  si el Capítulo III “Términos 
Tradicionales” del Reglamento 607/2009 ha seguido aplicándose o de facto ha perdido 
su vigencia? Puede mencionar ejemplos de la aplicación del Capítulo III?  
 
EU reply:  Pending the completion of the process referred in the previous question, Regulation 
(EC) No . 607/2009 continues to apply.  
 
4.3. Servicios  
4.3.4 Servicios de transporte  
4.3.4.1 Servicios de transporte marítimo y servicios portuarios  
 
En el párrafo 4.145 se menciona que se aplicará el principio de libertad de suministro de servicios 
a los servicios portuarios, sin embargo, las entidades gestoras de un puerto podrán imponer 
requisitos mínimos a los proveedores de determinados servicios p ortuarios.  
 
54. ¿Existen criterios estipulados para determinar los requisitos mínimos exigibles? 
¿Qué mecanismos de acceso a la información están previstos sobre tales requisitos?  
 
EU reply:  As specified in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2017/352, a port managing body or a 
competent authority can decide to impose minimum requirements to a provider of port services 
related to the professional qualification, the financial capacity, the equipment or the good repute of 
the provider of port services, the compliance with applicable rules in the field of safety, security, 
environment, social or labour law, or the availability of the port services. These minimum 
requirements must be non -discriminatory a nd must be published by the individual ports or EU 
Member States by 24 March 2019 or three months before the date from which the requirements 
are to apply in the case of new requirements.  
 
4.3.4.2 Servicios de transporte aéreo  
En el párrafo 4.167 se hace r eferencia a una evaluación que llevará adelante la Comisión para 
determinar en qué medida el Reglamento No 1008/2008 sobre normas comunes para la WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 136 - 
 
  explotación de servicios comunes en la Comunidad y sus disposiciones sobre titularidad y control 
han contribui do a crear un mercado de aviación interno eficaz, aumentar el nivel de seguridad y a 
mejorar la protección de los consumidores.  
 
55. ¿En qué consiste dicha evaluación? ¿Qué impacto puede tener sobre aquellas 
empresas extranjeras que sean poseedoras de cert ificados de operadores aéreos en 
conformidad con la reglamentación vigente?  
 
EU reply:  The future evaluation is foreseen to review the application of the provisions contained in 
Regulation 1008/2008 and to assess whether any updates would be needed taking  into account 
the development of the EU aviation market.  
The evaluation will serve as an evidence and data collection exercise. It is foreseen to focus on the 
internal market. The evaluation itself will therefore have no impacts on foreign carriers. Until  the 
evaluation is complete, it is too early to anticipate any legislative changes.  
 
II.- INFORME DE LA UNIÓN EUROPEA (WT/TPR/G/357)  
3 EVOLUCIÓN DEL MERCADO INTERIOR: LA ESTRATEGIA PARA EL MERCADO ÚNICO  
Nuevas medidas para una fiscalidad justa  
 
En su Informe la UE, en los párrafos 3.37 y sucesivos, hace referencia al paquete de lucha contra 
la elusión fiscal que adoptó la Comisión Europea, en el que se definen nuevas normas para 
coordinar una respuesta a nivel de toda la UE contra la elusión fisc al de las empresas. En particular 
en el párrafo 3.38 se destaca entre las características principales de las nuevas propuestas la 
referida al nuevo procedimiento de la UE para incluir en listas a terceros países que se niegan a 
actuar lealmente agregando q ue la primera lista se publicará a finales de 2017. Al respecto, según 
dan cuenta los comunicados de prensa de la Comisión Europea, este proceso ya habría comenzado 
y 139 jurisdicciones fiscales ya habrían sido evaluadas de forma preliminar mediante la utilización 
de cuatro indicadores (que a su vez estaría n formados por 165 variables). A su vez, como 
resultado de este primer análisis, la CE habría formado dos grupos. El primero está formado por 
81 jurisdicciones, que en al menos uno de los indicadores no habrían tenido un puntaje que refleje 
riesgo de favor ecer la elusión fiscal. El segundo grupo está formado por 58 jurisdicciones que 
tuvieron un puntaje alto en todos los indicadores.  
 
56. ¿Podría la UE confirmar si las jurisdicciones fiscales que integran el grupo que en al 
menos uno de los indicadores no tuvieron puntaje alto ya no integrarán el listado de 
jurisdicciones fiscales no cooperantes que se publicará a fines de 2017?  
 
57. ¿Podría la UE especificar cómo se componen los Grupos de Indicadores con los que 
se evalúa a las distintas jurisdicciones fiscales a fin de categorizarlas en uno u otro 
grupo?  
 
En su Comunicación sobre Estrategia Exterior para una Imposición Efectiva (COM (2016) 24 final), 
la CE afirma que la UE trata de predicar con el ejemplo en el ámbito de la buena gobernanza fiscal.  
 
EU replies to questions 56 and 57:  The scoreboard of indicators published by the Commission 
in September 2016 aimed at assisting Member States in the selection of jurisdictions which are 
economically relevant for the purpose of the EU list. This led the Member States to decide in 
January this year on the jurisdictions which should be screened in the second stage of the EU 
listing process. The jurisdictions selected were subsequently informed by a letter of the Chair of 
the Code of Conduct Group. Most of the selected jurisdictions have indicated their willingness to 
cooperate with the EU on this process. The ongoing screening phase is carrie d out by Member 
States' experts with the technical assistance of the Commission.  
 
58. ¿Podría la UE especificar qué medidas adoptará para cumplir su objetivo de 
promover internacionalmente la buena gobernanza fiscal?  
 
EU reply : The EU has shown a sincere commitment to implementing the BEPS actions and 
international transparency standards. Over the past 3 years, the Commission presented 5 
packages of corporate tax reforms and Member States have agreed ambitious new tax legislation 
in record time.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 137 - 
 
  As a resu lt, all of the OECD BEPS measures are now covered at EU level through hard or soft law. 
For example, we now have binding EU legislation for the automatic exchange of information on tax 
rulings and multinationals' country -by-country reports, a new Anti Tax Avoidance Directive which 
implements key BEPS anti abuse measures and a binding new Double Taxation Dispute Resolution 
Mechanism. Since January 2017, EU Member States have also been automatically exchanging 
financial account information with each other, in  line with the international Common Reporting 
Standard. The EU corporate tax agenda is not limited to the implementation of BEPS, and we have 
gone further in a number of areas where necessary to protect the Single Market and Member 
States' tax bases. In Oc tober 2016, the Commission presented its most ambitious package of 
corporate tax reforms, which included the re -launch of the CCCTB.  
 
As aggressive tax planning is a global issue, the Commission External Strategy for Fair Taxation of 
January 2016 identifie d key measures to help the EU to promote tax good governance globally, 
tackle external base erosion threats and ensure a level playing field for all businesses. Such 
Strategy proposed actions to (1) enhance tax good governance cooperation through agreement s 
with third countries; (2) assist developing countries in meeting tax good governance standards; 
(3) develop an EU process for assessing and listing third countries; and (4) reinforce the link 
between EU funds and tax good governance.  
 
59. ¿Podría la UE e xplicar qué medidas planea adoptar para que las políticas fiscales de 
los Estados miembros no tengan repercusiones negativas en terceros países?  
 
EU reply:  In its External Strategy for Fair Taxation of January 2016, the Commission underlined 
that domestic tax policies should not have spill -over effects on third countries. In particular, it 
stressed the need to apply a balanced approach to negotiating bilateral tax treaties with low -
income countries.  
 
In this context, the Commission has already started worki ng with Member States to try to prevent 
negative spill -overs on developing countries arising from bilateral tax treaties. The objective is to 
encourage Member States to review their policy in this area.  
 
60. ¿Podría indicar que sanciones considera aplicar  a aquellos Estados que cooperen con 
los paraísos fiscales?  
 
EU reply:  The issue of counter -measures against operators involved in particular structures 
involving non -cooperative jurisdictions is  an issue currently under discussion at EU level. The EU is 
not in a position to give more information at this stage as it is work in progress.  
 
Medidas de la UE para combatir el cambio climático  
 
En el párrafo 3.49. la  UE hace referencia a los objetivos fijados en la COP 21 y en la Agenda 2030. 
En particular, en el párrafo 3.50 la UE señala que “[..] El marco de acción de la UE sobre el clima y 
la energía incluye para el año 2030, un objetivo de reducción de las emisione s de gases de efecto 
invernadero del 40%, por lo menos, por debajo de los niveles de 1990.[..]”  
 
Al respecto, en noviembre de 2016, la Comisión Europea presentó la propuesta de nueva Directiva 
de Energías Renovables (RED II) para 2021 -2030, fijando un lím ite en la contribución de los 
biocombustibles a base de cultivos alimentarios del 3,8% en 2030 y otorgando a los Estados 
miembros la posibilidad de establecer un límite inferior y distinguir entre diferentes tipos de 
biocombustibles, teniendo en cuenta el cambio indirecto en el uso de la tierra (ILUC).  
 
61. ¿Podría la UE señalar cuál es el nuevo fundamento científico que hace que la RED I y 
la RED II tengan un tratamiento tan distinto para los biocombustibles denominados de 
primera generación de todo el mun do? 
 
EU reply:  The European Commission's view is that crop -based biofuels have a limited role in 
decarbonising the transport sector due to high risk of negative impact on indirect land use change 
related emissions .16 
                                                
16 Indirect land use change occurs when the cultivation of crops for biofuels displaces traditional 
production of crops for food and feed purposes. This additional demand increases the pressure on land and can 
lead to the extension of agricultural lan d into sensitive areas such as forests, wetlands and peat land causing 
massive greenhouse gas emissions eliminating the direct emission savings of crop -based biofuels . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 138 - 
 
  In recent years, a large number of quantitative studies on ILUC greenhouse gas emission impacts 
associated with production of biofuels worldwide have been carried out by applying different 
methodologies (the Commission is aware of more than 90 quantitative studies). In general, 
findings of the most recent and best available research confirm that risks related to emissions 
caused by (ILUC) through the use of food crop based biofuels – so called first generation biofuels - 
and subsequent displacement of crop production can be significant.  
 
Advanced biofuels produced from wastes and residues, lingo -cellulosic and non -food cellulosic 
material (so called second and third generation biofuels) are associated by the available research 
with the lowest risk, in terms of both quantified ILUC emission ri sks and research uncertainties.  
 
62. Conforme señalan los distintos sectores económicos de la UE, este importante 
cambio de dirección en pocos años, muy probablemente no sea una buena señal para los 
inversores en energías renovables. ¿La UE estima que los biocombustibles avanzados 
podrán sustituir a la caída de los biocombustibles convencionales en el transporte?  
 
EU reply:  The EU industry, investors, associations and other stakeholders, during the public 
consultations carried out by the European Commission  in 2015 -2016, identified the uncertainty 
about the policy framework for biofuels after 2020 as the main barrier to investments in the 
biofuels sector.  
 
The European Commission is confident that the prosed measures supporting the development of 
advanced bi ofuels produced from wastes and residues, lingo -cellulosic and non -food cellulosic 
material as well as the increased use of renewable electricity and fossil waste based transport fuels 
will be able to compensate for the decline of conventional crop based b iofuels. The Commission's 
proposal addresses the existing investment barriers and accelerating the deployment of innovative 
technologies while providing the conventional biofuel sector with sufficient time to adjust.  
 
63. ¿Por lo tanto, la propuesta de RED  II no tendrá un impacto negativo para los 
objetivos 2030 de la UE en términos de clima y energía?  
 
EU reply:  The Commission's legislative proposal for the recast of the Renewable Energy Directive 
was adopted on 30 November 2016 as a part of an integrated  EU 2030 climate and energy policy. 
This proposal sets out an enabling framework for Member States to unlock their renewables' 
potential and reach, collectively, a share of at least 27 % in the final energy consumption by 2030 
in a cost effective way. The Commission does not expect negative impact of this proposal on 
achieving the EU 2030 goals for Climate and Energy.  
 
64. ¿Cuál es el fundamento por el cual, a través de la propuesta de RED II, se le otorga a 
los Estados miembros de la UE, discrecionalidad para imponer umbrales inferiores al 
3,8% para los biocombustibles de primera generación de todo el mundo?  
 
EU reply:  The proposal of the recast of the Renewable Energy Directive sets out an enabling 
framework for Member States to unlock their renewables' p otential and reach, collectively, a share 
of at least 27 % in the final energy consumption by 2030 in a cost effective way.  
 
As the Commission considers that crop -based biofuels have a limited role in decarbonising the 
transport sector due to high risk of their negative impact on indirect land use change related 
emissions the Commission proposed that the share of crop -based biofuels that could account 
towards the EU renewable energy target would gradually decrease to 3.8% on transport energy 
consumption in 2030.  
 
This limitation neither restricts the amount of fuels that can be produced or consumed in the 
Member States nor the right of Member States to take decision, based on their policy priorities 
whether to promote conventional food and feed crop based bi ofuel.  
 
65. ¿No estima la UE que esta propuesta de RED II podría terminar generando un 
“efecto sustitución” en el uso de los combustibles en el transporte de los países de la 
UE, entre por un lado, una menor utilización de energías renovables y por otro la do, más 
uso de combustibles convencionales?  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 139 - 
 
  EU reply:  The Commission's legislative proposal for the recast of the Renewable Energy Directive 
was adopted as a part of an integrated EU 2030 climate and energy policy. The Commission is 
convinced that the pr oposed measures, including in transport sector will ensure reaching the policy 
objectives of the EU policy.  
 
The actual fuel mix will depend not only on the EU policy and the result of the negotiations of Co -
legislators in the Council of the European Union  and the European Parliament, but also on national 
policy choices of Member States and the competitiveness of conventional biofuels compared to 
fossil fuels. Still, the Commission considers that the proposed measures would ensure that the 
consumption of co nventional fossil fuels will decrease by 2030 compared to today.  
 
  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 140 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTI ONS FROM BRAZIL  
 
I. REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT  
Page 33 (Box 2.1 Objectives of the updated trade and investment policy strategy)  
 
One of EU`s updated trade and investment  policy objectives is achieving "a more effective policy 
that tackles new economic realities and lives up to its promises by setting up an enhanced 
partnership with the member States, the European Parliament and stakeholders to better 
implement trade and i nvestment agreements".  
 
Question:  
1. Could the EU share the member States´ main difficulties or shortfalls on the implementation of 
trade and investment agreements?  
 
EU reply:  The European Commission is stepping up its efforts to ensure that the EU Free Tr ade 
Agreements are effectively implemented and function well. As part of these efforts, the 
Commission is intensifying its cooperation with the EU Member States both in detecting problems 
in implementation and addressing them jointly with the FTA partner c ountry.   
 
Page 33 (Box 2.1 Objectives of the updated trade and investment policy strategy)  
One of EU`s updated trade and investment policy objectives is achieving "a more transparent 
trade and investment policy by extending the TTIP transparency initiative  to all the EU's trade 
negotiations".  
 
Question:  
2. Could the EU provide details on what the TTIP transparency initiative is and how it works?  
 
EU reply:  The European Commission took a  commitment on November 2014 to inject more 
transparency into the TTIP n egotiations ( http://europa.eu/rapid/press -release_IP -14-
2131_en.htm ). 
Within the TTIP transparency initiative the European Commission undertook to:  
 make public more TTIP initial EU nego tiating texts that the Commission shares with 
Member Sta tes and the European Parliament  
 (http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1230 ); 
 provide access to the EU’s TTIP negotiating texts to all Members of the European 
Parliament (MEPs), not just a select few, by extending access to EU restricted documents 
in a 'reading room' to those MEPs who had no access to such restricted documents so far;  
 classify fewer TTIP negotiati ng documents as 'EU restricted', thus making them more 
easily accessible to MEPs outside the reading room;  
 publish and update on a regular basis a public list of TTIP documents shared with the 
European Parliament and the Council  
 (http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1230 ); 
 publish information about who meets its political leaders and senior officials  
 hold meetings with stakeholders in addition to its existing Civil Socie ty Dialogue, also 
outside Brussels  
 publish easy -to-understand factsheets on the details of the negotiations in all official EU 
languages.  
 publish the round reports which summarize progress of the negotiations after each round 
of talks.  
 Engage on social media to address the questions and concerns of the citizens  
 Encourage and cooperate with EU governments to engage with national parliaments and 
other national stakeholders (e.g. frequent visits of the Commissioner and senior officials to 
national parliaments and other national events)  
Page 33 (Box 2.1 Objectives of the updated trade and investment policy strategy)  
One of EU`s updated trade and investment policy objectives is achieving "a trade and investment 
policy based on values by respo nding to the public's expectations on regulations and investment: a WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 141 - 
 
  clear pledge on safeguarding EU regulatory protection and a strategy to lead the reform of 
investment policy globally".  
 
Question:  
3. Could the EU elaborate on the public's expectations on  safeguarding regulatory protection?  
 
EU reply:  The objective of the EU is that under the agreements it negotiates the Parties retain 
their right to regulate in order to achieve their legitimate public policy objectives in areas such as 
the protection of h uman health or safety, protection of animal or plant life or health, consumer 
protection, protection of the environment, etc, based on a high level of protection, while facilitating 
trade and investment. In this regard, the EU is also committed to safeguar ding that those 
agreements do not, in any way, reduce the level of protection of its citizens.  
 
Page 33 (Para 2.16)  
"A significant challenge for the EU's reformed investment policy is to ensure dispute settlement 
procedures are fair and independent; this c hallenge is being addressed through the 
implementation of a new approach of clarifying the substance of investment protection standards 
and reforms with respect to the traditional investor -state dispute settlement system, as reflected 
in recently concluded  FTAs with Canada and Viet Nam."  
 
Question:  
4. Could the EU clarify which aspects of the traditional investor -state dispute settlement system 
were considered problematic and how they were addressed in the aforementioned FTAs?  
 
EU reply: The traditional for m of investor -state dispute resolution suffers from a fundamental lack 
of trust in the EU. The aim is to establish a new system built upon the elements that make citizens 
trust domestic or international courts. The Investment Court System would thus be bui lt upon the 
core principles found in most domestic courts and international tribunals, such as permanency, the 
possibility to appeal, and random allocation of cases.  
 
Page 46 (Item 3.1.3 Rules of origin)  
Modifications were made to EU`s preferential and non-preferential rules of origin.  
 
Question:  
5. In regard to countries with which the EU has signed preferential trade agreements, which rules 
of origin are applied to public procurements?  
 
EU reply:  The provision on rules of origin in the public procurement chapter of EU FTAs replicates 
the GPA text, Article IV para. 5. Therefore, the rules of origin that apply, for public procurement 
purposes, are the rules that apply in the "normal course of trade" . Conversely, preferential rules of 
origin would apply under the EU FTA to originating goods of the other party for the purpose of 
granting of preferences.  
 
Page 58 (Item 3.1.7 Anti -dumping, countervailing, and safeguard measures)  
 
Questions:  
6. Could the  EU indicate how many companies requested market economy treatment under trade 
remedies investigations and to how many companies this treatment was granted?  
 
EU reply:  From 2000 up to the end of 2016, the EU received 450 requests for market economy 
treatme nt, of which 97 were granted.  
 
7. Could the EU inform the country of origin of those companies?  
 
EU reply:  The companies concerned by those market economy requests were from China, 
Vietnam, Kazakhstan and Russia.  
 
Page 59 (Para 3.59)  
Question:  
8. The Eur opean Parliament is currently discussing a proposal of the European Commission 
intended to modify the EU legislation on antidumping and countervailing measures. The proposed 
revised legislation eliminates the existing list of non -market economies for purpo ses of anti -WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 142 - 
 
  dumping investigation, but allows the EU investigating authority to calculate the normal value of a 
product on the basis of prices and costs of a third country, whenever the imports under 
investigation are originated from countries with "signif icant distortions". Regarding this proposed 
revised legislation, could the EU:  
 
- Provide information on its current status and on the expected timeframe for its adoption?  
 
EU reply:  The Commission proposal is subject to the ordinary legislative procedur e which means 
the proposal is being examined by the Council and the European Parliament. The EU cannot predict 
the outcome of this process.  
 
- Provide clarification on the criteria that will be used by the EU to assess if a market is "to a 
significant exte nt served by enterprises which operate under the ownership, control or policy 
supervision or guidance of the authorities of the exporting country" or if there is a "state presence 
in firms allowing the state to interfere with respect to prices or costs"?  
 
EU reply:  The Commission will assess to what extent a market is comprised of companies that, 
either owing to their ownership and/or management and/or policy objectives are setting their 
prices and costs by reference to State interference and not market co nditions.  
 
Page 59 (Para 3.59)  
More recently, in November 2016, the European Commission adopted a proposal to the European 
Parliament and the Council to amend both the Anti -dumping and Anti -Subsidy Regulations.  
 
Questions:  
9. Regarding the determination of normal value in the presence of market distortions, the proposal 
describes the circumstances in which the domestic prices and costs would not provide a reasonable 
basis to determine the normal value, and, for that reason, the normal value would be const ructed.  
 
a)Could the EU explain how the disregard of the domestic prices and costs in those circumstances 
would be compatible with recent decision of the Dispute Settlement Body in the European Union - 
Anti-dumping Measures on Biodiesel From Argentina (DS4 73), in which the Appellate Body decided 
that Article 2.2.1.1, which determines that costs shall normally be calculated on the basis of 
records kept by the exporter or producer under investigation, does not involve an examination of 
the `reasonableness` of  the reported costs themselves, but merely an examination of the 
accuracy and reliability of the costs in relation to what was actually incurred by the 
producer/exporter?  
 
b)As for the sources that may be used in constructing the normal value, such as int ernational 
prices and costs or costs of production and sale in an appropriate representative country, could the 
EU describe how those sources would be adapted to arrive at the "cost of production in the country 
of origin", in accordance with recent decisio n in the case European Union - Anti-dumping Measures 
on Biodiesel From Argentina (DS473), in which the Appellate Body concluded that, when relying on 
any out -of-country information to determine the "cost of production in the country of origin", an 
investig ating authority has to ensure that such information is used to arrive at the "cost of 
production in the country of origin", and this may require the investigating authority to adapt that 
information?  
 
EU reply:  The EU is confident that the proposal is ful ly consistent with relevant WTO rules and 
jurisprudence. As to the methodology that would be followed to arrive at meaningful costs in case 
of significant market distortions, this will depend not only on the final wording of the legislative 
text after adop tion by the European co -legislators but also on the specific factual circumstances of 
each given case. It is hence not possible to give an abstract reply to that question.  
 
10. Regarding subsidies revealed in the course of the investigation, would the addi tional 
consultations offered by the EU Commission follow the same procedures and time limits as the 
initial consultations? In addition, would the country of origin and/or export have the opportunity to 
address the specificity of the subsidy and would the c ompany investigated be able to present 
elements regarding the benefit conferred?  
 
EU reply:  The EU will respect the procedural rights of parties, in accordance with the consultations 
provisions of the ASCM, regarding any subsidies revealed in the context o f an investigation. In this WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 143 - 
 
  context, the parties concerned would have the opportunity to address the specificity of the subsidy 
in question as well as any benefit granted.  
 
Page 59 (Para 3.60)  
The Commission investigates allegations of dumping or subsidie s based on a complaint from 
producers, but it may also self -initiate investigations.  
 
Anti-dumping and anti -subsidy investigations determine "whether there has been dumping or 
subsidization, whether material injury has occurred, whether there is a link bet ween the 
dumping/subsidy and the injury, and whether the imposition of measures is in the EU's interest".  
 
Questions:  
11. Could the EU list the self -initiated investigations and/or indicate how many investigations it 
self-initiated in the period under revi ew and how this compares to the total number of initiated 
investigations?  
 
EU reply:  It is exceptional that the Commission initiates anti -dumping/anti -subsidy cases by itself. 
Since 2012, of the 196 anti -dumping cases initiated by the EU (new cases and re views) 23 were 
initiated ex officio (just under 12%): 12 were re -openings to implement judicial decisions, 7 were 
interim reviews and 4 were anti -circumvention investigations.  Since 2012, of the 35 anti -subsidy 
cases initiated by the EU (new cases and revi ews) 2 were initiated ex officio, both were 7 interim 
reviews.  
 
12. Public Interest/EU´s interest: Could the EU provide information on the number (absolute and 
relative to the number of investigations) of contingency measures that were not applied or were 
applied in a different amount due to Public Interest/EU´s interest reasons?  
 
EU reply:  In the period under review the only cases where Union interest resulted in either a 
termination or modification of the form of t he measures were:  
 
 In February 2013, the  EU terminated an investigation into white phosphorus from 
Kazakhstan on Union interest grounds (Commission Decision of 13 February 2013).  
 In May 2013, the Council rejected the imposition of measures on PET from India on the 
basis of lack of Union interest as well as lack of injury (Official Journal L136/12 of 
23/05/2015).  
 In imposing measures on grain oriented electrical steel in October 2015 (Official Journal 
L284/109 of 30/10/2015), the EU opted for measures in the form of a minimum import 
price for reasons relating to Union interest. There have been no cases where measures 
were applied in a different amount owing to Union interest.  
 
13. Could the member clarify how the EU's interest in the imposition of measures is assessed and 
if enterprises can  participate in this assessment?  
 
EU reply:  Article 21 of the EU's Basic anti -dumping regulation and Article 31 of the EU's basic 
anti-subsidy regulation set out the applicable provisions and procedures concerning the EU's Union 
interest test in anti -dump ing and anti -subsidy investigations. The provisions in both regulations 
are identical.  
 
The complainants, importers and their representative associations, representative users and 
representative consumer organisations may provide views and information rela ting to the Union 
interest assessment provided they meet the requirements set out in the basic regulations.  
 
In practice the economic operators located in the EU that could be affected by the outcome of the 
AD or AS investigation can provide information to  the Commission explaining how they would be 
affected in the context of the Union interest test. The European Commission examines the 
information provided in order to project how the imposition or non -imposition of measures would 
impact on the economic ope rators in question. The Union interest analysis is not a cost/benefit 
analysis and the imposition of measures is not automatically against the Union interest if such 
measures have negative consequences for importers, trader s, users and/or consumers. In thi s 
context the assessment examines, for example, whether there would be a disproportionate 
negative impact on downstream users compared to a positive effect for Union producers.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 144 - 
 
  Page 60 (Chart 3.2 Overview of anti -dumping and anti -subsidy activity, 2013 -16) 
A great number of anti -dumping and anti -subsidy measures were submitted to judicial reviews 
between 2013 and 2016.  
 
Questions:  
14. Could the EU clarify which were the main reasons that led to these judicial reviews?  
 
EU reply:  The legislative acts of t he EU institutions in the sphere of measures to protect trade are 
subject to judicial review by the EU Courts for their legality or validity.  
 
These legislative acts are notably the acts by which the EU imposes measures, amends, maintains 
or terminates mea sures following anti -dumping or anti -subsidy investigations; other examples of 
reviewable acts are also the initiation of sunset reviews, the outcome of refund investigations or 
any other trade defence investigation carried out under the EU law. The Courts  may review the 
institutions' assessment of any aspect of the investigations, including procedural matters. The 
reviewability of a specific EU act is determined by the Courts in the concrete case.  
 
With regard to the grounds for the judicial review, the E U Courts' review of the institutions’ 
assessments consists in verifying whether the relevant procedural or substantive rules have been 
complied with, including whether the facts on which the disputed decision is based have been 
accurately stated, and wheth er there has been a manifest error of appraisal or a misuse of powers. 
This is so because in the realm of measures to protect trade the EU institutions enjoy a wide 
discretion by reason of the complexity of the economic, political and legal situations whic h they 
have to examine. The reasons that lead to judicial review are therefore strictly case specific. 
During the referenced period, the main reasons can be found to be relating to any aspect of the 
investigations.  
 
15. Could the EU provide statistics on t he results of these judicial reviews?  
 
EU reply:  Court cases lodged in 2014, 2015 and 2016 are still pending. Therefore, no statistics 
are currently available.  
 
Page 84 (Para 3.166)  
The two largest areas of expenditure out of the EU budget in 2013 and 2014 were agriculture and 
structural operations, comprising the European Agriculture Guarantee Fund, the European 
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, and the Cohesion Fund.  
 
Questions:  
16. Could the EU clarify the requirements for regions or entities to benefit from the 
aforementioned funds?  
 
EU reply:  Cohesion policy targets all regions and cities in order to support job creation, 
innovation, business competitiveness, economic growth, sustainable development, and improve 
citizens’ quality of life.  Financial resources for the cohesion policy Funds (covering the European 
Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund) are available for all 
regions in Europe. Nevertheless, the intensity of support is different across regions, d epending on 
their level of development. For this purpose, regions are categorised as "less developed regions" 
(per capita GDP less than 75% of the average GDP of the EU), "transition regions " (per capita 
GDP between 75% and 90% of the EU average) and "mor e developed regions" (per capita GDP 
above 90% of the EU average). As indicated in the report, the Cohesion Fund supports Member 
States whose per capita GNI is less than 90% of the EU average. Most funding is concentrated on 
less developed Member States an d regions in order to help them catch up and to reduce disparities 
within the EU.  
 
Cohesion policy is implemented through multiannual programmes covering the 7 -year budgetary 
period. These can be national or regional, and can focus on several topics or can  be targeted at 
one or two themes only (e.g. research and innovation, ICT, SME support, low carbon economy, 
climate change adaptation, environment, transport, employment, social inclusion, education or 
administrative capacity). The programmes and their str uctures, as well as the amount of funding 
for each programme and the rules for preparing, implementing and controlling them are 
determined in advance by the 28 Member States in partnership with the Commission for the entire 
budgetary period.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 145 - 
 
  More informati on about the different programmes implemented under the current funding period 
can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index_en.cfm . 
 
Under the Common Agriculture Policy, The EU’s  rural development policy helps the rural areas of 
the EU to meet the wide range of economic, environmental and social challenges of the 21st 
century. Frequently called "the second pillar” of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), it 
complements the system of direct payments to farmers and measures to manage agricultural 
markets (the so -called "first pillar"). Rural Development policy shares a number of objectives with 
other European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF).  
 
Rural development programmes defin e multi -annual strategies in selected programming areas, 
based on a thorough analysis of their socio -economic and environmental needs. The strategies 
implemented under each programme aim at meeting EU priorities for rural development through a 
number of se lected measures. The programmes also lay down the conditions that potential 
beneficiaries have to meet if they are to benefit from rural development funds.  
 
Member States or regions design their own multi -annual programmes on the basis of the EU legal 
framework set for the period 2014 -2020. The new structure based on EU priorities is to provide 
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, ide ntified in the analysis of the 
situation. On the other hand, the list of priorities also ensures that the programmes contribute to 
the overall EU priorities for rural development as well as the overall goals for EU Structural Funds.  
 
17. Could the EU list the main regions, sectors and entities that benefited from the aforementioned 
funds?  
 
EU reply:  The three cohesion policy Funds referred to above have been grouped together with the 
EAFRD and the EMFF to form the "European Structural and Investment Funds"  in the 2014 -2020 
funding period. Detailed data about the breakdown on the use of the Funds within the Eu can be 
found in our open data platform which is available here:  
https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/  
 
In addition, lists of beneficiaries of cohesion policy are available here: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/atlas/beneficiaries/  
 
Under the Common Agriculture Policy, and un der the rural development policy, Member States 
may opt for national programming and/or regional programming, depending on their national 
public law. For instance, during 2014 -20, France has established under EAFRD 3 national and 27 
regional programmes, Ge rmany 3 national and 13 regional programmes, Italy 2 national and 23 
regional programmes, Spain 1 national and 17 regional programmes and Portugal 3 regional 
programmes. All EU Member States and regions are covered by national and/or regional 
programmes wi thout exception. During the 2014 -2020 EAFRD programming, the 28 Member 
States established in total 118 rural development programmes.  
 
Member States and/or regions may direct support to holdings for various types of activities on a 
multi-sectoral basis. All  types of agricultural and forestry sectors are eligible for EAFRD support 
under the condition that the Member States or the regions have programmed the relevant 
measures on a multi -sectoral basis.  
 
The beneficiaries and the entities that are benefiting du ring 2014 -20 from EAFRD support also 
vary. They can be private entities, such as independent farmers; SMEs, producer groups or 
producer organisations. They can also be public entities, such as national authorities, regional 
authorities, municipalities or e ven Local Actions Groups and NGOs. A sine qua non condition is, 
however, to be eligible for such support under a 2014 -2020 Rural Development Programme.  
 
Page 87 (Para 3.180)  
The Secretariat pointed out the provision of non -crisis state aid. The Secretariat  also pointed out 
that around 85% of state aid to industry and services was earmarked for horizontal objectives of 
common interest, that is, aid that is not granted to specific sectors of the economy.  
 
 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 146 - 
 
  Questions:  
18. Could the EU clarify the requirements  for a region or entities to benefit from the 
aforementioned aids?  
 
EU reply:  In assessing the compatibility of all aid, the European Commission balances its negative 
effects on trade and competition in the common market with its positive effects in terms of a 
contribution to the achievement of well -defined objectives of common interest. Common principles 
applicable to the assessment of compatibility of all aid measures carried out by the Commission 
are: (a) contribution to a well -defined objective of commo n interest; (b) need for State 
intervention; (c) appropriateness of the aid measures; (c) incentive effect; (d) proportionality of 
the aid; (e) avoidance of undue negative effects on competition and trade between EU Member 
States; and (f) transparency of a id.  
 
The information about our State aid Horizontal rules is available at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/horizontal.html . 
 
19. Could the EU clar ify what was considered as "horizontal objectives of common interest?  
 
EU reply:  Horizontal objectives of common interest are objectives of common interest that are not 
sector -specific. Whether a measure contributes to an objective of common interest can b e 
understood either in terms of its contribution to overall welfare and efficiency (does the State aid 
allow to remedy to a market failure) or in terms of equity (i.e. how is welfare distributed).  
 
Page 104 (Para3. 234)  
In 2015, the total general governme nt public procurement expenditure on works, goods and 
services in the EU (excluding utilities) was EUR 2,015.3 billion, or over 13% of GDP.  
 
Questions  
20. Could the EU indicate what percentage of that value was awarded to non -EU countries?  
 
EU reply:  The E U has not yet found a consistent methodology to trace contracts awarded to 
companies from other GPA Parties. In terms of nationality of the winning bidders, the existing data 
covers only direct cross -border procurement and not indirect cross border procure ment (for 
example there are a large number of contracts awarded to suppliers that are subsidiaries of 
foreign companies or agents for foreign suppliers). Therefore, as these data as mentioned above 
do not cover indirect cross border procurement, they will not fully reflect the reality as to import 
penetration rates. The EU remains ready to engage in in -depth discussions with GPA parties to 
determine how to measure market penetration by companies from countries that are Parties to the 
Agreement.  
 
Page 107 (P ara 3.241)  
Procedures of public procurement are subject to minimum time -limits for the submission of 
tenders. However, those time -limits may be reduced. For example, after the publication of a 
contract notice under the open procedure, the minimum time -limit is 35 days but this can be 
reduced to 15 days if a prior information notice has been published.  
 
Question:  
21. Could EU inform the regulations on time -limits changes and clarify which time -limits are 
subject to change, and how are the participants in a public procurement notified about it?  
 
EU reply: Time-limits vary upon the different procedures used for the tender. In addition, time -
limits may be reduced when a prior information notice has been published or in case of urgency. 
Time -limits applicable t o a specific tender are indicated in the contract notices in accordance with 
the minimum time -limits provided in the EU directives. All possible reductions of the minimum 
time-limits for each procedure are indicated in the Directives.  
 
Page 107 (Para 3.24 4) 
A simplified regime applies for contracts with an estimated value of less than EUR750,000 for 
services listed in Annex XIV of the Classical Directive with no procedural rules apart from the 
requirements for advance publication, equal treatment of bidder s, and the announcement of the 
results.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 147 - 
 
  Question:  
22. Could the EU provide more details on the simplified regime and excluded services in Annex XIV 
of the Classical Directive?  
 
EU reply:  For social services, European public procurement rules apply only to  contracts above 
€750 000. The procurement of social, cultural and health services, as well as some others such as 
legal, hospitality, catering and canteen services will be simplified. To take account of the specific 
characteristics of social, health and e ducation services in EU countries, the new public procurement 
rules provide a ‘light touch regime’ with the following simplifications:  
 
 only tenders with a value of above 750 000 € must be published at EU level.  
 rules implementing the corresponding procure ment procedures in EU countries no longer 
have to incorporate EU rules on technical specifications  
 only the obligations related to transparency and publicity have to be respected, namely: ex 
ante (through prior information notice) and (existing) ex post (c ontract award notice) 
publicity.  
 
Page 135 (Para 3.356)  
The European Commission finances and steers several technical cooperation programmes aimed at 
strengthening IPR protection and enforcement in third countries. Future cooperation programmes 
will extend  to the region of Latin America.  
 
Question:  
23. Considering that Argentina and Brazil are listed as strategic IPR target countries for the EU and 
that intellectual property is one of the chapters of the ongoing Mercosur -EU treaty negotiation, 
should MERCOS UR be emphasized as a priority for technical cooperation programmes?  
 
EU reply:  The new IP Key Latin America programme will start in September 2017. The objectives 
of the programme are:  
 
 Prepare and accompany FTA negotiations in the region.  
 Promote European standards in IPR legislation, protection and enforcement and the 
development of best practices.  
 Support the interest of European innovators and right holders trading with or investing in 
Latin America.  
 Increase political and public awareness of the importance of IPR protection.  
 
Specific activities will be decided upon on an annual basis. Argentina and Brazil will be considered 
along with the other countries of Latin America.  
 
Page 169 (Item 4.3.2 E -commerce in the Digital Single Market)  
The Euro pean Commission proposed two legislative packages aimed at improving the regulatory 
regime of e -commerce within the EU.  
 
Questions:  
24. Has the EU negotiated bilateral or plurilateral e -commerce agreements?  
 
EU reply:  The EU has included provisions concern ing e-commerce in bilateral trade agreements, 
for example in the agreements with Korea, Canada, Ukraine and Georgia.  
 
25. If so, could the EU elaborate on the main issues addressed in these agreements?  
 
EU reply:  The main issues addressed in the e -commerce  sections of such agreements relate to 
transparency and cooperation, promoting online trust and confidence, and to waiving customs 
duties on electronic transmissions.  
 
II. REPORT BY THE GOVERNMENT  
Page 16 (Para 4.30)  
The EU is modernizing its traditional a pproach to investment protection and the associated 
investment dispute resolution system, introducing changes to ensure that the right of governments 
to regulate is guaranteed in its bilateral trade and investment agreements and that it replaces the WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 148 - 
 
  curren t private investor -state dispute settlement system by an investment court system, thereby 
improving transparency, accountability, consistency and legitimacy.  
 
Question:  
26. Brazil would like some more clarification on the Investment Court System. What prov isions will 
allow the Court to ensure the right of governments to regulate and improve transparency, 
accountability, consistency, and legitimacy?  
 
EU reply:  In the EU bilateral trade and investment Agreements the so -called "new approach" to 
reforming EU in vestment protection standards has focused on ensuring that the goal of protecting 
and encouraging investment does not compromise the ability of the EU and its Member States to 
continue to pursue public policy objectives. The Agreements contain appropriate provisions that 
preserve the right to regulate in order to achieve legitimate policy objectives.  
 
Secondly, we have defined key concepts like “fair and equitable treatment” and “indirect 
expropriation”, in order to prevent abuse. With "fair and equitable treatment" it is intended to 
remove the discretion available to arbitrators to interpret this standard in a manner which is not 
intended by the Parties to the agreement. We have also given governments the ultimate control 
over the interpretation of the rul es: the EU and its trading partners can issue binding 
interpretations on how the provisions should be interpreted, and a Tribunal is obliged to respect 
those interpretations.  
 
Finally, detailed language has been agreed upon to clarify what constitutes indirect expropriation, 
in a manner which excludes claims being brought against legitimate policy measures.  
 
Finally, the ICS also embodies the UNCITRAL transparency rules and goes even beyond.  
 
Page 17 (Para 4.32)  
The new approach aims to increase citizen s' confidence in the system by establishing an 
investment court system built on similar principles to domestic and international courts, and 
subject to democratic principles and public scrutiny. In parallel, together with other interested 
partners, the EU is pursuing the concept of setting up a multilateral investment court. The idea is 
that, over time, such a multilateral investment court could replace the bilateral investment court 
systems included in EU agreements and the investment dispute settlement me chanisms included 
in EU Member States' investment treaties, as well as those included in investment treaties 
concluded between third countries.  
 
Question:  
27. Brazil would like some clarification on how this multilateral investment court would work.  
 
EU re ply: The multilateral court would need to be a legal entity under international law but it is 
too early to say whether it would be a new stand -alone body, or be docked into an existing 
international organisation.  If it is to be docked into an existing orga nisation, then we would need 
to take account of the views of the members of the international organisations being considered 
(e.g. the WTO), their current and projected workload as well as the vocation and other activities of 
these existing organisations. We will work with our partners to identify the best way forward.  
 
Page 22 (Para 4.84)  
The EU mentions it is ready to advance TiSA negotiations further.  
 
Question:  
28. Has a TiSA negotiating agenda already been defined for the rest of 2017?  
 
EU reply:  TiSA has been one of the priorities for the EU. The EU therefore regrets that 
negotiations have been paused and is ready to resume negotiations when the political context 
allows. However, such date has not been identified and no negotiating agenda has been set  out for 
the remainder of 2017. In view of the substantial progress TiSA Parties have achieved to date, the 
EU is optimistic that TiSA can be brought to conclusion soon, once negotiations resume.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 149 - 
 
  III. OTHER QUESTIONS  
29. Brazil would like to receive more information on how the recent decision of the European Court 
of Justice on the EU -Singapore trade agreement may impact the division of competences between 
the European Commission and Member States on trade issues.  
 
EU reply : As regards areas covered under the Free Trade Agreement with Singapore (Opinion 
2/15), the Court determined the following areas fall under the Union's exclusive competence: 
trade in goods and services; protection of foreign direct investment; IPR; public procurement; 
competition; trade and sustainable development; transparency; State -to-State Dispute Settlement 
when applied to these areas.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 150 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTI ONS FROM INDONES IA 
 
Secretariat Report  
Page 47 Para 30  
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE  
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting  Imports  
3.1.4 Tariffs  
 
3.30. The EU's Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 establishes the Combined 
Nomenclature (CN) as the EU's common customs tariff for imports and exports, and for statistical 
purposes. It is updated yearly and provid es the tariff nomenclature, description and the rates of 
duty applied by the customs union to external trade. The latest version of the nomenclature, 
applicable as from 1 January 2017, has been published with Commission Implementing Regulation 
(EU) 2016/18 21 of 6 October 2016. As the EU is a signatory to the International Convention on the 
Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (Harmonized System) under the WCO, the 
CN is based on the Harmonized System (HS) nomenclature (6 -digit level).  
 
Questi on: 
1. Refer to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 of 6 October 2016 , is there any 
changes related to import duty which applies as from 1 January 2017?  
EU reply : As stated in paragraph 3.35. of the report, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 
2016/1821 of 6 October 2016 implements the "Expansion of the Information Technology 
Agreement", which provides for reductions or elimination (as from the first of July 2016) of 
customs duties for more than 200 categories of products. For some of these  products, the 
reduction of duties is ongoing and is to be found in this regulation. In addition, as a result of the 
conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union 
and the People's Republic of China pursuant to  Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 relating to the modification of concessions in the 
schedule of the Republic of Croatia in the course of its accession to the Union, Commission 
Implementing Regulat ion (EU) 2016/2293 of 16 December 2016 has amended Annex I to Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 by reducing the duty rate for two products. In addition, EU has a 
website on applied tariffs that have been autonomously reduced.  The Commission manages a 
website (see link below) where information related to new, amended or removed autonomous 
tariff suspensions or quotas is freely available to the public. 
(http://ec.europa.eu/taxation _customs/dds2/susp/susp_home.jsp ) 
 
Furthermore, a "Notice to economic operators" is published every semester in the C series of the 
Official Journal of the EU, focussing on new requests:  
http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2017.123.01.0010.01.ENG&toc 
=OJ:C:2017:123:TOC  
Page 53 Para 50  
3.1.4.5 Preferential tariffs  
3.50.  For non -reciprocal preferential  agreements, the EU provides preferential or duty -free rates to 
certain countries under GSP, GSP+, and "Everything But Arms" (EBA). The simple average overall 
tariff rates for 2016 under the three programmes remains unchanged since the last Review at 
4.1%,  1.8%, and 0%, respectively (Table A3.1). India, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Ukraine face 
slightly higher averages under GSP due to graduation. GSP and GSP+ preferences apply on over 
6,000 tariff lines with nearly identical coverage except for about 60 lines. The main difference is 
that GSP+ provides a zero rate of duty on nearly all GSP+ eligible products, whereas GSP provides 
a zero rate of duty on about half the tariff lines, thus preferential rates apply on the remaining 
2,922 lines. The EU performed the tr iennial review of the list of graduated products in 2016 and, 
as a result, has implemented changes to the eligible products for certain countries as of 1 January 
2017. 55 These changes pertain to India (7 product sections), Indonesia (2), Kenya (1), and 
Ukraine (2) whereby GSP preferences will not be eligible for these countries' products which have 
been "graduated" due to their competitive position for the period 2017 -2019. Country eligibility for 
the different preference programmes and the criterion has c hanged slightly over the review period 
(see Section 2.3).  
 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 151 - 
 
  Question:  
On 9 March 2016, the European Commission announced regulation 330/2016 changing its 
Generalized Scheme of Preferences for several countries include Indonesia. Live animals and 
products t hereof -excluding fish and animal, vegetable oils/fats/waxes scrapped from the GSP for 
the period from 1 January 2017 until 31 December 2019.  
 
2. What are the reasons for the removal of GSP for some products in Indonesia and how to define 
which products are graduated (measurement tool s/ references/other resources)?  
 
EU reply:  In accordance with Article 8(1) of the GSP Regulation tariff preferences for the 
beneficiaries of the standard GSP programme are to be suspended for products when the average 
value of imports into the EU of such products over three consecutive years from that GSP 
beneficiary country exceeds the thresholds listed in Annex VI of the GSP Regulation (different 
thresholds apply to different product sections). The list of products to be gr aduated was based on 
trade statistics (Eurostat) concerning calendar years 2012 -2014 as available on 1 September 
2015. With regard to Indonesia, and other GSP beneficiaries, the product sections were graduated 
since they met these conditions. The text of t he GSP Regulation, including Annex VI is available 
here:  
http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02012R0978 -20170101&from=EN  
3. Ho w was the review for GSP product in 2016/2017 to Indonesian products?  
EU reply:  With regard to Indonesia, tariff preferences were suspended for products in the 
following product sections: Section 1a Live animals and animal products excluding fish and Sect ion 
3 Animal or vegetable oils, fats and waxes. See also the Annex to Commission Implementing 
Regulation 2016/330 available here:  
 
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016 /march/tradoc_154349.pdf  
 
4. Please explain details the current list of GSP products from Indonesia?  
 
EU reply:  Products indicated in Annex V, with the exception of products that have been graduated 
(i.e. products in Sections 1a and 3), can be imported int o the EU from Indonesia with the tariff 
preferences indicated in Article 7 of the GSP Regulation, if those products fulfill the GSP rules of 
origin. The products covered by Annex V and the tariff preferences indicated in Article 7 can be 
found in the GSP R egulation (see internet link to question 2).  
 
5. How is the mechanism to apply GSP+ for some products?  
 
EU reply:  GSP+ is a specific preference programme under the GSP Regulation. A GSP beneficiary 
country listed in Annex II o f the GSP Regulation that ful fils the conditions in Article 9 of the GSP 
Regulation can be granted the trade preferences under GSP+ (tariff suspension) for all the 
products indicated in Annex IX of the GSP Regulation. Only those GSP beneficiaries that meet the 
vulnerability criteria i ndicated in Annex VII of the GSP Regulation can apply for GSP+. It is not 
possible to apply for GSP+ trade preferences for only certain products. Please see the internet link 
to the GSP Regulation indicated in question 2 for the text of Article 9, Annex II , Annex VII and 
Annex IX of the GSP Regulation.  
Page 52 Para 43  
3.1.4.3 Duty suspensions and special tariff treatment  
3.43. The EU offers favourable tariff treatment for certain products due to their nature, quality or 
authenticity through the use of certi ficates. Pursuant to the latest tariff of the EU, such preferential 
treatment was provided for table grapes (0806), tobacco (2401), and nitrate (3102 and 3105). 
Certificates are issued by listed bodies authorized to do so in the exporting country. Based on  the 
list of authorized bodies, the benefits of this regime pertain to table grapes from the United 
States; tobacco from Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Cuba, Guatemala, 
India, Indonesia, Mexico, the Philippines, South Korea, Sri La nka, Switzerland, Thailand, and the 
United States; and nitrate from Chile.  
Question:  
6. What kind of tariff treatment could be given to certain products?  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 152 - 
 
  EU reply : The tariff treatment offered is a reduced duty rate (by comparison with the "normal" 
convent ional duty rate). The details can be found, for each product concerned, in the following 
regulation: COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/1821 of 6 October 2016 
amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical 
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, under the following link: http://eur -
lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2016:294:TOC . 
7. Please provide more inform ation in regard to Certificates that issued by listed bodies authorized  
in the exporting country  in order to obtain the favourable tariff treatment .  
 
EU reply:  The certificates must fulfil certain conditions, as laid down in the above mentioned 
regulation (regulation (EU) 2016/1821).  
 
Page 52 Para 46  
3.1.4.4 Tariff quotas (TQ) and administration  
3.46. Many TQs have undergone revision since the last Review as a result of the removal of quotas 
for certain agricultural products50 and quotas added for new FTAs. As of October 2016, there were 
1,006 categories of TQs applied on a variety of products.51 The majority of the TQs were country - 
or regional -specific TQs to implement FTA commitments, and about 230 were open to all importers 
as autonomous quotas. The TQs open to all importers are mainly applied on fish, agricultural 
products, chemicals, metals, machinery and equipment. Other TQs apply bilaterally to certain 
countries for individual products or to certain sectors such as handicrafts.  
 
Question:  
8. What is the transparency mechanism and the implementation of the TQs?  
 
EU reply:  Agricultural WTO TRQ management and fill rate are notified each year to the WTO 
under the Agreement on Agriculture. Please refer to the most recent notifications (G/AG/N/EU/31, 
G/AG/N/EU/30, G/AG/N/EU/33, G/AG/N/EU/37). TRQs managed by licenses are also notified each 
year to the WTO under the Licensing Agreement. Please refer to the most re cent notification 
(G/LIC/N/3/EU/5).  
 
9. From the aspect of transparency whether the EU informs through the website, or provides 
availability information that can be accessed and applied into the  system, or first -served basis?  
 
EU reply:  "First -come, first -served" TRQs can be consulted at TAXUD internet website:  
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds2/taric/quota_consultation.jsp?Lang=en . 
 
A unique access point f or agricultural TRQs managed by licensing is under preparation.  
10. In the Common Market Organization, does all label ling and labe lling information apply to 
fishery products and aquaculture products from E U countries and Non EU countries?  
 
EU reply:  EU labelling requirements of fisheries and aquaculture products apply to the putting in 
the EU market of those products indifferently of their origin (e .g. of where they are from)  
 
10.1 In the EU Fisheries Partnership Agreement with partner countries, is the policy related to 
market access to the EU market or related to TRQ?  
 
EU reply:  No, the SFPAs are basically fishing opportunities in partner countries not related with 
market -access to the EU.  
 
Page 57 Para 56  
3.1.6 Import prohibitions, restrictions, and l icensing  
3.56. For import licensing, there are nine categories of products subject to licensing (Table 3.9). 
New licencing procedures were introduced on certain iron and steel products in April 2016 as 
safeguard surveillance measures (see Section 3.1.7.2);  and in 2015 for sugar from EBA 
beneficiaries. Although not new, the EU decided to include drug precursors in its latest notification 
to the WTO. Most of the licensing requirements, notably those linked to TQs, concern agricultural 
products; and others per tain mainly to international agreements to protect the environment or 
similar (e.g. CITES, Montreal Protocol, Basel Convention, Kimberley Process). According to the 
authorities, the EU import licensing system is based on the premise that no import licences  are 
required except for specific products from certain origins. The EU maintains a central system WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 153 - 
 
  (SIGL) for the integrated management of licences for certain products subject to licence, i.e. 
textiles.  
 
Question:  
On 29 April 2016, the European Commission  published regulation 2016/670 introducing an import 
licensing regime for steel products exceeding 2.5 tonnes. The licensing regime shall not apply for 
members of the EEA. The regulation came into force on the day of its publication and will be active 
until 15 May 2020.   
 
11. Please explain in details what is the basis imposition of the regulation?  
 
EU reply:  As notified by the EU at the WTO (see EU annual notification of its import licensing 
procedures, document: G/LIC/N/3/EU/5) the purpose of the steel pr ior surveillance scheme is to 
collect information about the intention to import from all non -EU member countries (with the 
exception of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein). Rapid and anticipated trade data is necessary to 
deal with the vulnerability of the EU steel market to sudden changes on world steel markets.  
 
12. What is the impact to market access while the prod uct does not fulfil  the EU import licensing 
regulation?  
 
EU reply:  The question is unclear. The EU understands that Indonesia is seeking clarifications on 
the trade impact of the measure. The issuance of surveillance documents is automatic provided 
that the conditions laid down in regulation 2016/670 are met. In case of refusal of a surveillance 
document, the importer can reintroduce a new application and a surveillance document will be 
issued within five working days. Prior surveillance is administered in a way not to have trade -
restrictive effect, in full compliance with the provisions of the WTO Import Licensing Agreement.  
 
13. Will it be  deregulated automatically after the safeguard su rveillance measures accomplish?  
 
EU reply:  the prior surveillance scheme started being applied in April 2016 and, according to 
Regulation 2016/670, it will be applied until 15 May 2020.  
 
Page 58 Para 57  
3.1.7 Anti -dumping, countervailing, and safeguard measures  
3.1.7.1 Anti -dumping and anti -subsidy measures  
 
3.57. In the EU's trade defence sector, new regulations have been put in place for the main anti -
dumping, countervailing (also termed anti -subsidy by the EU), and safeguard rules during the 
review period. The two main regulations for anti -dumping and anti -subsidies ar e: 
 
 Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on 
protection against dumped imports from count ries not members of the EU – Codified 
Version66; and  
 Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on 
protection against subsidized imports from countries not members of the EU – Codified 
Version.  
Question:  
14. Would the EU explain the mechanism on how the EU calculate the distorted raw material price?  
 
EU reply:  The EU does not understand the context of this question and is therefore unable to 
provide any reply.  
 
15. Would the EU explain the mechanism on how  the EU determine greenbox subsidy and the 
percentage of AMS (Agregate Measurement Support)  
 
EU reply:  For further information, please see the most recent DS:1 (G/AG/N/EU/34) and DS:2 
(G/AG/N/EU/35) notifications made by the EU.  
 
16. Would the EU explain the mechanism on how the EU determine or establish of public interest 
when determine the final duty?  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 154 - 
 
  EU reply:  Article 21 of the EU's Basic anti -dumping regulation and Article 31 of the EU's basic 
anti-subsidy regulation set out the applicable provisions and procedures concerning the EU's Union 
interest test in anti -dumping and anti -subsidy investigations. The provisions in both regulations 
are identical.  
 
The complainants, importers and their representative associations, representative users and 
represent ative consumer organisations may provide views and information relating to the Union 
interest assessment provided they meet the requirements set out in the basic regulations.  
 
In practice the economic operators located in the EU that could be affected by t he outcome of the 
AD or AS investigation can provide information to the Commission explaining how they would be 
affected in the context of the Union interest test. The European Commission examines the 
information provided in order to project how the imposi tion or non -imposition of measures would 
impact on the economic operators in question. The Union interest analysis is not a cost/benefit 
analysis and the imposition of measures is not automatically against the Union interest if such 
measures have negative consequences for importers, traders, users and/or consumers. In this 
context the assessment examines, for example, whether there would be a disproportionate 
negative impact on downstream users compared to a positive effect for Union producers.  
 
Page 59 Pa ra 59  
3.1.7 Anti -dumping, countervailing, and safeguard measures  
3.1.7.1 Anti -dumping and anti -subsidy measures  
 
3.59. More recently, in November 2016, the European Commission adopted a proposal to the 
European Parliament and the Council to amend both the Anti-dumping and Anti -Subsidy 
Regulations. As of March 2017, the proposal was following the ordinary legislative procedure and 
would need a decision by both the European Parliament and the Council before entering into force.  
 
Question:  
17. Please provide f urther information on when the amendement of the Anti -dumping and Anti -
Subsidy Regulations  would be applied.  
 
EU reply:  The Commission proposal is subject to the ordinary so called co – decision legislative 
procedure. The outcome of this procedure cannot b e predicted.  
 
18. Is there any substantive changes in the amendement of both regulations?   
 
EU reply:  The main substantive change contained in the Commission legislative proposal include 
the Introduction of a new anti -dumping methodology to capture market distortions linked to State 
intervention in third countries. In addition, the proposal includes a str engthening of the anti -
subsidy instrument to allow the EU to also address subsidies which were identified only in the 
course of an investigation.  The full proposal can be found in the attached link:  
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/november/tradoc_155079.pdf . 
 
Government Report  
Page 11 Para 35 -36 
3 DEVELOPMENTS IN THE INTERNAL MARKET: THE SINGLE MARKET STRATEGY  
New customs procedures  
3.35. As anticipated in the previous government report, on 1 May 2016, the Union Customs Code 
(UCC) started to be applied. It represents a key element of the modernization of customs and 
serves as the new framework regulation of rules and procedures for cu stoms throughout the EU. 
While its substantive provisions have applied since 1 May 2016, a transitional period will apply 
until the end of 2020 because its full implementation requires the development of several new IT 
systems. 3.36. The UCC will have an i mpact on trade, enhancing the competitiveness of European 
businesses. It will create a paperless environment for customs and trade, ensuring trade 
facilitation and reducing costs for business simplifying customs rules and procedures, further 
harmonize deci sion-making procedures to facilitate more efficient customs transactions. At the 
same time it will protect the flow of goods transiting or moving in and out of the Union. The UCC 
upgraded the concept of “authorized economic operators” (AEO). As a key conce pt it provides the 
significant advantage of widespread use of simplifications and allows AEOs to benefit from reduced 
levels of customs controls and also advantages beyond the simplified procedures already in place. WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 155 - 
 
  Also the so -called special procedures li ke inward/outward processing and storage have been 
streamlined and improved to generate growth and jobs.  
 
Question:  
19. Indonesia would like to ask confirmation whether Indonesia can still export with current 
regulation of rules and procedures until the UC C is fully implemented at the end of 2020?  
 
EU reply:  Member States have to update their import systems to align to the UCC. There is a 
general deployment during which Member States can change their import declaration system with 
the latest date being 2020 . Exporters to the EU need to check the exact deployment date and the 
national plans per Member States on their national websites 
(https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/nati onal-customs -websites_en ) and prepare for the 
changes according to the plans. Till the deployment date, the transition is mainly based on the 
continuation of the current rules and data requirements.  
 
20. Is there any additional or revision on procedures wh ich should be fulfilled by exporter in 
conformation to new IT system?  
 
EU reply:  The UCC provides for four types of simplified procedures for customs declarations, i.e. 
the simplified declaration, entry into the declarant's records, self -assessment and cen tralized 
clearance. Simplified declarations in the form of an incomplete declaration or a local clearance 
procedure no longer exist under the UCC.  
The UCC aims to address the challenges of today with increasing trade volumes and globalisation. 
It enables t he streamlining of customs procedures and the facilitation of legitimate trade by 
transforming the customs union in the EU more modern and adaptive to the needs of new 
developments in the supply and transport chain. Economic operators who want to bring goo ds on 
the European single market need to become acquainted with the new procedural and data 
requirements as outlined in the UCC DA -IA and the planning of the deployment of the electronic 
systems (see UCC Work Programme and national plans published on the E uropa website and the 
websites of the MS' customs authorities).  
 
21. Will the UCC significantly affected the customs procedures?  Please provide details information 
in regard to the new regulation and procedures.  
 
EU reply:  The main changes in the UCC that affect the customs procedures, as regards special 
procedures other than transit, are that former Processing under Customs Control and Inward 
Processing (drawback system) merge to a single Inward Processing procedure, which follows the 
same rules as former Inward Processing procedure (suspension system). For the sake of 
simplification of such procedures, free zones type II, free warehouses and customs warehouses 
type D (private) do not exist anymore. Furthermore, the end -use procedure is now a special 
proced ure, which implies that it is subject to the special procedures rules (i.e. need to apply for an 
authorisation and to provide a guarantee for possible customs debt to incur). In order to adapt to 
the new UCC, all the authorisations granted before 1 May 201 6 must be reassessed before 1 May 
2019.  
 
So far the changes in the UCC do not significantly affect the Union transit procedure. In the future 
(after the transitional period is ended), still the basic processes at the customs office of departure, 
transit an d destination remains very similar to the current ones.  
 
Other Issues  
Maximum Residue Level (MRL) Anthraquinone / Anstrakinon (Aq) on Tea to European market  
European Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1146/2014 which requires the content of 
Anthraquinone / Anstrakinon (Aq) Maximum Residue Level (MRL) on Tea in EU at 0.02 mg/kg 
(ppm).  
 
Question:  
22. Please explain what is the basis of the imposition of the regulation?  
23. Could the EU provide the scientific evidence of why the EU sets the maximum content of MRL 
Aq in tea for 0.02 ppm?  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 156 - 
 
  24. Would the EU grant the request for time extension to fulfil the requirements? If yes, please 
explain the mechanism of it.  
 
EU reply to question Nos. 22 -23-24: Anthraquinone is a pesticide not approved in the EU (non -
approva l decision in 2009). Before 2014, the MRLs for anthraquinone were set at the default value 
of 0.01 mg/kg, established in Commission Regulation 396/2005 in case of substances not 
approved in the EU and for which no Codex MRLs or EU import tolerances have be en set.  
 
Anthraquinone was reviewed in the context of the on -going review programme of all the existing 
EU MRLs, prescribed by Article 12 of the Commission Regulation 396/2005. The European Food 
Safety Authority (EFSA) published a reasoned opinion on the s ubstance17 in 2012, in which the 
concern of a potential carcinogenicity of the substance was underlined.  
 
Commission Regulation 1146/2014 (applicable as from 18 May 2015), took into account the EFSA 
reasoned opinion and maintained the MRLs for anthraquinone  at the limit of determination (LOD) 
of 0.01 mg/kg. However, for some special groups of commodities (spices, tea leaves and herbal 
infusions) the MRLs have been set at 0.02 mg/kg  (an increase, compared to the previous 
situation) because of the special char acteristics of these commodities and the analytical feasibility 
to reach such an LOD.  
 
Recently, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) also reviewed the classification of this 
substance. Following an assessment made by Germany in January 2015, anthraquinone  has been 
confirmed by ECHA as a substance 'Carc. 1B'. The ECHA classification has been adopted by 
Commission Regulation 2017/776, published in the Official Journal on 4 May 2017 .18 As a 
consequence , at the moment the possibility to set higher MRLs (or to re -introduce the previous 
ones) is considered remote . 
 
Palm Oil Issue: Resolution on Palm Oil and Deforestation of Rainforests  
 
On 3 November 2016, Members of European Parliaments (MPEs) - Kateřina Konečná of 
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety ("ENVI") issued the Palm Oil And Deforestation Of 
Rainforest Draft Report, with the aim of countering the trade of unsustainable palm oil in the 
European Union market.  
 
The draft received support for vo ting by the European Parliament on March 9, 2017 in Brussels. It 
was later adopted by the European Commission based on the results of a full house vote on the 
plenary session in Strasbourg (France) On April 3 -4, 2017.  
The core of the resolution including:  
 
 Propose a Single Certification for Oil Palm and Oil Palm Products that enter the EU market.  
 Ask the European Commission to establish minimum criteria for sustainable palm oil and palm 
oil-containing products entering the EU market.  
 Ask the European Commission to increase the traceability of imported palm oil especially prior 
to the existence of single certification.  
 Replication of Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) - Voluntary Partnership 
Agreement (VPA) to apply to palm oil.  
 Advoca ted phase out of biofuel use on vegetable oil causing deforestation post 2020.  
 Proposed that the EU Commission submit a proposal to the World Customs Organization (WCO) 
to create a different HS Code for palm oil and its derivatives which are certified sust ainable and 
not certified.  
 Make compulsory requirements for all EU member states regarding public procurement 
procedures related to palm oil.  
Question:  
25. Please explain about the next step of EU position regarding to this report? is it going to be a 
regulation or EU Directive?  
26. Could the EU explain how this report would not create any barriers to international trade in the 
future?  
                                                
17 http://www.efsa.euro pa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2761 . 
18 http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017R0776&qid=1496060380904 
&from=EN . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 157 - 
 
  EU reply to questions 25 and 26 : The aforementioned resolution by the European Parliament is 
not a technical regulation, nor is it a part of a legislative process. The resolution is the result of an 
'own initiative report' and it reflects the position of the European Parliament on the matter. The 
resolution is not binding on the European Commission, which is not legally obli ged to put forward 
any legislative proposal. The European Commission will issue on time a formal reply to this 
European Parliament's resolution but cannot indicate now the content of it.  
 
Sustainable Timber Products: European Commission allowed Indonesian licenses for timber 
exports  
 
On 18 August 2016, the European Commission announced in a press release that it will accept 
Indonesia's licensing scheme for exports of verified legal timber to the European Union.  
Indonesia was hence added to the list of eligible countries in the EU Forest Law Enforcement, 
Governance and Trade Regulation (FLEGT). The date when the licenses will start being accepted 
was set to 15 November 2016.  
 
Question:  
27. Please explain whether the EU will review the policy, if so when the review will be held?  
 
EU reply:  The European Commission recently completed an independent evaluation of the 2003 
FLEGT Action Plan, which is the overarching policy document setting out EU action to combat 
illegal logging and related trade, including t he establishment of a FLEGT licensing scheme and the 
related conclusion of Voluntary Partnership Agreements with timber producing countries such as 
Indonesia. The European Commission staff working document and the report from the independent 
evaluation tea m are publicly available at: http://www.euflegt.efi.int/eu -flegt-evaluation.  
28. What is the technical mechanism to enforce its acceptance?  
 
EU reply:  The FLEGT licensing scheme is established through Council Regulation (EC) No 
2173/2005 of 20 December 20 05 on the establishment of a FLEGT licensing scheme for imports of 
timber into the European Community. This regulation provides the basis for the conclusion of 
Voluntary Partnership Agreements with timber producer countries and establishing a mandatory 
licensing mechanism that - once the scheme has been fully implemented by the partner country - 
applies to imports of timber products set out in Annexes II and III to the regulation in question 
from the relevant partner country. Since 15 November 2016 timber p roducts set out in Annexes II 
and III to the regulation, consistently with the product scope of the VPA between the EU and 
Indonesia, that are imported into the EU from Indonesia can only be released for free circulation 
on the EU market if accompanied by a valid FLEGT licence issued by the competent Indonesian 
licensing authorities.  
 
Labelling Regulation: EU Regulation No. 1169/2011  
The regulation contains the obligation of Country of Origin Labelling for dairy, meat and derivative 
products which will be declared by EU origin or outside EU.  
Question:  
29. Please explain what is the purpose of the regulation?  
30. What is the impact to market access while the product does not fulfil the EU Origin Criteria?  
31. What is the extent of enforcement?  
 
EU reply to  question Nos. 29 -30-31: According to Regulation (EU) No . 1169/201119, the 
information on origin should be provided to consumers on a voluntary basis, unless otherwise 
provided in specific EU legislation. In parallel, the Regulation allows the Member States  to 
introduce additional mandatory labelling particulars for specific food categories, including on 
indication of origin, if they are justified on grounds of, inter alia, the protection of consumers and 
those mentioned in Article 39(2) of the Regulation. A ccordingly, Member States which deem it 
necessary to adopt such measures have to notify them to the European Commission and to the 
other Member States, and provide the reasons justifying them.  
 
In this context, six Member States (France, Lithuania, Italy, Finland, Greece and Portugal) have 
recently notified to the Commission, according to the above mentioned procedure, draft national 
                                                
19 Regulation (EU) No . 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on 
the provision of food information to consumers, OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 18.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 158 - 
 
  measures on the origin indication of certain foods. All those initiatives are construed as limited in 
time and in scope and a ffecting a limited category of products. Products manufactured in third 
countries are not required to fulfil origin labelling requirements.  
 
The above -mentioned notified drafts have been or are in the process of being evaluated by the 
Commission in the li ght of conditions laid down in Article 39 of the Regulation and the overall 
objectives of EU legislation.  
 
Circumvention Allegation /Transshipment: Open Mash Fabrics of Glass Fiber , Citric Acid and 
Trichloroisocyanuric Acid  
 
OLAF has conducted joint verification of circumvention allegations with the Government of 
Indonesia on December 2014 for fiber mesh products and on August 2016 for citric acid and 
trichloroisocyanuric acid products. The Result of both verifications are the product was not 
exported  from Indonesia (was not on the record of Indonesian Customs system), and used fake 
COO (SKA) documents. While for Open Mesh Fabrics of Glass Fibres, OLAF will conduct further 
verification to Singapore because based on OLAF analysis, it was known that the container used to 
deliver the product never entered Indonesia but through Singapore.  There has been no progress 
from OLAF regarding this investigation.  
 
Question:  
32. Would the EU provide the update of the further verification to Indonesia?  
 
EU reply:  The EU confirms that OLAF has carried out investigations in Indonesia in the past on the 
products at issue with the cooperation of the Indonesian authorities. The EU greatly appreciates 
Indonesia's cooperation in the cases mentioned and looks forward to contin uing mutual 
constructive cooperation.  
 
As regards the case specific nature of the present request, which relates to sensitive information 
on certain investigations and verifications, the EU invites the Indonesian authorities to contact 
OLAF directly ( OLAF-FMB-B1@ec.europa.eu ), or through their Customs Counsellor in the Embassy 
in Brussels .  
 
Market Access: 3 MCPD Content in Vegetable Oil Regulation ( Palm Oil and its Derivative Products ) 
In Mei 2016, the resear ch of European Food Safety Agency  (EFSA) found high content of 3 -MCPD 
(3-monochloropropane - 1,2 - diol), which is carciogenic or trigerring cancer in vegetable oil, 
particularly palm oil.  
 
Question:  
33. Would the EU provide more information regarding the plan for 3 MCPD Content in Vegetable 
Oil Regulation, including palm oil which will issued on September 2017?  
 
EU reply : The Scientific Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) of the European 
Food Safety Authority (EFSA) adopted a scientific opinion on the risks for human health related to 
the presence of 3 -and 2 -monochloropropanediol (MCPD) and their fatty acid esters and glycidyl 
fatty acid esters in food . 
 
EFSA has d ecided to re -open the 3 -MCPD and their fatty acid esters assessment following a 
detailed analysis of the divergence in opinion between Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food 
Additives (JECFA) and EFSA on 3 -MCPD and their fatty acid esters in view of the up dated guidance 
of the EFSA Scientific Committee on the use of benchmark dose approach in risk assessment. The 
outcome of the re -opening of the 3 -MCPD and their fatty acid esters, which is expected before the 
end of 2017, shall be awaited before taking appr opriate regulatory measures.  
 
Glycidyl fatty acid esters are food contaminants found at highest levels in reﬁned vegetable oils. 
Glycidyl fatty acid esters are hydrolysed to the free glycidol in the gastrointestinal tract. The 
CONTAM Panel concluded that glycidol is a genotoxic and car cinogenic compound. In view of the 
genotoxic and carcinogenic potential of glycidol, a margin of exposure (MoE) approach was 
applied. Scenarios of exposure in infants receiving formula only resulted in a MoE of about 5500 to 
2100. A MoE of 25,000 or higher  was considered of low health concern.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 159 - 
 
  Therefore, taking into account what is currently achievable by applying good practices, a maximum 
level for the presence of glycidyl fatty acid esters in vegetable oils and fats placed on the market 
for the final con sumer or use as an ingredient in food and in infant formula and follow -on formula 
is currently under discussion.  
 
Imports of Certain Feed and Food of Non -animal Origin from Third Countries: The Aflatoxine 
content in Nutmeg  
 
There are new provisions concern ing aflatoxin (B1, B2, G1, G2, or B1 total) and M1 for imported 
nutmeg to EU based on EC regulation no. 1881/2006 and the sampling testing methods for 
mycotoxin surveillance including aflatoxin contained in EC 401/2006. Indonesia has been informed 
that the  provision does not apply to almonds imported from the United States and Iran, which it 
discriminates the Indonesian nutmeg products. The nutmeg product is applied the aflatoxin 
standard for B1 of 5 ppb and B1 total 10 ppb. As for almonds, pistachio, and a pricot kernel are 
applied B1 of 12 ppb, B1 total 15 ppb.  
 
Question:  
34. Would the EU provide further information regarding the new regulation on The Aflatoxine 
content in Nutmeg and explanation on the differences between the content level of nutmeg and 
almond? 
 
EU reply : The special measures on the import of nutmeg from Indonesia have been taken 
following frequent findings of non -compliance with the EU maximum level on aflatoxins in nutmeg 
from Indonesia (10 findings in 2016, 9 findings in 2015, 11 findings  in 2014, 5 findings in 2013). 
Furthermore an audit performed by the Commission in March 2016 to assess the control of 
aflatoxins in nutmeg exported to the EU revealed important shortcomings as regards the official 
control system and the sampling and analy sis performed. The situation is followed up and in case a 
consistent improvement is observed, an alleviation of the current restrictive measures as regards 
nutmeg from  Indonesia shall be considered.  
 
The presence of aflatoxins in all commodities and from a ll countries is closely followed up. In case 
there is an increased level of non -compliance in a certain commodity from a certain country 
observed, restrictive measures to ensure a high level of human he alth protection are considered.  
 
The maximum level for  aflatoxins in nutmeg, 5 µg/kg for aflatoxin B1 and 10 µg/kg for aflatoxin 
total has to be compared with the maximum level almonds, pistachios and apricot kernels intended 
for direct human consumption or use as an ingredient in foodstuffs which is 8 µg/kg for aflatoxin 
B1 and 10 µg/kg for aflatoxin total. Furthermore, in Codex Alimentarius Commission, the 
discussions on the setting of a Codex maximum level for aflatoxins in nutmeg have been initiated.  
 
Policy on Violation of Illegal Unreported, Unregulated Fishing (IUUF) . 
 
Question:  
35. Does the EU always grant the recognition of premium products  to any countries that has 
fulfilled all provisions for sustainable trade of fishery products? Would the EU recognize Indonesia 
as premium product ? 
 
EU reply:  There is no such definition as "premium product" under EU law. As a consequence, the 
EU does not and may not recognise any product as "premium".  
 
The EU’s New Directive on Renewable Energy  
On 30 November 2016, the European Commission issued a proposed rev ised Directive on the 
Promotion of the Used of Energy from Renewable Resources (COM -2016-767 final). The main 
criteria of current EU sustainability for biofuels and bioliquid that can receive government support 
and count as the achievement of national rene wable energy targets are as follows:  
 
 Achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) savings at least 35% compared to fossil fuels. The GHG 
savings requirements increase to 50% in 2017 and 60% in 2018 (exclusively for new 
production plants).  
 Biofuels are not cultivated in c onverted areas from high carbon stock such as wetlands and 
forests.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 160 - 
 
   Biofuels are not produced from harvested raw materials from areas with high biodiversity 
levels, such as primary forest or highly biodiverse grassland.  
 
Question:  
36. Would the EU provide more explanation and update information regarding the new  directive on 
renewable energy?  
 
EU reply : The Commission's legislative proposal for a revised Renewable Energy Directive for the 
time period after 2020 (recast) was adopted on 30 November 2016 as a part of the Clean Energy 
for All Europeans package and is now under the ordinary legislative procedure and will be 
considered by both the European Parliament and the Council.  
 
In accordance with this legislative proposal, the EU sustainability criteria and  the minimum 
greenhouse gas emission saving requirements will continue to be applicable to biofuels and 
bioliquids only for the purpose of accounting towards the EU renewable energy targets and/ or to 
be eligible for public support.  
 
The legislative propos al also extends the timeframe for the application of the EU sustainability 
criteria, so that biofuels and bioliquids will not be allowed to be produced from feedstocks 
cultivated in converted areas from high carbon stocks and with high biodiversity levels also after 
2020.  
 
Additional requirements have been proposed for biofuels and bioliquids produced from forest 
biomass, including through a "Land Use, Land -Use Change and Forestry" (LULUCF) requirement 
ensuring proper carbon accounting of carbon impacts of forest biomass used for energy.  
 
The current greenhouse gas emission saving requirements for biofuel and bioliquid installations are 
proposed to be continued also after 2020. Namely, installations that started operation before 5 
October 2015 would have to reach at least 50% GHG emission savings compared to fossil fuels, 
respectively, installations starting operation between 5 October 2015 and 31 December 2020  - at 
least 60%.  
 
For installations starting operations after January 2021, at least 70% saving for biofuels and 
bioliquids, and at least 80% for biomass fuels used for electricity, heating and cooling would be 
required.  
 
37. How the EU determine the main sustainability criteri as for biofuels and bioliquids?  
 
EU reply : Sustainability criteria and the gre enhouse gas emission saving criteria are applicable 
irrespectively of the geographical origin of biomass.  
 
The new sustainability criteria for forestry biomass were proposed with the objective to minimise 
the risk of using unsustainable forest biomass for  reaching the EU policy objectives, and to ensure 
proper carbon accounting of carbon stocks and sinks in the forest.  
 
Increased threshold for the minimum greenhouse gas emissions for new installations after 2020 
was proposed with the objective to increase efficiency, to accelerate the deployment of innovative 
technologies and technics, and to reduce emissions associated to production of biofuels and 
bioliquids.  
 
Modernization of EU’s Trade Remedies Policies  
On December 13, 2016, the European Parliament and the EU Council approved the modernization 
policy of the EU's trade remedies. Under such a policy the rules of the lesser duties will be 
eliminated if the importing country is indicated as a distorted market due to the raw material 
price, and the dumping am ount will be determined from the price or production cost of the third 
country which is considered undistorted.  
 
Question:  
38. Please provide further explanation regarding the progress of the EU's modernization trade 
remedies policies, in particular the ne w methodology in capturing market distortions and 
determining specific market situations.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 161 - 
 
  EU reply:  The proposal to modernize the EU 's trade defence instruments, as well as the separate 
proposal to introduce a new anti -dumping methodology are both curren tly subject to ongoing 
ordinary legislative procedure. Both initiatives aim at ensuring the continued effectiveness of the 
EU’s TDI. While modernization deals with specific elements in order to enhance the efficiency, 
effectiveness and transparency of the instruments, the new methodology ensures that the actual 
magnitude of dumping is appropriately reflected in the dumping margin from those countries 
where, owing to State interference, process and costs are not a reliable basis for calculating 
normal value.   
 
39. Could the EU explain how these policies would not potentially misused in anti -dumping / 
countervailing investigation practices?  
 
EU reply : Both proposals are WTO compatible and the EU will continue to apply the highest 
standards, in accordance with the applicable rules, in trade defence investigations.  
 
EU Regulation: Endoctrine Disruptors (ED)  
On 15 June 2016 the European Commission has issued 2 Draft Regulations, namely Biocidal 
Products legislation and Plant Protection Products that revise the cri teria of materials categorized 
as endoctrine disruptors (ED). The criteria are based on an impact assessment conducted by the 
EU Commission. The draft regulation has been notified to the WTO. In addition, the EU also 
released Communications on scientific a nd regulatory basis; And Impact Assessment report.  
 
As to date, there is no scientific evidence to suggest any negative effect of ED exposure, either low 
or high, to humans and animals. Therefore, the determination of safe thresholds becomes 
extremely difficult. Thus, the EU approach in determining the negative impact of ED on the hazard 
aspect rather than on empirical evidence is essentially incompatible with the WTO's Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary (SPS) agreement.  
 
Question:  
40. Could the EU reconsider t he regulation as there is no scientific evidence in regard to the 
negative effect of ED exposure to human or animal?  
 
EU reply : The Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR) and the Plant Protection Products Regulation 
(PPPR), adopted in 2009 and 2012 respectivel y, set specific provisions regarding substances with 
endocrine disrupting properties that may cause adverse effect in humans. These substances are 
regulated with a similar approach as substances which are cancerogenic or toxic for reproduction. 
The Europea n Union informed the WTO Members about this regulatory approach by notifying the 
proposals of these Regulations to the WTO in due time.  
 
To implement the provisions of the regulations mentioned above, the Commission had the legal 
obligation to set scientif ic criteria  for the determination of endocrine -disrupting properties.  Article 
5(3) of the BPR and point 3.6.5 of Annex II to the PPPR provide the legal basis for the Commission 
to adopt measures specifying scientific criteria for the determination of endoc rine-disrupting 
properties.  
 
The Commission published the draft legal acts setting criteria to identify endocrine disruptors in 
the context of the Plant Protection Products and Biocidal Products legislation in June 2016. 
Following this publication, severa l consultation processes (EU member States and experts, 
stakeholders, non -EU countries) took place.  
 
The notified draft acts are undergoing their planned legal procedures. During the on -going decision 
making, the Commission revised the draft acts to addres s the comments received. The revised 
criteria clarify the burden of proof and the scope of the criteria. No substantial change was 
introduced compared to the notifications to TBT and/or SPS and this is the reason why the EU 
believes there was no need to re -notify the draft acts. Moreover, the revised versions of the 
criteria are published on the Commission's website20, as well as the minutes of the meetings with 
EU Member States and experts, ensuring the transparency of the process. The last meeting with 
EU member States in the pesticides area took place on 30 May 2017 and the last meeting with 
                                                
20 http://ec.europa.eu/health/endocrine_disruptors/next_steps_en . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 162 - 
 
  experts in the biocides area took place on 7 April 2017. A new meeting with Member States will be 
organised in the near future.  
 
In order to facilitate the decision -making, in December 2016, the plant protection products act has 
been split into two acts without change in content: one text containing the criteria and another one 
containing the technical amendment to the clause on negligible exposure. This offers EU membe r 
States the possibility to express their opinion on each of them separately. This split also allows the 
Council and the European Parliament to consider each draft act separately during the scrutiny 
period.  
 
The current discussions are focusing on the crit eria. However, the Commission has committed to 
resume discussions on the amendment to the clause on negligible exposure once the criteria are 
adopted. This proposed amendment allows information on hazard, exposure and risk to be 
considered before a decisio n is taken on a given substance and is expected to lead to more 
certainty in terms of setting MRLs.  
 
The Imposition of Anti -Dumping Measure to Bicycles  
The EU imposes the anti -dumping measure to import bicycles from Indonesia.  
 
Question:  
41. Please explai n on what basis the EU imposing the anti -dumping measure to Indonesia’s 
bicycles.  
 
EU reply : The European Union extended the anti -dumping measures which had been originally 
imposed on imports of bicycles from China to imports of bicycles from Indonesia in  May 2013 
following an anti -circumvention investigation.  Anti-circumvention measures are imposed following 
an investigation under Article 13 of the EU's Basic anti -dumping regulation. Full details of the 
findings of the investigation relating to Indonesia can be found in the Official Journal of the EU 
L153/1 of 05/06/2013.  
 
Import Shortening  Regulation in Poland and Romania  
Poland and Rumania require complex supporting documents, such as Free irradiation & radioactive 
certificate, Non GMO Certificate, Free  Gluten statement, Heavy Metal content . 
 
Question:  
42. Indonesia notes that the requirements are complex, therefore Indonesia ask Poland and 
Romania to simplify the requirements to only COA and Health Certificate and Phytosanitary, as 
applied to East Europe (Serbia and Bulgaria).  
 
EU reply : The EU notes that Indonesia does not pose a question here.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 163 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTI ONS FROM NORWAY  
 
According to paragraph 4.58 in the EU’s report, the EU has since 2013 been systematically looking 
at the impact of trade policy initiatives on gender equality and women’s rights in its evaluations 
(impact assessments, sustainability impact assessments and ex post evaluations). We ask the EU 
to describe the main findings from this work.  
 
EU reply:  Gender equality is a high topic on the political agenda of the EU. Equality between 
women and men was embedded in the Rome Treaty as one of the European  
 
On 8 Mar ch 2017, in the occasion of the International Women's Day, the European Commission 
presented a report on Gender Equality that provides an overview of the main EU policy and legal 
developments in gender equality during the last year, as well as examples of policies and actions 
in the EU Member States (see: http://europa.eu/rapid/press -release_IP -17-489_en.htm ). 
 
That report contains a specific section on the actions adopted by the EU for p romoting gender 
equality through its trade policies. It is mentioned that all free trade and investment agreements 
include a sustainable development chapter with commitments such as equal pay for men and 
women for work of equal pay and prohibition of discr imination in employment, in line with ILO 
fundamental conventions and other ILO conventions to which they are Party, including the 
fundamental Conventions on equ al remuneration (no. 100) and elimination of discrimination in 
respect of employment and occupat ion (no. 111).  
 
Furthermore, impact assessments published by the Commission from 2013 onwards suggest 
overall positive impacts on gender equality. GSP+ commitments, or the existence of a TSD chapter 
that supports all strategic objectives of the ILO Decent W ork Agenda, can have direct positive 
effects on gender equality, by encouraging the implementation of non -discrimination provisions.  
For further information, please refer to the following website:  
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/policy -making/analysis/policy -evaluation/sustainability -impact -
assessments/ . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 164 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTI ONS FROM MEXICO  
 
1) Informe de la Secretaría (WT/TPR/S/357, versión en esp añol), Página 28, Párrafo 1.36.  
 
Q1 ¿Puede la Unión Europea informar sobre los efectos de las reformas de Directiva de servicios de 
2006 en cada uno de los sectores de servicios y los Estados Miembros?  
 
EU reply:  Following the adoption of the Services Directive in 2006, Member States undertook 
substantial reform efforts adopting more than thousand laws in order to abolish existing barriers. 
In 2012 a Commission assessment analysed the r estrictions removed following the transposition of 
the Services Directive by sector and by Member State. The assessment found that that the 
estimated EU -level impact of the reforms undertaken up to that point on GDP was 0.8%, with the 
impact varying consid erably across Member States (ranging from below 0.3% to more than 1.5%) 
and mainly determined by the combination of the undertaken barrier reduction and the share of 
the covered sectors in their economies.21 
 
The assessment also found that if Member States pursued a more ambitious implementation 
(where Member States would reach the average of the 5 least restrictive Member States), the 
additional growth potential was estimated at 1.8% of EU GDP. In an updated assessment in 2015, 
estimating the impact of refo rm efforts during 2012 -2014, it was found that only a fraction (0.1%) 
of the 1.8% GDP potential has been additionally realised.22 
 
2) Informe de la Secretaría (WT/TPR/S/357, versión en español), Página 136, Párrafo 3.304.  
 
En el informe se indica que la Comisión Europea cuenta con un equipo de trabajo encargado de 
preparar y llevar a cabo las negociaciones del Brexit con el Reino Unido, teniendo en cuenta el 
marco de las futuras relaciones del Reino Unido con la UE.  
 
Q2 ¿Podría la Unión Europea explicar d e qué manera pretende separar los compromisos del Reino 
Unido en materia de comercio de servicios y por lo que respecta al sector agrícola (Nivel de Ayuda, 
contingentes arancelarios para productos agrícolas, etc.) ante la OMC, tomando en cuenta el hecho 
de que el Reino Unido es Miembro de la OMC por su propio derecho desde el primero de enero de 
1995?  
 
EU reply:  On 29 March 2017, the U .K. Government formally notified the European Council of its 
intention to withdraw from the European Union pursuant to Artic le 50 of the Treaty on European 
Union. An agreement on the U .K.'s withdrawal will be negotiated following the rules established in 
the Treaty on European Union (TEU).  
On 29 April 2017 the European Council adopted guidelines defining the framework for nego tiations 
under Article 50 TEU and setting out the overall positions and principles that the Union will pursue 
throughout the negotiation. The adoption of the European Council guidelines was followed by a 
Commission proposal on 3 May for a Council Decision authorising the Commission to open 
negotiations, and proposing negotiating directives. The Council Decision including negotiating 
directives were adopted on 22 May by the Council of the European Union.  
Negotiations will start after the general elections in  the U.K. on 8 June. They will focus in a first 
phase on the withdrawal arrangements notably on citizens' rights, financial settlement and new 
external borders. An agreement must be reached by October 2018, in order to allow for the 
ratification process to  be completed and the U.K. to withdraw from the Union by the end of the 
two-year deadline, at the end of March 2019.  
 Until its withdrawal, the U .K. remains a Member State of the European Union with all rights and 
obligations of a Member State. The EU Trea ties continue to apply to the U .K. and in the U .K. 
during that period. Until its withdrawal, the  U.K. continues to be bound by the Union's exclusive 
competence in respect of the common commercial policy pursuant to Article 3 of the Treaty on the 
Functionin g of the European Union and, more generally, the principle of sincere cooperation 
pursuant to Article 4(3) TEU.  
The EU will engage with the U .K. in a cooperative manner in order to guarantee an orderly process 
leading up to the withdrawal of the U .K. from the EU.  
                                                
21 http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/economic_paper/2012/pdf/ecp_456_en.pdf . 
22 http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/13327/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 165 - 
 
  The EU will revert to the WTO Membership after engaging with the U.K.. 
 
3) Informe de la Secretaría (WT/TPR/S/357, versión en español), Página 36, Párrafo 2.17.  
 
En el informe se indica que la UE “intensificará los esfuerzos para promover u n debate basado en 
hechos en los Estados miembros y reforzar el diálogo con la sociedad civil”. Q3 ¿Podría la UE 
indicar en qué consistirán esos esfuerzos y cómo se prevé mantener el diálogo?  
 
EU reply:  The Civil Society Dialogue fits into the EU's genera l policy framework on consultation. 
Article 11 of the Lisbon Treaty, states that “institutions shall maintain an open, transparent and 
regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society”. The Commission ensures 
therefore that trade policy is based on consultations with all parts of European civil society, and 
that this process is both transparent and accountable. During recent years, outreach activities 
have become important for trade policy, as it increasingly attracts attention from beyon d trade and 
development specialists. For example, the negotiations for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment 
Partnership (TTIP) with the US that started in 2013 were largely the catalyst for increased public 
interest in trade policy. Stakeholder events, bro ader in scope than the CSD meetings, were 
organised as part of the TTIP negotiation rounds. In addition, an advisory group of specialists was 
set up in the context of TTIP in view of taking onboard specific interests of civil society.  
 
Since the EU -Korea t rade agreement entered into force in 2011, the Commission is setting up civil 
society advisory groups in all new trade agreement with the aim of providing advice to the Parties 
on the implementation of the sustainable development chapter. The advisory grou ps, set up in the 
EU and in the partner country, are composed of organiz ations dealing with labour, environmental 
and business issues.  
 
DG Trade has stepped up its outreach and reaffirmed its willingness to engage with civil society 
and to listen to their opinions and concerns. This has boosted the membership of the Civil Society 
Dialogu e (CSD). Two hundred new organiz ations have registered in the last three years and the 
number of participants for each CSD meeting has more than doubled. DG Trade has also s tepped 
up outreach to European and national parliamentarians, governments, outside experts, consumer 
groups, unions, NGOs, business and industry bodies.  
 
The current process of the trade CSD provides a regular and structured approach to discussing EU 
trade  issues with civil society organi zations. CSD discussions take place in more than 20 face -to-
face meetings a year with Commission officials, including meetings with the Commissioner on a 
regular basis. Meetings with the Commissioner are web -streamed in ord er to reach the widest 
possible audience. DG Trade continues to develop further the interaction and feedback 
mechanisms of civil society participation in the field of trade agreements and trade policy in 
general. The large scale information events called T rade Policy Days are  organiz ed regularly to 
respond to the call for more fundamental debates on trade issues.  
 
4) Informe de la Secretaría (WT/TPR/S/357, versión en español), Página 46, Párrafo 3.13.  
 
Q4 En materia de notificación, ¿Podría la UE indicar cuál es el estado de sus notificaciones al 
amparo del Acuerdo sobre Facilitación del Comercio –párrafo 4 del artículo 1, los párrafos 4.3 y 6.2 
del artículo 10 y el párrafo 2.2 del artículo 12, párrafos 1 y 2 del artículo 22 –? 
 
EU reply:  EU notifications a re under preparation and will be submitted as soon as possible to the 
WTO.  
 
Lo anterior, por ejemplo, porque 10 Miembros de la UE son donantes para efectos de las 
notificaciones conforme al artículo 22 del Acuerdo sobre Facilitación del Comercio.  
 
5) Inf orme de la Secretaría (WT/TPR/S/357, versión en español) , Página 47, Párrafo 3.18.  
 
Q5 En el informe se indica que la “UE ha estado preparando una solución de ventanilla única”. 
¿Podría la UE aclarar el sentido de “solución”, si se trata efectivamente del cumplimiento del 
artículo 10.4 del Acuerdo sobre Facilitación del Comercio?  
 
EU reply:  In view of the complexity of the Single Window concept and given the specific structure 
of the EU, the EU has decided to pursue a phased approach for the implementation of the EU SW WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 166 - 
 
  environment for customs, starting with the digitalization and automated validation of the 
supporting documents to the customs declaration (i.e. certificates and licences). The automated 
acceptance and verification of certificates by customs al ready offer benefits to both economic 
operators and public administrations.  
 
In the longer term, the EU is reflecting on the scoping, legal support and implementation of an EU 
Single Window environment for customs, taking into account the different sector s SW initiatives 
(e.g. the maritime SW) and implementations and approaches in the individual MS.  
 
More information can be found in: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/general -information -
customs/electronic -customs/individual -projects_en  
 
The EU is compliant with Article 10.4 of the TFA.  
 
6) Informe de la Secretaría (WT/TPR/S/357, versión en español) , Página 65, Párrafo 3.59.  
 
Q6 En r elación con la propuesta referida en el párrafo 3.59, ¿podría la UE indicar cuál es el estatus 
del proceso legislativo sobre la misma, a la fecha en que se lleva a cabo este Examen de las 
Políticas Comerciales?  
 
EU reply : The European Commission proposal i s subject to the ordinary legislative procedure 
which means the proposal is being examined by the Council and the European Parliament. The EU 
cannot predict the outcome.  
 
7) Informe de la Secretaría (WT/TPR/S/357, versión en español) , Página 65, Párrafo 3.60. 
 
Q7: Al respecto, ¿podría la UE explicar si a las partes interesadas se les da el derecho de presentar 
argumentos al respecto de si la imposición de una medida redunda o no en el interés de la UE? En 
caso de que sí se les permita presentar argumentos , ¿podría la UE explicar en qué consiste el 
procedimiento pertinente para ello?  
 
EU reply : Article 21 of the EU's Basic anti -dumping regulation and Article 31 of the EU's basic 
anti-subsidy regulation set out the applicable provisions and procedures concer ning the EU's Union 
interest test in anti -dumping and anti -subsidy investigations. The provisions in both regulations 
are identical.  
 
The complainants, importers and their representative associations, representative users and 
representative consumer organi sations may provide views and information relating to the Union 
interest assessment provided they meet the requirements set out in the basic regulations.  
 
In practice the economic operators located in the EU that could be affected by the outcome of the 
AD or AS investigation can provide information to the Commission explaining how they would be 
affected in the context of the Union interest test. The European Commission examines the 
information provided in order to project how the imposition or non -impositio n of measures would 
impact on the economic operators in question. The Union interest analysis is not a cost/benefit 
analysis and the imposition of measures is not automatically against the Union interest if such 
measures have negative consequences for impo rters, traders, use rs and/or consumers.  In this 
context the assessment examines, for example, whether there would be a disproportionate 
negative impact on downstream users compared to a posit ive effect for Union producers.  
 
Q8: Por otra parte, ¿podría la U E explicar qué factores toma en cuenta para determinar si la 
imposición de derechos antidumping o compensatorios redunda en el interés de la UE? De igual 
forma, ¿podría explicar la UE de qué forma realiza la evaluación pertinente de esos factores?  
 
EU reply : In practice the economic operators located in the EU that could be affected by the 
outcome of the AD or AS investigation can provide information to the Commission explaining how 
they would be affected in the conte xt of the Union interest test. The E uropean Commission 
examines the information provided in order to project how the imposition or non -imposition of 
measures would impact on the e conomic operators in question. The Union interest analysis is not a 
cost/benefit analysis and the imposition of m easures is not automatically against the Union 
interest if such measures have negative consequences for importers, traders, users and/or 
consumers. In this context the assessment examines, for example, whether there would be a WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 167 - 
 
  disproportionate negative imp act on downstream users compared to a posit ive effect for Union 
producers.  
 
Q9: ¿Podría la UE explicar, de manera general, en qué consiste una “investig ación relativa a la 
absorción”?  
 
EU reply : Article 12 of the basic anti -dumping Regulation and Article 1 9(3) of the basic anti -
subsidy Regulation contain the relevant provisions regarding Absorption investigations.  
 
Duties are considered to be absorbed when, after anti -dumping or countervailing duties have been 
imposed, export prices decrease or the resale p rices of the imported goods do not increase 
sufficiently, so the measures d o not have the expected effect.  
 
When there is evidence of duties being absorbed, the original trade defence investigation may be 
re-opened at the request of any interested party (E U producer, exporter, importer, user), EU 
Member State or the Commission. The re -investigation is initiated by publishing a Notice in the 
EU’s Official Journal, normally within two years of the original measures being imposed and should 
take no more than 9  months to compl ete. 
 
The re -investigation gives exporters, importers, EU producers and users the opportunity to explain 
the export prices and EU resale prices. Exporters also have the possibility to request a new normal 
value determination. If the conclus ion is that the duties should have resulted in price changes that 
did not take place, the dumping margins can be recalculated and the duties increased up to double 
the rate of the original duty.  
 
8) Informe de la Secretaría (WT/TPR/S/357, versión en españ ol), Página 74, Párrafo 3.91.  
 
Q10: ¿Podría indicar los montos oficiales de los créditos, garantías y seguros de crédito a la 
exportación de productos agrícolas, desagregado p or los principales 10 miembros?  
 
EU reply:  All the detailed technical data on the export financing programmes operated by EU 
Member States is included in document G/AG/W/125/Rev.6/Add.2.  
 
9) Informe de la Secretaría (WT/TPR/S/357, versión en español) , Página 169, Párrafo 4.39.  
 
De conformidad con este párrafo la UE no otorga subvenciones a la exportación desde julio de 
2013.  
 
Q11:¿Podría indicar cuando presentará su notificación modificando sus listas de compromisos en 
cumplimiento con la Decisión Ministerial de Nairobi?  
 
EU reply:  The EU is active ly preparing a draft updated EU -28 schedule which will include 
scheduling the Nairobi outcome as regards export subsidies, which it hopes to submit soon in 
2017.  
 
10) Informe de la Secretaría (WT/TPR/S/357, versión en español) , Página 177, Párrafo 4.56.  
 
En el informe se indica que “[l]a capacidad de las flotas de la UE ha seguido reduciéndose: el 
número de buques disminuyó de manera constante, pasando de unos 95 .000 en 2000 a 84.000 en 
2015”.  
 
Q 12 ¿Podría la UE explicar el motivo de la disminución y qué a cciones ha tomado la UE para 
afrontar las consecuencias de esa disminución?  
 
EU reply:  The Common Fishery Policy requires EU Member States to ensure that from 2014 the 
fishing capacity of their fleet remains under the limits of the capacity ceilings set out in the Annex 
II of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.  Following the trend over the last t en years, between 1 
January 2014 and 30 November 2015, the fishing capacity of the EU 28 Member States decreased 
by 0.8% in kilowatts (KW) and  by 1.3% in gross tonnage (GT).  
 
As of November 2015, 85.065 vessels were registered in the EU fleet register with  an overall 
capacity of 1.627,125 GT and 6.474,617 KW. This shows a reduction in 2015 (excluding in the WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 168 - 
 
  outermost regions) of 0.6% in number of vessels. The fishing capacity of the EU fleet was 18,42 % 
below the capacity ceilings for tonnage and 11,60% bel ow the power ceilings. For the EU's 
outermost regions which account for 5.4 % of the total EU fleet, during the period between 
January 2014 and November 2015, fleet capacity decreased by 0.1% in GT and increased by 0.9 in 
KW. 
 
In the period 2007 -2015, EU M ember States have used permanent cessation measures under the 
European Fisheries Fund to decommission vessels from their fleet and reduce capacity. Between 
2007 and 31 May 2015, 4.218 vessels were decommissioned with public support, with a total 
public exp enditure of almost 932 million euro, of which 558 million euro was from the EFF. Vessels 
decommissioned with support from the EFF cannot be replaced, thereby ensuring that overall fleet 
capacity reduces. A further 2.077 vessels (GT 88014.37 - KW 215320.6) were removed from the 
fleet without public aid, although capacity withdrawn without public aid can be reintroduced.  
 
The decline of the fleet is a consequence of the adjustment and management of fishing fleet in 
order to achieve the objective of the balanc e between fishing opportunities and fishing capacity.  
 
To this end Member States shall put in place measures to adjust the fishing capacity of their fleet 
to their fishing opportunities over time, taking into account trends and based on the best scientific  
advice, with the objective of achieving a stable and enduring balance between them.  
 
11) Informe de la Secretaría (WT/TPR/S/357, versión en español) , Página 189, Párrafo 4.107.  
 
Q 13 ¿Podría informar la Unión Europea cuáles podrían ser las acciones necesarias para reducir la 
carga administrativa de los diferentes regímenes de IVA? ¿Cuándo tiene previsto la Comisión 
presentar las nuevas propuestas de mecanismo único para el registro y pago del IVA?  
 
EU reply:  In December 2016 the Commission adopted a Proposal for Modernising VAT for cross -
border B2C e -commerce:  
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/com_2016_757_en.pdf . 
 
It contains measur es to simplify the existing mini one -stop shop mechanism for telecommunication 
broadcast and e -services supplied to final consumers. That proposal also includes an extension of 
the possibility to use the one -stop shop mechanism for all supplies of services  to final consumers 
and for goods imported into the EU of a value under 150 EUR.  
 
12) Informe de la Secretaría (WT/TPR/S/357, versión en español), Página 199, Párrafo 4.141.  
 
Q14 ¿Podría la Unión Europea aportar más información sobre las principales reform as que incluye 
el reglamento para la prestación de servicios portuarios? ¿Qué problemas pretenden mitigar con la 
puesta en vigor de este nuevo reglamento?  
 
EU reply : Paragraphs 4.144 to 4.152 outline the key objectives and content of Regulation 
2017/352 of  the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2017 establishing a 
framework for the provision of port services and common rules on the financial transparency of 
ports.  
More detailed information can be found on  
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/ports/ports_en  which provides access to the initial 
Commission proposal and the impact assessment report.  
 
13) Otras preguntas.  
 
El 29 de abril y el 22 de mayo de 2017, la Unión Europea publicó dos ordenamientos relativos a la 
salida del Reino Unido de la Unión Europea (Brexit). El párrafo 13 de los Orientaciones 
consecutivas a la notificación del Reino Unido en virtud del Artículo 50 del  Tratado de la Unión 
Europea del 29 de abril (disponible en: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/es/press/press -
releases/2017/04/29 -euco-brexit -guidelines/ ) establece lo siguiente:  
 
“Tras la retirada, el Reino Unido dejará de estar vinculado por los acuerdos 
celebrados por la Unión o por Estados miembros que actúen en su nombre o 
por la Unión y sus Estados miembros conjuntamente. La Unión seguirá 
teniendo d erechos y obligaciones en relación con los acuerdos WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 169 - 
 
  internacionales. En este sentido, el Consejo Europeo espera que el Reino 
Unido respete su parte de todos los compromisos internacionales contraídos 
en el contexto de su pertenencia a la UE. En esos casos,  debe entablarse un 
diálogo constructivo con el Reino Unido sobre una posible orientación común 
de cara a los terceros países socios, las organizaciones internacionales y los 
convenios implicados.”   
 
Ese párrafo es similar al 18 del documento que se publi có el 22 de mayo, denominado Directrices 
de negociación de un acuerdo con el Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte en el que se 
establecen las modalidades de su retirada de la Unión Europea (disponible en: 
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2017/ES/COM -2017-218-F1-ES-ANNEX -1-PART-
1.PDF) . 
 
Q15 ¿Podría la Unión Europea explicar a qué se refiere con el diálogo constructivo con el Reino 
Unido sobre una posible orientación común de cara a los terceros países socios y los convenios 
implicados, por lo que respecta a la relación entre el Reino Unido y terceros países tras la fecha de 
retirada (marzo de 2019)? ¿Cómo se pretende realiz ar el diálogo? ¿Serían públicos los resultados 
del diálogo? ¿Qué acciones ya se han tomado, en su caso, para este diálogo?  
 
EU reply : See reply above to question 2.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 170 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTI ONS FROM AUSTRALI A 
 
Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/357)  
1 ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT  
1.1 Recent Economic Developments  
1.1.4 EU economic governance and structural reforms  
Page 20 -21, paragraph 1.24  
 
The report notes that while the EU has identified structural reforms among its three major 
economic priorities to make la bour markets more adaptable, liberalise services, improve the 
business environment, increase competition and boost innovation, progress remains slow 
particularly in areas related to strengthening the business environment, employment, female 
labour market p articipation, and reducing barriers to competition in services.  
 
Question 1  
How does the EU plan to address barriers to competition in services?  
 
EU reply:  The Services Directive adopted in 2006 provides a horizontal framework which covers 
46% of EU GDP (including business services, wholesale and retail and construction). Enforcement 
of the existing requirements under the Services Directive remains an important instrument in 
ensuring that the full potential of the services market liberalisation is realise d. 
Economic evidence shows that there is significant scope for services reforms beyond the minimum 
legal requirements of the Services Directive. To reap the full potential benefits offered by the 
Services Directive, in the framework of the European Semeste r exercise numerous Country -
specific Recommendations have been proposed by the Commission for adoption by the Council to 
ensure more dynamic and competitive services markets. In 2017, the Commission proposed 
recommendations in the area of services addresse d to twelve different Member States. The 
recommendations serve the aim of achieving an EU services market with fewer barriers for 
providing and receiving services, in particular in areas where the acquis does not categorically 
outlaw certain practices and leaves it up to the Member States to assess the justification and 
proportionality of national regulation.  
Furthermore, in the 2015 Digital Single Market Strategy (DSM) and the Single Market Strategy 
(SMS), the Commission announced new initiatives aimed at removing obstacles hampering the 
growth in the EU services market. These initiatives include:  
 Collaborative economy: A June 2016 Commission communication providing legal guidance and 
orientation to public authorities, market operators and interested citize ns for the balanced and 
sustainable development of the collaborative economy.  
 Geo-blocking: A May 2016 Commission proposal for a regulation seeking to clarify the grounds 
on which access to a service can be denied depending on residence or nationality, pro viding 
increased certainty to customers and companies alike.  
 European Services e -card: A legislative proposal adopted in January 2017 introducing a services e -
card facilitating the provision of services in the single market.  
 Notification procedure: A legis lative proposal aimed at strengthening the existing procedure under 
the Services Directive, whereby the Member States notify changes in national services rules.  
 Proportionality test: An initiative to improve the assessment of proportionality of national 
regulatory measures.  
 Reform guidance: A guidance for regulation of professional services at national level.  
 Retail: Forthcoming Commission initiative setting out best practices for facilitating retail 
establishment and reducing operational restrictions in th e single market . 
 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 171 - 
 
  2 Trade and Investment Regime  
2.2 Trade Policy Objectives  
Page 32, paragraph 2.15 and page 33, Box 2.1  
 
The report notes that key objectives of EU trade policy are to increase efforts to reduce non -tariff 
barriers and increase trade in  services and that the EU will place more emphasis on supporting 
mobility of experts to install or maintain exported goods, senior managers, and other service 
providers and the mutual recognition of professional qualifications.  
 
Question 2  
Could the EU provide further information on what policy initiatives are being undertaken or 
considered to support mobility of technicians, experts and service providers?  
 
EU reply : In 2014 the EU adopted a flexible scheme for admitting intra -corporate transferees 
(mana gers, specialists and trainees), and set itself a 2.5 year deadline for implementing it. This 
scheme is now fully functional in several Member States, with the European Commission closely 
monitoring its rollout.  
 
The EU is currently reviewing its existing legal migration legislation and will consider whether 
additional initiatives are needed as regards categories of mode 4 service providers other than 
intra-corporate transferees. Stakeholders will be invited to contribute to this study by various 
channels, including through an online public consultation.  
 
In its 2015 Communication "Trade for all - Towards a more responsible trade and investment 
policy", the European Commission recognised that services like installation, support, training and 
maintenance are an integral part of international trade. In line with this Communication, the EU 
has included provisions on a wide range of profiles of staff in recent free trade agreements. The 
EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, in particular, facilita tes mobility for 
short-term business visitors (including installers or repair and maintenance personnel) and 
technologists. Similar provisions are being considered in other ongoing negotiations.  
 
Question 3  
Could the EU provide further information on what policy initiatives are being undertaken or 
considered to facilitate mutual recognition of professional qualifications?  
 
EU reply : In the European Union, movement of qualified professionals is enhanced by EU 
Directive 2005/36/EU on the mutual recognition of  professional qualifications.23 This Directive 
includes three systems of mutual recognition, among which an automatic recognition regime for 
seven professions for which the education and training requirements have been harmonised at a 
minimum level24, a syst em based on professional experience for the crafts professions and a 
general system where the set of qualifications required in the home Member State is compared 
with what is required in the host Member State with the possibility for the host Member State to 
impose compensation measures on the professional.  
 
In terms of new initiatives, in January 2017 the Commission adopted (a) a proposal for a 
Directive25 on how Member States should carry out a proportionality test before adopting new or 
modifying existing  national rules regarding access to and pursuit of professional services and (b) a 
Commission Communication26 on reform recommendations for regulation of professions .27 
 
Between the European Union and third countries, the recognition of professional qualific ations is 
promoted within trade agreements. Bilateral FTAs between the EU and third country partner 
generally include a set of provisions outlining a framework for the future negotiations of the Mutual 
Recognition Agreements (MRAs) in the individual profes sions. First step towards such negotiations 
is a joint recommendation by the relevant authorities or professional associations for the MRA in 
                                                
23 Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament  and of the Council on the recognition of professional 
qualifications, OJ. L 255, 30.09.2005, p.22 . 
24 i.e. nurses, midwifes, doctors (general practitioners and specialists), dental practitioners, 
pharmacists, architects and veterinary surgeons.   
25 http://e ur-lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0822&from=EN . 
26 http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0820&from=en . 
27 With a focus on 7 regulated professions selected on the basis of their economic importance, i.e.  
accountants, civil engineers, architects, lawyers, real estate agents, tourist guides and patent agents.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 172 - 
 
  their profession to the Joint Committee, established under the FTA. The EU is aware of the joint 
recommendations f or the proposed MRAs that are being considered or are in preparation in the 
context of several FTAs.  
 
3 Trade Policies and Practices by Measure  
3.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade  
3.3.1 Standards and Other Technical Requirements  
3.3.1.5 Transparency  
 
Page 78, paragraphs 3.135, 3.136 and 3.137  
Australia acknowledges the European Union’s explanation that two management notification 
procedures exist (one for the internal market of the EU and one at the WTO level) to help prevent 
the creation  of technical barriers to trade.  Australia views that such a system lacks transparency 
where the WTO level notification system is not consistently utilised by all Member States for new 
measures.  Australia encourages greater transparency by the EU and its M ember States regarding 
the various new country of origin labelling (CoOL) measures . 
 
Question 4  
Australia notes that in the case of EU Member States’ CoOL requirements, neither the European 
Commission nor relevant Member States have notified the measures t o the WTO.  These measures 
should be notified as they are not based on international standards, and we expect the measures 
may have a significant impact on international trade. Without notification of the measures, 
Australia and other WTO members have not b een provided with an opportunity to provide 
comments. We remind the EU and Member States of the requirement to notify at an ‘early 
appropriate stage’ and to allow a reasonable period between publication and entry into force. 
When does the EU or relevant Me mber States intend to submit this notification?  
 
EU reply:  According to Regulation (EU) No. 1169/201128 the information on origin should be 
provided to consumers on a voluntary basis, unless otherwise provided in specific EU legislation. In 
parallel, the Re gulation allows the Member States to introduce additional mandatory labelling 
particulars for specific food categories, including on indication of origin, if they are justified on 
grounds of, inter alia , the protection of consumers and those mentioned in A rticle 39(2) of the 
Regulation.  Accordingly, Member States which deem it necessary to adopt such measures have to 
notify them to the European Commission and to the other Member States, and provide the reasons 
justifying them.  
In this context, six Member St ates (France, Lithuania, Italy, Finland, Greece and Portugal) have 
recently notified to the Commission, according to the above mentioned procedure, draft national 
measures on the origin indication of certain foods. All those initiatives are construed as li mited in time 
and in scope and affecting a limited category of products. Products manufactured in third countries do 
not need to fulfil origin labelling requirements.  
The above -mentioned notified drafts have been or are in the process of being evaluated by  the 
Commission in the light of conditions laid down in Article 39 of the Regulation and the overall 
objectives of EU legislation.  
 
3.3 Measures Affecting Production and trade  
3.3.5 Taxation  
3.3.5.3 Value Added Tax  
Page 99, paragraph 3.220  
 
The report stat es that the Commission has proposed an action plan on VAT198, outlining the 
principles according to which a future single European VAT system would be organized.  
 
Question 5  
What approach or developments is the EU considering in relation to a low -value th reshold VAT?  
 
EU reply : The EU is proposing to remove the optional VAT small consignments exemption with 
effect from 2021. Simplification mechanisms will be introduced at the same time which will allow 
                                                
28 Regulation (EU) No . 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on 
the provision of food information to consumers, OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 18.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 173 - 
 
  suppliers to collect the tax from the customers and to  account for the VAT through one simplified 
electronic return in respect of tax to the EU 28 Member States.  
 
3.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade  
3.3.6 State -owned enterprises, and privatization  
3.3.6.2 State -owned enterprises  
Page 102, Paragraph 3. 229 
 
The report states that an overview was undertaken of government ownership in enterprises as 
reported by the individual Member States. The report also states that while some Member States 
have moved towards privatization of the network sectors in recent years, there remain a 
significant number of SOEs in the postal and telecommunications sectors.  
 
Question 6  
What is the regulatory impact of continuing Member State Government ownership of some 
telecommunication providers?  
 
EU reply: Regulation of electronic communications networks and/or services providers is agnostic 
as regards their ownershi p.29 Further, as stated in Article 106(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union, EU Member States must apply the rules of the Treaty, in parti cular those 
regarding non -discrimination and competition (including the regulation of State aid), to public 
undertakings. The EU Regulatory Framework for electronic communications (RF) applies to all 
undertakings providing electronic communications network s and/or services irrespective of 
whether they are privately or publicly owned. In order to ensure impartial & independent 
regulation, the RF provides in Article 3(2) of the Framework Directive 2002/21/EU (FD) that 
"Member States that retain ownership or c ontrol of undertakings providing electronic 
communications networks and/or services shall ensure effective structural separation of the 
regulatory function from activities associated with ownership or control ". Furthermore, Article 
3(3a) FD provides that " national regulatory authorities responsible for ex -ante market regulation 
or for the resolution of disputes between undertakings […] shall act independently and shall not 
seek or take instructions from any other body in relation to the exercise of these ta sks assigned to 
them under national law implementing Community law ". Article 13 FD provides that providers of 
public communications networks or publicly available electronic communications services who have 
special or exclusive rights in other sectors shou ld keep separate accounts for their activities and 
observe structural separation.  
 
In its recent proposal on the review of the regulatory framework (COM(2016)590 final 2), the 
Commission proposes to further reinforce the independence of the NRAs to ensure a more effective 
application of the rules and increase their authority.  
 
Question 7  
Are there any relevant reports, or analyses being undertaken, on the impact that increasing 
competition from SOE reform and liberalisation is having (or could have) in the postal sector?  
 
EU reply:  There have been a number of studies that have looked at reform of the postal sector 
and the impact of c ompetition and market opening. They can all be found here:  
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/postal -services/studies_en . 
 
The most recent report by the Commission on the Application of the Postal Services Directive was 
adopted in 2015, th e next one is planned in 2019.  
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/postal -services/legislation_en . 
 
                                                
29 This derives from Article 345 TFEU: " The Treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in the Membe r 
States governing the system of property ownership ". WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 174 - 
 
  3.3 Measure  Affecting Production and Trade  
3.3.8 Intellectual property ri ghts 
3.3.8.1 Copyright and related rights  
 
Page 112, Para 3.264 and Page 113, Para 3.265  
 
The report outlines that the European Commission has announced a number of measures to 
ensure wider access to content in Europe, adapting exceptions to digital and cr oss-border 
environments, achieving a well -functioning marketplace for copyright, and providing an effective 
and balanced enforcement system.  
 
Question 8  
What is the estimated timeframe for consideration, and adoption of the measures?  
 
EU reply:  The European Commission put forward the legislative proposal on cross -border 
portability of online content services on 9 December 2015 and the other legislative proposals 
referred to in paragraph 3.265 on 14 September 2016.  
 
Such proposals are now under c onsideration by the European Parliament and the Council of the 
European Union, as co -legislators, in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure laid down 
in Article 294 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. More specifically:  
 
 The Regulation ensuring the cross -border portability of online content services in the 
internal market has been formally adopted by the co -legislators. The text has not been 
published in the Official Journal of the EU yet.  
 A political agreement on the propose d directive and regulation implementing the 
Marrakesh Treaty within the EU legal framework was reached between the co -legislators in 
May 2017. The text has not been formally adopted yet.  
 Both the proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market and the proposal 
for a Regulation laying down rules on the exercise of copyright and related rights 
applicable to certain online transmissions of broadcasting organizations and 
retransmissions of television and radio programmes are now under discuss ion in the 
Intellectual Property Working Party of the Council. In the European Parliament, at this 
stage the Committee of Legal Affairs, responsible for both instruments, has scheduled the 
vote on both reports on 28 September 2017.  
 
Question 9  
The EC propo ses regulation aimed at allowing EU residents to access legitimate digital content they 
have purchased in their State anywhere in the EU. Could the EU please clarify the scope of the 
proposed regulation in the case where a resident seeks to access lawfully  material in other 
Member States or outside of the EU that they may be prevented from accessing, for example, due 
to geoblocking or the functioning of applicable licensing arrangements?  
 
EU reply : Ensuring that Europeans who buy or subscribe to online cont ent services providing 
access to films, sports broadcasts, music, e -books and games at home are able to access them 
when they travel in other EU countries is the aim of the Proposal for a Regulation on ensuring the 
cross-border portability of online conten t services in the internal market .30 
 
Access to goods and services in another EU Member States makes the object of the May 2016 
Proposal for a Regulation on addressing geo -blocking and other forms of discrimination based on 
customers' nationality, place of residence or place of establishment within the internal market31. 
This is also described and referenced in the TPR report.  
 
The regulation is set to apply or will apply to the services covered by the Services Directive, i.e. it 
does not apply, inter alia , to the audiovisual services (linear and non -linear), but it applies in 
general to non -audiovisual content.  
 
                                                
30 COM(2015) 0627 final . 
31 COM(2016) 289 final . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 175 - 
 
  Traders within the general scope of the proposal will have to provide access to their websites and 
apps to all EU citizens, unless there is a prohibi tion to do so. Rerouting of the customers will be 
subject to their consent.  
 
Moreover, in three specific situations traders should provide access to the goods and services they 
offer on a non -discriminatory basis. These cases are the following:  
 
 buying a physical good in case the buyer is willing to pick up the product or arrange 
him/herself for the cross -border part of the delivery ('shop like a local');  
 buying electronically supplied services, such as cloud services, but excluding non -
audiovisual copyrig ht protected content services ;  
 customers moving to another country to receive the service at the location where the 
trader operates (typically tourism -related services);  
 
Furthermore the Regulation establishes rules on the acceptance of foreign means of p ayments 
(mainly credit cards, debit cards).  
 
The proposal is now in the legislative process and is expected to be adopted by end of 2017.  
 
Question 10  
The EC proposes regulation aimed at ensuring that rights holders receive adequate remuneration 
for use o f their material in online content marketplaces, and the report refers in particular to a 
proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. When is a service provider 
considered to take an ‘active’ role when hosting material? What types o f services are considered to 
provide access to ‘large amounts’ of copyright content? How is the EU ensuring that the proposal 
balances the obligations for both rights holders and online service providers?  
 
EU reply : Article 13 of the Commission's proposal for a Directive on copyright in the digital single 
market provides for measures that would allow right holders to be in a better position to determine 
whether and under which conditions their content is used by ser vices that store and provide access 
to user -uploaded content. The Commission considers that due to their nature and role, these 
services can be expected to have certain responsibilities and cooperate more with right holders 
whose content is uploaded withou t their involvement.  
 
The wider context for the introduction of obligations on the above mentioned services to take 
certain measures related to the user -uploaded content has been set out in the relevant recitals in 
the Commission's proposal which, among o thers, recall the application of the existing EU copyright 
and e -commerce rules to these market players, without changing these rules (i.e. the rules laid 
down respectively in Directive 2001/29/EC and Directive 2000/31/EC).  
 
The measures that need to be ta ken by user -uploaded content services should be ‘appropriate and 
proportionate’. As the measures need to be proportionate, they cannot be overly burdensome or 
costly for the service provider, who can choose to put in place measures which are best adapted t o 
its specific situation. Such measures should be taken by the service providers storing and 
providing access to large amounts of works. This will ensure that all relevant players in this market 
are subject to the same obligations. Finally, the measures sh ould be taken in cooperation with 
right holders. These elements should create a more balanced copyright content market.  
 
Question 11  
The EC proposes introducing neighbouring rights for press publishers for the digital use of their 
publications. What is exp ected to be the practical effect of this proposal on the digital news 
market?  
 
EU reply:  Article 11 of the proposal for a Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market 
provides for a new related right for publishers of press publications. This new ri ght aims at 
ensuring that the organisational and economic contribution of press publishers (such as newspaper 
and magazine publishers) is recognised in European Union law.  
 
As outlined in the impact assessment accompanying the proposal, the protection gra nted to press 
publishers under the Commission’s proposal would provide them with a substantial added value 
when it comes to licensing out their publications for online uses by third parties, allowing them to 
benefit from more efficient licensing mechanisms , more efficient enforcement of rights and WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 176 - 
 
  stronger incentives on online services to seek licences for the reuse of press publishers' content. It 
would also increase press publishers' bargaining power vis -à-vis third parties, thus creating new 
licensing op portunities in the digital environment. As a result, new innovative business models for 
the distribution of press could emerge.  
 
3.3 Measure Affecting Production and Trade  
3.3.8 Intellectual Property Rights  
3.3.8.2 Industrial Property  
3.3.8.2.5 Geographical indications  
Page 122, paragraph 3.303  
 
The report also estimates that GI -intensive industries generated about 0.1% of the EU's overall 
GDP, equivalent to €18 billion, value added, in the period 2011 -2013.  
 
Question 12  
What is the breakdown of  this figure - how many GIs substantially contribute to the €18 billion 
value -add? How beneficial has the protection of GIs been for smaller producers? How much of this 
value -add was to products sold in the EU versus those products exported from the EU?  
 
EU reply:  By registering geographical indications (GIs), both operators and consumers can benefit 
from the intellectual property protection provided. GIs add value to the product, by giving 
consumers a guarantee of quality and distinctiveness linked to the geographical origin, while 
protecting producers against those who may attempt to exploit their reputation and know -how. 
GIs are an important marketing tool, create opportunities for jobs and growth, and therefore, for 
the producers concerned, GIs have valu e in economic terms.  
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 
balance (€42 .8 billion) was sold within the EU.  
The GI scheme is open to all. GIs are legally tied to a particular geographical location and are, as a 
collective right, open to all who satisfy the pro duct specifications. There is no minimum threshold 
for producer groups to apply, nor are their motivations put into question. The success of the GI 
scheme among small producers is notable. GIs are one of the few instruments that, in an age of 
globalisation , protect at global level what is uniq ue and valuable at local level.1  
The numbers on the share of national GI in the EU food and drink industry and by MS are 
presented in details in the study: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/external -studies/2012/value -
gi/final-report_en.pdf.  
The top 10 GIs by sales value in alphabetical order [1]: 
GI  Product  
Bayerisches  Bier Beer 
Cava Wine 
Champagne  Wine 
Cognac  Spirit drink 
Grana  Padano  Cheese  
Parmigiano  Reggiano  Cheese  
Pays d'Oc Wine 
Prosciutto  di Parma  Cured ham 
Rioja Wine 
Scotch  Whisky  Spirit drink 
 
Note: The sales data for individual GIs and the ranking by sales revenue are confidential according 
to DG AGRI . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 177 - 
 
  3.3 Measure Affecting Production and Trade  
3.3.8 Intellectual Property Rights  
3.3.8.2 Industrial Property  
3.3.8.2.5 Geographical indications  
Page 122, paragraph 3.304  
 
The report states that in France, approximately 32% of products sold were GI -protected.  
 
Question 13  
This appears to be an error in that the original document referenced in the relevant  EU TPR report 
states “Nearly 32% of EU GI products are sold in France”, implying that nearly 32 per cent of EU 
GI products are sold in France, rather than that approximately 32 per cent of products sold were 
GI-protected.  
 
Is this the correct interpretati on?  
Any additional clarification or information on this point from the EU would be welcome.  
 
EU reply:  Yes. The relevant quote from the recent study from which these figures are taken 
reads: "[N]early 32% of EU GI products are sold in France and more than  20% of EU GI products 
are exported to third countries".  
 
3.3 Measure Affecting Production and Trade  
3.3.8 Intellectual Property Rights  
3.3.8.2 Industrial Property  
3.3.8.2.5 Geographical indications  
Page 122, paragraph 3.305  
 
The report states that protection of GIs for agricultural products at EU level can be obtained in one 
of the following ways: as protected designation of origin (PDOs) or protected GI (PGIs) for wines 
and agricultural products and foodstuffs, or as GI for s pirits and aromatized wines (for an overview 
of relevant legislation, see Table A3.3)  
 
Question 14  
Would the EU please describe the key differences between the objections process for the PDO and 
PGI and GIs for spirits and aromatized wines registration sy stems?   
 
EU reply:  The principles and main rules, scrutiny procedure, opposition process in case of EU GIs 
(for all sectors) and types of GIs (such as PDO and PGI) are essentially the same. The terminology 
of protected designation of origin (PDO) and protected geographical indication (PGI) has arisen for 
historical reasons. The distinction is reflecting in the international arena where the geographical 
indication is used in TRIPS while WIPO also defines the appellation of origin. The EU has ensured 
that all the variants meet  the basic TRIPS definition of a GI.  
The PDO instrument requires a closer link between the product and its geographical area which 
must be justified on the basis of natural or human factors. Reputation alone, which is a sufficient 
ground justifying a PGI, is not a ground for demonstrating the link of a PDO (notwithstanding that 
many PDOs enjoy a substantial reputation).  
The objection procedures follow the same principles, allowing any natural or legal person having a 
legitimate interest to lodge an oppositi on, while having different deadlines:  
1. For agricultural products and foodstuffs: 3 months to notify intention to oppose (notice of 
opposition), and an additional 2 months to lodge the opposition (reasoned statement of 
opposition). Oppositions can be lodged only by the authorities of a Member State or of a third 
country, or a natural or legal person having a legitimate interest and established in a third country 
may lodge a notice of opposition with the Commission. Any natural or legal person having a 
legitim ate interest, established or resident in a Member State other than that from which the 
application was submitted, may lodge a notice of opposition with the Member State in which it is 
established within a time limit permitting an opposition to be lodged pu rsuant to the first 
subparagraph. An amicable procedure follows. Where applicant and objector seek an agreed 
outcome a decision on the case is taken by the Commission on the basis of the agreement without 
applying the Committee procedure. In case no agreem ent is reached, the Commission should WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 178 - 
 
  decide on the basis of the elements it possesses and the decision is taken in accordance with the 
opinion of the relevant Committee.  
 
2. For wines: Within two months from the date of the publication of the single document , any 
Member State or third country, or any natural or legal person having a legitimate interest and 
resident or established in a Member State other than that applying for the protection or in a third 
country, may object to the proposed protection by submi tting to the Commission a duly 
substantiated statement concerning the conditions of eligibility. In the case of natural or legal 
persons resident or established in third countries, such a statement shall be submitted, either 
directly or via the authorities  of the third country concerned, within the two month period referred 
to in the first paragraph. There is no amicable consultation procedure. The decision is taken in 
accordance with the opinion of the relevant Committee.  
 
3. For spirits: Within 6 months of t he date of publication of the technical file, any natural or legal 
person that has a legitimate interest may object to the registration. If the objection is admissible, 
the Commission must communicate it to the Member State, the third country authority or the 
private entity from the third country in question and invite them to file observations within a 
period of 2 months. Any observations received within this time period must be communicated to 
the objector. The Commission requests the parties to submit co mments on the observations 
received from the other parties within a period of two months. There is no amicable consultation 
procedure. The decision is taken following a Committee procedure.  
 
4. For aromatised wines: Within two months from the date of publicat ion of the single document, 
any Member State or third country, or any natural or legal person with a legitimate interest, 
resident or established in a Member State other than that applying for the protection or in a third 
country, may object to the propose d protection by lodging with the Commission a duly 
substantiated statement relating to the conditions of eligibility. In the case of natural or legal 
persons resident or established in a third country, such statement must be lodged, either directly 
or via the authorities of the third country concerned, within the time limit of two months. There is 
no amicable consultation procedure. The decision is taken in accordance with the opinion of the 
relevant Committee.  
 
Question 15  
Would the EU please explain the a dministrative procedures for determining whether a term 
qualifies for protection as a GI, for both GIs protected for direct application and those protected 
through incl usion in free trade agreements?  
 
EU reply:  Regarding geographical indications and suitability of GI names the same rules apply for 
direct application and protection thro ugh an international agreement.  
 
Geographical indications are distinctive signs that associate products of quality and reputation  with 
their place or area of production and thereby help identify and distinguish such products on the 
market. GIs protected in the EU meet the TRIPS definition to qualify as a GI, fulfil equivalent 
requirements, are tested against the same prohibitions su ch as generic status, and are subject to 
equivalent scrutiny and opposition procedures.  
 
To enable farmers to communicate the qualities, characteristics and attributes of their products 
and to give consumers appropriate information, the European Union has developed several quality 
systems which farmers and producers may use for their products providing the products and/or 
the production methods fulfil a set of specifications.  
 
A product name identified as a geographical indication is one that is closely lin ked to a specific 
production area. This concept encompasses protected designations of origin (PDOs) and protected 
geographical indications (PGIs) for foods and wines, while spirits and aromatised wines have 
geographical indications.  
 
Application procedures  are laid down in the corresponding legislation for each sector: Regulation 
(EU) No 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs; wines under 
Regulation (EU) No . 1308/2013 , for spirit drinks under Regulation (EC) No . 110/2008, and  finally 
on the basis of Regulation (EU) No . 251/2014 for aromatised wines.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 179 - 
 
  Applications comprise a product specification, a standardised summary thereof (intended for 
publication), contact details of the applicant and details for the authority or body guaranteeing 
product conformity with the specification. Applications are scrutinised in the EU (the Member 
States and the Commission having distinct roles) and checked against criteria for the name to be 
registered as a GI, including generic status, prior trademarks, plant varieties and breeds, etc. 
Dossiers must also provide a clear product description and demonstrate that the specific product 
exhibits characteristics or reputation due to its production in the geographical area designated with 
its environm ental or human factors. Successful dossiers are published for opposition (and possible 
amicable procedure), following which a decision is taken. An application from outside the EU must 
provide proof that the GI is protected in its country of origin.  
 
GIs p rotected under FTAs follow essentially the same procedure, including publication for 
opposition. The EU also scrutinises the legislation of the third country to assess on the basis of 
equivalence that the criteria for operating of a GI regime are met. The product specification is also 
scrutinised and the names published for opposition. GIs cannot be finally protected under the 
bilateral agreements until all these processes have been completed.  
 
3.3 Measure Affecting Production and Trade  
3.3.8 Intellectual Property Rights  
3.3.8.2 Industrial Property  
3.3.8.2.5 Geographical indications  
Page 122, paragraph 3.306  
 
The report states that the EU has established exclusive and unitary GI protection systems for 
wines, spirits, aromatized wines and other agricultural products and foodstuffs.  
 
Question 16  
Australia understands that enforcing GIs may be up to individual Member States. Information on 
how Member States do this is difficult to find, particularly as it does not appear to be available on 
any central EU websi te. 
 
To the extent applicable, can the EU please provide information on how each of its Member States 
enforce GIs including the regulations underpinning the enforcement, and the broad role of the EU, 
each Member State, businesses, industry organisations an d individuals in the enforcement 
process?  
 
EU reply: Protection in the market place of each EU Member State is a national responsibility. A 
common approach to the enforcement of food law is provided through the Official Feed and Food 
Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. Member States' competent authorities and nomin ated control 
bodies manage the controls for all food and feed labelling law in the marketplace, including GIs.  
 
The contact details of the national control authorities are available on the website of the 
Commission and further information for each Member S tate is available at national level. The 
Commission regularly updates the list of competent authorities for controls in the market place 
which any natural or legal person may address in case of alleged fraudulent marketing practices.  
 
The EU has an extensi ve set of rules on official controls in the agri -food chain to provide efficient 
and stronger enforcement tools at national level. A network of food fraud contact points in the 
Member States has been set up to facilitate administrative assistance and coope ration in cases of 
cross-border violations.  
 
Both, the fight against food counterfeiting as well as the maintenance of a high level of consumer 
protection are important issues for the EU. The EU Customs Action Plan to combat IPR 
infringements (2013 -2017) a nd the action plan on the enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights 
complete a comprehensive legal framework with effective enforcement tools contributing to 
prohibit the entry into the Union customs territory, the distribution and the sale of counterfei ted 
goods.  
 
In addition, in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 the customs authorities of the 
Member States may act at the border and detain goods suspected of infringing GIs.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 180 - 
 
  Finally, counterfeit food is also the focus of regular cross -border o perations between Member State 
law enforcement authorities, such as through the ‘Opson’ operations, within the framework of the 
EU Policy Cycle on Serious and Organised Crime, facilitated by Europol.  
 
Protection against registration of conflictual EU trade  marks (managed by EUIPO) is provided in 
accordance with the Trade Mark Regulation. This provides for four basic avenues (absolute 
grounds examination, relative grounds examination, invalidity procedures with respect to absolute 
grounds and with respect to  relative grounds) to challenge a trade mark based on grounds listed in 
GI legislation. One of these avenues, the examination on absolute grounds, is performed ex officio.  
 
The Communication "EU Law: Better Results through Better Application" (C(2016)8600,  
21.12.2016) underlines that breaches of Union law should be addressed by the Member State 
where the breach occurs.  
 
3.3 Measure Affecting Production and Trade  
3.3.8 Intellectual Property Rights  
3.3.8.2 Industrial Property  
3.3.8.2.5 Geographical indicatio ns 
Page 122, paragraph 3.307  
 
The report states that procedures for the application for registration of GIs originating in the EU 
have been described in previous reports. As regards GIs of products of non -EU origin, they may be 
protected in the EU either t hrough direct application or by means of inclusion in FTAs. In the 
former, the application may be sent either directly, or through the authorities of the country where 
the geographical area is located, to the Commission.  
 
Question 17  
Would the EU please describe the key differences between the national objections procedures of 
Member States and the objections procedures at the EU level?  
 
EU reply:  Regarding opposition procedure see also answers given for Question 14.  
 
The essential di fference between national and EU -level opposition procedures in agri -food and wine 
sectors is that an operator in the Member State which submitted the application (and was 
therefore able to object at national level) has no standing to object at EU level. T his restriction 
does not apply to operators based in third countries who can always file an opposition at EU level. 
In the spirits and aromatised wines sectors, the national -based stakeholders are able to oppose at 
EU level.  
 
The application for protection  must be filed with the Member State in the territory of which the 
designation of origin or geographical indication originates. The Member State with which the 
application for protection is filed examines it in order to verify whether it meets the conditio ns. 
That Member State must carry out a national procedure ensuring adequate publication of the 
application and providing for a deadline from the date of publication within which any natural or 
legal person having a legitimate interest and resident or estab lished on its territory may object to 
the proposed protection by lodging a duly substantiated statement with that Member State.  
 
3.3 Measure Affecting Production and Trade  
3.3.8 Intellectual Property Rights  
3.3.8.2 Industrial Property  
3.3.8.2.5 Geographic al indications  
Page 123, paragraph 3.308.  
 
The report states that according to the 2016 EUIPO report referred to above, nearly 3,400 EU GI 
names are registered in four databases maintained by the European Commission. In addition, in 
December 2016, the EUIPO database listed about another 1,500 third -country GIs that are 
protected pursuant to bilateral agreements concluded by the EU with a number of countries.  
 
Question 18  
Would the EU please describe how third parties may best check publicly available information for 
GIs and track the progress of a GI application in the EU through examination and any objections 
process?  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 181 - 
 
  EU reply:  GI databases are available for public consu ltation:  
o The Database of Origin and Registration (DOOR) for agricultural products and 
foodstuffs contains names registered or applied for as PDOs and PGIs.  
o The wine register "E -Bacchus" is a database which includes the register of 
protected designations o f origin and protected GIs from member States and third 
countries that are protected in the EU under Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.  
o Spirits bearing a GI are registered in Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008. 
"E-Spirit Drinks", a register of GIs protec ted, or applied for, in the EU for spirits 
originating in Member States and third countries.  
o Register of Geographical Designations for Aromatised Drinks Based on Wine 
Products contains a list of five names protected in the EU.  
o Searchable list of GIs of th ird countries protected in bilateral agreements, available 
on the EU's agriculture and food website.  
 
Regarding applications, opposition and registration of GIs, information is published in the Official 
Journal of the European Union.  
 
Question 19  
Would the  EU please describe how translations and transliterations of GIs are examined and 
protected in the EU?  
 
EU reply:  The name of a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication 
must be registered in its original script. Where the orig inal script is not Latin characters, a 
transcription in Latin characters shall be registered together with the name in its original script. 
After registration the GI name and its transcription is protected.  
 
In the European Union the registration of the na me of GIs is restricted to the language or 
languages used or historically used in the region of origin of the product. Transliteration and 
translation of GI names are not protected in the EU.  
 
3.3 Measure Affecting Production and Trade  
3.3.8 Intellectual Property Rights  
3.3.8.2 Industrial Property  
3.3.8.2.5 Geographical indications  
Page 124, paragraph 3.312  
 
Agreements with GI coverage which have been finalised or have entered into force . 
 
Question 20  
Would the EU please provide more detail on EU border measures relevant to goods infringing GIs?   
 
EU reply:  Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 on customs enforcement of intellectual property rights 
sets out the conditions and procedures for action by the customs authorities where goods 
suspected of infringing and i ntellectual property right (IPR) are, or should have been, subject to 
customs supervision or control. The list of IPR covered by the Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 is 
given in article 2. Geographical Indications (GI) are referred to under points 1d and 4 of A rticle 2.  
 
Goods are detained by the customs authorities where, on a case by case basis, there are 
reasonable indications that the goods infringe an intellectual property right. Suspected goods can 
be destroyed upon agreement of parties concerned without t here being any need to determine 
whether an intellectual property right has been infringed. In the absence of such agreement, the 
right holder must initiate proceedings before the competent authority to take a decision on the 
substance in order to determin e whether an intellectual property right has been infringed; 
otherwise, the customs authorities shall grant the release of the goods or put an end to their 
detention.  
 
3.3 Measure Affecting Production and Trade  
3.3.8 Intellectual Property Rights  
3.3.8.3. Enforcement  
3.3.8.3.3. Enforcement at the EU’s external borders  
Page 134, Table 3.32 Enforcement of IPRs 2013 -2015  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 182 - 
 
  The table outlines enforcement of IPRS and gives a breakdown of cases in 2015.  
 
Question 21  
If possible, would the EU please provide a break down of information in relation to any EU customs 
actions and cases relevant to GI enforcement in particular?  
 
EU reply:  The Commission would like to refer to the report on EU Customs Enforcement of IPRs32 
where in chapter 10 an overview is given of the de tained goods and the involved IP rights. In 2015 
0.06% of all detained articles concerned a suspicion of an infringement of Geographical Indication. 
The data being aggregated at EU level, the Commission is not in a position to provide specific case 
informa tion. 
 
4 Trade policies by sector  
4.1 Agriculture  
4.1.2 Agricultural policies  
4.1.2.1 Domestic support  
4.1.2.1.1 Direct Payments  
Page 139, Paragraph 4.6  
 
The report states that since 1 January 2015, a new direct payments scheme has been applied, 
based on Regulation (EU) No. 1307/2013 and implementing legislation in Commission Regulations 
(EU) Nos. 639/2014 and 641/2014. The national ceilings for each member  State for each year 
were set out in Regulation (EU) No. 1307/20132 (as amended).  
 
Question 22  
Can the European Union provide information on the average direct payment made to individual 
farmers in the European Union and also for individual Member States? Can the European Union 
provide data on the average amount individual farmers received under the new direct payments 
scheme that has been applied since 1 January 2015, with the previous scheme (perhaps for 2013 
and 2014)?  
 
EU reply:  DG AGRI publishes on its  EUROPA website a report on the distribution of direct aids to 
agricultural producers with a corresponding breakdown of direct payments by Member State and 
size of payment:  
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap -funding/beneficiaries/direct -aid_en . 
 
The report and the figures are available until the 2015 financial year and figures are analysed in 
the related report for each financial year.  
 
The figures for the 2016 finan cial year (claim year 2015) are under verification by the Member 
States. The deadline for the verification by the Member States is end of July. The report and the 
figures for the 2016 financial year are planned to be published on EUROPA in the last quarter  of 
2017.  
 
In addition, information on direct payments providing average payment per hectare for 2015 (and 
not per farmer) is available in figure 4 at the following link:  
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/direct -support/direct -payments/docs/direct 
-payments -schemes_en.pdf . 
 
4.1.2.1.1 Direct Payments  
Page 139, Paragraph 4.12  
 
The report states that each Member State was required to allocate 30% of the national ceiling for 
direct payments to agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment 
(Greening). To qualify for payments, three basic requirements must be met relating to c rop 
diversification and maintenance of permanent grass land, and each holding over 15 ha must have 
at least 5% of the area designated as an "ecological focus area".  
 
                                                
32 http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/fil es/2016_ipr_statistics.pdf . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 183 - 
 
  Question 23  
We note that in order to receive the ‘greening’ direct payments under the 2013  CAP Reform, there 
are ‘three obligatory agricultural practices, namely maintenance of permanent grassland, 
ecological focus areas and crop diversification’, with the crop diversification criteria related to 
production. Can the EU please explain whether th is measure is trade -distorting?  
 
EU reply:  The 2013 CAP reform introduced several instruments to promote environmental 
sustainability and combat climate change. Under direct payments the "greening" direct payment, 
which is a subsidy granted to farmers on the condition that they undertake practices  that are 
beneficial to the climate and to the environment (Article 43 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013). It 
should be underlined that farmers may only be paid the full basic payment and greening payment 
if they have fulfilled the obligations under greening  and undertaken the necessary practices that 
are beneficial to climate and the environment.  
 
The agricultural practices under greening include the maintenance of existing permanent 
grassland, application of crop diversification and the establishment of eco logical focus areas on the 
agricultural area. Subject to a decision by Member States a farmer can, instead of applying these 
basic practices, undertake practices which are considered equivalent (such as crop rotation instead 
of crop diversification). 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. Member States must allocate 30% of their direct payment envelope to green direct 
payments . 
 
The greening of direct payments forms a new instrument of the CAP, which is granted for 
implementing three compulsory practices whose environmental and climate benefits have been 
proven. It 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.  
 
The greening payment is a payment granted with no requirement to produce. The maintenance of 
permanent grassland is the condition of eligib ility for the greening payment, irrespective of 
whether there is agricultural production or not on the area. It is a decoupled income support and 
not related to price support. Payments under the greening measure comply with paragraph 1 of 
Annex 2 to the Ag reement on Agriculture as well as with the relevant criteria of paragraph 6.  
 
Question 24  
Can the EU explain the measures it is taking so that crop diversification is beneficial to the 
environment and for climate, rather than being a produ ction risk mitiga tion strategy?  
 
EU reply:  The crop diversification requirement reflects 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 management o f pesticides and fertilisers.  
 
4.1.2 Agricultural policies  
4.1.2.1 Domestic support  
4.1.2.1.1 Direct Payments  
Page 141, Paragraph 4.14  
 
The report states that each member State is required to operate the young farmers' scheme which 
provides additional paym ents to farmers aged 40 years or under who are setting up in farming for 
the first time as head of an agricultural holding, or who have already done so within the five years 
preceding the scheme  
 
Question 25  
How many recipients have obtained assistance in each Member State under the Young Farmers’ 
Scheme?  
 
EU reply:  The European Commission has the following information regarding beneficiaries of the 
Young Farmer Payment under Pillar I in claim year 2015 (source: CATS data):  
  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 184 - 
 
  Country  Number of farmers eligi ble for the Young Farmer 
Payment under Pillar I  
BE 1858 
BG 2872 
CZ 3611 
DK 917 
DE 22024  
EE 556 
IE 7953 
EL 24121  
ES 7634 
FR 22310  
HR 4612 
IT 24145  
CY 327 
LV 1777 
LT 8592 
LU 113 
HU 7575 
MT 229 
NL 4360 
AT 7530 
PL 87108  
PT 3301 
RO 18510  
SI 3636 
SK 264 
FI 4564 
SE 3588 
U.K. 3594 
 
Report by  the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/357)  
4.1 Agriculture  
4.1.1 Trade  
4.1.2.1 Domestic support  
Page 141, paragraph 4.18  
 
The report states that, all member States, except Germany, opted to provide coupled support 
where payments are linked to production, varying from 0.2% of the national ceiling (Ireland) to 
20.5% (Portugal) and 57.2% (Malta). For coupled support greater than  these limits, approval from 
the Commission was required.  
 
 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 185 - 
 
  Question 26  
Noting that Malta’s allocation arose from a derogation allowing the use of €3 million for voluntary 
coupled support what, if any, requirements are in place before a member Stat e may be eligible to 
derogate?  
 
EU reply:  Specific rules apply to Malta due to the small size of the country and the structure of its 
agricultural sector. Owing to in particular the limited size of the national ceiling for direct payments 
available to Malta that  results from this situation, the application of the percentages fixed by the 
Regulation would have not allowed Malta to finance and implement the voluntary coupled support 
scheme in a realistic way.  
 
Question 27  
How long does the EU foresee the beef, vea l and dairy sectors will require this type of support and 
what review mechanisms are in place to determine the appropriate time to stop providing coupled 
support?  What are the review mechanisms and how will they be applied?  
 
EU reply:  Under Regulation (EU)  1307/2013 governing direct payments, voluntary coupled 
support (VCS) can be applied in up to 21 agricultural sectors and type of production at the choice 
of each Member State. The support is limited in terms of both amounts available and objectives. 
Membe r States may only grant VCS in clearly defined cases where 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 abandonment of production. 
VCS may be granted as long as the difficulties identified are present within the period 2015 -2020. 
VCS is granted within defined quantitative limits and based on fixed areas and yields or on a fixed 
number of animals. Member S tates decide on the shares of their direct payments financial ceiling 
to be assigned to the scheme. Where applied, the share for Voluntary Coupled Support is fixed as 
a general rule up to 8 or 13 % (+2% for protein crops) of each Member State annual nation al 
ceiling for direct payments, or more upon Commission approval.  
 
All the eligible sectors and types of production (out of the list of 21) have been targeted, by at 
least one Member State, under this scheme for the 2015 -2020 period with the exception of c ane 
sugar and chicory, short rotation coppice and dried fodder. The sectors most often supported by 
Member States are beef and veal, milk and dairy products, sheep and goat meat, protein crops, 
fruit and vegetables and sugar beet.  
 
Member States had the po ssibility to review their initial decisions by 1 August 2016 with effect 
from 2017.  
 
Question 28  
Was there a reason why coupled support was necessary when temporary exceptional aid to 
producers of milk and milk products, beef and veal, and pig, sheep, and  goat meat was also being 
provided?  
 
EU reply:  The decision to use the maximum allowance for voluntary coupled support is valid 
during the period 2015 -2020. Member States had the possibility to review their initial decisions by 
1 August 2016 with effect f rom 2017. Member States may only grant VCS 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 ter ms of risk 
of decline or of abandonment of production. Payments shall be granted to the extent necessary to 
create an incentive to maintain current levels of production. Temporary exceptional aid applied due 
to a temporary exceptional market situation.  
 
Question 29  
Will the EU put measures in place to transition away from reliance on coupled support in the 
future?  
 
EU reply:  The decision to use the maximum allowance for voluntary coupled support is valid 
during the period 2015 -2020. Member States had the possibility to review their initial decisions by 
1 August 2016 with effect from 2017.  
 
 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 186 - 
 
  4.1.2 Agricultural policies  
4.1.2. 1 Domestic support  
4.1.2.1.2 Internal market support measures  
Page 144, Paragraph 4.23 and Table 4.7  
 
The report states that in 2015 and 2016, private storage aid for butter, cheese, and pig meat plus 
intervention and private storage aid for skimmed milk powder were used to address declining 
demand for these products  
 
Question 30  
We note substantial intervention and private storage aid was provided for skim milk powder in 
2016. Would the EU please advise what steps the EU is taking to reduce these stockpil es of skim 
milk powder in a manner which is not disruptive of trade.  
 
EU reply:  Article 16(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013 provides that the disposal of 
products bought in under public intervention shall take place in such a way as to avoid any 
disturbance of the market.  
 
Within this framework, the Commission is in a permanent process of assessing how best to release 
products onto the market, in terms of timing, quantities and prices. The decision is taken together 
with Member States.  
 
4.1.2.1 Domest ic support  
4.1.2.1.2 Internal market support measures  
Page 148, Paragraph 4.31  
 
The report states that production quotas for sugar are to be abolished on 30 September 2017.  
 
Question 31  
The expiry of the European Union’s existing sugar programme, including  sugar production quotas, 
and elimination of scheduled export subsidy entitlements for sugar on 30 September 2017 is a 
significant event for the global sugar industry, but one that also presents potential challenges. 
What arrangements has the European Unio n put in place to address the risks of production and 
market volatility after that date? We understand that sugar production in the European Union will 
continue to be subsidised, what arrangements has the European Union put in place to ensure that 
any EU s ugar exports will comply with the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition?  
 
EU reply:  The end of the production quotas in the sugar sector by September 2017 is in itself the 
most important reform to ensure that EU farmers can respond to market signals. It means the end 
of the system of annual production quotas for sugar which is to come to  an end in September 
2017 along with the minimum price system for sugar beet. Following the abolition of the sugar 
production quotas in 2017 there will be no applicable export limits for sugar. It ensures that EU 
farmers can respond to market signals. As a  consequence, EU prices are likely to be further in line 
with world prices. In general, it is expected that there would be an increase of the competitiveness 
of the EU sugar industry.  
 
Under Regulation (EU) 1307/2013 governing direct payments, voluntary co upled support (VCS) 
can be applied in up to 21 agricultural sectors and type of production, including the sugar beet 
production, at the choice of each Member State. The support is limited in terms of both amounts 
available and objectives. Member States may  only grant VCS in clearly defined cases where 
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 abandonme nt of production. Coupled support may only be granted to the extent necessary to 
create an incentive to maintain current levels of production.  
 
Under Regulation (EU) 1308/2013, private storage aid (where a private company takes ownership 
and has a storage contract with the authorities of the EU Member State) may be used for white 
sugar.  
 
None of this support is contingent on export performance. The payment of export subsidies for 
sugar was abolished from 2008/2009 marketing year. All EU sugar exports will thus conform to the 
Nairobi Ministerial Decision.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 187 - 
 
  4.2 Fisheries  
4.2.4 Policies  
4.2.4.1 The maximum sustainable yield (MSY)  
Page 162, paragraph 4.68  
 
The report states that MSY is the main approach to managing fisheries practices to restore and 
maintain fis h stocks.  
 
Page 162, paragraph 4.69  
The report states that the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) will utilise multi -annual plans and total 
allowable catches (TAC) to reach MSY.  
 
Question 32  
Does the EU intend to apply the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) beyond their waters?  
 
EU reply:  In line with article 1 of the CFP Regulation, the CFP applies on activities carries out a) 
on the territory of EU Member States, b) in Union waters, including by fishing vessels flying the 
flag of and registered in third countries and c) by Union fishing vessels outside Union waters or d) 
by nationals of Member States, without prejudice to the primary responsibility of the flag State.  
 
Question 33  
How does the CFP align with EU positions at international Regional Fisheries Managemen t 
organisations (RFMOs)?  
EU reply:  As per Article 28 of Regulation (EU) 1380/2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, in  
order to ensure sustainable exploitation, management and conservation of marine biological 
resources and the marine environment, the Europe an Union shall conduct its external fisheries 
relations in accordance with its international obligations and the main objectives of the CFP.  
Notably it is envisaged that the EU shall:  
(a) actively support and contribute to the development of scientific kn owledge and advice;  
improve  policy coherence of Union initiatives, with particular regard to environmental, trade and 
development activities and strengthen consistency of actions taken in the context of development 
cooperation and scientific, technical and economic cooperation;  
 
(c) contribute to sustainable fishing activities that are economically viable and promote 
employment within the Union; ensure that Union fishing activities outside Union waters are based 
on the same principles and standards as those applicable under Unio n law in the area of the CFP, 
while promoting a level –playing field for Union operators vis -à-vis third -country operators;  
 
(e) promote and support, in all international spheres, action necessary to eradicate IUU -
fishing; promote the establishment and  the strengthening of compliance committees of RFMOs, 
periodical independent performance reviews and appropriate remedial actions, including effective 
and dissuasive penalties, which are to be applied in a transparent and non -discriminatory manner.  
Questi on 34  
Has the EU considered the utilisation or impact of Maximum Economic Yield approach to manage 
fisheries practices?  
 
EU reply:  The current CFP is based on a maximum sustainable yield approach to be achieved by 
2020 at the latest. It is not excluded tha t once this objective is achieved, the next CFP could aim 
at achieving MEY, but it is too early to say.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 188 - 
 
  4.3 Services  
4.3.2 E –commerce in the Digital Single Market  
Page 171, paragraph 4.115  
 
The report notes that the draft regulation on geo -blocking aims  to ensure that customers seeking 
to buy products and services in another EU country, either online or in person, are not 
discriminated against in terms of access to prices, sales or payment conditions in view of their 
nationality, residence or place of es tablishment.  
 
Question 35  
Can the EU provide an update on the status of the proposed regulation?  
 
EU reply:  The Geo -blocking proposal was adopted by the Commission in May 2016. It is seen as 
one of the priority points for the European Parliament for 2017 a nd the EU Council. Both legislators 
adopted their positions and the final stage of legislative process started in May. Technical meetings 
and trilogues are currently taking place under Maltese Presidency.  
 
The Commission works closely with legislators to f acilitate compromise and enable smooth 
adoption of the proposal.  
 
Question 36  
Could the EU envisage the extension of the proposed regulation, or the negotiation of similar trade 
rules, to cover customers from a non -EU country seeking to buy products or services from traders 
in the EU and customers from an EU country seeking to buy p roducts or services from traders 
located in a non -EU country?  
 
EU reply:  The EU currently does not envisage extending the relevant rules to third countries, be it 
unilaterally or through trade agreements.  
 
4.3.3 Financial Services  
Page 175 - 176, Paragrap hs 4.123 – 4.130  
 
The report provides detailed information on the financial reforms undertaken by the EU in the 
aftermath of the 2008 – 2009 financial crisis. It identifies that these reforms are grouped into 
three “pillars”: those aimed at building new ru les for the global financial system; those aimed at 
establishing a safe, responsible and growth -enhancing financial sector in Europe; and those aimed 
at completing the banking union to strengthen the euro. Paragraph 4.126 states that the second 
proposal of  the first pillar, a proposal for a regulation on structural measures improving the 
resilience of EU credit institutions, is still un -adopted.  
 
Question 37  
We thank the EU and the Secretariat for the detailed information provided in this report, and 
welcom e the reforms undertaken by the EU in the aftermath of the 2008 – 2009 financial crisis. 
Regarding the three pillars of financial services reform, could the EU provide further information on 
why the second proposal of the first pillar (paragraph 4.126 refe rs) remains “still un -adopted”, and 
what efforts have been taken to secure its adoption?  
 
EU reply:  As regards the Commission's proposal on bank structural measures, the Council agreed 
a general approach in June 2015, amending the Commission's proposal in a number of ways. The 
European Parliament has not yet reached agreement on the file. It is accordingly difficult to 
provide a specific timetable for starting trilogues between the Parliament, Council and the 
Commission in order to reach agreement.  
 
Questio n 38 
Regarding the second proposal of the second pillar, Directive 2015/2366 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, 
aimed at enhancing consumer protection promoting innovation and impro ving the security of 
payment services (paragraph 4.130 refers), we welcome indications that the EU is pursuing 
consumer protection in electronic payment services. Do these proposals limit electronic payment to 
payment by cards, or do they also cover “new p ayment services” that don’t rely on a card and 
cardholder information (such as Apple Pay)?  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 189 - 
 
  EU reply : The revised Payment Services Directive (PSD2) referred to by Australia and its related 
consumer protection requirements apply to all payment services exce pt for the exclusions listed in 
article 3 of the Directive such as cash -to-cash payments, transport of funds and cheques. The 
services covered are all listed in Annex I and include electronic payments such as credit transfers, 
direct debits, card payments but also cash withdrawal or new types of payment services such as 
payment initiation services. This implies that Apple Pay for instan ce is covered by the Directive.  
 
4.3.3 Financial Services  
Page 178, Paragraph 4.137  
 
The report states that negotiations on  a Financial Transaction Tax are still ongoing, and that the 
ten participating member States in the enhanced cooperation are continuing discussions to find a 
compromise on the design of the common Financial Transaction Tax.  
 
Question 39  
Noting that negotia tions on the design of the Financial Transaction Tax are still ongoing, could the 
EU please provide some information on the intended coverage of the proposed tax. What elements 
of transactions are proposed to be taxed, what issues are proposed to be addres sed by this tax, 
and what ten member States are participating?  
 
EU reply:  At present, the 10 EU Member States participating in the enhanced cooperation are 
continuing technical and political discussions to find a compromise on the design of a directive on 
FTT. The Commission 2011 proposal had been addressed to all the EU Member States. Two years 
later, considering the impossibility to decide at the unanimity on the project, a number of Member 
States asked the Commission to go ahead under the enhanced cooper ation procedure (introduced 
by the Lisbon Treaty). According to this procedure, at least 9 MS can go ahead on a specific 
project, if this project respects some criteria and, notably, does not endanger the internal market.  
 
Report by the European Union (WT/TPR/G/357)  
3 DEVELOPMENTS IN THE INTERNAL MARKET: THE SINGLE MARKET STRATEGY  
Modernization of the European standardization system  
Page 6, paragraph 3.8 and footnote 10  
 
The news item on the Joint Initiative on Standardisation hyperlink in footnote 10 states that the 
proposal for a 2017 work programme for European s tandardiz ation identifies the services and ICT 
sectors  as priority areas for future standard -setting, given t heir cross -cutting role in the economy. 
In April 2016, the Commission already proposed concrete measures to speed up the ICT standard 
setting process by focusing on five priority areas: 5G, cloud computing, internet of things, data 
technologies and cyberse curity. Now, the Commission recommends a renewed focus on the 
services sector.  
 
Furthermore, the news item notes that while services account for 70% of the EU economy, service 
standards only account for around 2% of all European standards. The fragmentatio n of standards 
acts as a barrier to the cross -border provision of services. Complementing other initiatives under 
the Single Market Strategy to facilitate the cross -border provision of services , the Commission 
proposes to prioritise and promote the targeted development of voluntary European service 
standards. Examples of services standards include terminology on hotels and other tourism 
accommodation.  
 
Question 40  
Could the EU provide fu rther information on how these concrete measures have sped up the ICT 
standard setting process and how this is expected to contribute boosting digital innovation?  
 
EU reply:  The Communication on ICT standardisation priorities envisages also a high level process 
to achieve the prioritised action.  The elements of this process include inter alia : 
 
1) Validation of priorities and improving the efficiency of the standard -setting process in 
Europe, by the joint definition by the Commission and the standardisation community of 
annual timetables and roadmaps for each of the deliverables set out in the Communication.  
 
2) Regularly reviewing and monitoring progress of European standardisation organisations, and 
informing the European Parliament and Council regularly, hig hlighting especially the WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 190 - 
 
  prioritisation of ICT standards to achieve the Digital Single Market. The Commission will 
involve industry representatives, other relevant stakeholders and the European 
standardisation organisations in the process of monitoring pro gress on the deliverables for 
each of the priority domains, taking due account of the reporting obligations.  
 
3) Improving EU support to ICT priority standardisation, by using Horizon 2020 and Connecting 
Europe Facility funds to strengthen existing and deplo y forward -looking standardisation 
activities. Moreover, through its Joint Research Centre, the Commission will provide pro -
active scientific and technical support in the priority standardisation areas. In addition the 
Commission will fund large -scale pilot  projects in the priority areas identified, in order to 
validate and improve the take -up of standards.  
 
It is expected that timely and harmonised setting of standards in the five priority areas mentioned 
in the Communication will enable European innovator s to compete and to bring new products to 
the global market, and thus to boost the digital innovation in general.  
Information on ICT Standardisation in the EU, in particular the Rolling Plan for ICT Standardisation 
2017, which sets the EU priorities, can b e found under:  
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/digital -transformation/ict -standardisation_en  
 
Question 41  
Has the Initiative resulted in any new European standards in the five priority areas: 5G, cloud 
computing, internet of things, data technologies and cybersecurity?  
 
EU reply:  The Communication on ICT standardisation priorities was adopted in April 2016, 
therefore after a little bit more than one year no European standard has resulted yet  from the 
standardisation work.  However, various standardisation activities are ongoing in the five priority 
areas and impacted sectors (e -health, transport system, smart en ergy, advanced manufacturing) 
that are addressed in the Communication, and involve the European/international  standardisation 
organisations as well as other SDOs and stakeholders.  The results are expected in the period 
2018-2020, depending on the specific activity.  
 
Question 42  
Could the EU provide an update on the development of European services standards, including on 
how the proposed standards will reduce barriers to the cross -border provision of services?  
 
EU reply:  European service standards can poten tially contribute to service market integration by 
raising quality of services in the EU, including safety, improving transparency, communication and 
interoperability by setting commonly agreed definitions as well as defining requirement for the 
service pr ovision. They can thus facilitate cross -border provision of services. So far service 
standardisation has taken place more often at national than at European level. Such fragmentation 
can cause barriers to service prov iders operating across borders.  
 
To respond to the calls of stakeholders and as announced in the Single Market Strategy, in June 
2016, the Commission set out its intended strategy for service standardisation in the Chapeau 
Communication for the Standardisation package and adopted a dedicated  guidance in the form of a 
Staff Working Document33 scoping the issues, exploring the benefits and challenges of moving 
ahead at a European level, and setting out the broad parameters for how to go forward. Building 
up on the Commission's guidance and in th e frame of Action 12 of the Joint Init iative on 
Standardisation, in March 2017, CEN adopted a strategy on service standards. Its implementation 
will include prioritisation of service areas and the development of an awareness raising package 
with the suppor t and contribution of relevant stakeholders in 2017 and 2018.  
 
Voluntary European service standards are developed by European Standardisation Organisations, 
following a request from businesses or societal stakeholders, or a Commission's request (please 
see the 2017 CEN -CENELEC work programme  
https://www.cencenelec.eu/News/Publications/Publications/cen -cenelec -wp2017_en.pdf ). The 
Commission has issued mandates for ICT services, postal services, and transportation as well as 
on horizontal service standards34. The work on horizontal service standards is based on the 
                                                
33 Tapping the potential of European service standards to help Europe's consumers and businesses, 
SWD(2016)186.  
34 These are standards that are not sector -specific, but concern a particular aspect of service provision 
that can be relevant to many sectors.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 191 - 
 
  Commission's mandate M/517 given to CEN in 2014. The mandate began with a programming 
phase to deter mine horizontal topics best suited for standardisation. The relevant CEN Technical 
Committee has been set up and began its work in 2016 to develop horizontal service standards in 
the area of procurement (both public and private), performance measurement an d contracts.   
 
3 Developments in the Internal Market: The Single Market Strategy  
Reforms towards a more integrated Single Market in services  
Page 7, Paragraph 3.14  
 
The report states that, in addition to the 2006 Services Directive, a number of sector -specific laws 
provide the rules for financial services, transport, telecommunication, postal services, broadcasting 
and patient rights. The report provides the example of the package adopted to improve 
competitiveness and quality of services in the rail sector . 
 
Question 43  
We thank the EU for the provision of information on the fourth railway package, and would be 
interested in the sector -specific laws adopted for financial services, transport, telecommunication, 
postal services, broadcasting and patient right s. In particular, what were the sector -specific laws 
adopted for these sectors, and how have they impacted competition and service delivery in their 
respective sectors?  
 
EU reply:  Sector specific legislation in the postal sector (the Postal Services Direct ive 97/67/EC as 
amended by 2002/39/EC and 2008/6/EC) led to competition in the sector because the legislation 
slowly removed the former postal monopoly. The legislation also created requirements for the 
quality of service, including delivery times for intr a-EU cross -border mail. The proportion of mail 
achieving these targets increased after 1997 when the Postal  Services Directive was adopted . 
The EU Regulatory Framework of Telecommunications Services consists of 5 Directives : 
(Framework, Access, Authorisation, Universal Service), and 2 Regulations  on the Body of 
European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and on Roaming. 
https://ec.euro pa.eu/digital -single -market/en/telecoms -rules. 
 
In particular on Roaming : 
End of roaming charges for intra -EU travellers and fair use policy  
https://ec.europa.eu/digital -single -market/en/policies/roaming  
https://ec.europa.eu/digital -single -market/en/news/end -roaming -charges -travellers -eu-2017 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press -releases/2017/04/25 -free-roaming -from-june/  
http://europa.eu/rapid/press -release_MEMO -16-3164_en.htm . 
 
Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2012  
on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union (recast)  
OJ L 172/10,  of 30.6.2012  
http://eur -lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:172:0010:0035:EN:PDF . 
 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2286 of 1 5 December 2016 laying down detailed 
rules on the application of fair use policy and on the methodology for assessing the sustainability 
of the abolition of retail roaming surcharges and on the application to be submitted by a roaming 
provider for the purp oses of that assessment (Text with EEA relevance ) C/2016/8784  
OJ L 344, 17.12.2016, p. 46 –62 
http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016R2286 . 
 
Furthermore, the Commission has adopted 2 legislative proposals to modernize the regulatory 
framework, improve its enforcement and promote investment in new telecommunication networks. 
These proposals are currently discussed by the European Union co -legislati ng institutions, the 
European Parliament and the Council of Ministers of the European Union. The latest information 
about the legislative procedure can be found under in the Legislative Observatory of the European 
Parliament (OEIL):  
 
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European 
Electronic Communications Code (Recast)  COM (2016) 590 final of 12.10.2016  
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2016/0288%28COD%2
9&l=en . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 192 - 
 
  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Body of 
European Regulators for Electronic Communications  COM (2016) 591 final  
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2016/0286%28COD%2
9&l=en . 
 
Question 44  
Further, do any EU Member States regulate retail telecommunications services (including retail 
prices)? What forms would this regulation take (for example, requirements to provide information 
to end -users, requirements to supply specific services, regulation of terms and con ditions of 
services)?  
 
EU reply:  The EU regulatory framework includes rules for the protection of end users that are 
specific to the electronic communications sector, including, among others, minimum criteria for 
contracts, transparency rules and rules to facilitate changing providers. R etail prices are regulated 
in the case of international roaming within the EU. Retail -level regulatory controls on operators 
with significant market power can be imposed if a regulatory authority concludes that wholesale -
level controls would not be suffici ent. 
 
Question 45  
What processes are in place to determine which wholesale telecommunications services should be 
regulated, and how they are regulated? Is access to wholesale services determined by a Member 
State’s regulatory body, or by its central govern ment? Are all telecommunications service suppliers 
required to provide access to regulated wholesale services, or only those with significant market 
power?  
 
EU reply:  Within the EU electronic communications framework certain rules, including, among 
others,  wholesale access rules, apply only to operators that are designated with significant market 
power within a specific product and geographic market, on the basis of a market analysis by a 
national regulatory authority. Certain limited access rules can be im posed on all operators 
regardless of their market power. National regulatory authorities are independent from central 
government.  
 
3 DEVELOPMENTS IN THE INTERNAL MARKET: THE SINGLE MARKET STRATEGY  
Mutual recognition of professional qualifications  
Page 8, paragraph 3.17  
 
The report cites the European Professional Card, initially applicable to five professions, as an 
example of amendments to the 2005 Professional Qualifications directive 14 in order to enhance 
recognition processes through better use of elec tronic networks.  
 
Question 46  
How will the European Professional Card enhance recognition procedures and when is it expected 
to be operational?  
 
EU reply:  The European Professional Card (EPC) allows professionals to get their qualifications 
recognised thro ugh the first EU -wide fully digital procedure for professional qualifications. This 
procedure, supported by the Internal Market Information System (IMI), makes the recognition of 
qualifications faster and less burdensome. It is based on an increased cooper ation between 
competent authorities of the home and the host Member States and increases the transparency of 
applicable requirements for the authorities and the applicants. From 18 January 2016, the EPC is 
available for 5 professions: nurses responsible fo r general care, pharmacists, physiotherapists, 
mountain guides and real estate agents.  
 
Question 47  
Will the European Professional Card be available to non -EU nationals that are established in an EU 
country and/or authorised to provide services in an EU country?  
 
EU reply: The European Professional Card is available to non -EU nationals who are assimilated to 
an EU national on the basis of EU Directives on legal migration granting him/her relevant rights on 
legal residence and within the limitations of tho se Directives, such as Blue Card Directive 
2009/50/EC, the Directive 2003/109/EC on Long -term Residents, and within the limitations of 
Articles 2(2) and 3(3) of Directive 2005/36/EC.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 193 - 
 
  Question 48  
Are there plans to extend the European Professional Card to other service sectors in the future?  
 
EU reply:  The EPC is currently available to nurses responsible for general care, pharmacists, 
physiotherapists, mountain guides and real estate agents. The EPC may be extended to other 
professions meeting the criteria set out in the Professional Qualifications Directive. However, there 
is no set date or suggested scope for such an extension to this date.  
 
3 DEVELOPMENTS IN THE INTERNAL MARKET: THE SINGLE MARKET STRATEGY  
Mutual recognition of professional qualifications  
Page 8, paragraph 3.18  
 
The report notes the Directive initiated a process of evaluation of all national professional 
regulation to ensure that only rules which were justified, proportionate and non -discriminatory 
should be maintained.  
 
Question 49  
Could the EU elaborate on how the proportionality test will ensure regulations on professional 
services are no more restrictive than necessary?  
 
EU reply:  In January 2017, the European Commission adopted (a) a proposal for a Directive35 on 
how Member States should carry out a proportionality test before adopting new or modifying 
existing national rules regarding access to and pursuit of professional services and (b) a 
Commission Communication36 on reform recommendations for regulation of professions .37 
 
A forwa rd looking proportionality test is set to be used by administrations when considering the 
introduction of new measures or reviewing current ones. Regulation governing the taking -up and 
pursuit of a professional activity must be justified by public interest  objectives, such as those 
within the meaning of the Treaty38, namely public policy, public security and public health or by 
overriding reasons of general interest, recognised as such in the case -law of the Court of Justice.  
 
More specifically, this test wi ll require Member States to base decisions to regulate a professional 
activity upon the principles of proportionality and necessity using objective data and considering 
the cumulative effect with prior existing protections such as consumer and health and s afety law.  
 
3 Developments in the Internet Market: The Single Market Strategy  
 
Page 9, Paragraph 3.29  
 
The report states that, in September 2016, the European Commission presented an ambitious 
overhaul of EU telecoms rules putting connectivity and access to the Internet for all EU citizens at 
the heart of EU telecoms policy.  
 
Question 50  
What is the estimated timeframe for consideration and adoption of the proposals?  
 
EU reply:  The proposal is under consideration by the Council of the European Union and the 
European Parliament. The precise timeframe for adoption cannot be predicted.  
 
Question 51  
What is the potential impact of these proposals on the current telecommunications regime and the 
market?  
 
EU reply:  The overall framework for the regulation of t elecommunications is maintained, as is the 
role of national regulatory authorities to implement regulation in the EU according to a set of 
common European rules. In line with the Commission's 2015 Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy 
for Europe, the propos al introduces reforms focusing on (i) a consistent single market approach to 
                                                
35 http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0822&from=EN . 
36 http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0820&from=en . 
37 With a  focus on 7 regulated professions selected on the basis of their economic importance, i.e. 
accountants, civil engineers, architects, lawyers, real estate agents, tourist guides and patent agents.  
38 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 194 - 
 
  spectrum policy and management (ii) delivering the conditions for a true single market by tackling 
regulatory fragmentation to allow economies of scale for efficient network opera tors and service 
providers and effective protection of consumers, (iii) ensuring a level playing field for market 
players and consistent application of the rules, (iv) incentivising investment in high -speed 
broadband networks (including a review of the Uni versal Service Directive) and (v) a more 
effective regulatory institutional framework.  
 
3 Developments in the Internal Market: The Single Market Strategy  
New measures for fair taxation  
Page 11, paragraph 3.38  
 
The report states that the Anti -Tax Avoidance Package contains a new EU process for listing third 
countries that refuse to play fair, with a list to be published by the end of 2017. The Anti -Tax 
Avoidance Package calls on Member States to take a more coordinated stance against companies 
that seek to a void paying their fair share of tax and to implement the international standards 
against base erosion and profit shifting.  
 
Question 52  
What is the process, including timing and steps, that the European Union will use to review third 
countries as part of i ts listing process?  
 
EU reply : At the end of January, the Chair of the Code of Conduct for Business Taxation Group, 
which is comprised of representatives of the 28 EU Finance Ministers, sent a letter to a number of 
relevant jurisdictions, informing them that they will be assessed by the EU, and inviting them to 
engage in the process.  Since then, the screening of and dialogue with the selected jurisdictions has 
started and is progressing well in the framework of the Code of Conduct, with the technical supp ort 
of the European Commission. Teams of experts have been set up, comprised of Member State 
experts and the European Commission, and they will assess the jurisdictions against the agreed 
criteria. The dialogue with concerned countries will be carried out for the period of 6 months, by 
summer 2017.  
 
This process is now ongoing and experts are collecting the information needed to assess all 
selected countries against the agreed criteria (transparency, fair taxation, adherence to Base 
Erosion and Profit Shift ing - BEPS).  This work is done in close coordination with the OECD and the 
Global Forum Secretariat to ensure full consistency between the EU screening the OECD/GF work.  
 
The Code of Conduct Group, will ensure appropriate transparency of the process. Once  this 
technical work is completed, following the necessary procedural steps, it is expected that the EU 
list will be adopted by the end of this year. Intensively work will be done over the coming months 
to ensure that the tax systems of the countries being  screened can be properly reviewed, and to 
engage in a dialogue process with these countries.  
 
Question 53  
Has consideration been given to minimising duplication with the OECD’s peer review process?  
 
EU reply:  The EU listing process is fully compatible wit h G20 commitments and OECD work on 
taxation and there is no duplication of work. The EU list will take stock of the OECD and Global 
Forum work. This will prevent the risk of duplication or contradiction at the same time still giving 
the EU listing process an added value compared to the G20 process because the EU criteria go 
further than transparency. The same approach will apply for preferential tax regimes which are 
potentially harmful. Where a jurisdiction is a member of the BEPS Inclusive Framework, the EU will 
take stock of the work carried out by the BEPS Inclusive Framework. This will ensure that there is 
no duplication of work. Close and regular contact with the OECD and Global Forum on these issues 
has been created and will be maintained to ensure wo rk is mutually complementary. The EU list is 
not intended as a competitor to the OECD transparency list but rather as a complementary tool to 
that. 
 
Question 54  
As the EU’s listing process might affect developing countries, has consideration been given to the 
impact the EU’s listing process may have on the OECD’s inclusive framework?  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 195 - 
 
  EU reply:  The EU is very sensitive to the situation of developing countries and of the need to 
support them in the international tax good governance framework given the partic ularly difficult 
constraints they face. However, it is useful to recall that not all developing countries share similar 
traits and some have developed big financial centres or internationally attractive tax regimes. The 
EU would like to stress that this in itiative is consistent with the "Collect More, Spend Better" 
Strategy to follow up on EU Addis Ababa commitments. It is also worth noting that  the EU is 
examining how to best prevent potential negative spill overs on developing countries and that. The 
48 Least Developed Countries which are not financial centres have been excluded from this 
exercise. It is also useful to clarify that if a country is chosen for screening, this does not pre -judge 
the outcome as this is an open dialogue process with certain cou ntries on tax good governance 
matters of mutual interest.  
 
4 Trade and Investment Policy Developments Since 2015  
4.1 Trade for All Communication and its implementation  
4.1.2 An effective EU trade policy that tackles new economic realities  
Page 16, Paragra ph 4.22  
The report states that the EU is consistently pursuing services trade liberalisation in its ongoing 
bilateral negotiations.  
 
Question 55  
We welcome the report’s findings that the EU is consistently pursuing trade liberalisation through 
ongoing bilateral negotiations, and would seek further examples of steps which have been taken to 
liberalise the financial services sector, the telecommunications sector and the movement of natural 
persons through these negotiations.  
 
EU reply:  Also regarding fina ncial services the EU's regulatory framework is liberal with few 
reservations for financial firms from other countries.  In general, the latter can establish by 
authorisation in the EU and provide financial services under the same conditions that apply for 
domestic firms. At the same time the EU advocates to include a number of financial services -
specific disciplines in its trade agreements to ensure a level playing field and promote trade in 
financial services.  
 
The EU is among the WTO members with the most  liberalised and most open Telecommunications 
Services sector and, in bilateral agreements, it aims at achieving  similar levels of liberalisation 
from its trading partners. Such liberalisation is accompanied by an ambitious set of regulatory 
disciplines th at seek to ensure reduction of barriers to entry and a level playing field for all 
operators in the market while imposing only the minimum necessary regulatory requirements for 
the provision of Telecommunications services in either partner's territory.  
 
As correctly referred, the EU is consistently pursuing trade liberalisation, including in what regards 
the entry and temporary stay of natural persons for business purposes.  On the one hand, in what 
regards bilateral negotiations, the recently finalised agre ements, such as with the Cariforum and 
with Canada, include horizontal provisions for several categories of natural persons as well as 
commitments applicable in each of the EU member States. On the other hand, in a more horizontal 
way but also with the obj ective to build on the specific commitments under the GATS and bilateral 
trade agreements, the EU is currently implementing Directive 2014/66/EU on intra -corporate 
transfers (ICT). This Directive allows non -EU workers to be transferred temporarily to the t erritory 
of the relevant Member States as managers, specialists or trainees (not applied by Denmark, 
Ireland and the U.K.). A labour market test or economic needs test is not to be applied. The 
Directive allows Member States to introduce simplified procedures for recognised entities or 
(groups of) undertakings. The Directive also specifies the rules for intra EU mobility of the ICT and 
for the access to employment or self -employment of the ICT's family members.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 196 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTI ONS FROM THE REPUB LIC OF MOLDOVA  
 
SECRETARIAT REPORT (WT/TPR/S/357)  
3.3.8.2.5 Geographical indications. Page 125 (Para 3.314.)  
3.3.8. 2.5.2 Non -agricultural products  
The protection of GIs for non -agricultural products is not harmonized at EU level, and therefore 
remains gove rned by different national laws. National appellation systems are available in 15 EU 
member States. In addition, GIs for non -agricultural products may also be protected as collective 
EU trademarks, as well as under unfair competition laws. The European Com mission continued to 
explore the possibility of extending GI protection to non -agricultural products at EU level as to 
harmonise the patchwork of laws that exist at national level.  In its Communication on Upgrading 
the Single Market, of 28 October 2015, it  committed to take work forward on how to make the 
most of Europe's traditional know -how.  
 
Question 1:  Please elaborate on the latest news related to the project of extension of GI 
protection to non -agricultural products at EU level and the recent results  of the public 
consultations?  What are the latest steps taken by the Commission in this sense?  
EU reply:  In light of the results on the public consultation  which showed that a clear majority of 
respondents see a need for action at EU level, the Commission announced on 28 October 2015 in 
its Strategy for the Single Ma rket that it will take work forward on how to make the most of 
Europe’s traditional know -how. This work is now in the analytical stage. The Commission is 
currently finalising an Inception Impact Assessment which describes the different possible 
approaches to protect geographical indications for non -agricultural products.  Once it is published, 
the Commission will proceed to an in -depth impact assessment, and decide on next steps, 
including a possible proposal.  
 
4.1.2 Agricultural policies. Page 140 (Para. 4.12. and Para. 4.14)  
4.12.  Greening payment  
Each member State was required to allocate 30% of the national ceiling for direct payments to 
agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment (Greening). To qualify for 
payments, three basic requirements must be met relating to crop diversification and maintenance 
of permanent grass land, and each holding over 15 ha must have at least 5% of the area 
designated as an "ecological focus area". To q ualify as an ecological focus area, land use must 
meet a number of criteria which vary from one member State to another and include landscape 
features (e.g. trees in groups, field margins, trees in lines, ditches, and hedges), buffer strips, 
short rotation  coppice, catch crops, or nitrogen -fixing crops. 4.13. Exemptions to these criteria 
may apply, such as for farmers participating in the small farmers' scheme, farmers with a large 
proportion of grassland, and farmers that meet the requirements for organic production.  
 
Payment for young farmers' scheme 4.14.  Each member  State is required to operate the 
young farmers' scheme which provides additional payments to farmers aged 40 years or under 
who are setting up in farming for the first time as head of an agricultural holding, or who have 
already done so within the five ye ars preceding the scheme. Each member State can reserve up to 
2% of the ceiling or direct payments to the scheme and has the flexibility to decide the method for 
calculating the payment, the number of hectares for which the payment is granted (between 25 
and 90), and whether to add additional criteria.  
Question 2:  In the context of Paragraph 4.12 and Paragraph 4.14 please provide more 
information on the “Greening” payment, as well as the “Payment for young farmers' scheme”. 
Also, please indicate the sources  for the data statistics in terms of beneficiaries by each program.  
EU reply:  
1) Payment for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and environment (The 
greening payment):  
The 2013 CAP reform introduced several instruments to promote environment al sustainability and 
to combat climate change including the "green" direct payment. This payment is a decoupled 
direct payment granted to farmers on the condition that they undertake practices that are 
beneficial to the climate and to the environment (Art icle 43 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013).  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 197 - 
 
  The agricultural practices under greening include the maintenance of existing permanent 
grassland, crop diversification and the establishment of Ecological Focus Areas.  
 
These requirements have been chosen in such  a way as to bring real environmental enhancement 
whilst limiting the additional costs and administrative burden in the operation of the farm. Member 
States must allocate 30% of their direct payment envelope to green direct payments.  
 
Payments under the gr een direct payment comply with paragraph 1 of Annex 2 to the Agreement 
on Agriculture as well as with the relevant criteria of paragraph 6. Accordingly, the green payment 
is a payment granted with no requirement to produce as farmers have different product ive or non -
productive options in order to comply with the obligations. For instance in crop diversification, 
farmers have the possibility to fulfil their obligation either by growing crops, by leaving their entire 
land lying fallow or a combination of the two (land lying fallow is considered as a crop). As regards 
Ecological Focus Area, farmers may choose productive or non -productive areas including land lying 
fallow (or again a combination of the two). For the maintenance of permanent grassland, note that 
the definition of such area does not include a requirement for production.  
 
For any further detail on the implementation of the greening direct payment scheme, please find 
the relevant documents and links:  
 
A working document on greening:  
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/direct -support/pdf/2016 -staff-working -
document -greening_en.pdf . 
 
A report on E FAs:  
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct -support/greening_en . 
 
2) The Payment for Young farmers  aims at encouraging generational renewal. The Young 
Farmer payment is intended to support the first years following the initial setting up of farmers not 
older than 40 years of age in the year of submitting their first application for direct payments and 
for the first time setting up an agricultural holding as head of the holding (th e setting up may have 
taken place either in the year of application or in the period during the preceding five years). The 
payment is granted for a maximum of five years. It is a top -up payment to the basic payment, so 
young farmers who apply for that top -up must be eligible for the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) or 
the Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS). Member States have a choice of calculation methods for 
the top -up, namely 25% of the average Direct Payments per ha, 25% of the basic payment 
(BPS/SAPS rate or  average value of entitlements held) or a lump -sum corresponding to 25% of 
the national average payment per hectare.  Member States set a single maximum limit applicable 
to the number of hectares supported with the Young Farmer top -up payment and this limit  can be 
between 25 and 90.  
 
Member States have the option to introduce additional eligibility criteria in terms of appropriate 
skills and/or training requirements.  
 
This Young Farmers Payment is in addition to other measures available for young farmers und er 
rural development.  
 
Claims in 2015 led to around 280,000 young farmers being granted the Young Farmer Payment. 
On average for the EU as a whole, this represents around 4% of all farmers eligible to the 
BPS/SAPS and the Small Farmers Scheme. Further information is available on line at 
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/direct -support/direct -payments/docs/ 
young -farmer -payment_en.pdf . 
 
The Young Farmers Payment is a payment granted with no requirement to produce. It is a 
decoupled income support and not related to price support. Payments under the Young Farmers  
 
Scheme complies with paragraph 1 of Annex 2 to the Agreemen t on Agriculture as well as with the 
relevant criteria of paragraph 6.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 198 - 
 
  4.3 Services  
4.3.2 E –commerce in the Digital Sing le Market. Page 169 (Para 4.106 ) 
4.106. The regulatory regime of e -commerce within the EU has been described in detail, as a sub 
segmen t of distribution services, in the last TPR report and has not substantially changed since. 
However, in the framework of its Digital Single Market Strategy (DSM), the European Commission 
has presented 16 legislative and non -legislative actions. These are o ngoing initiatives which are 
subject to the ordinary legislative procedure involving both the Council and the European 
Parliament and therefore their exact outcome cannot be foreseen.  
 
Question 3:  Please describe, what are the main scopes of the above men tioned proposals, 
including non -legislative actions, and what additional domains these are aimed to regulate? Where 
the drafts of these proposals could be found?  
 
EU reply: An overview, background information and the detailed legislative texts and proposal s 
can be found under: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/digital -single -market_en . 
or for example under the dedicated pages, one example on better access for consume rs and 
business to online goods is accessible through this link: https://ec.europa.eu/digital -single -
market/node/78515 . 
You can find an up to date status of the single proposals described  in the:  
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions  on the Mid -Term Review on the 
implementation of the Digital Single Market Strategy - A Connected  Digital Single Market for All  
COM (2017) 228 final, of 10.5.2017: http://europa.eu/rapid/press -release_MEMO -17-
1233_en.htm . 
 
and in the Commission Staff Working Document  SWD(2017) 15 5 final, of 10.5.2017, 
accompanying the document - Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, 
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on 
the Mid -Term Review on the implementation of the Di gital Single Market Strategy - A Connected 
Digital Single Market for All COM (2017) 228 final.  
 
In addition, the latest status of the legislative procedure for each proposal made by the European 
Commission can be found at the European Parliament Legislativ e Observatory (OEIL):  
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/home/home.do  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 199 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTI ONS FROM THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
 
SECRETARIAT REPORT (WT/TPR/S/357)  
SUMMARY  
6 p.9   
The simple average applied MFN tariff, at 6.3%, was slightly lower in 2016 than in 2014, as the EU 
applied the expanded list of ITA products and adjusted its nomenclature. Tariffs on agricultural 
products (WTO definition) remain higher (simple average of 14.1%) than on non -agricultural 
products (4.3%). In addition, more agricultural products are subject to non -ad valorem tariffs, and 
tend to vary considerably within and among product groups.  
 
Question 1:  Can the EU explain the reasons for maintaining such high tariffs for agr icultural 
products?  
 
EU reply:  The Russian Federation question has to be put in the context where the EU is the 
world's largest importer of agriculture products, with imports of more than 112 billion in 2016. The 
EU's tariffs were accepted and bound as par t of the Uruguay Round Agreement. The EU has 
concluded and continues to negotiate ambitious FTA agreements to reduce agricultural tariffs in 
bilateral trade.  
 
9 p.10  Harmonized product legislation applies to many categories of products, with cableway 
installations, personal protective equipment, and gas appliances added in 2016. Once work has 
commenced on a European standard, members of the standards bodies cannot commence or 
continue national work on the same subject, and once a European standard has been  developed, 
any conflicting national standards must be withdrawn.  
 
Question 2:  Please explain how the European Commission ensures consistency of application of 
European standards by all EU’s member States.  
 
EU reply:  It is not the European Commission's res ponsibility to ensure consistency of application 
of European standards at national level. According to the EU Regulation on Standardisation 
1025/2012 European standards are standards adopted by European Standardisation Organisations 
(CEN, CENELEC, ETSI) in  accordance with their internal regulations.  
For CEN -CENELEC, please see:  
https://boss.cen.eu/reference%20material/RefDocs/Pages/default.aspx.  
 
For ETSI, please see:  
https://portal.etsi.org/Portals/0/TBpages/nso/Docs/NSOs_guide.pdf.  
European standards are transposed and implemented as national standards by the relevant 
national standard isation body, national member of CEN, CENELEC and ETSI (the ESOs, European 
Standardisation Organisations). These bodies also have the obligations to inform the ESOs about 
the implementation of European standards and to withdraw any conflicting national one s. The 
percentage of implementation of European standards is quite high (above 95%), and CEN and 
CENELEC publish a quarterly statistical pack detailing this and other figures:  
ftp://ftp.cencenelec.eu/EN/AboutUs/InFigures/CEN -CENELEC_Statistical_Pack2017 -Q1.pdf.  
ETSI does not keep statistics as  the number of European standards drafted by ETSI is quite small.  
 
1 ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT  
1.1 Recent Economic Developments  
1.7 p.15   
There were a number of challenges or risks that impacted the EU economy during the review 
period and will likely continue in the near future. The referendum in the U.K. (Brexit), high levels 
of refugees, oil price movements, terroris m, and elections/political uncertainty have all had an 
impact. The issue of refugees has increased fiscal outlays in many countries and has prompted 
additional border controls. The impact on the U.K. and EU economies from the Brexit referendum 
is still unc lear and a lot will depend on the outcome of the exit negotiations as regards how it will 
impact trade and investment flows.  
 
Question 3:  What results of Brexit negotiations are expected by the EU?  
 
EU reply:  On 29 March 2017, the U.K. Government formally notified the European Council of its 
intention to withdraw from the European Union pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on European WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 200 - 
 
  Union. An agreement on the U.K.'s withdrawal will be negotiated following the rules established in 
the Treaty on European Un ion (TEU).  
 
On 29 April 2017 the European Council adopted guidelines defining the framework for negotiations 
under Article 50 TEU and setting out the overall positions and principles that the Union will pursue 
throughout the negotiation. The adoption of th e European Council guidelines was followed by a 
Commission proposal on 3 May for a Council Decision authorising the Commission to open 
negotiations, and proposing negotiating directives. The Council Decision including negotiating 
directives were adopted on  22 May by the Council of the European Union.  
 
Negotiations will start after the general elections in the U.K. on 8 June. They will focus in a first 
phase on the withdrawal arrangements notably on citizens' rights, financial settlement and new 
external bor ders. An agreement must be reached by October 2018, in order to allow for the 
ratification process to be completed and the U.K. to withdraw from the Union by the end of the 
two-year deadline, at the end of March 2019.  
 
Until its withdrawal, the U.K. remai ns a Member State of the European Union with all rights and 
obligations of a Member State. The EU Treaties continue to apply to the U.K. and in the U.K. 
during that period. Until its withdrawal, the  U.K. continues to be bound by the Union's exclusive 
compe tence in respect of the common commercial policy pursuant to Article 3 of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union and, more generally, the principle of sincere cooperation 
pursuant to Article 4(3) TEU.  
 
The EU will engage with the U.K. in a cooperative manner in order to guarantee an orderly process 
leading up to the withdrawal of the U.K. from the EU. The EU will revert to the WTO Membership 
after engaging with the U.K. bilaterally.  
 
Question 4:  How, in the EU’s view, Brexit will impac t intra -EU and extra -EU trade, as well as the 
investment flows?  
 
EU reply:  See detailed reply above.  
 
1.9 p.16   
According to the Secretariat Report inflation in the euro area, which has been picking up since 
mid-2016, is expected to continue in the short term due to the end of falling energy prices, the 
rise in energy prices, and increases in import prices. It is also states that in several member 
States, legacies from the crisis, such as high unemployment, non -performing loans, high private 
and public deb t and deleveraging processes, as well as an ongoing process of balance sheet repair 
in the banking sector, also are expected to continue to weigh on growth.  
 
Question 5:  Please describe what measures the EU intends to implement in order to control 
inflatio n. 
 
EU reply:  EU central banks share "maintaining price stability" as a primary objective. The EU's 
policy surveillance and coordination procedures are geared towards ensuring macroeconomic 
stability at large.  
 
Achieving price stability in the euro area ( defined by the ECB as inflation below but close to 2%) is 
the exclusive competence of the ECB. To meet the target and within its mandate the ECB can 
adopt a range of standard and non -standard measures in full independence and without 
interference from the Commission.  
 
That said, the rapid rise of euro -area headline inflation observed notably at the beginning of this 
year was largely due to temporary factors (oil prices, calendar effects) which have dissipated in 
the meantime. As underlying domestic price pr essures – in particular wage growth – have 
remained muted so far, inflation is expected to remain close to the current levels over the next 
two years (the latest Commission forecast document can be found here: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/economy -finance/european -economic -forecast -spring -
2017_en ). 
 
Question 6:  Please indicate what steps the EU’s member States have taken to address the a bove 
mentioned challenges.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 201 - 
 
  EU reply: The EU Member States have faced different legacies from the crisis, and an extensive 
explanation of the steps taken is beyond the scope of this questionnaire. The EU Member States 
have engaged in a wide range of structu ral and fiscal reforms to boost growth, increase fiscal 
sustainability and strengthen the banking sector. Some of these are framed within the EU legal 
framework, which has been substantially strengthened. The Stability and Growth Pact sets out 
fiscal rules  that must be adhered to and which set the parameters within which the fiscal 
strengthening has taken place. The macroeconomic imbalances procedure (MIP) deals with the 
surveillance, prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances that would jeopardi se the 
functioning of a Member State, the euro area or the EU and provides recommendations for 
countries with imbalances in terms of the policy measures they should introduce to address them. 
Both of these are framed within the European Semester process of economic policy coordination at 
EU level. In parallel, the introduction of banking union – including the single supervisory 
mechanism – has set up a process of stronger and more uniform regulation and supervision of the 
banking sector in the euro area, whi ch should leave the banking sector better able to identity risks 
and manage the challenges of the future.  
 
In terms of the challenges listed, the return to economic growth – underpinned by the widespread 
reforms introduced – is a critical factor in addressing the legacies of unemployment, indebtedness 
and non -performing loans and weakness in the banking sector,  which can then allow a virtuous 
circle of growth to take hold. In order to facilitate this virtuous circle, a range of measures have 
been introduced to address specific issues.  
 
Overall, EU Member States have engaged in fiscal consolidation, with the res ult that the deficit 
reduced every year since 2008 (when it reached 6.6% of GDP in the EU) to reach 1.7% in 2016, 
and public debt has now fallen from its peak in 2014.  
 
Non-performing loans (NPLS) have weighed on both the balance sheet of the banking sect or and 
the flow of credit to the real economy. Measures have been taken at both national and EU level to 
improve the management and disposal of non -performing loans. Member States have taken 
measures to foster the development of a secondary market for NPLs , collateral enforcement and 
insolvency have been made more efficient in some Member States (e.g. Bulgaria, Ireland, Greece, 
Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Hungary, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia). Member States have set up 
public or private Asset Management Comp anies and supervisory measures.  
 
Member States have introduced active labour market policies to address some of the issues 
relating to high unemployment. They have introduced reforms in employment protection 
legislation to address segmented labour markets.  Member States have introduced reforms to their  
active labour market policies or introduced new policies in this area, intr oduced changes to make 
work pay  or to reduce the tax wedge faced by companies particularly at lower wage levels (France, 
Lithuania, A ustria and Hungary)), so as to increase the demand for employment. Some EU 
Member States have taken steps to improve their wage -setting systems, to better align wages 
with productivity and foster competitiveness (Belgium and Finland).  
 
1.1.2 Monetary and e xchange rate policy  
1.17 p.18  
During the review period, the euro weakened gradually against most currencies in 2015 and 
appreciated moderately for most of 2016. In 2015, the euro declined 3% in nominal effective 
terms against a basket of 38 currencies, but  declined more substantially by 11% against its major 
trading partner's currency, the U.S. dollar.  
 
Question 7:  What are the reasons, in the EU’s view, for weakening of the euro?  
 
EU reply : In 2015 and 2016, the euro exchange rate developments against major reserve 
currencies to a large extent reflected diverging monetary policy stances among major central 
banks, which themselves are a function of countries' differing positions in economic and inflation 
cycles.  
 
Question 8:  Are there any steps being tak en to strengthen the euro?  
 
EU reply : The euro's bilateral exchange rates are determined by market forces and reflect inter 
alia differences in relative monetary policy stances and broader macroeconomic developments. The 
euro's exchange rate is not a p olicy target for the euro area.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 202 - 
 
  1.1.4 EU economic governance and structural reforms  
1.23 p.20  
The EU continues to follow its Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. 
As such, it has set priorities and targets for certain aspects of the  economy, these are:  
 
 Employment: 75% employment level for people aged 20 -64; 
 R&D: 3% of EU GDP invested in R&D;  
 Climate change and energy sustainability: greenhouse gas emissions 20% lower than 1990 
levels, 20% of energy coming from renewables, 20% increa se in energy efficiency;  
 Education: reduce early school leavers to below 10%, at least 40% of 30 -34 year -olds 
having completed higher education; and  
 Fighting poverty and social exclusion: at least 20 million fewer people in or at risk.  
 
1.24 p.20 -21 
The E U has also identified three major economic priorities, these are: investment, fiscal 
responsibility, and structural reforms. Broadly speaking, structural reforms include making labour 
markets more adaptable, liberalizing services (see Section 1.2.2), impro ving the business 
environment, increasing competition, and boosting innovation. These reforms are being 
implemented through each member States' National Reform Programmes and according to 
country -specific recommendations of the European Semester, often wit h financial help provided 
through the European Cohesion Policy. Regarding Europe 2020 goals, most of the progress has 
been observed in the areas of climate change and energy sustainability and education. As for 
structural reforms, progress remains slow in general, and more recently the reform momentum 
has overall slowed down. As a result, the full potential benefits of growth are not being grasped. 
Reforms remain particularly sluggish in areas related to strengthening the business environment, 
employment, f emale labour market participation, and reducing barriers to competition in services.  
 
Question 9:  Please describe the next steps that the EU intends take to achieve the indicators of 
2020 in the area of climate change and energy sustainability.  
 
EU reply : The EU has set itself binding targets for greenhouse gas emission reduction and for 
renewable energy sources and an indicative target for energy efficiency for 2020. These targets 
were set in 2007 and enacted in legislation in 2009 and in 2012 as regards e nergy efficiency.  
 
The EU has already taken action in several areas to meet the emission reduction target. The EU 
emissions trading system  is the EU's key tool for cutting greenhouse gas emissions from large -
scale facilities in the power and industry sectors, as well as the aviation sector. In 2020, the target 
is for the emissions from these sectors to be 21% lower than in 2005. For the sectors outside the 
ETS, the EU Member States have taken on binding annual targets  until 2020 for cutting emissions 
in these sectors (compared to 2005).  
 
With regard to renewable energy, t he EU has adopted the Renewable Energy Directive which 
requires EU Member States to reach their own national renewables targets ranging from 10% in 
Malta to 49% in Sweden. Member States are also required to have at least 10% of their transport 
fuels come from renewable sources by 2020.  
 
With regard to energy e fficiency, the EU has adopted the Energy Efficiency Directive 
(2012/27/EU), which establishes that the Union's 2020 energy consumption has to be no more 
than 1487 Mtoe of primary energy or no more than 1086 Mtoe of final energy. To reach these 
targets, Mem ber States are required to set an indicative national energy efficiency target, based 
on either primary or final energy consumption, primary or final energy saving, or energy intensity.  
 
The EU and Member States' progress towards the  2020 targets  is analyzed every year in the 
context of the European Semester , a yearly cycle of economic policy coordination, and of the EU 
Energy Union, and it is part of each year’s State of the Energy Union.   
 
As part of the State of the Energy Union, the EU publishes every year a climate action progress 
report. The 2016 progress report  
(https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/eu_progress_report_2016_en.pdf ) shows the EU 
remains firmly on course to reach its 2020 target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 
Similarly, the EU publishes progress reports on renewable energy every two years and on energy 
efficiency every year. In the 2017, as presented in the progress report on renewable energy WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 203 - 
 
  (http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017DC0057&qid=1488449105433&from=EN ), the 
Commission found that the EU as a whole achieved a 16% sha re of renewable energy in 2014 and 
an estimated 16.4% share in 2015. It also found that the vast majority of EU countries are well on 
track to reach their 2020 binding targets for renewable energy, but that all countries will have to 
continue their efforts  to meet these targets. Also as regards energy efficiency, the Commission 
published reports on a regular basis, based on the annual reports and on the tri -annual National 
Energy Efficiency Action Plans that Member States adopt. The 2016 assessment of the p rogress 
made by Member States in 2014 towards the national energy efficiency targets for 2020 was 
adopted on 1 February 2017. It found out that the EU has made considerable progress over the 
last years. In 2014, its primary energy consumption was only 1.6%  above its 2020 primary energy 
consumption target. Final energy consumption was even 2.2% below the 2020 target. However, 
primary energy consumption increased by around 1.5% and final energy consumption by around 
2% in 2015 compared to 2014 levels.  
 
1.2 Trade Performance  
1.2.1 Goods  
1.27 p.21 -22 
There were no major shifts in trade among partner countries during the period 2013 -15 (Chart 
1.4). The United States remained the main export market, followed by China and Switzerland. 
Exports to the United States i ncreased during the period, from 16.7% to 20.8% of total exports, 
mainly due to increases in exports of machinery and transport equipment, and chemical products 
(Table A1.2). Exports to China also increased slightly from 8.5% to 9.5% of total exports. Ther e 
were slight decreases in exports to the Russian Federation, Switzerland, and Africa during the 
period. Exports to Switzerland fluctuated due to trade in non -monetary gold and exports to Africa 
declined as a share of total exports but remained stable in a bsolute terms.  
 
1.28 p.22  
In terms of merchandise imports, the main sources were China (20.3%), the United States 
(14.4%), and the Russian Federation (7.9%). Imports from China and the United States both 
increased, while those from the Russian Federation and Africa decreased (Chart 1.4, Table A1.3). 
China accounted for one fifth of EU imports with machinery contributing to the increase in imports. 
The decreases in imports from the Russian Federation and Africa can be attributed to lower prices 
and demand f or energy and fuel products.  
 
Question10:  What are the other reasons for decreases in the EU’s bilateral trade with these WTO 
Members?  
 
EU reply: Possible reasons for decreases  in the EU's bilateral trade with Russia, Switzerland and 
Africa are the followi ng: concerning Russia, between 2013 and 2015, EU exports  to Russia 
decreased by 38.3% (down from 119 EUR bn to 74 EUR bn) in the context of Russia's long -
standing protectionist trade policy and two years of economic recession partly due to oil price 
drops.  More than half of this decrease in value is explained by lower sales of machinery, appliances 
and transport equipment ( -25 EUR bn in two years). The Russian embargo on food products 
explains the fall of agricultural products ( -53%).  The decrease of EU imports from Russia ( -34.1%) 
is fully explained by the lower prices and demand for energy and fuel products.  
 
Exports  to Switzerland fluctuated due to the trade in non -monetary gold, which is volatile by 
nature ( -11.0% between 2013 and 2015). Imports  from Swi tzerland increased by 8.3%.  
 
EU exports  to Africa were stable between 2013 and 2015 in absolute terms (+0.3%), even if the 
share of all extra -EU exports went down from 8.9% to 8.6%.  
 
The significant decrease in imports  from Africa ( -21.0%) is fully explain ed by the mineral products 
(lower prices and demand for energy and fuel products).  
 
2 TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME  
2.1 Legal and Institutional Framework  
2.1. p.31 
There have been no significant changes to the legal and institutional framework regarding EU trade 
and investment policies since the previous Review in 2015. However, the scope of the EU's 
competence to sign and conclude trade agreements is under review.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 204 - 
 
  Question 11: Please indicate what these changes are.  
 
EU reply : The scope of EU's competence to sign and conclude trade agreement has been further 
clarified by the Opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union, delivered on 16 May 2017, 
as regards areas covered under the Free Trade Agreement with Singapore (Opinion 2/15). The 
Court determi ned the following areas fall under the Union's exclusive competence: trade in goods 
and services; protection of foreign direct investment; IPR; public procurement; competition; trade 
and sustainable development; transparency; State -to-State Dispute Settlem ent when applied to 
these areas. Only indirect investment (ex. portfolio investment) and Investor -to-State dispute 
settlement fall under competence shared with the Member States.  
 
Question 12:  Please specify when these changes will take effect.  
 
EU reply : The consequences of this Opinion on future trade and investments agreements are 
currently being considered. The EU is not therefore in a position to give a clear answer to this 
question at this stage.  
 
2.2 Trade policy objectives  
2.13. and Box 2.1. p.32 -33 
In October 2015, the European Commission issued a new trade and investment policy for the EU, 
entitled Trade for all: Towards a more responsible trade and investment policy. The EU seeks to 
incorporate all of the principles set out in this policy document  into its trade and investment 
initiatives, including free trade agreements (FTAs), the outcome of which is subject to the mutual 
agreement between the parties.  
 
One of the objectives of the EU’s new trade and investment policy strategy is the creation of  a 
more transparent trade and investment policy by extending the TTIP transparency initiative to all 
the EU’s trade negotiations.  
 
Question 13:  Please clarify whether the principles of the TTIP transparency initiative will be 
incorporated into EU’s future FTAs legal texts.  
 
EU reply : In Trade  for All the Commission recogniz es that transparency should apply at all stages 
of the negotiating cycle from the setting of objectives to the negotiations themselves and during 
the post -negotiation phase. In addition t o existing measures, the Commission took the following 
commitments not only with reference to the approach applied in TTIP but also beyond:  
 
- at launch of negotiations, the Commission will invite the Council to disclose all FTA negotiating 
directives imme diately after their adoption;  
 
- during negotiations, the Commission will extend TTIP practices of publishing EU texts online for 
all trade and investment negotiations and make it clear to all new partners that negotiations will 
have to follow a transparen t approach; and  
 
- after finalising ne gotiations, the Commission will  publish the text of the agreement immediately, 
as it stands, without waiting for the legal revision to be completed.  
 
Effectively implementing these commitments does not necessarily, however, require the 
incorporation into the EU’s future FTAs legal texts but above all the more systematic sharing and 
publication of relevant documents.  
 
Information made available following these commitments can be found on DG TRADE's website, 
and on a d edicated webpage "transparency in action":   
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1395 . 
 
Question 14:  Does the EU have any plans to initiate discussions in the WTO in or der to extend 
the principles of the TTIP transparency initiative to the WTO RTAs Transparency Mechanism?  
 
EU reply:  The principles of the TTIP transparency initiative adopted by the European Commission 
in November 2014 aimed at injecting more transparency into the TTIP negotiations  
(http://europa.eu/rapid/press -release_IP -14-2131_en.htm ). This initiative allowed stake -holders 
and civil society to have access to the documentations of the TTIP negotiations.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 205 - 
 
  This transparency initiative adopted at the time of the TTIP negotiations goes beyond TTIP. In its 
'Trade for all' Communication, the Commission committed itself to apply transparency to all stages 
of trade agreements negotiations proce ss. As a follow -up to the Communication, a transparency 
dedicated website was created on which the Commission publishes the reports and available texts 
of all ongoing negotiations. ( http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1395 ). 
 
The EU does not plan to propose extending the principle of the TTIP transparency initiative to the 
WTO RTAs Transparency Mechanism as it considers Section A of the TM decision (Early 
Announcement) already fits the scope. If correctly implemented, the provi sions of Section A (Early 
announcement) allow the WTO Members to have advance notice of the ongoing bilateral 
negotiations. In this respect, the EU always informs the WTO Secretariat and the WTO Members 
about any new negotiations, including updates on ongo ing negotiations.  
 
2.16.  p.33 
A significant challenge for the EU's reformed investment policy is to ensure dispute settlement 
procedures are fair and independent; this challenge is being addressed through the 
implementation of a new approach of clarifying  the substance of investment protection standards 
and reforms with respect to the traditional investor -state dispute settlement system, as reflected 
in recently concluded FTAs with Canada and Viet Nam.  
 
Question15:  Please elaborate on a new approach implem ented by the EU in relation to the 
investment protection standards.  
 
EU reply : The so -called "new approach" to reforming EU investment protection standards has 
focused on ensuring that the goal of protecting and encouraging investment does not compromise 
the ability of the EU and its Member States to continue to pursue public policy objectives. With 
Canada and in other recent trade and investment agreements, we have made clear in the 
preamble of each agreement that we preserve our right to regulate in order  to achieve legitimate 
policy objectives.  
 
Secondly, we have defined key concepts like “fair and equitable treatment” and “indirect 
expropriation”, in order to prevent abuse. We therefore clarify the content of "fair and equitable 
treatment" through a prec isely worded and closed text which is intended to remove the discretion 
available to arbitrators to interpret this standard in a manner which is not intended by the Parties 
to the agreement. We have also given governments the ultimate control over the inte rpretation of 
the rules: the EU and its trading partners can issue binding interpretations on how the provisions 
should be interpreted, and a Tribunal is obliged to respect those interpretations.  
 
Finally, detailed language has been agreed upon to clarify  what constitutes indirect expropriation, 
in a manner which excludes claims being brought agai nst legitimate policy measures.  
 
Question 16:  Please specify what other reforms in the EU’s investment policy should be 
implemented.  
 
EU reply : The EU is currently in the process of implementing the reforms to investment protection 
standards referred to in the previous question, which we believe are necessary and appropriate. 
For the moment, we have not identified any further reforms, nor do we have plans to engage in a 
further exercise aimed at identifying new reforms at the current time.  
 
2.17. p.33  
The new trade policy addresses growing concerns of the general public on transparency and 
perceived challenges to certain societal values. For exa mple, the EU reiterates that any agreement 
it negotiates will not require EU member States to reduce the level of any public services such as 
water, education, health and social services. The Commission will encourage the Council to 
disclose negotiating ma ndates, publish draft chapters submitted to its negotiating partner, and 
reveal finalized texts earlier (even before the so -called "legal scrubbing" of texts). It will also step 
up its efforts to promote a fact -based debate within the member States and enh ance its dialogue 
with civil society. Significantly, the EU also wants to do more to show the impact of an FTA after it 
has been applied. In the area of trade defence, the Commission has undertaken to make non -
confidential versions of complaints and review  requests more available on an improved, dedicated 
website, starting in the first half of 2016.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 206 - 
 
  Question 17:  What specific steps the EU will undertake to achieve this goal?  
 
EU reply: The EU strives for a trade policy that is responsive to citizens' conce rns. This means, 
first and foremost, that social, environmental and labour standards can only ever be increased by 
a free trade agreement. Specifically, this is a clear guidance in conduct of negotiations and the EU 
introduces texts and interpretative text s to this effect wherever necessary. The EU further believes 
that trade policy, and negotiations, should be conducted in a transparent manner, so that all 
stakeholders are informed of the proceedings. The EU Institutions have taken a number of 
concrete ste ps towards achieving this goal, for example by publishing all tabled negotiating texts 
and other relevant documents such as round reports. To discuss policy orientations and receive 
stakeholder feedback, Civil Society Dialogues are organised in regular fas hion across all member 
States.  
 
2.3 Trade Agreements and Arrangements  
2.3.2 Regional and preferential agreements  
2.3.2.1 Reciprocal preferences  
2.24. p.34  
Negotiating bilateral agreements with important partner countries remains a key priority for the EU 
to open up more market opportunities and thus help achieve economic growth and job creation.  
 
Question 18: Taking into account the ongoing negotiations with the United States, how does the 
EU assess the perspectives for a conclusion of the TTIP?  
 
EU reply:  Following three years of intense talks, TTIP negotiations are now effectively on hold. 
The EU stays committed to ensuring a strong trade and investment relationship with the US but 
the new US administration is still in the process of defining its trade po licy. The economic and 
strategic case for TTIP stands. But before any decision to re -launch the negotiations, the EU needs 
clarity that there is sufficient common ground for taking the negotiations to conclusion in a 
balanced manner.  
 
2.26 p.35  
The Commiss ion also states that any new trade agreements, concluded in the period 2016 -2020, 
will also include a special focus on SMEs.  
 
Question 19: Could the European Union provide a definition of 'small and medium enterprises' 
and indicate in which relevant legal  acts it can be found?  
 
EU reply:  Small and medium -sized enterprises (SMEs) are defined in the EU recommendation 
2003/361 (Official Journal of the European Union L 124/36 of 20.5.2003) . The main factors 
determining whether an enterprise is an SME are staff  headcount and either turnover or balance 
sheet total:  
 
Company category  Staff headcount  Turnover or  Balance sheet total  
Medium -sized < 250  ≤ €50 m  ≤ €43 m  
Small  < 50 ≤ €10 m  ≤ €10 m  
Micro  < 10 ≤ €2 m  ≤ €2 m  
 
These ceilings apply to the figures for individual firms only. A firm that is part of larger group may 
need to include staff headcount/turnover/balance sheet data from that group too.  
It should be noted that the European Commission is looking at revising the SMEs definition and for 
that matter i t has recently launched public consultations with stakeholders. For more information 
see: http://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better -regulation/initiatives/ares -2017-2868537. 
 
2.27. p.35  
In order to ensure enforcement of the agreements, the EU aims to include provisions for an 
effective state -to-state dispute settlement system. With regard to investor -state dispute 
settlement, an effective and balanced investment court system will be included in new agreements 
to enforce investment protection provisions. Reforms have also been made to these provisions, to 
ensure that the standards are clearer and more precise, thus ensuring a high level of protection 
while preserving Sta tes' right to regulate in the public interest.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 207 - 
 
  Question 20:  How exactly were the provisions reformed with regards to FTAs dispute settlement 
system?  
 
EU reply:  The proposal for the new court system includes major improvements such as:  
- a public Investment Court System composed of a first instance Tribunal and an Appeal 
Tribunal would be set up;  
- judgements would be made by publicly appointed judges with high qualifications, 
comparable to those required for the members of permanent international courts such a s 
the International Court of Justice and the WTO Appellate Body;  
- the new Appeal Tribunal would be operating on similar principles to the WTO Appellate 
Body;  
- the ability of investors to take a case before the Tribunal would be precisely defined and 
limited to cases such as targeted discrimination on the base of gender, race or religion, or 
nationality, expropriation without compensation, or denial of justice;  
- governments’ right to regulate would be enshrined and guaranteed in the provisions of the 
trade and investment agreements.  
 
Question 21:  Please specify the main provisions implemented to investor -state dispute settlement 
and investment court system.  
 
EU reply:  In addition to the answer above, the new ICS builds on the EU’s existing approach 
which ensures that:  
- proceedings will be transparent, hearings open and comments available on -line, and a 
right to intervene for parties with an interest in the dispute will be provided;  
- forum –shopping is not possible;  
- frivolous claims will be dismissed quickly;  
- a clear distinction between international law and domestic law will be maintained;  
- multiple and parallel proceedings will be avoided.  
 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE  
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports  
3.1.1 Customs procedures and requirements  
3.1. p.39 
Pursuant to Article 3 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, the EU has exclusive 
competence with respect to the customs union . The EU's customs legislation provides for its 
uniform application throughout the customs territory of the Union, but at the same time provides 
that the customs administrations of the member States are responsible for applying the customs 
legislation and are primarily responsible for the supervision of the EU's international trade. The 
individual member States also determine the location of the offices and areas for which they are 
competent. Thus, there is no central EU customs authority.  
 
Question 22:  Please explain how the EU ensures uniform application of its customs legislation by 
the customs administration of the EU’s member States.  
 
EU reply: The EU is aware of the importance of a uniform application of the customs rules by its 
Member States. The Unio n Customs Code, which has become applicable on 1 May 2016, is a step 
forward in this uniform application of the customs rules by further standardising and automating 
the customs processes, so that there is less room for divergent interpretations. In additi on, the EU 
continues to work with the Member States and trade stakeholders to strengthen its long -standing 
practice of issuing guidance documents on the uniform application of the customs rules.  
 
3.8. p.41  
AEOC status can be granted to any economic operator established in the EU territory who has not 
committed any serious or repeated infringement of customs or taxation rules, is financially solvent, 
has appropriate record -keeping, and complies with the new criterion of proven practical or 
professiona l competence; an AEOS needs to comply also with appropriate security and safety 
standards.  
 
Question 23:  Is it an exhaustive list of requirements to be met in order to obtain the AEOC 
status? If no, please provide the exhaustive list of requirements to be met in addition to the above 
mentioned criteria.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 208 - 
 
  EU reply: The above mentioned criteria for obtaining the AEOC status are laid down in the 
exhaustive list of Article 39 of the Union Customs Code (UCC)39 which is further detailed in Article 
24 -27 of the Un ion Customs Code Implementing Act40 (UCC IA) in case of AEOC.  
 
Question 24:  Please specify the standards to be met in o rder to obtain the AEOS status.  
 
EU reply: The above mentioned criteria for obtaining the AEOS status are laid down in the 
exhaustive list  of Article 39 of the UCC which is further detailed in Article 24 -28 of the UCC IA.  
 
3.1.4 Tariffs  
3.1.4. 1 Nomenclature and WTO bindings  
3.34.  p.48 
The EU's schedule of tariff commitments was last updated in December 2016 with the certification 
of Schedul e CLXXIII, the schedule of the European Communities' 25 members, and includes the 
HS2002 nomenclature changes. It also includes the outcome of certain TQ negotiations for chicken 
and butter. However, there are a number of changes that the EU has made in th e CN and 
continues to apply today but which have either not yet been incorporated in its WTO schedule or 
not notified to the WTO.  
 
Question 25:  The Russian Federation would like to know when the EU would be ready to 
incorporate and notify the modifications to its Schedule.  
 
EU reply: The EU is currently drafting, in HS 2017 nomenclature, a newly updated EU -WTO bound 
schedule that will reflect its  enlargement to the current 28 Members. The EU intends to submit its 
draft Schedule CLXXV for certification in the coming months.  
 
3.37. p.50   
Non-ad valorem tariffs constitute about 11% of tariff lines and comprise specific, combined, mixed, 
and other com plex forms. They can be cumbersome, as calculating ad -valorem equivalents may 
not be possible and determining the duty impact can be complex.  
 
Question 26:  Does the EU have any plans to replace the non -ad valorem  duties in order to 
increase transparency an d reduce distortion in trade? If no, how the EU may increase transparency 
related to the impact of non -ad valorem tariffs on trade?  
 
EU reply:  The EU import regime for agricultural products is fully transparent and predictable and 
is contained in the EU's schedule, as 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 to the bound tariffs in the schedule will result from successful multilateral negotiations.  In 
the meantime, the EU will continue to respect its WTO commitments. Moreover, the EU has 
concluded and continues to negotiate ambitious FTA agreements to reduce agricultural tariffs in 
bilateral trade. Last but not least, specific duties do not distort trade any more than ad valorem 
duties.  
 
3.1.6 Import prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing  
3.55. p.57   
The Secretariat Report states that “there are a number of prohibited or restricted products, with 
many of them attributable to international agreements, i.e. to protect the environment or similar”. 
In April 2017, the Lithuanian government approved ban on energy import from the Belarusian 
nuclear power plant (NPPs) and from other third countries.  
 
Question 27:  Please provide the justification fo r this measure. How this measure may be justified 
in the context of WTO norms?  
 
Question 28:  Please provide the exhaustive list of countries affected by this measure.  
 
Question 29:  Please explain on the basis of what criteria Lithuania is planning to recog nize NPP as 
unsafe.  
 
                                                
39 http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R0952&rid=1 . 
40 http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32015R2447&from=EN . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 209 - 
 
  Question30: What is the procedu re for safety analysis of NPPs?  
 
Question31:  Will Lithuania apply similar criteria and procedure for electricity produced at NPPs in 
the European Union?  
 
Question 32:  Will Lithuania use safety criteria of the International Atomic Energy Agency for 
conducting safety analysis?  
 
Question 33:  How Lithuania plans to determine that the electricity exported to Lithuania was 
produced at a particular power plant?  
 
Question 34 : How Lithuania’s plans to introduce such ban in consistency with the WTO 
obligations, in particular with general elimination of quantitative restrictions?  
 
EU reply to questions from 27 to 34: The EU takes note of questions No 27 to No 34 that the 
Russia n Federation raised in respect of the Lithuanian law on the protection measures against 
threats posed by unsafe third -country nuclear power plants. The Parliament of the Republic of 
Lithuania adopted this law on 20th April 2017. The European Commission is currently looking into 
the provisions of this law.  
 
3.1.7 Anti -dumping, countervailing, and safeguard measures  
3.1.7.1 Anti -dumping and anti -subsidy measures  
3.57. p.58  
In the EU's trade defence sector, new regulations have been put in place for the main  anti-
dumping, countervailing (also termed anti -subsidy by the EU), and safeguard rules during the 
review period. The two main regulations for anti -dumping and anti -subsidies are:  
 
 Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 
on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the EU – Codified 
Version; and  
 Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 
on protection against subsidized imports from countries no t members of the EU – Codified 
Version.  
 
3.58. p.59  
The main structure and basic elements follow the previous Regulations. The Regulations were re -
published in 2016 in order to codify a number of previous amendments made to the Regulations in 
2014, and did  not contain any new substantive elements. The new codified version of the 
Regulations were notified to the WTO in October 2016. The amendments to the Regulations made 
in 2014 and which had been notified to the respective WTO Committees in 2014 were primar ily 
related to the decision -making procedures for the imposition of anti -dumping and anti -subsidy 
measures. The most significant change from 2014 is that now the Commission has responsibility 
for imposing anti -dumping and anti -subsidy measures, with no for mal involvement of the Council. 
Member States are, however, consulted through a number of different types of procedures which 
apply under the EU's comitology rules, including an appeals procedure. Some specific rules were 
also introduced regarding the exch ange of information with the European Parliament and Council.  
 
Question 35: Paragraph 3.57 describes the new Regulations on protection of the EU industries 
from dumped and subsidized imports adopted in 2016. As it follows from paragraph 3.58 the 
Regulatio ns were re -published in 2016 in order to codify a number of previous amendments made 
to the Regulations in 2014, and they did not contain any new substantive elements.  
 
Please clarify what amendments were introduced in 2014 and thereafter to Article 18(1) of the 
Basic Anti -Dumping Regulation that was in force in the EU prior to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036, 
with reference to the documents and legal acts that introduced these amendments. Please also 
clarify whether these amendments have entered into force.  
 
EU reply:  The amendments introduced in 2014 to the EU's basic anti -dumping legislation 
implemented the changes to the Lisbon Treaty and related, in the main, to the decision making 
procedures in anti -dumping investigations. The principle change was that the E uropean 
Commission, rather than the Council, has responsibility for implementing anti -dumping measures.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 210 - 
 
  The full list of changes made to the basic anti -dumping regulation can be found in Regulation (EU) 
No 37/2014 of the European parliament and the Council  of 15 January 2014 (Official Journal L18 
page 45 of 21/01/2014).  
 
There were no changes to Article 18(1) of the Basic anti -dumping regulation.  
 
3.59. p.59  
More recently, in November 2016, the European Commission adopted a proposal to the European 
Parliam ent and the Council to amend both the Anti -dumping and Anti -Subsidy Regulations. As of 
March 2017, the proposal was following the ordinary legislative procedure and would need a 
decision by both the European Parliament and the Coun cil before entering into force.  
 
Question 36:  Paragraph 3.59 refers to the Proposal for Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 on protection 
against dumped imports from counties that are not members of the European Union and 
Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 on protection against subsidized imports fr om counties that are not 
members of the European Union as of 9 November 2016. The Russian Federation has already 
posed written questions to this Proposal within the Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices in 
document G/ADP/W/497.  
 
1. Please provide replies to the questions posed in document G/ADP/W/497 as a response to 
this question or inform when does the European Union plan to provide answers to those questions 
within the Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices.  
 
2. In addition, please inform:  
 at what stage of th e EU legislative procedure is the Proposal now?  
 what stages does the Proposal still have to pass and what working bodies of all levels of 
the EU legislative authorities  shall consider the Proposal before its adoption?  
 
EU reply:  The Commission proposal is subject to the ordinary legislative procedure which means 
the proposal is being examined by the Council and the European Parliament. While the Council 
agreed its position in May 2017, the European Parliament has not yet done so. Once this is done, 
the inter -institutional dialogue, so -called trilogues, between the Commission, Council and 
European parliament will begin in order to find a common position. Once that is achieved the 
legislation can be adopted. There is no clear timetab le for this process.  
 
3.64. p.60  
Since the inception of the WTO, the EU has been one of the WTO's most significant users of trade 
remedies, as it ranks third overall in terms of anti -dumping initiations and second in terms of 
countervailing duty initiatio ns. More recently, since 2009, there has been a general decline from 
the historically high levels of measures in force, and they reached a historical low in 2012 before 
rising again in 2013. For 2014, 2015, and 2016, there has been a slight increase in new  
investigations compared with 2013. The number of review investigations has fluctuated (Chart 
3.2). According to EU calculations, the amount of imports subject to trade remedies was 0.25% of 
total imports in 2015.  
 
Question: As Paragraph 3.64 states, for 2 014, 2015, and 2016, there has been a slight increase 
in new investigations compared to 2013. As it follows from Chart 3.2 referred to in the same 
paragraph, there were 15 new anti -dumping and anti -subsidy investigations initiated in 2016 and 
25 review inv estigations. It is reasonable to assert that for the purposes of these investigations the 
EU investigating authorities considered producers of the like products from all 28 Member States of 
the European Union.  
 
However, 2016 was the year when the referendu m in the U.K. (Brexit) took place. Though this 
unprecedented event caused a lot of uncertainty to the European Union, it has made it clear that 
some time later determination of injury must be made with respect to producers of only 27 EU 
Member States, with out the U.K. producers.  
 
1. 37 Please clarify whether the EU investigating authorities have already made attempts to 
determine injury relating to producers of 27 EU Member States. In case of negative 
answer, please explain whether, and if so, when do the EU i nvestigating authorities plan to 
exclude the U.K. producers from injury determination procedures.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 211 - 
 
  2. 38 Should the investigations conducted in 2016 lead to or have led to imposition or 
extension of anti -dumping and countervailing measures for five -year perio ds, and should 
the Brexit procedures end within a period significantly less than five years, e.g. three 
years, are there any plans to review the measures based on determinations of injury for 
28 EU Member States after the Brexit procedure is completed? In case of positive answer 
please clarify whether such reviews are going to be self -initiated by the EU investigating 
authorities?  
 
EU reply to questions 37 and 38:  On 29 March 2017, the U.K. Government formally notified the 
European Council of its intention  to withdraw from the European Union pursuant to Article 50 of 
the Treaty on European Union. An agreement on the U.K.'s withdrawal will be negotiated following 
the rules established in the Treaty on European Union (TEU).  On 29 April 2017 the European 
Counc il adopted guidelines defining the framework for negotiations under Article 50 TEU and 
setting out the overall positions and principles that the Union will pursue throughout the 
negotiation.  
 
The adoption of the European Council guidelines was followed by a Commission proposal on 3 May  
for a Council Decision authoriz ing the Commission to open negotiations, and proposing negotiating 
directives. The Council Decision including negotiating directives were adopted on 22 May by the 
Council of the European Union.   
 
Until its withdrawal, the U.K. remains a Member State of the European Union with all rights and 
obligations of a Member State. The EU Treaties continue to apply to the U.K. and in the U.K. 
during that period. Until its withdrawal, the U.K. continues to b e bound by the Union's exclusive 
competence in respect of the common commercial policy pursuant to Article 3 of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union and, more generally, the principle of sincere cooperation 
pursuant to Article 4(3) TEU.  The EU will revert to the WTO Membership after engaging with the 
U.K. bilaterally.  
 
3.65. p.60  
The number of anti -dumping and anti -subsidy measures in force has remained relatively stable 
over the review period, and its composition by region has not changed significantly. The vast 
majority of measures in place are from Asia, accounting for 83% of the measures in 2016, with the 
next largest incidence from non -EU Europe (11%). Among Asian countries, China accounts for the 
largest share of measures (Chart 3.3).  
3.66. p.61  
 
The rise in new investigations in 2014 and 2015 was largely attributed to increases in 
investigations in two sectors — iron and steel, and chemical and allied products (Chart 3.4). In 
2016, the largest sector concerned was iron and steel. Incre ased investigations in that sector were 
similar in other countries during the same period and reflect the world overcapacity of the sector. 
The process is complaint -driven and reflects the sectors from which the EU received properly 
substantiated complaint s. 
 
Question 39: Paragraph 3.66 states that in 2016 most anti -dumping and countervailing 
investigations concerned the sector of iron and steel.  Increased investigations in that sector were 
similar in other countries during the same period and reflect the world overcapacity of the sector.  
Please explain whether the EU investigating authorities considered the factor of overcapacity in 
anti-dumping and countervailing investigations. In case of positive answer, please explain whether 
in any investigations the factor of overcapacity has influenced determination of existence of 
dumping or subsidies, of injury and of causal link, and provide reference to  the legal acts where 
detailed information on such determination can be found.  
 
EU reply : The issue of overcapacity may be relevant in trade defence cases when examining the 
context of the effect of dumped/subsidised imports on the Union industry and wheth er and to what 
extent the exporting country has the capacity to continue dumping and continue to cause injury. 
In the context of expiry reviews, given that the analysis is prospective the issue of overcapacity is 
relevant in examining the likely impact the  continued imposition or otherwise of the measures will 
have on the Union industry.  
 
Where overcapacity has been an issue in individual investigations, the Implementing Regulations 
will address the findings in that regard.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 212 - 
 
  3.3 Measures Affecting Productio n and Trade  
3.3.1 Standards and other technical requirements  
3.3.1.1 Institutional framework  
3.3.1.1.1 ESOs  
3.124 and table 3.12. p.75   
The EU members have considerable freedom in developing, adopting and applying technical 
regulation measures. For example , many of the articles of Regulation No 1169/2011 of 25 October 
2011 on the provision of food information to consumers give the EU members an option to adopt 
national measures to additional mandatory particulars and other national measures and 
requirements. . E.g. information concerning allergens in non -prepacked products — Article 44 or 
additional mandatory particulars — Article 39.  
 
The resulting array of additional national labelling  rules is creating serious problems for 
undertakings which o perate throughout the EU.  
 
In particular, Russian exporters which market their pro ducts in more than one country find it 
difficult to receive an overview of the national rules which apply in addition to those in force under 
the Regulation 1169/2011.  
 
Unfor tunately, we could not to find in the WTO notification database complete information on 
additional national labeling rules in EU members.  
 
Question 40:  Are the EU Members required to notify the Commission of any additional national 
labeling rules they intr oduce?  
 
EU reply:  Regulation (EU) No 1169/201141 allows the Member States to introduce additional 
mandatory labelling particulars for specific food categories . Member States which deem it 
necessary to adopt such measures have to notify them to the European  Commission and the other 
Member States, and provide the reasons justifying them.  
 
Question 41:  Does the Commission monitor the measures taken at national level in the context of 
the Regulation 1169/2011?  
 
EU reply:  The drafts notified by Member States are evaluated by the Commission in the light of 
conditions laid down in Article 39 of the Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011  and the overall objectives of 
EU legislation.  
 
Question 42:  Does the Commission plan to publish information about additional national labeling 
rules and implementation recommendations in the form of a report or create a  database?  
 
EU reply:  The drafts notified by Member States have been or are in the process of being evaluated by 
the Commission in the light of conditions laid down in Article 39 of the Regulation and the overall 
objectives of EU legislation.  
 
Question 43:  Does the Commission plan to notify additional national labeling rules to the WTO 
Secretariat?  
 
EU reply:  The EU is mindful of its notification obligations pursuant to the TBT Agreement. The 
measures adopted by some Member States until now on mandatory origin labelling have a limited 
duration in time and in scope and affect a limited category of pr oducts.  It should also be noted 
that products manufactured in third countries are not required to fulfil origin labelling 
requirements . 
 
3.3.1.5 Transparency  
3.137. p.78   
At the WTO level, under the TBT notification procedure, between 1 January 2015 and 31  December 
2016, the EU submitted 176 notifications under Article 10.6 to the TBT Committee, and individual 
member States submitted another 52. In the same time -period, WTO Members used the TBT 
                                                
41 Regulation (EU) No. 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on 
the provision of food information to consumers, OJ L 304, 22.11.2 011, p. 18.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 213 - 
 
  Committee to raise specific trade concerns relating to notifica tions made by the EU, and the EU 
raised its own concerns with measures proposed or implemented by other Members.  
 
Question 44:  Does the EU take into account concerns of WTO members during the assessment of 
the regulatory impact? Could the European Union pr ovide examples of changes in draft documents 
in the field of technical regulation made in connection with specific trade concerns of the WTO 
members?   
 
EU reply:  The EU carries out open public consultations in the context of (regulatory) impact 
assessments . These public consultations allow any interested party (including WTO members) to 
express their views. A report outlining the overall results of the consultation work and providing 
feedback (synopsis report) is published on the consultation website and, w here applicable, added 
as an annex to the impact assessment/evaluation report. See chapter VII of the Better Regulation 
Guidelines ( http://ec.europa.eu/smart -regulation/guidelines/docs/swd_br_guidelines_en.pdf ). How 
these views are taken into account cannot be generalized. This is dependent upon the specifics of 
each case.  
The Better Regulation Toolbox ( http://ec.europa.eu/smart -regulation/guidelines/docs/br_toolbox_ 
en.pdf ) contains a tool on external trade and investment (tool #22) that explains how compliance 
with W TO rules needs to be taken into account in impact assessments.  
 
3.3.3 Subsidies and other government assistance  
3.3.3.1 EU level subsidies  
3.166. p.84  
The two largest areas of expenditure out of the EU budget in 2013 and 2014 were agriculture and 
structura l operations, comprising the European Agriculture Guarantee Fund, the European 
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, and the Cohesion Fund. Another notable area of 
expenditure is research.   
 
Question 45: The section on subsidies does not reflect fossil fuel subsidization.  
 
A resolution of 5 February 2014 of the European Parliament on a 2030 framework for climate and 
energy policies (2013/2135(INI))42 states in pertinent part that the Parliament:  
 
32. recognizes that subsidies for all energy sources, inclu ding fossil fuels and nuclear energy, may 
have significant r epercussions on energy prices;  
 
33. notes that a number of subsidies granted for fossil fuels, nuclear energy  
 
and some mature RES technologies are creating structural market distortions in a number of 
Member States; calls upon the Member States to phase out such subsidies, and in particular 
environmentally harmful direct and indirect subsidies on fossil fuels, as soo n as possible;  
 
It is assumed that the EU is taking steps to reduce fossil fuel subsidies, however, according to the 
European Commission43 estimates of combined fossil fuel subsidies  in the EU still range from 
€39 billion to over €200 billion per annum.  
 
In this respect, please provide an updated data on the volumes of fossil fuel subsidization in the 
EU Member states as well as the information on the legislative reforms at the level of the EU and 
the level of the EU Member states taken towards phasing out o f fuel subsidies.  
 
EU reply : The European Commission does not have more recent data at Member States level on 
the volumes of fossil fuel subsidization. The EU is committed to removing fossil -fuel and 
environmentally harmful subsidies, so that the energy m arket becomes more competitive and 
price signals improve to help steer a more efficient allocation of resources in line with the EU’s 
commitments to tackle climate change.  
 
                                                
42 http://www.europarl .europa .eu/sides/getDoc .do?type=TA&language =EN&reference =P7-TA-2014-
0094. 
43 European Commission (2014). Enhancing comparability of data on estimated budgetary support and 
tax expenditures for fossil fuels: final report.  Available at : 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/taxation/pdf/201412ffs_final_report.pdf . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 214 - 
 
  Furthermore, the Commission's competences in the field of competition are key to co mplement the 
regulatory energy policy framework and notably to ensure a proper functioning of the internal 
energy markets. Thanks to its exclusive competence in assessing state aid compatibility with the 
internal market, the Commission plays a key role in ensuring that (fossil fuel) subsidies have no 
undue negative impact on (i) distortion of competition and (ii) trade between Member States.  
 
In relation to the phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies at EU level, the Council Decision44 of 10 
December 2010 on S tate aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines provides for a 
prohibition of State aid to maintain the operation of uncompetitive coal mines because the Union’s 
policy of encouraging renewable energy sources and a sustainable and safe low -carbon economy 
does not justify the indefinite support for uncompetitive coal mines. Such mines will be forced to 
close by 31 December 2018. This Decision allows subsidies to accompany the closure of such 
uncompetitive coal mines if certain conditions are s atisfied. The aid granted to the coal production 
units must be digressive and must form a part of a closure plan with a deadline on 31 December 
2018 at the latest. In addition the undertakings which carry out or have carried out an activity in 
connection w ith coal production to enable them to cover exceptional costs. The categories of such 
costs are listed in Annex 1 to the Council Decision and cover among others: social costs resulting 
from pensioning -off workers, costs of readaptation of workers, costs of  underground safety 
measures, costs of surface recultivation, etc.  
 
As regards State aid to energy from renewable energy sources, aid is granted in a competitive 
bidding process on the basis of clear, transparent and non -discriminatory criteria. If such 
competitive bidding processes are open to all generators producing electricity from renewable 
energy sources on a non -discriminatory basis, the Commission presumes that the aid is 
proportionate and does not distort competition to an extent contrary to the in ternal market. The 
competitive bidding process should limit the amount of aid to be granted.  
 
Fossil fuels may indirectly benefit from state aid through capacity mechanisms which aim to ensure 
security of electricity supply. Such capacity mechanisms have h owever to meet the strict 
conditions of the Energy and Environmental protection State Aid Guidelines 2014 -2020, such as 
establishing a clear necessity to introduce such mechanisms, ensuring technology neutrality and 
giving a preference for low carbon solut ions in case of equivalent technical and economic 
performance. The EEAG provisions set that "Member States should therefore primarily consider 
alternative ways of achieving generation adequacy which do not have a negative impact on the 
objective of phasing  out environmentally or economically harmful subsidies, such as facilitating 
demand side management and increasing interconnection capacity" (cf. recital 220).  
 
3.3.4 Competition policy  
3.3.4.1 Anti -trust  
3.3.4.1.1 Anti -competitive agreements  
3.188 p.91-92 
Paragraph 3.188 states in pertinent part that Article 101 of the TFEU may not apply to agreements 
that lead to economic benefits (such as improvements in production or distribution, or to t echnical 
or economic progress).  
 
Question 46: How does the EU guarantee that agreements which lead to economic benefits are 
not anti -competitive?  
 
EU reply: The assessment of restrictions of competition by object or effect under Article 101(1) 
TFEU is only one side of the analysis. The other side, which is reflected in Article 101(3) TFEU, is 
the assessment of the pro -competitive effects of restrictive agreements. When the pro -competitive 
effects of an agreement outweigh its anti -competitive effects the agreement is, on balance, pro -
competitive and therefore  compatible with the objectiv es of the EU competition rules.  
 
There are four cumulative conditions for the application of Article 101(3) TFEU:  
 
1) the agreement must contribute to improving the production or distribution of products or 
contribute to promoting  technical or economic progress;  
                                                
44 OJ L 336 of 21.12.2010, p.24.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 215 - 
 
  2) the efficiency gains attained by the restrictions must be sufficiently passed on to 
consumers so that they are at least compensated for the restrictive effects of the 
agreement;  
3) the restrictions must be indispensable to th e attainment of those objectives, i.e. the 
efficiency gains; and  
4) the agreement must not afford such undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition 
in respect of a substantial part of the products in question.  
 
The burden of demonstrating that thos e conditions are fulfilled rests on the undertakings invoking 
the benefit of this provision. The undertakings have thus to provide evidence enabling the 
Commission to arrive at the conviction that the pro -competitive effects of the agreement outweigh 
(or are sufficiently likely to outweigh) its anti -competitive effects. When an agreement is covered 
by a block exemption there is a presumption that the agreement satisfies the conditions laid down 
in Article 101(3) TFEU. In such case, the undertakings invoking  Article 101 (3) TFEU as a defense 
only need to prove that the restrictive agreement is covered by a block exemption.  
 
For more information about how the European Commission applies Article 101 (3) TFEU and the 
different block exemption regulations in forc e, please refer to DG Competition's website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/legislation/legislation.html . 
 
47. Please list the cases under which Article 101 m ay not apply to such agreements as well as 
facts and considerations taken into account when making a decision not to apply Article 101 to 
such agreements.  
 
EU reply: Article 101(3) TFEU can be applied either to individual agreements (based on an 
individual  assessment of their pro -competitive and anti -competitive effects) or to categories of 
agreements by way of a block exemption regulation (based on the presumption that restrictive 
agreements that fall within their scope fulfil each and every one of the con ditions set out in Article 
101 (3) TFEU).  
 
The burden of demonstrating that the conditions laid down in Article 101(3) TFEU are fulfilled rests 
on the undertakings seeking to benefit from such provision. However, when the agreement is 
covered by a block ex emption they only need to prove that their agreement is covered by one of 
the block exemption regulations in force.  
 
For information about the different block exemption regulations in force, please refer to DG 
Competition's website: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/legislation/legislation.html . 
 
Non-confidential versions of all competition decisions adopted by the Commission are available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm . 
 
3.3.6 State trading, state -owned enterprises, and privatization  
3.3.6.1 State trading  
3.224 p.101  
Article 37 of the TFEU provides some provisions with respect to state monopolies, i.e. to ensure 
that they provide non -discriminatory treatment when operating commercially. This Article provides 
that there will be no discrimination for the goods when procured or marketed, i.e. imported o r 
exported between member States, when the state either directly or indirectly supervises, 
determines, or appreciably influences such intra -EU imports or exports. Thus, these provisions 
apply to the EU internal market but not to external trade. State monop olies are subject to general 
EU rules, including, for example, rules on competition, freedom of establishment and non -
discrimination.  
 
Question 48: There are some enterprises in the member States of the EU which are state 
monopolies and which control or co nduct imports or exports to the EU external market. How do 
you collect and assess the information on such enterprises in the member States of the EU to 
ensure their consistency with Article XVII of GATT 1994 and its Understanding?  
 
EU reply: the EU has not ified its STEs falling under the notification's obligations set in Article XVII 
of the GATT 1994 and its Understanding. For complying with this notification's obligation, the EU 
liaises with its Member States for the collection of data and information and assess whether the 
criteria requiring an STEs to be notified are met or not.   WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 216 - 
 
  3.3.6.2 State -owned enterprises  
3.225 p. 101  
The EU has no common definition of state -owned enterprises (SOEs), rather each member State 
has its own legal provisions, and there a re various forms of state ownership. Thus, a direct 
comparison across member States is difficult to apply in many cases due to lack of uniformity.  
 
Question 49: Does the EU intend to develop legislation that would regulate SOEs activity at the 
EU level in order to tackle the lack uniformity problem?  
 
EU reply: According to Article 345 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU): 
"the Treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of 
property ownership".  EU Members States can accordingly own and manage undertakings and can 
purchase shares or other interest in public or private undertakings.  
The EU does not intend to develop legislation regulation SOEs activity at an EU level: as long as EU 
Competition and  State aid rules are observed, it is entirely for the EU Member States to decide 
whether they want to create an SOE for, or entrust an existing SOE with the task of carrying out a 
particular activity.  
 
Please see http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12012E%2FTXT  for the 
full text of the Treaties.  
 
3.227 p.102  
There have also been reports of the reform of SOE s in the EU in the last 15 years, with reductions 
in direct government control, improved corporate governance, and modifications to the legal 
framework in which SOEs operate. Many of these improvements can be related to adhering to the 
OECD Guidelines. In particular, there have been improvements in transparency in Italy; separation 
of ownership and regulatory functions in Lithuania; progress in the selection of supervisory boards 
in Croatia; and improvement in reporting modalities in several member States.  
 
Question 50: Could the EU please specify what exact improvements were made by member 
States and provide related national legislation?  
 
EU reply:  The occasional report on State Owned Enterprises in the EU issued by the Commission 
("State -Owned Enterprises in the EU: Lessons Learnt and Ways Forward in a Post -Crisis Context" 
(European economy, Institutional Paper 31)) discusses recent reform efforts regarding SOEs in the 
EU, but does not aim to provide a comprehensive overview of such reforms in the Member St ates. 
The information has been compiled from various sources including for example National Reform 
Programs, Assistance Programs and OECD reports.  It has not relied on a review of national 
legislation and legal proposals.  One should also keep in mind that this assessment of SOE reform 
took place in the second half of 2015 and has not been updated since then.  
 
3.3.7 Government procurement  
3.3.7.1 EU directives on public procurement  
3.234. p.104  
In 2015, total general government public procurement expenditure on works, goods and services 
in the EU (excluding utilities) was €2,015.3 billion, or over 13% of GDP, with €349.2 billion 
published on the Tenders Electronic Daily (TED) supplement to the Official Journal of the EU. 
Including defence and utili ties, the total value of government procurement in the EU and published 
on TED was €450.2 billion.  
 
Question 51:  Please clarify what is the percent of SOE’s procurement in total value of EU 
procurement?  
 
EU reply: The EU does not compute the percentage of SOE’s procurement in the total value of EU 
procurement.  
 
3.240. p.106 -107  
Under the Classical Directive, and the Utilities Directive 221, the public authorities can choose 
among different procedures, including:  
- Open procedure, when all eligible economic operators may submit a tender;  
- Restricted procedure, when the contracting authority invites tenders from a selected group 
of those that respond to the TED advertisement;  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 217 - 
 
  - Competitive procedure with negotiation is similar to a restricted procedure followed  by 
negotiations with the selected economic operators;  
- Competitive dialogue, when the contracting authority enters into a dialogue with a 
selection from among the suppliers that responded to the TED advertisement in order to 
find a suitable product or ser vice to meet its needs. Tenders are then invited from a 
selection of bidders; and  
- Innovation partnership, which was introduced in 2014, under which a selection is made 
from suppliers that responded to the TED advertisement followed by negotiations for 
"search and innovation projects aimed at meeting the needs identified by the contracting 
authority that cannot be met by existing solutions".  
 
Question 52: Please clarify how “innovation partnership” corresponds to GPA, as GPA does not 
provide for any provis ions relating to such method of procurement.  
 
EU reply: It is a type of the open selective tendering in which the contracting authority has 
announced its intention to conduct negotiations as explicitly provided by the GPA.  
 
3.246. p.  108 
E-procurement is b ecoming progressively mandatory, with electronic notification and access to 
tender documents by April 2016; electronic submission of offers for central purchasing bodies by 
April 2017; and electronic submission of offers for all contracting authorities by October 2018.  
 
Question 53 : Please provide additional information regarding what percent of  e-procurement is in 
total value of EU procurement?  
 
EU reply: E-notification and e -access are fully implemented in all EU Member States. E -submission 
is already available in 2/3rd of the EU Member States.  
 
3.3.8 Intellectual property rights  
Question 54.0: In the framework of information exchange on the specific features of national IP 
systems could the EU please clarify the following:  
 
- whether  any EU members have IP authorities that are competent for protection and enforcement 
of both copyright and related rights, as well as of the industrial property rights;  
 
- whether the anti -monopoly/ unfair competition laws can be applied to the relations a rising from 
the use of IP rights.  
 
Question 54:  The WTO Secretariat Report does not mention integrated circuit topographies as an 
object of rights. Please provide information on how integrated circuit topographies are protected in 
the EU.  
 
EU reply:  The E uropean Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights, entrusted 
to the European Union Intellectual Property Office, is providing IP facts and figures for the 28 EU 
Member States. The database provides inter alia  information on the national enforcement 
structures, including information about the national organisations responsible for the enforcement 
of the different IP rights, copyright and related rights as well as industrial property rights. The 
information can be found here: https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/observatory/ip -in-
europe . 
 
The fact that IPR grant exclusive rights of exploitation does not imply that IPR are immune from 
EU competition law in tervention. In exceptional circumstances, the use of IPR can give rise to 
abusive conduct and violate EU competition rules. A past example involved the refusal to license 
indispensable interoperability information eliminating effective competition on a dow nstream 
market without any objective justification (Microsoft case). The Commission has revised in 2014 its 
general guidance on licensing agreements (TTBER regime) and through the decisions against 
Motorola and Samsung provided guidance on the use of injun ctions in the case of standard 
essential patents (SEPs). Moreover, in recent Commission decisions concerning Lundbeck (June 
2013) and Servier (July 2014), together with the Court of Justice judgment in AstraZeneca 
(December 2012), the Commission has provid ed guidance on various IP -related conducts in the 
pharmaceutical sector.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 218 - 
 
  EU reply:  Council Directive 87/54/EC  on the legal protection of topographies of  semiconductor 
products harmoniz es the basic principles governing the legal protection of original, not 
commonplace, topographies of semiconductor products.  
 
3.3.8.1. Copyright and related rights  
Question 55: The resp ective sub -section does not mention computer programs as protected 
objects. Is there a common approach in the EU towards protection of computer programs as 
objects of copyright? If yes, what are the criteria for granting legal protection to computer 
progra ms? What is the duration of legal protection of computer programs?  
 
EU reply:  Directive 2009/24/EC  on the legal protection of computer programs harmonises Member 
States' legislations regarding the protection of computer programmes in order to create a legal 
environment which affords a degree of security against unauthorized reproduction of such 
programmes.  
 
Article 1(1), (2) and (3) of Directive 2009/24/EC provides  the following:  
 
“1. In accordance with the provisions of this Directive, Member States shall protect computer 
programs, by copyright, as literary works within the meaning of the Berne Convention for the 
Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. For the p urposes of this Directive, the term ‘computer 
programs’ shall include their preparatory design material.  
 
2.  Protection in accordance with this Directive shall apply to the expression in any form of a 
computer program. Ideas and principles which underlie any element of a computer program, 
including those which underlie its interfaces, are not protected by copyright under this Directive.  
 
3. A computer program shall be protected if it is original in the sense that it is the author's own 
intellectual creation. No other criteria shall be applied to determine its eligibility for protection.”  
 
The term of protection of computer programs is provided for in Article 1 of Directive 2006/116/EC 
on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights.  As they are protected as literary 
works, the general rule is the protection during the life of the author and for 70 years after his 
death.  
 
Question 56:  The respective sub -section does not mention databases as objects of copyright. Is 
there a common appr oach in the EU towards protection of databases as objects of copyright or 
related rights? If yes, how are databases legally protected (criteria of granting legal protection, 
duration of legal protection)? Is it compulsory to register databases? If yes, wha t executive body is 
responsible for registration?  
 
EU reply: Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases harmoniz es the protection of 
databases in the European Union. The Directive created a new exclusive “sui generis” right, valid 
for 15 years,  for the maker of a database which shows that there has been qualitatively and/or 
quantitatively a substantial investment in either the obtaining, verification or presentation of the 
contents to prevent extraction and/or re -utilization of the whole or of a  substantial part, evaluated 
qualitatively and/or quantitatively, of the contents of that database, irrespective of whether the 
database is in itself innovative (“non -original” databases). Article 3(1) of the Directive provides 
that databases which, by rea son of the selection or arrangement of their contents, constitute the 
author's own intellectual creation shall be protected as such by copyright (“original” databases). 
No other criteria shall be applied to determine their eligibility for that protection. Registering 
databases is not a requirement for the eligibility of protection. The term of protection of “original” 
databases, the same as the term of copyright -protected works, is provided for in Article 1 of 
Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection  of copyright and certain related rights (the 
general rule is the protection during the life of the author and for 70 years after his death).  
 
3.3.8.2 Industrial property  
3.3.8.2.1 Patents  
Question 57:  Please provide information regarding whether there is a common approach within 
the EU with respect to the limitations and exceptions to patent rights. In particular, whether any 
compulsory licenses were issued by the EU member States and whether the issue of such licenses 
was challenged in court.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 219 - 
 
  EU reply:  Article 27 of the Unified Patent Court ('UPC') Agreement which set up a unique 
jurisdiction dealing with disputes relating to the European patent with unitary effect ('unitary 
patent') but also classical European patents, set some rules regarding the limita tion to the effects 
of a patent. Article 53 of the European Patent Conventions lists the exceptions to patentability 
which apply to any European patent (covering classical European patents but also unitary patents). 
Recital 10 of regulation 1257/2012 imple menting enhanced cooperation in the area of unitary 
patent protection states that compulsory licenses for European patent with unitary effect should be 
governed by the law of the participating Member States as regards their respective territories. In 
addition, actions relating to compulsory licenses for unitary patents and classical European patents 
are handled by national Courts according to article 32(2) of the UPC Agreement.  
 
3.3.8.2.1.3 Standard -essential patents  
3.280 p. 117  
In particular, the Court f ound that the holder of a standard -essential patent who has committed to 
the standardization body to licence third parties on fair, reasonable and non -discriminatory terms, 
may seek an injunction to stop the infringement or to recall the products concerned  without 
abusing its dominant position. Prior to seeking such an injunction, the right holder must, however, 
alert the alleged infringer of the infringement and, if the latter is prepared to sign a licensing 
agreement, submit an offer for a licence, includ ing the applicable terms, such as the royalty to be 
paid and the way in which it is to be calculated.  
 
Question 58:  Regarding the standard -essential patents please clarify methods for determining the 
amount of the respective license fees (determined by the  rights holder, standardizing body, etc.).  
 
EU reply:  There is no single correct methodology to determine the amount of license fees for 
SEPs. The Guidelines on the applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the functioning of the 
European Union to hori zontal co -operation agreements (O.J C 11 of 14 January 2011 - http://eur -
lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:2011:011:TOC ) refer to various methods such as 
comparative analysis of various elements (paragraphs 289, 290 and 291).  
 
3.3.8.2.4. Trademarks  
3.295 p. 120  
The trademark reform package consists of two legislative measures:  
- Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 amending Council Regulation (EC) No. 207/2009 on the Community 
trademark and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) 
No. 40/94 on the Community trademark and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No. 
2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Interna l Market (OHIM).304 
It amends the legal framework for EU trademarks (formerly "Community trademarks") 
administered by the EUIPO (formerly known as the "Office for Harmonization in the Internal 
Market"). Among others, the Regulation introduced the EU certif ication mark. It also 
streamlined the procedures before the EUIPO by excluding the possibility to file EU trademark 
applications with national offices. Furthermore, fees for EU trademarks were reduced and are 
the same now for applications and renewals (€1, 000/€850, if electronically filed); the 
opposition fee has been brought down to €320 (previously €350). The Regulation is directly 
applicable in the EU's member States. It entered into force on 23 March 2016; and  
- Directive (EU) 2015/2436 to approximate the  laws of the member States relating to 
trademarks.305 . It further harmonizes the legal framework for national trademark regimes in 
EU member States which coexist with the EU trademark regime, including as regards the 
protection of trademarks with reputatio n, collective trademarks, procedural rules and the 
classification of goods and services. The Directive entered into force on 12 January 2016; 
member States have until 14 January 2019 to transpose the Directive into national law.  
 
Question 59:  The WTO Secre tariat Report informs that Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 introduces the 
EU certification mark. Please provide more detailed information regarding this matter.  
 
EU reply:  The new provisions on the registration of EU certification marks were added to serve as 
a complement to the already existing provisions on EU collective marks and to remedy the current 
imbalance between national systems disposing of such protection and the European trade mark 
system. They shall allow a certifying institution or organisation to permit adherents to the 
certification system to use the mark as a sign for goods or services complying with the certification 
requirements. More specifically, an EU certification mark shall be an EU trade mark which is 
described as such when the mark is ap plied for and is capable of distinguishing goods or services WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 220 - 
 
  which are certified by the proprietor of the mark in respect of material, mode of manufacture of 
goods or performance of services, quality, accuracy or other characteristics, with the exception o f 
geographic origin, from goods and services which are no certified. Further details are laid down in 
the new Articles 74a to 74k of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the EU trade mark which will 
become app licable as from 1 October 2017.  
 
3.296 p.120  
Among th e common features of the trademark reform package is an updated definition of what 
may constitute a trademark, which removed the requirement of graphic representability. Pursuant 
to Article 4 of the Regulation and Article 3 of the Directive, "a trademark m ay consist of any sign, 
in particular words, including personal names, or designs, letters, numerals, colours, the shape of 
goods or of the packaging of goods, or sounds". Such signs must be distinctive and be represented 
"in a manner which enables the com petent authorities and the public to determine the clear and 
precise subject matter of the protection".  
 
Question 60:  The WTO Secretariat Report informs that Directive (EU) 2015/2436 provides for 
registration of colour per se marks, as well as sound marks.  Are there any specific guidelines 
available in English containing rules for examination of such marks? If yes, please provide links. 
Please also provide examples of such registrations.  
 
EU reply: Being addressed to the Member States of the European Union,  it is actually for them to 
bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with 
Article 3 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436. It should however be noted that Article 4 of Regulation (EC) 
No 207/2009 on the EU trade mark a s amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 is worded similar 
to Article 3 of the Directive. While the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) is 
currently in the process of revising its guidelines on this subject, the European Commission 
adopted on  18 May 2017 an Implementing Regulation laying down detailed rules for implementing 
certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the EU trade mark, in particular as far as the 
proper representation of trade marks (including colour per se and sound marks) is concerned. 
These new provisions will become applicable at Union level on 1 October 2017. The text of that 
Implementing Regulation is publicly available on the Commission's Better Regulation Portal under 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better -regulation/initiatives/c -2017-3224. Examples of colour per se 
marks or sound marks registered in the past by the EUIPO can be easily searched for using the 
EUIPO's search too l https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#advanced/trademarks  
 
3.3.8.2.5. Geographical indications  
3.3.8.2.5.1 Agricultural products  
3.307 p.122  
Procedures for the application for registration of GIs originating in the EU have been described in 
previous reports. As regards GIs of products of non -EU origin, they may be protected in the EU 
either through direct application or by means of inclusion in  FTAs. In the former, the application 
may be sent either directly, or through the authorities of the country where the geographical area 
is located, to the Commission. No fees are required for applications from third countries. The 
average registration tim e for EU and non -EU GIs in the past two years has been approximately two 
years.  
 
3.308 p.123  
According to the 2016 EUIPO report referred to above, nearly 3,400 EU GI names are registered in 
four databases maintained by the European Commission. In addition,  in December 2016, the 
EUIPO database listed about another 1,500 third -country GIs that are protected pursuant to 
bilateral agreements concluded by the EU with a number of countries.  
 
Question 61:  Please expand on the specific features and merits/demerits of various options for 
protection of foreign GIs for agricultural products (direct application, inclusion into FTAs, as well as 
concluding bilateral agreements).  
 
EU reply:  Geographical indications (GIs) are, for the agri -food sector and for consumers, an 
important instrument of the family of intellectual property rights, described in part II of the TRIPS 
Agreement. The reciprocal protection of GIs under the trade agreements secures the intellectual 
property rights of producers, prevents unfair competition and guarantees consumers that the 
product is authentic. Under the agreements, as with direct applications, prior -right holders' 
interests are respected, while generic terms in either territory are excluded from protection.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 221 - 
 
  GIs are not an EU -only interest.  Many countries, including developing countries, find that GI 
protection adds value to the product (in terms of quality and distinctiveness linked to its origin) 
and strengthens the brand image of the country around the world, therefore having a potentiall y 
positive impact on export sales and revenue.  
 
Geographical indications (GIs) protected in the EU need to meet the criteria to qualify as a GI, as 
laid down in Article 22 of the TRIPS Agreement. Under the applicable EU legislation, for both direct 
applications and GIs covered by bilateral or regional agreements, the standards of examination, 
opposition procedures, checks against prior rights, as well as the level of protection and rights 
afforded, are equivalent. In neither case does the EU levy a f ee. Through both routes, the 
application must provide proof of the GI conforming to a set of specifications and controls (e.g. 
proof that the name proposed for protection in the EU as a geographical indication is protected as 
such in its country of origin,  etc.). Furthermore, protection via a bilateral agreement does not 
prevent direct applications for protection of non -EU GIs.  
 
The advantages of a bilateral agreement are primarily the formation of a partnership and 
establishment of mechanisms for cooperati on and joint management of the agreement. They 
however do not impact the level of intellectual property protection that these GIs receive in the 
Union.  
 
3.3.8.2.5.2 Non -agricultural products  
3.314 p.125  
The protection of GIs for non -agricultural products is not harmonized at EU level, and therefore 
remains governed by different national laws. National appellation systems are available in 15 EU 
member States. In addition, GIs for non -agricultural products may also be protected as collective 
EU trademarks, a s well as under unfair competition laws.  
 
Question 62:  Please provide information on possible options for protection of foreign GIs for non -
agricultural products.  
 
EU reply: To seek protection of foreign GIs for  non-agricultural products in the EU, associa tions of 
manufacturers, producers, suppliers of services or traders, as well as legal persons governed by 
public law can seek registration of a collective EU Trade Mark, which may serve to designate the 
geographical origin of the goods but may not be invok ed against a third party who is entitled to 
use a geographical name. Producers can also seek the protection of GIs through sui generis 
national protection systems of GIs in the Member States where such systems exist, through 
national collective or certific ation marks that allow for such a protection or, in any event, through 
national competition or consumer protection law.  
 
3.3.8.2.7 Undisclosed information  
3.3.8.2.7.2. Clinical trial data  
 
Question 63: Please specify to what extent the individual patient d ata (IPD) is to be published in 
the respective EU databases. If any documents regulating publication of such data exist, please 
provide links.  
 
EU reply: As regards the clinical trials database referred to in Article 81 of the Regulation (EU) No 
536/2014 o n clinical trials, no personal data of clinical trials subject will be published (Article 81(7) 
of Regulation 536/2014). In principle, personal data of clinical trials subjects should not be 
recorded in the database at all (recital 67). In general, process ing of personal data in the EU is 
regulated by the data protection law (currently Directive 95/46/EC and as of May 2018, Regulation 
(EU) No 2016/679, or in case a processor is an EU institution or body, Regulation (EC) No 
2001/45).  
 
3.3.8.3 Enforcement  
3.3.8.3.4. International cooperation and Harmonization  
3.354 p.  134 
Building on its 2014 Strategy for the Enforcement of IPRs in Third Countries, the European 
Commission released an updated survey in July 2015. Based on input by various sources, including 
the Observatory, national authorities and private sector stakeholders, the survey identified a list of 
priority countries in which IPR enforcement remained a particular concern, and also listed 
countries in which the situation had improved. In its report of 13 May 2015, the European WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 222 - 
 
  Parliament's Committee on International Trade supported the European Commission's approach to 
promote enhanced IPR protection and enforcement through the WTO and other international 
bodies, as well as through bilateral trade agree ments. This would help EU IPR owners to enforce 
their rights, and also developing countries to develop their domestic frameworks to support R&D 
activities. At the same time, the Committee also recalled that the TRIPS Agreement needed to be 
implemented in a  balanced and effective manner. The Committee therefore called on the 
Commission and EU member States to ensure that, among others, generic medicines transiting EU 
territory are not negatively affected by the border measures put in place to ensure that cou nterfeit 
medicines are not imported into the EU.  
 
Question 64:  Please provide more detailed information regarding the planned activities aimed at 
avoiding the negative effect of the border measures on generic medicines in transit through the 
EU. 
 
EU reply:  The EU refers to the Commission notice on the customs enforcement of Intellectual 
Property Rights concerning goods brought into the customs territory of the Union without being 
released for free circulation including goods in transit that was published in  the Official Journal of 
the European Union (OJ, C 244, 5.7.2016, p. 4). The EU would especially like to highlight point 8 
on medicines where it is stated that EU Customs authorities have to take all reasonable care to 
ensure that legitimate legally traded  medicines (1), whether or not generic, can be routed through 
the customs territory of the EU and will not be detained under Regulation (EU) No 608/2013. Thus, 
EU customs authorities should take full precautions to avoid any detention of medicines under 
Regulation (EU) No 608/2013, unless they are intended for the EU market or unless those goods 
bear a trade mark suspected of being identical or essentially identical to the protected trade mark.  
 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR  
4.1 Agriculture  
4.1.2 Agricultural policies  
4.1.2.1 Domestic support  
4.1.2.1.2 Internal market support measures  
4.22 p. 144  
The Common Market Organisation (CMO) for agricultural products is set out in Regulation (EU) No. 
1308/2013. Since the last review, the public intervention regime has b een simplified, e.g. through 
Regulation (EU) No. 2016/1238 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 2016/1240, while other 
aspects of public intervention remain the same, such as the prices, periods, limits for intervention, 
list of eligible products, and refe rence prices for private storage aid.  
 
Question 65:  Could the European Union provide the rules and related provisions applicable for the 
sale under the public intervention regime?  
 
EU reply:  Articles 11 -16 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 set out the rules  for public intervention 
on agricultural markets in the Union.  
 
The list of products eligible for public intervention is laid down in Article 11: common wheat, 
durum wheat, barley, maize, paddy rice, certain meat of the beef and veal sector, butter and 
skimmed milk powder (SMP).  
 
Public intervention operates as a safety net and, in line with the CAP's increased market 
orientation, public intervention prices are set at a level ensuring that public intervention is only 
used in times of severe market disturban ce.  
 
4.27 p.  147 
The EU regime for fruits and vegetables has not changed over the past two years, apart from 
measures taken to respond to the ban on imports of some agricultural products by the Russian 
Federation from August 2014 (see below). Support for fruit and vegetable production in the EU is 
focused on producer organizations. In order to qualify for funding, a producer organization must 
be recognized by the member State as meeting specific criteria, including having an operational 
programme. Only aft er being recognized as producer organizations can these entities have access 
to EU financial assistance through the implementation of an operational programme. The 
operational programme may be funded by an operational fund which is financed by the 
organiza tion and/or its members and EU assistance. EU assistance is limited to 50 -60% of the 
total operational fund and 4.1 -4.7% of marketed production. Transitional assistance may also be WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 223 - 
 
  provided to producer groups, which are legal bodies formed by farmers to he lp them acquire the 
status of recognized producer organizations.  
 
Question 66:  Please specify all criteria that organizations producing fruits and vegetables have to 
fulfill in order to get EU financial assistance.  
 
EU reply:  To receive funding from the EU  a producer organi zation in the fruit and vegetables 
sector (F&V sector) has to be recognized by the Member State where it has its headquarters and 
shall implement an operational programme during 3 to 5 years previously approved by that 
Member State.  
 
A producer organi zation in the F&V sector can be recognized if:  
 
- it is formed on the initiative of the producers;  
- it has a minimum number of members and/or covers a minimum volume or value of marketable 
production, to be laid down by the Member State conce rned, 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, material and technical support to its members, and as 
appropriate concentration of supply;  
- its statutes provide for procedures including reporting, production, marketing and protection of 
the environment, being member of only one producer organi zation for a given product, the 
imposition on members of financial contribu tions, rules enabling the producer members to 
scrutinize democratically their organi zation 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. Moreo ver, the statutes shall require its producer members to market their entire 
production concer ned through the producer organiz ation.  
 
The producer organi zation should pursue at least one of the following objectives:  
 
(i) ensuring that production is planned and adjusted 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) optimi zing production costs and returns on investments in response to environmental and 
animal welfare standards, and stabili zing producer prices.  
 
Operational programmes of producer organi zations in the fruit and vegetables sector should have 
at least two of the ob jectives 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;  
(f) crisis prevention  and management.  
 
4.29 p. 147  
The temporary exceptional measures were covered by a number of Commission delegated 
regulations which included withdrawals from the market for free distribution, animal feed, 
composting, and distillation. Up to 30 November 201 6, about 1.5 million tonnes of fruits and 
vegetables were withdrawn from the market a t a cost of about €416 million.  
 
Question 67:  In what form “withdrawals from the market for free distribution, animal feed, 
composting, and distillation” could be undertak en? 
 
EU reply:  'Market withdrawals' means withdrawing products from the market (and not putting 
them up for sale). In the fruit and vegetables sector, this is one of crisis prevention and 
management measures implemented by producer organi zations (POs). For  each product, 
withdrawals cannot exceed 5% of the volume of production marketed by the PO (volumes going to 
free distribution are excluded from this calculation).The volume of marketed production is to be 
calculated as the average of the previous 3 years or, if this information is not available (e.g. for WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 224 - 
 
  newly recognized POs), on the basis of the volume of marketed production for which the PO was 
recognized. Withdrawn products can be used in ways determined by national authorities. One of 
the options is 'f ree distribution' (e.g. charitable organizations). It is possible to use withdrawn 
products in the processing industry, if this does not distort competition for the industries 
concerned (within the Union and for imported products) and Member States are to ensure that the 
products withdrawn do not enter the commercial market again.  
 
Question 68:  Could the EU elaborate on the difference between “withdrawal from the market” 
and public interventions/PSA?  
 
EU reply:  "Market withdrawal" means withdrawing product s from the market thus not putting 
them up for sale. By contrast, public intervention means that public authorities of the Member 
States intervene to purchase surplus supplies, which may then be stored until the market 
stabilizes. Another market tool is 'p rivate storage'. This aid helps operators to take products off the 
market temporarily, but differs from public intervention, as the goods remain under the ownership 
of the private operator.  
 
4.1.2.2 Export subsidies  
4.39 p.151  
The European Commission stated that no export subsidies have been granted by the EU since July 
2013. The most recent notification from the EU for the 2014/15 marketing year shows that no 
export refunds were provided in that year, although the EU continued to notify exports of out -of-
quota sugar as being subsidized although no export refunds are provided. As noted above, 
production quotas for sugar will be abolished from end -September 2017. Furthermore, although 
Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013 does provide for  the export refunds in exceptional situations, the 
refund rates were set at zero in 2013 and have not changed, and the European Commission stated 
that the EU applies the Decision of the Nairobi Ministerial Conference on the elimination of export 
subsidies.  
 
Question 69: Please clarify when the EU plans to eliminate export subsidy entitlements from its 
WTO schedule of commitments?  
 
EU reply:  The EU is actively preparing a draft updated EU -28 schedule which will include 
scheduling the Nairobi outcome as regards export subsidies, which it hopes to submit soon in 
2017.  
 
4.2 Fisheries  
4.2.4. Policies  
4.2.4.4 Management of fishing capacity  
4.78 p.  164 
The member States are required to comply with a fleet entry/exit scheme without introducing 
additional fishing capacity.  
 
Question 70:  Could the EU clarify the main provisions of its fleet entry/exit scheme?  
 
EU reply:  Article 23 of the Common Fisher ies Policy Regulation:  
http://eur -lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:354:0022:0061:EN:PDF . 
 
Member States shall manage entries into their  fleets and exits from their fleets in such a way that 
the entry into the fleet of new capacity without public aid is compensated for by the prior 
withdrawal of capacity without public aid of at least the same amount.  
 
The Commission may adopt implementing  acts laying down implementing rules for the application 
of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination 
procedure referred to in Article 47(2).  
 
No later than 30 December 2018, the Commission shall evaluate the  Entry/Exit scheme in the light 
of the evolving relationship between fleet capacity and prospected fishing opportunities, and 
propose, where appropriate, an amendment to that scheme.  
 
 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 225 - 
 
  4.2.4.5 External policy  
4.82 p. 164  
Regarding arrangements with non -EU countries, the EU has two types of fishing agreements: 
"Northern Agreements" on joint management of shared stocks with Norway, Iceland and the 
Faeroe Islands (reciprocal agreements); and SFPAs, in the context of which the  EU provides 
financial and technical support in exchange for fishing rights, mainly with developing countries.  
 
Question 71:  What kind of financial and technical support does the EU provide under the 
Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements?  
 
EU reply : SFPAs are partnership agreements that go beyond purely fishing rights. They promote 
sustainable fisheries, based on the best available scientific advice with the objective to allow the 
EU vessels to fish only surplus resources. In addition, they include sectoral support funding which 
is used mainly to support activities in the field of fisheries management, monitoring, control and 
surveillance, capacity building, training, scientific and sanitary capacity and finally support to local 
and artisanal fleets.  By doing so, SFPAs contribute to combatting Illegal, Unreported and 
Unregulated (IUU) fishing and have a positive impact on food security in partner countries, both 
directly (local supply of fish) and indirectly (through generated income due to employment  
creation, port activities, processing factories etc.).  
 
4.2.4.9 Structural support  
 
Question 72:  Could the EU disclose the amount of support provided to fisheries under the fuel de -
taxation schemes in 2013 -2016?  
 
EU reply:  Fuel de -taxation is not a subsid y under the ASCM agreement. The Commission does not 
keep track of any amounts related to fuel de -taxation.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 226 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTI ONS FROM HONG KONG, CHINA  
 
Questions  on the Secretariat Report  
 
A. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure  
 
Value -added Tax (VAT)  
(WT/TPR/S/357: Page 53, para 3.51)  
 
1. For VAT, the Commission has set out a list of common rules in the VAT Directive that are 
applicable in each Member State and harmonize certain elements such as rates and exemptions. It 
sets out minimum rates of 15% fo r the standard rate, and 5% for the reduced rate (applicable 
only to 23 categories of certain goods and services specified in the VAT Directive); thus member 
States apply rates equal to or above these minima, varying by product and Member State.  The 
Direct ive also allows for numerous derogations to these general rules on rates, applied by member 
States under certain conditions.  
 
Question 1:  
Noting that the Directive provides a lot of flexibilities for member States in the application of VAT, 
we would like t o know if there are any plans to achieve greater harmonisation of the VAT systems 
among Member States?  
 
EU reply : Directive 2006/112/EC sets out the rules for a common system of VAT in the EU. The 
rules aim at harmonising the VAT systems between Member States. Harmonisation with regard to 
VAT rates was required in the past in an origin based VAT system. However, since 2008 there is a 
continuous changeover in the EU from an origin based to a destination based VAT system, which 
does not require greater har monisation of VAT rates and would even allow for greater flexibility for 
Member States in setting VAT rates.  
 
State Aid Reform  
(WT/TPR/S/357 : Page 85, para 3.170 -3.174)  
 
2. Under the Commission’s new General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER), about 90% of  new 
measures are exempted from prior notification to the Commission. More transparency is required 
in terms of identifying aid measures, beneficiaries and amounts granted.  According to the 
Commission, the main aim of the transparency requirements is to fu rther the accountability of aid -
granting authorities and to help lessen procedural asymmetries by aligning the transparency 
requirements across all the recently revised state aid rules.  The transparency obligation is 
complemented by annual monitoring exerc ises in which the Commission reviews a sample of 
block-exempted aid measures to verify that they comply with the conditions of the GBER.  
 
In December 2016, the Commission's public consultations on expanding the GBER to include aid to 
ports and to airports ended.  A decision is expected in the first quarter of 2017.  
 
Questions:  
2. Are “aid -granting authorities” confined to government authorities of the member States?  Are 
there any regulations that govern the aid -granting authorities?  
 
EU reply:  State aid can be granted by a "Member State or through State resources" (Article 
107(1) of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union). State resources include all 
resources of the public sector, including resources of intra -State entities (decen tralised, federated, 
regional or other), including public undertakings. Under certain circumstances, even resources of 
private bodies can be considered State resources, in particular if they come under public control 
and are therefore available to the nati onal authorities.  
 
For more details on State resources please refer to:  
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/modernisation/notice_aid_en.html . 
 
3. What is the r ate of non -compliance? Were actions taken against the member States or aid -
granting authorities for non -compliance?  
EU reply:  The European Commission monitors State aid granted under block exempted schemes. 
This goes hand in hand with transparency (Article  9 of the General Block Exemption Regulation WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 227 - 
 
  (GBER)) and reporting obligations by the Member States. Member States have to maintain detailed 
records with the information and supporting documentation necessary to establish that all GBER 
conditions are fulfi lled and to provide information to the Commission to allow monitoring the 
application  of the GBER (Article 11 GBER).  
 
The European Commission systematically follows up on irregularities and uses the means at its 
disposal, as appropriate, to address the com petition distortions that these may have caused. In 
some cases, Member States offer to voluntarily redress the problems detected, for example to 
amend national legislation or to recover the excess aid granted. In other cases, the Commission 
may need to tak e formal action, such as opening the formal investigation procedure. Under certain 
circumstances, the European Commission may, fully or partially, withdraw the benefit of the block 
exemption (Article 10 GBER). To date, the European Commission has never use d this provision.  
 
For more details on the GBER please refer to  
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/block.html . 
 
4. What is the decision made after the public consultation conducted in December 2016? Will the 
EU further expand the GBER to more sectors?  
 
EU reply:  On 17 May 2017 the Commission approved in principle the Amending Regulation to the 
General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER) in order to also co ver certain public support measures 
for ports and airports.  
 
For more information about the GBER and the Amending Regulation, please refer to our website:  
http://ec.europa.eu/ competition/state_aid/legislation/block.html  
 
State -owned Enterprise  
(WT/TPR/S/357 : Page 102, para 3.227)  
 
3. There is a Commission Directive on transparency of financial relations between member 
States and public undertakings to ensure the transparency of public funds made available to state -
owned companies. However, while information is to be reported to the Commission pursuant to 
this Directive, it was not available.  
 
Questions:  
5. Are Member States obliged to observe the reporting requirement and what  will be the  
consequences of not reporting?  
 
EU reply:  The Commission Directive 2006/111/EC on transparency of financial relations between 
Member States and public undertakings (Transparency Directive) does not include a general 
obligation for EU Member St ates to report to the European Commission. Member States shall only 
ensure that information according to said Directive is kept at the disposal of the European 
Commission for five years.  
 
6. Given the information required is not available, how does the EU maintain transparency of 
public funds made available to state -owned companies?  
 
EU reply:  All EU Member States were required to transpose the Transparency Directive in national 
law. Where Member States had not done so, the Commission had initiated infringement 
procedures, which were however closed following the adoption by Member States of legislation 
implementing said Directive. By requiring financial relations between national public authorities 
and public undertakings to be made transparent, the Directive intends to also ensure a fair and 
effective application to both public and private undertakings of the EU State aid rules, including the 
transparency provisions that are part of those rules.  
 
B. Trade Policies by Sector  
 
E-commerce  
(WT/TPR/S/357:  Page 170, p aras 4.110 - 4.112 ) 
4. Under the framework of Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy, the European Commission 
proposed two legislative packages in 2015 and 2016, which aimed at boosting e -commerce by 
simplifying, clarifying and harmonising the EU ’s regulatory framework.  One of the legislative WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 228 - 
 
  packages covers both the supply of digital content and the online sale of goods.  For online sales of 
goods, the proposal introduces a two -year guarantee period which the consumer may ask for a 
remedy or repai r from the product supplier without having to prove that the defect existed at the 
time of delivery in two years.  For purchase of digital content, consumers may request for fixation 
of problems, price reduction, termination of contract and full reimburseme nt. 
 
Questions 7:  
How does the proposal by the European Commission balance the legitimate interests of both 
consumers and online goods/digital content suppliers?  Is there any mechanism to ascertain if the 
consumers’ claims for remedy are justified?  
 
EU reply:  The proposals on online sales of goods and the supply of digital content aim at 
removing barriers existing in the Digital Single Market due to contract law differences between 
Member States of the EU. These proposals should bring an overall benefit to the European 
economy. Over 122,000 EU businesses are expected to start selling to consumers in other Member 
States; and the total number of consumers buying online from other EU countries could reach up 
to 70 million. This will open up new markets, espe cially for small and medium -sized enterprises, 
increase competition and contribute to economic growth: lower consumer prices are expected to 
boost consumption in the EU by €18 billion and EU GDP is expected to increase by €4 billion from 
its current level.   
 
Consumers will benefit from a higher level of consumer protection, a wider choice of products at 
more competitive prices while businesses will be able to supply digital content and sell goods 
online to consumers throughout the EU, based on the same set of contract rules.  
 
To provide legal certainty to both businesses and consumers and significantly facilitate cross -
border transactions, both proposals fully harmonise the order in which remedies vis -à-vis defective 
goods and digital content can be exercise d, in line with the existing provisions of the Consumer 
Sales and Guarantees Directive. Under both proposals a consumer is first entitled to request repair 
or replacement of faulty goods or to have the digital content brought into conformity, and as a 
second step price reduction or termination of the contract. This has already been implemented by 
the large majority of Member States and proven its value in practice by providing a balanced 
distribution of rights between sellers and consumers.  
 
Stimulating co nsumers to first ask for the repair or replacement of the good balances the 
legitimate interests of the supplier/seller which has, usually, an interest in maintaining the legal 
relationship with the consumer. The order of remedies ensures that the supplier  and the seller 
have an opportunity to address a defect before the consumer is entitled to terminate the contract.  
 
The policy choices reflected in proposals on online sales of goods and the supply of digital content 
are explained in the Impact Assessment accompanying both proposals available at http://eur -
lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/?qid=1450432347519&uri=SWD:2015:274:REV1  
 
Maritime Transport Servi ces 
(WT/TPR/S/357: P ages 178 -179, p aras 4.141 -4.147 ) 
 
5. The EU regulation that establishes a framework for the provision of port services and common 
rules on the financial transparency of ports (Regulation 2017/352) was adopted in 2017 and will 
apply as of 2019.  The regulation applies to 319 seaports identified in the Commission’s proposal 
for Guidelines on the trans -European transport network (TEN -T). Suppliers are free to provide 
various port services as covered in the regulation.  However, if there are objective and properly 
justified cases, the number of services provider could be limited.  If a limitation is applied, an open, 
non-discriminatory and transparent selection procedure needs to be followed.  
 
Questions 8:  
Under what objective conditions would limitations be imposed on the number of service providers 
for the port services in the framework under Regulation 2017/352?  
EU reply:  The grounds for limiting the number of service providers must be published in advance 
by the port managing bodies or the c ompetent authorities and correspond to one or several of the 
reasons defined in Article 6(1), the main ones being:   
 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 229 - 
 
  - The scarcity of reserved used of land or waterside space;  
 
- The absence of such limitations is obstructing the performance of public service obligations such 
as the availability 24/7 and affordability of port services; and  
 
- The absence of limitations runs counter to the need to ensure safe, secure or environme ntally 
sustainable port operations.  
 
9. In case a limitation is applied, will there be measures to ensure that the selection procedure 
of service provider would be open, non -discriminatory and transparent?  
 
EU reply:  Article 6(4), in conjunction with Reci tal 21, define the measures for ports managing 
bodies or competent authorities to follow to ensure an open, non -discriminatory and transparent 
selection procedure if the number of providers of port services is to be limited. For instance, all the 
informati on concerning application process must be published in advance at least 30 days before 
the deadline.  
 
Air Transport Services  
(WT/TPR/S/357: P age 181, p aras 4.161 -4.162)  
 
6. Among the three legislative proposals in the “airport package”, the proposal on noise 
regulation was adopted in 2014 to increase the transparency in the process of setting noise -related 
restrictions at airport and confers a scrutiny role on the Commission.  Another proposal on slots, 
which aims at, among others, allowing transparent tr ade of slots at airports and assisting new 
entrants to access to the market at congested airports, remains under discussion.  For the third 
proposal on ground handling, the targets include introducing full opening of the self -handling 
market for airlines an d increasing the minimum number of service provider at large airports, were 
withdrawn in June  2015.  
 
Questions:  
10. With regards to the proposal on ground handling services, what is the rationale behind the 
Council’s conclusion that no regulatory change is  needed for the time being?  
 
EU reply:  The question seems to relate to the statement on page 182 of the WTO report that in 
the EU Aviation Strategy of December 2015 the Commission considers that, for the time being, no 
regulatory changes are needed in the  area of ground handling services. In fact, the EU Aviation 
Strategy states that the Commission will undertake an evaluation of the ground handling services 
Directive and in order to decide if the Directive needs to be reviewed (see page 8 of the Strategy) . 
The staff working document annexed to the Strategy explains that according to various evaluations 
of the Directive by the Commission, the Directive has achieved is main objective of opening access 
to the ground handling market but challenges remain (see page 14 of the staff working 
document).  
 
At this stage, we are still discussing within the Institutions.  
 
Questions  on the Government  Report  
 
Transparency in Policy Making  
(WT/TPR/G/357: Page 14, para 4.6)  
 
7. In March 2016, a new Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law -Making was adopted by the 
European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission.  Under this new Agreement, the 
three EU institutions agree to promote simplicity, clarity and consistency in the legislation of the 
EU as well as  to enhance transparency in the legislative process.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 230 - 
 
  Question:  
11. Could the EU elaborate on how the new Agreement helps promote simplicity, clarity and 
consistency in the EU legislation and the legislative process?  In particular, we are interested to 
know if there is any specific mechanism in place under the new Agreement to achieve the said 
purpose.  
 
EU reply:  The Agreement included a number of provisions aimed at reaching the goals of 
simplicity, clarity, consistency and transparency of EU legislation and the legislative process.  
 
Firstly, the European Institutions agreed new arrangements between them on the planning of new 
legislation. On an annual basis, the agreement sets out the interaction between the Institutions in 
preparation of the European Com mission's Work Programme (of legislation) and, for the first time, 
provides for a Joint Declaration on legislative priorities. This Joint Declaration has proved a useful 
tool in its first year of operation in focusing high -level political attention on the most important 
legislative files, progress on which is reviewed regularly at a meeting of the Presidents of the three 
Institutions. A new set of principles were also agreed for multiannual planning, over the whole 
mandate of a Parliament and Commission, bu t these will be put into practice only after the next 
European Parliament elections.  
 
Secondly, the Institutions committed themselves to a robust and regular process of assessing the 
impact of proposed legislation, as well as proper consultation of the pub lic and stakeholders in the 
development of proposals, and the routine evaluation of existing legislation as part of the policy 
development process.  
 
Thirdly, the Institutions agreed a set of principles on the use of empowerments, where legislation 
provide s for second -order implementing or supplementing decisions to be taken by the 
Commission.  
 
Fourth, a series of steps were agreed to make the legislative process easier to follow and more 
transparent to citizens and stakeholders alike, including by setting up an online database allowing 
easier access to information on ongoing legislative procedures. Work on this database is 
progressing. They called on the Member States to communicate clearly on their own measures 
implementing European Union legislation, incl uding to make identifiable additional measures put in 
place alongside such implementation (what is sometimes called "gold -plating").  
 
Fifth, it was agreed to make use of recast and codification techniques in order to ensure the body 
of EU legislation remains readable, even after it has been amended on various occasions. It was 
further agreed to update and simplify legislation to avoid ov erregulation and administrative 
burdens for citizens, businesses and administrations. The Commission has a regular process of 
assessing existing legislation in this respect, known as REFIT.  
 
Two follow -up sets of discussions are presently taking place, re garding the information provided to 
the European Parliament on international negotiations and regarding the choice between different 
types of empowerment clauses.  
 
Finally, the agreement provides for regular high -level assessment of its implementation, bot h at 
administrative and political level. The first political -level meeting to this end is scheduled for July 
2017.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 231 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTI ONS FROM F KAZAK HSTAN  
 
Paragraph 3.57 of the Trade Policy Review (document WT/TPR/S/357) informs about the new 
Regulations: EU Regulation 2016/1036 of 8 June 2016 “On Protection Against Dumped Imports 
from Countries not Members of the European Union” and EU Regulation 2016/1037 of 8 June 2016 
“On Protection Against Subsidized Imports from Countries not Members of the EU”.  
 
On 9 November 2016, EU announced the draft amendments to the regulations mentioned above 
with respect to certain aspects of antidumping and countervailing inve stigations.  
 
The draft amendment raises serious concerns for Kazakhstan as to consistency of the draft 
amendments with the WTO rules. The draft amendments provide unprecedented discretion to the 
authorized body to apply, potentially to any WTO Member, a me thodology based on “surrogate 
country”. The only benchmark for triggering this methodology is quite vague notion of “significan t 
distortion”. According to the draft amendment, signification distortion would be deemed to exist 
when the reported prices and c osts, including raw materials, are not the result of free market 
forces as they are deemed to be affected by the government in tervention.  
 
In addition, the European Commission may issue a report describing the situation in a country or 
certain sector. The EU industry may rely on these reports when filing their complaints. In this 
respect Kazakhstan has following questions:  
 
1. Based on what criteria the European Commission would arrive at the conclusion that “significant 
distortion” exist in a particular ma rket? 
 
EU reply : The proposal sets out a non -exhaustive list of the types of distortions which could be 
considered relevant and have an impact in that context – an extract from the relevant provisions 
of the legislative proposal states:  
 
(b) Significant di stortions for the product concerned may be deemed to exist, inter alia, when 
reported prices or costs, including the costs of raw materials, are not the result of free market 
forces as they are affected by government intervention. In considering whether or  not significant 
distortions exist regard may be had, inter alia, to the potential impact of the following: the market 
in question is to a significant extent served by enterprises which operate under the ownership, 
control or policy supervision or guidance  of the authorities of the exporting country; state presence 
in firms allowing the state to interfere with respect to prices or costs; public policies or measures 
discriminating in favour of domestic suppliers or otherwise influencing free market forces; a nd 
access to finance granted by institutions implem enting public policy objectives.  
 
2. According to the draft amendment, among factors to be considered in determining “significant 
distortion” is the assertion that ‘the market is to significant expend served by enterprises operating 
under the ownership, control or policy supervision or guidance of the authorities of the exporting 
country”. In this regard, whether the mere the presence of these assertions would be enough to 
conclude that there is a “sign ificant distortion”?  
 
EU reply:  The European Commission will base any findings that significant distortions exist on 
evidence and not simply on assertions. The evidence on which such findings will be based will be 
placed on the investigation file allowing interested parties to comment on these findings.  
 
3. If this is not the case, how and based on what guidance the European Commission would assess 
whether there is a “significant distortion” in a market under consideration?  
 
EU reply:  See reply to questio n 1. 
4. Based on what criteria the European Commission would select the countries that would be 
reported?  
 
EU reply:  There is no obligation to prepare reports - the existence of significant distortions is the 
trigger for using the new methodology, not the existence of a report. Nevertheless, such reports 
will only be relevant for the effective operation of the EU anti -dumping legislation and that 
consideration might inform the country -coverage of reports.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 232 - 
 
  5. Would it be enough for complainants just simply refer to the Commission’s Report in order to be 
able to lodge and/or complete their antidumping application? Or, wou ld the complainants be 
required to submit their own evidence?  
 
EU reply:  The requirements which a complainant must fulfil when lodging a complaint are set out 
in Article 5(2) of the EU's basic Anti -dumping Regulation. These provisions reflect Article 5.2 o f the 
ADA. The Commission's proposal does not include any changes to those provisions.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 233 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTI ONS FROM INDIA  
 
Questions on Secretariat Report (WT/TPR/S/357)  
Page 11, Paragraph 13  
 
Question 1: What is the methodology adopted to calculate the contribution of IPR intensive 
industries in the GDP?  
 
EU reply:  The figure on IPR intensive industries actually comes from a study by the EPO/EUIPO – 
this is mentioned in paragraph 3.254 on page 109. The methodology may be found in the relevant 
publication ; see footnote 233.  
 
233 EPO/EUIPO, Intellectual Property Rights Intensive Industries and Economic Performance in the 
European Union, Industry -Level Analysis Report, 2nd edition, October 2016.  
 
Viewed at: https://euipo.europa.eu/tunnel -web/secure/webdav/g uest/document_library/ 
observatory/docume nts/IPContributionStudy/ performance_in_the_European_Union/performance 
_in_the_European_Union_full.pdf.  
 
Question 2 : What are the main features of the directive on trade secrets?Is there any evaluation 
of the extent  of trade secret infringements in EU? What were the concerns on trade secret 
protection that formed the precusor of the new directive?  
 
EU reply:  The Directive harmonises the definition of trade secrets in accordance with TRIPS. It 
also defines the relevan t forms of misappropriation and clarifies that reverse engineering and 
parallel innovation must be guaranteed, given that trade secrets are not a form of exclusive 
intellectual property right.  
Without establishing criminal sanctions, the Directive  harmonises the civil means through which 
victims of trade secret misappropriation can seek protection, such as:  
 stopping the unlawful use and further disclosure of misappropriated trade secrets  
 the removal from the market of goods that have been manufactur ed on the basis of a 
trade secret that has been illegally acquired  
 the right to compensation for the damages caused by the unlawful use or disclosure of the 
misappropriated trade secret.  
Finally, judges will be empowered to take measures to protect the confidentiality of trade secrets 
revealed to the court in the context of trade secret litigation.  
In a 2012 survey 1/5 of EU companies said they had suffered attempts/acts of misappropriation in 
the past 10 years, and 2/5 were of the opinion that exposure to misappropriation was increasing.  
All the background of the proposal, including a study from Baker and McKenzie (which includes the 
above mentioned survey), public consultation, and impact assessment and respective summaries 
are available at http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/intellectual -property/trade -secrets_en . 
But in short, trade secret legal protection today (the Directive only needs to be fully transposed by  
Member States in June 2018) is opaque, inconsistent and uneven:  
– Some EU Member States do not have specific legislation on misappropriation of TS  
– Most do not have a definition of trade secrets  
– In some Member States trade secrets are only protected against misappropriation by 
competitors  
– Not all appropriate remedies are present in all Member States,  
– General lack of mechanisms to ensure confidentiality during and after trade secrets litigation.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 234 - 
 
  As a consequence, 40% of EU companies refrain from sharing trade  secrets with other parties 
because of fear of losing the confidentiality (2012 Industry Survey). Furthermore, for more than 
50% of businesses, different national rules result in less incentives to undertake R&D activities in a 
cross-border context (2013 P ublic Consultation)  
In other words, the EU fragmented legal framework is impairing business investment in innovation 
and cross -border research; thus making EU companies less competitive than they can be with an 
harmonised and clearer system.  
Page – 11, Par agraph – 14 
Question 3 : European Union (EU) is requested to provide a response on the mechanism that are 
put in place for maintaining yearly compliance on matters related to actionable subsi dies (Amber 
Box) under the AoA?  
 
EU reply:  Data on Amber Box expenditure is notified to the WTO in the EU's annual DS:1 
notifications. This data is collected through the monitoring of expenditure under the EU budget and 
in close co -ordination with EU Member States. The EU's DS:1 notifications demo nstrate compliance 
with the requirements fo the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
Question 4: Given that developed countries are allowed a minimal amount under the Amber Box 
support (“de minimis”) defined as 5% of the value of total agricultural production;  
i. What are the checks and balances which EU has put in place for the subsidies to be 
compliant with WTO’s Agreement;  
ii. What is the frequency of reporting subsidies related data to the WTO;  
iii. How are the livelihood, food security and other developmental issues address ed 
under the constraint of 5 percent product specific support across the EU countries 
with different socio -economic compulsions?  
EU reply:  
i) The EU would refer to the answer to question 3.  
ii) The EU aims to make DS:1  notifications for each year's expenditure, respecting its 
obligations under the Agreement on Agriculture.  
iii)  Policy objectives and compliance with WTO obligations are both taken into account when 
designing and implementing CAP measures and in budget al locations for the CAP.  
 
Page – 12, Paragraph – 19 
 
Question 5: The EU is requested to provide justification for the observed deviations in SPS –based 
MRL standards of Germany in comparison to the EC’s SPS -based MRL standards. How does this 
support the overa ll harmoni zation efforts at the border?   
 
EU reply:  The EU is responsible for setting MRLs based on Regulation (EC) 396/2005. Member 
States are only allowed to adopt MRLs in very limited cases. Such measures need to be motivated 
on the basis of a serious h ealth risk. Member States' measures are to be notified to the European 
Commission and to be compatible with the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures.  
 
Page 58, Paragraph 3.1.7  
Question 6 : Can EU inform as to how many anti -circumvention cases under Antidumping have 
been initiated by EU since last five years and the outcomes thereof.  
 
EU reply:  Since 2012 the EU initiated 26 AD anti -circumvention cases relating to dumping 
measures. Since 2 012 the EU concluded 25 anti -circumvention investigations by extending the 
measures. Due to length of time for such investigations the 25 measures extended do not directly 
relate to the 26 initiations in the same period.  
 
Page – 66-68, Paragraph – 3.90-3.94 
 
Question 7 : 
7.1 It follows from the Secretariat Report that export credit in the EU can take the form of loans, 
loan guarantees and export credit insurance which are provided by government institutions or 
private companies operating on behalf of  governments. Does the EU agree that export credit WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 235 - 
 
  insurance may amount to an export subsidy which falls within the scope of a prohibited subsidy 
under the WTO Subsidies and Countervailing Agreement and GATT 1994?  
 
EU reply:  Export credit insurance and ex port credit may indeed amount to an export subsidy if the 
conditions set out respectively in Points (j) and (k) of Annex I of the EU Basic Anti -Subsidy 
Regulation are met. These conditions are the same as those laid down in Points (j) and (k) of 
Annex I of  the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  
 
7.2 We understand that the purpose of the 2012 “Communication from EC to the Member States 
on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 
to short-term export -credit insurance” is to prevent Member States’ support for export -credit 
insurance from distorting competition.  
a. Could EU clarify the total amount of such support maintained by EU’s member states?  
b. Does the EU agree that state aid to expor t credit insurers can amount to an export 
subsidy under the WTO Subsidies and Countervailing Agreement and GATT 1994?  
 
EU reply to question 7.2 (a):   
We cannot provide information on the total amount of such support maintained by EU Member 
States.  
 
The Com mission Communication on short -term export -credit insurance applies to State aid in the 
short-term export credit insurance sector and is limited to insurance provided for credit risk 
shorter than two years. Long -term export credit (i.e. with a risk period above 2 years, as it is 
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.  
 
The Commu nication sets out the cases in which short -term export credit insurance is not 
considered State aid in the meaning of Article 107 of the TFEU. If public support provided for 
short-term export credit insurance for temporary non -marketable risks involves Sta te aid, it can be 
approved as compatible State aid if it meets all the requirements of the 2012 Export credit 
communication. Expenditure under such approved State aid schemes is reported by the EU 
Member States to the European Commission. The Commission re gularly publishes the information 
in the State aid scoreboard. The latest State aid scoreboard dates from 2016. It includes 
information on aid by "main objective". "Export credit insurance" as such is not a category, but 
information can be found on expendi ture on "promotion of export and internationali zation".  
 
More information about the 2016 State aid Scoreboard is available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/scoreboard/index_en.html . 
 
EU reply to question to 7.2. (b):  See reply to question 7.1 above.  
Page – 67, Paragraph – 3.94 
 
Question 8: During the last three years, which are the official ECAs (Countries in the EU) that are 
entering into Short Term Insurance (180 days to 2 years), and how much is the share of 
marketable risks to non marketable risks in the total portfolio. What is the share of these two 
portfolios in the profit of ECA?  
EU reply: As regards short term  export credit pertaining to credit risk shorter than two years, the 
European Commission does not have information as regards the respective portfolios of 
marketable risks and non marketable risks of the export credit agencies. It is in prinicple for the 
EU Member States to decide to device instruments and amount of coverage provided  by export 
credit agencies device.  
Question 9: Whether the portfolio of non marketable risks covered by the official ECAs  ECAs have 
been profitable and whether the marketable ri sk portfolio cross subsidises the loss incurred unde r 
the non marketable portfolio?  
EU reply: As regards short term export credit pertaining to credit risk shorter than two years, the 
2012 Export credit communication requires export credit agencies to keep  separate accounts for 
their insurance of marketable risks and non marketable risks for the account of and guaranteed by WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 236 - 
 
  the EU Member State. This is to show that they do not receive State aid for their insurance of 
marketable risks.  
For more information o n the 2012 Export credit communication, please refer to our 
website: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/instruments.html . 
As regards medium and long te rm export credits, a strict separation of the officially supported 
export credits from other activities performed by the agency/institution in question is complusory 
as well.  
Question 10:  If the insurance contract is for non matketable risks, which are not  covered by 
private insurers, how the Country or the EU determines that the premium rates are higher than 
those offered by private insurers?  
EU reply: The European Commission can exceptionally approve State aid for short term export 
credits to marketable risk countries, if considered temporary non marketable. One of the 
conditions to be met for approval of such State aid is that there is adequate pricing. According to 
the 2012 Export credit communication, pricing is adequate if the minimum premium ("safe h arbour 
premium") as set out in the table in point 23 of the Communication is charged.  
For more information on the 2012 Export credit communication, please refer to our website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/instruments.html  
For medium and long term export credits, there is no real private market that could serve as a 
point of reference. The EU expects Member States to respect in their medium and lo ng term export 
credit activities the premium rules of the OECD Arrangement on Export Credits (which has been 
transformed into EU law) as well as the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures.  
 
Question 11:  What if an EU Conutry falls under B – rating by S & P and classified as High Income 
Category under OECD Arrangement with Zero risk? Is it not divergent to have two rules for the 
same country?  
 
EU reply: Firstly, the country risk classifications are not sovereign risk classifications and should 
not, therefore, be compared with the sovereign risk classifications of private credit rating agencies 
(CRAs). Conceptually, they are more similar to the "country ce ilings" that are produced by some of 
the major CRAs. High Income OECD countries and other High Income Euro -zone countries are not 
reviewed or classified, it is up to the individual ECAs to undertake the country risk assessment. 
However, transactions involv ing obligors in these countries (and any countries classified in 
Category 0) are subject to the market pricing disciplines set out in Article 24c) and Annex X of the 
Arrangement, which stipulates the minimum premium rates for credit risks.  
 
Page – 81, Para graph – 3.147  
 
Question 12: Whether the EU will show greater flexibility and accept Codex MRLs for global trade, 
even if their own MRLs are different?  
 
EU reply:  It is an EU policy to systematically align its MRLs with Codex MRLs if they are 
acceptable to the EU with respect to areas such as consumer protection, supporting data and 
extrapolations. Where these criteria are not met, the EU introduces reservations on  the draft 
Codex MRLs discussed at the meetings of the Codex Committee on Pesticides Residues and 
provides the reasoning for these reservations. These reservations are aimed at increasing 
transparency and predictability regarding the impact of the work at Codex level on EU legislation. 
There is no intention to depart from those principles in the near future.  
 
When a Codex MRL is not included in the EU legislation, an exporting country can still provide the 
necessary data and follow the procedure for setting  an ‘import tolerance’. This approval procedure 
is laid down in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 and includes an evaluation of the submitted data by 
EFSA. An import tolerance may be granted by the EU under the condition that there is no health 
risk for consumer s and that the requested MRL is not higher than the one established in the third 
country.  
 
 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 237 - 
 
  Page 84, Paragraph, 3.164  
Question 13: India would like to seek a clarification on the exact status of the legislation on 
endocrine disruptors notifications which restricted trade in goods containing these contaminants.  
Namely, the TBT notifications G/TBT/N/EU/383, dated June 23, 2016; G/TBT/N/EU/ 384, dated 
June 23, 2016 and G/SPS/N/EU/166, dated June 20, 2016.  
 
This aspect is not been adequately highlighted in bot h TPR documents - Government and 
Secretariat Reports.  On the one hand, the government report is completely silent on the issue of 
endocrine disruptors’. On the other hand the secretariat report had a footnote on the issue.  
 
The restriction on endocrine dis ruptors is one major measure, which impacts exports from India.  
Therefore, we seek urgent clarification on the endocrine disruptors’ legislation and notifications 
made to the WTO.  
 
EU reply:  Following the publication of the draft legal acts setting criter ia to identify endocrine 
disruptors in the context of the Plant Protection Products and Biocidal Products legislation in June 
2016, several consultation processes (EU member States and experts, stakeholders, non -EU 
countries) took place.  
 
The notified draf t acts are undergoing their planned legal procedures. The draft acts under the 
plant protection products legislation need to be voted on by EU Member States. In the case of a 
vote in favour of the texts, the European Parliament and the Council have the rig ht of scrutiny and 
the acts will eventually be adopted by the Commission if there are no objections from the 
Parliament and/or Council.  
 
The draft act under the biocidal products legislation is being discussed in an expert group 
appointed by Member States and will be adopted by the Commission after this consultation with 
experts. The adopted act will then be notified to the European Parliament and to the Council for 
their scrutiny. The act will enter into force if there are no objections from the Parliament  and/or 
Council.  
 
During the on -going decision making, the Commission revised the draft acts to address the 
comments received. The revised criteria clarify the burden of proof and the scope of the criteria. 
No substantial change was introduced compared to the notifications submitted to the TBT and/or 
SPS Committee and this is the reason why the EU believes there was no need to re -notify the draft 
acts.  
 
Moreover, the revised versions of the criteria are published on the Commission's website45, as well 
as the minutes of the meetings with EU Member States and experts, ensuring transparency of the 
process.  
 
The last meeting with EU Member States in the pesticides area took place on 30 May 2017 and the 
last meeting with experts in the biocides area took place on 7 April 2017.  
 
At the last meeting with Member States in the pesticides area, no vote on the criteria was taken as 
Member States needed additional time to establish their position and consult internally. A new 
meeting with Member States will be organise d in the near future.  
 
In order to facilitate the decision -making, in December 2016, the plant protection products act has 
been split into two acts without change in content: one text containing the criteria and another one 
containing the technical amendme nt to the clause on negligible exposure. This offers EU member 
States the possibility to express their opinion on each of them separately. This split also allows the 
Council and the European Parliament to consider each draft act separately during the scrut iny 
period.  
 
The current discussions are focusing on the criteria. However, the Commission has committed to 
resume discussions on the amendment to the clause on negligible exposure once the criteria are 
adopted. This proposed amendment allows information o n hazard, exposure and risk to be 
considered before a decision is taken on a given substance and is expected to lead to more 
certainty in terms of setting MRLs.  
                                                
45 http://ec.europa.eu/health/endocrine_disruptors/next_steps_en . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 238 - 
 
  Page – 84, Paragraph – 3.166  
Question 14 :  Does the EU provide direct financial support for pro motion of EU wines in third -
country markets? If yes, could the EU provide details regarding the level of such support?  
 
EU reply:  The EU allocates financial support for campaigns to promote farm products and inform 
consumers about how they are produced. T he campaigns can run inside the EU, or beyond its 
borders.  
 
Rules for a new promotion policy (entered into force on 1st December 2015) are set in Regulation 
(EU) No 1144/2014,as well as in Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 for wines.  
 
The new rules are designed  to help find new markets, consolidate existing ones, and promote the 
high standards of EU agricultural products to consumers in Europe and around the world. 
Campaigns are based on a yearly work programme in which the EU defines strategic priorities on 
internal and external markets. The EU's budget available for promotion will be increased from €60 
million per year in 2015 to €200 million in 2019 (this includes promotion inside and outside the 
EU). 
 
Under Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, Member States may allo cate a part of their EU Wine 
National Support Programmes for projects of promotion and marketing of EU wines with a view to 
improving their competitiveness in other countries. The measures apply to wines with a protected 
designation of origin or a protecte d geographical indication or wines with an indication of the wine 
grape variety and consist only of public relations, promotion or advertising measures, participation 
at events, fairs or exhibitions of international importance, information campaigns and st udies 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 million and was app lied by 14 Member States.  
 
Page – 86, Paragraph – 3.174  
Question 15:  Could the EU update whether the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER) has 
been expanded to include aid to ports and to airports? If yes, what is the criteria to decide the aid?  
 
EU reply:  On 17 May 2017 the Commission internally approved the Amending Regulation to the 
Global Block Exemption Regulation (GBER) in order to also cover certain public support measures 
for ports and airports. The Regulation will enter into force 20 days aft er its publication in the 
Official Journal.  
 
New exemption for airports:  
The Regulation introduces a new exemption from the obligation to notify State aid measures to the 
Commission for approval before they are implemented, covering investment aid for airports below 
3 million passengers. The main conditions are the following:  
 
- Aid should not be granted to airports located in the catchment area of another airport.  
- There is a demonstrated need that the funded infrastructure will actually be used in th e future 
and will not be oversized.  
- The aid does not go beyond what is necessary to trigger the investment, taking into account 
future revenues from the investment (i.e. aid can only cover the "funding gap").  
- Only a certain percentage of the investment  costs can be subsidised (depending on the size of 
the airport and on whether the airport is located in a remote region).  
 
In addition, the Regulation allows operating aid and provides for simplified rules for investment aid 
for small airports below 200 00 0 passengers per year.  
 
New exemption for ports:  
The Regulation introduces a new exemption from the obligation to notify State aid measures to the 
Commission for approval before they are implemented, covering maritime ports and inland ports. 
The main condi tions are the following:  
 
- The aid does not go beyond what is necessary to trigger the investment, taking into account 
future revenues from the investment (i.e. aid can only cover the "funding gap").  
- Only a certain percentage of the investment costs can  be subsidised (depending on the size and 
the nature of the investment and on whether the port is located in a remote region).  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 239 - 
 
  - Only investment costs are eligible for aid (with the exception of dredging, for which both 
investment and maintenance costs are  eligible for aid).  
- Concessions and other entrustments to third parties for the construction, upgrade, operation or 
rent of port infrastructures must be assigned on a competitive, transparent, non -discriminatory 
and unconditional basis.  
 
In addition, the  Regulation provides for simplified rules for investment aid for small investment 
projects in ports.  
 
For more information about the GBER and the Amending Regulation, please refer to our website:  
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/block.html  
 
Page – 86, Paragraph – 3.177  
Question 16: Could the EU provide details about its Research, Development and Innovation 
Framework and the criteria that need to be satisfied to avail aid under it?  
 
EU reply:  In June 2014, the European Commission adopted a Communication on the framework 
for State aid for research and development and innovation (R&D&I) in which it identifies a series of 
R&D&I measures for which State a id may, under specific conditions, be compatible with the 
internal market. The principles set out in this framework apply to State aid for R&D&I in all sectors 
governed by the EU Treaty.  
 
In assessing the compatibility of an aid, the European Commission balances its negative effects on 
trade and competition in the common market with its positive effects in terms of a contribution to 
the achievement of well -defined objectives of common inter est. The Common Principles for the 
assessment of compatibility of all aid measures are: (a) contribution to a well -defined objective of 
common interest; (b) need for State intervention; (c) appropriateness of the aid measures; (c) 
incentive effect; (d) pro portionality of the aid; (e) avoidance of undue negative effects on 
competition and trade between EU Member States; and (f) transparency of aid.  
 
For more information about the framework for State aid for R&D&I, please refer to:  
http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2014.198.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ:C:2014:198:TOC  
 
Page – 91, Table –3.17 
 
Question 17: In the  context of Article 66 of the TRIPS Agreement, what are the incentives 
provided to enterprises and institutions in the EU for promoting and encouraging technology 
transfer to least developed country members? What has been the extent of technology transfer in 
value term to the LDCs in 2014, 2015 and 2016?  
 
EU reply:  The EU prepares annually a report on the implementation of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS 
Agreement. The report provides detailed information on the technology transfer incentives 
pursuant to paragraph 1 of the Decision on the Implementation of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS 
Agreement by the European Union, as well as its Member States. In their efforts to encourage and 
promote technology transfer, the EU and its Member States' governments are usually limited by 
two factors: (1) they do not own the vast majority of s uch technologies; (2) they cannot force the 
private sector to transfer its technologies. Incentives can only take the form of encouragement, 
promotion and facilitation of projects which are part of a global and comprehensive approach to 
development. Techno logy transfer is considered to include training, education and "know -how." 
Transfer of know -how is therefore also contained in projects that deal with education. In addition 
to formal TT channels such as the transfer or licensing of IP rights and/or know -how, there are 
several - equally important - informal TT channels such the hiring of new university graduates, 
exchanges of qualified staff, joint research projects; or specific projects related to foreign direct 
investment (quite often, technology transfer  is one component of more complex projects, rather 
than a standalone activity). Moreover, access to the right partners, information and expertise are 
key at all stages. The most important incentives are that LDCs have access at preferential grounds 
to rese arch programmes with full funding and to allocation of aid. The development and research 
programmes usually set preferential conditions for LDCs. For more details please check Point 11 on 
the types of incentives measures for technology transfer of the diff erent programmes in the EU's 
report. The exact value of the different technology transfer incentives can be found in the annual 
reports in the allocated budget or funds line (Point 11 in the EU's report).  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 240 - 
 
  Page – 104, Paragraph – 3.234  
Question 18 :  In resp ect of government procurement contracts for the past three years, could the 
EC provide details of the percentage of government procurement by value that was awarded to 
non-EC suppliers?  
 
Question 19 :  Initial Statistical Reports of the EU notified under Ar ticle XIX:5 of the Government 
Procurement Agreement contained statistics on the country of origin of products and services 
purchased by its entities. Will the EU be notifying this information in future statistical reports to 
the GPA Committee?  
 
EU reply to questions 18 and 19:  The EU does not report on the country of origin of products 
and services purchased by its entities. Only an indication based on the location of the winning 
bidder was provided in past GPA reports. The EU has not yet found a consiste nt methodology to 
report on the country of origin of products and services and remains ready to engage in in -depth 
discussions with GPA parties to determine a methodology to address this difficulty.  
 
Page 104, Paragraph 3.234  
Question 20:  India would reque st EU to provide the break -up of Government Procurement in 
value terms by the Member states of EU, above the GPA threshold limits, the latest data, as 
available, for three years.   
 
EU reply:  This information is available in the EU GPA reports. Please find below the link to the 
online information.  
 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gproc_e/notnat_e.htm#statPro . 
 
Question 21:  Till 2015, European public procurement regime did not cover  service concessions. 
At present what is the regime of their procurement. There was a move by EU to cover it under the 
Procurement Directives. Can the European Union inform as to what is the statu s of the said 
amendment?  
 
EU reply:  Services concession contracts are covered under Concessions Directive 2014/23/EU (for 
value equal to or greater than €5 225 000). This Directive was adopted in April 2014 and EU 
Member States had to transpose it into the ir national legislation by April 2016.  
 
Question 22:  Reference to Reciprocity has been made in EU Directives on Government 
procurement. How does EU ensure reciprocity, whether in terms of sector by sector or cross sector 
reference.  
 
EU reply:  Article 85 of the Directive 2014/25/UE provides for the possibility for EU contracting 
entities operating in the sectors of water, energy, transport and postal service sector, to exclude 
tenders originating in third countries with which the EU has not signed a bilate ral or multilateral 
agreement on procurement, irrespective of the type of product they purchase.  
 
Page -114, Paragraph -3.268  
Question 23: What is the law applicable to utility models/innovation patents in EU?  
 
EU reply:  There is no EU legislation about utility models. Some EU MS have passed national laws 
on utility models. Regarding patent law in the EU, we need to consider the European Patent 
Convention (EPC) and national patent laws.  
 
Question 24: What is the time taken for a utility patent to get gran ted? 
 
EU reply:  It depends on the EU MS, but normally utility models are granted within a few months.  
 
Question 25: How many suits have been filed till date for infringement of utility patents?  
 
EU reply:  We do not have information in this regard. Some nat ional patent offices provide on -line 
information on litigation related to utility model.  
 
 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 241 - 
 
  Page – 116, Paragraph –3.275  
 
Question 26: How does the EPO examine patent applications for inventions that utilize genetic 
resources (having a traditional knowledge base)?  
 
EU reply:  The EPO is not an EU agency, and operates under the European Patent Convention and 
its implementing regulation.  
 
What are the criteria for assessment of novelty and inventive step in such inventions?  
 
EU reply : Please see the previous answer.  
 
i. EU has access to the TKDL Database since 2009. What has been the impact of this 
database in improving the quality of patent p roducts? Are oral submissions in respect of 
novelty, claims made by the applicant accepted from third parties?  
 
EU reply : See above.  
 
ii. EU is a signatory of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CDB), Article 16.5 of which 
talks about the need to ensure co mpatibility between the Convention and the national IP 
laws of countries. In the absence of any linkage between EU’s IP laws and biodiversity 
laws, how does EU comply with its commitment under this Article?  
 
EU reply:  EU IP laws are compatible with the CBD, and as stipulated in Art 16(5) CBD, the EU and 
EU MS cooperate in the relevant international fora (e.g., WIPO and WTO) it that regard.  
 
Page 117, Paragraph 3.281  
 
Question 27:  Are there any guidelines for determining royalty rates of the licensing agr eement 
between the holder of standard essential patents, and the licencee?  
 
EU reply : There is no single correct methodology to determine the value of a specific SEP. The 
Guidelines on the applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union 
to horizontal co -operation agreements (2011/ C 11/ 01) refer to various methods such as 
comparative analysis of various elements (& 289, 290 and 291)  
 
Question 28: Where the parties are unable to fix the royalty rates of the agreement, w hich is the 
relevant authority to determine royalties?  
 
EU reply : If parties do not agree and go to litigation, then the Court ultimately may be in position 
to decide the FRAND rate. Parties can also decide to have recourse to an alternative dispute 
resolu tion mechanism and voluntary agree to arbitration to fix the rate  
 
Page 117, Paragraph 3.282  
Question 29: Since EU already provides for market exclusivity and data exclusivity, what is the 
need for supplementary protection certificates? What kind of value do SPCs add?  
 
EU reply:  It has to be considered in the first place that the beneficiary of the market/data 
exclusivity is the holder of the marketing authori zation who is not necessarily the holder of the 
patent (only the holder of the patent is entitled t o SPC protection). The scope of protection and 
remedies available for SPC protection and market/data exclusivities are different. The period of 
protection conferred by these exclusivities may overlap or complement each other.  
 
Question 30: What is the aver age period of time for which SPCs are given? How are delays on 
part of the right holder accounted for while calculating the SPC?  
 
EU reply:  Article 13 of Regulation 469/2009 stipulates the calculation of the SPC duration: " The 
certificate shall take effec t at the end of the lawful term of the basic patent for a period equal to 
the period which elapsed between the date on which the application for a basic patent was lodged 
and the date of the first authori zation to place the product on the market in the Com munity, 
reduced by a period of five years", and emphasis should be given to paragraph (2) of Article 13: WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 242 - 
 
  "Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the duration of the certificate may not exceed five years from the 
date on which it takes effect."  
 
Page – 119, Paragraph  – 3.292  
Question 31: Does EU provide protection to olfactory trademarks and position marks? How many 
such applications for each were received in 2016?  
 
EU reply:  Based on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European 
Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) does not grant protection to olfactory marks as it 
considers that there is actually no means of representing smells in such a way so as to 
satisfactorily meet the current requirement of graphic representation laid down in Article 4 of 
Regulation (EC) No . 207/2009 on the EU trade mark. The deletion of that requirement with the 
entry into force of the new EU Trade Mark Regulation on 1 October 2017 will not affect the practice 
of the EUIPO regarding that type of mark as according to the new secondary legislation on the EU 
trade mark the representation of the trade mark must be clear, precise, self -contained, easily 
accessible, intelligib le, durable and objective. The EUIPO considers that it is currently not possible 
to represent smells in compliance with those requisite standards. In 2016, the EUIPO has not 
received any application for olfactory marks.  
 
The EUIPO accepts applications for position marks even if it is not an official type of mark for the 
moment (it will be as from 01/10/2017). They are currently classified under the type of mark 
“other”. The applicant must indicate in the description field of the trade mark application that it is 
indeed a position mark and detail its positioning. In 2016, the EUIPO has received 80 applications 
for position marks.  
 
Page – 120, Paragraph – 3.295  
Question 32 : What are the yardsticks/thresholds which the Customs and Border personnel would 
employ to determine as to whether there is infringement of the trademark for the goods in transit 
through EU?  
 
EU reply:  Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 does not contain any thr eshold to be applied to determine 
trademark infringement in cases of transit through the EU. Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 
608/2013 states that if customs authorities identify goods suspected of infringing an IPR covered 
by an application for action, th ey shall suspend the release or detain the goods.  
 
Question 33 : Whether EU is considering to issue guidelines in line with the guidelines of 2012 for 
the Customs and Border Authorities to arrive at the suspicion of diversion of the goods in transit?  
 
EU re ply: A Commission notice on the customs enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights 
concerning goods brought into the customs territory of the Union without being released for free 
circulation including goods in transit was published in the Official Journa l of the European Union 
(OJ, C 244, 5.7.2016, p. 4).  
 
Question 34 : Whether any of the member States of EU have any such guidelines or instructions 
for its border authorities   
 
EU reply:  The Commission is not aware of guidelines or instructions prepared at national level. 
The Commission Notice referred to in the previous question is valid throughout the European 
Union.  
 
Page – 121, Paragraph – 3.302  
Question 35:  Can a GI once granted protection in the European Union (EU) become generic even 
when it continues  to be protected as  a GI in the country of origin?  
 
EU reply: No. According to EU rules, Protected Geographical indications (PGI), once protected, 
cannot become generic.  
 
Page 128, Paragraph –3.330  
 
Question 36:  What is the difference between market exclusivity and data exclusivity?  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 243 - 
 
  EU reply:  The term 'market exclusivity' is used in the context of the Orphan Medicines Regulation 
(Regulation (EC) No . 141/2000) and provides for a temporary monopoly for medicines intended to 
treat rare diseases. Market exclusivity is fully independent of other incentives or protection 
periods.  
 
‘Data exclusivity’ instead is part of the regulatory data protection periods. A new medicinal product 
benefits from a period of eight years of data exclusivity from the date of the initial authori zation. 
After the expiry of the eight years, a generic company can submit a valid application for a generic 
product and receive a marketing authori zation. However, the authori zed generic product can be 
placed on the market only after ten  years from the initial authori zation. Hence, under regulatory 
data protection the reference product benefits from 8+2 years of protection. The additional two 
year period is covered by the so -called 'market protection'.  
 
Question 37: Can validity of market  exclusivity outlast data exclusivity?  
 
EU reply:  Market exclusivity granted under the Orphan Regulation can outlast data exclusivity 
provided under the regulatory data protection periods.  
 
Question 38: What is the underlying basis for market exclusivity?  
 
EU reply:  The EU Orphan Regulation (EC) No 141/2000.  
 
Question 39 : Can the EU provide information about databases which contain the patent 
expiration date and the data exclusivity expiration date for pharmaceutical and pesticide products 
(similar to the USFDA’s orange book which contains patent expiration date and date of market 
exclusivity expiration of pharmaceutical products)  
 
EU reply:  The EU does not follow the described USFDA's practice.  
 
Question 40: Does EU provide data exclusivity protection from  the date of first registration or 
from the date of registration in the EU?  
 
EU reply : The data exclusivity period starts to run from the first authori zation within the EU.  
 
Question 41: Is there a specific period from the date of first registration within  which protection 
must be sought to enable data exclusivity protection?  
 
EU reply:  No, data exclusivity follows directly from the marketing authori zation. There is no need 
to undergo a separate procedure . 
 
Question 42: What is the process followed in case of agrochemical substances? What are the 
modalities that must be completed by generic suppliers of agrochemical substance?  
 
EU reply: In order to place a plant protection product (agrochemical substance) on the EU 
market, any supplier has to comply with Regulation (EC) No . 1107/2009. This implies to approve 
the active substance(s) of the plant protection product (PPP) at EU level, and once this is done to 
authori ze the PPP uses at national level (mutual recognition applies at zonal level in the EU).  
 
Page  129, Paragraph 3.334 & [Page 209 Table A3.3]  
Market Authorisation for Medicinal Products  
Question 43: The EU maintains a system for granting market authorisations for medicinal 
products including generic medicinal products. It is understood that there are  a number of 
authorities involved, such as the European Medicines Agency (EMA), CHMP and separate such 
authorities for each EU member state. In this context, India requests the EU to clarify the 
following:  
i. Please specify applicable EU level directives, le gislations, regulations and procedures 
relating to the marketing authorisation of generic medicinal products.  
EU reply:  The different authorisation procedures are explained in the following document: 
http://ec.europa.eu/health//sites/health/files/files/eudralex/vol -2/a/vol2a_chap1_201507.pdf . 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 244 - 
 
  ii. Whether EU member States independently maintains separ ate Regulation to that extent. If 
so, EU is requested to provide the weblink for the said information.  
EU reply:  Each EU Member State may have transposed certain provisions of EU law into national 
law and may have adopted national pharmaceutical codes. Ho wever, those statutory instruments 
cannot deviate from EU law.  
iii. EU is also requested to inform the names of various international standardising bodies 
whose standards, recommendations, guidelines the EU has adopted in the legislations, 
regulations, procedur es and compliance related requirements governing market 
authorisations for medicinal products. EU follows the WHO Guidelines for Good Clinical 
Practice for trials on pharmaceutical products. Please also inform if the EU follows 
guidelines by any other inte rnational standardising bodies with regard to good clinical 
practice for trials on medicinal products.  
EU reply:  The EU is an active contributor to international harmonisation and participates in 
several international fora, such as ICH (ich.org) and PIC/S (https://www.picscheme.org ). 
iv. EU may also inform as to how does it ensure that the various EU member states interpret 
and apply the various legislations, regulations, procedures and compliance related 
requirements g overning market authorisations for medicinal products, in a manner 
consistent with applicable EU instruments?  Kindly inform about the checks and balances in 
place to ensure this.  
EU reply:  The EU is based on the rule of law. EU Member States have to ensure  compliance with 
the applicable provisions. Moreover, many guidance documents exist to support the correct 
application of the legal provisions. In the pharma sector, the 'notice to applicants' is an important 
compilation of such guidance: http://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/eudralex_en . 
v. Is there any centralised public database in place where lists of market authorisations that 
are maintained, suspended and terminated in the EU are available. If a similar system is 
available for each EU member state, kindly provide the links to access such databases.  
EU reply:  For centrally authorised products: http://ec.europa.eu/health /documents/community -
register_en . 
For nationally authorised products: www.hma.eu  
Page 132, Para 3.347  
Question 44 /50:  Please indicate the number of recordals made with the customs authorities in 
patents and designs in the  last three years. Also, indicate the number of infringement cases 
reported by the authorities as a consequence of border measures covering importation and 
exportation in the last three years.  
 
EU reply:  The European Commission publishes an annual report on EU customs enforcement of 
IPR.46 For the years 2013 to 2015 the number of applications for action was respectively: 26.865; 
20.929 and 33.191. As each application for action can contain several and diff erent IP rights, it is 
not possible to determine how many applications for action were covering patents and how many 
applications for action were covering design rights.  
 
The annual reports on EU Customs Enforcement of IPR contain in chapter 11 an overview  in 
percentage of the number of cases related to customs procedures. For the years 2013/2015, 
customs action was started whilst the goods concerned were either under import or export 
procedure in the following numbers of cases:  
 
 - 2013: 80.244 import case s; 52 export cases.  
 - 2014: 87959 import cases; 1228 export cases.  
 - 2015: 69152 import cases; 892 export cases   
 
Question 45/51:  How many cases of in transit measures have been carried out since the 
Regulation came into existence?  
 
                                                
46 http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/ business/customs -controls/counterfeit -piracy -other -ipr-
violations/ipr -infringements -facts-figures_en . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 245 - 
 
  EU reply:  Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 entered into application on 1 January 2014. Since that 
date in 333 cases action was started by customs authorities whilst the goods were in transit with a 
destination in a third country (2014: 171; 2015: 162 cases).  
 
Question 46/52:  What a re the factors that determine that there is a likelihood that the product 
will be diverted into the EU market?  
 
EU reply:  The factors that determine the likelihood that the goods will be diverted into the EU 
market have to be considered on a case by case basis. However general indications such as a sale, 
an offer for sale or advertising,  or where it is apparent from documents (e.g. instruction manauls) 
or correspondance concerning the goods could give indications that their diversion to the market of 
the U nion is envisaged.  
 
Page – 161, Paragraph – 4.64 – 4.94 
Question 47:   
i. 53In the implementation of the CFP, could the EU elucidate what steps have the member -
states adopted to ensure that fishing activities are ecologically, economically and socially 
sustain able in the long term?   
 
EU reply: In line with Regulation 1380/2013, the CFP shall ensure that fishing activities are 
environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. To this end, the maximum sustainable 
exploitation yield (Fmsy) shall be achieved as soon as possible and by 2020 for all stocks.  
 
The main instruments to achieve the objectives of the CFP are fishing opportunities, i.e. catch 
limits set at the EU level on the basis of scientific advice (in line with Fmsy, when there is 
analytical advice, or the precautionary approach otherwise) and the development of multiannual 
plans (MAPs) containing conservation measures to restore and maintain fish stocks above levels 
capable of producing maximum sustainable yield. A MAP is already in place for  the management of 
fish stocks in the Baltic, whereas two others are currently under negotiation, a MAP for demersal 
fisheries in the North Sea and a MAP for small pelagics in the Adriatic.  
 
It should also be recalled here that the conservation of marine biological ressources under the CFP 
falls under the exclusive competence of the EU and Member States are not allowed to take 
measures in this field, unless there is a specific empowerment and provided that there are no 
more stringent EU rules in place.  
 
ii. 54 The latest reform to the CFP (Regulation No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and 
of the Council Of 11 December 2013) provides that the CFP should contribute to increased 
productivity, to a fair standard of living for the fisheries sector including sma ll-scale 
fisheries, and to stable markets, and it should ensure the availability of food supplies and 
that they reach consumers at reasonable prices.  
a) Could the EU clarify on what percentage of the fisheries sector is categorized as 
small -scale fisheries in  EU?  
 
EU reply:  74%.  
 
b) What is the criterion of categorization as small –scale fisheries?  
 
EU reply:  Small -scale coastal fishing’ means fishing carried out by fishing vessels of an overall  
length of less than 12  metres and not using towed gear.  
 
iii. 55Has the EU notified multi -annual plans as required under the new CFP to set targets and 
a deadline for fishing at MSY?  
 
EU reply : As already mentioned, a MAP is already in force for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat 
in the Baltic Sea, whereas two others are currently under negotiation between the co -legislators, 
i.e. a MAP for demersals in the North Sea and a MAP for small pelag ics in the Adriatic.  
 
Irrespective of the adoption of MAPs, the deadline for Fmsy is set in the CFP Regulation and is 
2020.  
 
iv. 56 Could the EU clarify how the access rights under SFPAs are actually used?  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 246 - 
 
  EU reply:  Access rights under SFPAs consist of fishing opportunities granted to EU vessels in the 
form of number of catch limits, number of vessels or capacity -based system, depending on the 
Agreement. In general, these are used significantly by EU fishing vessels.  Detailed monitoring of 
the extent to which they are used is made on a regular basis, and fishing opportunities may be 
adjusted on the occasion of SFPA protocol renewals so as to ensure good match between access 
rights available and level of use.  
 
v. 57How  does the fishing take place under these SFPAs and by whom?  
 
EU reply : There are eleven Member States of the European Union which have an external fleet, 
and benefit, to various extent, from fishing opportunities available under SFPAs. Repartition of 
fishing rights acquired under SFPAs is made through a Regulation adopted by the Council of the 
European Union, and is reviewed on the occasion of SFPA protocol renewals.  
 
vi. 58 What are the terms and conditions under which fishing fleets or fishermen allowed t o 
fish under SFPAs?  
 
EU reply:  Each SFPA between the EU and a partner country is accompanied by a protocol, whose 
duration varies usually between 3 and 5 years, and which determines the conditions under which 
fishing is taking place. This includes the leve l of fishing opportunities, the financial compensation, 
including the contribution to the sustainable management of fisheries resource, as well as the 
technical rules that EU fishing vessels have to comply with. Technical conditions tend to be 
harmoni zed for all SFPAs.  
 
vii. 59 Whether EU grants any subsidies including fuel subsidies to the fishers who fish under 
SFPAs?  
 
EU reply:  The EU does not grant fuel subsidies to the fishery sector. Fishers who fish under SFPAs 
could benefit from the EFF or EMFF cov ered measures as any EU -flagged vessels. Such support 
cannot increase fishing capacity nor can it reduce operating costs.  
 
viii. 60 A number of countries provide fuel subsidy to its fisheries sector. Can EU inform the 
type of fuel subsidies being provided by EU states and the annual quantum thereof.   
 
EU reply:  The EU does not provide fuel subsidies to the fisheries sector.  
 
ix. 61 EU may kindly provide the list of countries with whom  EU has access 
rights/arrangements for fishing of wild catch fisheries with the WTO Member Countries.    
 
EU reply : EU Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements available at:  
https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/international/agreements_en  
Page – 169, Paragraph – 4.103  
Question 48/62: The EU is requested to provide the details of financial contributions on providers 
of on -demand services established in other member States and als o of the exemptions as 
mentioned in this report.   
 
EU reply: For details, please see Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the 
Council amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, 
regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provis ion of audiovisual media 
services in view of changing market realities - COM/2016/0287 final - 2016/0151 (COD) - 
http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN /TXT/?qid=1464618463840&uri=COM:2016:287:FIN . 
 
Question 49 /63: The EU is also requested to provide information on how much and what types 
of subsidies are provided by the government to the audio -visual services sector. Are these 
subsidies available on a n on-discriminatory basis to Foreign Service providers?  
 
EU reply: The Member States support their audiovisual industries in a variety of ways. All have 
national film institutes or similar bodies that support their film industries. Moreover, most member 
States maintain some sort of public funding for public service broadcasting. The European WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 247 - 
 
  Commission verifies whether State aid for audio -visual services is in line with EU State aid Law. 
Two communications by the Commission have set out sector -specific rules  for aid to public 
broadcasters and support for audiovisual works. These are, respectively, the 2009 Communication 
on the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasters and the 2013 Communication 
from the Commission on State aid for films an d other audiovisual works.  EU Member States can 
also provide State aid to audiovisual works if the conditions of Article 54 of the General Block 
Exemption Regulation (GBER) are met. Neither the Communications nor the GBER includes 
conditions specific to Fo reign Service providers.  
 
The Communication from the Commission on State aid for films and other audiovisual works is 
available at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/st ate_aid/legislation/specific_rules.html . 
 
The Communication on State aid for public service broadcasters is available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/specific_rules.html#broadcasting . 
 
State aid expenditure is reported by the EU Member States to the European Commission. The 
Commission regularly publishes the information in the State aid scoreboard. T he latest State aid 
scoreboard dates from 2016. It includes information on aid by "main objective", such as "culture 
and heritage conservation". Aid for audiovisual works falls within this objective.  
 
More information about the 2016 State aid Scoreboard is  available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/scoreboard/index_en.html . 
 
Page – 169, Paragraph – 4.105  
Question 50/64: The EU is requested to provide details of t he provisions regarding television 
advertising and rules on the prohibition of hate speech and on the protection of minors. Lead:  
 
EU reply: For details, please see Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the 
Council amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, 
regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pro vision of audiovisual media 
services in view of changing market realities - COM/2016/0287 final - 2016/0151 (COD) - 
http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content /EN/TXT/?qid=1464618463840&uri=COM:2016:287:FIN . 
 
Moreover, please see Directive 2005/29/EC concerning unfair business -to-consumer commercial 
practices, in particular its Annex I no. 28 which bans including in an advertisement a direct 
exhortation to children to buy advertised products or to persuade thei r parents or other adults to 
buy advertised products. See in this regard also chapter 4.6. of the Commission Guidance on the 
application of Directive 2005/29/EC http:/ /ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer -
marketing/files/ucp_guidance_en.pdf . 
 
Page – 170, Paragraph – 4.113  
 
Question 51/65: Could the EU please explain how the additional one off cost of €9,000 is 
calculated and the details of the national contract law?  
 
EU reply : The Impact Assessment accompanying the Digital Contracts proposals estimated one -
off contract law related costs of around €9,000 for businesses to adapt to the contract law of each 
Member State they wish to sell to. Contract -law related costs per company  for entering the market 
of one Member States have been calculated based on the responses gathered in the context of a 
SME Panel Survey in 2011. Traders involved in B2C trade were asked to estimate the costs for 
entering one Member State's market that they  would save if uniform contract law rules applied 
across the EU. 62 traders indicated that these costs were up to €5,000; 51 indicated these costs 
as being in the range of €5,000 - €10,000; 23 in the range of €10,000 -€15,000; 11 in the range of 
€15,000 -€30,000 and 11 estimated the costs to be higher than €30,000.  
 
Based on these responses, the Impact Assessment accompanying the Digital Contracts proposals 
calculated the average contract law -related costs associated with B2C transactions, using lower 
and hig h bound estimates. According to the low estimate, the average contract law related costs 
for firms involved in B2C transactions amount to €8,877. The costs are estimated as the weighted 
average value of reported cost ranges (i.e. €2,500, €7,500, €12,500, € 22,500). According to the 
high estimate, the average contract law related costs for firms involved in B2C transactions WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 248 - 
 
  amount to €10,269. The costs are again estimated as the weighted average value (i.e. €2,500, 
€7,500, €12,500, €22,500) of reported cost r anges. Yet, for the calculation of this high estimate, it 
is assumed that the costs reported at the last range (more than 30,000) are €50,000. This leads 
to average costs per firm of €10,268.  
 
For more details, please see Annex 5 of the Impact Assessment a ccompanying the Digital 
Contracts proposals, http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/T XT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52015S 
C0274R (01)&from=E N. 
 
Page – 171, Paragraph – 4.114  
Question 52/66: It is understood that the proposed legislative package is to promote online 
shopping and cross -border sales among the EU Member States. Could the EU provide information 
if any such package exists or is being proposed to promote online shopping and cross -border sales 
from the EU Member States to non -Members States?  
 
EU reply:  The package as meant to promote online shopping and cross border sales. On the 
territorial scope of the proposals, the proposed Regulations and Directive apply to all traders 
offering their activities to European consumers in the European Union, regardless  of whether they 
are established in the EU or in a third country.  
 
Page – 171, Paragraph – 4.116  
 
Question 53/67: Could the EU please inform the details of the measures as mentioned in this 
paragraph?  
 
EU reply : In its May 2016 Communication on Online Platforms , the Commission identified two 
specific issues for further investigation: safeguarding a fair and innovation -friendly business 
environment; and ensuring that illegal content online is timely and effectively removed, with 
proper checks and balances, from online platforms.  
 
Ensuring a fair and innovation -friendly platform economy  
The Commission has conducted a fact -finding exercise on platform -to-business trading 
practices . Preliminary results indicate that some online platforms are engaging in trading 
practices which are to the potential detriment of their professional users, such as the removal 
(‘delisting’) of products or services without due notice or without any effective possibility to contest 
the platform’s decision. There is widespread  concern that some platforms may favour their own 
products or services, otherwise discriminate between different suppliers and sellers and restrict 
access to, and the use of, personal and non -personal data, including that which is directly 
generated by a c ompany's activities on the platforms. Lack of transparency, e.g. in ranking or 
search results, or lack of clarity in relation to certain applicable legislation or policies have also 
been identified as key issues. A significant proportion of disagreements b etween professional users 
and online platforms remain unresolved, which can create important negative impacts for the 
affected businesses. The general lack of accessible redress that would allow business users to 
tackle the emerging issues quickly and effe ctively when they arise also constitutes a key feature in 
the platform -to-business context, as highli ghted by the emerging evidence.  
 
In considering how to address these potential concerns, the Commission’s overall policy objective 
is to safeguard a fair, predictable, sustainable and ultimately trusted business environment in the 
online economy.  
 
Fighting illegal content online  
Fighting the proliferation of illegal content online requires determined action by all stakeholders. At 
the same time, fundamental  rights, such as freedom of speech, must be safeguarded and 
innovation needs to be encouraged. The Commission made the commitment to maintain a 
balanced and predictable liability regime for online platforms and to pursue a sectoral, problem -
driven approach  when it comes to fighting illegal content online.  
 
To help build further trust online, the Commission committed itself to analyse the need for formal, 
EU-wide flagging and removal mechanisms for illegal content (‘notice and action’) and the need for 
guida nce on liability rules and support to platforms that proactively put in place voluntary 
measures to fight illegal content. Building on the recent progress and successful work in many 
platform dialogues within the Digital Single Market, the Commission consi ders that there is scope WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 249 - 
 
  to better coordinate on -going initiatives for further coherence and coordinated monitoring with a 
view to reinforcing the impact of the dialogues. Discussing the procedural aspects and principles 
on removal of illegal content, will  form a part of the future work of the Commission together with 
the platforms. This would concern issues such as minimum procedural requirements for the ‘notice 
and action’ procedures of online intermediaries related for example to quality criteria for not ices, 
counter -notice procedures, reporting obligations, third -party consultation mechanisms, dispute 
resolution systems and coordination with public authorities as well as measures against repeat 
infringers and abusive, bad -faith notices. This should be do ne in synergy with, and without 
prejudice to, dialogues already ongoing and work launched in other areas, such as under the 
European Agenda on Security. Further work in this area could also concern the promotion of best 
industry practice for example in ter ms of official flagger programmes.  
 
The Commission will:  
 prepare actions to address the issues of unfair contractual clauses and trading practices 
identified in platform -to-business relationships, including by exploring dispute resolution, 
fair practices  criteria and transparency. These actions could, on the basis of an Impact 
Assessment and informed by structured dialogues with Member States and stakeholders, 
take the form of a legislative instrument. This work will be finalised by the end of 2017. 
The C ommission will also continue to use its competition enforcement powers wherever 
relevant;  
 ensure better coordination of platform dialogues within the Digital Single Market focusing 
on the mechanisms and technical solutions for removal of illegal content, with a view to 
enhancing their effectiveness in full respect of fundamental rights. Where applicable, the 
aim should be to underpin these mechanisms with guidance on coherent procedural 
aspects such as the notification and removal of illegal content while ensuring transparency 
and the necessary checks and balances to protect fundamental rights, avoiding over -
removal of legal content. The Commission will also provide guidance on liability rules and 
support to platforms on voluntary measures taken by platform s when they work 
proactively to remove illegal content, acting in good faith. This work should produce first 
concrete results by end of 2017.  
 
Page – 176, Paragraph – 4.129  
Question 54 /68: Could the EU please inform the details of the conduct of business  and 
transparency rules on distributors and also of the rules for the supervision and sanctioning of 
insurance distributors in case they breach the provisions of the Directive?  
 
EU reply:  Directive (EU) 2016/97/EC on Insurance Distribution regulates the way insurance 
products are sold. It lays down the information that should be given to consumers before they sign 
an insurance contract, it imposes certain conduct of business and transparency rules on 
distributors, it clarifies procedures and rules for cro ss-border business and it contains rules for the 
supervision and sanctioning of insurance distributors in case they breach the provisions of the 
Directive. The rules apply to the sale of all insurance products. However, more prescriptive rules 
apply to tho se distributors that sell insurance products that have an investment element such as 
unit-linked life insurance contracts.  
 
A key principle is that insurance distributors always act honestly, fairly and professionally in 
accordance with the best interests of their customers (article 17).  
 
Before the conclusion of an insurance contract, all insurance distributors, whether intermediaries 
or not, have to disclose their identity, whether they provide advice as well as information on 
potential conflicts of inter ests. They have to inform customers about the source and the nature of 
their remuneration. If they ask for a fee, they must disclose its amount.  
 
A further, universal requirement of the Directive is that insurance distributors need to check 
whether the product on offer meets the demands and needs of the customer.  
 
This Directive replaces the Insurance Mediation Directive (2002/92/EC). The EU Member States 
must transpose this directive into their domestic legislation by 23 February 2018. Sanctions will be  
applied in case an insurance distributor is in breach of national rules.  
 
 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 250 - 
 
  Page – 176, Paragraph – 4.130  
Question 55: The EU is requested to inform about  
I.69What are the security requirements and the consumers are protected?  
 
EU reply : Two of the main o bjectives of the revised Payment Services Directive (PSD2), that will 
be applicable from 13 January 2018, are to make payments safer and more secure and to ensure a 
high level of consumer protection.  
 
The PSD2 text introduces strict security requirements f or the initiation and processing of electronic 
payments, which apply to all payment service providers, including banks, payment institutions or 
third party providers (TPPs) who will need to prove that they have certain security measures in 
place ensuring s afe and secure payments. This stricter approach on security should contribute to 
reducing the risk of fraud for all new and more traditional means of payment, especially payment 
cards in the online environment, and to protecting the confidentiality of the user’s financial data 
(including personal data).  
 
Payment service providers will be obliged to apply so -called strong customer authentication (SCA) 
when a payer initiates an electronic payment transaction. Strong customer authentication is an 
authenticatio n process that validates the identity of the user of a payment service or of the 
payment transaction (more specifically, whether the use of a payment instrument is authorised). 
Strong customer authentication is based on the use of two or more elements cate gorised as 
knowledge (something only the user knows, e.g. a password or a PIN), possession (something 
only the user possesses, e.g. the card or an authentication code generating device) and inherence 
(something the user is, e.g. the use of a fingerprint or  voice recognition) to validate the user or 
the transaction. These elements are independent (the breach of one element does not compromise 
the reliability of the others) and designed in such a way as to protect the confidentiality of the 
authentication dat a.  
 
For remote transactions, such as online payments, the security requirements go even further, 
requiring a dynamic link to the amount of the transaction and the account of the payee, to further 
protect the user by minimising the risks in case of mistake s or fraudulent attacks.  
 
II. 70How the EU payment market will be opened for companies offering consumer or 
business -oriented payment services based on access to information about the payment 
account?  
 
EU reply : PSD2 widens the scope of the previous Payment Services Directive (PSD1) by covering 
new services and players: the so -called "payment initiation services providers", which allow 
consumers that shop online to pay for their purchases through a simple credit transfer from their 
payment account, and the "a ccount information service providers", which already exist today and 
offer tools that allow companies and consumers to have a consolidated view of their financial 
situation.  
 
Currently and until January 2018, these services are not regulated at EU level. PSD2 will provide 
for a common framework with clear conditions under which these providers can access the 
financial information on behalf of their clients, for which they have to be authorised or registered 
by the competent authorities and supervised. This  will allow these service providers to operate 
without hindrance and to reach a broader audience which normally does not make use of such 
account managing services.  
 
By providing a proper legal framework in which these services can be offered, PSD2 opens 
possibilities for providers of these services to operate across the EU and to compete on an equal 
basis with other regulated players in the market, such as banks.  
 
Page – 177, Paragraph – 4.131  
Question 56 /71: The EU is requested to clarify what are the territorial restrictions?  
 
EU reply:  As a general rule, PSD2 sets rules and obligations for payment service providers 
providing payment services within the European Union. In order to provide payment services 
within the EU, an institution has to be authorise d as a payment service provider by the competent 
authorities of its home Member State (this meaning, the Member State where the institution 
carries out at least part of its payment service business).  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 251 - 
 
  Once this authorisation is granted, it shall be valid in  all Member States and shall allow the 
payment institution to provide the payment services that are covered by the authorisation 
throughout the Union, pursuant to the freedom to provide services or the freedom of 
establishment.  
 
Whilst PSD1 only applies to  intra-Community payments, PSD2 has extended its scope to the so -
called "one -leg transactions" and will extend a number of obligations, notably information 
obligations, to payments to and from third countries, where one of the payment service providers 
is located in the EU.  
 
The extension of the scope has implications primarily for the banks and other payment service 
providers that are located in the EU. In practice, this means that these financial services providers 
shall provide information and transparen cy on the costs and conditions of these international 
payments, at least in respect of their part of the transaction. They can also be held liable for their 
part of the payment transaction if something goes wron g that is attributable to them.  
 
This will be  an important improvement for consumer protection in particular in the area of global 
money remittances.  
 
Page – 179, Paragraph – 4.148  
Question 57 /72: Could the EU please inform what are these public service obligations?  
 
EU reply : Under the Regulation ( EU) 2017/352 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
15 February 2017 establishing a framework for the provision of port services and common rules on 
the financial transparency of ports (the "Port Services Regulation"),  "public service obligation " 
means a requirement defined or determined in order to ensure the provision of those port services 
or activities of general interest that an operator, if it were considering its own commercial 
interests, would not assume or would not assume to the same ex tent or under the same 
conditions.  
 
According to Article 7 of the Port Services Regulation, EU Member States may decide to impose 
such kind of obligations on providers of port services, in order to ensure: (a) the availability of the 
port service to all p ort users, at all berths, without interruption, day and night, throughout the 
year; (b) the availability of the service to all users on equal terms; (c) the affordability of the 
service for certain categories of users; (d) the safety, security or environme ntal sustainability of 
port operations; (e) the provision of adequate transport services to the public; or (f) territorial 
cohesion.  
 
Any such public service obligation shall be clearly defined, transparent, non -discriminatory and 
verifiable, and shall gua rantee equality of access to all providers of port services established in the 
Union.  
 
For the full text of the Port Services Regulation, please see:  
http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32017R0352 . 
 
Page – 180, Paragraph – 4.152  
Question 58/73: Could the EU please inform about the provisions related to the training of staff, 
the handling of complaints, user consultation and transiti onal arrangements?  
 
EU reply : Article 14 of the Ports Regulation requires providers of port services to ensure that 
employees receive the necessary training to operate safely and taking into account technological 
innovation. Article 16 requires each EU Me mber State to designate a body to handle complaints 
which shall be independent of any port management bodies. According to Article 15, port 
managing bodies shall consult port stakeholders, in particular port users on issues such as port 
charging. Finally, transitional measures are provided for in Article 21, according to which port 
service c ontracts, agreements or authoriz ations with an undetermined duration shall be amended 
to comply with the Regulation by 1 July 2025.  
 
Page – 180, Paragraph – 4.153  
Question 59 74: Could the EU please inform the threshold for exemption from the notif ication 
obligation of projects?  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 252 - 
 
  EU reply:  In May 2017, the Commission adopted changes to the General Block Exemption 
Regulation (GBER) in order to allow for an exemption of certain public support measures from 
notification to the European Commission.  
 
As regards airports , EU Member States can without prior notification to the European Commission:  
 
- make public investments in regional airports handling up to 3 million passe ngers per year; 
and  
 
- grant aids covering operating costs of small airports handling up to 200 000 passengers 
per year.  
 
With regard to ports, Member States can, without prior notification to the European Commission:  
 
- make public investments of up to €150 million in sea ports and up to €50 million in inland 
ports; and  
 
- cover the costs of dredging in ports and access waterways.  
 
For more information about the GBER and the Amending Regulation, please refer to our website:  
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/block.html . 
 
The Communication of State Aid Modernisation (SAM) called for the identification and definition of 
common prin ciples applicable to the assessment of compatibility of all aid measures carried out by 
the Commission (the "Common Principles")  
 
Page – 183, Paragraph – 4.171  
Question 60 75: Could the EU please inform the content of the proposed legislation and the 
techn ical work that is under way?  
 
EU reply:  The Commission is developing a specific piece of legislation to create a single EU drone 
services market. For that purpose, EU competences, currently limited to drones above 150kg, are 
proposed to be extended to all drones, regardless of weight. This piec e of legislation would also 
contain the basic principles for more detailed, technical rules which the European Aviation Safety 
Agency is currently working on. These rules will be operation -centric, meaning that the complexity 
of the rules will be proportio nate to the risk of a particular type of operation. In addition, the 
Commission is also developing ideas for "U -Space", an automated air traffic management system 
for low level operations of aircraft including drones.  
 
Page – 208, Table A3.3  
Question 61 76 : What is the procedure for issue of these compulsory/mandatory licences? Do 
they apply irrespect ive of the field of technology?  
 
EU reply : Regulation (EC) No . 816/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 may 
2006 on compulsory licensing of  patents relating to the manufacture of pharmaceutical products 
for export to countries with public health problems establishes a procedure for the grant of 
compulsory licences in relation to patents and supplementary protection certificates concerning the  
manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products, when such products are intended for export to 
eligible importing countries in need of such products in order to address public health problems.  
 
Question 62 77: How many applications for compulsory licences  have been filed in EU, and in 
which field of technology?  
 
EU reply:  No application has been filed so far.  
 
Question 63 78:  How many such compulsory licences have been granted?  
 
EU reply : No application has been filed so far.  
 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 253 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTI ONS FROM CHILE  
 
Informe: WT/TPR/S/357 - UE (informe de Secretaría)  
3.1.7 Medidas antidumping, compensatorias y de salvaguardia  
3.1.7.1 Medidas antidumping y anti -subvenciones  
Párrafo 3.61, página 65  
“Además, la UE tiene otros reglamentos, como el Reglamento Nº 2016/103571 sobre protección 
contra las prácticas perjudiciales en materia de precios en la construcción naval, o el Reglamento 
868/200472 relativo a la protección contra las subvenciones y las prácticas tarifarias deslea les que 
en los servicios aéreos. El reglamento relativo a los servicios de transporte aéreo estuvo en 
proceso de revisión entre 2013 y 2015, ya que no abordaba de manera adecuada las 
características específicas del sector de los servicios de aviación, por lo que no se llegó a aplicar 
nunca. Según las autoridades, está previsto que durante el primer semestre de 2017 se presente 
una propuesta legislativa para sustituir el Reglamento Nº 868/2004 por uno nuevo, en cuanto se 
haya ultimado el proceso decisorio en  la UE. El reglamento relativo a los buques deriva del 
Acuerdo sobre Construcción Naval de la OCDE y, aunque se basa en el Acuerdo Antidumping de la 
OMC, va más allá, pues aborda la naturaleza específica de las transacciones de compra de buques. 
Este Regla mento de 2016 sustituye al anterior Reglamento (CE) Nº 385/1996 del Consejo. Nunca 
se ha aplicado, ya que no entrará en vigor hasta que lo haya hecho el Acuerdo sobre Construcción 
Naval.”  
 
Pregunta 1: Con respecto a la regulación de los sectores de constru cción naval y servicios aéreos, 
Chile agradecería a la UE indicar las razones por las cuales estima que los sectores mencionados 
deben tener reglamentación específica en materia de medidas antidumping y antisubvenciones.  
 
EU reply : With regards to air services, it is the absence of rules covering the issue, either at 
multilateral level (in the context of the WTO or the International Civil Aviation Organization), or, in 
most cases, at bilateral level (air services agreements), that had led the EU to adop t in 2004 a 
Regulation on unfair practices (Regulation 868/2004). The European Commission presented in 
June 2017 a proposal in order to improve this existing Regulation and to ensure that existing 
international agreements will be fully taken into account a nd respected when using this 
instrument.  These rules will allow addressing discriminatory practices and selective subsidies with 
a view to offsetting the injury that may be caused by such practices. It should be noted that at this 
stage, only the Commissio n proposal has been adopted. It will now be discussed and amended by 
the Council and the Parliament as co -legislators. The process until the adoption may take around 
two years.  
 
With regard to maritime transport and the pricing of vessels, it should first of all be recalled that 
Regulation (EU) 2016/1035 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on 
protection against injurious pricing of vessels (OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 1) is merely a codification 
into one single piece of legislation of a ll changes that have been made to the initial Council 
Regulation (EC) No 385/96 of 29 January 1996 on protection against injurious pricing of vessels 
(OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 21) , without any substantive or procedural change. The EU considers that 
this regul ation is necessary for the following reasons.  
 
As indicated in recital 2 of the said regulation, Multilateral negotiations conducted under the 
auspices of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development led to the conclusion, on 
21 December 1994,  of an Agreement Respecting Normal Competitive Conditions in the Commercial 
Shipbuilding and Repair Industry (‘the Shipbuilding Agreement’). It has been recognised in the 
framework of the Shipbuilding Agreement that the special characteristics of ship - purchase 
transactions have made it impractical to apply countervailing and anti -dumping duties, as provided 
for under Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the Agreement on Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures, and the Agreement on Implem entation of Article VI of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.  
 
The need to provide for an effective means of protection against sales of ships below their normal 
value which cause injury has led to the conclusion of a Shipbuilding Injurious P ricing Code which, 
together with its Basic Principles, constitutes Annex III to the Shipbuilding Agreement (‘the IPI 
Code’).  
 
The text of the IPI Code is mainly based on the 1994 Anti -Dumping Agreement, but deviates from 
that Agreement when warranted by t he specific nature of ship -purchase transactions.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 254 - 
 
  Therefore, the EU considered that the language of the IPI Code should be reflected in Union 
legislation, to the extent possible on the basis of the text of Regulation  (EU) 2016/1036 of the 
European Parliam ent and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from 
countries not members of the European Union. This has been ensured by means of Regulation 
2016/1035. The latter Regulation shall apply from the date of entry into force of the Shipbuilding 
Agreement.  
 
3.1.7.2 Salvaguardias  
Párrafo 3.74, página 70  
“Al mes de marzo de 2017, la UE no había notificado al Comité de Salvaguardias ninguno de los 
cambios introducidos en su legislación o reglamentación en este ámbito. “  
 
Pregunta 2: En relación al párrafo citado,  Chile agradecería a la UE  indicar cuándo haría la 
notificación de los cambios introducidos en su legislación o reglamentación en materia de 
salvaguardias.  
 
EU reply : On 12 June 2015 the European Union notified (G/SG/N/1/EU/1/Suppl.2) the WTO 
safeguards committee of regulation 2015/478 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 
March 2015. This regulation is the result of a codification exercise of EU existing Safeguard 
Regulation in order to consolidate  the existing provisions on EU safeguards procedures and the 
above amendments into the text of a new Regulation. This Regulation thus fully preserves the 
substance of the acts being codified.  
 
3.3.8.1 Derecho de autor y derechos conexos  
Párrafo 3.264, pági nas 124 y 125  
“Sobre la base de la amplia estrategia en materia de propiedad intelectual adoptada en 2011, la 
UE prosigue el examen y la modernización de su marco legislativo de protección y observancia del 
derecho de autor y los derechos conexos. Como par te de este proceso, y tomando nota de la 
importante evolución tecnológica, la Comisión Europea presentó en mayo de 2015 su Estrategia 
para el Mercado Único Digital de Europa. Además de proponer la adopción de medidas en una serie 
de otros sectores, en la E strategia se aborda concretamente la necesidad de modernizar el marco 
normativo del derecho de autor con el fin de mejorar el acceso en toda la UE a contenidos digitales 
protegidos. Para ello, la Comisión anunció una serie de propuestas legislativas sobre la protección 
en línea y la observancia del derecho de autor para el del material protegido. En otra 
comunicación, de 9 de diciembre de 2015, se establecen los detalles sobre la forma de lograr "un 
marco moderno y más europeo de los derechos de autor". Las  medidas propuestas tienen el 
objetivo de asegurar un mayor acceso a contenidos en Europa, adaptar las excepciones a los 
entornos digitales y transfronterizos, lograr el buen funcionamiento del mercado para el derecho 
de autor y ofrecer un sistema eficaz y  equilibrado para la observancia de los derechos.”  
 
Pregunta 3: respecto al citado párrafo, Chile agradecería mayor claridad sobre el significado de la 
frase “un marco moderno y más europeo de los derechos de autor”.   
 
EU reply: "Towards a modern, more Eur opean copyright framework" is the title of the 
Communication adopted by the Commission on 9 December 2015.  
 
See also: https://ec.europa.eu/digital -single -market/en/news/towards -modern -more-european -
copyright -framew ork-commission -takes -first-steps -and-sets-out-its 
 
This communication acknowledged that “EU copyright rules need to be adapted so that all market 
players and citizens can seize the opportunities of this new environment. A more European 
framework is needed to overcome fragmentation and frictions within a functioning single market.” 
The modernisation of EU copyright rules “aims to achieve a wide availability of creative content 
across the EU, to make sure that EU copyright rules continue to provide a high lev el of protection 
for right holders, and to maintain a good balance with other public policy goals, like education, 
research and innovation, or equal access for persons with disabilities, in the digital environment.”  
 
Párrafo 3.265, páginas 125 y 126  
“Posteriormente, la Comisión Europea ha presentado una serie de propuestas legislativas para 
modernizar el régimen del derecho de autor en la UE, desde diciembre de 2015. Las medidas 
propuestas en septiembre de 2016 fueron también explicadas en una Comunicación  de la Comisión 
sobre la promoción de una economía europea fundada en los derechos de autor justa, eficiente y WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 255 - 
 
  competitiva en el mercado único digital. Las medidas legislativas previstas, que deben ser 
debatidas todavía por el Parlamento Europeo y el Conse jo de la Unión Europea son, entre otras:  
 
 Una propuesta de reglamento que garantice la portabilidad transfronteriza de los servicios 
de contenidos en línea en el mercado interior: el objetivo es permitir que los residentes en 
la UE utilicen en cualquier pa rte de la UE los contenidos digitales legítimos que hubieran 
adquirido o a los que se hubieran abonado en su país de residencia principal;  
 Una propuesta de Directiva sobre los derechos de autor en el mercado único digital: entre 
otras cosas, la propuesta d e establecer un mecanismo de negociación tiene por objetivo 
facilitar la conclusión de acuerdos de licencia que contribuyan a la difusión de obras 
audiovisuales en las plataformas de vídeo a la carta. La Directiva propuesta también prevé 
excepciones obliga torias en la esfera de la educación, la investigación y la conservación del 
patrimonio cultural, y su adaptación al entorno digital y transfronterizo, así como normas 
para lograr el buen funcionamiento del mercado de derecho de autor, incluidas normas 
para asegurar que los titulares de derechos reciban una remuneración adecuada. En 
particular, en el artículo 11 se propone que se incorporen a la legislación de la UE los 
derechos conexos de las editoriales de prensa para el uso digital de sus publicaciones  
 Una propuesta de reglamento por el que se establecen normas sobre el ejercicio de los 
derechos de autor y determinados derechos afines a los derechos de autor aplicables a 
determinadas transmisiones en línea de los organismos de radiodifusión y a las 
retrans misiones de programas de radio y televisión: inspirado en el marco legal en vigor 
para las transmisiones tradicionales por satélite y para las retransmisiones por cable, el 
proyecto de reglamento propone que se establezcan condiciones similares para la 
distribución en línea de programas de televisión y radio, así como un proceso sencillo y 
rápido de adquisición de los derechos necesarios para algunos servicios en línea; y  
 Entre las medidas legislativas propuestas, y con objeto de incorporar a la legislación  de la 
UE el Tratado de Marrakech de la OMPI, también se incluye la introducción de excepciones 
obligatorias para las personas con discapacidad visual o con otras dificultades para acceder 
al texto impreso. A tal fin, la Comisión ha propuesto la adopción d e un reglamento sobre el 
intercambio transfronterizo entre la Unión y terceros países de ejemplares en formato 
accesible de determinadas obras y otras prestaciones protegidas por derecho de autor y 
derechos afines en favor de personas ciegas, con discapaci dad visual o con otras 
dificultades para acceder al texto impreso, y una directiva sobre determinados usos 
permitidos de obras y otras prestaciones protegidas por derecho de autor y derechos 
afines en favor de personas ciegas, con discapacidad visual o con  otras dificultades para 
acceder al texto impreso y por la que se modifica 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.  
 
Pregunta 4: En relación con el citado párrafo, Chile agradecería informar si dentro de las 
propuestas legislativas para modernizar el régimen de derecho de autor en la UE, se contempla 
una regulación respecto al régimen de responsabilidad de proveedores de servicios d e internet.  
 
EU reply: The legislative proposals referred to in paragraph 3.265 do not change current EU rules 
on the liability of internet service providers laid down in Directive 2000/31/EC.  
 
5 Debido a que lo anterior se relaciona con las sentencias citadas en los puntos 3.266 y 3.345, 
Chile está interesado en conocer de qué forma la Directiva sobre la sociedad de la información 
regula este tema.  
 
EU reply: Article 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright 
and related rights in the information society provides authors, performers, phonogram producers, 
producers of the first fixations of films and broadcasting organisations with the exclusive right to 
author ise or prohibit the making available of their works or other subject -matter to the public, by 
wire or wireless means, in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place 
and at a time individually chosen by them.  
 
Article 8 of Directive 2 001/29/EC provides for sanctions and remedies in respect of infringements 
of the rights and obligations set out in the Directive, including with regard to injunctions against 
intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe a copyright o r related right.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 256 - 
 
  Rules on liability of internet service providers are laid down in Directive 2000/31/EC on certain 
legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal 
Market.  
 
3.3.8.2.2 Certificados complement arios de protección  
Páginas 130 y 131  
Pregunta 6: en relación al título mencionado , Chile agradecería conocer si existe un plazo 
máximo al que puede ascender el período de protección complementario para productos 
regulados.  
 
EU reply: according to article 13 of Regulation 469/2009 concerning the supplementary protection 
certificate for medicinal products and article 13 of Regulation 1610/96 concerning the creation of a 
supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products, the certificate shall  take effect 
at the end of the lawful term of the basic patent for a period equal to the period which elapsed 
between the date on which the application for a basic patent was lodged and the date of the first 
authorisation to place the product on the market  in the EU reduced by a period of five years. 
However, the total duration of the certificate may not exceed five years from the date on which it 
takes effect.  
 
3.3.8.2.5 Indicaciones geográficas  
3.3.8.2.5.1 Productos agrícolas  
Párrafo 3.309, páginas 137 y 138 
“La Comisión administra las siguientes bases de datos, que permiten acceder a las indicaciones 
geográficas de la UE y de terceros países registradas en la Unión:  
 La Base de Datos de Origen y Registro (DOOR) para productos agrícolas y alimenticios 
contiene denominaciones registradas o cuyo registro se ha solicitado como DOP o IGP. Al 
1º de diciembre de 2016 había 1.323 indicaciones geográficas registradas (619 DOP y 704 
IGP), incluidas 23 denominaciones de terceros países, como Dongshan Bai Lu Sun y otra s 
9 indicaciones de China; Khao Sangyod Muang Phatthalung y otras 3 indicaciones de 
Tailandia; Darjeeling de la India; Café de Colombia de Colombia; y Café de Valdesia de la 
República Dominicana. A principios de enero de 2017, la DOOR contenía asimismo otr as 
114 solicitudes de registro y 37 denominaciones publicadas para abrir el procedimiento de 
oposición.  
 La DOOR es un instrumento de transparencia, pero no tiene valor jurídico. Contiene 
indicaciones geográficas de países no miembros de la UE registradas e n la Unión mediante 
una solicitud directa. También pueden inscribirse en el registro las indicaciones geográficas 
de productos de terceros países protegidos en virtud de un acuerdo internacional en el que 
es parte la UE. A este respecto, la Comisión debe p ublicar y actualizar periódicamente la 
lista de acuerdos internacionales pertinentes y la lista de indicaciones geográficas 
protegidas en su marco, de conformidad con el artículo 11 del Reglamento (UE) Nº 
1151/2012.  
 El registro de vinos "E -Bacchus" es una base de datos que incluye un registro de 
denominaciones de origen e indicaciones geográficas de los Estados miembros y de 
terceros países protegidas por el Reglamento (UE) Nº 1308/2013. Al 1º de diciembre de 
2016, estaban inscritas 1.291 DOP y 459 IGP de v inos de la UE, así como 2 DOP de vinos 
de terceros países, a saber, Vale dos Vinhedos (Brasil) y Napa Valley (Estados Unidos). En 
esa fecha, el registro de vinos también incluía 437 indicaciones geográficas y 696 
denominaciones de origen de terceros países  protegidas en la UE de conformidad con 
acuerdos bilaterales sobre el comercio de vino que la UE había concluido con varios 
interlocutores comerciales.  
 Las bebidas espirituosas que tienen indicación geográfica se inscriben en el anexo III del 
Reglamento (C E) Nº 110/2008. De conformidad con el artículo 17 del Reglamento, las 
solicitudes de registro de nuevas indicaciones geográficas pueden, ser presentadas a la 
Comisión por el Estado miembro de origen de la bebida espirituosa o, en el caso de las 
indicacione s geográficas de terceros países, las solicitudes pueden ser enviadas a la 
Comisión bien directamente, bien a través de las autoridades competentes del tercer país 
interesado.  
 "E-Spirit Drinks", un registro de las indicaciones geográficas de bebidas espiri tuosas 
originarias de Estados miembros y de terceros países que están protegidas o han sido 
objeto de una solicitud de registro en la UE, en el que al 1º de diciembre de 2016 había 
inscritas un total de 245 denominaciones de la UE, así como denominaciones de terceros 
países protegidas en la UE (Ron de Guatemala (Guatemala) y Pisco (Perú)). Además, se WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 257 - 
 
  están examinando siete solicitudes de registro de nuevas indicaciones geográficas de la UE 
y dos solicitudes de registro de denominaciones de terceros países ( Tequila (México) y 
Russian Vodka (Federación de Rusia)).  
 El Registro de indicaciones geográficas de bebidas aromatizadas a base de productos 
vitivinícolas contiene una lista de cinco denominaciones protegidas en la UE”  
 
Pregunta 7: específicamente respecto  a la base de datos E -Spirits Drinks, Chile agradecería 
confirmar si en dicha base es posible encontrar información de indicaciones geográficas 
extranjeras protegidas a través de acuerdos internacionales.  
 
EU reply: Spirits bearing a GI are registered in A nnex III of Regulation (EC) No. 110/2008. "E -
Spirit Drinks" database is a register of GIs protected, or applied for, in the EU for spirits originating 
in Member States and third countries. The mentioned database does not include spirits protected 
through i nternational agreements.  
 
A searchable list of GIs of third countries protected in bilateral or regional agreements is available 
on the website of the European Commission Agriculture and Rural Development.  
 
Párrafo 3.312, páginas 138 y 139  
“Desde el último informe se han concluido o han entrado en vigor los siguientes acuerdos que 
contemplan la protección de las indicaciones geográficas:  
 El ALC con Viet Nam, cuyas negociaciones concluyeron el 1º de febrero de 2016, incluye 
una de las secciones más com pletas sobre indicaciones geográficas. Contiene disposiciones 
detalladas sobre la protección de las indicaciones geográficas, las excepciones y su relación 
con las marcas de fábrica o de comercio, y obliga a ambas partes a mantener un sistema 
de registro. Además, incluye un anexo con una lista de las indicaciones protegidas en 
virtud del Acuerdo, en la que figuran 39 denominaciones de Viet Nam. Desde el punto de 
vista institucional, se establecerá un grupo de trabajo encargado, entre otras cosas, de 
modific ar la lista de indicaciones geográficas registradas y de intercambiar información 
sobre la evolución legislativa y de las políticas en esta esfera.  
 En la misma línea, el Protocolo 3 adjunto al Acuerdo de Asociación Económica con los 
Estados de la Comunidad  de Desarrollo del África Meridional (SADC) partes en el AAE, 
firmado el 10 de junio de 2016 y aplicado con carácter provisional desde el 10 de octubre 
de ese año, comprende la protección de las indicaciones geográficas, además de las 
prácticas vinícolas y  las prescripciones en materia de certificación, pero de momento solo 
se aplica a Sudáfrica y la UE. Contiene normas detalladas sobre el alcance de la protección, 
la relación con las marcas de fábrica o de comercio y la observancia de las indicaciones 
geográficas, así como un Anexo I, en el que figura una lista no exhaustiva de más de 100 
indicaciones geográficas de Sudáfrica y más de 250 de la UE que deberán protegerse en 
las jurisdicciones de ambas partes y que los fabricantes de terceros países no podrán  
seguir utilizando para exportar sus productos a la UE y Sudáfrica. Por otra parte, el 
Acuerdo de Asociación Económica concluido con los Estados asociados de la Comunidad del 
África Oriental en octubre de 2014 contiene disposiciones limitadas en materia de  
indicaciones geográficas, que reconocen su importancia para un desarrollo agrícola y rural 
sostenible. Las indicaciones geográficas son uno de los terrenos en los que se cooperará en 
el futuro, a fin de elaborar marcos de políticas y jurídicos que sirvan de base para la 
identificación, el registro y la comercialización de productos protegidos por indicaciones 
geográficas.  
 El Acuerdo de Estabilización y Asociación concluido con Bosnia y Herzegovina (entrada en 
vigor el 1º de junio de 2015) y con Kosovo (ent rada en vigor el 1º de abril de 2016) 
incluyen ambos un acuerdo sobre reconocimiento recíproco, protección y control de las 
denominaciones de vinos, bebidas espirituosas y vinos aromatizados, con disposiciones 
detalladas sobre la protección de las indicaci ones geográficas y una lista de 
denominaciones protegidas.  
 El Acuerdo de Asociación concluido con Ucrania (aplicado de manera provisional desde el 
1º de noviembre de 2014, y desde el 1º de enero de 2016 en el caso del Acuerdo de Libre 
Comercio de Alcance A mplio y Profundo), así como los concertados con Georgia y Moldova 
(que entraron en vigor el 1º de julio de 2016), contienen disposiciones completas sobre la 
protección y observancia de las indicaciones geográficas. Los elementos de registro y 
control de la s indicaciones geográficas y los criterios que han de incluirse en los 
procedimientos de objeción, así como las listas de denominaciones protegidas, se incluyen 
en anexos adjuntos a los respectivos acuerdos. Desde el punto de vista institucional, cada WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 258 - 
 
  acuerdo estipula además el establecimiento de subcomités de indicaciones geográficas 
encargados de abordar problemas específicos relacionados con la protección de las 
indicaciones y de actualizar las listas de indicaciones.  
 En el marco del Acuerdo Económico y Comercial Global (AECG) firmado en la Cumbre UE -
Canadá celebrada el 30 de octubre de 2016, el Canadá se comprometió a otorgar el nivel 
de protección más elevado acorde con el artículo 23 del Acuerdo sobre los ADPIC, a la 
mayoría de las 143 indicaciones geo gráficas enumeradas que están protegidas en la UE, a 
partir de la entrada en vigor del Acuerdo. Solo se aplicarán excepciones en relación con 19 
denominaciones que colisionan con denominaciones ya utilizadas en el Canadá. En 
particular, por primera vez en 20 años, los productores de la UE estarán autorizados a 
utilizar algunas denominaciones célebres, como "Prosciutto di Parma" y "Prosciutto di San 
Daniele", para sus exportaciones al Canadá. Estas denominaciones son indicaciones 
geográficas protegidas en la  UE y, de acuerdo con el principio de "primero en el tiempo, 
primero en el derecho", podrán coexistir con marcas de fábrica o de comercio canadienses 
que se habían registrado con anterioridad. El Canadá convino también en reforzar sus 
medidas en frontera, entre otras cosas con respecto a las mercancías infractoras de 
indicaciones geográficas.  
 Análogamente, el Acuerdo de Colaboración y Cooperación Reforzadas entre la UE y 
Kazajistán, que se aplica con carácter provisional desde el 1º de mayo de 2016, contien e 
una sección sobre las indicaciones geográficas que establece normas detalladas sobre el 
alcance de la protección, la relación con las marcas de fábrica o de comercio y la 
observancia de las indicaciones geográficas. Este Acuerdo prevé la celebración de 
negociaciones sobre la protección de las denominaciones geográficas en un plazo de siete 
años desde su entrada en vigor.  
 
Pregunta 8: respecto al Acuerdo Económico Comercial Global (AECG), Chile agradecería aclarar si 
el compromiso adquirido por Canadá se r efiere sólo a vinos y espirituosas, o hace extensiva la 
protección adicional del artículo 23 de ADPIC a otros productos agrícolas.  
 
EU reply: The commitments taken by Canada under CETA on the protection of geographical 
indications imply additional protecti on, beyond the level of protection under Article 23 of the TRIPS 
Agreement, including for other agriculture products (beyond wines and spirits).  
 
4.1.2 Políticas agrícolas  
4.1.2.1 Ayuda interna  
4.1.2.1.2 Medidas de sostenimiento del mercado interior  
Frutas  y hortalizas  
 
Párrafo 4.29, página 166  
“Las medidas excepcionales de carácter temporal estaban abarcadas por varios reglamentos 
delegados de la Comisión que incluían retiradas del mercado destinadas a la distribución gratuita, 
piensos, compostaje y destil ación. Hasta el 30 de noviembre de 2016 se retiraron del mercado 
unos 1,5 millones de toneladas de frutas y hortalizas por un valor aproximado de 416 millones de 
euros.”  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 259 - 
 
  Cuadro 4.10 Medidas excepcionales de carácter temporal en relación con las frutas y 
hortalizas, 2014 -2016  
Página 166  
 
 
Preguntas: Respecto del cuadro 4.10, Chile agradecería:  
 
 9. En relación a la mención de determinadas ayudas para ‘operaciones de retirada’, Chile 
agradecería a la UE explicar cuál es la diferencia de estas medidas, decla radas como 
excepcionales de carácter temporal, en relación a las notificadas en 2015 para estos 
productos (en documento G/AG/N/EU/26, referido al periodo 2012 -2013), definidas como 
ayudas para el ‘retiro del mercado por las organizaciones de productores’. De ser una 
medida que se prorrogó, Chile agradecería a la UE dar mayor información sobre las 
razones para tal efecto.  
 
EU reply:  Whereas the normal scheme applies for members of producer organisations (POs), the 
exceptional measures also covered withdrawa l, non -harvesting and green harvesting operations 
from non -members of a PO.  
 10. Indicar cuáles son las razones de la ampliación de la cobertura de productos del 
Reglamento 1031/2014 para abarcar los melocotones y las nectarinas, junto con informar 
las cifr as de la ayuda otorgada.  
 
EU reply:  To establish an effective safety net and due to their seasonal exports, peaches and 
nectarines, which were eligible for support under Regulation (EU) No 913/2014, were added to the 
list of products eligible for support under Regulation (EU) No 1031/2014.  
 11. Dar información desagregada de dicha cifra para los principales Estados Miembros 
beneficiados (incluido Grecia) e indicar si dicho programa –o uno similar - existe para 2017. 
De existir dicho programa o uno similar, Chile agradecería a la UE proveer inf ormación 
específica respecto de ello.  
 
EU reply:  The enclosed table relates to the volume (and corresponding aid) given by product 
under the exceptional measures covered by EU Regulation 1031/2014.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 260 - 
 
   
Delegated Regulation (EU) No 921/2016 prolongs the excep tional support for a further year, i.e. 
until 30 June 2017. Sweet cherries and persimmons are added to the list of products eligible for 
support  
 
4.3.2 Comercio electrónico en el Mercado Único Digital  
Párrafo 4.107, página 189  
“Entre las propuestas relativ as al Mercado Único Digital, la Comisión Europea propuso dos 
paquetes de medidas legislativas, en diciembre de 2015 y mayo de 2016, destinadas a impulsar el 
comercio electrónico mediante la simplificación, la aclaración y la armonización del marco 
normativ o de la UE. Asimismo, ha puesto en marcha un estudio sobre el sector del comercio 
electrónico y ha hecho propuestas para reducir la carga administrativa que los diferentes 
regímenes del IVA representan para las empresas. La Comisión tiene previsto presenta r nuevas 
propuestas sobre un mecanismo electrónico único para el registro y pago del IVA y el 
establecimiento de un umbral común para el IVA.”  
 
Pregunta 12:  En relación con el Mercado Único Digital, Chile agradecería si UE pudiera entregar 
mayores detalles  respecto a la forma en que se pretende armonizar la legislación tributaria.  
 
EU reply: As part of the Digital Single Market, the EU made legislative proposals to modernise VAT 
for cross -border e -commerce in December 2016. These proposals aim to simplify the VAT 
obligations on suppliers engaging in cross border e -commerce in particular the means by which 
non-established business can electronically account for taxes due in EU Member States.  
 
Párrafo 4.121, página 132  
“Por último, el 9 de diciembre de 2015 s e adoptaron propuestas relacionadas con el comercio 
electrónico con miras al establecimiento de un marco de derecho de autor moderno y más europeo 
(véase la sección 3.3.7 sobre derechos de propiedad intelectual).”  
 
Pregunta 13:  En relación con el párrafo c itado, Chile agradecería indicar en qué consiste la 
propuesta relacionada al establecimiento de un marco de derecho de autor moderno más europeo.  
 
EU reply: As explained in our reply to question 3, "Towards a modern, more European copyright 
framework" is the title of the Communication adopted by the Commission on 9 December 2015. 
This communication acknowledged that “EU copyright rules need to be adapted so that all market 
players and citizens can seize the opportunities of this new environment. A more Eur opean 
framework is needed to overcome fragmentation and frictions within a functioning single market.” 
The modernisation of EU copyright rules “aims to achieve a wide availability of creative content 
across the EU, to make sure that EU copyright rules cont inue to provide a high level of protection 
for right holders, and to maintain a good balance with other public policy goals, like education, 
research and innovation, or equal access for persons with disabilities, in the digital environment.”  
 
On 9 December  2015, together with the above -mentioned Communication, the European 
Commission adopted a Proposal for a Regulation  of the European Parliament and of the Council on 
ensuri ng the cross -border portability of online content services in the internal market.  
 
t € €/t
Cauliflowers and Headed broccoli 2.163 179.605 83
Tomatoes 1.587 544.271 343
Apples 87.083 20.000.282 230
Grapes 1.626 914.275 562
Nectarines 19.455 5.691.356 293
Peaches 11.284 4.148.040 368
Pears 11.883 3.827.813 322
Oranges 51.807 15.002.529 290
Mandarins 19.594 3.637.462 186
Clementines 21.748 5.015.348 231
Carrots 24.423 1.979.503 81
Sweet peppers 2.934 1.018.599 347
Cucumbers 1.027 346.050 337
Plums 17.682 4.768.002 270
Kiwis 3.617 2.082.345 576
Cabbages 3.462 424.802 123
Mushrooms 56 19.643 351Temporary exceptional support measures for producers of certain fruit and vegetables
Regulation 1031/2014WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 261 - 
 
  On 14 September 2016, the European Commission adopted the following legislative proposals:  
 Proposal for a Directive  of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the 
Digital Single Market. It aims at adapting certain key exceptions to copyright to the digital 
and cross -border environment; improving licensing practices and ens uring wider access to 
content; and achieving a well -functioning marketplace for copyright.  
 Proposal for a Regulation  of the European Parliament and of the Council laying d own rules 
on the exercise of copyright and related rights applicable to certain online transmissions of 
broadcasting organisations and retransmissions of television and radio programmes. Its 
objective is to facilitate the clearance of rights for cross -border online transmissions of 
television and radio programmes and retransmissions over closed networks, therefore 
fostering the cross -border distribution of television and radio programmes.  
 Proposal for a Directive on certain permitted uses of works and other  subject -matter 
protected by copyright and related rights for the benefit of persons who are blind, visually 
impaired or otherwise print disabled, implementing the Marrakesh Treaty into EU law 
through a new exception.  
 Proposal for a Regulation of the Euro pean Parliament and of the Council on the cross -
border exchange between the Union and third countries of accessible format copies of 
certain works and other subject -matter protected by copyright and related rights for the 
benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled."  
 
4.3.4.2 Servicios de transporte aéreo  
Párrafo 4.170, página 205  
“Como se expuso en el informe para el anterior examen de las políticas comerciales realizadas en 
2013, en el que se abordaron los servicios de transporte, en noviembre de 2012, la UE suspendió 
la aplicación de su régimen de comercio de derechos de emisión para la aviación (Directiva (CE) 
Nº 2008/101) a las compañías aéreas no pertenecientes a la UE y a los vuelos al exterior de la UE 
para fomentar un debate multilateral en la OACI sobre medidas basadas en el mercado. En 
octubre de 2016 se alcanzó un acuerdo  en la OACI en virtud del cual se obligará a las compañías 
aéreas a compensar el aumento de sus emisiones de CO2 a partir de 2020. Con ese fin, las 
compañías aéreas comprarán "unidades de emisiones" generadas por proyectos de reducción de 
las emisiones de CO2 en otros sectores de la economía (por ejemplo, energías renovables). En la 
primera fase (2021 -2026), 65 países participarán con carácter voluntario. Todos los Estados 
miembros de la UE se incorporarán a la iniciativa desde el principio. En la segunda f ase (2027 -
2035), la participación será obligatoria, excepto para los países eximidos (países con pocas 
actividades en el sector de la aviación). En ese contexto, y si procede, la Comisión podrá presentar 
también una propuesta para revisar el alcance del ré gimen de comercio de derechos de emisión de 
la Unión Europea, prestando la debida atención a la coherencia necesaria con los objetivos y la 
política relativos al clima que la UE ha establecido para 2030. ” 
 
Pregunta 14:  Referente a la última oración del pár rafo mencionado, Chile agradecería indicar 
mayores antecedentes sobre los parámetros bajo los cuales se revisará el alcance de dicho 
régimen y el o los elementos que gatillarán si procede dicha revisión.   
 
EU reply:  The proposal of the Commission for the r evision of the EU ETS is currently under the 
ordinary legislative procedure which means under co –decision. The outcome cannot be predicted.  
The proposal, in its current formulation, maintains the implementation of the European Union 
Emissions Trading Syst em limited to flights between European airports, as it was the case in the 
period 2013 -2016. The system will be reviewed again once there is more clarity on the rules 
applying to ICAO's global market based measure and on the measures taken by States to 
implement it.  
 
Informe: WT/TPR/G/357 - UE (informe de UE)  
3. DEVELOPMENTS IN THE INTERNAL MARKET: THE SINGLE MARKET STRATEGY  
Modernization of the EU Intellectual Property (IP) framework, including measures to 
support the use of IP by SMEs  
Párrafo 3.10, páginas  6 y 7  
“On IPR the Communication mentions that in 2017 -18 the Commission intends to adopt a set of 
measures to support the use of IPR by SMEs namely:  
˗ streamlining awareness on existing IP Support schemes for SMEs;  
˗ developing an EU IP mediation and arbitrat ion network for SMEs;  
˗ encouraging the creation of European -level insurance schemes for litigation and IP theft;  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 262 - 
 
  ˗ improving coordination of IP support funding schemes, possibly by including guidance to 
Member States.”  
 
Pregunta 15: En relación al párrafo cit ado, Chile agradecería mayor información respecto a las 
disciplinas de Propiedad Intelectual que se incluiría en la red de mediación y arbitraje para SMEs 
que la UE adoptará.  
 
EU reply: The Start -up and Scale -up Communication announces the development of an EU IP 
mediation and arbitration network for SMEs. The EU will work to ensure that existing and future IP 
mediation and arbitration services are more easily available to SMEs either on -line or through 
better contacts with proximity services to SMEs. In p rinciple the proposed mediation and 
arbitration network for SMEs would cover all Intellectual Property rights.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 263 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTI ONS FROM VIET NAM  
 
PART I:  QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT ( S357)  
3. Trade policies and practices by measures  
3.1. Measures directly affecting imports  
3.1.1. Customs procedures and requirements  
Page 39 (Para 3.3):  During the review period, the EU’s new Union Customs Code’s (UCC) main 
substantive provisions became applicable on 1 May 2016 .  
3.1.1.1.2. Electronic systems  
Page 43 (Para 3.18):  UCC provides that: “All exchanges of information, such as declarations, 
applications or decisions, between customs authorities and between economic operators and 
customs authorities, and the storage of such information, as requ ired under the customs 
legislation, shall be made using electronic data -processing techniques”. There is a transitional 
phase to implement the necessary infrastructure by 2020. Nearly all existing systems are to be 
updated and integrated. There are 17 elec tronic systems identified for implementing the UCC, of 
which 3 are expected to become operational in 2017. The others are to be phased -in until 2020.  
 
Question 1:  Could the EU elaborate as to whether under this new UCC system, exporters will 
encounter any possible obstacles? What factors have influenced the EU to attempt to operate the 
new UCC? What are limitations of UCC?  
 
EU reply:  The UCC aims to address the challenges of today with increasing trade volumes and 
globalisation. It enables the streamlining of customs procedures and the facilitation of legitimate 
trade by making the customs union in the EU more modern and adaptive to the needs of new 
developments in the supply and transport chain. Economic operators who want to bring goods on 
the European sin gle market need to become acquainted with the new procedural and data 
requirements as outlined in the UCC DA -IA and the planning of the deployment of the electronic 
systems (see UCC Work Programme and national plans published on the Europa website and the 
websites of the MS' customs authorities).  
 
In terms of limitations, it should be highlighted that:  
 in an increasing number of cases a guarantee will be required,  
 simplifications will be allowed in case an autho risation is granted (via a well -defined 
applic ation and decision taking procedure) – often subject to an AEO authorisation,  
 paper -based lodging of declarations, notifications, applications will be gradually phased 
out. 
 
3.1.7. Anti -dumping, countervailing, and safeguard measures  
3.1.7.1. Anti -dumping and anti -subsidy measures  
Page 58 (Para. 3.5.8.) The most significant change from the 2014 regulations is that now the 
Commission has responsibility for imposing anti -dumping and anti -subsidy measures, with no 
formal involvement of the Council.  
 
Question 2 : What is the rationale for no formal involvement of the Council in imposing anti -
dumping and anti -subsidy measures?  
EU reply:  The change stems from the Treaty of Lisbon that transferred this competence from t he 
Council to the Commission.  
Page 60, Paragraph 3.62:  In 2013, the EU initiated procedures to modernize its trade defence 
instruments to make them more accessible and better targeted to certain unfair trading practices. 
However, the process stalled in 2014 but was later revived in 2015, and di scussions were still 
continuing in the Council in late 2016 .47 
                                                
47 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, 34th Annual Report from the 
Commission to the European Parliament and the Council  on the EU's Anti -Dumping, Anti -Subsidy and 
Safeguard activities (2015).  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 264 - 
 
  We understand that the EU is in the process of modernising its trade defence instruments with the 
intention of making its investigation process more accessible and better targeted to certain unf air 
trading practices.  
 
Question 3: What factors have influenced the EU to attempt to make its investigation process 
more accessible and better targeted to certain unfair trading practices?  
 
EU reply:  The Commission’s constant objective is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its 
procedures and also to allow for utmost transparency. In that sense, the TDI needed to be 
optimised and adapted to the changing trading environment. These were the u nderlying factors for 
the modernisation initiative.  
 
3.3. Measures affecting production and trade  
3.3.2. Sanitary and phyto -sanitary measures  
Page 78 (Para. 3.141.):  Since the last Review in 2015, a new regulation on transmissible animal 
diseases (Animal H ealth Law) and a new law on plant pests (Plant Health Law) were adopted. In 
addition, the European Commission noted that a new regulation on official controls is close to 
adoption. The new regulation will replace Regulation (EC) No. 882/2004 and repeal Reg ulation 
(EC) No.854/2004 . 
 
Page 79 (Para. 3.142):  The Animal Health Law is to become applicable on 21 April  2021 and the 
Plant Health Law on 14 December 2019, except for the provisions relating to a phyto sanitary 
certificate for exports (from 1 January 201 2) and a change to the obligation to information the 
authorities of suspected pests (from 1 January 2017). In the meantime, several implementing 
measures are to be adopted by the Commission to complement the new rules?  
 
Question 4:  Can the EU provide furth er details on the nature of these replacement/reforms and 
the adoption of the new regulation - Plant Health Law? What impact have the new regulations 
imposed on exportation to the EU, in particular on non -EU member States’ exporters?  
 
EU reply:  The new Plant Health Regulation on exports to the EU will become applicable on 14 
December 2019. It will require that all plants (namely living plant material, including entire plants, 
fruits, vegetables and cut flowers) will be imported into the EU with a phytosanitary certificate (see 
Article 73). The European Commission shall however adopt an implementing act by 14 December 
2018 listing all plants to be exempted from that obligation taking into account the criteria of Annex 
VI. This is important in orde r to ensure an appropriate level of phytosanitary safety as well as 
effective overview of the import of those plants into the Union and the risks thereof. Those plants 
should, however, not be subject to the provisions on official controls at border control  posts laid 
down in the relevant Union legislation (see recital 40).  
 
According to Article 42, the European Commission shall also adopt by 14 December 2018 an 
implementing act listing all high risk plants, plant products or other objects the import of whic h will 
be provisionally banned until a full risk assessment determines their phytosanitary status. The 
listing of those commodities will be carried out on the basis of a preliminary assessment and by 
taking into account the criteria of Annex III.  
 
The prec ise impact of this new Regulation will only be known after the adoption of the two 
implementing acts presented above.  
 
3.3.2.1. Plants and plant products  
Page 81 (Para. 3.149): The new Regulation also includes measures to tackle pests from outside 
the EU under which the Commission will be able to implement precautionary measures for 
emerging risks from plants coming from certain non -EU countries. A category of “high risk” plants, 
plant products or other objects has been created for plants, plant products o r other objects which 
present, on the basis of a preliminary assessment, a pest risk of an unacceptable level for the EU. 
Therefore, therefore their introduction into the EU from a third country will be prohibited, pending 
the completion of a full risk ass essment.  
Page 81 (Para 3.150):  The new rules also propose to extend, simplify and harmonize the 
existing plant passport scheme. This means that an extended range of plants, plant products or 
other objects will need:  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 265 - 
 
  - a phyto sanitary certificate before being  imported into the EU (attesting conformity with 
Union legislation); and  
- a plant passport for movement within the EU.  
 
Question 5 : Please clarify the grounds/criteria on which the EU would be able to assess and draw 
up this extended range of “high risk” pl ants, plan products or other objects? Will this list continue 
expanding?  
 
EU reply:  The criteria to be taken into account for the assessment of high risk plants, plant 
products or other objects are split between criteria for plants for planting and criteri a for other 
plants, plant products or other objects. Those criteria as said above are listed in Annex III of 
Regulation (EU) 2016/2031. It is not necessary that all of them apply nor enough if only one 
applies in order to designate a plant, plant product o r other object as high risk plants. They will be 
taken into account as appropriate for the nature of the respective commodity.  
 
The list of high risk plants, plant products or other objects can be amended (either reduced or 
expanded), on the basis of any n ew scientific or technical evidence.  
 
4.1. Agriculture  
4.1.2. Agricultural policies  
4.1.2.1. Domestic support  
4.1.2.1.3. Rural development  
Page 149 (Para 4.35.)  Rural development, or Pillar II of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), 
is funded through the  European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) under 
Regulation (EU) No. 1305/2013 of 17 December 2013 and secondary legislation on its 
implementation. In addition to the funds provided by the EU under the EAFRD, the member States 
also provide c o-funding at rates that depend on the type of project and the member State. Total 
funding from the EAFRD for 2014 -20 is €100 billion and co -funding from the member  States is an 
additional €61 billion.   
 
4.1.5. OECD monitoring and evaluation of agricultural  policies  
Page 154 (Para 4.49.)  Overall, the percentage PSE (that is support as a percentage  of gross  
farm receipts), has been fairly stable over the 2011 -2015 period, ranging from 20.0% to 18.1%, 
considerably below the levels of the 1990s. Market price support increased to nearly €21 billion, 
from a low of €11 billion in 2011. The increase in the value of market price support is the result of 
several factors, including lower commodity prices as domestic producers in the EU are, to some 
extent, protected from changes in world market prices by tariffs. As a result, market price support 
for common wheat, and sugar increased from zero in 2011 to €3.9 billion and €1.4 billion 
respectively in 2015.  
 
Question 6 : Although there have been some changes in support m echanism during the past 
years, the EU’s support levels remain high for agricultural sector. EU member States still provide 
market price supports for agricultural products, which is seen trade -distorting protection. Can the 
EU explain the justification for  maintaining the high level of supports for agricultural producers?  
 
EU reply:  The Commission disagrees with the conclusion formulated by Viet Nam. 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 t owards producer support 
through income support. Reforms of the CAP since the early 1990s have changed the public 
intervention policy, decreasing both the administered prices and buying in quantities and 
completely eliminating the system for some products. 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 Measure 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 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 266 - 
 
  role of the EU's market intervention measures. However, this continued notwithstandi ng 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 sect ors 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.  
 
The end of the production quotas in the dairy and sugar sectors is in itself the most impo rtant 
reform to ensure that EU farmers can clearly discern market signals.  
 
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 mos t viable way of 
ensuring the liberalisation of trade is to ensure a successful outcome through multilateral fora, 
including the WTO and the upcoming MC11 in Buenos Aires. 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.  
 
PART II:  QUESTIONS REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT REPORT  (G357)  
4.1.3. A trade and investment policy based on values  
4.1.3.3. The EU’s trade policy and sustainable development, human rights and good 
governance  
Page 17 (Para. 4.3.6) At a bilateral level, the EU integrates labour and environmental 
consideration when negotiating its trade a greements, through a dedicated chapter on trade and 
sustainable development. .They also aim to prevent the risk of a race to the bottom, by prohibiting 
derogations from or lack of enforcement of domestic environmental or labour laws in order to 
encourage t rade and investment.  
 
5. Looking ahead  
Page 24 (Para. 5.4)  The EU will continue playing an active role in implementing Agenda 2030 for 
Sustainable Development and the SDGs within the EU and in development cooperation with 
partner countries. In particular, the EU will continue its efforts to implement the Trade and 
Sustainable Development chapters of its trade agreement more effectively, including through civil 
society mechanisms.  
 
Question 7:  Could the EU please elaborate how it manages enforcement of domes tic 
environmental or labour laws in partner countries by including labour and environmental 
commitments in its trade agreements?  
 
EU reply:  The Trade and Sustainable Development chapters of EU free trade agreements provide 
for a tailored dispute settlemen t mechanism and an institutional framework (e.g. TSD committees) 
to ensure enforcement of the labour and environmental provisions contained in the Agreements. 
The EU approach also foresees a role for each partner's civil society in the process of reviewing  
implementation of the commitments on environment and labour.   
 
8 Could the EU please explain more detail about civil society mechanisms with regard to trade 
agreement negotiation.  
 
EU reply : In line with the provisions of the Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) Chapters 
included in all EU trade agreements since the EU -Korea FTA, the Parties to the agreement must set 
up each a domestic advisory group. These groups can provide advice and recommendations to the 
Parties on the implementation of the TSD chapter. The domestic advisory groups are composed of  
a balanced representation of representative organi zations of economic, social and environmental 
stakeholders, including, among others, trade unions, business associations and environmental 
groups/ot her NGOs. The advisory groups meet locally several times a year and jointly at least once 
a year, in the so -called Civil Society Forum. These joint meetings generally take place in a back to 
back session with the Parties, allowing civil society and Parties  to meet and exchange information.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 267 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTI ONS FROM THE  DOMINICAN REPUBLIC  
 
Pág. 46, Párrafo 3.13  
 
3.13. La UE y sus 28 Estados miembros presentaron su instrumento de ratificación del Acuerdo 
sobre Facilitación del Comercio de la OMC el 5 de octubre de 2015. Los Estados miembros y la UE 
se mantienen activos en la esfera de la facilitación del comercio, y 10 de ellos han pasado a ser 
donantes al Mecanismo para el Acuerdo sobre Facilitación del Comercio, contribuyendo así a la 
labor de evaluación de las necesidades y creación de capacidad para la facilitación del comercio. La 
UE ha dado prioridad en su pro grama de ayudas a la facilitación del comercio, en el que el 30% de 
todas las ayudas relacionadas con el comercio tienen un componente de facilitación del comercio. 
Además, la UE también ha colaborado en los trabajos relacionados con la facilitación del co mercio 
realizado por otras organizaciones, por ejemplo, la UNCTAD, para aplicar el Acuerdo sobre 
Facilitación del Comercio en la Comunidad Económica de Estados del África Central.  
 
1. ¿Podría la UE ampliar sobre los cambios que se implantarán en el marco del Acuerdo 
de Facilitación del Comercio para mejorar el comercio con los países del Acuerdo EPA -
CARIFORUM?  
EU reply:  The WTO TFA aims to simplify and clarify international import and export procedures, 
customs formalities and transit requirements. As such  it is compatible with the principles of the 
Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), and the EU continues to actively encourage and support 
CARIFORUM countries to implement all the provisions of the WTO TFA. This would reinforce the 
Caribbean -EU trade throug h better border procedures and faster, smoother trade flows, to the 
benefits of citizens and businesses in the Caribbean and the EU.  
 
Pág. 36 Párrafo 2.16  
Además, la UE quiere incorporar a sus acuerdos comerciales más amplios normas de inversión, 
incluidas  disposiciones en materia de liberalización y protección. Antes de la entrada en vigor del 
Tratado de Lisboa, los acuerdos de protección de las inversiones eran negociados exclusivamente 
por los Estados miembros de la UE. Uno de los retos importantes a los  que se enfrenta la política 
de inversión reformada de la UE es garantizar que los procedimientos de solución de diferencias 
sean justos e imparciales. Con ese fin se está aplicando un nuevo enfoque que aclara el contenido 
de las normas y reformas en mater ia de protección de las inversiones con respecto al sistema 
tradicional de solución de diferencias entre los inversionistas y los Estados, tal como reflejan los 
ALC recientemente concertados con el Canadá y Vietnam.  
 
2. ¿Podría la UE ampliar sobre los cam bios mencionados y, en particular, sobre las 
disposiciones que se incorporarían  a Acuerdos como el EPA -CARIFORUM?  
EU reply : The EU does not envisage modifying the text of the Agreement, as it contains already 
an important services and investment chapter th at can provide good results if properly 
implemented. At the same time, it is up to the Parties to the Agreement – the EU and CARIFORUM 
countries - to decide when and how to build on commitments already established under the EPA.  
 
Pág. 138 Párrafo 3.312  
3.312. Desde el último informe se han concluido o han entrado en vigor los siguientes acuerdos 
que contemplan la protección de las indicaciones geográficas:  
 
En la misma línea, el Protocolo adjunto al Acuerdo de Asociación Económica con los Estados de la 
Comunidad de Desarrollo del África Meridional (SADC) partes en el AAE, firmado el 10 de junio de 
2016 y aplicado con carácter provisional desde el 10 de octubre de ese año, comprende la 
protección de las indicaciones geográficas, además de las prácticas viníc olas y las prescripciones 
en materia de certificación, pero de momento solo se aplica a Sudáfrica y la UE. Contiene normas 
detalladas sobre el alcance de la protección, la relación con las marcas de fábrica o de comercio y 
la observancia de las indicacione s geográficas, así como un Anexo I, en el que figura una lista no 
exhaustiva de más de 100 indicaciones geográficas de Sudáfrica y más de 250 de la UE que 
deberán protegerse en las jurisdicciones de ambas partes y que los fabricantes de terceros países 
no podrán seguir utilizando para exportar sus productos a la UE y Sudáfrica. Por otra parte, el 
Acuerdo de Asociación Económica concluido con los Estados Asociados de la Comunidad del África 
Oriental en octubre de 2014 contiene disposiciones limitadas en mate ria de indicaciones 
geográficas, que reconocen su importancia para un desarrollo agrícola y rural sostenible. Las 
indicaciones geográficas son uno de los terrenos en los  que se cooperará en el futuro, a fin de WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 268 - 
 
  elaborar marcos de políticas y jurídicos que sirvan de base para la identificación, el registro y la 
comercialización de productos protegidos por indicaciones geográficas.   
 
Nota 332 En cuanto al AAE entre el CARIFORUM y la UE, las partes están celebrando 
conversaciones exploratorias para aplicar el artículo 145 sobre la cláusula de aplazamiento a las 
indicaciones geográficas, con el fin de llegar a un acuerdo sobre la protección de las indicaciones 
geográficas en sus respectivos territorios en un futuro próximo.  
 
3. ¿Podría la UE ampliar sobre la acl aración de la Nota 332?  ¿Cómo afectan estos  la 
concesión de protección a las indicaciones geográficas por parte de la UE a los productos 
procedentes de la República Dominicana?  
 
EU reply : Footnote 332 of the secretariat report refers to discussions in the framework of the EU -
CARIFORUM Economic Partnership Agreement, of which the Dominican Republic is a party. These 
discussions may result in the protection of a number of GIs in the territories of the parties, subject 
to completion of all relevant procedures.  At the same time, producers from all WTO members 
including the Dominican Republic are entitled to apply directly in the EU for registration of a GI, 
and indeed "Café de Valdesia" of the Dominican Republic is already registered in the EU. Whether 
registere d through direct application or via bilateral agreement, all GIs protected in the EU meet 
the TRIPS definition to qualify as a GI, fulfil equivalent requirements, are tested against the same 
prohibitions such as generic status, and are subject to equivalen t scrutiny and opposition 
procedures.  
 
1.1.4 Gobernanza económica y reformas estructurales en la UE  
En el párrafo 1.24, página 22, se indica que “las reformas siguen siendo especialmente lentas en 
esferas relacionadas con el fortalecimiento del entorno emp resarial, el empleo, la participación de 
la mujer en el mercado laboral y la reducción de los obstáculos a la competencia en el ámbito de 
los servicios”.  
 
4. ¿Cuales políticas serán aplicadas para potencializar el resultado de la estrategia 
Europa 2020?  
 
EU reply:  Since 2010, the Europe 2020 strategy has been the EU's long -term strategy for jobs 
and growth, built around the triptych of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. So far, progress 
towards the targets has been uneven, both across Member States a nd across areas. The economic 
crisis has inevitably hampered progress in several areas, starting with employment and the fight 
against poverty and social exclusion. Overall, the EU is on course to meet or closely approach its 
targets on education, climate and energy, contrary to those on research and development and 
poverty reduction. Based on current trends, the employment rate target set by the Europe 2020 
strategy may also be within reach.  
 
Progress towards the Europe 2020 strategy is monitored and the s trategy is implemented in the 
context of the European Semester, the EU's annual cycle of coordination of economic policies. The 
European Semester relies on a close dialogue between the EU and Member State level. At EU level, 
last November, the Annual Growt h Survey put the emphasis on the pursuit of a three -fold strategy 
based on investment, structural reforms and responsible public finances. At Member State level, 
the country -specific recommendations proposed by the Commission last May aim to improve the 
economic and social performance of Member States and provide guidance for the next 12 to 18 
months. If properly implemented, the reform actions envisaged under the European Semester will 
decisively contribute to achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 st rategy. As indicated in the 
latest Communication on the European Semester published last May (COM(2017) 500 final), the 
wider and longer -term vision of the Europe 2020 strategy and the 2030 Sustainable Development 
Goals are important to guide action on an annual basis and are key to guide action on an annual 
basis and are fully integrated in the European Semester.  
 
1.3 Inversión extranjera directa  
 
En el párrafo 1.39, página 30, menciona que “el crecimiento declarado presentaba distorsiones por 
varios moti vos, en particular por la reclasificación de empresas multinacionales o de sus activos 
como residentes en Irlanda, y el crecimiento real fue del 5 ó 6%.”.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 269 - 
 
  5. ¿Cuál es el fundamento jurídico de la reclasificación de empresas multinacionales o de 
sus activos como residentes de Irlanda?  Esta medida es compatible con los principios de 
la OMC  
 
EU reply:  The FDI data quoted draw from the conceptual approach taken in national accounts and 
Balance of Payments data. Within Europe, national accounts concepts are legislated (European 
System of Accounts 2010), whilst Balance of Payments compilation follows the Balance of 
Payments of Manual 6 (published by the IMF). The specific recording of MNEs' global production 
arrangements is further elaborated in the UNECE Guide to Measuring Global Production 
(http://www.unece.org/index.php?id=42106).  
 
3.1.1.1.1 Resoluciones anticipadas, a saber, información arancelaria vinculante (IAV)/información 
vinculante en materia de origen (IVO)  
 
En el párrafo 3.14, página 46, señala que “el caso de las decisiones IAV, los principales cambios se 
relacionan con unos procedimientos más rigurosos y con el período de validez de la información, 
que se ha reducido de seis a tres años. Además, las decisiones IAV son ahora vinculantes para el 
comerciante.”  
 
6. ¿Cuál es el impacto de la reducción en el ámbito de tiempo y la vinculación para los 
comerciales en el proceso de la clasificación arancelaria del producto que desea 
exportar ? 
 
EU reply:  The validity period of BTI decisions are now aligned to the validity period of BOI 
decisions. They are both valid for 3 years. Moreover, the customs nomenclature is a living 
document; hence commodity codes may change over time. This takes into account the rapid 
changes in technology. In case of commo dity code change, the concerned BTI decisions need to be 
revoked. BTI decisions issued for 3 years can be considered more stable and provide the expected 
legal certainty.  
 
Traders importing goods into the European Union need to declare their BTI decisions during the 
declaration process. It means, if a trader has received a BTI decision, he needs to use it, he should 
declare his goods under the commodity code written in his respective BTI decision.  
 
3.1.3 Normas de origen  
En el párrafo 3.26, página 50, se in dica que “e n marzo de 2017, el sitio web de la Comisión no 
había sido actualizado para reflejar las nuevas normas de origen”.  
 
7. ¿Cuál es la razón de que aún no está disponible al público?  
 
EU reply : The information available on the Europa website is the following and consists of an 
overview of the applicable legislation:  
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/union -customs -code_en . 
 
Furthermore, an e -learning progra mme is available covering among other issues both the 
preferential and non -preferential origin of goods  
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/eu -training/general -overview/ucc -elearning -
programme_en . 
 
Indeed, some webpages dedicated to non -preferential origin are still in the process of being 
updated to reflect the changes brought by the new legislation which will at the same time reflect 
the change s brought by the Harmonised System 2017 version.   
 
3.1.4.2 Tipos aplicados  
En el párrafo 3.39, página 55, menciona que “alrededor del 8% de estos se consideran aranceles 
"de puro estorbo".  
 
8. ¿A qué se refiere el término “de puro estorbo”?, ¿Cual es su significado y alcance?  
 
EU reply:  According to the WTO Secretariat, "Nuisance rates are those greater than zero, but less 
than or equal to 2%" (see footnote f in Table 3.5 of the WTO secretariat report - Structure of MFN 
tariffs in the EU, 2016).  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 270 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTI ONS FROM CANADA  
 
PART I: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE EUROPEAN UNION REPORT  
 
III. DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SINGLE MARKET  
 
Page 5 (Para 3.5)  
 
Question:  
 
1. Canada notes that timeliness is another important principle in a well -functioning regulatory 
process. What steps is the EU taking to ensure that its regulatory system avoids unnecessary 
delays?  
 
EU reply:  The European Commission has adopted a Better Regul ation agenda in order to prepare 
better laws at a minimum cost. Good regulations rely on solid evidence and a transparent process, 
which involves citizens and stakeholders throughout. Evidence gathering through ex -ante impact 
assessments and ex -post evalua tions as well as public consultations is time -consuming (for 
example, 12 weeks for public consultation) but necessary. On the other hand, Europe must also be 
in a position to respond quickly in cases of urgency. This is why the Better Regulation guidelines  of 
the Commission foresee flexibility mechanisms, which accelerate the regulatory process without 
compromising the Better Regulation agenda. Another means is to prioritise. The inter -institutional 
agreement between the European institutions call upon all involved in the regulatory process to 
prioritise the discussion of important files, including those that simplify or improve existing laws.  
 
Page 6 (Para 3.9 and 3.10)  
 
3.9) It is noted that as a concrete action for the implementation of the Single Market Strategy, the 
European Commission adopted the "Start -up and Scale -up Initiative."  
 
(3.10) It is also noted that in 2017 -18 the Commission intends to adopt a set of measures to 
support the use of IPR by SMEs namely through streamlining awareness on existin g IP Support 
schemes for SMEs; developing an EU IP mediation and arbitration network for SMEs; encouraging 
the creation of European -level insurance schemes for litigation and IP theft; and improving 
coordination of IP support funding schemes, possibly by i ncluding guidance to Member States.  
 
Questions:  
 
1. 2Can the EU provide more details about its development of measures to support the use of IPR 
by SMEs, particularly the insurance and funding schemes, as well as details about any 
additional measures that are  being contemplated?  
 
EU reply : The Start -up and Scale -up Communication announces the following measures: a) 
streamlining awareness on existing IP Support schemes for SMEs; b) developing an EU IP 
mediation and arbitration network for SMEs; c) encouraging t he creation of European -level 
insurance schemes for litigation and IP theft; d) improving coordination of IP support funding 
schemes, possibly by including guidance to Member States.  
 
Concerning measure a) the EU intends to work with Member States on the b usiness support 
initiatives to ensure they have coherent messages to SMEs on Intellectual Property. This will 
require coordination at EU and at Member State level of such support activities. A similar effort 
may be put into continuous development of common  training materials and a common information 
portal.  
 
Concerning measure b) the EU will work to ensure that existing and future IP mediation and 
arbitration services are more easily available to SMEs either on -line or through better contacts with 
proximity  services to SMEs. The EU is now mapping the existing services.  
 
Concerning measure c) the EU intends to stimulate the development of a market for IP litigation 
insurance. These services would be available to all firms, but special attention will be paid to SMEs. 
The entry into force of the Unitary Patent crates the pot ential of economies of scale that can allow 
making these insurance products affordable to SMEs. The EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 271 - 
 
  prepares a mapping of existing IP litigation insurance schemes that should be ready by the end of 
the year.  
 
On the basis of that mapping the European Commission will begin next year a dialogue with 
potential insurance providers. We are open to involve in this dialogue any interested insurance 
firm. Initially, the insurance scheme would focus on European patents with un itary effect, but if 
this is not available the initiative will rely on current European Patents. If this market picks up, the 
Commission intends to discuss the possible expansion to other IP rights.  
 
Concerning measure d) the EU wishes to check how various  business support schemes, including 
research and innovation funds allow paying for IP services. The aim of the measure is to improve 
the links between business support and IP services to encourage SMEs to use more systematically 
such services.  
 
Besides th ese measures, the Commission will pilot a support project to provide IP audit services 
and to co -fund applications for European Patents. This pilot project will be dedicated to SMEs that 
have obtained the so called seal of excellence in the SME instrument programme of Horizon 2020 
(EU research and innovation support programme).  
 
2. 3Will the measures proposed in s. 3.10 be available to all SMEs (including foreign businesses) 
seeking to patent in the EU or only SMEs based in Europe?  
 
EU reply : The pilot project  that will provide IP audit services and patent co -funding will be 
directed at specific SMEs (see reply to Q2 above). The IP mediation and arbitration services and 
the litigation insurance schemes are planned to be available to any firm.  
 
3. 4Will the litigat ion insurance scheme cover both 1) IP assertion and 2) defence against IP 
claims?  
 
EU reply : The litigation insurance schemes are planned to be offered to IP owners to help them 
take court action in case their rights are being infringed or in case their op ponents try to invalidate 
their rights. It is not excluded that in the future the Commission looks into IP theft insurance and 
IP litigation insurance for the defence cases.  
 
4. 5With regards to paragraph 3.10, has the Commission developed guiding principles that will 
apply to the programs being developed or encouraged? For example:  
 
a. All forms of IP? (Would the proposed IP mediation and arbitration network apply to all 
forms of IP? Would the European -level insurance schemes for litigation and IP theft cover 
all forms of IP?  
 
EU reply : In the case of the IP mediation and arbitration network the intention of the Commission 
is to cover all IP rights. This will require a coordination mechanism to pool the necessary expertise 
together.  
 
The insurance scheme would initially focus on European patents with unitary effect, but if it is not 
yet available the initiative will rely on current European Patents. If this market picks up, the 
Commission intends to discuss the possible expansion to other IP rights.  
 
b. Defensive o r offensive? (Would the programs be limited to defensive litigation or could it 
be used offensively?)  
 
EU reply : Please see replies to your questions 3 and 4 above.  
 
c. Territorial or global? (Would the programs be limited to infringements or IP theft in the EU 
territory or would it have global reach?)  
 
EU reply : These support measures are limited to IP issues in EU territory, unless in the mediation 
and arbitration network the firms using it will agree to solve an international/global dispute.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 272 - 
 
  Page 8 (Para 3.18)  
 
It is noted that “the Directive initiated a process of evaluation of all national professional 
regulation in the EU Member States. National authorities were invited to review their regulations 
and subsequently to propose action plans with a view to ensuring that, on the basis of those public 
interests that the regulations sought to protect, only rules which were justified, proportionate and 
non-discriminatory should be maintained. This process is on -going since periodic reviews of 
national regulation s are now part of the amending legislation.”  
 
Question:  
 
1. 6Can the EU provide more information on this evaluation process?  Are these evaluations 
essentially a self -conducted review by regulatory bodies?  Will an EU -level body review the 
findings / action pla n? Is there a process to sanction regulatory bodies that do not respect the 
principles that rules must be justified, proportionate and non -discriminatory? Lead:  
 
EU reply : Directive 2005/36/EC48 established the obligation for Member States to assess the 
proportionality of their requirements restricting access to or pursuit of regulated professions and to 
communicate to the Commission the results of the assessment, launching the so -called mutual 
evaluation process. That process meant that Member States' regu latory bodies had to carry out a 
screening of their legislation on all professions regulated in their territory and submit a national 
action plan to the Commission presenting the outcome of their proportionality assessment of the 
regulation of professions,  and the identification of any need for reform.  
 
The results of the mutual evaluation process were reviewed by the Commission and revealed some 
lack of clarity as regards the criteria to be used by national competent authorities when assessing 
the proporti onality of requirements restricting access to or pursuit of regulated professions. This 
led the European Commission in January 2017 to adopt (a) a proposal for a Directive49 on how 
Member States should carry out a proportionality test before adopting new or  modifying existing 
national rules regarding access to and pursuit of professional services and (b) a Commission 
Communication50 on reform recommendations for regulation of professions51. 
 
Regulating the access or exercise of a professional activity is within the Member States' 
competence. By doing so, Member States have to respect the limits of Union law, especially 
concerning the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services , and the principles 
of proportionality, necessity and non -discrimination.  
 
Regulation governing the taking -up and pursuit of a professional activity not fulfilling these 
principles can be reviewed and sanctioned by the European Commission and the Europea n Court of 
Justice.  
 
Page10 (Para 3.32)   
 
Developments in the Internal Market: The Single Market Strategy; Common agricultural policy  
It is noted that the EU provides the majority of its support to farmers in the form of “decoupled 
direct payments with no  obligations to produce”.  
 
Question:  
 
1. 7Could the EU explain the mechanisms in place to ensure that farmers that choose to 
receive direct payments but not to produce anything are maintaining their land in good 
agricultural and environmental condition?  
 
EU reply:  Decoupled direct payments are granted per eligible hectare. As a general rule, a hectare 
is eligible if it is used for an agricultural activity (see Article 32(2) of Regulation (EU) No 
1307/2013). Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 defin es "agricultural activity". In 
                                                
48 Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the 
recognition of professional qualifications (OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p.22).  
49 http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0822&from=EN . 
50 http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0820&from=en . 
51 With a focus on 7 regulated professions selected on the basis of their economic importance, i.e. 
accountants, civil engineers, architects, lawyers, real estate agents, tourist guides and patent agents.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 273 - 
 
  view of the decoupled nature of direct payments, farmers can either use the agricultural area for 
production (e.g. crop sowing or grazing animals) or maintain it in a state suitable for grazing or 
cultivation. The latter (i.e . maintenance of area) is to be done according to criteria established by 
each Member State (see Article 4(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No . 1307/2013 and Article 4 of 
Regulation (EU) No . 639/2014). Such criteria cannot be production related and usually they re late 
to the following: for grassland, requirement to cut the grass by a certain date and to avoid 
invasive species; for permanent crops, ensure good vegetative conditions of the trees, remove 
dead trees and avoid spreading of diseases; for arable land (typ ically land lying fallow), the 
requirement is mainly to mow the grass or to till to avoid invasive species and/or, for green fallow, 
it is sometimes required to plough into the soil the green cover in order to improve the carbon 
storage and the soil struct ure. Also in the case of so called "self -maintained areas" farmers need to 
carry out a minimum activity set by the Member State.  
 
More generally, when the farmer decides not to produce, it is required to maintain the agricultural 
area in a state suitable f or grazing or cultivation without preparatory action going beyond usual 
agricultural methods and machineries. It means that a land that has been out of agricultural 
production could be used for grazing or cultivation at any time, when a farmer would decide  to 
start production on such area.  
 
Regulation (EU) No . 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 
2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy sets out the 
applicable rules on ensuring effe ctive verification of the correctness and completeness of the 
information provided in the aid application and compliance with all eligibility criteria for aid 
schemes.  
 
Page 12 (Para 3.46)  
 
The Timber Regulation is noted as one the most prominent examples  of EU instruments with 
environment objectives.  
 
Questions:  
 
1. 8 Concerning the Timber Regulation and its recent evaluation, is the EU considering making 
any changes to improve the implementation or effectiv eness of the Timber Regulation?  
 
EU reply:  The European Commission is currently conducting a study to analyse to assess any 
significant economic, environmental and social impacts of options to revise the product scope of 
the current Regulation. Beyond product scope, the Commission is not currently  considering any 
further changes to the Regulation.  
 
2. 9 What approaches have the competent authorities within the member states been using to 
ensure compliance with the Timber Regulation?  
 
EU reply:  The Competent Authorities of the EU Member States carry out checks - in accordance 
with a periodically reviewed plan following a risk -based approach and on the basis of any 
substantiated concerns by a third party - to verify if operators comply with the r equirements set 
out by the Regulation. These Competent Authorities also carry out checks on Monitoring 
Organisations, at regular intervals, to verify that they effectively fulfil their obligations as laid down 
in the Regulation.  
 
Furthermore, the Regulatio n provides for cooperation among Competent Authorities, among 
Competent Authorities and administrative authorities of third countries and among Competent 
Authorities and the services of the Commission in order to ensure compliance with the Regulation.  
 
It is noted that a number of Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) with selected timber 
exporting countries that commit themselves to trade only in verified legal timber covered by FLEGT 
licenses are concluded or under negotiation.  
 
Question:  
 
3. 10Could the EU explain their expectations of how VPA countries should manage the forest -
products entering its supply chain from other countries?  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 274 - 
 
  EU reply:  As part of their timber legality assurance system, VPA countries must ensure that 
timber from all relevant sourc es entering the supply chain of the partner country can be verified. 
This includes developing procedures to ensure the legality of imported timber and timber products 
in accordance with the applicable legislation in the country of harvest. As FLEGT licence s are 
automatically recognised as compliant with the Timber Regulation requirements, any such 
mechanism must be consistent with that Regulation.  
 
Page 12 (Para 3.46)  
 
The Report indicates that the most prominent examples of EU instruments with environment al 
objectives are the Timber Regulation and related Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade 
(FLEGT) Voluntary Partnership Agreements addressing trade in illegal timber, and the EU 
Regulation addressing illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.  
 
Question:   
4. 11 Could the EU provide information on other examples of EU instruments with environmental 
objectives?  
 
EU reply: The Circular Economy Package adopted in December 2015 includes a legislative 
proposal to review the EU waste legislation as well  as a Circular Economy Action Plan with 54 
actions covering the whole life cycle of products and materials from production and consumption to 
waste management and secondary raw materials. On 26 January 2017, the Commission adopted a 
report on the implement ation of the Circular Economy Action Plan with the main achievements 
after one year.  
 
For further information on this topic, please refer to the dedicated web -page:  
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/jobs -growth -and-investment/towards -circular -
economy_en  
Furthermore, EU instruments with environmental objectives range from legislation on chemicals 
and waste to voluntary instruments such as green public procurement and the EU Ecolabel.  
 
Other examples include:  
 The EU Eco -Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) i s a premium management instrument 
developed by the European Commission for companies and other organisations to 
evaluate, report, and improve their environmental performance. EMAS is open to every 
type of organisation eager to improve its environmental per formance. It spans all 
economic and service sectors and is applicable worldwide.  
 The Ecodesign Directive provides consistent EU -wide rules for improving the environmental 
performance of products, such as household appliances, information and communication 
technologies or engineering. The Directive sets out minimum mandatory requirements for 
the energy efficiency of these products. This helps prevent creation of barriers to trade, 
improve product quality and environmental protection. The Energy Labelling Dir ective may 
complement those Ecodesign requirements with mandatory labelling requirements.  
 In 2014, the European Commission adopted a Communication "Resource efficiency 
opportunities in the building sector" aimed at reducing the environmental impact of 
buildings via the development of a framework of core indicators. The objectives are to 
raise awareness of and demand for better environmental performing buildings, among 
private consumers, developers and public purchasers; and to improve knowledge and 
informat ion regarding resource use and related environmental impacts in relation to 
buildings in order to support decision making among designers, architects, developers, 
construction companies, construction product manufacturers, investors, consumers, etc.  
 
IV – TRADE AND INVESTMENT POLICY DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 2015, THE EU NEGOTIATING 
AGENDA  
Page 22 ( Para 4.80)  
It is noted that “The EU recognizes the importance of having clear principles included in trade 
negotiations, both at multilateral and at bilateral level, re lated to domestic regulation with the aim 
to lower barriers to trade. For example, the EU monitors that certain market access obligations in 
services sectors which imply licensing and qualification requirements and procedures, and 
technical standards, are not applied in a discriminatory basis, giving rise to hidden protectionism, 
and thus, constituting an unjustified barrier to trade.”  
Question:  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 275 - 
 
  1. 12Can the EU provide more information on the monitoring process referred to in this 
paragraph?  Is it an ongoing p rocess or are there set periods for review?  Are findings ever 
made public?  
 
EU reply:  The EU uses all sources of information to identify barriers to trade. It is indeed an 
ongoing process and the findings can be available under different format as, for exa mple, the EU 
contribution for the WTO -G20 annual report on barriers to trade.  
 
PART II: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT  
PART II – TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME  
 
Page 32 (Para 2.15)  
 
The Secretariat noted that “Key objectives of EU trade policy are  to increase efforts to reduce non -
tariff barriers and increase trade in services. Technology has facilitated the cross -border provision 
of services, and manufacturing operations also heavily depend on all kinds of services, such as 
training, transport, lo gistics, insurance, and telecommunications. The EU underlines the 
importance of placing more emphasis on the need for mobility (e.g. of experts to install or 
maintain exported goods, senior managers, and other service providers) and the mutual 
recognition of professional qualifications.”  
 
Question:  
 
1. 13 Can the EU provide examples of the efforts that are planned or currently being undertaken 
to reduce non -tariff barriers that impede access into the EU market, particularly those related 
to Technical Barriers to Trade and SPS measures?  
 
EU reply:  The EU addresses non -tariff barriers to its own market through bilateral negotiations as 
well as regional and global co -operation. EU trade agreements (such as the EU -Canada 
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement ( CETA)) include provisions on regulatory co -
operation and mediation mechanisms and working groups to address non -tariff barriers that 
impede access either to the EU market or those of its trading partners. These systems have been 
applied in practice to addr ess non -tariff barriers.  
 
The EU also engages in multilateral regulatory co -operation, for example through bodies like the 
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) for motor vehicles, the International 
Conference for Harmonisation for pharmac eutical products, the Codex Alimentarius Commission for 
food, and international standardisation organisations (for example the ISO, IEC, ITU).  
 
The Commission will continue to address regulatory issues in negotiations and in international 
regulatory fora,  while maintaining high European standards. It will also continue its efforts to 
eliminate non -tariff barriers through the enforcement of agreements and regulatory cooperation; 
and to use the mediation mechanism agreed in recent FTAs to address non -tariff barriers quickly.  
 
Page 36 (Para. 2.36)  
 
The Secretariat notes that the EU Special Incentive Arrangement for Sustainable Development and 
Good Governance ("GSP+") grants complete duty suspension for essentially the same 66% of tariff 
lines as the Standard GSP, for countries especially vulnerable in terms of their economies' 
diversification and import volumes. In return, beneficiary countries must ratify and effectively 
implement 27 core international conventions.  
 
Question:  
 
1. 14 Could the EU explain the proc ess for selecting the 8 conventions on environmental 
protection and climate change?  
 
EU reply:  The 8 environmental and climate conventions in the current GSP Regulation were 
chosen to ensure consistency with the previous GSP Regulation. These are the main global 
multilateral environmental agreements of particular relevance to trade and sustainable 
development.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 276 - 
 
  III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE: MEASURES AFFECTING PRODUCTION AND 
TRADE  
Page 52 (para 3.45)  
 
It is noted than many of the EU’s WTO ta riff quotas are administered on a “first -come, first -
served” basis.  
 
Questions:  
 
1. 15 Does the EU envision more quotas moving to this allocation method?  
 
EU reply:  The EU seeks to apply the TRQ management method most appropriate to each TRQ to 
ensure smooth trade flows and the lowest possible administrative burden. In some cases this can 
involve "a first -come, first -served" system.  
 
2. 16 What steps and changes to TQ a dministration is the EU envisioning to ensure that quota fill 
is maximised, including simplifying quota procedures  
 
EU reply:  The EU does not consider that the management system for any of its TRQs causes low 
fill rates. Fill rates are determined by preva iling economic conditions. The EU notes that many 
TRQs managed on a "first -come, first -served" basis have low fill rates. The EU seeks to apply the 
TRQ management method most appropriate to each TRQ to ensure smooth trade flows and the 
lowest possible admi nistrative burden.  See also response to Question 1.15.  
 
Page 52 (para 3.1.4.4)   
 
The Secretariat report notes that the EU’s TQs are managed centrally by the Commission, and can 
be consulted on an internet database which is updated daily.  
 
Canada notes that  the WTO Tariff Analysis Online database also has an inventory of EU TQs. This 
database includes a reference to an EU TQ for newsprint (ie. EECY 129). However, the EU’s 
internet database (TARIC) indicates that the EU provides MFN duty -free treatment for ne wsprint 
(HS4801.00.00), and does not directly refer to a TQ for this tariff item. The WTO database 
provides no HS code for this TQ and other TQs covering non -agriculture products.  
 
Questions:  
 
1. 17 Could the EU confirm the existence of a TQ on newsprint, in light of the fact that it provides 
MFN duty -free treatment for this tariff item (HS4801.00.00)?  
 
2. 18 If such a TQ exists, could the EU provide a rationale for it and explain its function?  
Since HS codes are listed under the WTO Tariff Analysis Online data base for all EU TQs covering 
agriculture products, could the EU also provide HS codes for all TQs covering non -agriculture 
products?  
 
EU reply to questions 17 and 18:  Questions and comments on content and summarising 
methodology in the WTO Tariff Analysis  Online database are to be addressed to the WTO.  
 
Regarding newsprint the EU confirms that there is a commitment to duty -free treatment for 
newsprint in the EU bound Schedule CLXXIII at the WTO, and as a consequence the TQ on 
newsprint has become obsolete.  The TRQ number 129 in Part I Section II of the Schedule CLXXIII 
(page 617 of WTO doc WT/Let/1220) will be deleted in an updated version of the EU Schedule.  
 
HS codes for non -agriculture TQs are provided in Part I Section II of the EU Schedule CLXXIII 
(pages 613 through 618 of WTO doc WT/Let/1220).  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 277 - 
 
  Page 75 (Para. 3.124)  
 
The Secretariat Report indicates that the European Commission plays a role in standardiz ation by 
funding participation in the standardization process by small and medium -sized companies and 
non-governmental organizations, such as environmental and consumer groups and trade unions.  
 
Question:  
 
1. 19 Could the EU provide further information on the  type of support it provides to environment 
groups?  
 
EU reply:  The EU Regulation on standardisation 1025/2012 Articles 16 and 17(c) as well as its 
Annex III.3 provide the details for the selection and financing of the environmental representatives 
in stand ardisation.  
 
Annex III in particular gives the eligibility criteria to be fulfilled by the body representing 
environmental interests in European standardisation. After an open call for proposals, the current 
selected organisation is ECOS (European Environm ental Citizens Organisation for Standardisation 
at http://ecostandard.org/ ). 
 
The EC and EFTA partly finance the operations of the ECOS Secretariat in order to increase the 
inclusiveness of the standardisation proces s. 
 
Page 77 (Para. 3.3.1.3, 3.129 and 3.130)  
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is responsible for the safety certification of 
aerospace products.  Canada understands that EASA charges foreign aerospace companies the 
same fee regardless of whether i t is undertaking a full safety certification of the aerospace product 
or simply validating another civil aviation authority’s certification of that product. Full certification 
is a more intensive process that requires significantly greater investment of ti me and resources 
whereas validation builds on the work of other civil aviation authorities, relying on mutual 
recognition between certain civil aviation authorities. The WTO TBT Agreement requires any fees 
imposed for assessing the conformity of products a re equitable in relation to any fees chargeable 
for assessing the conformity of products originating in the domestic context.  
 
Question:  
 
1. 20Can the EU explain why EASA charges for validation are similar to the charges for full 
certification and not, theref ore, commensurate with the service being provided?  
 
EU reply:  The fees and charges which EASA charges to foreign aerospace companies for its 
certification activities are dependent on the amount of work which is necessary to perform in a 
safety -guaranteeing  and cost efficient way any certification or validation task EASA undertakes. If 
there is on a given project less work than on another one, then the amount charged for the former 
will be lower in direct relationship with the effective work that was necessa ry to fulfil the required 
tasks. The EASA charges therefore commensurate with the service being provided.  
 
Page 78 (para 3.3.1 and 3.108, p. 70 and 3.3.1.5, para 3.135, p. 78)  
 
The Secretariat noted that “there has been no major change to the basic legislative framework on 
the development of technical requirements, standards, conformity assessment or accreditation in 
the EU over the review period.”  
 
The Secretariat noted that “3 .135. To help prevent the creation of technical barriers to trade, the 
Commission manages two notification procedures: one for the internal market of the EU and one 
at WTO level.”  
 
In this context, Canada notes that there have been several new proposals by  EU Member States to 
introduce mandatory country -of-origin -labelling (COOL) requirements for processed meat or dairy 
products as well as one for pasta made from durum wheat.  
 
Canada would appreciate greater transparency in regards to these mandatory COOL measures as 
well as the anticipated impact on trade of the measures being introduced by Member States:  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 278 - 
 
  Questions:  
 
1. 21 What actions are being taken by the EU to ensure that Member States notify these 
measures to the WTO in a transparent and timely manner as  per Article 2.9.2 of the WTO TBT 
Agreement?  
 
EU reply:  According to Regulation (EU) No 1169/201152 the information on origin should be provided 
to consumers on a voluntary basis, unless otherwise provided in specific EU legislation. In parallel, the 
Regul ation allows the Member States to introduce additional mandatory labelling particulars for 
specific food categories, including on indication of origin, if they are justified on grounds of, inter 
alia, the protection of consumers and those mentioned in Arti cle 39(2) of the Regulation.  
Accordingly, Member States which deem it necessary to adopt such measures have to notify them 
to the European Commission and to the other Member States, and provide the reasons justifying 
them.  
 
In this context, six Member Stat es (France, Lithuania, Italy, Finland, Greece and Portugal) have 
recently notified to the Commission, according to the above mentioned procedure, draft national 
measures on the origin indication of certain food. All those initiatives are construed as limit ed in time 
and in scope, affecting a limited category of products. Products manufactured in third countries do not 
need to fulfil the origin labelling requirements.  
 
2. 22When a Member State provides a draft COOL measure to the European Commission for 
review , Canada understands that, as set out in Article 39 of EU Regulation 1169/2011, the 
Member State is also required to provide evidence to demonstrate a “proven link between 
certain qualities of the food and its origin or provenance”. At what point in the re view process 
is this evidence made public and how will this be done?  
 
EU reply:  The above -mentioned notified drafts have been or are in the process of being evaluated by 
the Commission in the light of conditions laid down in Article 39 of the Regulation and the overal l 
objectives of EU legislation.  
 
Each of those notified drafts has been discussed in the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food 
and Feed and the minutes of this meeting are available to the public.  
 
3. 23 How will the EU ensure that the manufacturers and the other stakeholders in the supply 
chain will continue to be able to source inputs based on market considerations, such as p rice, 
quality and availability?  
 
EU reply:  The EU will keep this issue under review, being mindful of its WTO commitments.  
Pages 80 -81 (Para 3.3.2, Para 3.144, and Para 3.147)  
 
The Secretariat noted that “The European Commission is responsible for developing draft proposals 
for legislation and, where the legislation delegates the authority, delegated acts. The Standing 
Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (PAFF Committee) is the principal  regulatory body 
responsible for delivering opinions on draft implementing measures.”  Also, the Secretariat noted 
that “SPS measures taken in the EU are normally based on international standards or, in other 
cases - including the absence of an internationa l measure - based on the scientific opinion of the 
EFSA.”  
 
Questions:  
 
1. 24 What measures are being taken to ensure that plant protection products, as well as 
products of modern biotechnology, are not delayed in the risk management step of the 
approval proce ss, thereby creating unnecessary delays and barriers to trade?  
 
EU reply:  Regulation (EC) No . 1107/2009 on plant protection products provides legal deadlines in 
order to ensure that a risk management decision is prepared by the Commission within a certain 
time period after the risk assessment is finalised.  
                                                
52 Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parlia ment and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on 
the provision of food information to consumers, OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 18.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 279 - 
 
  All applications for authorization of GMO s are processed in line with the EU legislative framework 
on GMOs. The Commission is proceeding with all the applications having a positive risk assessment 
performed by the European Food Safety Authority and endeavours to keep to a minimum the time 
needed to comply with administrative and procedural steps.  
 
2. 25 What are the elements that influence the risk management stage in the authorization of a 
plant protection product and products of modern biotechnology?  
 
EU reply:  Rules on risk management concerning t he authorisation of plant protection products are 
laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.  
 
Risk management decisions are based on the potential risks identified during the risk assessment 
and on the level of risk considered acceptable by risk managers, taking into consideration in 
particular the precautionary principle and the principle of proportionality.  
 
3. 26 Could the EU clarify why the EU did not implement the EFSA recommendation in the 
instance of re -authorizing glyphosate? Can the EU clarify the role of the European Chemical 
Agency? In instances where EFSA and ECHA issue an opinion, which opinion takes precedence?  
 
EU reply:  Following the publication of the EFSA Conclusion on glyphosate53 in November 2015, 
detailed discussions took place between th e Commission and Member States about a possible 
renewal of approval. In the light of divergent opinions between the International Agency for 
Research on Cancer (IARC) and EFSA on the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate, some Member 
States wanted the Eu ropean Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to assess the hazard properties of the 
substance before taking a decision at EU level on its potential renewal. For this reason the 
Commission extended the expiry date of glyphosate until 31 December 2017 (at the latest) to 
enable ECHA to deliver its opinion on the hazard properties of glyphosate.  
 
On 15 March 2017, the Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) of ECHA reached an agreement, by 
consensus, that glyphosate is not carcinogenic (nor mutagenic or toxic for reproduction). The 
detailed Opinion was published by ECHA on 15 June 2017 and received by the Commission on the 
same date.  
 
The Commission has a legal obligation to take a decision on glyphosate within six months of 
receipt of the Risk Assessment Committee Opinion from ECHA.  Therefore the discussions with 
Member States about the possible renewal of approval of glyphosate, taking into account both the 
EFSA Conclusion and the Opinion of ECHA will now be restarted.  
 
With regard to pesticide substances such as glyphosate, the Ris k Assessment Committee of ECHA 
is responsible for delivering opinion on the harmonised classification and labelling of the substance 
in accordance with the pertinent EU legislation54 (the 'CLP' Regulation). The scientific opinion of 
EFSA is required for the  approval of pesticide substances under the pesticide legislation and the 
opinion of the Risk Assessment Committee of ECHA is required in order to establish the 
harmonised classification of chemical substances. However, in the case of diverging opinions on  
similar topics, the General Food Law of the European Union55 obliges the bodies concerned to 
cooperate with a view to resolving the divergence or clarifying the contentious scientific issues. It 
should be recalled that in the case of glyphosate the two age ncies both concluded that glyphosate 
does not pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans.  
 
Pages 80 -81 (Para 3.144 and Para 3.147)  
The Secretariat noted that “The European Commission is responsible for developing draft proposals 
for legislation and, where the le gislation delegates the authority, delegated acts. The Standing 
                                                
53 EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2015. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk 
assessment of the active substance  glyphosate. EFSA Journal 2015;13(11):4302, 107 p p. 
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4302.  
54 REGULATION (EC) NO 1 272/2008 OF THE EURO PEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL OF 16  
DECEMBER 2008 ON CLA SSIFICATION, LABELLI NG AND PACKAGING OF SUBSTANCES AND MIXTU RES, 
AMENDI NG AND REPEALING DIR ECTIVES 67/548/EEC A ND 1999/45/EC, AND A MENDING REGULATION ( EC) 
NO 1907/2006. OJ L 353, 31.12.2008 , P. 1. 
55 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 
laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety 
Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety . OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 280 - 
 
  Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (PAFF Committee) is the principal regulatory body 
responsible for delivering opinions on draft implementing measures.” Also, the Secretariat noted 
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 sc ientific opinion of the 
EFSA.”  
 
On June 15, 2016, the EU released the draft criteria to identify endocrine disrupting properties, 
which was notified to the WTO and noted in the Secretariat’s Report. Following the fourth meeting 
of experts and Member States, on December 21, 2016, the EU has divided their notified proposal 
into two parts, separ ating out the scientific criteria from the technical amendment, or derogation, 
to points 3.6.5 and 3.8.2 of Annex II to Regulation 1107/2009 on Plant Protection Products (PPPs).  
If the criteria for defining whether a substance has endocrine disrupting prop erties enter into force 
without the amendments for derogation, this could result in a greater effect on trade than th e 
proposal notified by the EU.  
 
Questions:  
 
1. 27 Could the EU provide the steps it takes to ensure that plant protection products approvals 
are based on a comprehensive assessment process (i.e. overall process) that include a hazard 
characterisation and a risk characterisation assessment step, in particular where a relevant 
Codex standard exists?  
 
EU reply:  Article 5(3) of the Biocidal Products  Regulation (BPR) and point 3.6.5 of Annex II to the 
Plant Protection Products Regulation (PPPR) provide the legal basis for the Commission to adopt 
measures specifying scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine -disrupting properties. 
Within th ese mandates the basic regulatory approach for endocrine disruptors (EDs) already set in 
the PPPR and the BPR, adopted in 2009 and 2012 respectively, cannot be changed. The European 
Union informed the WTO Members about this regulatory approach by notifying  the proposals of 
these Regulations to the WTO in due time.  
 
The European Union is aware of the potential trade and agricultural impacts the proposed criteria 
might have. Those potential impacts were analysed in the impact assessment report that was 
publis hed on 15 June 2016.56 This impact assessment also informs which active substances would 
be potentially identified under the draft scientific criteria, and which are currently identified by the 
interim criteria legally applicable at the moment.  
 
The criteria that are proposed in both draft legal acts, ensure a high level of protection of human 
health and the environment, are based on science, and are proportionate: the proposed criteria 
are based on the internationally agreed WHO definition of EDs whi ch is widely supported by 
Governments, scientists and stakeholders. They identify only EDs (neither suspected EDs, nor 
endocrine active substances). The proposed criteria do not include potency (option 4 of the impact 
assessment), as this is an element of hazard characterisation and should not be considered at the 
hazard identification stage of EDs.  
 
2. 28 Based on EU regulation 1107/2009 (including the amendments proposed) and the EU 
regulation 396/2005 for maximum residue limits (MRLs) setting, how will MRLs  be maintained 
or updated if an active substance is assessed to have endocrine disrupting criteria, and is 
therefore no longer approved for use in the EU?  
 
EU reply:  Until today, due to the transitional measures of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and the 
delays in the renewal programmes of the approved active substances, the EU does not have yet 
any experience on MRL and import tolerance setting for substances falling under these criteria.  
 
Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 only allows for the setting of MRLs for ac tive substances authorised 
in the EU. However, import tolerances can be set even for unapproved active substances, if the 
active substance is not approved for reasons other than public health. Given the regulatory 
situation, the EU will carefully evaluate on a case by case basis the import tolerance requests for 
the active substances falling under the criteria of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, considering the 
objectives of consumer protection of the EU pesticide legislation and also the EU's international 
                                                
56 http://ec.europa.eu/health/endocrine_disruptors/impact_assessment_en . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 281 - 
 
  obligations arising from the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures.  
 
3. 29 How will “negligible risk from exposure” (as set out in Regulation 1107/2009 and the 
amendments proposed) be interpreted and implemented for derogation decisions once an 
active substance has been assessed to meet endocrine disruptor criteria, and is therefore no 
longer approved? Will this allow import tolerances to be maintained or set based on an 
assessment that include a risk assessment?  
 
EU reply:  As regards the interpretation of "negligible risk from exposure" or the current wording 
on point 3.6.5. of the Annex of Regulation 1107/2009, a guidance document will be developed in 
due time.  
 
As mentioned in the response to Question 28, given the regulatory  situation, the EU will carefully 
evaluate, on a case by case basis, the import tolerance requests for the active substances falling 
under the criteria of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, considering the objectives of consumer 
protection of the EU pesticide l egislation and also the EU's international obligations arising from 
the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.  
 
4. 30 Based on the hazard -based cut -offs of EU regulation 1107/2009 and the amendments 
proposed (Annex II, 3.6.2,  3.6.3, 3.6.4, and 3.6.5), regulatory decisions are built -in for non -
approval if hazard -based cut -offs are met.  Can the EU explain how bypassing the scientific 
opinion of the EFSA, regardless of the actual risk, can be consistent with the EU’s WTO SPS 
obligations?  
 
EU reply:  The approvals of active substances are based on EFSA Conclusions. These are based on 
data submitted by the applicant, which are analysed by Member States and EFSA based on the 
legal requirements and agreed guidance documents. Thus, ther e is no "bypassing" of EFSA.  
 
In addition, the proposed amendment to the clause on negligible exposure in the context of the 
plant protection products legislation does not change the general approach of the legislation, but 
allows information on hazard, ex posure and risk to be considered for the derogation clause already 
foreseen before a decision is taken on a given substance, and is expected to lead to more certainty 
in terms of setting MRLs.  
 
Page 81 (Para 3.149)  
 
The Secretariat noted that “The new Regulation also includes measures to tackle pests from 
outside the EU under which the Commission will be able to implement precautionary measures for 
emerging risks from plants coming from certain non -EU countries. A category of "high risk" plants, 
plant p roducts or other objects has been created for plants, plant products or other objects which 
present, on the basis of a preliminary assessment, a pest risk of an unacceptable level for the EU. 
Therefore their introduction into the EU from a third country wi ll be prohibited, pending the 
completion of a full risk assessment.”  
 
Question:  
 
1. 31 Can the EU further explain what is meant by “precautionary measures for emerging risks” 
and how long is it expected to take to complete a full risk assessment after such a measure is 
put in place by the EU?  
 
EU reply:  First, pursuant to Article 49 of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031, the Commission may adopt 
temporary measures concerning plants, plant products and other objects likely to pose newly 
identified pest risks or other su spected phytosanitary risks. Those commodities are defined in 
paragraph 1 of that Article as plants, plant products and other objects from third countries where 
the following conditions are fulfilled:  
 
(a) the plants, plant products or other objects are l ikely to pose newly identified pest risks which 
are not sufficiently covered by any Union measures and are not linked, or cannot yet be linked, to 
Union quarantine pests or pests subject to measures adopted pursuant to Article 30(1);  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 282 - 
 
  (b) there is insuffic ient phytosanitary experience, such as in relation to new plant species or 
pathways, as regards trade in the plants, plant products and other objects concerned originating in 
or dispatched from the third countries concerned;  
 
(c) no assessment has been ca rried out as regards the newly identified pest risks for the Union 
territory in respect of those plants, plant products or other objects from the third countries 
concerned.  
 
Those temporary measures shall provide for one or more of the following, as necess ary in the case 
concerned:  
 
(a) systematic and intensive inspections and sampling, at the point of introduction, of each lot of 
plants, plant products or other objects introduced into the Union territory and the testing of 
samples;  
 
(b) a quarantine peri od, within a quarantine station or a confinement facility as referred to in 
Article 60, to verify the absence of the newly identified pest risk concerned in those plants, plant 
products or other objects;  
 
(c) a prohibition of the introduction of those pla nts, plant products or other objects into the Union 
territory.  
 
Those temporary measures shall apply for an appropriate and reasonable period of time, pending 
the characterisation of pests likely to be associated with those plants, plant products or other 
objects from those third countries and the full assessment of the risks posed by those pests.  
 
Then, Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 further introduces in Article 42 the notion of "high risk plants, 
plant products or other objects". Pursuant to Article 42(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031, a full risk 
assessment will be carried within an appropriate and reasonable period of time, provided that 
there is demand for import of the high plants, plant products or other objects. Where appropriate, 
that assessment may be l imited to plants, plant products or other objects of a particular third 
country of origin or dispatch, or a group of third countries of origin or dispatch.  
 
It is not possible to specify in abstract what the appropriate and reasonable time would be for the  
assessment of each category of plants. This will depend on the nature and origin of the respective 
commodity, and the fulfilment of the respective criteria in Annex III of that Regulation.  
 
Page 82 (Para 3.153)  
 
The Secretariat noted that “the Commission has also proposed a review of the decision -making 
process on GMOs.”  
 
Questions:  
 
1. 32 What steps is the EU taking to ensure that the authorization of GM events in the EU, 
including at the Member State level, are based on evidence -based assessments of risk to  
human, animal or plant life or health?  
 
EU reply:  The EU authorisation system for GMOs is transparent, science -based, and ensures that 
GMOs authorised in the EU are safe for animal and human health and for the environment 
following a case by case analysis . The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is responsible for 
the scientific risk assessment covering risk to both the environment and human and animal health. 
EFSA's GMO Panel, a body composed of renowned independent scientists chosen for their 
competenc e in the relevant fields, is responsible for the evaluation. The risk assessment is 
performed in close collaboration with Member States' scientific bodies.  
 
2. 33 Will the EU ensure that future changes to the GM event approval process maintain the 
scientific rigor and risk -based approach necessary to comply with WTO Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary obligations?  
 
EU reply:  The amendment to Regulation (EC) 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed 
proposed by the Commission in April 2015 would not affect the bas ic principles set out in that WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 283 - 
 
  legislation. In particular, the proposed amendment does not impact on the risk assessment carried 
out on GMOs prior to their authorisation at EU level.  
Page 84 (Para 3.162)  
 
The Secretariat noted that, “In 2015 and 2016, the E U made a total of 107 notifications to the 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures in the WTO, of which: 47 were addenda; 8 
were emergency notifications; 1 was a supplementary notification; and the remainder were regular 
notifications. In addition : Germany made 1 emergency notification and 1 regular notification; 
France made 2 regular notifications, 2 emergency notifications, and 1 addendum; and Slovenia 
made 1 emergency notification.”  
 
On April 24, 2016 France imposed and emergency measure banning  cherry imports where 
dimethoate is registered for use even if the cherries were not treated with the active substance. 
France later notified this emergency measure to the WTO on July 18, 2016.  
 
Question:  
 
1. 34 Can the EU clarify the timeline requirements f or Member States to notify such measures to 
the WTO and provide information on any actions being taken to ensure Member States notify 
these measures in a transparent and timely manner?  
 
EU reply:  Timeline requirements for the notification of EU Member Stat es' measures are the same 
as for measures taken at EU level. Within the European Union, the Directorate General for Health 
and Food Safety of the European Commission is the designated SPS notification authority. The 
measures taken by EU Member States are n otified by the EU notification authority.  
 
European Union  report : Para 3.19, page 7 // Secretariat report  Para 3.235, Page 104 . 
 
The Secretariat report mentions that Member States had until 18 April 2016 to put in place 
national legislation to be in compliance with the 2014 EU Directives on public procurement. The 
Secretariat report affirms that “as at 5 January 2017, 12 member Stat es had transposed all three 
Directives into national law”, which means that the majority of EU Member States have missed the 
18 April 2016 deadline.  
 
Questions:  
 
1. 35 Can the EU provide an update as to when they expect the other Member States will be in a 
position to transpose the EU Directives on public procurement into national law? Are the 
remaining 16 Member States nevertheless meeting the obligations under those Directives?”  
 
EU reply:  Currently 17 EU Member States have completed transposition for all t hree Directives; 3 
Member States  did so for the "classical" and "utilities" Directives, but not for the Concessions 
Directive; 8 Member States  that have not completed transposition for any of the three Directives. 
The Commission has provided and still cont inues to provide enhanced assistance to Member 
States.  
 
2. 36 Are the remaining 16 Member States meeting their obligations under the revised WTO 
Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA)?  
 
EU reply:  In the absence of national rules transposing the modernised  EU Directives, the existing 
national legislation on procurement is applicable. The latter transposes the rules as provided for in 
the previous EU directives on procurement dating from 2004. It ensures that the obligations of the 
EU under the GPA are respe cted by the procuring entities of its Member States.  
 
3. 37 What are the mechanisms that the European Union has at its disposal to ensure Member 
States comply with the 2014 EU Directives on public procurement  
 
EU reply:  The Commission avails of mechanisms to ensure that EU Member States comply with 
their obligation under the reformed directives. In particular, it avails of the possibility to launch 
infringement procedures as stipulated under Article 260 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union (T FEU).  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 284 - 
 
  The Secretariat report further notes that Member States had 30 months to transpose the 
Directives’ provisions on e -procurement into national law, i.e., until 18 October 2016. In paragraph 
3.246, it is also mentioned that “electronic notification and  access to tender documents” had to be 
in place by April 2016, and “electronic submission of offers for central purchasing bodies by April 
2017.”  
 
4. 38 Can the EU provide an update on the status of the transposition of the e -procurement 
provisions into natio nal law?  
 
EU reply : E-notification and e -access are fully implemented in all Member States. E -submission is 
already available in 2/3rd of the Member States.  
 
5. 39 Are all tender notices for procurements covered under the revised WTO GPA published on 
the Tenders Electronic Daily (TED) website? What about the tender notices of Member States 
that have not yet fully transposed the EU Directives on public procurement – including the 
provisions on e -procurement – into national law? [MF]  
 
EU reply:  The GPA thres holds applicable to the EU have been harmonised with the thresholds for 
the application of the EU Directives. All procurements covered under the revised GPA are published 
on TED. In the absence of national rules transposing the modernised EU Directives, th e existing 
national legislation transposing the rules as provided for in the 2004 EU Directives on procurement 
is applicable including the obligation to publish tenders above the GPA thresholds on TED.  
 
Page 104 (Para 3.236)  
 
The Secretariat report notes t hat “public procurement above the thresholds must be published on 
TED.” Article VII, paragraph 2(l) of the revised WTO GPA requires notices of intended procurement 
for covered procurement to include “an indication that the procurement is covered by [the re vised 
WTO GPA]”. While some notices on TED include an indication that the procurement is covered by 
the GPA, in many instances they don’t, including for procurements that would appear to be 
covered under the EU’s GPA market access schedule.  
 
Question:  
 
1. 40 Can the EU explain why the majority of notices on TED do not include an indication that the 
procurement is covered under the revised WTO GPA, even when the procurement is or should 
be covered by the revised WTO GPA?  
 
EU reply : The EU is aware of some diff iculties faced by EU contracting authorities to determine if a 
contract notice should be covered by the GPA. Entities at sub -central level might not have the 
administrative capacity to determine a reliable GPA coverage. The EU is developing a methodology 
to help contracting authorities in assessing better if a contract notice is covered by the GPA.  
 
Page 107 (Para 3.243)  
 
The Secretariat report describes how procuring entities in the EU may divide procurement into lots. 
It states that “if the total value of  these lots is greater than the threshold, then EU level rules will 
apply to the awarding of each lot, except for small lots” of €80,000 or less for goods and services, 
and of €1 million for construction services (emphasis added).  
 
Questions:  
 
1. 41 Do EU le vel rules apply to “small lots” when the procurement (the sum of the lots) is 
covered under the revised WTO GPA?  
 
EU reply:  Article 5 (8) of the EU Directive 2014/24/EU and Article 16 (8) of EU Directive 
2014/25/EU stipulate that where a proposed work or a  proposed provision of services may result 
in contracts being awarded in the form of separate lots, account has to be taken of the total 
estimated value of all such lots. Therefore, the answer is positive.  
 
2. 42 If not, can the EU explain how this approach i s consistent with the valuation provisions in 
Article 2 of the revised WTO GPA?  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 285 - 
 
  EU reply:  Yes, as above explained.   
 
Page 109 (Para 3.252)  
 
The Secretariat report notes that the “EU and the member States are parties to the revised WTO 
plurilateral GPA” and  provides an overview of the EU’s expanded market access schedule under the 
GPA. 
 
1. 43 Which of the EU’s Member State space entities (e.g. national space agencies) are covered 
under the EU’s GPA market access schedule?  
 
EU reply:  The space entities of EU Me mber States which fall in the scope of the EU commitments 
under the GPA are either those that fall within EU Annex 1 or those that qualify under the 
definitions provided under EU Annex 2.  
 
Page 111 (Table 3.30)  
 
It is noted that Table 3.30 “Status of EU pa rticipation in WIPO conventions and treaties” does not 
include the Singapore Treaty on Trademarks.  
 
Question:  
 
1. 44 Does the EU intend to ratify the Singapore Treaty on Trademarks and has it taken any 
steps towards doing so?  
 
EU reply:  The European Commissi on announced in its 16 July 2008 Communication on an 
industrial property rights strategy for Europe that it would prepare the ground for the accession to 
the Singapore Treaty on Trademarks. Since then the EU has been in the process of reforming its 
trade m ark systems both at Union and national levels not least with a view to facilitating that 
outstanding accession. The EU has therefore not been in the position to take concrete steps 
towards accession yet.  
 
Page 120 (Para 3.297)  
 
It is noted that goods transiting the EU customs territory that bear a trademark that is confusingly 
similar to an EU trademark, or goods infringing other IPRs are not covered by the provisions under 
the trademark reform package.  
 
Question:  
 
1. 45 Are counterfeit GI goods and pirat ed copyright goods covered?  
 
EU reply:  No, the new provisions on goods in transit in the trade mark reform package cover 
trade mark infringement only.  
 
Page 121 (Para 3.299)  
 
The report states that “in particular, shifting the burden of proof to the decla rant or holder of the 
goods was seen as problematic, as well as the absence of sufficient safeguards against the abuse 
of enforcement procedure.”  
 
Question:  
 
1. 46 How has the EU addressed these concerns?  
 
EU reply:  With the aim of strengthening trade mark pr otection and combatting counterfeiting 
more effectively, the European Commission originally proposed to confer an EU trade mark 
proprietor the right to prevent third parties from bringing goods, in the course of trade, into the EU 
without being released fo r free circulation there, where such goods come from third countries and 
bear without authori zation a trade mark which is identical or essentially identical with the EU trade 
mark registered in respect of such goods.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 286 - 
 
  During the legislative process that ini tial Commission proposal was amended to provide that the 
entitlement of the proprietor of the EU trade mark shall lapse where, during the proceedings 
initiated before the EU trade mark court competent to take a substantive decision on whether the 
EU trade mark has been infringed, the declarant or the holder of the goods is able to prove that 
the proprietor of the EU trade mark is not entitled to prohibit the placing of the goods on the 
market in the country of final destination.  
 
The EU is of the view that the adopted compromise provides an appropriate balance between the 
need to ensure the effective enforcement of trade mark rights and the necessity to avoid unduly 
hampering the free flow of trade in legitimate goods.  It also involves sufficient safeguards against 
the abuse of enforcement procedures, in particular by ensuring that the EU trade mark proprietor 
is to be liable for damages towards the holder of the goods where, inter alia, the goods in question 
are subsequently found not to infringe the trade m ark rights in question.  
 
Page 124 (Para  3.314 and 3.315)  
 
(3.315) It  is also noted that the European Commission continued to explore the possibility of 
extending GI protection to non -agricultural products at EU level. It committed to take work 
forward on how to make the most of Europe's traditional know -how. 
 
Questions:  
 
1. 47 What work has the European Commission undertaken with respect to extending GI 
protection to non -agricultural products at EU level, and how might this include traditional 
know-how?  
 
EU reply:  The work of the Commission on geographical indication protecti on at EU level for non -
agricultural products is in its preparatory and analytical phase. The Commission is currently 
finalising an Inception Impact Assessment which describes the different possible approaches to 
protect geographical indications for non -agricultural products.  Once it is published, the 
Commission will proceed to an in -depth impact assessment, and decide on next steps, including a 
possible proposal.  
 
While specific manufacturing skills and traditions are often embedded in geographically -rooted  
non-agricultural products, more work needs to be done to know how a potential GI protection 
system at EU level might actually operate in preserving the know -how relating to them.  
 
2. 48 What would the EU consider to be captured by traditional know -how?  
 
EU reply:  See answer to question 47.  
 
Page 128  (Para 3.326)  
 
It is noted that the Directive on the Protection of Undisclosed Know -How and Business Information 
(Trade Secrets) Against Their Unlawful Acquisition, Use and Disclosure requires EU member States 
to make civil procedures and remedies available to trade -secret holders to either prevent or obtain 
redress for the unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure of their trade secret but does not provide for 
criminal sanctions.  
 
Question:  
 
1. 49 that the current Directive does not provide for criminal sanctions, what cons ideration, if 
any, has the EU given to the possibility of establishing minimum standards for criminal 
sanctions in respect of the theft of trade secrets?  
 
EU reply:  The option of a legislative initiative covering also criminal remedies for misappropriation 
of trade secrets was also duly considered, but the European Commission opted to limit its proposal 
to civil law measures, procedures and remedies.  
 
While a crimina l law initiative could strengthen the deterrence effect of the rules and provide 
better access to evidence under the investigative powers of enforcement authorities, such route 
would however go beyond the current EU legal protection of intellectual propert y rights as it WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 287 - 
 
  currently does not cover criminal law sanctions. In addition, following the principle of 
proportionality, criminal law must always remain a measure of last resort, and it needs to be seen 
whether the proposed changes in civil law already suf fice to achieve the objectives.  
 
For more detailed information please see option 5 in the impact assessment that accompanied the 
Commission's proposal for a Trade Secrets Directive. Here the link: http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -
content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52013SC0471&from=EN . 
 
Page 131 (Para 3.342)  
It is noted that an assessment of the role of intermediaries regarding the enforcement of IPRs in 
the Digital S ingle Market was part of the European Commission's ongoing work regarding the 
evaluation and modernization of the IPR enforcement regime in the EU. This included the 
promotion of voluntary cooperation mechanisms.  As part of this approach, the European 
Comm ission proactively supported the putting into place of memoranda of understanding (MoU) in 
order to dissuade online, commercial -scale IPR infringements.  Following the 2011 MoU on the sale 
of counterfeit goods via the Internet, another MoU was thus opened f or signature on 21 June 2016 
with a view to establishing a code of best practices to combat the sale of counterfeit goods over 
the Internet.  In particular, the signatories committed themselves to offer efficient and effective 
notice and take -down procedure s, and to cooperate with each other, as well as with customs and 
law enforcement authorities.  
 
Question:  
 
1. 50 What is the status of the most recent MOU to establish a code of best practices to combat 
the sale of counterfeit goods over the Internet?   
 
2. 51 More specifically, is it in operation, what kinds of practices does it promote and is there a 
plan to measure its impact and if so, how?  
 
EU reply to questions No 50 and 51:  The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the sale of 
counterfeit goods via the Inter net signed in 2011 (between certain rights -holders and internet 
sales platforms) provided for: (i) Notice and Take Down procedures for online offers which were 
likely to be infringing, (ii) Preventive and Pro -Active measures by the platforms to “filter” pr ior to 
publication of offers of obvious infringing goods and (iii) Commitments to exchange information so 
as to enhance the fight against repeat infringers. The 2016 MoU added specific “Key Performance 
Indicators” ("KPIs") and periods for the collection of  data relating to said indicators, in order to 
objectively measure the impact of the MoU. The new text (including KPIs) was then opened to 
existing and new signatories for signature on 21 June 2016.  
 
The data provided by the stakeholders to the EUIPO Obser vatory relating to the first data 
collection period (15 November – 15 December) has been aggregated by them and will be used as 
a benchmark against which to measure the results of the second data collection period (15 May to 
15 June). After that, the Commi ssion will draft the report mentioned in the text of the 2016 MoU. 
The Commission expects to be in a position to publish this report after the summer.  
 
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR  
Page 139 -140 (Para 4.12 -4.13)  
 
The Secretariat report mentions that greening payments are given to producers that met certain 
requirements.  Farms must be met relating to crop diversification and maintenance of permanent 
grass land, and each holding over 15 ha must have at least 5% of the area designated as an 
"ecological f ocus area". There are also exemptions to these criteria such as for farmers 
participating in the small farmers' scheme, farmers with a large proportion of grassland, and 
farmers that meet the requirements for organic production.  
 
Question:  
 
1. 51 What is the rational to set at 15 ha the threshold for the minimum holding?  
 
EU reply:  The legislator considered that the Ecological Focus Area (EFA) requirement should be 
such as to avoid putting a disproportionate burden on smaller farms in comparison to the 
additio nal enhanced environmental benefit coming from its application.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 288 - 
 
  2. 52 Why do farmers participating in the small farmers’ scheme are exempt from the greening 
payment?  
 
EU reply:  The Small Farmers Scheme (SFS) is a simplified direct payment scheme, replacing ot her 
direct payment schemes including greening. It is optional for Member States, and where 
implemented, it is also optional for farmers.  
 
The share of direct payments available to smaller holdings is rather low (due to the size of such 
holdings). Moreover,  the administrative burden on small farmers is in general disproportionately 
high in relation to the amount of support they receive.  
 
Taking into account these reasons, a specific simplified small farmers' scheme was proposed. Due 
to the characteristics of  such farms it was deemed unnecessary to impose on them additional 
activities beneficial for the environment promoted by the greening payment. For farmers not 
participating in the SFS, the greening scheme has already provided for exemptions linked to the 
size of the holding (e.g. crop diversification and Environmental Focus Areas applicable respectively 
from 10 and 15 hectares).  
 
3. 53 What is the rationale for the organic production to be exempt from the requirement?  
 
EU reply:  By definition, organic agricult ural production is based on farming practices which have 
environmental benefits and contribute de facto to reducing the pressures on natural resources. The 
legislator has therefore considered that there is no need for farmers concerned to fulfil 
supplement ary greening conditions.  
 
4. 54 What are the others case where there is exemption to these criteria?  
 
EU reply:  The other cases are the following:  
 
 Farmers with holders of less than 10 ha are not subject to the crop diversification 
requirement. The reasoning is to be able to take account of the difficulty for small 
farmers to diversify; a requirement would put a disproportionate burden on smaller 
farms in comparison with additional enhanced environmental benefit.  
 Farmers whose holdings are fully or partly located in areas covered by the Birds and 
Habitats Directives or the Water Framework Directive are exempt where the greening 
practices in the holding concerned are not compatible with the objectives of these 
Directives.  
 Farmers managing a predominant share  of their farm as grassland, fallow land, 
leguminous crops, crops under water (Environmental Focus Areas/EFA, crop 
diversification); leguminous crops (EFA)  
 Farmers in areas with natural constraints in countries with a predominant forest area 
(EFA)  
 
The rea son behind these provisions is that they cover farmers considered 'green by definition' 
because their practices are considered to yield at least the same environmental benefit or where 
application of the greening rules would run contrary to its objectives e.g. lead to land 
abandonment.  
 
Page 141 (Para 4.18)  
 
The Secretariat report specifies that “in general, coupled support was limited to 8 or 13% of the 
national ceiling, plus an additional 2% for protein crops. For coupled support greater than these 
limits , approval from the Commission was required. Malta's allocation of 57.2% arises from a 
derogation allowing a member State to use €3 million for voluntary coupled support.”  
 
Question:  
 
1. 55 Could the European Union specify on what basis this €3 million deroga tion was allowed?  
 
EU reply:  Specific rules apply to Malta due to the small size of the country and the structure of its 
agricultural sector. Owing to in particular the limited size of the national ceiling for direct payments 
available to Malta that result s from this situation, the application of the percentages fixed by the WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 289 - 
 
  Regulation would have not allowed Malta to finance and implement the voluntary coupled support 
scheme in an effective way.  
 
2. 56 What are the steps for a country to get approval from the Commission to go over the limit?   
 
EU reply:  Member States may decide to use more than 13% (+ 2%) of their annual national 
ceiling for direct payments to voluntary coupled support under certain specific conditions that are 
described in Article 53(4) of Reg ulation (EU) No 1307/2013. In substance, only Member States 
which used more than 10% of their direct payment budget for certain purposes (see the 
exhaustive list in that Article) in the period 2010 -2014, have the possibility to decide to use more 
than 13% (+ 2%) for Voluntary Coupled Support.  
 
As the pre -condition is linked to former use of the national direct payment budget, it is controlled 
by the Commission based on financial implementation data.  
 
The allocation by a Member State of more than 13% (+ 2%) to Voluntary Coupled Support 
requires approval of the Commission. This approval is only granted if, beyond the general 
requirements for any Voluntary Coupled Support measure, the Member State also demonstrates, 
as an additional requirement, that the increa sed level of support is necessary because of one of 
the specific 'support needs' listed under Article 55 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013.  
 
Verification that the notified Member State decision of Voluntary Coupled Support meets the 
respective requirements o f the EU law (i.e. objective, specific needs, etc.) is performed by the 
Commission. The approval is only granted if the result of this assessment is positive.  
 
Page 146 (Table  4.8) 
 
It is noted that farmers in the beef and veal, milk and milk products, pig, sheep and goat meat 
sectors received €420 million from the European Union in 2015.  
 
Question:  
 
1. 57 On September 7, 2015, the European Union announced a €500 million comprehensive 
package of measures to support European farmers. Could the European Union indicate if the 
€420 million aid package is part of that comprehensive package? If so, could the European 
Union also indicate how the remaining €80 million were allocated?  
 
EU reply: Indeed, the €420 million aid is part of the €500 million comprehensive package.  
The remaining €80 million have been allocated as follows:  
 €30 million for stocks distributed as emergency food aid  
 The remainder under private storage schemes for dairy produc ts and pig meat with a 
budget of:  
o €11 million for an enhanced private storage scheme for SMP;  
o €10 million for private storage for cheese;  
o €29 million for private storage for pigmeat.  
 
2. 58 What share of the €420 million went to dairy producers? Had all funds  been dispersed by 
June 30, 2016?  
 
EU reply: 74% out of the €420 million went to dairy producers and 99% of the funds have been 
spent.  
 
Page 146 (Table  4.8) 
 
It is noted that the European Union doubled the intervention limit for SMP in April 2016 and 
subse quently increased it to 350,000 tonnes in June 2016.  
 
Question:  
 
1. 59 Was the 350,000 tonne limit reached? If not, how much was used  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 290 - 
 
  EU reply: No, the limit of 350 000 tonnes was not reached. In 2016, 256 000 tonnes was bought 
in at a fixed price.  
 
Page 146  (Table  4.8) 
 
It is noted that the European Union provided €350 million in exceptional adjustment aid to milk 
producers and farmers in other livestock sectors with possible top -ups from member states. It is 
also noted in the July 18, 2016, press release  that the member states may “[co -fund] up to an 
equal amount”, and that “such top -ups are not considered as a state aid”.  
 
Question:   
 
1. 60 Could the EU confirm that the “top -up” is additional funding to what the member states 
are already receiving as agreed -upon state aid in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)?  
 
EU reply:  The exceptional adjustment aid (€350 million) is funded by the EU and granted 
according to EU rules, namely thos e laid down on the basis of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. 
State aid rules do not apply to payments made by Member States in conformity with measures 
provided for in that Regulation which are partly or fully financed by the Union. Hence, State aid 
rules do not apply to the top -ups funded by Member States in the context of the exceptional 
adjustment aid scheme.  
 
Page 147 (Table  4.9) 
 
It is noted that the European Union provided temporary exceptional aid to producers of milk and 
milk products, beef and veal, a nd pig, sheep, and goat meat.  
 
Question:   
 
1. 61 What percentage of the 2016 aid went to dairy producers?  
 
EU reply:  75% of the exceptional adjustment aid of €350 million went to dairy producers.  
2. 62 Is the 2017 funding data for the whole year or could the amount shown increase?  
 
EU reply:  Under the specified scheme, the amounts indicated in the column '2017' are fixed and 
cannot increase anymore.  
 
Page 152 ( Para 4.45 ) 
 
The secretary report specifies that the fill rates for the 122 tariff quotas “varied considerably with 
37 fully, or very nearly filled (over 90%), another 11 were 50 -90% filled, another 39 less than half 
filled, and 35 had no in -quota imports reported.”  
 
Question:  
 
1. 63  Could the European Union please explain why a significant portion of  their tariff quotas are 
under fill?  
 
EU reply:  The EU would refer to the answer provided to question 2.16 under Paragraph 3.45.  
Page 179 ( Para 4.144 ) 
 
It is noted that the EU’s new port regulation is applicable only to 319 main seaports.  
 
1. 64 Are the 319 ports that are subject to the new port regulation both public and private? If 
so, please provide a breakdown detailing how many are public, how many are private, and how 
many are hybrid public -private.  
 
EU reply:  87% of ports are publicly owned, 7% ha ve mixed public -private ownership and 6% 
have private ownership.  
 
 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 291 - 
 
  Page 179 ( Para 4.146 ) 
 
It is noted that EU Member States are encouraged to introduce Pilot Exemption Certificates (PECs) 
in order to improve efficiency in ports.  
 
Question:  
 
1. 65 Will non -EU Member State entities and operators be included as recipients of the Pilot 
Exemption Certificates?   
 
EU reply:  At the moment there is no EU legislation or on -going proposal for any EU legislation on 
Pilot Exemption Certificates.  
 
2. 66 What will be the criteria to identify those who will be eligible to receive PECs?  
 
EU reply : Please refer to the reply to question 65. The study on Pilotages Exemption Certificates 
provides information on the national requirements:  
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/maritime/studies/doc/2012 -09-18-
pec.pdf . 
 
3. 67 the EU have a common pilotage servic es regime, or do individual Member States have 
their own regimes?  
 
EU reply:  At EU level, the Port Service Regulation imposes the transparency of funding of pilotage 
and the obligation to consult the users of pilotage. For pilotage services which are not e xposed to 
effective competition, the Regulation requires the charges levied to be set in a non -discriminatory 
way and to be proportionate to the costs of the services provided. Other aspects such as the 
conditions for market access, to become a pilot or op erational rules are determined at EU Member 
State level or fall under the responsibility of individual port authorities.  
 
4. 68 In order to provide pilotage services in the EU, do individual pilots need to be a member 
of a designated pilotage organization?   
 
EU reply : Please refer to the reply to question 67 and the study mentioned in the reply to 
question 66. There is no common approach in the EU in this area.  
 
Page 179 ( Para 4.150 ) 
 
It is noted that the second objective of the new port regulation is increased financial transparency.  
 
Question:  
 
1. 69 Do the provisions of the new port regulation on increased financial transparency refer to 
procurement of goods and services, or only the overall management of the port?  
 
EU reply:  Yes, the transparency rules apply to all public funding in ports, be it to the port 
authorities, port services providers or any other entities including public funding awarded through 
public procurement, for instance, for dredging works.  
 
2. 70 Do the provisions of the new port  regulation on increased financial transparency also 
apply to private operators (not associated with the port) providing cargo handling services, 
passenger services, pilotage and dredging services?  
 
EU reply:  Yes, when undertakings provide port services in cluding cargo -handling, passengers or 
others or dredging in a port service and receive public funds, the transparency rules apply 
regardless of the private or public ownership of the undertakings.  
 
71 Does the EU have a separate policy framework or specifi c directives regarding the support, 
management or operation of passenger ferry services? If so, please provide a reference or link.  
 
EU reply:  As regards cabotage, Council Regulation 3577/92 applying the principle of freedom to 
provide services to maritim e transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) is relevant for WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 292 - 
 
  passenger ferry services. This Regulation allows EU shipowners using ships registered and flagged 
in one of the EU Member States to carry out cabotage operations (maritime transport of 
passengers and goods between two ports in one EU Member State) in any other EU Member State. 
It also allows EU Member States to impose restrictions on the freedom to provide maritime 
transport services to ensure the connectivity of islands. In particular, th ey may organise, under 
certain conditions, public ferry services through public service obligations or public service 
contracts with or without compensation.  
 
Safety requirements for passenger ships, including ferries, are set out in Directive 2009/45, 
Directive 2003/25, Directive 1999/35 and Directive 98/41. In addition, Regulation  392/2009 on 
the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents lays down harmonised rules 
on liability and insurance for shipping companies and aims at an  adequate level of compensation 
should an accident occur.  
 
Page 180 ( Para 4.153 ) 
 
It is noted that the GBER enables Member States to implement state aid measures without prior 
Commission approval because they are unlikely to distort competition.  
 
Question:   
 
1. 72 Regarding state aid to ports and airports, please describe examples of measures that 
would not distort competition and the service areas to which they apply.  
 
EU reply: When assessing the existence of aid, one of the elements the European Commission 
takes into account the effect of the measure on competition and trade between EU Member States. 
If a measure does not distort competition or is not liable to affect trade, there is no State aid 
involved. Public support for small airports or port s was e.g. not considered aid when it 
predominantly served local users, thereby limiting competition for the services offered at local 
level, and for which the impact on cross -border investment is genuinely no more than marginal.  
 
For further details, we r efer to the Notion of aid Communication:  
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/modernisation/notice_aid_en.html . 
 
The distortion of competition also plays a role  when assessing the compatibility of aid. There, the 
European Commission balances negative effects of the aid on trade and competition in the 
common market with its positive effects in terms of a contribution to the achievement of well -
defined objectives o f common interest. Common principles applicable to the assessment of 
compatibility of all aid measures carried out by the Commission are: (a) contribution to a well -
defined objective of common interest; (b) need for State intervention; (c) appropriateness of the 
aid measures; (c) incentive effect; (d) proportionality of the aid; (e) avoidance of undue negative 
effects on competition and trade between EU Member States; and (f) transparency of aid.  
 
These common principles apply for the assessment of State aid to both ports and airports.  
 
As regards State aid to ports, the European Commission has in the past approved State aid for 
port infrastructure. Examples of recent decision:  
 
(1) a decision app roving an aid for investment in logistics centre in the Port of Pitea in Sweden 
(http://ec.europa.eu /competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA _46749 ); (2) a 
decision approving an infrastructure development project in the Port of Brest in France 
(http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_det ails.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_45521  (3) a 
decision approving an aid for the construction of a new breakwater and the extension of an 
existing one in the port of Sassnitz in Germany  
(http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_45849 ). 
 
As regards State aid to airports,  the European Commission issued in 2014 Guidelines on State aid 
to airports and airlines.  These Guidelines detail how the European Commission applies the 
common principles for investment and operating aid to airports, as well as start -up aid to airlines. 
Examples of recent decisions:  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 293 - 
 
  (1) a decision approving an operating aid to the Lappeenran ta airport in Finland 
(http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_44097 ) (2) a 
decision approving an Start -up aid for new r outes from/to Calabria in Italy 
(http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_46709 ).  
 
Furthermore, in May 2017, the Commiss ion adopted changes to the General Block Exemption 
Regulation (GBER) in order to allow for an exemption of certain public support measures to ports 
and airports from notification to the European Commission.  
 
All European Commission's decisions on State aid  can be found on DG Competition's website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm?clear=1&policy_area_id=3 . 
 
PART III: OTHER QUESTIONS  
 
Nil WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 294 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTI ONS FROM COSTA RICA  
 
PART II: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE TRADE POLICY REPORT BY SECRETARIAT  
Page 37 (paragraph 2.44) Foreign Investment Policy  
 
The EU's comprehensive investment policy is being introduced on a progressive basis so that the  
many member State BITs providing investment protection to European investors will be preserved 
until they are replaced by EU agreements. On 9 January 2013, Regulation (EU) No. 1219/2012 
came into force which established transitional arrangements to mainta in in force existing member 
State BITs until their replacement. This Regulation also allows for the Commission to empower 
member States to negotiate with a third country to amend or conclude a BIT under certain 
conditions. The relatively high number of aut horizations granted shows that member States 
remain active in negotiating BITs.  
 
Question:  
 1 Could the EU further develop in what extent the objectives set out in the Regulation 
No.1219/2012 are still in practice today in the context of the EU's exclusive  trade policy?  
 
EU reply:  The objectives of Regulation 1219/2012 remain fully relevant today. Given that the 
replacement of EU Member State BITs is a gradual process requiring time, there will continue to be 
a need to maintain in force a number of such BIT s until they can be replaced. At the same time, 
the important and diverse interests of the investors of EU Member States make it necessary to 
continue to authorize EU Member States to amend or conclude BITs on an individual basis where 
the EU is not curren tly negotiating, or intending to negotiate, on behalf of the EU as a whole.  
 
 2 Likewise, on what extent in the light of the recent opinion 2/15 of the Court of Justice of 
the European Union, the EU might rethink the objectives set out in Regulation 
No.1219 /2012 on Foreign Investment Policy and how this could impact future trade and 
investment negotiations of the EU with third countries?  
 
EU reply : The scope of EU's competence to sign and conclude trade agreement has been further 
clarified by the Opinion of  the Court of Justice of the European Union, delivered on 16 May 2017, 
as regards areas covered under the Free Trade Agreement with Singapore (Opinion 2/15). The 
Court determined the following areas fall under the Union's exclusive competence: trade in goo ds 
and services; protection of foreign direct investment; IPR; public procurement; competition; trade 
and sustainable development; transparency; State -to-State Dispute Settlement when applied to 
these areas. Only indirect investment (ex. portfolio investme nt) and Investor -to-State dispute 
settlement fall under competence shared with the Member States. The consequences of the 
Opinion 2/15 of the ECJ on future trade and investments agreements are currently under careful 
examination and the EU is not therefore  in a position to give a clear answer to this question at this 
stage.  
 
Page 43 (paragraph 3.18) Electronic systems  
 
The EU has been working towards a single window application for customs to implement a solution 
in a staged  approach. The first stage concer ning the automated validation of supporting 
documents to the customs declaration is well progressed, with the integration of certificates in the 
phytosanitary area. The next stage will include the incorporation of other certificates, permits, and 
licences.  
 
Question:  
 
Page 43 (paragraph 3.18) Electronic systems  
 
The EU has been working towards a single window application for customs to implement a solution 
in a staged approach. The first stage concerning the automated validation of supporting 
documents to the customs declaration is well progressed, with the integration of certificates in the 
phytosanitary area. The next stage will include the incorporation of other certificates, permits, and 
licences.  
 
 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 295 - 
 
  Question:  
 
 3 Will the certificates of origin be included in the next stage?  
 
EU reply : The EU strategy is to firstly focus on the integration in the EU Customs Single Window 
of the certificates hosted in an EU database. Certificates of origin don’t fit in that situation. 
Nevertheless, there are systems developed recently such as the Registered Exporter (REX) system 
which contributes to the modernization of the processing of certificates in the area of origin. REX is 
operational since 1st January 2017 and will allow gradually to phase out the paper based Form-A 
certificates.  
 
Page 60 (paragraph 3.1.7.1) Anti -dumping and anti -subsidy measures  
 
3.62. In 2013, the EU initiated procedures to modernize its trade defense instruments to make 
them more accessible and better targeted to certain unfair trading pract ices. However, the process 
stalled in 2014 but was later revived in 2015, and discussions were still continuing in the Council in 
late 2016.  
 
 4 What specific changes will be made in the context of the modernization of the 
instruments?  
 
EU reply:  The aim o f modernization is to improve efficiency, effectiveness and transparency of the 
EUs TDI. The file has now reached the last stages of the ordinary legislative procedure, the so -
called trilogues. The three institutions (the Commission, the Council, the Europ ean Parliament) 
discuss in order to find a compromise, which will then  become law.  
 
 5 Could the EU please provide more information about which unfair trading practices they 
want to target with the modernization of the instruments?  
 
EU reply:  Modern ization aims at improving the way the EU deals with instances of injurious 
dumping and injurious subsidization.  
 
3.64. Since the inception of the WTO, the EU has been one of the WTO's most significant users 
of trade remedies, as it ranks third overall in terms of  anti-dumping initiations and second 
in terms of countervailing duty initiations. More recently, since 2009, there has been a 
general decline from the historically high levels of measures in force, and they reached a 
historical low in 2012 before rising ag ain in 2013. For 2014, 2015, and 2016, there has 
been a slight increase in new investigations compared with 2013. The number of review 
investigations has fluctuated (Chart 3.2). According to EU calculations, the amount of 
imports subject to trade remedies was 0.25% of total imports in 2015.  
 
 6 Regarding the modernization of the instruments mentioned in paragraph 3.62. Does the 
EU expect an increment in the use of trade remedies? If so, which sectors will be affected?  
 
EU reply : The TDI are  predominantly complaints driven instruments. The number of 
complaints/measures varies depending on which sector presents a duly substantiated complaint at 
any time. This is  impossible to predict. Moderniz ation will have no impact on that.  
 
Page 62 (paragr aph 3.4) Anti -dumping and anti -subsidy investigations initiated by 
product sector.  
3.67. As concerns review investigations, they account for about two thirds of the EU's workload on 
trade remedies. The largest sub -component is attributed to expiry reviews , and EU law provides 
that the measures may stay in place for up to five years, upon which they expire automatically 
unless an expiry review is requested. There was a slight increase in 2016 in the number of expiry 
reviews concluded by confirmation of duti es (71%) compared to 2014 (60%) (Chart 3.5).  
 
 7 Which authority is responsible for conducting the expiry review?  
 
EU reply : The European Commission conducts expiry reviews.  
 
 8 Who is entitled to request the expiry review?  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 296 - 
 
  EU reply : Expiry reviews can be  initiated either ex -officio by the Commission or on the basis of a 
request made by or on behalf of EU producers. Article 11(2) of the EU's basic anti -dumping 
regulation and Article 18(2) of the EU's basic anti -subsidy regulation con tain the relevant legal  
provisi ons.  
 
 9 If after the expiry review the authority decide to extend the measures, for how much 
longer could they apply it?  
 
EU reply : Measures can be extended for a further period of 5 years after the conclusion of an 
expiry review. Article 11(2) o f the EU's basic anti -dumping regulation and Article 18(2) of the EU's 
basic anti -subsidy regulation con tain the relevant legal provisi ons.  
 
Page 84 (paragraph 3.3.2.4 footnote 156) SPS Committee in the WTO  
 
156. Agricultural biotechnology approval process (ID 110), France's ban on Bisphenol A (BPA) (ID 
346), EU phytosanitary measures on citrus black spot (ID 356), EU ban on mangoes and certain 
vegetables from India (ID 374), EU withdrawal of equivalence for processed organic products (ID 
378), EU re vised proposal for categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors (ID 382), EU 
proposal to amend regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 to allow EU member States to restrict or 
prohibit the use of genetically modified food and feed (ID 396), and EU restriction s on exports of 
pork from the State of Santa Catarina (ID 407).  
The Secretariat in its report states that during this period, WTO Members used the SPS Committee 
to raise two new specific trade concerns about measures taken in the EU or a member State and 
referred to eight concerns that had been raised earlier. Also, points out that the EU has also used 
the Committee to raise its concerns in nine cases. In particular, on note foot 156 linked to this 
paragraph, the Secretariat enumerates as one, the EU revis ed proposal for categorization of 
compounds as endocrine disruptors (ID 382)  
 10 Could the EU further develop on the current status and scope of the EU revised 
proposal for endocrine disruptors.  
EU reply:  Following the publication of the draft legal acts s etting criteria to identify endocrine 
disruptors in the context of the Plant Protection Products and Biocidal Products legislation in June 
2016, several consultation processes (EU Member States and experts, stakeholders, non -EU 
countries) took place.  
 
The notified draft acts are undergoing their planned legal procedures. The draft acts under the 
plant protection products legislation need to be voted on by EU Member States. In case of a vote 
in favour of the texts, the European Parliament and the Council hav e the right of scrutiny and the 
acts will eventually be adopted by the Commission if there are no objections from the European 
Parliament and/or Council.  
 
The draft act under the biocidal products legislation is being discussed in an expert group 
appointed  by Member States and will be adopted by the Commission after this consultation with 
experts. The adopted act will then be notified to the European Parliament and to the Council for 
their scrutiny. The act will enter into force if there are no objections f rom the Parliament and/or 
Council.  
 
During the on -going decision making, the Commission revised the draft acts to address the 
comments received. The revised criteria clarify the burden of proof and the scope of the criteria. 
No substantial change was intro duced compared to the notifications submitted to the TBT and/or 
SPS Committee and this is the reason why the EU believes that there was no need to re -notify the 
draft acts.  
 
Moreover, the revised versions of the criteria are published on the Commission's w ebsite57, 
together with the minutes of the meetings with EU Member States and experts, ensuring the 
transparency of the process.  
 
                                                
57 http://ec.europa.eu/health/endocrine_disruptors/next_steps_en . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 297 - 
 
  The last meeting with EU Member States in the pesticides area took place on 30 May 2017 and in 
the biocides area on 7 April 201 7. 
 
At the last meeting with Member States in the pesticides area, no vote on the criteria was taken as 
Member States needed additional time to establish their position and consult internally. A new 
meeting wi th Member States will be organiz ed in the near future.  
 
In order to facilitate the decision -making, in December 2016, the plant protection products act has 
been split into two acts without change in content: one text containing the criteria and another one 
containing the technical amendment to the clau se on negligible exposure. This offers EU Member 
States the possibility to express their opinion on each of them separately. This split also allows the 
Council and European Parliament to consider each draft act separately during the scrutiny period.  
 
The current discussions are focusing on the criteria. However, the Commission has committed 
itself to resume discussions on the amendment to the clause on negligible exposure once the 
criteria are adopted. This proposed amendment allows information on hazard, exposure and risk to 
be considered before a decision is taken on a given substance and is expected to lead to more 
certainty in terms of setting MRLs.  
 
 11 Furthermore, regarding  EU revised proposal for endocrine disruptors proposal,  what 
actions is the EU taking in order to avoid any negative impact or disruptions on exports 
from third countries to the EU?  
EU reply:  The European Union is aware of the potential trade and agricultural impacts the 
proposed criteria might have. Those potential impacts were ana lysed in the impact assessment 
report that was published on 15 June 201658. This impact assessment also informs which active 
substances would be potentially identified under the draft scientific criteria, and which are 
currently identified by the interim cr iteria legally applicable at the moment.  
 
The criteria that are proposed in both draft legal acts, ensure a high level of protection of human 
health and the environment, are based on science, and are proportionate: the proposed criteria 
are based on the in ternationally agreed WHO definition of endocrine disruptors (EDs) which is 
widely supported by governments, scientists and stakeholders. They identify only EDs (neither 
suspected EDs, nor endocrine active substances). The proposed criteria do not include p otency 
(option 4 of the impact assessment), as this is an element of hazard characteriz ation and should 
not be considered at the hazard identification stage of EDs.  
 
In addition, the proposed amendment to the clause on negligible exposure in the context of  the 
plant protection products legislation allows information on hazard, exposure and risk to be 
considered before a decision is taken on a given substance and is expected to lead to more 
certainty in terms of setting MRLs.  
 
Page 96 (paragraph 3.3.4.3) International Cooperation  
 
3.212. The EU has also been supportive of greater multilateral cooperation through the 
International Competition Network (ICN), the UNCTAD Intergovernmental Group of Experts on 
Competition Policy, and the OECD Competition Committ ee. The EU considers that these 
multilateral forums provide an important platform to promote open competition and fight 
protectionism; this enables competition authorities worldwide to respond to cases more efficiently 
through coordinated inspections acros s several jurisdictions.  
 
 12 Could the EU provide more information regarding the mechanism used to coordinate 
inspections across jurisdictions?   
 
EU reply:  The European Commission does not have specific mechanisms in place to coordinate 
inspections with t hird countries. It has signed a large number of competition cooperation 
agreements and administrative arrangement with third countries enabling cooperation with their 
respective competition authorities on a case by case basis.  
 
                                                
58 http://ec.europa.eu/health/endocrine_disruptors/impac t_assessment_en . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 298 - 
 
  The results of mutually arr anged inspections can only be exchanged if the agreement expressly 
empowers the Commission and its counterpart to exchange this highly confidential type of 
information (e.g. EU Swiss cooperation agreement).  
 
For more detailed information on the content of those cooperation and coordination agreements 
and administrative arrangements please refer to our website:  
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/international/bilateral/ . 
 
 13 Does the EU could provide more information or statistics that show that cases have 
been dealt in a more efficient way?  
 
EU reply:  The European Union does not have specific information or statistics showing that in 
those cases in which it has cooperated with other comp etition authorities the cases have been 
dealt with in a more efficient way than otherwise. However, in general terms cooperation in 
enforcement proceedings, and in particular efforts to coordinate inspections across jurisdictions 
can prove very useful, as they may allow to secure or seize evidence of anticompetitive behaviours 
more easily.  
 
PART I:  QUESTIONS REGARDING THE TRADE POLICY REPORT BY SECRETARIAT  
Page 37 (paragraphs 2.42 and 2.44) Foreign Investment Policy  
 
2.43 (…) The  differences between the BITs signed with different partners may be significant, which 
has sometimes led to an uneven playing field for EU companies investing abroad.  
 
2.44. The EU's comprehensive investment policy is being introduced on a progressive basi s so that 
the many member State BITs providing investment protection to European investors will be 
preserved until they are replaced by EU agreements. (…)  
 
Question:  
 
1. 14 Can EU please provide more information about the ways in which these differences 
have created an uneven playing field for EU companies investing abroad and how the new 
policy of the EU will seek to address this?  
 
EU reply:  Whilst EU Member States share a common interest in protecting their investors when 
investing abroad through Bilateral  Investment Treaties (BITs), each country has negotiated on an 
individual basis in the past with third countries, and not on the basis of a common template, hence 
the specific provisions of each BIT will be unique to that context. More generally, a number of 
standards of protection such as non -discrimination (national treatment and most -favoured nation 
treatment), fair and equitable treatment, compensation for expropriation, and freedom of 
transfers, are commonly found in most BITs but the specific wording and thus the rights and 
obligations determined by each provision may differ slightly. The definition of investment covered 
by the agreement may also differ. Most EU Member States BITs foresee investor -state dispute 
settlement, but the specific details as t o scope and coverage may be different. There are also 
additional provisions in relation to investment, including provisions on co -operation, facilitation, 
and the promotion of investment, as well as the applicability to investment contracts of the State, 
which may or may not be addressed in a particular agreement. The result of all these differences is 
that EU investors having a different EU nationality investing in a particular country may be treated 
differently depending upon the specific provisions in ea ch BIT. The new EU policy is to negotiate 
investment protection agreements on behalf of all EU Member States which provide a consistent 
and high level of protection for all EU investors.  
 
2. 15 Can de EU provide more details on the progressive changes in the introduction of the 
policy and if they envisage impact in the EUs investment outflows as changes are 
introduced to BITs?  
 
EU reply:  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 be tween EU Member 
States and third countries will be preserved until they are replaced by EU agreements. Given that 
there are approximately 1400 of these existing BITs, the replacement process will thus be a 
gradual process that takes place over time. Since the new EU agreements often cover both WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 299 - 
 
  investment liberalisation and protection for all EU Member States, it is expected that there is likely 
to be an increase in EU investment outflows to these third countries once a new EU agreement 
enters into force.  
 
Page 169 (paragraph 4.103.) Audiovisual services.  
 
The second element of the proposal is enhanced promotion of European works by: (i) allowing 
member States to impose financial contributions on providers of on -demand services established in 
other member Sta tes (but only on the turnover generated in the imposing country), and (ii) 
requiring on -demand players to promote European content to a limited level through a minimum 
quota obligation (20% share of the audiovisual offer of their catalogues) and an obligat ion to give 
prominence to European works in their catalogues. An exemption from these requirements for low 
turnover companies, thematic services, and small and micro enterprises has been proposed.  
 
Question:  
 
1. 16 Can the European Union please provide more i nformation about the interplay of this 
second element of the proposal and the coproduction agreements in force among the EU 
Members and other non -EU Members?  
 
EU reply:  Articles 1(1)(n), 1(2), 1(3) and 1(4) of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive will  
continue to apply.  
  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 300 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS FROM THE REPUBLIC OF  KOREA  
 
PART I: Questions Regarding the Secretariat Report  
 
Page 32 (Para 2.11.)  
 
On 30 October 2016, the EU and Canada 
signed a Comprehensive Economic and 
Trade Agreement (CETA) alongside the 
Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA). 
The Commission decided to propose CETA 
as a mixed agreement to facilitate its 
adoption in the Council. The  Council gave 
its agreement to CETA and its provisional 
application on 27 October 2016. 
Following the European Parliament's vote 
to approve the agreement on 15 February 
2017, CETA can be provisionally applied. 
Both parties first need to notify each 
other t hat they have completed the 
necessary internal requirements. The 
exact timing for provisional application is 
therefore not yet certain.  Question 1  
 
Considering the ECJ’s opinion on the competence 
between the EU and the Member States with regard 
to the EU-Singapore FTA which was recently 
published, the European Commission might clearly 
be aware of the provisions of the EU -Canada CETA 
which will be provisionally applied. Please specify the 
provisions which have to wait for the ratification 
procedures of t he Member States.  
 
EU reply : The exclusion from provisional application 
of certain provisions of CETA stands separate from 
the ECJ's opinion on the EU -Singapore FTA: It is the 
Council decision of 28 October 2016 on the 
provisional application of CETA (see at http://eur -
lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv: 
OJ.L_ .2017.  011.01.1080.01.ENG) that stipulates 
what provisions of CETA are excluded from 
provisional application.  
 
The exclusions conce rn mostly issues that are 
normally excluded from provisional application (in 
particular issues which are, at least in the view of 
Member States, of exclusive national competence), 
as well as areas of shared competence that are new 
as compared with past pra ctice. These consist of:  
 
1) Investment protection;  
2) Investment market access with regards to 
portfolio investment (whereas market access with 
regards to foreign direct investment is clearly an 
exclusive EU competence under article 207 TFEU);  
3) Investm ent Court System;  
4) Camcording article.  
 
With regards to trade and sustainable development, 
labour and environment, the Council decision 
includes wording that allows for provisional 
application of those chapters respecting the 
allocation of competences be tween the Union and the 
Member States.  
Page 32 (Para 2.12.)  
 
The European Commission took note of 
the outcome of the U.K. referendum on 
EU membership held in June 2016.4 The 
Commission has set up a taskforce that 
will take charge of preparing and 
conducti ng Brexit negotiations with the 
U.K., taking account of the framework for 
the U.K.'s future relationship with the EU.  
 Question 2  
 
The EU seems to have a two -step approach 
regarding the Brexit. It sometimes showed its 
intention that the negotiation on the  future 
relationship can be considered only after the 
withdrawal negotiation. However it is very difficult to 
imagine that the withdrawal can be completed 
without taking account of the future relationship in 
particular in terms of trade relation.  
 
Please p rovide information of the EU’s efforts 
regarding any impact assessment or evaluation on 
the possible future trade relationship between the EU 
and the UK. At the moment, DG Trade or any other 
DG of the European Commission does not seem WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 301 - 
 
  much involved with th e Brexit issue.  
 
 EU reply:  The EU would like to refer to its 
positions expressed during the meetings and to 
replies already provided to Members before the 
meeting: on 29 March 2017, the UK Government 
formally notified the European Council of its 
intention to withdraw from the European Union 
pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on European 
Union. An agreement on the UK's withdrawal will 
be negotiated following the rules established in 
the Treaty on European Union (TEU).  
 On 29 April 2017 the European Council  adopted 
guidelines defining the framework for negotiations 
under Article 50 TEU and setting out the overall 
positions and principles that the Union will pursue 
throughout the negotiation. The adoption of the 
European Council guidelines was followed by a 
Commission proposal on 3 May for a Council 
Decision authorising the Commission to open 
negotiations, and proposing negotiating 
directives. The Council Decision including 
negotiating directives were adopted on 22 May by 
the Council of the European Union.   
 Negotiations will start after the general elections 
in the UK on 8 June. They will focus in a first 
phase on the withdrawal arrangements notably on 
citizens' rights, financial settlement and new 
external borders. An agreement must be reached 
by October 2018,  in order to allow for the 
ratification process to be completed and the UK to 
withdraw from the Union by the end of the two -
year deadline, at the end of March 2019.  
 Until its withdrawal, the UK remains a Member 
State of the European Union with all rights and 
obligations of a Member State. The EU Treaties 
continue to apply to the UK and in the UK during 
that period. Until its withdrawal, the  UK continues 
to be bound by the Union's exclusive competence 
in respect of the common commercial policy 
pursuant to A rticle 3 of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union and, more 
generally, the principle of sincere cooperation 
pursuant to Article 4(3) TEU.  
 The EU will engage with the UK in a cooperative 
manner in order to guarantee an orderly process 
leading up to the withdrawal of the UK from the 
EU.  
 The EU will revert to the WTO Membership after 
engaging with the UK bilaterally on any WTO 
related aspect o f the UK's withdrawal from the 
EU. 
Page 33 (Para 2.16.)  
 
Furthermore, the EU wants to integrate 
investment rules, including liberalization 
and protection provisions, into its broader 
trade agreements; prior to the entry into 
force of the Lisbon Treaty, investment Question 3  
 
Although the Lisbon Treaty entered into force in 
2009, the investment dispute settlement system is 
not in the area of exclusive competence of the 
European Commission and the relevant provisions in 
the EU -Canada CETA will not be provisionally applied. WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 302 - 
 
  protection agreements were negotiated 
exclusively  by EU member States. A 
significant challenge for the EU's 
reformed investment policy is to ensure 
dispute settlement procedures are fair 
and independent; this challenge is being 
addressed through the implementation of 
a new approach of clarifying the 
substance of investment protection 
standards and reforms with respect to the 
traditional investor -state dispute 
settlement system, as reflected in 
recently concluded FTAs with Canada and 
Viet Nam.  
 Moreover, the ratification procedures of the Member 
States are expected to be tough and take a long time 
considering that many regional governments are still 
against the Agreement.  
 
How does the European Commission evaluate future 
prospects of the national ratification procedures and 
does it have any policy me asures to facilitate the 
ratification processes of the Member States for the 
CETA?  
 
EU reply : So-called mixed trade agreements (i.e., 
including provisions of shared competences between 
the EU and the Member States) such as CETA, only 
enter into force fully  and definitively when all EU 
Member States (MS) have ratified the Agreement. 
The Commission works closely with the EU Member 
States to ensure a smooth and effective 
implementation of CETA and provides, where 
Member States so require, all necessary assista nce 
to facilitate the national ratification processes.  
 
Page 33 (Para 2.17.)  
 
The new trade policy addresses growing 
concerns of the general public on 
transparency and perceived challenges to 
certain societal values. For example, the 
EU reiterates that an y agreement it 
negotiates will not require EU member 
States to reduce the level of any public 
services such as water, education, health 
and social services. The Commission will 
encourage the Council to disclose 
negotiating mandates, publish draft 
chapters submitted to its negotiating 
partner, and reveal finalized texts earlier 
(even before the so -called "legal 
scrubbing" of texts). It will also step up 
its efforts to promote a fact -based debate 
within the member States and enhance 
its dialogue with civil so ciety. 
Significantly, the EU also wants to do 
more to show the impact of an FTA after 
it has been applied. In the area of trade 
defence, the Commission has undertaken 
to make non -confidential versions of 
complaints and review requests more 
available on an improved, dedicated 
website, starting in the first half of 2016.  
 Question 4  
 
It is well noted that the European Commission has 
focused on how to deal with the growing concerns of 
the general public and a lot of information on the 
trade negotiations the EU is involved in has been 
published.  
 
However, transparency in the area of tra de 
negotiation might conflict with the EU’s interest in 
the sense that even the EU ’s counterpart can easily 
analys e the EU’s negotiating strategy. Or in some 
cases, the EU’s counterpart may not want to reveal 
negotiation related information to the public.  
4 What are the criteria between transparency and 
confidentiality for the European Commission?  
 
5 Do you have any specific cases and what was your 
solution?  
 
EU reply : Indeed, an adequate balance needs to be 
maintained between greater transparency and the 
need to preserve the Commission's ability to 
negotiate with third countries. The commitments on 
transparency taken in "Trade for All" strike such a 
balance while recognising that transparency is 
fundamental to better regulation and to ensure the 
legitimacy  of EU trade policy and public trust. More 
specifically, the European Commission committed 
itself to apply transparency to all stages of the 
negotiating cycle from the setting of objectives to the 
negotiations themselves and during the post -
negotiation pha se. Since then much more 
information, EU negotiating texts and other 
documents on the EU's trade negotiations, such as 
round reports, are made publicly available. The 
Commission is confident that the type of information 
made public strikes that right balan ce between 
transparency and confidentiality. With respect to 
potential sensitivities of the EU's negotiating WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 303 - 
 
  partners, the Commission for example is committed 
to explain to all new partners from the beginning 
what transparency commitments are to be expecte d. 
At the same time, the Commission also takes the 
necessary measures to ensure the position of 
negotiating partners is protected as appropriate.  
 
Page 35 (Para 2.28.)  
 
As noted above, regarding the draft 
agreement for a comprehensive FTA with 
Singapore,  the Commission is awaiting 
the ECJ's opinion on the question of EU 
competence to sign and ratify the FTA. 
Regarding the EU -Viet Nam FTA, for 
which negotiations were concluded, the 
legal review of the text is under way and 
is due to be presented to the Cou ncil for 
ratification and to the European 
Parliament for consent in 2017. Also 
during the review period, as already 
noted, the CETA agreement was signed in 
October 2016 (see paragraph 2.11 
above).  Question 5  
 
The ECJ published its opinion on the question of EU 
competence with regard to the EU -Singapore FTA. 
Now that portfolio investment and Investor -State 
Dispute Settlement are clearly in the areas of shared 
competence between the EU and the Member States, 
6 do you still want to replace the ISDS provisions 
with the EU’s initiative on the investment court 
system?  
 
EU Reply : The EU practice is to propose the 
establishment of bilateral Investment Court Systems 
(ICS) as part of all EU agreements that contain 
provis ions on investment protection. In line with 
Regulation EU No 1219/2012 of 22 December 2012, 
such EU agreements will replace existing bilateral 
investment treaties that may have been concluded 
between EU Member States and the third country 
concerned, includ ing the ISDS  provisions contained 
therein.  
 
7 Moreover, regarding the negotiations which are 
underway, such as the EU -Japan FTA, is there any 
possibility for the form of the text to be a EU -only 
agreement instead of a mixed agreement?  
 
EU Reply: The European Commission is in the 
process of analyzing the outcome of the Court's 
Opinion and will reflect and discuss in detail its 
implications with the EU Member States and with the 
European Parliament.  
Page 35 (Para 2.31.)  
 
The EU has also launched negoti ations for 
stand -alone bilateral investment treaties 
with China and Myanmar. Negotiations 
for a comprehensive EU -China 
investment agreement aim to replace the 
27 existing BITs between individual EU 
member States and China with one 
comprehensive investment agreement.  
 Question 6  
 
8 Does the European Commission expect the EU -
China investment agreement to include the 
investment court system?  
 
9 What are the main problems of t he existing 27 
BITs with China?  
 
EU reply  to questions 8 and 9  The EU proposes to 
establish a bilateral Investment Court System (ICS) 
for the resolution of investment disputes under the 
EU-China Bilateral Investment Agreement. The 
negotiation of this agreement is currently ongoing.  
When launching the negotiations for a bilateral 
investm ent agreement with China, the EU and China 
agreed to a high level of ambition that goes beyond 
the scope of EU Member States' BITs with China. In 
January 2016, it was notably agreed that the future 
deal should improve market access opportunities for 
invest ors, guaranteeing non -discriminatory practices 
and address key challenges of the regulatory 
environment, including those related to WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 304 - 
 
  transparency, licensing and authorisation procedures, 
and include rules on environmental and labour -
related dimensions of fo reign investment. The 
investment protection provisions of the agreement 
will be up -to-date and reflect the EU's new approach 
to investment protection.  
 
Page 35 (Para 2.32.)  
 
As from 2017, an annual report on the 
implementation of the EU FTAs will be 
produ ced. The reports are intended to 
give greater visibility and coherence to 
the work already under way in this area 
for each individual FTA in place between 
the EU and a given third -country or 
region.  
 Question 7  
 
The European Commission has already present ed its 
annual monitoring report on the implementation of 
the Korea -EU FTA to the European Parliament and 
the Council.  
 
10 What will be the difference between the annual 
report to be produced as from 2017 and the existing 
ones?  
 
EU reply:  The annual report on implementation of 
the EU -Korea Free Trade Agreement only covers this 
specific Agreement. The Annual Report on 
Implementation of Free Trade Agreements that will 
be adopted for the first time in 2017 will take stock 
on implementation of  all EU FTAs, including that of 
Korea.  
 
Page 35 (Para 2.43.)  
 
In negotiations, the EU deals with 
investment rules both in free trade 
agreements with third countries, for 
example with Canada and Singapore, and 
also in stand -alone investment 
agreements, fo r example with China and 
Myanmar. With respect to such 
agreements, one as yet unresolved 
question concerns which aspects of 
investment now fall under exclusive EU 
competence: on the one hand there is the 
view that the common commercial policy 
covers only f oreign direct investment and 
not portfolio investments; on the other 
hand, there is the view that the EU 
derives an implicit exclusive competence 
on portfolio investments from third 
countries from a rule in the internal 
market prohibiting the introduction of 
barriers at member State level to capital 
and payment flows from third countries.  
 Question 8  
 
11Are there any more unsolved questions concerning 
the EU’s competences after the ECJ’s opinion on the 
EU-Singapore FTA?  
 
EU reply : The EU has clarified the  issue during its 
interventions in the TPR meetings in Geneva. In its 
Opinion of 16 May 2017, the Court of Justice of the 
European Union provided clarity about the repartition 
of the competences between the Union and its 
Member States with regard to the ar eas covered 
under the Free Trade Agreement with Singapore 
(Opinion 2/15). The Court determined the following 
areas fall under the Union's exclusive competence: 
trade in goods and services; protection of foreign 
direct investment; IPR; public procurement; 
competition; trade and sustainable development; 
transparency; State -to-State Dispute Settlement 
when applied to these areas. Only indirect 
investment (ex. portfolio investment) and Investor -
to-State dispute settlement fall under competence 
shared with the M ember States.  
 
12Does the European Commission expect any change 
on its trade policy considering the division of 
competences in the investment negotiations?  
 
EU reply: As stated above (question No 7), the 
European Commission is in the process of analyzing 
the outcome of the Court's Opinion and will reflect 
and discuss in detail its implications with the EU 
Member States and with the European Parliament.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 305 - 
 
  Page 35 (Para 2.44.)  
 
The EU's comprehensive investment 
policy is being introduced on a 
progressive basis so that the many 
member State BITs providing investment 
protection to European investors will be 
preserved until they are replaced by EU 
agreements. On 9 January 20 13, 
Regulation (EU) No. 1219/2012 came into 
force which established transitional 
arrangements to maintain in force 
existing member State BITs until their 
replacement. This Regulation also allows 
for the Commission to empower member 
States to negotiate with  a third country 
to amend or conclude a BIT under certain 
conditions. The relatively high number of 
authorizations granted shows that 
member States remain active in 
negotiating BITs.  
 Question 9  
 
13 Does the EU have any examples of amendments 
to the existi ng BITs between Member States and 
third countries in recent years?  
 
EU reply : Based on Regulation (EU) No. 1219/2012, 
the Commission has authorised a number of Member 
States to open formal negotiations to amend the 
bilateral investment agreements with thir d countries 
and some of these negotiations have been concluded 
and led to Commission's implementing decision 
authorising Member States to sign and conclude 
protocols amending their bilateral investment 
agreements. This process is internal to the EU. 
Follow ing their authorisation by the Commission, 
these protocols are then subject to ratification and 
publication according to the constitutional and 
legislative procedures of the Member State in 
question.  
 
Page 76 (Para 3.126.)  
 
Existing legislation has been reviewed to 
bring it in line with NLF concepts, see Box 
3.2. The date of applicability depends on 
the product category. Where products are 
not regulated by specific EU technical 
legislation, they are always subject to the 
EU's General Product Safety Directive127 
as well as to possible additional national 
requirements.  
 Question 10  
 
Although the Radio equipment Directive 2014/53/EU 
was scheduled to be applied as from June 2017, the 
European Commission and ESOs did not complete its 
production of harmonized standards.  
 
14 Does the EU have any plan in mind to lessen the 
burden on related industries?  
 
EU Reply : The extension of the transitional period 
provided for in Article 48 of the Radio Equipment 
Directive (RED) is a power of the co -legislators. The 
transitional period has not been extended.  Hence 
manufacturers can bring new radio equipment to the 
market (i .e. after 12 June 2017) if it complies with 
the requirements set in the RED.  
In any case, the application of harmonised standards 
is voluntary, manufacturers can use any technical 
specification to demonstrate that the radio 
equipment complies with all nece ssary requirements.  
For the essential performance requirements and use 
of radio spectrum laid down in Articles 3.2 and 3.3, a  
Notified Body shall be involved, if alternative 
specifications are applied (for example due to the 
fact that harmonised standards do not exist).  
Notified Bodies (the list of notified bodies can be 
found on the Commission website, NANDO) have the 
capacities to perform these tasks."  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 306 - 
 
  Page 123 (Para 3.308.)  
 
According to the 2016 EUIPO report 
referred to above, nearly 3,400 EU GI 
names are registered in four databases 
maintained by the European Commission. 
In addition, in December 2016, the 
EUIPO database listed about another 
1,500 third -country GIs that are 
protected pursuant to bilateral 
agreements concluded by the EU with a 
numb er of countries.  
 Question 11  
 
15 Does the EU have any bilateral mechanism of 
consultation or dispute settlement in the agreements 
concluded with third countries to allow the 
counterpart governments to intervene in the case of 
infringement on the 1,500 thi rd-country GIs?  
 
EU reply:  The bilateral Free Trade Agreements the 
EU has concluded with third countries, only cover GIs 
from the EU or the counterpart, not from other third 
countries. Usually the provisions of an FTA apply 
between two countries, meaning t hat other third 
countries have no rights to intervene. Nevertheless, 
when the GIs to be protected under the FTA are 
published for opposition, any interested party can 
submit comments  
 
PART II: Questions Regarding the Government Report  
 
Page 16 (Para 4.32.)  
 
The new approach aims to 
increase citizens' confidence 
in the system by establishing 
an investment court system 
built on similar principles to 
domestic and international 
courts, and subject to 
democratic principles and 
public scrutiny. In parallel,  
together with other 
interested partners, the EU is 
pursuing the concept of 
setting up a multilateral 
investment court. The idea is 
that, over time, such a 
multilateral investment court 
could replace the bilateral 
investment court systems 
included in EU ag reements 
and the investment dispute 
settlement mechanisms 
included in EU Member 
States' investment treaties, 
as well as those included in 
investment treaties 
concluded between third 
countries.  
 Question 1 16  
 
Considering that there are objections even in the EU against the 
investment court system proposal, it will be very difficult to 
conclude a multilateral agreement between the WTO member 
countries.  
 
Why does the EU want to make a whole new system instead of 
just enhancing the existing ISDS in spite of a lot of opposition in 
and out of the EU?  
 
EU reply : The Investment Court Systems (ICS), which 
institutionalise the systems of investment dispute settlement at 
the bilateral level, are part of the EU policy regarding the 
resolution of investment disputes.  The ICS are understood to 
constitute first steps toward the full institutionalisation of such a 
system at the multilateral level.  The EU considers that traditional 
unreformed ISDS provisions no longer meet citizens' 
expectations and therefore lack the nec essary legitimacy, 
especially when issues of public policy are at stake. Small 
changes to the existing system will not be sufficient to restore 
the trust of European citizens in the legitimacy of international 
investment dispute resolution. This is why the  EU, together with 
other partners such as Canada, has proposed to engage into a 
broader reform process of the existing system of investment 
dispute settlement at the multilateral level.  On 10 July 2017, the 
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law 
(UNCITRAL) agreed to initiate work on possible multilateral 
reform of investment dispute settlement which may include the 
possible establishment of a multilateral investment court.  
Page 17 (Para 4.36.)  
 
At a bilateral level, the EU 
integrates labour and 
environmental considerations 
when negotiating its trade 
agreements, through a 
dedicated chapter on trade 
and sustainable development. 
Recent bilateral agreements 
with such chapters include 
those with Canada, South Question 2 17  
 
The EU -Canada CETA will enter into force soon and the Eur opean 
Commission has to take care of the implementation of the 
agreement. What issues is the EU mainly interested in with 
regard to the trade and sustainable development of the CETA 
implementation?  
 
EU reply : CETA includes a dedicated and binding dispute 
settlement mechanism for the enforcement of the Sustainable 
Development chapters. It includes a time bound dispute 
settlement procedure which is inclusive and transparent – WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 307 - 
 
  Korea, Central America, 
Colombia, Peru  and Ecuador, 
Singapore, Ukraine, Georgia 
and Moldova. Trade and 
Sustainable Development 
chapters include 
commitments to ratify and 
effectively implement 
fundamental International 
Labour Organization 
conventions and Multilateral 
Environmental Agreements, 
as well as commitments to 
provisions on the 
conservation and sustainable 
management of natural 
resources (e.g. timber, fish 
and wildlife), and the 
promotion of practices 
favouring sustainable 
development and responsible 
business practices. They also 
aim to prevent the risk of a 
race to the bottom, by 
prohibiting derogations from 
or lack of enforcement of 
domestic environmental or 
labour laws in order to 
encourage trade and 
investment.  
 involving governments, external experts, civil society and other 
independent bodies s uch as the ILO. The mechanism included in 
CETA reflects the current position of the EU on this matter, one 
which has been unanimously supported by MS.  
 
Both, the Canadian government and the European Commission 
have signaled their intention to exercise the review clause for 
these provisions soon after provisional application. The 
Commission has opened an inclusive debate with EU stakeholders 
on the overall approach of the EU on the issue (for more 
information, see at 
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1689 ). The 
results of this debate should feed into the discussions with 
Canada on CETA.  
 
Page 23 (Para 4.91.)  
 
The negotiations for a 
comprehensive free trade 
agreement with Singapore 
were completed in October 
2014. The European 
Commission is currently 
waiting for an opinion of the 
European Court of Justice on 
the EU’s competence to sign 
and ratify the agreement 
before the approval 
procedure of the agreement 
is launched.  
 Question 3 .18 
 
Now that the ECJ published its opinion on the EU -Singapore FTA, 
both parties have to pursue the remaining procedures. However 
the text of the agreement seems to have to be modified 
considering the change of policy environment for the past three 
years. What parts of the text will be changed?  
 
EU reply: The EU and Singapore are currently discussing 
together possible ways to adjust the provisions of the investment 
chapter of the EU -Singapore Free Trade Agreement to reflect the 
most recent policy evolutions on both sides.  
 
Page 23 (Para 4.94.)  
 
Negotiations between the EU 
and the U.S. for a 
Transatlantic Trade and 
Investment Partnership 
(TTIP), launched in 2013, 
continued during the ye ars 
under review. Fifteen rounds 
of talks had taken place by 
October 2016. The 
negotiations were launched in 
order to contribute to 
addressing the challenges of 
today's global trading Question 4 .19 
What does the EU assess as the main obstacles in resuming the 
TTIP negotiation with the US?  
 
EU reply : The EU stays committed to ensuring a strong trade 
and investment relationship with the US. The economic and 
strategic case for TTIP stands. However, before resuming the 
TTIP negotiations, there is a need for clarity that there is 
sufficient common ground f or taking the negotiations to 
conclusion in a balanced manner.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 308 - 
 
  environment, to deliver 
growth, including in third 
countries' markets an d to 
reinforce the transatlantic 
partnership.  
 
Page 23 (Para 4.97.)  
 
Negotiations for an 
Association Agreement – 
deepening and expanding the 
existing Agreement – were 
launched in June 2016 with 
Mexico. In 2016, the EU also 
reactivated it s negotiations 
with Mercosur.  
 Question 5 20  
 
What parts of the existing EU -Mexico Association Agreement will 
be amended?  
 
EU reply:  The EU and Mexico are negotiating for modernizing all 
the parts of the Agreement.  
 
21 What areas does the EU put emphasis on and what areas do 
the both sides have broad discrepancies of position?  
 
EU reply: Overall, Mexico and the EU share the same objectives 
and the same level of ambition for modernizing the Agreement. 
All the textual proposals have been presented by the Parties. 
Although the Parties are gradually converging towards a common 
consolidated position, all the areas are still object of discussions.  
 
  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 309 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM PERU  
1. El párrafo 3.90 del Informe de la Secretaría indica que los gobiernos de los países de la 
Unión Europea apoyan la actividad exportadora en ese país a través del otorgamiento de créditos 
para la exportación, bajo la forma de préstamos a compradores extranjeros, garantías de 
préstamos, seguros de crédito a la exporta ción, entre otros.  
 
1¿Bajo qué condiciones (tasas de interés, facilidades de repago, requisitos exigidos a los 
solicitantes) se otorgaron tales créditos? Respecto a las condiciones bajo las cuales se otorgan 
2¿cómo difieren tales condiciones (cuánto más be neficiosas son) respecto de aquellos que ofrece 
la banca comercial en la Unión Europea por productos financieros equivalentes?  
 
EU reply : For medium and long term export credit transactions, the Export Credit Agencies of 
European Member States have to app ly at least the financing conditions of the OECD Arrangement 
on Officially Supported Export Credits (minimum interest rates, minimum risk premium, maximum 
repayment terms etc). Some even apply stricter financing conditions. The preferred export credit 
instrument used by European Export Credit Agencies continues to be "pure cover" whereby the 
Export Credit Agency provides an insurance or guarantee -type cover for a credit which is actually 
provided by a commercial bank. There is not really a private market fo r the services offered by 
Export Credit Agencies in the medium and long term export credit field.  
 
For short -term export credits to permanently non -marketable countries, EU legislation does not 
include rules on pricing. The Export Credit Agencies are there fore free to set prices for such 
credits.  
 
For short -term export credits to marketable risk countries, if considered temporary non -
marketable, Export Credit Agencies have to apply adequate pricing. To minimise the crowding out 
of private credit insurers, average premiums under publicly supported sc hemes must be higher 
than the average premiums charged by private credit insurers for similar risks. According to the 
2012 Export credit communication, pricing is adequate if the minimum premium ("safe harbour 
premium") as set out in the table in point 23 of the Communication is charged. For more 
information on the 2012 Export credit communication, please refer to our website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/instruments.html"  
 
2. El acápite 4.1.2.1.1 del Informe de la Secretaría describe de manera general los diversos 
regímenes que contempla la política de Pagos Directos implementada por la Unión Europea en 
favor del sector agrícola en ese país (pagos básicos y pagos únicos por superficie, pago de 
ecologización , régimen de pago a los jóven es agricultores, pagos redistributivos, pago para zonas 
con limitaciones naturales y ayuda asociada voluntaria).  
 
Al respecto, resulta relevante conocer cuáles son los productos que reciben las ayudas 
contempladas por la política de Pagos Directos de la Un ión Europea en favor de la producción 
agrícola en ese país, así como los montos presupuestados y efectivamente desembolsados por 
concepto de Pagos Directos en favor de la producción de dichos productos, según los diversos 
regímenes que contempla dicha polí tica. 
 
EU reply:  The subsidy schemes referred above are available to all EU farmers, irrespective of 
whether they produce or not, and regardless of type and volume of agriculture production. Since 
none of the schemes above -mentioned are product -specific, t he Commission does not ask Member 
States to notify implementation data per sector.  
 
3. El acápite 4.1.2.1.2 del Informe de la Secretaría describe las medidas de sostenimiento del 
mercado interior implementadas por la Unión Europea a fin de sostener los precio s pagados a los 
agricultores por la venta en ese país de determinados productos (frutas y hortalizas, productos 
lácteos, azúcar, entre otros). Al respecto, se indica que tanto la Unión Europea como los gobiernos 
de los países que la conforman, otorgan fina nciamiento y ayudas a los agricultores de los 
productos contemplados en el marco de las medidas anteriormente referidas.  
 
Sobre el particular 3¿de qué manera se relacionan el financiamiento y las ayudas otorgadas a los 
agricultores en el marco de las medi das de sostenimiento del mercado interno, con las ayudas 
otorgadas a través de la política de Pagos Directos? 4 ¿es posible que un mismo agricultor en la 
Unión Europea pueda recibir Pagos Directos y, al mismo tiempo, el financiamiento y ayudas WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 310 - 
 
  otorgadas po r ese país y sus Estados Miembros a través de las medidas de sostenimiento del 
mercado interno? AGRI/D3 – MK 
 
EU reply to questions 3 & 4:  Yes, it is possible for a farmer to receive direct payments at the 
same time than market support measures. However, o nly the following products could 
theoretically benefit from market support measures (public intervention): common wheat, durum 
wheat, barley, maize, paddy rice, fresh and chilled beef and veal and butter and SMP.  
 
Respecto al financiamiento otorgado por la  Unión Europea a los agricultores en ese país en el 
marco de las medidas de sostenimiento del mercado interior, resulta relevante conocer bajo qué 
condiciones (tasas de interés, facilidades de repago, requisitos exigidos a los solicitantes) se 
otorgaron ta les financiamientos, y cómo difieren tales condiciones (cuánto más beneficiosas son) 
respecto de aquellos que ofrece la banca comercial en la Unión Europea por financiamientos 
equivalentes.  
 
4. El acápite 4.1.2.1.3 del Informe de la Secretaría describe la pol ítica de Desarrollo Rural de la 
Unión Europea, indicando que mediante ella se otorgan financiamientos a los agricultores en ese 
país, a fin de lograr mejoras en eficiencia y productividad, así como reducir los riesgos que 
enfrentan vinculados con dicha act ividad económica.  
 
Al respecto, 5¿cuáles son los productos que reciben los financiamientos contemplados por la 
política de Desarrollo Rural de la Unión Europea en favor de la producción agrícola en ese país? 
6¿cuál es el monto presupuestado y efectivament e desembolsado para el otorgamiento de tales 
financiamientos en favor de la producción de dichos productos? 7¿bajo qué condiciones (tasas de 
interés, facilidades de repago, requisitos exigidos a los solicitantes) se otorgaron tales 
financiamientos, y cómo difieren tales condiciones (cuánto más beneficiosas son) respecto de 
aquellos que ofrece la banca comercial en la Unión Europea por financiamientos 
equivalentes?AGRI/D3 – MK 
 
EU reply to Questions 5 -6-7: Rural development programmes are not product -specifi c.  
 
Rural development programmes define multi -annual strategies in selected programming areas, 
based on a thorough analysis of their socio -economic and environmental needs. The strategies 
implemented under each programme aim at meeting EU priorities for r ural development through a 
number of selected measures. Member States and regions have a large menu of measures to 
respond to the needs and priorities of their rural areas.  
 
The EU priorities for rural development are the following:  
1. fostering  knowledge transfer and innovation in agriculture, forestry, and rural areas;  
2.  enhancing farm viability and competitiveness of all types of agriculture in all regions and 
promoting innovative farm technologies and the sustainable management of forests;  
3. promoting food chain organisation, including processing and marketing of agricultural 
products, animal welfare and risk management in agriculture;  
4. restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry;  
5. promoting  resource efficiency and supporting the shift towards a low carbon and climate 
resilient economy in agriculture, food and forestry sectors;  
6. promoting social inclusion, poverty reduction and economic development in rural areas.  
All those priorities shoul d contribute to the cross -cutting objectives of innovation, environment and 
climate change mitigation and adaptation.  
 
The various measures of the new rural development programmes cover the following elements 
within the scope of Annex 2 to the Agreement on  Agriculture:  
Annex 2 paragraph 2  
Fostering knowledge transfer and innovation;  
Advisory Service, farm management and farm relief service;  
Quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs;  
Co-operation between farmers/entities on pilot projects, sha ring facilities and resources, 
innovations, horizontal and vertical integration and development of short supply chains;  
Mutual funds for adverse climatic events, animal and plant diseases, pest infections and 
environmental incidents.  
Annex 2 paragraph 7  
Risk management;  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 311 - 
 
  Income stabilisation tool  
Annex 2 paragraph 8  
Crop, animal and plant insurance;  
Mutual funds;  
Restoring agricultural production damaged by natural disasters.  
Annex 2, paragraph 11  
Investments in physical assets;  
Farm and business development ; 
Setting -up producer groups and organisations.  
Annex 2 paragraph 12  
Agri-environment and climate;  forest -environment  
Organic farming;  
Natura 2000 and Water Framework directive payments;  
Payments to areas facing natural or specific constraints;  
Animal welfare.  
Annex 2, paragraph 13  
Basic services and village renewal in rural areas;  
Payments to areas facing natural or other specific constraints;  
Payments under rural development comply with paragraph 1 of Annex 2 to the Agreement on 
Agriculture as well as  with the relevant criteria of paragraphs 2, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13.  
 
5. En el párrafo 3.59 del Informe de la Secretaría, se indica que, en noviembre de 2016, la 
Comisión Europea adoptó una propuesta dirigida al Parlamento Europeo para modificar los 
reglamentos antidumping y antisubvenciones, precisando que su entrada en vigor se encuentra 
sujeta a una decisión posterior del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo de la Unión Europea.  
 
8¿Cuáles son los principales cambios planteados en la propuesta de modificación de l os 
reglamentos antidumping y antisubvenciones anteriormente mencionados, con relación a los 
dispositivos legales en materia antidumping y antisubvenciones actualmente vigentes?  
 
9¿Se tiene previsto algún plazo para que dicha propuesta sea aprobada por el Parlamento Europeo 
y el Consejo de la Unión Europea?  
10¿En la propuesta normativa se está introduciendo alguna regulación especial para el cálculo del 
valor normal para países en los que existan distorsiones en la formación de los costos y los precios 
de determinados productos?  
 
EU replies to the above questions 8 to 10 : The proposed changes are designed to ensure the 
continued effectiveness of the EU's Trade Defence Instruments in the face of new global 
challenges. Despite changes in the global trading en vironment, the EU's trade defence instruments 
have remained unchanged for over 20 years. The changes proposed aim at updating the trade 
defence instruments to deal with the current realities, such as significant market distortions which 
exist in the econom ies of several countries. The Commission will assess to what extent a market is 
comprised of companies that, either owing to their ownership and/or management and/or policy 
objectives are setting their prices and costs by reference to State interference an d not market 
conditions. The legislative proposals are under co -decision and one cannot predict the outcome nor 
the timeline of the final adoption.  
  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 312 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM GUATEMALA  
 
No. De 
párrafo*  Preguntas  
3.185  1Cuáles son los criterios técnicos que se atienden o deben considerarse para que 
la investigación ante una eventual práctica anticompetitiva sea de jurisdicción 
comunitaria?  
 
EU reply : Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the 
implementation of the rules on compe tition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the 
Treaty (now Articles 101 and 102 TFEU) foresees a system of parallel powers. 
Under this system, the European Commission but also the national competition 
authorities of the Member States shall apply EU Competit ion rules where there is 
an anticompetitive practice which may affect trade between Member States.  
 
In order to avoid conflicts in the application of EU Competition rules, competition 
authorities of the Member States are automatically relieved of their co mpetence 
if the European Commission initiates its own proceedings. However, if a 
competition authority of a Member State is already acting on a case, the 
European Commission shall only initiate proceedings after consulting with that 
national competition au thority.  
 
The full text of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 is available on: http://eur -
lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32003R0001  
 
3.186  2Cuáles o qué tipo  de empresa de interés general son las que se exceptúan del 
tratamiento de las normas de competencia?  
 
EU reply:  Services of general economic interest (SGEI) are economic activities 
that public authorities identify as being of particular importance to citi zens and 
that would not be supplied (or would be supplied under different conditions) if 
there were no public intervention. According to Article 106 (2) TFEU, undertakings 
entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest  shall be 
subje ct 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 task of general economic interest. In other 
words, even though in principle all undertakings are subject to EU Competition 
rules, exemptions to these rules are permitted provided that they are necessary 
for the performance of a particular task assigned to an undertaking entrusted with 
the operation of a service of genera l economic interest.  
 
3.188  3 En este apartado se menciona que el artículo 101 del TFUE puede no aplicarse a 
algunos acuerdos, entre los que se listan: COMP  
 
a) que generen beneficios económicos (por ejemplo, en forma de mejoras en la 
producción o la distribución, o de avances técnicos o económicos);  
b) que precisen restricciones para generar ese tipo de beneficios;  
c) que generen una parte equitativa de las ganancias de eficiencia para los 
consumidores; y  
d) que no eliminen Ia competencia respecto de una parte sustancial de los 
productos afectados.  
 
4 E n estos casos, los agentes económicos deben demostrar estos extremos? Cuál 
es la función de la autoridad de competencia?  
 
EU reply:  The assessment of restrictions of competition by object or effect under 
Article 101(1) TFEU is only one side of the analysis. The other side, which is 
reflected in Article 101(3) TFEU, is the assessment of the pro -competitive effects 
of restrictive agreem ents. When the pro -competitive effects of an agreement 
outweigh its anti -competitive effects the agreement is, on balance, pro -
competitive and therefore compatible with the objectives of the EU competition 
rules. There are four cumulative conditions for th e application of Article 101(3) WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 313 - 
 
  TFEU:  
1) the agreement must contribute to improving the production or distribution 
of products or contribute to promoting technical or economic progress;  
 
2) the efficiency gains attained by the restrictions must be sufficie ntly passed 
on to consumers so that they are at least compensated for the restri ctive effects 
of the agreement;  
 
3) the restrictions must be indispensable to the attainment of those objectives, 
i.e. the efficiency gains; and  
 
4) the agreement must not affo rd such undertakings the possibility of 
eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question.  
 
The burden of demonstrating that those conditions are fulfilled rests on the 
undertakings invoking the benefit of this provision.  The undertakings have thus to 
provide evidence enabling the European  Commission to arrive at the conviction 
that the pro -competitive effects of the agreement outweigh (or are sufficiently 
likely to outweigh) its anti -competitive effects. When an agreement  is covered by 
a block exemption there is a presumption that the agreement satisfies the 
conditions laid down in Article 101(3) TFEU. In such case, the undertakings 
invoking Article 101 (3) TFEU as a defense only need to prove that the restrictive 
agreemen t is covered by a block exemption.  
 
For more information about how the European Commission applies Article 101 (3) 
TFEU and the different block exemption regulations in force, please refer to DG 
Competition's website:  
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/legislation/legislation.html . 
 
3.189  Las Directrices de la Comisión relativas a los acuerdos de cooperación horizontal 
establecen principios generales de la evaluación del intercambio de información 
entre competidores, considerando que esta información podría constituir una 
práctica concertad a o estar relacionada con la fijación de precios o cantidades. 
Es decir, que este intercambio de información puede constituir una práctica 
concertada si reduce la incertidumbre estratégica en el mercado facilitando con 
ello la colusión.  Así pues, el intercambio de datos estratégicos entre los 
competidores equivale a una concertación, porque reduce la independencia de 
Ia conducta de los competidores en el mercado y disminuye sus incentivos para 
competir. Cómo atienden las autoridades de competencia est e asunto para estar 
atentos a la eventual vulneración de la libre competencia?  
EU reply : The European Commission has at its disposal several instruments to 
uncover anticompetitive practices such as the exchange of commercially 
sensitive information between  competitors: 1) the European Commission can 
carry out ex officio investigations; 2) it can act on a complaint from a 
competitor or a client of the undertakings concerned; 3) it can also act following 
an application for leniency from one of the undertaking s exchanging 
information; and, lastly, but not least, on March 2017, the European 
Commission launched a new tool to make it easier for individuals to alert the 
European  Commission about secret cartels and other antitrust violations while 
maintaining their anonymity.  
3.194  6 Agradecemos confirmarnos si comprendimos correctamente que el porcentaje 
máximo (30%) de las multas se basa en las ventas de la industria y aplicado a 
las empresas infractoras.  
The basic amount of the fine will be related to a proporti on of the value of sales, 
depending on the degree of gravity of the infringement, multiplied by the 
number of years of infringement.  As a general rule, the proportion of the value 
of sales taken into account will be set at a level of up to 30 % of the valu e of 
sales.  The assessment will be made on a case -by-case basis.  
In order to decide whether the proportion of the value of sales to be considered WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 314 - 
 
  in a given case should be at the lower end or at the higher end of that scale, 
the European  Commission will ha ve regard to a number of factors, such as the 
nature of the infringement, the combined market share of all the undertakings 
concerned, the geographic scope of the infringement and whether or not the 
infringement has been implemented.  
Horizontal price -fixing, market -sharing and output -limitation agreements, which 
are usually secret, are, by their very nature, among the most harmful 
restrictions of competition. As a matter of policy, they will be heavily fined. 
Therefore, the proportion of the value of sales taken into account for such 
infringements will generally be set at the higher end of the scale.  
The European Commission will pay particular attention to the need to ensure 
that fines have a sufficiently deterrent effect; to that end, it may increase the 
fine to be imposed on undertakings which have a particularly large turnover 
beyond the sales of goods or services to which the infringement relates. The 
European Commission will also take into account the need to increase the fine in 
order to exceed the amou nt of gains improperly made as a result of the 
infringement where it is possible to estimate that amount.  
The final amount of the fine shall not, in any event, exceed 10% of the total 
turnover in the preceding business year of the undertaking or associatio n of 
undertakings participating in the infringement, as laid down in Article 23(2) of 
Regulation No 1/2003.  
7 Ese derecho de entrada (15% -25%) del valor de las ventas se refiere a las 
ventas de la empresa infractora?  Y ante una reincidencia, cuál es el criterio a 
aplicar? 8porque puede haber una prohibición general y reincidir sobre esa 
prohibición general o que el agente económico restrinja la competencia con una 
práctica especifica dentro de una prohibición general,  y el agente económico 
justifique que es otra práctica anticompetitiva y por lo tanto no  deba 
considerarse reincidencia ,cual es la experiencia de la UE en este sentido?  
EU reply:  In order to take fully into account the duration of the participation of 
each undertaking in the infringement, the amount determined on the basis of 
the value of sales will be multiplied by the number of years of participation in 
the infringement. Periods of less than six months will be counted as half a year; 
periods longer than six months but shorter than one year will be counted as a 
full year.  
In addition, irrespective of the duration of the undertaking's participation in the 
infringement, the European Commission will include in the basic amount a sum 
of between 15% and 25% of the value of sales in order to deter undertakings 
from even entering into horizontal price -fixing, market -sharing and output -
limitation agreements. For the purpose of deciding the proportion of the value 
of sales to be considered in a given case, the Europ ean Commission will have 
regard to a number of factors, in particular the nature of the infringement, the 
combined market share of all the undertakings concerned, the geographic scope 
of the infringement and whether or not the infringement has been 
impleme nted. 
Recidivism is an aggravating circumstance. Where an undertaking continues or 
repeats the same or a similar infringement after the European Commission or a 
national competition authority has made a finding that the undertaking 
infringed Article 101 or  102 TFEU: the basic amount of the fine will be increased 
by up to 100% for each  such infringement established.  
For the full text of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines, please see: 
http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52006XC0901(01) . 
3.200  9Los daños y perjuicios causados por las infracciones del Derecho de la 
Competencia por parte de los agentes económicos para resarcir por medio de 
una indemnización a los consumidores afectados, cómo funcionan? 10Cuántos 
casos de indemnización se han efectuado?  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 315 - 
 
  EU reply:  Infringements of the EU antitrust rules (Articles 101 and 102 TFEU), 
such as cartels or abuse of a dominant position in the market, are not only 
detrimental for the economy and consumers at large: they also cause concrete 
harm (e.g. higher prices, lost profits) to concrete victims (e.g. infringers' direct 
and indirect custome rs, infringers' competitors and their customers). That is why 
the European Union adopted a Directive to remove the main obstacles to 
effective compensation, and to guarantee minimum protection for citizens and 
businesses, everywhere in the EU (the Directiv e 2014/104/EU on certain rules 
governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the 
competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union). 
The Antitrust Damages Actions Directive entered into force on 26 December 
2014 and Member States are obliged to transpose it in their national legal 
systems.  
There has been a significant increase in the number of damages cases over the 
recent years and it is expected that this trend continue. This is in part due to the 
fact that the Antitrust Damages Actions Directive has now been fully 
implemented in 20 Member States.  
For the text of the Antitrust Damages Actions Directive, please see: http://eur -
lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014L0104 . 
The current state of play concerning the transposition process is monitored here: 
http://ec.euro pa.eu/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/directive_en.html . 
3.202  11 En qué consiste la existencia de un pode r de negociación compensatorio.  
 
EU reply : Competitive constraints may be exerted not only by actual or potential 
competitors but also by customers. Even an undertaking with a high market 
share may not be able to act to an appreciable extent independently of 
customers with sufficient bargaining strength. Such countervailing buying power 
may result from the customers' size or their commercial  significance for the 
dominant undertaking, and their ability to switch quickly to competing suppliers, 
to promote new entry or to vertically integrate, and to credibly threaten to do so. 
If countervailing power is of a sufficient magnitude, it may deter o r defeat an 
attempt by the undertaking to profitably increase prices. Buyer power may not, 
however, be considered a sufficiently effective constraint if it only ensures that a 
particular or limited segment of customers is shielded from the market power of 
the dominant undertaking.  
3.208  En este párrafo se indica que “Desde 2014 se han sometido al procedimiento 
simplificado un mayor número de fusiones, como las que implican una cuota de 
mercado conjunta del 20% (en fusiones horizontales) o del 30% (en fusio nes 
verticales), o aquellas en que el aumento de la cuota de mercado resultante de la 
operación es muy reducido. “Verifica la autoridad de competencia esta situación? 
Realiza alguna evaluación?  
 
EU reply:  The European Commission will in principle apply the  simplified procedure 
to each of the following categories of concentrations:  
 
(a)two or more undertakings acquire joint control of a joint venture, provided that 
the joint venture has no, or negligible, actual or foreseen activities within the 
territory of  the European Economic Area (EEA); such cases occur where:  
 
(i) the turnover of the joint venture and/or the turnover of the contributed activities 
is less than EUR 100 million in the EEA territory at the time of notification ; and  
 
(ii) the total value of  assets transferred to the joint venture is less than EUR 100 
million in the EEA territory at the time of notification (8);  
 
(b)two or more undertakings merge, or one or more undertakings acquire sole or 
joint control of another undertaking, provided that none of the parties to the 
concentration are engaged in business activities in the same product and 
geographic market , or in a product market which is upstream or downstream from WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 316 - 
 
  a product market in which any other party to the concentration is engaged;  
 
(c)two or more undertakings merge, or one or more undertakings acquire sole or 
joint control of another undertaking and both of the following conditions are 
fulfilled:  
 
(i) the combined market share of all the parties to the concentration that are 
engaged in business activities in the same product and geographic market 
(horizontal relationships) is less than 20 %  
 
(ii) the individual or combined market shares of all the parties to the concentration 
that are engaged in business activities in a product marke t which is upstream or 
downstream from a product market in which any other party to the concentration is 
engaged (vertical relationships) are less than 30 % (14);  
 
(d) a party is to acquire sole control of an undertaking over which it already has 
joint con trol. 
 
The European Commission may also apply the simplified procedure where two or 
more undertakings merge, or one or more undertakings acquire sole or joint 
control of another undertaking, and both of the following conditions are fulfilled:  
 
(i) the combined market share of all the parties to the concentration that are in a 
horizontal relationship is less than 50 %; and  
 
(ii) the increment (delta) of the Herfindahl -Hirschman Index (HHI) resulting from 
the concentration is below 150.  
 
In assessing whet her a concentration falls into one of the categories referred above, 
the European Commission will ensure that all relevant circumstances are 
established with sufficient clarity. Given that market definitions are likely to be a 
key element in this assessmen t, the parties should provide information on all 
plausible alternative market definitions (generally during the pre -notification 
phase). Notifying parties are responsible for describing all alternative relevant 
product and geographic markets on which the n otified concentration could have an 
impact and for providing data and information relating to the definition of such 
markets.  
The European Commission retains the discretion to take the ultimate decision on 
market definition, basing its decision on an anal ysis of the facts of the case. Where 
it is difficult to define the relevant markets or to determine the parties’ market 
shares, the European Commission will not apply the simplified procedure. In 
addition, to the extent that concentrations involve novel le gal issues of a general 
interest, the European Commission would normally abstain from adopting short -
form decisions, and would normally revert to a normal first phase merger 
procedure.  
For the full text Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of 
certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, please refer 
to:http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52013XC1214(02  ) 
 
  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 317 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM NEW ZEALAND  
 
Report by the WTO Secretariat  
 
SECTION 1:  ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT  
1.1.4 EU economic governance and structural reforms  
WT/TPR/S/357 , page 20, para 1.23  
 The Secretariat Report notes that the EU’s Europe 2020  strategy for smart, sustainable 
and inclusive growth includes the Climate change and energy sustainability target of 
greenhouse gas emissions 20% lower than 1990 levels, 20% of energy coming from 
renewables and a 20% increase in energy efficiency.   EU Lea ders have also committed to 
the importance of making progress on phasing out fossil fuel subsidies  (see: 
http://europa.eu/rapid/press -release_MEMO -13-717_en.htm ), however IMF research 
shows that fossil fuel subsidies are continuing to rise in the EU (see:  
http://www.imf.org/external/np/fad/subsidies/data/codata.xlsx ). 
 
Question  
 1 What specific actions is the E uropean Union taking to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels, 
and to phase out fossil fuel su bsidies?  
 
EU reply : The EU is committed to removing fossil -fuel and environmentally harmful subsidies, so 
that the energy market becomes more competitive and price signals improve to help steer a 
more efficient allocation of resources in line with the EU’s commit ments to tackle climate change.  
 
Furthermore, the Commission's competences in the field of competition are key to complement the 
regulatory energy policy fra mework and notably to ensure a proper functioning of the internal 
energy markets. Thanks to its exclusive competence in assessing state aid compatibility with the 
internal market, the Commission plays a key role in ensuring that (fossil fuel) subsidies hav e no 
negative impact on (i) distortion of competition and (ii) trade between Member States.  
 
In relation to the phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies at EU level, the Council Decision59 of 10 
December 2010 on State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetit ive coal mines provides for a 
prohibition of State aid to maintain the operation of uncompetitive coal mines because the Union’s 
policy of encouraging renewable energy sources and a sustainable and safe low -carbon economy 
does not justify the indefinite su pport for uncompetitive coal mines. Such mines will be forced to 
close by 31 December 2018. This Decision allows subsidies to accompany the closure of such 
uncompetitive coal mines if certain conditions are satisfied. The aid granted to the coal production  
units must be digressive and must form a part of a closure plan with a deadline on 31 December 
2018 at the latest. In addition the undertakings which carry out or have carried out an activity in 
connection with coal production to enable them to cover exce ptional costs. The categories of such 
costs are listed in Annex 1 to the Council Decision and cover among others: social costs resulting 
from pensioning -off workers, costs of readaptation of workers, costs of underground safety 
measures, costs of surface r ecultivation, etc.  
 
As regards State aid to energy from renewable energy sources, aid is granted in a competitive 
bidding process on the basis of clear, transparent and non -discriminatory criteria. If such 
competitive bidding processes are open to all gene rators producing electricity from renewable 
energy sources on a non -discriminatory basis, the Commission presumes that the aid is 
proportionate and does not distort competition to an extent contrary to the internal market. The 
competitive bidding process s hould limit the amount of aid to be granted.  
 
Concerning aid for generation adequacy (through capacity mechanisms), the Commission is aware 
that such measures may contradict the objective of phasing out environmentally harmful 
subsidies. Therefore, the EEAG provisions set that " Member States should therefore primarily 
consider alternative ways of achieving generation adequacy which do not have a negative impact 
on the objective of phasing out environmentally or economically harmful subsidies, such as 
facilitating demand side management and increasing interconnection capacity " (cf. recital 220). 
This provision limits the possibility to support indirectly the minin g activities through state aid.  
 
 
                                                
59 OJ L 336 of 21.12.2010, p.24.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 318 - 
 
  SECTION 3: TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE  
3.3.7.1 EU directives on public procurement  
WT/TPR/S/357, section 3.3.7, page 104, para 3.235  
The WTO secretariat report notes that the three directives on public procurement (Classical 
Directive, Concessions Directive and Utilities Directive) entered into force o n 17 April 2014 with 24 
months for transposition into domestic law by the domestic states, with 30 months for the 
provisions on e -procurement. As at 5 January 2017, 12 member States had transposed all three 
Directives into national law.  
 
Questions  
 2When d oes the EU expect for the three Directives to be transposed into national law by all 
member States? See replies to US 54 -56 and China 35 -37+ how does this issue of social, 
env benefits, vulnerable people criteria fit with GPA  
  
EU reply:  Currently 17 Membe r States have completed transposition for all three Directives; 3 
Member States  did so for the "classical" and "utilities" Directives, but not for the Concessions 
Directive; 8 Member States  that have not completed transposition for any of the three Directi ves. 
The Commission has provided and still continues to provide enhanced assistance to Member 
States.  
 
 For the member States that have not yet transposed all three Directives into national law, 
does this impact on their ability to comply with the obligati ons outlined in the WTO 
Agree ment on Government Procurement?  
  
EU reply:  In the absence of national rules transposing the modernised EU Directives, the existing 
national legislation on procurement is applicable. The latter transposes the rules as provided f or in 
the previous EU directives on procurement dating from 2004. It ensures that the obligations of the 
EU under the GPA are respected by the procuring entities of its Member States.  
 
3.3.7.1 EU directives on public procurement  
WT/TPR/S/357, section 3.3.7 , pages 107 -108, para 3.245  
Paragraph 3.245 of the secretariat report states that 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 vulnerabl e and disadvantaged people or the use of non -toxic substances.  
 
Questions  
 4 Can the EU provide elaboration on the other criteria contracting authorities may take into 
account when purchasing goods or services (e.g. other economic, social or environmental 
benefits)?  
  
EU reply:  EU procuring entities are able to take social aspects into account when awarding 
procurement contracts on the basis of the 'best price -quality ratio (BPQR)'. They can chose the 
tenders that provide more social advantages, such as a co mpany employing the greatest number 
of long -term unemployed or disadvantaged persons to perform the contract. The awarding of a 
contract can also take into consideration if the employee working conditions of a contract go 
beyond legal requirements, are int ended to favour the promotion of equality between women and 
men at work, increase participation of women in the labour market, and/or help better reconcile 
employees work and private lives.  
 
Regarding environmentally friendly procurement, procuring entitie s can use the life -cycle cost 
criterion.  
 
These requirements need to have a direct link with the subject -matter of the tendered contract.  
 
 5 How do contracting authorities weight and evaluate these aspects in a manner that 
aligns with the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement?  
 
EU reply:  EU procuring entities can use the above considerations only if those are linked to the 
subject -matter of the contract and applied in an objective and non -discriminatory way. This WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 319 - 
 
  ensures that the EU obligations within the  WTO Agreement on Government Procurement are 
respected.  
 
3.1.4 Tariffs  
WT/TPR/S/357, section 3.1.4, page 48 -50, Table3.6  
Table 3.6 of the Secretariat Report shows the EU’s applied tariff on agricultural products are highly 
variable, r anging from 0 to 695.5 %. In comparison applied tariffs on non -agricultural products 
only range from 0 to 35.6%. Further, there are significantly less agricultural product lines than 
non-agricultura l products that are duty free. It is particularly noticeable that no dairy produc ts 
lines are duty free and the average tariff rate for dairy sector products is over 35% and the  
highest rates of all tariffs. In fact, the highest end of this range has increased from 635 % in 2014 
to almost 700 % in 2016 (Table 3.6, page 49).  
 
Question  
 6 Does the EU have any plans to address tariff peaks, particularly for those agricultural 
goods with the highest tariffs?  What action is the EU taking to make its agricultural sectors 
more responsive to market forces and thus able to reduce tariff peaks from tariffs on 
agricultural products?  
 
EU reply:  The 2013 CAP reform is not intended to change the EU's agricultural tariffs. The EU has 
only a limited number of tariff peaks, which were accepted and bound as part of the Uruguay 
Round Agreement. Moreover, in l ine with the market orientation of the CAP, the system of milk 
production  quotas ended on 31 March 2015.  EU farmers are today fully exposed to world market 
prices in many sectors including cereals, dairy products and pig meat, where EU market prices are 
very similar to world market prices.  
 
The EU has no plans to autonomously change its tariffs for agricultural products. Any change to 
the bound tariffs in the schedule will result from successful multilateral negotiations. In the 
meantime, the EU will contin ue to respect its WTO commitments. Moreover, the EU has concluded 
and continues to negotiate ambitious FTA agreements to reduce agricultural tariffs in bilateral 
trade. Last but not least, the EU is the world's largest importer of agricultural products, wi th 
imports of more than 112 billion in 2016.  
 
 7 Can the EU please explain which dairy product attracted a 695.5%  tariff in 2016 and the 
rationale behind the increase in this tariff from its previo us applied rate of 635 in 2014.  
 
EU reply: The tariffs reported by New Zealand are the ad valorem  equivalents indicated in the 
WTO Secretariat report. The EU cannot indicate the specific tariff line to which these tariffs 
correspond as they were calculated by the WTO Secretariat. However, the EU ca n confirm that the 
tariffs have not changed. These are in fact bound in our schedule. The reason for the change in the 
ad valorem equivalent is the change in the unit price used in the calculation.  
 
SECTION 4: TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR  
4.1 Agriculture  
4.1.2.1.1 Direct payments  
WT/TPR/S/357, pages 139 -141, Table 4.6 page 142  
 
The European Union Government report (WT/TPR/G/357, page 10, paragraph 3.32) outlines the 
continued reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, particularly that recent reforms promot e “the 
use of less trade -distorting policy instruments”, and that most support is now granted in the form  
of decoupled direct payments. However, coupled support (al beit voluntary) still remains. 
Paragraph 4.18 of the Secretariat Report notes that all membe r states except one provide support 
coupled to production, and while coupled support above the national ceiling of 8 or 13 % required 
Commission approval, use ran ged up to 57.2% in 2016.  Use of coupled support also varied by 
sector with beef and veal gainin g the most support, followed by dairy, sheep and goat meat, and 
protein  crops (paragraph 4.19). Table 4.6 shows that in 2016, 13 member states exceeded the 
13% limit. 
 
 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 320 - 
 
  Questions  
 8 New Zealand appreciates and commends the reforms that the EU has made to t he 
Common Agricultural Policy towards less trade -distortive measures and fewer  payments 
linked to production.  However, trade -distorting measures in the form of coupled payments 
still remain  and work has been undertaken to assess the effectiveness of couple d support 
payments to agricultural producers, and the feasibility of less distortive d ecoupled support 
alternatives? What were the fin dings of any such assessments?  
 
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 for 
Member States, limited in terms of both percentages available for its financing and objective, and 
compatible with WTO obligations. In addition, the int roduction of VCS coincides with the abolition 
of remaining EU coupled support schemes in the beef and v eal and sheep and goat sectors and 
also replaced the partly coupled 'specific support' that was available under direct payments before 
2015.  
The principl es 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 t hat 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. The support must 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.  
 
 9 Can the EU outline what efforts it is making to encourage its member states to reduce or 
stop coupled support paym ents to agricultural producers?  
 
EU reply:  The option for Member States to allocate a certain percentage of the envelope available 
for direct payments was provided for in the 2013 CAP reform, which permits voluntary coupled 
support (VCS) to be granted  within clearly defined limits.  
 
First, the possibility to grant VCS is subject to a budgeta ry limit at Member State level.  
 
Second, only some sectors may benefit from VCS. VCS may only be granted if the targeted sector 
or type of farming is particularly important from economic, environmental or social reasons and 
undergoes certain difficulties, due to which there is a risk of decline or abandonment of production.  
Third, the support can only be granted within defined quantitative limits to the extent neces sary to 
maintain current levels of production.  
 
Thus the use of VCS, which respects Blue Box criteria, is only possible in respect of these specific 
requirements; and even then only subject to clear limits. As long as these conditions and limits are 
met, t he Member States may use VCS if it is warranted for by the local situation (e.g. to avoid 
abandonment of production by farmers in economically vulnerable rural regions that are already 
marked by high structural unemployment).  
 
 10 A number of member states  have exceeded the national ceiling for coupled support in 
2016.  Did each member state receive approval to exceed the nation al ceiling from the 
Commission?  If not, which member states did not receive approval and what action is the 
EU taking to ensure ceil ing limits are not excee ded without approval in future?  
 
EU reply: The budget ceiling that may be attributed to VCS per Member State ranges from 8+2% 
to 13+2% of the national ceiling available for direct payments (the higher share only applies for 
certain Member States, depending e.g. how much coupled support they granted before 2015). This 
13+2% may only be exceeded if specific requirements are met which must be justified and 
approved in advance by the Commission. Three Member States (Finland, Portugal and  Belgium) 
requested such approval for 2015 -2020. Accordingly, they notified the substantiating data to 
justify the requests. In such cases, for each year, the Member State receives approval for 
attributing a concrete (higher than 13+2%) share of the nation al ceiling to VCS. This percentage 
becomes the new budgetary ceiling for that Member State in that year, which may not be 
exceeded.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 321 - 
 
  Other Member States may no longer request such a higher limit, as no review of the support 
decisions is allowed before 2020  by the legislation.  
 
Further, the notified financial ceilings at measure level (and thus also at Member State level) are 
binding, thus excess of these notified ceilings is not permitted. None of the three Member States 
concerned ex ceeded their approved ce ilings.  
 
11 What criteria does the Commission apply when assessing whether to approve a 
member state exceeding its ceiling for coupled support payments?  
 
EU reply:  The criteria are set out in Article 55 of Regulation (EU) No . 1307/2013. Accordingly,  the 
Member State has to prove that the increase is necessary in light of at least one of the recognized 
reasons for a possible increase (e.g. because of lack of the alternatives in the affected 
sector/region and thus the risk of the abandonment of production). I n other words, should VCS be 
limited to 13+2% in this Member State, these difficulties could not be sufficiently compensated for 
in light of the production maintenance objective of VCS, which could cause further problems in the 
sector/region concerned (e.g . bankruptcy of farme rs en masse).  
 
12 When a member state is granted approval to exceeding its ceiling for coupled support 
payments, in a new limit provided? If so, ho w is the new limit calculated?  
 
EU reply:  Indeed, the approval is granted for a new perc entage of the national ceiling for direct 
payments. That new percentage shall not be exceeded during the implementation. The new 
percentage is based upon the Member State request. The Member State calculates the support 
need based upon the difficulty of th e sector and thus the need for compensation in light of the 
objective of VCS (i.e. maintenance of production). As long as the request is justified and 
substantiated by relevant statistics, the Commission approves the requested percentage.  
 
4.1.2.1.2 Intern al Market Support Measures  
WT/TPR/S/357, pages 143 -149 
The Secretariat Report notes a range of internal market support measures designed to support 
prices paid to farmers, including measures that control supply or encourage consumption.  
Paragraph 4.25 notes that the Commission introduced several internal market support measures in 
response to global decline the demand for dairy products, the import ban by Russia on some 
agricultural and horticultural products, and the downturn in global pr ices for agric ultural products.  
 
Among the temporary measures introduced for dairy between 2014 and 2016 (Table 4.8, page 
145) were:  
- Regulations 949/2014, 2015/1549, 2016/224, 2016/1042, 2016/1614: Extend the buy -in 
period for intervention for butter and skimmed milk powder (SMP) by three months, and 
increase the quantities that could be bought into intervention (buy -in period extended to 
September 2017, and quantities increased to 100,000T for butter, and 350,000T for SMP)  
- Regulations 947/2014, 948/2014, 950/2014, 992 /2014, 1337/2014, 2015/303, 
2015/1548, 2015/1851, 2015/1852, 2015/1853, 2016/224, 2016/1619: Introduce private 
storage aid for butter (to September 2016), SMP (to February 2017), and cheese (to 
September 2016)  
- Regulations 2016/558, 2016/559, 2016/1615: Per mit producer organisations to enter into 
voluntary agreements to plan production (including incentives to reduce supply) (to April 
2017)  
- Regulation 2016/1613: Provide ‘exceptional adjustment aid’ to milk producers (and 
farmers in other livestock sectors) w ith member states able to match aid up to 100 percent 
of their national envelope (to be spent by September 2017).  
 
Table 4.8 (temporary measures for dairy and livestock producers 2014 -16) states that on 29 
November 2016 22,004 tonnes of SMP was put on sale . 
 
Questions  
 13 Have these measures supported agricultural producers to become more market 
oriented?  
 
EU reply:  The measures relating to the extension of the intervention buying -in periods and to the 
increase of the intervention quantitative ceilings wer e introduced to alleviate market pressure from WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 322 - 
 
  accumulated surplus and prevent further deterioration in producer prices. See: 
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/market -observatory/milk/pdf/eu -raw-milk-
prices_en.pdf . 
 
Intervention prices are set at a low level so that they do not encourage production. They allow 
farmers to be market oriented whilst at the same t ime providing them with a safety net in case of 
extreme volatility.  
 
The exceptional adjustment aid (Regulation (EU) No 2016/1613) and the measures to permit 
producer organisations to enter into voluntary agreements to plan production should indeed 
support  farmers to become more market oriented.  
 
 14 When intervention stocks are released, how will the EU ensure that the release of 
intervention stocks does not create further volatility by supressing the global price of 
relevant commodities?  
 
EU reply:  The EU will ensure the release of intervention stocks without market disruption by 
choosing the appropriate timing, price level and quantities.  
 
 15 What portion of the 22,004 tonnes of SMP was sold and how many tonnes of SMP 
remain in intervention stocks. How doe s the EU intend to reduce this volume over time, 
without suppressing global dairy prices, if sales prices continue to be below the required 
minimum and product cannot be sold?  
 
EU reply:  A quantity of 140 tonnes was sold by July 2017, leaving a remaining quantity in 
intervention of 357 497 tonnes. For the last part of the question, please see reply to question 14 
above.  
 
4.2: Fisheries  
WT/TPR/S/357, sections 4.2.4.4 and 4.2.4.9  
The EU is a major global player in fisheries in terms of catch, fishing fleet and trade.  The EU is also 
a significant pr ovider of fisheries subsidies.  The Secretariat Report notes (Section 4.2.4.9, page 
166, 4.94) that the European Maritime and Fisheries F und (EMFF) has a total budget of €6.4 billion 
from 2014 to 2020, and that (para 4.95.) The primary purpose of the EMFF is to contribute to the 
objectives of the Common Fis heries Policy (CFP), including promoting competitive, environmentally 
sustainable, ec onomically viable and socially respons ible fisheries and aquaculture.  The Secretariat 
Report (4.2.4.4 Management of fishing capacity, page 163, para 4.77) also notes that “The reform 
of the CFP requires member States to adjust their fishing capacities to b ring them into line  with 
fishing opportunities.”  
 
Questions  
 16 What plans does the EU have to reform the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 
(EMFF) to prohibit fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, and 
eliminate subsidies that contribute to IUU fishing, and refrain from introducing new such 
subsidies, in line with the SDG Target 14.6 ? 
 
EU reply : The current EMFF Regulation is already in line with the objectives of SDG Target 14.6. 
Certain operations are not eligible under t he EMFF or national state aid, such as:  
 
- operations increasing the fishing capacity of a vessel or equipment increasing the ability of a 
vessel to find fish;  
- the construction of new fishing vessels or the importation of fishing vessels;  
- the temporary  or permanent cessation of fishing activities, unless otherwise provided for in this 
Regulation;  
- exploratory fishing;  
- the transfer of ownership of a business.  
 
 17 How will the European Union ensure that any measures flowing from the European 
Parliament  resolution of 27 April 2017 calling for the reintroduction of vessel construction 
subsidies, which were removed in 2002, (2016/2016(INI))  are consistent with the SDG 
14.6 commitment to refrain from introducing new subsidies which contribute to 
overcapacit y and overfishing ? WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 323 - 
 
  EU reply: The mentioned European Parliament resolution is an own initiative procedure. Any new 
measures would have to be proposed by the European Commission and agreed by the European 
Parliament and the Council (EU Member States). The re solution is currently being analysed.  
 
REPORT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION (WT/TPR/G/357)  
 
SECTION 3:  DEVELOPMENTS IN THE INTERNAL MARKET: THE SINGLE MARKET STRATEGY  
WT/TPR/G/357, section 3, page 5, para 3.1  
In paragraph 3.1 of the Report by the European Union the EU notes it is constantly working on 
adopting and/or enforcing initiatives integrating its internal market more deeply, and in so doing, 
for further opening its market.  However the report of the WTO Secretariat outlines various 
differential rates of su pport in WT/TPR/S/357, subsection 4.1.2.1 Domestic Support.  
 
Questions  
 18 Given the work the EU is undertaking with respect to initiatives that support the 
integrity and deepening of the internal market, how does the EU consider measures that 
allow differential rates of voluntary coupled support and differential rates of state aid 
among member states as supporting those initiatives? What efforts are being made to 
ensure the preservatio n of fair internal competition?  
 
EU reply : In relation to voluntar y coupled support, it should be noted that these payments are 
payments from the EU budget and that, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, 
they are excluded from the application of State aid rules. The different rates authorized for EU 
Member States of voluntary coupled support, Member States may decide to use more than 13% 
(+ 2%) of their annual national ceiling for direct payments to voluntary coupled support under 
certain specific conditions that are described in Article 53(4) of Regula tion (EU) No 1307/2013. In 
substance, only Member States which used more than 10% of their direct payment budget for 
certain purposes (see the exhaustive list in that Article) in the period 2010 -2014, have the 
possibility to decide to use more than 13% (+ 2%) for Voluntary Coupled Support.  
 
As the pre -condition is linked to former use of the national direct payment budget, it is controlled 
by the Commission based on financial implementation data.  
 
The allocation by a Member State of more than 13% (+ 2%) to Voluntary Coupled Support 
requires approval of the Commission. This approval is only granted if, beyond the general 
requirements for any Voluntary Coupled Support measure, the Member State also demonstrates, 
as an additional requirement, that the increased  level of support is necessary because of one of 
the specific 'support needs' listed under Article 55 of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013.  
 
Verification that the notified Member State decision of Voluntary Coupled Support meets the 
respective requirements of t he EU law (i.e. objective, specific needs, etc.) is performed by the 
Commission. The approval is only granted if the result of this assessment is positive.  
 
Apart from funding from the EU budget, Member States may grant State aid in compliance with 
Article s 107 and 108 of the TFEU and the respective EU acquis. As a matter of principle, 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. 
Due to the very nature of State aids, i.e. aids being paid at the discretion of each individual 
Member State, it is obvious that each Member State pursues its own State aid policy and decides 
itself on the budget it is prepa red to be made available for a given State financed measure.  
  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 324 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
 
SECRETARIAT REPORT (WT/TPR/S/357)  
 
3. Trade Policies and Practices by Measures.  
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports.  
3.1.1 Customs procedures and requirements  
3.11, p. 42  
In terms of enforcement, for 2015, the EU recorded 7,000 infringements of CITES and more than 
19,000 infringements of goods presenting a risk for consumers in terms of sanitary, phytosanitary 
and veterinary t echnical standards.  
 
Question1: Please specify the timeframe within which the abovementioned 19,000 infringements 
concerning goods presenting a risk for consumers in terms of sanitary, phytosanitary and 
veterinary measures, as well as technical standards were recorded by the EU. Please a lso provide 
more detailed information concerning the most widespread infringements.  
 
EU reply : The timeframe for the number of infringements detected by Customs Authorities in the 
EU Member States concerning goods presenting risk for consumers in terms of  sanitary, 
phytosanitary and veterinary technical standards is the year 2015 as stated in the respective part 
of the text.  
 
3.1.4 Tariffs  
3.1.4.4 Tariff quotas (TQ) and administration  
3.45., p. 52  
The EU maintains tariff quotas (TQ) for three general typ es of imports: agricultural products, 
autonomous MFN quotas, and imports from certain countries pursuant to preferential agreements. 
In addition, pursuant to a 2012 EU regulation, the EU has established tariff quotas for high -quality 
beef, applying only to  imports from certain countries. Many MFN tariff quotas are allocated on a 
"first-come, first -served" basis. When the quotas of the application period for the products in 
question are used up, normal import duties are applied. TQs are managed centrally by the 
Commission, and can be consulted on an internet database which is updated daily. The EU grants 
preferential TQs in accordance with unilateral or reciprocal trade agreements.  
 
Question2: Could the EU clarify what principles it follows when it grants ta riff quotas to different 
countries?  
 
3 How does the EU select countries that it provides with separate individual tariff quotas?  
 
For example, according to the Commission Regulation 536/2007 dated May 15, 2007 and 
Commission Regulation 616/2007 dated June  4, 2007 tariff quotas for poultry meat were provided 
for Thailand and Brazil, while other countries were included into the “others” group and had a 
general tariff quota.  
 
4 Could the EU explain why Brazil and Thailand were provided with an individual tari ff quota?  
 
EU replies to questions No. 2 and 3 above: The principles followed by the EU are based on 
Articles XIII, XXIV and XXVIII of the GATT 1994.  
 
EU reply to question 4:  The principles followed by the EU are based on Articles XIII, XXIV and 
XXVIII of  the GATT 1994.  According to the provisions contained under Articles XIII, XXIV:6 and 
XXVIII of the GATT 1994, Brazil and Thailand are entitled to specific country sub -allocation.  
 
3.1.6 Import prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing  
3.55, p. 57  
The EU maintains import restrictions and prohibitions, and also maintains a licensing system for 
certain imports. The products subject to these provisions have not substantially changed since the 
last Review although there have been a number of amendments.  There are a number of prohibited 
or restricted products, with many of them attributable to international agreements, i.e. to protect 
the environment or similar (Table 3.8). In addition, the EU has import prohibitions on cat and dog 
fur, and products there of; and seal products.60 According to the Commission, they consider these 
as internal measures and not border measures. Pursuant to an EU regulation61, the Commission WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 325 - 
 
  has rules to restrict invasive alien species. The implementing regulation which came into  force in 
August 2016 provides a list of species and implementation.62 According to the Commission, no 
QRs were in place as of March 2017, and the regulation only sets the framework. Products 
prohibited due to sanctions, export control measures applied to dual-use goods, TBT, and SPS 
measures are not covered in this section (see Sections 3.2 and 3.3, respectively, for the 
restrictions on these products).  
 
[3.3.2 Sanitary and phytosanitary measures]  
Question5:  Can the EU countries impose import bans and prohibitions on the turnover of specific 
products within national borders?  
 
EU reply : Member States may adopt interim protective measures in accordance with Article 54 of 
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Member States may 
adopt such measures if they officially inform the European Commission of the need to adopt them 
and the Commission has not acted. If a Member State adopts interim protective measures, the 
Commission has to examine the matter within 10 days. The grounds on which the measures may 
be adopted and the content of the measures are the same for goods originating from within the 
Union or imported from non -EU countries.  
 
6 In what cases such bans can be introduced apart from for the SPS and TBT concerns?  
 
7 If such measures are imposed, for how long can they be in force?  
 
EU reply to questions 6 -7: In accordance with Article 54(3) of Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 a 
Member Stat e may maintain its national interim protective measures until the Community 
measures have been adopted.  
 
8 Please provide more detailed information.  
According to the French Biodiversity law, starting from September 1, 2018 France will impose a 
ban on the a ctive substances of the neonicotinoud group and the use of seeds treated with these 
agents.  
 
9 Under what circumstances can this measure be spread throughout the whole EU territory?  
 
EU replies to questions 8 and 9 : Within the framework of the notification  procedure laid down 
by Directive (EU) 2015/1535 the French authorities notified to the European Commission on 2 
February 2017 a draft “Decree on the definition of neonicotinoid active substances contained in 
plant protection products”. Concerning the spec ific question, in compliance with Article 21 of 
Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 the Commission may review the approval of any active substance 
where there are indications that the substance no longer satisfies the approval criteria.  
 
10Please also elaborate h ow the Commission checks the conformity of such measures with 
provisions of Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?  
 
EU reply : The European Commission monitors the correct application within the European Union 
of all Union law. All secondary legis lation has to comply with the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union. On its part, compliance, notably by the Member States, with secondary legislation 
ensures that the measures in question are compliant with the Treaty.  
 
3.1.7 Anti -dumping, count ervailing, and safeguard measures  
 
Question:  11According to the anti -dumping practice and the EU law is there a way for a new 
foreign producer to import into the EU without having to pay anti -dumping duty if such producer 
hasn’t yet existed as a company when the measure was imposed?  
 
12 Can the revision of the anti -dumping measure be initiated in this case? If so, what conditions 
should be met?  
 
EU reply to above questions 11 and 12 above: The European legislation foresees, in Article 
11(4) of its basic anti-dumping Regulation, the possibility for new exporters to request a review, 
for the purpose of determining individual margins for new exporters. If certain conditions are met, 
in particular when no sampling was applied in the original investigation, th e Commission WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 326 - 
 
  Regulation initiating the review shall repeal the duty in force with regard to the new exporter 
concerned, and make imports subject to registration to ensure that, should the review result in a 
determination of dumping , duties can be levied r etroactively. In case the review results in a 
determination of no dumping, no duties will be due.  
 
3.1.7.2 Safeguards  
3.72, p. 63  
While there have been no safeguard investigations during the review period, the EU has invoked 
surveillance measures in 2016 pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2015/478 and Article 7 of 
Regulation (EU) 2015/755. The Commission Implementing Regulatio n (EU) 2016/670 put 
into force the surveillance measure one day after its publication, i.e. it runs from 30 
April 2016 until 15 May 2020, on certain iron and steel products.  Citing significant increases 
in imports of iron and steel between 2012 and 2015, f rom 41.8 to 55 million tonnes, global 
overcapacity, and the vulnerable situation of the industry, the Commission determined there was a 
threat of injury to Union producers.  
 
Question13:  How does the EU estimate preliminary results of surveillance measures imposed by 
the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/670 that have been in force for more than 1 
year?H5 – MF 
 
EU reply: Once the surveillance documents are issued by the relevant national authorities, the 
data is transferred to an integrated system  for the management of licences for imports of steel to 
the EU, namely a central database called SIGL and managed by the European Commission 
Directorate General for Trade (DG TRADE). Quantitative information on intended import volumes 
for all concerned ste el products, per month and per exporting country is collected. On this basis, 
DG TRADE sends monthly reports with this information to the Member States authorities and 
publishes aggregated data on the EU website http://trade.ec.europa.eu/sigl/index.html . 
 
Question14:  Does the EU intend to eliminate surveillance measures before the expiration date if 
the surveillance data demonstrates that there is no threat o f injury to the Union’s industry?  
 
EU reply to questions 13 and 14 : Considering that the overcapacity in the steel sector will be 
unlikely resolved in the short term, the EU considered that the application of the system should 
remain in place for a period of 4 years (from 30/4/2016 up to 15/05/2020). However, it cannot be 
excluded that, depending on the evolution of the situation, the system may be interrupted before 
the end of this period or even prolonged beyond that period. This is however impossible to predict 
at this stage.  
 
3.2 Measures directly affecting export  
3.2.4 Export credit, insurance and promotion  
3.90., p. 66  
EU governments, as other governments in the world, provide officially supported export credits 
through Export Credit Agencies (ECAs) in  support of national exporters competing for overseas 
sales. Such support can take the form of: loans offered to foreign buyers of ECA countries' goods 
and services; loan guarantees by an ECA covering the repayment risk on the foreign buyer's debt 
obligati ons incurred in the purchase of the ECA country's exports; export credit insurance provided 
to exporters in the ECA's home country; or, if the foreign borrower defaults, the ECA will pay the 
exporter the outstanding balance owed by the foreign borrower/pur chaser. ECAs can be 
government institutions or private companies operating on behalf of governments (Table  3.12 and 
Appendix Table A3.2).  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 327 - 
 
  Table Error! No text of specified style in document. .1 Selected official export credit agencies 
and their activities  
Austria  Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG (OeKB)  Export guarantees of the Austrian 
Government and OeKB funding via 
clients' banks  
Belgium  Delcredere - Ducroire  Public credit insurer covering companies 
against political and commercial risks  
Denmark  Eksport Kredit Fonden (EKF)  EKF guarantees safeguard against 
various risks: contract cancellation, 
bankruptcy, import bans, forex 
restrictions, etc.  
Germany  AuslandsGeschäftsAbsicherung der BRD  Covers export credit guarantees, 
investment guarantees and untied loan 
guarantees  
Spain  Compañía Española de Seguros de Crédito 
a la Exportación (CESCE)  Spanish export credit agency managing 
export credit insurance on behalf of the 
Spanish State  
U.K. U.K. Export Finance  Provides, inter alia,  credit insurance 
against non -payment under an export 
contract and letter of credit guarantee 
scheme  
Source:  OECD list of export credit agencies. Viewed at: http://www.oecd.org/trade/xcred/eca.htm  
and individual websites.  
Question15:  Taking into account the provided information on the types of support, please clarify 
if any of the European ECAs are eligible to provide support for domestic transactions with a view of 
enhancing future export outflows?  
 
16 If so, please indicate such pro grams.  
 
EU reply : In our understanding, the activity described here would not be an export credit. In 
principle, a Member State could also task the organism which acts as  Export Credit Agency with 
tasks that are not export credits, this would however not b e reported in their export credit related 
reporting and be separated from their official export credit activities. The EU would also like to 
recall that state aid is controlled in the EU (please refer to the WTO Secretariat section on state 
aid-subsidies).  
 
3.95., p. 68  
The EU contributes, from the budget, to closer cooperation at European level and to research for 
joint action with regard to EU member States and business organizations. This includes 
coordination with European programmes and with member St ates' export promotion programmes 
to participate in international exhibitions, trade forums, conferences, seminars and sector -specific 
business delegations. The cooperation with trade federations, national export promotion 
organizations and European chambe rs in non -EU countries pursues two aims: first of all, to ensure 
that any activities in a particular market strengthen the European dimension in trade and, 
secondly, to focus activities on a number of target countries to increase trade flows, including in 
particular South  East Asian countries.  
 
3.97., p. 68  
Through its trade policy under Article 207 of the TFEU, the EU improves access for European 
businesses to other countries' markets, such as through the negotiation and enforcement of trade 
agreements. This also includes the identification and legal/economic analysis, monitoring and 
reporting concerning trade barriers in other countries, and the development of databases to 
provide information on international trade, international trade agreements and imp ort 
requirements i n the EU market.  
 
3.96., p. 68  
Trade promotion organizations (TPOs) exist in different forms in many countries, including EU 
member States, and act as an effective tool to support companies abroad. TPOs support the 
internationalization of  SMEs in member State countries by providing consulting services, basic WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 328 - 
 
  market information, advisory services and information about trade fai rs or development aid 
projects.  
Question17:  With respect to specific contributions from the budget for furthering p articipation of 
national producers in international exhibitions, events or business missions, please elaborate what 
companies could become a recipient of such funds under a specific program for furthering its 
distribution among corresponding companies.  
 
EU reply : Each different program or support scheme developed by trade promotion organizations 
(TPOs) in EU Member States is usually defining specific conditions for the access of EU SMEs to 
funds or services supporting their internationalization. National or  regional TPOs provide support to 
national and regional based companies. The EU funds improving access to other countries' markets 
are intended to help European SMEs, in some cases some target groups are defined like for 
example in the innovation field.  
 
18 In the meantime, if ECA is eligible to arrange specific international exhibitions, trade forums, 
conferences, seminars and sector -specific business delegations, could it become a recipient of 
corresponding budget funds for their further allocation?  
 
EU reply : In our understanding, the activity described here would not be an export credit.  
 
3.3 Measures affecting production and trade  
3.3.1 Standards and other technical requirements (general question).  
Question19:  Are there any agreements between the EU a nd the other countries on the mutual 
recognition of conformity assessment? If so, please provide more detailed information and list such 
countries.  
 
EU reply: To date EU has signed Mutual Recognition Agreements on Conformity Assessment 
(MRAs) with Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, United States and Switzerland. The list 
of MRAs in force can be found at: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single -market/goods/international -
aspects/mutual -recognition -agreements_en . MRAs promote trade in goods between the European 
Union and third countries and facilitate market access by providing easier access to conformity 
assessment . MRAs lay down the conditions under which one Party (non -EU member country) will 
accept conformity assessment results (e.g. testing or certification) performed by the other's Part y 
(the EU) designated conformity assessment bodies (CABs) to show compliance with the first 
Party's (non -EU member country) requirements and vice versa, and they do not entail 
harmonisation of standards.  
 
The EU's preferred measure in the area of technical  barriers to trade is the promotion of the use of 
supplier's declaration of conformity. Managing MRA's has proved administratively challenging and 
resource intensive.  
 
With respect to standardisation, European Standardisation Organisations (CEN, CENELEC an d 
ETSI) play a crucial role in supporting the European integration through standardization, bridging 
the gap between regulatory expectations and market needs and supporting the free circulation of 
goods in the EU and European Economic Area (EEA – EU Member  States and Norway, Liechtenstein 
and Iceland). CEN and CENELEC 'Ambitions to 2020' entails, among others, contribution of CEN 
and CENELEC to the removal of technical barriers to trade worldwide, based on a strengthened 
relationship with the International Standardization Organization (ISO) and the International 
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), complemented by a network of partnerships and a series of 
projects. Accordingly, in 2016 CEN and CENELEC have revised their foreign partnerships concepts, 
proposing  new models of cooperation to the National Standardization Bodies (NSBs) and national 
Electrotechnical Commission (NCs) outside the 34 countries already covered by the CEN and 
CENELEC membership. For more information please consult: 
https://www.cencenelec.eu/intcoop/Pages/default.aspx . With harmonised standards in support of 
EU legislation please consult: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single -market/european -
standards/harmonised -standards/ . 
 
3.3.2 Sanitary and phytosanitary measures  
3.141, p. 78 -79 
Since the last Review in 2015, a new regulation on transmissible animal diseases (Animal Health 
Law) and a new law on plant pests (Plant Health Law) were adopted (Table 3.13).  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 329 - 
 
  Question20:  Animal Health Law introduces new control measures on emerging diseases, as well 
as health measures for the wild animal populations. Could you please provide more infor mation 
concerning the reasons for introducing new control and preventive measures? Does it mean that 
pre-existing measures were not effective enough?  
 
EU reply : Regulation (EC) 2016/429 (Animal Health Law -AHL) is a framework legislation that will 
apply as of 21 April 2021. It sets principles and rules for the prevention and control of 
transmissible animal diseases in kept and wild animals. It will be complemented by a number of 
acts, which amongst other will set the list of transmissible animal diseases and  update existing 
rules for the prevention and control of those diseases under the new legal framework.  Until the 
date of application of the Animal Heath Law, existing animal health legislation will continue to 
apply.  
 
3.145, p. 80 -81  
The EFSA, established  under the General Food Law of 2002, is an independent agency responsible 
for risk assessment for food and feed safety, nutrition, animal health and welfare, plant protection, 
and plant health, as well as, through environmental risk assessments, the possib le impact of the 
food chain on biodiversity.  
 
Question 21:  When developing new rules on endocrine disruptors, the EU based its measures on 
zero-risk approach instead of scientific based approach. How did the EFSA justify  it? 
 
EU reply : Article 5(3) of the Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR) and point 3.6.5 of Annex II to the 
Plant Protection Products Regulation (PPPR) provide the legal basis for the European Commission 
to adopt measures specifying scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine -disrup ting 
properties. Within these mandates the basic regulatory approach for endocrine disruptors (ED) 
already set in the PPPR and the BPR, adopted in 2009 and 2012 respectively, cannot be changed. 
The EU informed the WTO Members about this regulatory approach  by notifying the proposals of 
these Regulations to WTO in due time.  
 
The co -legislator specifically tasked the Commission and not EFSA to establish these scientific 
criteria. The proposed criteria for EDs proposed by the Commission and voted by Member Sta tes 
on 4 July 2017 ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment, are based 
on science, and are proportionate: the proposed criteria are based on the internationally agreed 
WHO definition of EDs which is widely supported by governme nts, scientists and stakeholders. 
They identify only EDs (neither suspected EDs, nor endocrine active substances). The EU decision 
making is still on -going as the text is now under scrutiny by the European Council and the 
European Parliament.  
 
3.3.2.2 Live  animals and animal products  
3.160, p. 83  
Where a recurrent problem has been identified with a specific animal product from a third country, 
special import conditions may be applied, such as reinforced testing or pre -export testing in the 
country of origin . 
 
Question22:  There is a list of third countries and their products that are regulated by special 
control measures. For each case legal basis is provided that gives effect to such special measures. 
Could you please clarify whether there is a common listin g procedure?  
 
23 What is the de -listing procedure?  
 
EU replies to questions 22 and 23 : In accordance with Article 53(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 
178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council, safeguard measures can be adopted 
when food or feed is likely to constitute a serious risk to human health, animal health or the 
environment. The measures taken depend on the gravity of the situation. Lifting of safeguard 
measures is considered on case -by-case after a risk assessment.  
 
3.3.5 Taxation  
3.214., p . 96 
The Commission has also adopted a tax reform package with the aim of overhauling the way in 
which companies are taxed in the Single Market. To this end, on 25 October 2016, the Commission 
relaunched proposals for a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Ba se195 (CCCTB) after a lack of WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 330 - 
 
  agreement on the original proposal from 2011. The proposed directives (the first for a common tax 
base and the second bringing in consolidation and formula apportionment) are currently under 
discussion with member States. In t erms of the main changes to the original proposal, the CCCTB 
will be mandatory for companies with a turnover of more than €750 million, whereas previously it 
was a general opt -in system. Also, the Commission wants member States to first agree on the 
common  tax base before tackling the EU -wide consolidation of tax returns.  
 
3.3.5.3 Value Added Tax  
3.220., p. 99 -100 
Since the last Review, the Commission has proposed an action plan on VAT, outlining the principles 
according to which a future single European V AT system would be organized. A central feature of 
the plan is the proposed change to the country of destination principle in connection with cross -
border shipments of goods. The action plan also outlines possible ways of granting members 
States more flexi bility to introduce reduced rates.  
 
Question24:  Could the EU clarify whether the anticipated tax reform package also includes the 
introduction of a common rate of value added tax within the whole territory of the EU? What are 
the exact plans of the EU concerning the reorganization of the Single Europea n VAT system?  
 
EU reply : The tax reform package does not include the introduction of a common rate of value 
added tax within the whole territory of the EU. The aim of the reorganization of the Single 
European VAT system is to tackle VAT fraud and simplify the rules on VAT by replacing the 
transitional arrangements, applicable since 1 January 1993, by a definitive VAT system for intra -
Union B2B supplies of goods.  
 
25 What kind of changes to the country of destination principle in connection with cross border  
shipments of goods are going to be introduced within the mentioned action plan on VAT?  
 
EU reply : Subsequent to the Action Plan the Commission will present a proposal on the definitive 
VAT system for intra -Union trade. Preparatory legislative work is still on -going.  
 
26 Speaking of import payments in general, what kind of taxes, duties, and fees exist in the EU 
member countries apart from VAT and excise tax?  
 
EU reply : Please refer to the WTO Secretariat section.  "3.1.4 Tariffs" and 3.1.5 Other charges  
affecting imports"  
 
27 Can the EU members introduce import taxes and fees at a national level?  
 
EU reply : Please refer to the WTO Secretariat section.  "3.1.5 Other charges affecting imports"  
 
REPORT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION (WT/TPR/G/357)  
2 TRADE AND THE ECO NOMIC ENVIRONMENT  
2.1 The EU economic environment and its macroeconomic policy  
2.6., p.4  
At the heart of the Investment Plan, a European Fund for Strategic Investments was created in 
2015, with an initial €21 billion backed by the EU (an EU budget guarantee of €16 billion and a 
contribution from the European Investment Bank of €5 billion). Thanks to a multiplier effect 
achieved by attracting private and public investors, this should trigger investments of more than 
€315 billion over three years. Alr eady after one year and a half, the Plan is expected to mobilize 
over €154 billion of new investments across the EU, from large infrastructure projects to local 
small and medium -sized companies in need of capital to expand their ideas. Given the success of  
the Plan so far, in September 2016 the European Commission announced its ambition to double 
the duration and financial capacity of the EFSI. Specifically, the Commission submitted a legal 
proposal to increase the EFSI investment target from €315 billion t o at least half a trillion euro in 
investments and extend the initial three -year period (mid -2015 to mid -2018) to the end of 2020 
(the so called EFSI 2.0 proposal).  
 
Question 28:  Taking into account that InnovFin and COSME are two major tools that EIB, EIF  and 
EFSI have jointly implemented to further boost SMEs activities and overcome the current 
investment gap in the EU and proposals of the European Commission to double the duration and WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 331 - 
 
  financial capacity of the program, please indicate whether ECAs are el igible to provide support for 
such projects (except providing guar antees and counter guarantees).  
 
29 Particularly, are ECAs allowed to participate in large investment projects together with 
investment funds and other development institutions?  
 
30 If so, p lease specify on which terms and under which regulatory framework (or specify which 
documents regulate such relationships).  
 
EU reply to questions 28 to 30 above : In principle, the activities of an Export Credit Agency 
can be pooled with other financing instruments and programmes (e.g. investment projects). The 
ECA would however only be able to provide the same export financing services as when it operates 
on its own. The usual regulatory provisions (EU law, OECD Arrangement on Export Credits) apply 
as we ll to an export credit provided in such a context.  
 
3 DEVELOPMENTS IN THE INTERNAL MARKET: THE SINGLE MARKET STRATEGY  
3.4., p. 5   
The Strategy aims at reviving and modernizing the Single Market in a way that improves the 
functioning of the markets for prod ucts and services, and guarantees appropriate protection for 
citizens. It is made up of targeted actions in three key areas:  
 
- creating opportunities for consumers, professionals and businesses;  
- encouraging and enabling the modernization and innovation that Europe needs;  
- ensuring practical delivery that benefits consumers and businesses in their daily lives.  
 
Question:  31Concerning the second key direction of the Single Market Strategy, please indicate 
which specific steps were made towards the impleme ntation of the abovementioned Strategy?  
 
32 Are there any positive effects that the program has achieved in strategic areas?  
 
EU reply : The actions envisaged in the identified key area of modernization and innovation that 
Europe needs relate to public procurement, intellectual property rights and standardization.  
 
With respect to public procurement the European Commission is currently preparing a voluntary, 
ex-ante assessment mechanism of the procurement aspects of certain large -scale infrastructure 
projects which should assist EU Member States in their assessments. Furthermore, t he digital 
transformation to e -procurement involves initiatives aimed  to reform aspects of the public 
procurement process such as the prequalification of economic operators and e-invoicing . On 17 
May 2017, the Commission adopted a Report on the review of the practical application of the 
European Single Procurement Document (ESPD).  Further actions include promoting a EU network 
of first instance review bodies so as to make remedie s in public procurement more efficient.  
 
In the area of intellectual property rights, t he European Commission is active in the 
implementation of a patent package  which includes a European patent with unitary effect (the 
‘unitary patent’) aimed at provid ing uniform protection across 26 EU countries on a one -stop-shop 
basis, providing huge cost advantages and reducing administrative burdens. Furthermore, the on -
going review of the EU rules on the enforcement of the intellectual property rights in line with th e 
‘follow the money’ approach focuses on tackling commercial -scale infringements and ensuring due 
diligence across the supply chain rather than pursuing individuals for infringing IPRs.  
 
With respect to standardiz ation, th e Joint Initiative on Standardiz ation has been adopted on 13 
June 2016. It is composed by a document underlining the common values underpinning European 
standardisation signed by more than 100 European stakeholders (EU and EFTA Member States, 
standardisation organisations and bodies, Europ ean industry and industry associations, SMEs, and 
societal stakeholders) and by 15 practical actions with the common aim of improving and 
modernizing the European standardisation system in order to face the current challenges 
(increased importance of servi ces, blurring between products and services, ICT everywhere) and 
optimize the implementation of the Regulation (EU) 1025/2012  on European standardisation. All 
information about the Joint Initiative on Standardisation (JIS) can be found online: 
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools -databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8852 . 
 
The implementation of the EU environmental action programme  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 332 - 
 
  3.44., p.12   
On 2 December 2015, the European Commission adopted an ambitious new Circular Economy 
Package. It is aimed at using resources in a more sustainable manner for the benefit of both the 
economy and the environment, and to contributing to the sustainable devel opment Goals under 
the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development, notably on responsible consumption and 
production. The Package is now being implemented with a range of concrete actions. In this 
context, the EU is in the process of adopting new rules on was te, while a strategy on plastics use, 
reuse and recycling (including the issue of marine litter) is expected in the course of 2017.  
 
The EU's actions on climate change  
3.49., p. 13  
Climate change has been central to the EU's actions for several years. In t his respect, as an 
integral policy of the European Energy Union, the EU has developed the "EU Climate action - 
decarbonizing the economy" for implementing at EU level the measures aimed at reaching the 
goals set in COP21, as well as in the Agenda 2030.  
 
Question 33:  Regarding the EU’s focus on furthering support of renewables, climate change 
adaptation projects and transition to a more circular economy, is there any chance that as a part 
of the Circular Economy Package and other related to sustainable growt h measures, EU is going to 
launch specific financial support programs (with the involvement of ECAs) or funding terms for 
these types of projects?  
 
EU reply : ECAs activities are decided at Member State level. See EU other replies on ECAs  
 
4 TRADE AND INVESTMENT POLICY DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 2015  
4.1 Trade for All Communication and its implementation  
4.1.2 An effective EU trade policy that tackles new economic realities  
4.17., p. 15  
In December 2016, the European Council reached a compromise regarding the E uropean 
Commission’s 2013 proposal to modernize its trade defence instruments (‘TDI’). This enables the 
Commission, Council and Parliament to start discussions with a view to finding a compromise on 
the Commission's 2013 proposal. On 9 November 2016, the E uropean Commission presented a 
proposal introducing changes to the EU's anti -dumping and anti -subsidy legislation, and which 
would allow the EU to adapt its trade defence instruments (TDIs) to deal with current realities of 
unfair trade practices in partic ular due to state induced market distortions in the international 
trading environment, while fully respecting the EU's international obligations in the legal 
framework of the WTO.  
 
[REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT (WT/TPR/S/357)  
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES B Y MEASURE  
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports  
3.1.1 Customs procedures and requirements  
3.1.7 Anti -dumping, countervailing, and safeguard measures  
3.1.7.1 Anti -dumping and anti -subsidy measures  
3.66., p.61  
The rise in new investigations in 2014 and 2015 was largely attributed to increases in 
investigations in two sectors — iron and steel, and chemical and allied products (Chart 3.4). In 
2016, the largest sector concerned was iron and steel. Increased investigations in that sector were 
similar in othe r countries during the same period and reflect the world overcapacity of the sector. 
The process is complaint -driven and reflects the sectors from which the EU received properly 
substantiated complaints.]  
  
Question:  With respect to the proposed modernizat ion of EU trade defence instruments, current 
legislation already allows the EU to impose higher duties in certain circumstances. Further 
strengthening of protectionism will lead to a growth of barriers that challenge companies entering 
the EU market.   
 
In the meantime, the EU currently has an unprecedented number of trade defence measures in 
place targeting unfair imports of steel products related to high levels of industr ial overcapacity and 
subsidies.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 333 - 
 
  As such, taking into account the latest cases of impo sing anti -dumping duties on steel, please 
explain how new method for calculating dumping on imports (as per Proposal for amending 
regulation on anti -dumping measures, 9/11/2016 - 2016/0351 (COD)) may help in determining 
state influence in the economy and w hether the actual data for specific companies will be 
considered in further investigations, rather than average indicators for the industry in general.  
EU reply : The new methodology can only be used if significant distortions in the economy of the 
exportin g country are deemed to exist.  Given that the proposal is currently under the legislative 
procedure which involves discussions between the European Commission, Council and the 
European Parliament, it is premature to speculate on the modalities of the final  outcome a nd how 
it will be implemented.  
 
34 Is there any chance that procedures under abovementioned Proposal will put exporters from 
non-European countries in less favorable position  in future investigation cases?  
 
EU reply : The new methodology can only be used if significant distortions in the economy of the 
exporting  country are deemed to exist. Given that the proposal is currently under the legislative 
procedure which involves discussions between the European Commission, Council and the 
European Parlia ment, it is premature to speculate on the modalities of the final outcome a nd how 
it will be implemented.  
 
EU reply : That is not foreseen.  
 
35Additionally, please provide more details about the main changes in the anti -dumping and anti -
subsidy legis lation.  
 
EU reply : The main substantive change contained in the Commission legislative proposal include 
the Introduction of a new anti -dumping methodology to capture market distortions linked to State 
intervention in third countries. In addition, the proposal includes a st rengthening of the anti -
subsidy instrument to allow the EU to also address subsidies which were identified only in t he 
course of an investigation. The full proposal can  be found in the attached 
link:http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs /2016/november/trado c_155079.pdf.  
 
36 Please explain what “current realities” made the EU review the legislation and how these 
“realities” were reflected in the new legislation?  
 
EU reply : The changes proposed are to update the trade defence instruments to deal with the 
current realities, such as significant market distortions which exist in the economies of several 
countries. Despite changes in the global trading environment, the EU's trade defence instruments 
have remained unchanged for over 20 years.  In this context the pro posed legislation sets out the 
criteria considered relevant for determining the distortions.  
 
4.21., p. 15  
The EU has fully complied with the Nairobi Ministerial Decision on Export Competition since the 
date of adoption of the Decision. No export subsidies  have been granted during the period in 
question – all export refund rates have remained at zero since July 2013. There are no agricultural 
exporting state -trading enterprises or export financing schemes benefiting agricultural products in 
the EU apart fro m a few horizontal export financing programmes run by certain EU Member States, 
where the share of ag ricultural exports is marginal.  
 
Question37:  Please specify those countries and their export financing programs that currently 
benefit agricultural sector.  
 
EU reply:  Export financing programs in the EU are applied by EU Member States. 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 . EU Member States 
not listed in that background document do not have an export financing program that currentl y 
benefits agricultural sector.  
 
4.1.3 A trade and investment policy based on values  
4.1.3.3 The EU's trade policy and sustainable development, h uman rights and good 
governance  
Fighting against corruption and promoting good governance  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 334 - 
 
  4.62., p. 20  
Under the GSP+ the EU offers trade preferences to countries that ratify and implement 
international conventions relating to good governance, including th e UN Convention Against 
Corruption. Trade agreements could be used further to tackle corruption and ensure international 
conventions and principl es are implemented in practice.  
 
4.63., p. 20  
The EU is in the process of developing further its approach on ho w to combat corruption relating to 
trade and investment.  
 
Question38:  Please specify the preferences that can be offered under EU legislation for those 
countries that have ratified and implemented relative international conventions (including UN 
Conventio n Against Corruption and OECD Declaration on International Investment and 
Multinational Enterprises).  
 
EU reply:  Under EU Regulation 978/2012, the GSP Regulation, a developing country listed in 
Annex II of the GSP Regulation and fulfills the vulnerability criteria in Annex VII can apply for 
GSP+. Such a developing country can be granted GSP+ if it fulfills the criteria specified in Article 9 
of the GSP Regulation. Among those criteria is the ratification and implementation of 27 
international conventions re lated to human rights, labour rights, protection of the environment and 
good governance (the conventions are specified in Annex VIII). All of these conventions must be 
ratified and implemented in order to be granted GSP+. The United Nations Conventions aga inst 
Corruption is among those conventions, however, the OECD Declaration on International 
Investment and Multinational Enterprises is not. The text of the GSP Regulation and its annexes 
can be found here:  
 
http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02012R0978 -20170101&from=EN  
 
4.1.4 The EU negotiating agenda  
4.1.4.1 Reinvigorating the multilateral trading system  
Horizontal subsidies negotiations  
4.75., p. 21  
The EU also believes that the WTO needs to play a central role in addressing other types of 
subsidies.  
 
4.76., p. 21  
The importance of the issue was showcased by G20 leaders in the ir Hangzhou statement, where 
the question of overcapacity was raised, including regarding links with subsidies. The EU together 
with other interested WTO members has sparked a debate in the WTO Committee on Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures (SCM) in or der to deepen the analysis regarding the impact of 
subsidies on overcapacity, with a view to identifying possible new disciplines to improve the SCM 
agreement.  
 
Question 39:  Please specify, whether the EU has already provided any proposals to negotiate 
current list of prohibited subsidies and the procedure in determining specificity of the subsidy?  
 
EU reply : The EU would like to refer Russian Federation to ongoing developments in the relevant 
committees of the WTO regarding proposals on rules.  
 
4.1.4.2 Ad vancing in plurilateral initiatives  
EGA negotiations  
4.82., p.22   
The EU has played a leading role in the negotiations for an Environmental Goods Agreement 
(EGA). The aim of an EGA is to (i) eliminate tariffs on a broad range of environmental goods used,  
among other things, for renewable energy generation, waste management, water treatment and 
air pollution control, and (ii) address non -tariff issues in the sector and services linked to 
environmental goods though a future work programme.  
 
4.83., p.22  
The EU will continue working with all WTO members involved to bridge the gaps in the negotiations 
and reach an agreement as soon as possible, considering the importance of an EGA to contribute 
to address climate change and environmental changes.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 335 - 
 
   
Question40:  Please indicate whether existing programs related to liberalizing trade in goods and 
services which can deliver environmental benefits are compliant with the WTO regulations and 
other international legislations, i.e. with regard to officially supported ex port credits if applicable 
under specific programs.  
 
EU reply : The question is not very clear and rather far reaching. The EU can report that all the 
measures with the view to liberalise trade in goods and services with benefit to the environment 
are WTO compatible and comply with EU international obligations.  
 
4.1.4.3 The bilateral negotiating agenda  
4.85., p. 22  
In recent years, the EU has developed an ambitious bilateral agenda, which complements and 
reinforces its efforts within the multilateral trading system. Throughout the process, the EU is 
paying particular attention to the scope and depth of its trade agre ements, to ensure they take 
into account the needs of today's economy, as well as of the economic realities of its partners and 
paying attention to full compliance with WTO rules, while supporting and promoting EU values and 
standards: the promotion of hum an rights, health and consumer protection and sustainable 
development, including labour rights and environmental protection.  
 
Question  41: With which countries does the EU intend to have a preferential trade and economic 
agreements in the nearest 5 years?  
 
EU reply:  While the pace and outcome of negotiations depends also on its trading partners, the 
EU hopes that in principle all the bilateral negotiations set out in Section 5.2 of its Trade for All  
strategy will be finalized or at a very advanced stage ov er the next five years  
 
GENERAL QUESTIONS  
 
Question 42: The European Commissions’ proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament 
and of the Council on the introduction of temporary autonomous measures for Ukraine 
supplementing the trade concessions a vailable under the Association Agreement (COM(2016)631, 
29.09.2016) provides for additional lowering or abolition of duties for certain tariff lines for Ukraine 
(individual industrial goods), as well as expansion of tariff quotas for a number of agricultur al 
goods. The aforementioned preferences are to be formalized as unilateral autonomous trade 
preferences for the duration of three years, providing for better EU market access for the Ukrainian 
goods. Please provide more detailed information concerning EU’ s plans on giving Ukraine 
autonomous trade preferences. Could the EU please elaborate how this complies with the WTO 
MFN principle?  
 
EU reply : The EU would like to refer to its statement on 7 July.  1:"With regard to Russia's 
questions on autonomous measure s for Ukraine, these were taken in the context of our bilateral 
trade liberaliz ation efforts, which are compatible with GATT Article XXIV. Our recent measures 
were driven by the fact that Ukraine could not fully profit from our DCFTA given the disruption a nd 
extraordinary fall in the G DP of Ukraine in 2014 and 2015. " 
  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 336 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM  THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF 
TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINM EN AND MATSU  
 
PART I: REGARDING TH E SECRETARIAT REPORT  (WT/TPR/S/ 357) 
 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR  
(1) 4.103.1  AUDIOVISUAL SERVICES   
(i) PAGE 1 69 
4.103 (i) allowing member States to impose financial contributions on providers of on -demand 
services established in other member States.  
 
Question(s):  
1 Would this proposal be the entry barrier for entering the EU market for TPKM’s audiovisual and 
music industry? B1 CNECT – FH. 
 
EU reply : The proposal does not represent an entry barrier to the EU audiovisual market. The 
envisaged measure would not discri minate against non -EU providers of on -demand audiovisual 
services. Neither would it represent a market access limitation in the sense of Art. XVI GATS.  
 
PART II: REGARDING T HE GOVERNMENT REPORT  (WT/TPR/G/ 357 )  
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR   
(1) 4.3.2 E–COMMERCE IN THE DIGI TAL SINGLE MARKET  
(i) Page 171  
4.116. As part of the same package, the European Commission also adopted an initial 
Communication on Online Platforms in which it conducted a comprehensive assessment of the role 
of online platforms, formulated the Commission's policy approach to online platforms, and 
identified areas where action or further assessment may be necessary.  
 
(ii) Page 172  
4.120. During the period under review, the European Commission also launched an e -commerce 
sector enqu iry aimed at obtaining an overview of the prevailing market trends, gathering evidence 
on potential barriers to competition linked to the growth of e -commerce, and understanding the 
prevalence of certain, potentially restrictive, business practices and the  underlying rationale for 
their use. The results are not expected to be available by the EU TPR meetings.  
 
Question(s):2  
In the Internet age, the types of barriers to cross -border business transactions are mainly 
inadequate infrastructure, protection of lo cal content or technology, data/information, and 
personal privacy protection, intellectual property rights infringement. The controversy over 
Internet transactions is mainly due to its inability to manage transactions effectively, to deal with 
fair competi tion, to safeguard its own industry and consumer rights. The EU's introduction of 
Internet -related legal concepts and practical assessment and management practices is very 
instructive. We are interested in the e -commerce sector inquiries and a comprehensiv e assessment 
of the role of online platforms conducted by the European Union. We hope that the EU will be able 
to provide more information, such as responsible authorities, operational methods, transnational 
cooperation m echanisms and research results.  
 
EU reply : Regarding the e -commerce enquiry, the Commission launched the sector inquiry into e -
commerce on 6 May 2015, as part of the Digital Single Market strategy, on the basis of European 
Union ("EU") competition rules, pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation  1/2003. On 10 May 2017, the 
Commission adopted the Final Report on the e -commerce sector inquiry60 and published the 
accompanying Staff Working Document61 which set out the main findings of the e -commerce sector 
inquiry taking into account the views and com ments submitted by stakeholders during the public 
consultation.  
 
Regarding online platforms, the Commission has on 25 May 2016, presented a targeted approach 
to online platforms62 and in particular, it proposed an update of EU audiovisual rules to create a 
fairer environment for all players, promote European films, protect children and tackle hate speech 
                                                
60 http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/sector_inquiry_final_report_en.pdf . 
61 http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/sector_inquiry_swd_en.pdf . 
62 http://eur -lex.eur opa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016DC0288 . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 337 - 
 
  better and a new approach to online platforms, addressing challenges in different areas. This 
proposal reflects the new approach of the Commission towards o nline platforms - like online 
marketplaces, search engines, payment systems, social media, video and content -sharing sites. 
Other initiatives are taken place and the best is to refer to the relevant website of the 
Commission63 
  
                                                
63https://ec.europa.eu/digital -single -market/en/online -platforms -digital -single -market . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 338 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTI ONS FROM  ECUADOR  
 
Informe de la Secretaría de la OMC.  
 
1. Página 69, párrafo 3.72 y 3.73, respecto del Reglamento de Ejecución (UE) 2016/670 de la 
Comisión: la UE aplica una medida de vigilancia para determinados productos siderúrgicos que rige 
desde el 30 de abri l de 2016 y estará vigente hasta mayo de 2020.  
 
Q1 Al respecto, el Ecuador desea conocer ¿qué productos siderúrgicos están incluidos dentro de 
esta medida de vigilancia?  
 
EU reply:  The prior Steel surveillance scheme covers products listed under Annex I o f Regulation 
2016/670 as recently modified by EU Regulation 2017/1092 (OJ L 158 of 21.6.2017).  
 
Q2 Además del documento de vigilancia, ¿existe alguna obligación o procedimiento adicional que 
deba cumplir el importador y en dónde se detallan esos procedimie ntos o requisitos?  
 
EU reply:  Steel surveillance documents must be presented when goods are imported and released 
for free circulation in the EU territory. This means that these steel surveillance procedures are 
additional to the ones governing imports in the EU (Regulation EU 952/2013, 2015/2446 and 
2015/2447). However, these latter procedur es serve different purposes.  
 
2. Página 56, párrafo 3.43: trato arancelario favorable a determinados productos en razón de su 
naturaleza, calidad o autenticidad, mediante el uso de certificados. Según el último Arancel de la 
UE, las uvas de mesa (0806), los tabacos (2401) y los nitrato s (3102 y 3105) recibieron ese trato 
preferencial.  
 
Q3 Al respecto, ¿podría indicarnos la Unión Europea como ese tratamiento, que se convertiría en 
una ventaja arancelaria para los productos originarios de determinados países, se ajusta al 
principio de na ción más favorecida en el caso de productos similares importados de otros países 
Miembros de la OMC?  
 
EU Reply : These particular products present specific characteristics that made them unique when 
sourced in a particular region or country. Case of "nitrat es from Chili" : these nitrates have a 
specific composition because they are the result of mining and exploitation of salitre. There is 
differentiated treatment because of historical trade arrangements (GATT), and also because of 
substantive reasons: the ch emical composition of nitrates from Chili is different to other nitrates 
sourced in other parts of the world. (jose+ AGRI)  
 
3. Página 57, párrafo 3.45: la UE ha establecido contingentes arancelarios para la carne de vacuno 
de calidad superior, que se aplic an únicamente a las importaciones procedentes de determinados 
países. Partiendo del principio de no discriminación NMF y que las importaciones bajo contingentes 
arancelarios se benefician de una renta con contingentes,  
 
Q4 ¿podría indicarnos la UE las raz ones de la apertura de ese contingente y cómo esa ventaja 
arancelaria no estaría discriminado entre productos similares procedentes de otros países 
Miembros de la OMC?  
 
EU reply:  The country allocations of the high -quality beef TRQs and changes to their specifications 
derive from the implementation of the EU concessions set out in its schedule drawn up pursuant to 
GATT Article XXIV.6 negotiations and successive agreements reached with various trade partners. 
Such changes are reflected in the recasts and amendments of Commission Regulations (EC) No 
936/97 and (EC) No 810/2008 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 593/2013.EU 
management of the TRQs is carried out on the basi s of Article 184 of Regulation (EU) No 
1308/2013 and in accordance with the provisions of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 
593/2013.  
 
4. Página 70 párrafo 2.73, respecto a que los importadores de determinados productos 
siderúrgicos están obligado s a presentar un documento de vigilancia (que se obtiene 
automáticamente previa solicitud) para que los productos puedan despacharse a libre práctica, con 
el fin de disponer de información estadística avanzada que permita un análisis rápido de la 
evolución  de las importaciones”.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 339 - 
 
  Q5 Al respecto, ¿podría indicarnos la UE la razón de exceptuar a los productos originarios de 
Islandia, Liechtenstein y Noruega de presentar ese documento de vigilancia, y qué instrumento 
normativo permite esa excepción, de ser el caso?  
 
EU reply:  Products originating in Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are excluded from steel 
surveillance in view of the very close economic integration with the European Union within the 
European Economic Area (‘EEA’). Pursuant to the EEA Agreement EEA Members do, in principle, 
not apply trade defence measures in their mutual relations.   
 
5. Página 78, párrafos 3.110 y 3.111, respecto de los requisitos esenciales comunes.  
Q6 ¿Podría indicarnos la UE si existe alguna diferencia en cuanto a la cobertura y vinculación  entre 
los requisitos esenciales del nuevo enfoque y las reglamentaciones técnicas conforme el Acuerdo 
OTC de la OMC? ¿Por qué sólo para el caso de vehículos se sigue utilizando el término de 
reglamento?  
 
EU reply:  The difference between the EU directives and regulations drafted following the so -called 
"New Approach" - now labelled the New Legislative Framework – and those drafted following the 
so-called "Old Approach" is the regulatory technique used. In the case of the New Legislative 
Framework only the e ssential requirements for a particular product sector or addressing a 
particular risk are made mandatory and technical specifications aimed at achieving these essential 
requirements are contained in voluntary harmonized standards. European harmonised stand ards, 
where available and fully applied, provide a presumption of conformity, but manufacturers remain 
free to use alternative technical solutions to demonstrate compliance with regulatory 
requirements. In the majority of cases where the manufacturer choos es not to use the harmonized 
standards, the manufacturer may use the same conformity assessment procedures as would be 
used to show the product is manufactured in compliance with harmonized standards. However, for 
toys, high -risk machinery, and specific is sues related to the use of radio frequencies, third -party 
conformity assessment is required if the product is not manufactured in compliance with 
harmonized standards.  
 
In the case of the Old Approach detailed rules containing all the required technical an d 
administrative requirements for each type of product are set. The difference of regulatory 
technique used does not affect the status of the two types of regulations in the context of the WTO 
TBT Agreement, i.e. both are considered technical regulations a nd are duly notified to WTO on the 
basis of Article 2 of the WTO TBT Agreement.  
 
6. Página 88, párrafos 3.143 y 3.144, respecto al Reglamento (UE) 2017/625 del Parlamento 
Europeo y del Consejo relativo a los controles y otras actividades oficiales realizad os para 
garantizar la aplicación de la legislación sobre alimentos y piensos, y de las normas sobre salud y 
bienestar de los animales, sanidad vegetal y productos fitosanitarios, en vigencia desde el 27 de 
abril de 2017. Conforme a dicho Reglamento, la Com isión Europea se encargará de elaborar 
proyectos de propuestas legislativas y actos delegados para la adecuada aplicación de este 
Reglamento.  
 
Al respecto, Q7¿qué tipos de actos delegados o proyectos legislativos se están elaborando al 
momento en la Comisi ón y que ámbito de la normativa cubrirán?  
 
EU reply:  As regards the Commission empowerments provided under Regulation (EU) 2017/625, 
work is currently underway to make legislation and implement import control rules. This work 
includes:  
 
 Delegated acts for border control procedures (Articles 48, 50.4, 51.1, 51.2, 53.1, 77.1, 
77.2), which will among other things establish cases and conditions under which certain 
categories of goods are exempted from official controls at borders, cases and conditions to 
author ise onward transportation of consignments, etc.;  
 Implementing Acts for border control procedures (Articles 15.4, 49.4, 52, 54.3, 54.4, 58, 
60) which will include the establishment of criteria to be used to determine and modify the 
frequency rates of identity and physical checks of consignments on the basis of the risk 
posed to animal, human and plant health, format of Common Health Entry Document 
(CHED), etc.;  
 Implementing acts for isolation and quarantine, re -enforced checks, consistency applying 
measures in cases when non -compliances are detected (Articles 65.6, 66.2 and 70);  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 340 - 
 
   Delegated acts for additional categories of goods subject to border controls (Article 47.3);  
 Delegated acts for border control posts location/re -designation (Articles 62.3, 64.2  and 
64.5).  
 
Q8 ¿Podrá el Ecuador, en el marco del ACR que mantiene con la UE, acudir al artículo 100 sobre 
Trato Especial y Diferenciado en cuanto a la legislación que se adopte en torno al Reglamento (UE) 
2017/625?  
 
EU reply:  Article 100 of the Trade Agreement between the European Union and Colombia, Peru 
and Ecuador is applicable to regulatory acts establishing implementing measures under Regulation 
(EU) No 2017/625.  
 
Q9 ¿De qué manera afecta o modifica este Reglamento al procedimiento de controles of iciales 
veterinarios que se han venido efectuado hasta el momento? ¿Qué documentación deberá 
presentarse para la importación de las mercancías desde la fecha en que empiece a aplicarse el 
Reglamento? ¿Cómo y con qué periodicidad se realizarán controles fís icos? 
 
EU reply:  Regulation (EU) 2017/625, as regards import controls, does not introduce a major 
regulatory overhaul. The Regulation aims to optimise the effectiveness of controls by making the 
system more risk -based. All consignments from non -EU countrie s that enter the EU via an 
approved Border Control Post (BCP) will undergo documentary checks. Identity and physical 
checks will be performed at a frequency linked to the level of risk associated with the specific 
animals or goods involved.  The Commission,  by means of implementing acts, will establish the 
criteria to be used to determine and modify the frequency rates of identity and physical checks.  
The Common Health Entry Document (CHED) will replace the Common Veterinary Entry Document 
(CVED) and will n eed to be submitted to the authorities at the BCP to pre -notify the arrival of all 
goods and animals that must go through the controls at BCPs. The CHED will be used to record the 
outcome of official controls at border and the decisions taken by the compet ent authorities. The 
CHED will also be used by the operator to get clearance by custom authorities.  
 
Q10 Sobre las tasas que serán cobradas por la autoridad a efectos de los controles oficiales 
realizados, de ser el caso, ¿podría informarnos la UE sobre el  método y aplicación del cobro de 
estas tasas, así como conocer si existe un nivel máximo que pueden alcanzar esas tasas? Sobre 
esta misma materia, ¿qué tipos de otras tasas o gravámenes podrán ser recaudados por los 
Estados miembros por concepto de contro les oficiales, conforme a los que estipula el artículo 80 
del Reglamento (UE) 2017/625?  
 
EU reply:  Article 79 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 requires Member States to collect fees for 
certain official controls, including import controls performed at BCPs.  
 
As regards import controls performed on animals and goods referred to in points (a), (b) and (c) of 
Article 47(1) (namely animals, products of animal origin, germinal products, animal by -products, 
plants and plant products), to calculate the amount of fees  Member States will have the following 
options:  
 fees established at a flat -rate on the basis of the costs borne by the competent authorities 
over a given period of time;  
 fees calculated on the basis of the costs of each individual control  and applied specifi cally 
to the operator subject to the control;  
 fees based on the amounts provided by the Regulation in  Annex IV.  
 
For import controls performed on goods from certain non -EU countries requiring a temporary 
increase of controls, on animal and goods subject to  emergency measures or import conditions 
(i.e. Article 47.1 (d),(e),(f) ) Member States must recover the actual cost of controls.  
 
7. Página 111, párrafo 3.222, respecto del monopolio minorista del distribuidor sueco de bebidas 
alcohólicas Systembolaget AB . Según el informe de la Secretaría, el objetivo de este monopolio es 
reducir el consumo total de alcohol mediante la limitación de la oferta.  
 
Q11 En ese contexto, ¿podría indicarnos la UE cómo la actividad de esta empresa se ajusta a las 
disposiciones multilaterales sobre empresas comerciales del Estado, respecto de que sus ventas 
deberán atenerse exclusivamente a consideraciones de carácter com ercial, de libre competencia y 
de conformidad con las prácticas comerciales corrientes? ¿Ha considerado la Unión Europea que WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 341 - 
 
  podrían existir otras medidas que ayudarían a conseguir el objetivo planteado de reducir el 
consumo de alcohol, sin acudir a medida s que limitan la oferta?  
 
EU reply:  The EU invites Ecuador to consult the most recent EU notification of its STEs 
(document: G/STR/N/16/EU) presenting in details Systembolaget. As clearly stated in the 
notification Systembolaget holds the retail monopoly for alcoholic beverages in Sweden. Other 
(non-state) entities are allowed to import and export alcoholic beverages.  
 
8. Página 155, párrafo 4.8, respecto del régimen de pagos directos para los pequeños agricultores.  
 
Q12¿Podría indicarnos la Unión Europea  cómo se contabiliza esos pagos en lo concerniente al 
régimen de pago único por superficie, según concepto incluido en el Reglamento (UE) No 
1307/2013 del Parlamento Europeo y el Consejo por el que se establecen normas aplicables a los 
pagos directos a los  agricultores en virtud de los regímenes de ayuda incluidos en el marco de la 
Política Agrícola Común?  
 
EU reply:  The Small Farmers Scheme (SFS) is a simplified direct payment scheme. It is optional 
for Member States. Of the 10 EU Member States applying th e single area payment scheme (SAPS), 
6 Member States decided to apply the SFS (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Poland and 
Romania).  
 
Any farmer eligible for SAPS in the year 2015 could opt to participate in the SFS in that year. 
Participation in the SF S lasts until the farmer decides to withdraw from the scheme.  
 
According to Article 61(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, payment under the SFS replaces any 
other payments the farmer could receive under direct payment schemes (e.g. SAPS). Payment 
under th e SFS is calculated according to the method set by the Member State either as a lump -
sum amount per farmer or as a payment due per farmer annually or in the year 2015. Where the 
SFS is granted as a lump -sum, it is a fixed amount (e.g. in Latvia it is EUR 5 00) and the support 
rate under SAPS has no impact on the payment under SFS. Where the SFS is granted as a 
payment due (annually or in 2015) per farmer, any payment such a farmer could have received 
(annually or in 2015) is accounted for his/her payment und er the SFS. However, payment under 
the SFS can never exceed the limit set by the Member States (generally, EUR 1 250, but some 
Member States set it at a lower level).  
 
Further information regarding the SFS is available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/direct -support/direct -payments/docs/small -
farmers -scheme_en.pdf . 
 
9. Página 169, párrafo 4.39, relativa a la aplicación dada por la UE a la decisión de la Conferencia 
Ministerial de Nairobi relativa a la eliminación de las subvenciones a la exportación.  
 
Q13 ¿Podría indicarnos la UE mediante qué disposición normativa interna está aplicando la 
Decisi ón de Nairobi, y a nivel multilateral, bajo que figura normativa se cumplirá dicha Decisión?  
 
EU reply: The EU is actively preparing a draft updated EU -28 schedule which will include 
scheduling the Nairobi outcome as regards export subsidies, which it hope s to submit soon in 
2017. In addition, the EU confirms its compliance with the provisions concerning international food 
aid of the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition, as reflected in its notifications and responses to 
the WTO Secretariat questionnaire on export competition.  
  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 342 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTI ONS FROM TURKEY  
 
THE GOVERNMENT REPORT  
 
2.1 Trade and the Economic Environment – The EU Economic Environment and Its 
Macroeconomic Policy, pg. 4, para. 2.6  
 
“At the heart of the Investment Plan, a European Fund for Strategic Investments was created in 
2015, with an initial €21 billion backed by the EU (an EU budget guarantee of €16 billion and a 
contribution from the European Investment Bank of €5 billion). Thanks to a multiplier effect 
achieved by attracting pri vate and public investors, this should trigger investments of more than 
€315 billion over three years. Already after one year and a half, the Plan is expected to mobilize 
over €154 billion of new investments across the EU, from large infrastructure project s to local 
small and medium -sized companies in need of capital to expand their ideas. Given the success of 
the Plan so far, in September 2016 the European Commission announced its ambition to double 
the duration and financial capacity of the EFSI. Specific ally, the Commission submitted a legal 
proposal to increase the EFSI investment target from €315 billion to at least half a trillion euro in 
investments and extend the initial three -year period (mid -2015 to mid -2018) to the end of 2020 
(the so called EFSI 2.0 proposal). ” 
 
Question1:  a) Could the EU provide further information about the initial results of the Investment 
Plan (distribution of projects in terms of sub -sectors, firm sizes, member countries benefited from 
the Plan, etc.)? b) Could the EU explain  the relationship between the Investment Plan and the EU’s 
new trade strategy called “Trade for All”?  
 
EU reply:  As of 15 June, 523 transactions supported by EFSI have already been approved by the 
European Investment Bank Group for a total investment value of EUR 209 billion (66% of the 
overall objective of EUR 315 billion by mid -2018), covering all 28 Member States  and expected to 
benefit close to 427,000 SMEs and mid -caps. 
 
When looking at EFSI financing and investment mobilised per capita of gross domestic product 
(GDP), the top 5 Member States as of June 2017 are Estonia, Spain, Bulgaria, Portugal and 
Finland. Th e EFSI investment by sector is as follows: Smaller companies: 30%; Energy: 21%; 
RDI: 22%; Digital: 10%; Transport: 9%; Social infrastructure: 4%; Environment and resource 
efficiency: 4%.  
 
The European Investment Plan and the “Trade for All” strategy are a priori not directly connected. 
They both outline aims for policy of the EU, just like many other EU initiatives. The implementation 
of both contributes to the attainment of overall EU policy goals.  
 
4.1.4.1 Reinvigorating the Multilateral Trading System – pp 21, 4.69  
 
The government report states that “ the EU sees a need to pursue results through a more focused 
approach. In particular, after Nairobi, issues -based negotiations seem a more promising way to 
advance the WTO agenda than another broad and complex  round. The EU is using such an 
approach to break new ground at the WTO, and to spark WTO debates regarding existing Doha 
issues, as well as in areas which are part of the global trade reality, and where commitments have 
been taken in the context of free t rade agreements .”  
 
Question2:  How do you respond to concerns by some countries that issue based negotiations 
create unbalance? Does the EU see benefit in initiatives such as Trade Facilitation in Services as it 
offers a balance in the coverage of issues i n the area of trade in services and which may lead to a 
compromise under a single -undertaking?  
 
EU reply : The criticism that issue -based negotiations are unbalanced is unfounded given that 
ultimately such issue -based negotiations lead to the creation of pa ckages which are agreed by 
consensus and reflect a balance of interest of Members. With regard to the benefits of individual 
initiatives, the EU as a matter of principle welcomes bottom -up initiatives of Members across the 
various areas of negotiations. Su ch initiatives are needed in order to sustain discussions. The EU's 
assessment of individual proposals including the Trade Facilitation in Services proposal has been 
expressed in the relevant negotiating group meetings.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 343 - 
 
  4 Trade and Investment Policy Deve lopments Since 2015  
 
4.1.4.3 The bilateral negotiating agenda, p. 23, 4.94  
 
It is stated in the Government Report that “ Negotiations between the EU and the U.S. for a 
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), launched in 2013, continued during  the 
years under review. Fifteen rounds of talks had taken place by October 2016. The negotiations 
were launched in order to contribute to addressing the challenges of today's global trading 
environment, to deliver growth and to reinforce the transatlantic  partnership .”  
 
Question3:  The TTIP negotiations with the USA have been at a standstill since the end of 2016. 
Could the EU explain if there is any perspective to revitalize the negotiations with the USA in the 
near future?  
 
EU reply:  following three year s of intense talks, TTIP negotiations are now effectively on hold. The 
EU stays committed to ensuring a strong trade and investment relationship with the US but the 
new US administration is still in the process of defining its trade policy.  
 
The economic a nd strategic case for TTIP stands. But before any decision to relaunch the 
negotiations, the EU needs clarity that there is sufficient common ground for taking the 
negotiations to conclusion in a balanced manner.  
 
4.78, 4.79 Advancing the E -Commerce Discus sions in the WTO – pp 21 -22 
 
Question4:  Could the EU please share their views on possible deliverables regarding the e -
commerce agenda in MC11?  
 
EU reply : Please refer to the EU Statements on 5 and 7 July.  
 
5.3 Looking Ahead – pp 23  
 
The government report states that the EU  will work towards preparing meaningful deliverables for 
MC11.  
 
Question5:  What is the EU’s position for an MC11 deliverable in trade in services taking into 
account the discussions under CTS?  
 
EU reply : Please refer to the EU Sta tement on 5 and 7 July  
 
THE SECRETARIAT REPORT  
 
Summary – pp 11, Para 17.   
It is stated in the Secretariat Report that; in maritime transport, a new regulation was adopted in 
March 2017 establishing a framework for the provision of port services and common  rules on 
financial transparency of ports which will apply from 2019.  
 
Question6:  Could the EU explain if the new legislation regarding ports cover the ports operated 
by private companies?  
 
EU reply: Regulation (EU) 2017/352 establishing a framework for th e provision of port services 
and common rules on the financial transparency of ports applies to all the ports of the trans -
European network and the port services defined in Article 1 of the Regulation regardless of their 
public or private ownership.  
 
1.2.1  Economic Environment – Trade Performance – Goods, pgs. 24 -25, para. 1.31  
 
“Intra -EU trade is also important to many member States of the EU as their trade within the bloc is 
larger than extra -EU trade. In 2015, intra -EU trade was valued at €3,068 billion,  increasing 4.6% 
from 2014, thus significantly greater than EU external exports and with a higher growth rate. The 
EU member States with the highest amounts of intra -EU imports and exports were Germany, 
France (imports), and Netherlands (exports). In 2015,  intra-EU trade was larger than extra -trade WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 344 - 
 
  for all member States except the United Kingdom. Member States with the highest percentage of 
intra-EU exports in 2015 were Slovakia, Luxembourg, and the Czech Republic.”  
 
Question 7: Could the EU elaborate on th e medium and long -term implications of the Brexit in 
extra- and intra -EU trade?  
 
EU reply : As explained during the TPR meetings, the EU can only reply the following for the 
moment: on 29 March 2017, the UK Government formally notified the European Council of its 
intention to withdraw from the European Union pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on European 
Union. An agreement on the UK's withdrawal will be negotiated following the rules established in 
the Treaty on European Union (TEU).  
 
On 29 April 2017 the  European Council adopted guidelines defining the framework for negotiations 
under Article 50 TEU and setting out the overall positions and principles that the Union will pursue 
throughout the negotiation. The adoption of the European Council guidelines wa s followed by a 
Commission proposal on 3 May for a Council Decision authorising the Commission to open 
negotiations, and proposing negotiating directives. The Council Decision including negotiating 
directives were adopted on 22 May by the Council of the Eu ropean Union.  
 
Negotiations will start after the general elections in the UK on 8 June. They will focus in a first 
phase on the withdrawal arrangements notably on citizens' rights, financial settlement and new 
external borders. An agreement must be reached  by October 2018, in order to allow for the 
ratification process to be completed and the UK to withdraw from the Union by the end of the two -
year deadline, at the end of March 2019.  
 
Until its withdrawal, the UK remains a Member State of the European Union  with all rights and 
obligations of a Member State. The EU Treaties continue to apply to the UK and in the UK during 
that period. Until its withdrawal, the  UK continues to be bound by the Union's exclusive 
competence in respect of the common commercial pol icy pursuant to Article 3 of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union and, more generally, the principle of sincere cooperation 
pursuant to Article 4(3) TEU.  
 
The EU will engage with the UK in a cooperative manner in order to guarantee an orderl y process 
leading up to the withdrawal of the UK from the EU.  
 
The EU will revert to the WTO Membership after engaging with the UK bilaterally on any WTO 
related aspect of the UK's withdrawal from the EU.  
 
1.2.2 Services – pp 25 -26, 1.34 
Could the EU provide the statistics with respect to the extra -EU export and import of road 
transport services by partner country and freight description?  
 
EU reply : the EU does not have such statistics available.  
 
2 Trade and Investment Regime,  
 
2.1 Legal and Institutional Framework, p. 32, 2.9 -10: 
 
It is stated in the Secretariat Report that,  “Regarding the question of distribution of competences, 
in July 2015 the Commission requested an opinion from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to 
clarify the scope of EU competence to conclude the EU -Singapore Free Trade Agreement (with 
implications for other trade agreements) under Article 218(11) of the TFEU (Case A – 2/15). In 
this case, the Commission asked which provisions of the agreement with Singapore fall withi n the 
EU's exclusive or shared competence and which remain within the EU Member States' remit and 
require approval by national instances. The Commission expressed the view that the Union has 
exclusive competence to conclude EUSFTA alone and, in the alterna tive, that it has at least shared 
competence in those areas where the Union's competence is not exclusive.”  
 
Question8:  Considering that the abovementioned ECJ opinion was given now, could the EU give 
the state of play with regard to the EU -Singapore FTA? Is there any expected timeline for the entry 
into force of the Agreement? In addition, how the EU think that the ECJ opinion would affect the 
EU’s current and future FTA negotiations?  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 345 - 
 
  EU reply: The recent decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) con firmed the EU exclusive 
competence on foreign direct investment. Regarding portfolio investment, the ECJ decided that 
this was explicitly excluded from the scope of Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
EU because the latter only mentions the  term "direct foreign investment". Thus portfolio 
investment falls under the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU provisions on free movement of 
capital, which is a shared competence. The consequences of the Opinion 2/15 of the ECJ on future 
trade and inves tments agreements are currently being considered. The EU is not at this stage in a 
position to provide a clear timeline for entry into force of the FTA.  
 
2.1 Legal and Institutional Framework, p. 31, 2.12:  
 
The Secretariat Report states that  “The European Commission took note of the outcome of the 
U.K. referendum on EU membership held in June 2016. The Commission has set up a taskforce 
that will take charge of preparing and conducting Brexit negotiations with the U.K., taking account 
of the framework for th e U.K.'s future relationship with the EU .” 
 
Question9:  Could the EU provide information about the foreseen effects of the Brexit process on 
the countries that the EU currently have  preferential trade regimes, like Turkey? Is there any 
roadmap from the EU side to minimize the effects of Brexit on these countries?  
 
EU reply : see EU reply to question 7 above . On 29 March 2017, the UK Government formally 
notified the European Council o f its intention to withdraw from the European Union pursuant to 
Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. An agreement on the UK's withdrawal will be 
negotiated following the rules established in the Treaty on European Union (TEU).  
 
On 29 April 2017 the European Council adopted guidelines defining the framework for negotiations 
under Article 50 TEU and setting out the overall positions and principles that the Union will pursue 
throughout the negotiation. The adoption of the European Council guidelines was  followed by a 
Commission proposal on 3 May for a Council Decision authorising the Commission to open 
negotiations, and proposing negotiating directives. The Council Decision including negotiating 
directives were adopted on 22 May by the Council of the Eur opean Union.  
 
Negotiations will start after the general elections in the UK on 8 June. They will focus in a first 
phase on the withdrawal arrangements notably on citizens' rights, financial settlement and new 
external borders. An agreement must be reached by October 2018, in order to allow for the 
ratification process to be completed and the UK to withdraw from the Union by the end of the two -
year deadline, at the end of March 2019.  
 
Until its withdrawal, the UK remains a Member State of the European Union with all rights and 
obligations of a Member State. The EU Treaties continue to apply to the UK and in the UK during 
that period. Until its withdrawal, the  UK continues to be bound by the Union's exclusive 
competence in respect of the common commercial poli cy pursuant to Article 3 of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union and, more generally, the principle of sincere cooperation 
pursuant to Article 4(3) TEU.  
 
The EU will engage with the UK in a cooperative manner in order to guarantee an orderly  process 
leading up to the withdrawal of the UK from the EU.  
 
The EU will revert to the WTO Membership after engaging with the UK bilaterally on any WTO 
related aspect of the UK's withdrawal from the EU.  
 
2.1 Trade and Investment Regime Pg. 32;  
 
It is stat ed in the Secretariat Report that Brexit will be one of the main challenges to impact the 
EU economy. Alteration of the bilateral trade due to increased barriers between the EU and the 
U.K. will be main component of this impact.  
 
Question10:  Could the EU provide a general outline for the planned rates of tariffs and non -tariff 
measures on good and services trade with the UK after Brexit? Moreover, could the EU provide a 
forecasted total loss in bilateral trade due to Brexit?  
 
EU Reply : see EU reply to ques tion 7 above  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 346 - 
 
  2.3 Trade Agreements and Arrangements , 2.3.1 WTO, p. 357, 2.18:  
 
It is stated in the Secretariat Report that “ While the EU reiterates the importance of the WTO as 
the central and pre -eminent forum for developing and enforcing the rules of global trade, it has 
moved away from a "single undertaking" approach by announcing that it will seek more issues -
based negotiations at the multilateral level and limited plurilateral initiatives (still ultimately open 
to all WTO countries) to achieve gradu al improvements to international trade rules. The 
international negotiations with other WTO Members on the plurilateral Trade in Services 
Agreement (TiSA), the Information Technology Agreement (ITA) and the Environmental Goods 
Agreement (EGA) are also seen  by the Commission as stepping stones to further liberalization in 
this area of trade in goods and services as well as trade -related aspects of intellectual property.”   
 
Question11:  Could the EU provide information about its perspective on a possible pluri lateral 
agreement on chemicals? Is this perspective limited only to tariffs or does it also cover non -tariff 
measures? Would the EU consider associating such an agreement with the existing “ Pharma 
Agreement ”? 
 
EU reply : The EU is ready to explore with othe r WTO Members possible sectoral agreements 
including on chemicals. The scope of such agreements would need to be defined as would the 
critical mass of Members needed in order for such agreements to be realistic. It is too early to 
comment on the possible r elationship between a chemicals agreement and the Pharma Agreement.  
 
3. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure  
 
3.1.7.1 Trade Policies and Practices by Measure – Measures Directly Affecting Imports – 
Anti-dumping, Countervailing, and Safeguard Measures – Anti-dumping and Anti -subsidy 
Measures, pg. 59, para. 3.59  
 
“More recently, in November 2016, the European Commission adopted a proposal to the European 
Parliament and the Council to amend both the Anti -dumping and Anti -Subsidy Regulations.”  
 
Question12: Could the European Union specify the core changes that this proposal would bring 
about for the methodo logy of calculation of dumping?  
 
EU reply: It should be noted that the EU has not yet put in place new anti -dumping regulations 
and the legislative procedure is ongoing. The proposal to amend the Basic anti -dumping legislation 
introduces a dumping calculation methodology for countries where significant di stortions are 
deemed to exist. The proposal sets out a non -exhaustive list of the types of distort ions which could 
be considered relevant and have an impact in that context – an extract from the relevant 
provisions of the legislative proposal states:  
 
Significant distortions for the product concerned may be deemed to exist, inter alia, when reported 
prices or costs, including the costs of raw materials, are not the result of free market forces as 
they are affected by government intervention. In considering whether or not significant distortions 
exist regard may be had, inter alia, to the potential impa ct of the following: the market in question 
is to a significant extent served by enterprises which operate under the ownership, control or 
policy supervision or guidance of the authorities of the exporting country; state presence in firms 
allowing the stat e to interfere with respect to prices or costs; public policies or measures 
discriminating in favour of domestic suppliers or otherwise influencing free market forces; and 
access to finance granted by institutions implementing public policy objectives.  
 
3.1.7.1 Anti -dumping and anti -subsidy measures, p. 60, 3,62:  
 
It is stated in the Secretariat Report that, “ In 2013, the EU initiated procedures to modernize its 
trade defence instruments to make them more accessible and better targeted to certain unfair 
trading practices. However, the process stalled in 2014 but was later revived in 2015, and 
discussions were still continuing in the Council in late 2016 .” 
 
Question13:  Could the EU give more information about the ongoing process for the 
modernization of trade  defence instruments? When is the expected timeframe for entry into force 
of the new legislation?  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 347 - 
 
  EU reply: please see EU reply to question 12  
 
3.2.3.1 Trade Policies and Practices by Measure – Measures Directly Affecting Exports – 
Export Prohibitions, Re strictions and Licensing – Dual-use Items Export Control Regime, 
pg. 65, para. 3.84  
 
“…The EU is not a member of the MTCR or the WA but EU member States participate in those 
regimes. In the NSG, the EU, represented by the European Commission, has observer  status, while 
it is a full member of the Australia Group… ”  
 
Question14: Please explain the reason why the EU has not become a member of MTCR, WA and 
NSG. 
 
EU reply : Turkey being a member of these regimes has knowledge of membership discussions, 
including  possible EU membership or the membership of individual EU Member States (such as 
Cyprus in the Wassenaar arrangement). The current state of play of EU membership in the 
international export control regimes reflects past developments specific to each regim e. 
 
3.2.3.1 Trade Policies and Practices by Measure – Measures Directly Affecting Exports – 
Export Prohibitions, Restrictions and Licensing – Dual-use Items Export Control Regime, 
pg. 65, para. 3.86  
 
“The Commission acknowledges the challenges in generating reliable statistics on dual -use exports 
as there is no correspondingly defined economic sector. Nevertheless, it is estimated that controls 
applying to dual -use items, represent about 3.4% of EU total exports in 2014. Dual -use items are 
listed i n the EU Control List and are classified in 10 categories. ” 
 
Question 15: Although Turkey acknowledges the difficulty to assign HS codes corresponding to 
the dual use items, could the EU inform if there is any ongoing work as such under Regulation 
428/2009?  
 
EU reply : The European Commission regularly updates a "Correlation table" of customs codes and 
dual-use codes (see for late st version dated 20 March 2017:  http://ec.europa.eu/trade/import -
and-export -rules/export -from-eu/dual -use-controls/ ) and is examining avenues for improving that 
correlation methodology. The EU also conducts regular data exchange between competent 
authorities: calculations regar ding the value of controlled exports as a part of total exports are 
based on licensing data provided by the competent authorities of Member States.  
 
Question 16 2: Could the EU state if there is any forecast for the next decade on the share of 
dual use ite ms in total exports considering that the controls would probably include cyber 
surveillance technology?  
 
EU reply:  There are no forecasts for the next decade on the share of dual use items in total 
exports considering that the controls would probably inclu de cyber surveillance technology, but the 
European Commission has stated its intention that controls should be carefully targeted and should 
not have broad economic impact e.g. on the share of controlled items . 
 
3.2.3.1 Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure – Measures Directly Affecting Exports – 
Export Prohibitions, Restrictions and Licensing – Dual-use Items Export Control Regime, 
pg. 66, para. 3.87  
 
“… EU member States nevertheless need to take certain complementary measures for 
implementing some of it s provisions, e.g. in relation to enforcement and applicable penalties. An 
overview of national measures is published at regular intervals. ” 
 
Question17: Could the EU specify if there is any competent authority above the respective 
authorities of the membe r states that overview the national measures published for enhancing 
regulatory convergence?  
 
EU reply : Regulation (EC) No . 428/2009 only provides a basis for national complementary 
measures in specific conditions, and requires that information regarding n ational measures must 
be communicated to the European commission and the other Member States. This information is WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 348 - 
 
  regularly published in the EU Official Journal (see Official Journal of the European Union 2016/C 
304/03of 20 August 2016 for latest version).  F1 (SC) FH 
 
3.2.3.1 Trade Policies and Practices by Measure – Measures Directly Affecting Exports – 
Export Prohibitions, Restrictions and Licensing – Dual-use Items Export Control Regime, 
pg. 66, para. 3.89  
 
“The Regulation has been amended on multiple occasions since its adoption; however, the 
September 2016 proposal by the Commission recommends a modernization of EU export controls, 
which can be broadly grouped into two categories: changes that seek to clarify and simplify the EU 
dual-use export contro l regime, and the introduction of a new category of controls aimed at cyber -
surveillance technology. The proposal has been submitted to the Council and the European 
Parliament for discussion in the ordinary legislative procedure. ” 
 
Question 18: The Commiss ion’s proposal involves the expansion of the control regime to 
“technical assistance involving a cross border movement”. Could you elaborate on the definition of 
the technical assistance and the essence of the controls?  
 
EU reply : Technical assistance was already under control under Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 
where part of technology transfers, but was subject to control at national level when involving 
cross-border movement of persons until the Lisbon Treaty brought that activity within EU 
competence. The  Commission's legislative proposal takes this into consideration and brings 
technical assistance wholly under EU export control – including where it involves a cross -border 
movement of persons - in the same way as e.g. as brokering.  
 
3.3.2.1 Trade Policies and Practices by Measure – Measures Affecting Production and 
Trade – Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures – Plants and Plant Products, pgs. 81 -82, 
para. 3.152  
 
“…Imports into the EU of most plants and plant products from most countrie s do not require prior 
approval or notification, although they are subject to rules on food 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 -anima l origin from specified third countries which must enter 
the EU through designated points of entry where they are subject to additional controls. ” 
 
Question19: The “EU Notification of Reduced Plant Health Checks” regulates plant health checks 
conducted at the EU Customs’ check points at a reduced frequency of 2% for products originating 
from Turkey. Could the Commission explain the grounds for Bulgaria’s implementation of 100% 
control frequency for fresh fruit and vegetables originating from Turkey with res pect to 
abovementioned notification and considerably high fees charged for unloading/loading at the 
Kapitan Andreevo Border within the framework of its WTO commitments?  
 
EU reply:  
1. The reduced frequency of plant health checks referred to in Article 13a( 2) of Directive 
2000/29/EC is not a compulsory level of checks but constitutes a minimum frequency of plant 
health checks that Member States have to carry out.  
 
This is also reflected in Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No . 1756/2004:  
 
"The type of the reduced frequency shall be expressed as the minimum percentage of plant 
health checks that must be carried out by the Member States  on the products concerned."  
 
This is further mentioned in the Notification of Reduced Plant Health Checks f or Certain Products:  
"certain products from specific countries of origin, shall be subject to at least  a minimum level of 
plant health checks".  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 349 - 
 
  For Turkey during the period: 01.01.2017 - 31.12. 2017 the frequencies are as follows:  
 
Genus  Revised minimum %  of consignments to be checked  
Dianthus  15% 
Citrus  3% 
Prunus  10% 
Solanum melongena  5 % 
 
Bulgaria as any other EU Member State may check these products at the indicated reduced 
frequency but may also check them at a higher frequency.  
All other plants or plant products originating in Turkey and listed in Part B, Annex V to Directive 
2000/29/EC have to be checked at 100 %.  
 
2. The issue of the Kapitan Andreevo border crossing has been put by Turkey on the agenda of 
numerous bilateral meetings and lately at the occasion of the 34th meeting of the EC -TURKEY 
Customs Union Joint Committee held on 11/12 May 2017 in Brussels. During this event the 
European Commission reiterated that an audit carried out by the Directorate General Health and 
Food Safety of the E uropean Commission following the Turkish complaints concluded that Bulgaria 
was not in breach of the EU sanitary and phytosanitary legislation. Another investigation carried 
out by the Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union of the European Commissi on for 
conformity with the relevant EU legislation is still ongoing.  
 
3.3.7.1 EU directives on public procurement, pg . 104, 3.235  
 
It is stated in the Secretariat Report that: “ EU public procurement rules are set in three directives: 
the Classical Directiv e; the Concessions Directive, and the Utilities Directive (water, energy, 
transport, and postal services).  
 
On the other hand, in 2012 the European Commission tabled a Regulation Draft, which was 
amended in 2016, on the access of third -country goods and s ervices to the Union’s internal market 
in public procurement and procedures supporting negotiations on access of Union goods and 
services to the public procurement markets of third countries. The draft [COM (2016) 34 final] 
basically aims to limit the acce ss of third country goods and services to the EU market on the 
principle of reciprocity and encourage third countries to engage in bilateral/multilateral talks to 
open their procurement markets.”  
 
Question20:  Could the EU provide information regarding the state of play of the aforementioned 
draft? Furthermore, could the EU explain the potential effects of the proposal on WTO members 
(both GPA parties and non -parties)?  
 
EU reply : The Commission adopted on 29 January 2016 a revised proposal for a Regulation on the 
access of third -country goods and services to the Union's internal market in public procurement 
and procedures supporting negotiations on access of Union goods and services to the public 
procurement markets in third countries (COM(2016)0034 – C8-0018/2016 – 2012/0060(Cod)/ the 
International procurement Instrument (IPI). The revised proposal represents both an elaboration 
and a simplification of the original proposal. The Commission has submitted the revised proposal 
to the two legislative bodies – the European Parliament and the Council. The negotiation and 
adoption procedure is currently on -going. The Commission proposal may be modified during this 
process.  
 
The tool would fully comply with EU’s international commitments as it would relate to procure ment 
not covered in EU’s agreements at plurilateral and bilateral level.  
 
3.3.8.2.2 Supplementary protection certificates , p. 118, 3.284:  
 
It is stated in the Secretariat Report that “The above Communication (The European Commission 
Communication on Upgrad ing the Single Market, of 28 October 2015, ) also called for exploring the 
introduction of an SPC manufacturing waiver in order to allow EU -based generic and biosimilar 
manufacturers to produce for export during the lifetime of the SPC. Such a waiver has al ready 
been included as an option in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) 
concluded with Canada. The section on sui generis protection for pharmaceuticals explicitly WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 350 - 
 
  provides for an exception that allows "the making, using, offering for sal e, selling or importing of 
products for the purpose of export during the period of protection".  
 
Question21:  Could the EU give detailed information regarding its initiative on SPC manufacturing 
waiver in order to allow EU -based generic and biosimilar manu facturers to produce for export 
during the lifetime of the SPC? Is this waiver, which has been included as an option for Canada 
through CETA, also applicable for European Economic Area (EEA) countries as well as Switzerland? 
What are the measures to be tak en in case of abuse of the waiver for those FTA partners?  
 
Answer:  The Commission has contracted a number of studies to assess the merits of such a 
waiver. Those legal and economic studies will be published when concluded. Provisions of CETA, 
including par agraph 9 of Article 20.27 introducing the option of a waiver, apply only to the Parties 
to the Agreement. Accordingly, provisions of CETA are not applicable to Norway, Iceland, 
Liechtenstein or Switzerland which are not Parties to CETA.  
 
4.3.2 E -commerce in the DSM - pp 169  
As explained in the Secretariat Report, the EU is conducting a regulatory process with a view to 
boosting e -commerce by simplifying, clarifying and harmonizing the EU's regulatory framework. As 
we understand, the proposed regulatory cha nges are aimed at creating cost -efficiencies for e -
commerce service suppliers and improve consumer protection within the EU market.  
 
Question22:  We would kindly request the EU to provide further information with regard to the 
scope of application of such p roposed measures in terms of suppliers of e -commerce activities and 
consumers with regard to cross -border e -commerce. What would the impact of proposed measures 
be on cross -border suppliers of e -commerce activities from non -EU Members? Would the proposed 
legislation improve the rights of consumers residing outside the EU territory who are engaging in 
e-commerce activities with EU suppliers?  
 
EU reply : Article 1 specifies the subject matter and the scope of the proposed Regulation. The 
material scope of the proposal is aligned with that of Directive 2006/123/EC to the extent possible 
in order to ensure consistency and maximum legal certainty for traders and customers. This 
means that, inter alia, non -economic services of general interest, transport services, audio -visual 
services, gambling activities, healthcare services and certain social services are excluded from the 
scope of this Regulation. The territorial scope is designed to equally include traders established in 
the EU and those established in third co untries but selling or seeking to sell goods and services to 
customers in the Union.  
 
4.3.4.1 Maritime Transport Services and Port Services: pp 178 -179, 4.142, 4.143  
The Secretariat Report indicates some numerical data but no data on investments were give n. If 
available could the EU provide information on total foreign direct investment into ports by source 
countries?  
 
EU reply : we do not have such data. There is no information presenting foreign direct investment 
data into ports, by source country.  
 
FDI data are compiled by Eurostat with a breakdown by partner country and by activity. The 
NACErev2 statistical classification of economic activities is used by Eurostat and by national 
compilers. This classification focuses on different economic activities bu t not on local/specific 
activities generated by ports or any "similar" infrastructure.  
 
Within the NACE rev2, the only identifiable division that could cover part of the port 
activity is division 50 ("Water transport").  This division includes the transport  of passengers 
or freight over water, the operation of towing or pushing boats, excursion, cruise of sightseeing 
boats, ferries, water taxis etc. The distinction between sea and inland water transport is not 
requested by Eurostat. This division excludes re staurant and bar activities on board ships, if 
carried out by separate units and, of course, does not cover the wide range of (transversal) 
activities that might be found in a port, especially those in relation with construction activities.  
 
For your infor mation, the table below (extracted from Eurobase) summarises the level of direct 
investment stocks held abroad by EU companies in the "Water transport" sector (outward) and the WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 351 - 
 
  level of direct investment stocks held by non -EU investors within the "Water tr ansport" enterprises 
of the European Union (inward), at end 2014.  
 
4.3.4.2 Trade Policies By Sector – Services – Transport Services – Air Transport Services, 
pg. 183, para. 4.170  
 
“…In that light, and if appropriate, the Commission may also make a proposa l to review the scope 
of the European Union Emissions Trading System, with due consideration to be given to the 
necessary consistency with EU 2030 climate objectives and policy. ” 
 
Question 23:  Could the EU assess the free allocation method in the allowance  distribution with 
respect to “government revenue that is foregone” and provision of good other than general 
infrastructure that were specified under Article 1.1(a)(1)(ii) and (iii) of SCM Agreement?  
 
Question 24: As is known, EU ETS currently has three di fferent allowance allocation methods for 
different industries (100% auctioning for electricity generators; 100% free allowances for the 
industries included in the Carbon Leakage List and combination of free allowances and auctioning 
for manufacturing secto rs). Could the EU present its stance whether such differential treatment 
can come to mean favoring certain industries over others in terms of Article 2 of SCM Agreement?  
 
Question 25: The EU Commission sets member states free in the distribution of free al lowances 
regarding how much allowances will be allocated to the industries covered by EU ETS.  However, 
various studies show that member states are inclined to use this discretion as a tool to support 
their “strategic” sectors via free allowances. Could the  EU consider taking any precaution to 
eliminate this market -distorting effect related to distribution of free allowances?  
 
Question26: Results of various studies indicate that windfall profits which arises from pass -
through of carbon costs and over -allocat ion of free allowances in EU ETS have led to substantial 
amount of indirect subsidization to numerous firms in various industries over the years. Could the 
EU evaluate windfall profits stemming from EU ETS with regard to Article 1.1(b) of SCM 
Agreement, na mely “benefit”?  
 
Question27: Could the EU evaluate that making financial contribution via distribution of excess 
amount of free allowances to certain designated industries can cause adverse effect in the form of 
serious prejudice ( from the aspect of displ acement or impediment of the imports/exports of a like 
product ) to the interests of another WTO member with regards to Article 6.3(a) and (b) of SCM 
Agreement?  
 
Question28:  In the report of “Carbon Leakage Evidence Project”, whose client is European 
Commi ssion DG Climate Action, it is highlighted that “ We found no evidence for any carbon 
leakage – according to the ETS Directive, defined as production relocation due to the ETS – in the 
past two ETS periods.64” Could the EU express its point of view about the  conclusion which was 
drawn regarding  the absence of carbon leakage?  
 
Please specify the estimated amount of unused/surplus allowances according to latest calculations. 
Could the EU express if any new mechanism/tool is envisaged to bring into use apart fro m Market 
Stability Reserve and Back -loading or these mechanisms are considered to be sufficient enough to 
tackle the issue of surplus allowances?  
 
EU reply to the questions 23 -28 above:  
In the context of carbon pricing, free allocation is an essential instrument to safeguard the 
competitiveness of industries covered by the EU ETS. The production from sectors and sub -sectors 
deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage receive a higher share of free 
allowances in phase 3 of the EU ETS (20 13- 2020), compared to the other industrial installations.  
 
The determination of sectors exposed to carbon leakage is done on the basis of uniform EU -wide 
criteria (trade and carbon intensity). The allocation of allowances to address the risk of carbon 
leakage is based on benchmarks. Cost pass -through is an accepted economic concept, however 
due to data constraints it is difficult to quantify and use in policy -making, and it also differs 
                                                
64 ECORYS & Öko I nstitut e.V. & Cambridge Econometrics & TNO, Carbon Leakage Evidence Project , 
23 September 2013, pg. 11.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 352 - 
 
  considerably among sectors. Concerning the surplus of allowances on th e EU carbon market, the 
Commission published in May 2017 the indicator for total amount of allowances in circulation for 
2016 which amount to 1.693 billion, a decrease compared to last year. In the ongoing negotiations 
for the EU ETS after 2020, further me asures to strengthen the EU ETS via the Market Stability 
Reserve are being discussed.  
 
General Question29:  
Could the EU please explain how its bilateral and regional trade negotiations will be affected with 
Brexit? Does the EU foresee a slowdown or postpon ement in its bilateral and regional negotiations 
as trade negotiations with the UK starts after the Brexit?  
 
EU reply : Please see reply to question 7.  
  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 353 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM I NDIA  
 
Question on Secretariat Report (WT/TPR/S/357)  
 
Question 1: Please explain what are specific legislative proposals which are 
proposed to ensure strict enforcement of Copyright Law in digital environment?  
 
EU reply: Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights concerns the 
measures, pro cedures and remedies necessary to ensure the enforcement of all intellectual 
property rights, including copyright, in the European Union. The European Commission is currently 
finalising its evalua tion of this legal framework.  
 
Question 2: What are ten dire ctives that had to be implemented by EU’s Member 
states within their Legal framework to create a sound basis for the free movement 
of protected creative works and services offering access to these works within the 
internal market?  
 
EU reply: The ten direct ives in force in the area of copyright and related rights are listed in table 
A3.3 of the report (page 207):  
 
 Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning 
copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to s atellite broadcasting and cable 
retransmission  
 Directive 96/9/EC of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases  
 Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright 
and related rights in the information society (Information Society Directive)  
 Directive 2001/84/EC of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the 
author of an original work of art  
 Directive 2006/115/EC of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on 
certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property  
 Directive 2006/116/EC of 12 December 2006 on the term of protectio n of copyright and 
certain related rights  
 Directive 2009/24/EC of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs  
 Directive 2011/77/EU of 27 September 2011 amending Directive 2006/116/EC of 12 
December 2006 on the term of protection of copyrig ht and certain related rights  
 Directive 2012/28/EU of 25 October 2012 on certain permitted uses of orphan works  
 Directive 2014/26/EU of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and 
related rights and multi -territorial licensing of rights in  musical works for online use in the 
internal market  
 
Question 3: How it is proposed to regulate the cross border portability of online 
content services in the internal market?  
 
EU reply : Regulation (EU) 2017/1128 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 
June 2017 on cross -border portability of online content services in the internal market, 
already in force, shall apply from 1 April 2018. The Regulation introduces a common approach 
in the Union to the cross -border portability of online conte nt services, by ensuring that 
subscribers to portable online content services which are lawfully provided in their Member 
State of residence can access and use those services when temporarily present in a Member 
State other than their Member State of resid ence.  
 
Question 4: There is a growing concern that obligations related to the inviolability of 
technological protection measure might exclude the possibility of enjoying 
exceptions and limitations in the digital environment. How it is proposed to adopt 
the Principle that exceptions and limitations available in physical formats should 
also be made available in the digital environment?  
 
EU reply:  Article 6(4) of Directive 2001/29/EC promotes voluntary measures, including 
voluntary agreements between righthold ers and beneficiaries of exceptions. In the absence of 
voluntary measures, Member States must put in place mechanisms to ensure that 
rightholders make available to the beneficiary of certain exceptions, including in the digital 
environment, the means of be nefiting from those exceptions.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 354 - 
 
  Question 5: The digital environment is borderless by its nature while the copyright 
system is based on national laws. These different characteristics make more 
challenging the task of implementing the shared objective of pro tecting authors, 
performers and other copyright holders in the digital environment. Remuneration of 
intellectual rights might not respect the national law, since payments can be made 
through international credit cards and therefore circumvent the law, sinc e country 
of access to the creative content. In order to allowed a protection of authors what 
efforts should be make my member states with special focus on their respective 
National Copyright Legislations?  
 
EU reply:  WIPO members’ shared objective of prote cting authors, performers and other 
copyright holders in the digital environment was addressed in the 1996 Diplomatic 
Conference which led to the adoption of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO 
Performances and Phonograms Treaty. Both treaties provide a  high level of protection of 
authors, phonogram producers and performers with regard to their performances fixed in 
phonograms. The European Union is a party to both treaties.  
 
As to the EU internal legislation, the adoption of ten directives and one regul ation in the field 
of copyright has increased the level of harmonisation of copyright law among EU members in 
line with international copyright treaties, in order to achieve a well -functioning digital single 
market where internal borders should not be an o bstacle to the protection of authors, 
performers and other related right holders. The further legislative measures envisaged and 
under consideration by the EU co -legislators, including notably the draft Directive on 
copyright in the Digital Single Market ( see point 3.265 page 113 of WT/TPR/S/357), address 
further the need to reduce differences between national copyright regimes, ensure a better 
functioning of the applicable rules across borders and an enhanced protection for right -
holders in the digital env ironment.  
 
Question 6: Popular Bollywood Music Industry has a good global market with 
significant presence in European Countries. In digital environment/internet age 
steps are required to protect the interest of Copyright/neighbouring owners. Which 
precaut ions are required to ensure this?  
 
EU reply:  The World Intellectual Property Organization has addressed the challenges of the 
exploitation of content protected by copyright and certain related rights in the digital environment 
with the adoption of the WIPO  Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms 
Treaty, to which the European Union is a party. Both treaties provide a level of harmonisation of 
the rights of authors, phonogram producers and performers with regard to their performances 
fixed i n phonograms, in order to ensure the protection of the nationals of the contracting parties, 
with specific emphasis on digital uses.  
 
Page 112, Paragraph 3.3.8.2.1  
 
Question 7: With reference to Article 52 of the European Patent Convention (16th edition, June 
2016), please explain the meaning of the term ‘as such’ that is present in paragraph (3).  
 
Question 8: With reference to Article 53 of the European Patent Conve ntion, please indicate the 
reasons as to why the methods of treatment of the human and animal body by surgery or therapy 
and diagnostic methods practised outside the human and animal body do not fall within exceptions 
to patentability.  
 
Question 9: With re ference to Article 54 of the European Patent Convention, please list all the 
circumstances corresponding to the phrase ‘or in any other way’ present in paragraph (2). Please 
also explain as to whether this includes traditional knowledge that is transferred  from generations 
to generations or not and reasons thereof.  
 
Question 10: With reference to Article 56 of the European Patent Convention, please explain the 
reason for not considering the documents within the meaning of Article 54, paragraph 3. Please 
also explain how the apparent conflict between Article 54 paragraph (3) and Article 56 is resolved.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 355 - 
 
  EU replies to question 7 to 10 : The EU regrets not to be in capacity to reply to these questions. 
They concern the European Patent Convention, which is unde r the remit of the European Patent 
Office (EPO). The EPO, however, is not an institution of the European Union.  
 
Question 11:  With reference to Article 63 of the European Patent Convention, please list all the 
circumstances that are taken into account for the purpose of extending the term of a European 
Patent. Whether this provision is only applicable to pharmaceuticals or is ap plicable to other fields 
of technology. How many such extensions were al lowed during the review period.  
 
Question 12:  With reference to Article 63 of the European Patent Convention, please describe the 
procedure related to extension of the term of a Europe an Patent.  
 
EU replies to questions 11 and 12 above: The EU would like to clarify that so far no SPC has 
been granted by the EPO.  
 
Question 13:  With reference to Article 82 of the European Patent Convention, please explain the 
purport of the phrase ‘singl e general inventive concept’, specifically the purport of the word 
‘general’.  
 
EU reply to question N° 13: The EU is not in capacity to provide a reply to this question.  
 
Question 14:  With reference to the European Patent Convention, please list all the ci rcumstances 
under which accelerated examination of a patent application is allowed. How many such 
preferential examinations were al lowed during the review period.  
 
EU reply : Examination proceedings can be speeded up before the EPO under the programme for 
accelerated prosecution of European patent applications (PACE). For the participation in this 
programme, which is free of charge, the applicant merely needs to file a written request. When 
accelerated examination is requested, the EPO makes every effort to issue its next action within 3 
months. The PACE requests are not made public. During 2015, the EPO received 23.390 PACE 
requests (7.890 for search and 15.500 for examination). PACE was therefore requested for about 
7% of the European searches and almost 10 % of the European examinations  
 
Question 15:  With reference to the European Patent Convention and the implementing 
regulations, please list all the circumstances under which a compulsory licence or an ex officio 
licence can be granted. Please describe the  circumstances under which such licences were granted 
and the number of times such licences have been granted till date by the EPO or its member 
states.  
 
EU reply : Neither the European Patent Convention nor its implementing regulations contain 
provisions dedicated to compulsory licenses.  
 
Question 16:  What is the difference between the classic and unitary EPO patent. Whether both 
the systems co -exist and what are the advantages of each system.  
 
EU reply : The Unitary patent is a European patent with unitar y effect (see article 2(c) of 
regulation 1257/2012). This means that the applicant will file an application with the EPO and if 
the patentability criteria are met, the patent holder may decide over a one month time limit to opt 
in for a unitary patent (see  article 9(g) of regulation 1257/2012). Both systems will indeed coexist. 
The unitary patent will deploy its effect on the territory of potentially up to 26 Member States (all 
the EU member States minus Spain and Croatia who do not participate to the enhan ced 
cooperation procedure which has set up the unitary patent package). The main difference lies with 
the protection conferred to the titles. Once granted, the unitary patent will be immediately 
effective in the territory of these Member States while for t he classical patent, the patent holder 
will have to validate the European patent in the Member States where he/she is seeking a 
protection.  
 
Question 18:  With reference to Para 3.269, in 2015, the EPO granted 68,431 patents and 
684,004 applications were pe nding.  
 
a) Is the EPO mulling to take steps to address this pendency? If so can a list of the measures that 
are being considered be elucidated? GROW IPR/B3  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 356 - 
 
  EU reply : The EPO launched the Early Certainty initiative in June 2014 focusing first on the 
search.  This initiative aimed at providing the European search report within six months of filing. 
Once this goal has been reached, the EPO has extended Early Certainty to examination (and 
opposition) in July 2016, with the aim of completing examination within 12  months on average by 
2020. The average duration is a lready down to about 23 months.  
 
b) Can it be explained why patent applications in the fields of medical technology, digital 
communication and computer technology are pending?  
 
EU reply : Medical technolo gy, digital communication and computer technology are the technical 
fields where more applications have been received along the last years. In 2015, the EPO received 
12.531, 11.051 and 10.359 applications, respectively, in those fields. The high number of 
applications received by the EPO explains pendency in these fields.  
 
Page 114, Paragraph 3.3.8.2.1.1  
 
Question 19:  With reference to Para 3.270, As per the report, on 28 November 2016, the U.K. 
Government confirmed that it was proceeding with the preparati ons to ratify the UPC agreement 
and thus to participate in the system.  
 
a) What will be the position of the Unitary patent after the  decision of the UK to exit EU?  
 
EU reply: All replies regarding BREXIT have been given by the Commission during the 
TPR meetings and in the replies sent to the Membership  by 28 June  
 
b) Will the UPC act as a specialized IP court to address issues raising of the unitary patents? 
If so how will this work?  
 
EU reply : The Unified Patent Court will be indeed a specialised Patent Court and will deal with 
disputes relating to both unitary patents and classical European patents.  
 
Question 20:  With reference to Para 3.271, Is there a special status provided to inventors from 
SMEs for patent prosecution? If so can a list be provided de tailing the same?  
 
EU reply : As stated in the report, SME will benefit from the general reduction for acquiring and 
maintaining the future unitary patent compared to the current situation with the European patent. 
No specific additional rebate is foreseen for them. However, Small and Micro -entities will benefit 
from a 40% reduction in the Unified Patent Court Agreement fees  
 
Page 117, Paragraph 3.281  
 
Question 23:  With reference to Para 3.281, Has  the Court fixed the royalty for the case C -170/13 
(Huwai Technologies Co.  Ltd. vs ZTE Corp). How has it arrived to this conclusion and further, will 
this be binding on all cases relating to standard essential patents?  
 
EU reply: The Judgement of the Europ ean Court of Justice in the case C -170/13 can be found 
there: 
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130d55e8f6f441d2a4b6a9
c61b7aa0657fb98.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4PaxyOe0?text=&docid=165911&pageIndex=0&docla
ng=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&c id=598123 . 
 
It is a preliminary ruling that does not fix the royalty in the case. This decision shall be taken into 
account by national courts in the EU member states in their potential cases related to SEPs.  
 
Page 117, Paragraph 3.3.8.2.2 (biotech inventi ons)  
 
Question 24:  What is the purpose of issuing of these certificates? Is this not a violation of the 
TRIPS directive where every patent will be open to the public for use after the expiry of the 20 
year period?  
 
EU reply : The purpose of the issuance of Supplementary Protection Certificate ('SPC') is to 
compensate the time lost by the patent holder between the filing of the application and the WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 357 - 
 
  issuance of the marketing authori zation. This is not a violation of the TRIP S Agreement which 
offers to the patent holder 20 years of protection. In the case of the European SPC, the maximum 
protection conferred by the patents and the SPC altogether may not exceed fifteen years.  
 
Question 25: What are the criteria for issuance of thes e certificates? Can a list be provided where 
such certificates have been issued?  
 
EU reply : Conditions for obtaining a certificate are listed in article 3 of regulation 469/2009 
concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products and  article 3 of 
regulation 1610/96 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant 
protection products.  
 
Page 119, Paragraph 3.3.8.2.4  
 
Question 26:  With reference to Para 3.297, After implementation of trademarks reforms package, 
whether the rights of a trademark holder who is registered owner of the trademark in respect of a 
particular item of goods in India as well as in a third country (but not in  EU/EU  country) would not 
be jeopardiz ed, when that owner wants to export or import the goods bearing the trademark 
within India and that country via EU? What is the relief available to such owner?  
 
EU reply : On July 5, 2016 the European Commission publish ed its “Notice on the customs 
enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights concerning goods brought into the customs territory of 
the Union without being released for free circulation including goods in transit ” (her einafter 
“Transit Guidelines”).  
 
In this context, the requirement of the conflicting sign being ‘‘identical to the trade mark 
registered in respect of such goods, or which cannot be distinguished in its essential aspects from 
that trade mark’ ’ makes it clear the scope of the provision is confined  to counterfeit goods. The 
formulation corresponds with the international definition of ‘‘counterfeit trademark goods’’  in 
footnote 14 of the TRIPS Agreement, which accompanies the TRIPS provisions on border 
measures.  
 
Also, in order to reconcile the need to ensure the effective enforcement of trademark rights with 
the necessity to avoid hampering the free flow of trade in legitimate goods, in line with the 
obligations under the WTO framework (freedom of transit, etc.), a “safeguard clause” was added 
to the  new provisions, which defines situations where said entitlement of trademark proprietors 
cannot be effectively exercised. It is the case if, during the proceedings which may follow a 
customs detention, initiated in accordance with Customs Enforcement Regu lation (608/2013) 
before the judicial or other authority competent to take a substantive decision on a trademark 
infringement, the declarant or the holder of the goods is able to prove that the trademark 
proprietor is not entitled to prohibit the placing o f the detained goods on the market in the country 
of final destination.  
 
Page 121, paragraph 3.3.8.2.5  
 
Question 27:  Whether protection to handicrafts, handloom and non -agricultural GI are 
possible in the present framework?  
 
EU Reply : In the present framew ork, t o seek protection of foreign GIs for  non-agricultural 
products in the EU, associations of manufacturers, producers, suppliers of services or traders, as 
well as legal persons governed by public law can seek registration of a collective EU Trade Mark,  
which may serve to designate the geographical origin of the goods but may not be invoked against 
a third party who is entitled to use a geographical name. Producers can also seek the protection of 
GIs through sui generis national protection systems of GIs  in the Member States where such 
systems exist, through national collective or certification marks that allow for such a protection or, 
in any event, through national competition or consumer protection law.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 358 - 
 
  Question on Government Report (WT/TPR/G/357)  
 
Page 6, Paragraph 3.10  
 
Question 30:  In the circumstances, when the European Commission intends to adopt a set of 
measures to support the use of IPR by SMEs, whether SMEs of non EU countries would also be 
benefited under this measures; if yes, how and to w hat extent?  
 
EU reply : please refer to existing replies in document WT/TPR/806 in particular replies to Canada 
question 2 (numbered 3 by the EU) on the same issues.  "The pilot project that will provide IP audit 
services and patent co -funding will be direct ed at specific SMEs (see reply to Q2 above). The IP 
mediation and arbitration services and the litigation insurance schemes are planned to be available 
to any firm."  
  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 359 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM JAPAN  
 
Report by the Government (WT/TPR/G/357)  
 
1. THE EUROPEAN UNION IN THE GLOBAL TRADING SYSTEM  
 
(Question 1)  
According to the Report by the EU, the EU is seeking new progress in the WTO on a broad set of 
issues that matter in today's global economy such as e -commerce and digital trade. How is the EU 
planning to, especially for MC11, contribute to making WTO rules regarding e -commerce and 
digital trade?  
 
EU reply : The EU would like to refer to its statements made during the TPR, on the first and 
second days which detail its position for the preparation  of MC 11.  
 
3 DEVELOPMENTS IN THE INTERNAL MARKET: THE SINGLE MARKET STRATEGY  
3.29 
 
(Question 2)  
According to the Report by the EU, the EU adopted a Communication on building a European data 
economy, which tackles rules and regulations impeding the free fl ow of data and unjustified data 
location restrictions. With the aim of enhancing European data economy, does the EU have any 
plans to address restrictive measures on the free flow of data across the EU and non -EU countries, 
and data localization requiremen ts on enterprises from non -EU countries? If yes, please explain 
the plan.  
 
EU reply: The EU is working on a proposal that will address data flow barriers within the EU. This 
proposal will be tabled in autumn 2017. Beyond this, as indicated in the "Trade fo r All" 
Communication, the Commission will seek to use EU trade agreements to set rules for e -commerce 
and cross -border data flows and tackle new forms of digital protectionism in full compliance with 
and without prejudice to the EU’s data protection rules.  
 
3.30 
 
(Question 3 Paragraph 3.30)  
According to the Report by the EU, roaming surcharges for the EU citizens would be repealed from 
mid-2017. Because of the roaming regulation by the EU, operators will have to provide roaming 
services in the EU area at th e same price as the domestic service price. It is considered that 
operators will impute their costs to provide roaming services in the EU area into their domestic 
service prices or roaming rates outside of EU. Is there any regulation to prohibit this imput ation? If 
not, does the EU have any intention to implement such measures in the future?  
 
EU reply : The roaming regulation is an internal market instrument covering the EU only. As a 
consequence retail roaming prices outside the EU are not regulated. Howeve r, we do not observe a 
general price increase of those prices. In contrast, we observe that some operators, on a 
commercial basis, include several non -EU countries in their roam -like-at-home offers. Finally, EU 
operators usually have in their portfolio alt ernative (non -regulated) roaming offers with 
lower/favourable rates in some non -EU countries. Such alternative roaming offers can be chosen 
by customers more interested in having lower rates in some specific non -EU countries than having 
full Roam Like At H ome in the EU  
 
Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/357)  
 
1 ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT  
1.1 Recent Economic Developments  
1.1.4 EU Economic governance and structural reform  
 
(Question 4 Paragraph 1.25)  
According to the Report by the Secretariat, the Council of the EU issued Country -Specific 
Recommendations to the member States along with recommendation on broad guidelines for the 
economic policies of the member States and of the European Union. Please en umerate what WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 360 - 
 
  recommendations for which member States are issued, for example agricultural related issues. Are 
those CSRs legally binding?  
 
EU reply : The country -specific recommendations that are adopted by the Council cover areas that 
are of importance in delivering more jobs and faster growth, while taking account of social fairness 
considerations. They should be implemented within a time frame of 12 to 18 months. The 
recommendations are tailored to the specific circumstances of each Member State and are b ased 
on the analysis contained in the country reports produced by the Commission services. The most 
recent set of recommendations cover the areas of the labour market, social protection systems, 
inequality, education, the financial sector, the business env ironment, investment, product and 
services markets, and public finance. The full range of policy areas covered in available on the 
following web page:  
 
https://ec.euro pa.eu/info/sites/info/files/csrs -policy -areas -covered.pdf . 
 
The recommendations combine economic and employment recommendations, based on Articles 
121(2) and 148(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), with Council 
opinions on sta bility and convergence programmes, based on Articles 5(2) and 9(2) of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and 
the surveillance and coordination of economic policies and, in certain cases, with recommendations 
on the preventive part of the macroeconomic imbalances procedure under Article 6(1) of 
Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention 
and correction of macroeconomic imbalances . The country -specific recommendations are to be 
taken into account by Member States in the process of national decision -making and, in particular, 
in drafting their budgetary plans for the forthcoming year. A failure to implement the 
recommendations might resul t in further procedural steps under the relevant EU law and 
ultimately in sanctions under the stability and growth pact and the macroeconomic imbalances 
procedure.  
 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE   
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports  
3.1.1 Cu stoms procedures and requirements  
 
(Question 5 Paragraph 3.14)  
According to the Report, BTI decisions have become binding on the trader. In what way were the 
laws and regulations relating to BTI changed?  
BTI decisions are now binding on the trader.  
 
EU R eply: Pursuant to Art 33 (2)(b) UCC65, BTI decisions are binding on the trader as well. 
According to Art 20 of UCC IA66, traders need to indicate the BTI decisions reference number in the 
customs declaration when customs formalities are fulfilled.  
 
(Question  6 Paragraph 3.14)  
In the actual Customs enforcement, is confirmed whether a certain import declaration is in 
conformity with issued BTI decision at the clearance stage?  
 
EU reply : As mentioned earlier, and according to Art 20 of UCC IA, traders need to indicate the 
BTI decisions reference number in the customs declaration when customs formalities are fulfilled. 
The surveillance system (referred to in Art 55 of UCC IA) will include data relevant for the 
monitoring of the usage of BTI decision. This monito ring is not carried out at the clearance stage 
as the Commission communicates the results of the monitoring on a regular basis in order to 
support the monitoring by the customs authorities.  
 
(Question 7 Paragraph 3.14)  
If importers make a declaration that is not in conformity with issued BTI decision, are they subject 
to a penalty?  
                                                
65 http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/? qid=1484325857204&uri=CELEX:32013R0952 . 
66 http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2015.343.01.0558.01.ENG&toc= 
OJ:L:2015:343:TOC . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 361 - 
 
  EU reply : If customs discover as a result of monitoring of usage of BTI decision that a declaration 
was not made in conformity with the trader's BTI decision, the customs risk d epartment will be 
informed and they will take the necessary steps to investigate the case.  
 
When customs formalities are being fulfilled by or on behalf of the holder of a BTI decision in 
respect of goods covered by the BTI decision, this shall be indicate d in the customs declaration by 
stating the BTI decision reference number (Art 20 of UCC IA). The economic operator is legally 
responsible for the correct classification of the goods. Consequently, if the customs declaration is 
not in conformity with issue d BTI decision, this leads to all or part of the import duty not being 
collected and to the customs debt being incurred and depending on the Member States' legislation, 
this might be subject to a customs penalty.  
 
(Question 8 Paragraph 3.14)  
Could you describe the workflow from import declaration to permission for a certain goods in cases 
where 1. the declaration is in conformity with issued BTI decision, and 2. the declaration is not in 
conformity with issued BTI decision.  
 
EU reply : As state d above, the monitoring is not carried out at the customs clearance stage. 
Declarations which are not in conformity with the trader's BTI decision are picked up by the risk 
analysts and they will investigate the cases further.  
 
(Question 9 Paragraph 3.14)  
Could BTI decisions be the subject of litigation because they are binding on importers?  
 
EU reply : Once a BTI has been issued and the goods have been classified, the holder of the BTI 
can challenge the customs classification. As BTI are decisions in the se nse of Art.22 and 33 UCC, 
any person has the right to appeal against any decision taken by the customs authorities relating 
to the application of the customs legislation which concerns him or her directly and individually.  
 
The right of appeal may be exer cised in at least two steps:  
(a) initially, before the customs authorities or a judicial authority or other body designated for that 
purpose by the Member States;  
(b) subsequently, before a higher independent body, which may be a judicial authority or an 
equivalent specialised body, according to the provisions in force in the Member States.  
 
(Question 10 Paragraph 3.14)  
In case someone is dissatisfied with issued BTI decision and appeals to the authority, is he or she 
able to appeal to the authority of a co untry different from the country which initially issued the 
decision? If the authority of a country would re -issue BTI decision different from the initial 
decision, such re -issued BTI decision would be made available for import declarations in all EU 
count ies? 
 
EU reply : According to Art 44 (3) of UCC, the appeal shall be lodged in the Member State where 
the decision was taken or was applied for. Pursuant to Art 26 of UCC decisions relating to the 
application of the customs legislation shall be valid throughout the customs territory of the Union. 
BTI decisions are binding on the customs authorities, as against the holder of the decision only in 
respect of goods for which customs formalities are completed after the date on which the decision 
takes effec t (Art 33 (2)(a) of UCC).  
 
(Question 11 Paragraph 3.14)  
Relating to the question 10, in case, for example, a certain importer makes a declaration at 
German Customs using BTI decision issued by French Customs, and German Customs does not 
agree with the deci sion by French Customs, how would the BTI be treated?  
 
EU reply : Pursuant to Art 26 of UCC, BTI decision shall be valid throughout the customs territory 
of the Union. An importer having a French BTI decisions may use his BTI decision in any Member 
State of  the European Union. One of the main advantages of the BTI decision is that it provides 
legal certainty to its holder regardless where the BTI decision is used.  
 
(Question 12 Paragraph 3.15)  
Are expired BTI decisions also open and available on the database ? WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 362 - 
 
  EU reply : No, they are not. As the customs nomenclature is a living document, commodity codes 
may change over time. This takes into account the rapid changes in technology. In case a 
commodity code changes,  the concerned BTI decisions has to be revoked. Expired BTI decisions 
may provide confusing / not valid information regarding classification.  
 
(Question 13 Paragraph 3.15)  
Please describe how the EU countries accept written requests of advance rulings and issue BTIs. 
Do the Customs offices of the EU countries, for example, receive relating documents from traders 
face-to-face, or through the Internet etc.?  
 
EU reply : Traders wishing to apply for BTI decision shall use a specific BTI application form (see 
Annex 2 & 4 of UCC TDA67). More information can b e found on the following website: 
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/calculation -customs-duties/what -is-common -
customs -tariff/binding -tariff-information -bti-apply_en  
 
(Question 14 Paragraph 3.15)  
Do the EU countries accept oral requests of advance rulings? If it is the case, please describe the 
workflow of it.  
 
EU reply : The customs autho rities of the EU may give advice orally regarding classification; this 
information is however not binding. Only the information given in a binding tariff information (BTI) 
decision is binding.  
 
(Question 15 Paragraph 3.15)  
Please explain if there is any r ole the EU is playing in addition to storing issued BTIs in a central 
EBTI database?  
 
EU reply:  The European Commission has established the European Binding Tariff Information 
(EBTI) system as a tool to assist economic operators to obtain the correct tarif f classification and 
to avoid divergent BTI decisions for the same product. Economic operators are consulting the 
public database regularly (44 million hits in 2016) in order to find the correct tariff classification for 
their product. The customs authorit ies of the EU perform queries in the confidential version of the 
database in order to prevent issuing of divergent BTI decisions. Since the entry into force of the 
Union Customs Code (UCC) consulting the database is a legal obligat ion of the customs 
author ities. 
 
3.1.7 Anti -dumping, countervailing, and safeguard measures  
 
(Question 16 Paragraph 3.71)  
According to the paragraph 3.71, there are special safeguard regulations in EU's trade ag reements 
with some countries. Please clarify whether the EU has ever initiated or imposed this type of 
safeguard measure in the past not limited to this period of review. Also, please clarify whether the 
EU has ever been imposed this type of safeguard measure.  If there are any cases, p lease explain 
the measures, such as the product scope, the date of measure being taken and the period of the 
measures.  
 
EU reply: The EU has so far never applied a bilateral SFG measures. The EU has applied global 
SFG measures under WTO rules on rare occas ions (e.g. SFG measures on imports of various steel 
products in 2002).  
 
(Question 17 Paragraph 3.71)  
Could the EU clarify whether there are any trade agreements described in paragraph 3.71 where 
partners are excluded from the application  of global safeguar d measures? If any, could the EU 
provide the details? Also, could the EU clarify whether there have been any cases where imports 
from the EU were excluded from an application of global safeguard measures pursuant to such 
provisions under the EU's trade agr eements  with other countries ever before?  If any, could the EU 
identify the cases?  
 
EU reply: In general, in the EU’s trade agreements, the FTA partners are not excl uded from global 
SFG measures.  
                                                
67 http://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L: 2016:069:TOC . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 363 - 
 
  (Question 18 Paragraph 3.72)  
According to the Report by the Secretariat, the EU has invoked surveillance measures since April 
2016. Could the EU please clarify the difference between the prohibited measures specified in 
footnote 4 of Article 11.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards.  
 
EU reply: The purpose of the surveillance system is to obtain information on the intentions to 
import. It does not in any way impede importation as surveillance docu ments are issued 
automatically.  
 
3.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade  
3.3.2 Sanitary a nd phytosanitary measures  
 
(Question 19 Paragraph 3.144)  
According to the Report by the Secretariat, the European Commission is responsible for developing 
draft proposals for legislation. In the area of plant protection, Japan recognizes that the 
mechanism  to make collective comments of the EU on behalf of 28 member states functions very 
efficiently and effectively at many occasions such as the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures of 
International Plant Protection Convention and during the consultation for draft International 
Standards for Phytosanitary Measures. How does the EU successfully maintain the mechanism 
including the communication process with member States, to collect comments from member 
states and reach a consensus of amongst all the EU member States.  
 
EU reply:  The EU has established a mechanism of coordinated representation in international fora. 
The foundations of the mechanism are embedded in the EU Treaties, which set out EU objectives 
and fundamental principles as well as rules for the EU institutions regarding the relationship 
between the EU and its Member States and how legal acts are adopted.  
 
In the area of plant health, linked to the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), close 
cooperation of the European Commission with the  EU member states has been taking place well 
before the latest amendment of the IPPC in 1997. It comprises coordinated preparations at 
technical/expert level as well as at policy shaping and decision making levels. The core element of 
the system is a perma nent group of experts gathering the European Commission and EU member 
states experts that meet regularly and prepare proposals which are discussed and formally 
approved as EU common positions at a higher policy decision making level. The smooth functioning  
and efficacy of the system is based on an agreed distribution of competences and responsibilities 
at institutional level. In the plant health area, the EU applies a system of stewards (experts 
responsible for a specific task or a topic) that allows for an  appropriately informed decision making 
process at institutional level. Although reaching a consensus amongst 29 players (European 
Commission + 28 Member States) is not always an easy task, the established system as described 
above facilitates the process and allows for an informed single position of high quality.  
 
(Question 20 Paragraph 3.144, 3.145)  
According to the Report by the Secretariat, the European Commission is responsible for developing 
draft proposals for legislation and The Health and Food Audi ts and Analysis Directorate of the 
Commission is responsible for audits, inspections, and related activities to assess compliance with 
(...) plant health legislation within the EU, and compliance with the EU import requirements in 
third countries exporting  to the EU. Regarding plant protection, it is understandable that the 
Commission is responsible for assessing compliance with EU import requirements in third countries 
exporting to the EU. However, with regard to exports of plant products from the EU to ou tside, 
each member state conducts bilateral consultation with Japan respectively, over which Japan has a 
deep concern. Japan would like the EU to clarify the reason why the EU does not take the same 
approach in both export to and import from the third coun tries. 
 
EU reply:  According to Article 3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union , the EU 
has exclusive competence regarding the common commercial policy, i.e. exports from the EU 
Member States to non -EU countries. In practice, the European Commission and EU Member States 
work together in a transparent manner and in the most efficient possible way to guarantee that 
the SPS conditions of importing countries are complied with and that trade flows in benefit of all 
EU Member States. In this rega rd, for example, if necessary the Commission can negotiate directly 
with non -EU countries harmonized health certificates, which are then used by all EU Member 
States to export to non -EU countries. The competent authorities of the EU include EU Member 
State s’ competent authorities and the European Commission. In this respect, the following applies:  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 364 - 
 
  (a)  As regards exports to countries outside the EU, the EU Member States’ competent 
authorities are responsible for the control of the production and implementat ion of 
requirements, including audits, inspections and issuing animal health, plant health, food 
safety or animal welfare certifications attesting to the standards and requirements of the 
importing countries;  
(b)  As regards imports into the EU, the SPS co nditions are harmonised at EU level and EU 
Member States' competent authorities are responsible to conduct controls at EU borders to 
ensure the compliance of imports with the EU’s sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) import 
conditions according to the correspo nding EU legislation.  
(c)  The European Commission is responsible for overall coordination, inspection and audits of 
inspection systems of the Member States and the necessary legislative action to ensure 
uniform application of standards and requirements wi thin the EU's Internal Market. The 
European Commission works to ensure the safety of EU's agriculture and fishery products 
and that the same safety standards apply to all products regardless of origin or destination 
inside or outside the EU.  
 
Furthermore, under specific negotiating directives provided by the Council of the EU, the European 
Commission can negotiate bilateral (international) agreements between the EU and a non -EU 
country or an association of non -EU countries.  
 
3.3.7 Government Procurement  
 
(Question 21 Paragraph 3.234~3.251)  
We recognize that the European Commission submitted the amended proposal for regulation of the 
European Parliament and of the Council on the access of third -country goods and services to the 
Union's internal market in pub lic procurement and procedures supporting negotiations on access of 
Union goods and services to the public procurement markets of third countries in January 2016, 
and it has been under discussion with the Council. Japan has concerns about that there may be  
inconsistency with the international agreement, including the GPA if the new proposal didn't pay 
due regard to its commitment in the international agreement and know how the EU ensures the 
consistency of this proposal wit h its international commitment.  
 
EU reply: According to the proposal for an international procurement instrument, the EU would 
investigate possible allegations against trading partners regarding discrimination of EU operators in 
in their procurement market, and in case of proven discrimina tion invite the trading partner in 
question to negotiations aiming at further market openings. In the case these negotiations would 
not lead to result, as a last resort, the EU would be able take restrictive measures against goods 
and services from the tar geted country. The tool would fully comply with EU’s international 
commitments as it would relate to procurement not covered in EU’s agreements at plurilateral and 
bilateral level.  
 
(Question 22 Paragraph 3.253)  
According to the Report by the Secretariat, value of contracts covered by the GPA is 286.4 billion 
euro in 2012, while total expenditures on goods and services of EU procurement in this year is 
2,422.5 billion euros. Is there any data which shows a proportion and/or value of procurement 
which foreig n suppliers (i.e. non -EU suppliers) participated in tendering or got proc urement award 
in the same year?  
 
EU reply: The EU does not have information on share for foreign suppliers participating to tender 
procedures in the EU in the same year nor informatio n on the proportion of procurement which 
foreign (non EU suppliers) were awarded in the EU public procurement procedures in the same 
year. In terms of nationality of the winning bidders, the existing data covers only direct cross -
border procurement and not  indirect cross border procurement (for example there are a large 
number of contracts awarded to suppliers that are subsidiaries of foreign companies or agents for 
foreign suppliers). Therefore, as these data as mentioned above do not cover indirect cross border 
procurement, they will not fully reflect the reality as to import penetration rates. The EU remains 
ready to engage in in -depth discussions with GPA parties to determine how to measure market 
penetration by companies from countries that are Parties to the Agreement.  
 
  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 365 - 
 
  3.3.8 Intellectual property rights  
 
(Question 23 Paragraph 3.280)  
We would like to know the rules or criteria to decide whether a patent is a Standard Essential 
Patent or not?  
 
EU reply : Patent holders declare themselves their patents  that they deem essential to a standard. 
This self -declaration can however be reviewed by courts. Standard Setting Organisations usually 
have IP policy rules that define the declaration process.  
 
(Question 24 Paragraph 3.306)  
Can a geographical indication (including a third -country geographical indication) protected through 
direct application or by means of inclusion in FTA be subject to invalidation? If so, please indicate 
the ground(s) for invalidation and a period and entitled person for such request, an d related 
articles of EU Regulation(s), rules and the like therefor. Also, please indicate relevant CJEU's 
judgment(s) in this regard, if any.  
 
EU reply:  Pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the 
Court of Justice o f the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning 
the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union.  
In respect of geographical indications, see the ruling of the Court o f Justice in Case C ‑343/07 
concerning the invalidation of a protected geographical indication 
(http://curi a.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=74504&pageIndex=0&doclang
=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=419235 ). 
 
(Question 25 Paragraph 3.265)  
According to the Report by the Secretariat, the aim of the proposal for a regulation ensuring the 
cross-border portability of online content service is to allow residents in the EU to use legitimate 
content purchased or subscribed to in their principal country of residence anywhere in the EU.  
 
Could the EU provide specific details about what kind of ob ligations are given to whom? Will the 
proposal also apply to the content of rights holders outside the EU if it is circulated within the EU? 
If yes, how does the EU evaluate the impact to the rights holders outside the EU.  
 
EU reply : Regulation (EU) 2017/1 128 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 
2017 on cross -border portability of online content services in the internal market, already in force, 
shall apply from 1 April 2018. The Regulation introduces a common approach in the Union to th e 
cross-border portability of online content services, by ensuring that subscribers to portable online 
content services which are lawfully provided in their Member State of residence can access and use 
those services when temporarily present (i.e. for a li mited period of time) in a Member State other 
than their Member State of residence. It will apply to all kinds of content, but not to persons who 
are not residents in an EU Member State. The European Commission carried out an impact 
assessment accompanying  the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the 
Council to ensure the cross -border portability of online content services in the internal market.  
 
The main obligation to enable cross -border portability of online content services is lai d down in 
Article 3 of the Regulation. More specifically, Article 3(1) provides that the provider of an online 
content service provided against payment of money shall enable a subscriber who is temporarily 
present in a Member State to access and use the on line content service in the same manner as in 
the Member State of residence, including by providing access to the same content, on the same 
range and number of devices, for the same number of users and with the same range of 
functionalities.  
 
(Question 26 Paragraph 3.265)  
According to the Report by the Secretariat, the aim of the proposal for a regulation ensuring the 
cross-border portability of online content service is to allow residents in the EU to use legitimate 
content purchased or subscribed to in th eir principal country of residence anywhere in the EU.  
 
Could the EU provide specific details about what kind of obligations are given to whom? Will the 
proposal also apply to the content of rights holders outside the EU if it is circulated within the EU? 
If yes, how does the EU evaluate the impact to the  rights holders outside the EU?  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 366 - 
 
  EU reply : Please, see the reply to the above question which is the same.  
 
(Question 27 Paragraph 3.266)  
According to the Report by the Secretariat, the CJEU on September 8, 2016 indicated a legal 
interpretation of the case where the act of posting on a websites of hyperlinks to protected works 
freely available on another website without the authorization of the right holder is included in 
"communication to the public" under t he Information Society Directive （2001/29/EC ）. Is there 
any possibility to judge the act illegal due to different legal grounds such as abetting or 
contributory infringement of copyright besides the case where the act is judged to be illegal as 
being includ ed in "communication to the public"? Or, under the Information Society Directive 
(2001/29 / EC), is it enough to judge only whether the act is included in "commu nication to the 
public" or not?  
 
EU reply : The reference for a preliminary ruling of case C-160/15, dealt exclusively with the issue 
of “whether, and in what possible circumstances, the fact of posting, on a website, a hyperlink to 
protected works, freely available on another website without the consent of the copyright holder, 
constitutes a ‘c ommunication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 
2001/29”. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that “Article 3(1) of Directive 
2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisat ion 
of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as 
meaning that, in order to establish whether the fact of posting, on a website, hyperlinks to 
protected works, which are freely available on another web site without the consent of the 
copyright holder, constitutes a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of that provision, 
it is to be determined whether those links are provided without the pursuit of financial gain by a 
person who did not know o r could not reasonably have known the illegal nature of the publication 
of those works on that other website or whether, on the contrary, those links are provided for such 
a purpose, a situation in which that knowledge must be presumed”.  
 
(Question 28 Para graph 3.266)  
According to the Report by the Secretariat, the CJEU's judgement on 8th September 2016, 
depends partly on whether posting of hyperlinks is carried out for "the pursuit of financial gain". 
How is the presence of "the pursuit of financial gain" concretely judged? For example, if an 
advertisement is posted on the site where such links are posted, is the presence of "the pursuit  of 
financial gain" recognized?  
 
EU reply : In the context of the above -mentioned case, it was “undisputed that GS Media op erates 
the GeenStijl website and that it provided the hyperlinks to the files containing the photos at issue, 
hosted on the Filefactory website, for profit”. Therefore, the Court of Justice of the European Union 
did not provide any further elements to dete rmine the presence of the “pursuit of financial gain”, 
which is subject to the checks to be made by the referring national court.  
 
(Question 29 Paragraph 3.266)  
According to the Report by the Secretariat, the CJEU on September 8, 2016 indicated a legal 
interpretation of the case where an act of posting on a websites of hyperlinks to protected works 
freely available on another website without the authorization of the right holder is included in 
"communication to the public" under the Information Society Dire ctive (2001/29/EC ). 
 
Is the act of posting on a website of hyperlinks also included in "communication to the public" 
under the Information Society Directive (2001/29 / EC) in the case that website of hyperlinks is 
mainly provided for the EU citizens regard less of whether website of hyperlinks is located outside 
the EU?  
 
EU reply : In the context of the above -mentioned case, the Court of Justice of the European Union 
did not address this issue.  
 
(Question 30 Paragraph 3.3.8.2.2 Supplementary protection certif icates 3.284)  
The Report by the Secretariat mentions about “the introduction of an SPC manufacturing waiver in 
order to allow EU -based generic and biosimilar manufacturers to produce for export during the 
lifetime of the SPC”, and cited footnote 287, “Coun cil conclusions on strengthening the balance in 
the pharmaceutical systems in the EU and its Member States” describes that “the Commission 
should prepare by the end of 2016 a timetable and methodology for conducting the analysis as 
mentioned in this paragr aph” in paragraph 47.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 367 - 
 
  Q1 i. Could you provide for the timetable and methodology for conducting the analysis,  if these are 
already prepared?  
 
Q2. ii Please provide for measures to prevent the increase of the number of patent disputes 
between patent holders and a generic or biosimilar  manufacturer.  
 
EU reply: The “Council conclusions on strengthening the balance in the pharmaceutical systems in 
the EU and its Member States” does not deal specifically with the issues of the “SPC manufacturing 
waiver”. Regardin g the timetable and methodology related to paragraph 47 of the referred 
Council’s conclusions, the Commission has contracted a study on the economic aspects of 
pharmaceutical IP and might contract additiona l ones until the end of 2018.  
 
(Question 31 Paragr aph 3.325)  
The Report by Secretariat notes that "the experience and skills gained by employees ... are 
excluded from the scope of the Directive", Could you explain whether the company could claim for 
remedies against disclosure of the experience and skills  when the company recognizes the part of 
the skill as the trade secret of the company?  
 
EU reply :  
Experience and skills are personal attributes and they cover competencies which can be expected 
from a professional who has worked in a given field/job for some reasonable period of time  and 
which are acquired in the normal course of any employment. They do not concern detailed 
information developed by a company, which is not generally known, not even by experts working 
the same field, and are therefore also not generally specific to that company. So the notions of 
"trade secret" and "experience and skills" are mutually exclusive.  
 
(Question 32 Paragraph 3.329)  
The Report by Secretariat notes that "provisi ons are included to ensure the exercise of 
investigative journalism and the protection of journalistic  sources", Isn’t it subject to restriction 
that the journalist publishes the trade secret obtained by the interview without  the permission of 
the company?  
 
EU reply:  Free journalism is an in integral part of the freedom of expression and information 
enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereafter referred to as 
the 'Charter'). What the Directive foresees is that remedies will not be ava ilable to the extent that 
the disclosure of the information in question can be justified under the right to information as 
protected by the Charter. It follows from the foregoing that the protection of journalism does not 
automatically prevail over any oth er interests and rights. In other words, the freedom of 
expression and information has to be balanced against other fundamental rights that may be at 
stake, such as the right to privacy, to property and the freedom to conduct a business.  
 
3.3.8.3 Enforceme nt 
3.3.8.3.4 International cooperation  
 
(Question 33 Paragraph 3.356)  
According to the Report by the Secretariat, EUIPO implements cooperation programs in third 
countries, such as China, the ASEAN region, the Russian Federation, and India. Specifically, wh at 
kind of programs does EUIPO implement in third countries and which agency is the target of each 
program? And are right ho lders involved in the programs?  
 
EU reply : The EUIPO maintains cooperation programmes with several IP offices around the world. 
The projects carried out under such cooperation include efforts to foster the efficiency of IP offices 
in third countries and addressing existing backlogs. For that purpose, the EUIPO shares a number 
of digital solutions resulting in the expansion to those ben eficiary countries of the databases on 
registered trademarks and on registered designs such TM View, TMClass and Designview. 
Currently, the EUIPO co -finances and implements a number of projects entrusted by the European 
Commission in India (IPC -EUI), China  (IP Key China) and South East Asia (IP Key SEA) and Latin 
America (IP Key Latin America). A further project targeting support to ASEAN regional integration 
on IPR, named ARISE + IPR, is currently being discussed with the European Commission. Other 
than in  India, the signed projects to date are in their launching phase as their official start date is 
1st of September. Those programmes address a variety of stakeholders, with different emphasis 
from project to project including IP offices but also enforcement  authorities, EU companies, SMEs WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 368 - 
 
  and academia to name a few. As noted, right -holders are involved in the projects and, on 
occasion, they co -participate in the events funded by the projects, either as co -organisers or as 
speakers. In addition, EU right -holders belonging to EUIPO´s User Associations are regularly 
informed and involved in the implementation of the projects.  
 
4 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR  
4.1 Agriculture  
4.1.2 Agricultural Policy  
 
(Question 34 Paragraph 4.8)  
Please elaborate the following, regard ing the coupled support included in the voluntary schemes 
mentioned in the Report by the Secretariat;AGRI/D3 - MK 
- target crops/products currently implemented and the example of paying method and conditions  
- procedure to choose which crops/products to be  targeted  
- whether or not these support are calculated in the OECD/ PSE database  
 
EU reply:  All the eligible sectors and type of production, with the exception of cane and chicory, 
short rotation coppice and dried fodder, have been targeted  (out of the li st of 21): beef and veal, 
cereals, flax, fruit and vegetables, grain legumes, hemp, hops, milk and milk products, nuts, 
oilseeds, olive oil, protein crops, rice, seeds, sheep meat and goat meat, silkworms, starch potato 
and sugar beet. The sectors mostly s upported by the Member States are beef and veal, milk and 
dairy products, sheep and goat meat, protein crops, fruit and vegetables and sugar beet. These six 
sectors absorb around 94% of the total amount allocated for financing voluntary coupled support.  
 
Voluntary coupled support (VCS) may only be granted to sectors that are particularly important 
from economic, environmental or social reasons and undergo certain difficulties, due to which 
there is a risk of decline or abandonment of production. Also, it ma y only be granted to the extent 
necessary to create an incentive to maintain current levels of production. This level is expressed 
with a 'quantitative limit' (i.e. number of hectares or number of animals) per support measure, 
which reflects the level of p roduction reached in a past reference period in the sector concerned.  
Financial/budgetary constraints also apply to VCS. On one hand, each Member State is limited to a 
certain percentage of its envelope available for granting direct support that it can dec ide to 
allocate to VCS. On the other hand, once the support decisions by the Member States are made 
and notified, the expenditure per measure is limited to the financial ceilings of the individual 
support measures. The EU will continue to respect its WTO d omestic support limits.  
 
In line with the principle of subsidiarity, the EU legislation recognizes 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 accordingly, within the limit of the maximum percentage of the 
national ceiling allowed to be used for financing the scheme. That being said, as long as the above 
described conditions are met, Member States are free to tailor -make their support str ategy to the 
local needs and to set the specific eligibility conditions to the actual payment per hectare or animal 
accordingly.  
 
In relation to your question on whether or not VCS is calculated in the OECD/PSE database, we 
suggest asking this question to the OECD which is responsible for such calculations.  
 
4.1.5 OECD monitoring and evaluation of agricultural policies  
 
(Question 35 Paragraph 4.49)  
According to the Report by the Secretariat, market price support increased to nearly €21 billion, 
from a low  of €11 billion in 201, in result of several factor. What is the most significant reasons of 
the increase?  
 
(Question 36 Paragraph 4.49)  
According to the Report by the Secretariat, market price support for common wheat, and sugar 
increased from zero in 2011 to €3.9 billion and €1.4 billion respectively in 2015. While supposedly, 
domestic price of these two products became more expensive tha n world price, is there any policy 
change related those two products? If no, what makes these altered situation so rapidly? Do the 
voluntary programs in certain member States affected the situation.AGRI/D3 sensitive - 
 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 369 - 
 
  (Question 37 Paragraph 4.14)  
Please  elaborate the following points regarding the OECD data mentioned in the table 4.1.4;  
- the factor of rapid increase of the SCT of common wheat and sugar since 2013  
- the factor of the fluctuation of the SCT of beef and veal  
- the factor that MPS of pig me at are zero and the SCT level is low in 2011 and 2012  
- the factor of recent decrease of the SCT of poultry  
 
EU reply to Questions 35 -36-37: This information seems to be based on most recent OECD PSE 
data. The EU would note that the methodologies used by O ECD and WTO in this context differ. In 
particular the OECD methodology for PSE calculation does not aim at measuring the trade 
distortion whereas the WTO does. The result of this calculation may be possibly influenced by 
factors like prices, tariffs and ex change rate movements. The WTO defines the non -trade distorting 
nature of agriculture subsidies e.g. Green Box as the appropriate indicator to judge the effect of 
agricultural subsidies on international trade.  We suggest asking these questions to the OECD which 
is responsible for such calculations.  
 
4.3.1 Audiovisual services  
 
(Question 38 Paragraph 4.99)  
According to the Report by the Secretariat, broadcasting activities are classified as one of 
audiovisual services. Please clarify the EU's view on whether  Audiovisual services include television 
broadcast transmission services (CPC 75241) and radio broadcast transmission services (CPC 
75242).  
 
EU reply : the EU does not have a position on the matter. For the purpose of EU internal 
legislation, broadcast transmission services are not audiovisual media services in the sense of 
Article 1.1(a) of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. On the other hand, the  EU takes note 
that CPC 75241 and CPC 75242 are classified as audiovisual services in accordance with the W/120 
sectoral classification list.  
 
(Question 39 Paragraph 4.103)  
According to the Report by the Secretariat, the Commission adopted a new legislati ve proposal 
amending the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD). This proposal contains a new 
restriction that allows member States to impose financial contributions on providers of on -demand 
services established in other member States. Has this obli gation been applied on the traditional 
broadcasting services sector already? Are there any additional requirements for providers from 
non-member States to obtain a license to supply audiovisual services?  
 
EU reply : The proposal includes a provision which clarifies the possibility for Member States to 
impose financial contributions on providers of on -demand services established in other Member 
States. This does not amount to an obligation at EU level. Such a provision has not been applied to 
linear broadcas ting. The AVMSD does not deal with licensing regimes, but on -demand audiovisual 
media services cannot be subject to a prior authorisation.  
 
4.3.3 Financial services  
4.3.3.1 Market size and structure  
 
(Question 40 Paragraph 4.20)  
What caused the reduction in the number of foreign -controlled subsidiaries and branches in the EU 
in 2015? What kind of policies have been adopted in the EU in recent years that may affect the 
operation of foreign banks?  
 
EU reply: The reduction of foreign -controlled subsidiaries a nd branches in the EU in 2015 has 
been due to, and is in line with, the general consolidation and concentration of the EU banking 
sector that has been ongoing seen the start of the financial crisis. Actually, the number of foreign -
controlled entities has f allen in 2015 by slightly less ( -2%) than that of domes tic credit institutions 
(-4%). There have been no particular policies applied to  cause or encourage such work. 
Conversely the gradual build -up and phasing -in of Banking Union should over the medium ter m 
rather foster financial integration within the EU, also via foreign branches and subsidiaries.  
 
 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 370 - 
 
  (Question 41 Paragraph 4.21)  
What caused the sudden decrease in the capital adequacy indicators of foreign banks in 2015? 
What kinds of policies have been a dopted in the EU in recent years that m ay affect the ratios?  
 
EU reply: Solvency indicators (solvency ratio, tier 1 ratio, capital buffers) improved in 2015 in the 
euro area compared to 2014 for both domestic and foreign banks. The EU aggregate declined fr om 
2014 to 2015 because of missing data for UK [the headline in the statistics reads: EU (Member 
States and Institutions of the European Union) changing composition]. Domestic banks' solvency 
ratio increased in 2015 over 2014 in all EU Member States except  BG, CZ, HU, (and no entry for 
the UK). While the ECB statistics does not provide a country breakdown for foreign controlled 
banks, it is very likely that the different direction of the changes in solvency indicators between 
the EU and the euro area betwee n 2014 and 2015 is also caused by the missing data for the UK.  
 
4.3.3.2 Regulatory developments  
 
(Question 42 Paragraph 4.126)  
Please explain the reason why the proposal (i.e. COM/2014/043 final) has not been adopted yet.  
 
EU reply: The 2014 proposal for a regulation on structural measures improving the resilience of 
EU credit institutions is with the co -legislators. While the Council adopted a general approach in 
2015, the European Parliament has not yet adopted its negotiation stance.  
 
Question 43 Paragraph 4.137)  
Please explain in detail the progress of discussion about Financial Transaction Tax. reply exist  
 
EU Reply : Please see reply to Question 39 to Australia reproduced for ease of reference below  
"At present, the 10 EU Member States participa ting in the enhanced cooperation are continuing 
technical and political discussions to find a compromise on the design of a directive on FTT. The 
Commission 2011 proposal had been addressed to all the EU Member States. Two years later, 
considering the impo ssibility to decide at the unanimity on the project, a number of Member States 
asked the Commission to go ahead under the enhanced cooperation procedure (introduced by the 
Lisbon Treaty). According to this procedure, at least 9 MS can go ahead on a specifi c project, if 
this project respects some criteria and, notably, does not endanger the internal market."  
 
(Question 44 Paragraph 4.129)  
Please explain in detail the contents of the “Directive (EU) 2016/97 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 20 January 2016 on insurance distribution (so -called IDD/IMD)”. What kinds 
of information do insurance services suppliers have to provide for consumers before they sign an 
insurance contract?  
 
EU reply: The overriding principle, enshrined in Article 17 (1) of  this Directive, is that insurance 
distributors (or insurance services suppliers) shall always act honestly, fairly and professionally in 
accordance with the best interests of their customers. Before the conclusion of an insurance 
contract, all insurance d istributors, whether intermediaries or not, have to disclose their identity, 
whether they provide advice as well as information on potential conflicts of interests. They have to 
inform customers about the source and the nature of their remuneration. If the y ask for a fee, 
they must disclose its amou nt. 
 
The Directive also prescribes the way in which these disclosures are to be made. Some 
requirements relate to insurance undertakings. For example, manufacturers of insurance products 
will have to ensure that there are product approval processes in place before putting a product on 
the market and that the product is designed for a specific market.  
 
A further, universal requirement of the Directive is that insurance distributors need to check 
whether the product  on offer meets the demands and needs of the customer.  
 
The Directive also introduces a new requirement for "manufacturers" (generally insurers) of non -
life insurance products, namely to draw up an Insurance Product Information Document.  
 
This will be a si mple document summarising the main features of a non -life insurance contract. It 
is not the insurance contract. It will not be required for life insurance contracts. It is designed to 
give customers basic information about the type of non -life insurance, t he obligations of the WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 371 - 
 
  parties, claims handling and a summary of  the non -life insurance cover. A standardised format for 
such documents will soon be adopted by the Commission.  
  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 372 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM MALAYSIA  
 
Government Report  
 
1: The European Union  in the Global Trading System  
 
1.3. The EU trade policy is grounded in broader European values – like promoting ambitious 
climate change mitigation, protecting the environment and guaranteeing food safety and security 
as well as the protection and promotio n of labour rights. In line with the EU's Global Strategy, the 
EU trade policy is consistent with its wider foreign policy objectives - that are to pursue a policy 
that benefits society as a whole - and promotes European and universal standards and values 
alongside core economic interests, putting a greater emphasis on sustainable development, human 
rights, consumer protection, responsible and fair trade and well as fair taxation.  
 
Question 1  
 
With recent withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Climate Change, would there be a 
possible impact on the policy climate change policy of the EU?  
 
EU reply : The EU's Foreign Affairs Council bringing together our foreign ministers clearly set out 
the EU's position at its meeting on 19 June: " The Council de eply regrets the unilateral decision by 
the United States Administration to withdraw from the Paris Agreement (…). The Paris Agreement 
brought us together in very challenging times. It demonstrates, along with the 2030 Agenda for 
Sustainable Development, o ur collective responsibility towards the entire planet, for this and future 
generations, and our commitment to act accordingly (…).The Council reaffirms that the Paris 
Agreement is fit for purpose and cannot be renegotiated (…). The European Union and its Member 
States remain united and absolutely committed to full and swift implementation of the Paris 
Agreement (…)." Regarding the implications in the WTO, it means that we will continue to play our 
role and develop actions that promote sustainable trade and  the implementation of the UN goals in 
that respect.  
 
1: The European Union in the Global Trading System  
 
1.4. The EU believes that the multilateral trading system has to be at the centre of the global 
governance framework that WTO Members should collecti vely nurture and develop. It is only the 
multilateral trading system that can guarantee inclusive growth and can ensure the expansion of 
real development opportunities for the poorest and most -vulnerable WTO Members. And it is only 
the WTO which has the to ols and geographic scope to create a level playing field for traders. For 
this reason, the EU is working with other WTO Members to preserve the integrity of the WTO; and 
it is for this reason that the EU is helping to lead efforts to prepare outcomes for t he 11th WTO 
Ministerial Conference and beyond. The EU is seeking new progress in the WTO on a broad set of 
issues that matter in today's global economy such as e -commerce and digital trade, domestic 
support in agriculture, fisheries subsidies, and issues o f interest to SMEs that focus on 
transparency of regulatory measures for trade in goods. Following the entry into force of the Trade 
Facilitation Agreement, the EU will now concentrate on providing the necessary technical 
assistance to Developing Countries  for its swift implementation.  
 
Question2  
 
Appreciate if EU could share the intended technical assistance that will be provided to the 
Developing countries in meeting the implementation of TFA?  
 
EU reply: By 2018, the EU intends to have provided over €440  million in support to the 
implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA).  Trade facilitation is one of the EU’s aid 
programming priorities. 30% of EU trade -related support programmes include a component 
focused on trade facilitation.  For example , over the last five years the EU annual bilateral Aid for 
Trade commitments have averaged over €11 billion, including almost €3 billion of general trade -
related assistance, of which an average of €120 million were specifically for trade facilitation.  
 
In additional to bilateral and regional assistance, the EU and its Member States provide significant 
amounts through multi -donor instruments that specifically support trade facilitation. For example, 
with its €10 million  donation, the EU is the largest contri butor to the World Bank's Trade WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 373 - 
 
  Facilitation Support Programme (TFSP), which  is already operational and can provide rapid -
response support for the implementation of the TFA. The EU has also contributed €600,000  to the 
WTO Trade Facilitation Facility, which  directly  supports developing countries in defining their 
needs, and provides assistance to implement TFA provisions. Furthermore, the EU recently 
contributed €400,000  to UNCTAD's Empowerment Program in support of National Trade 
Facilitation Committees (NT FCs). The EU and several of its Member States also provide support to 
the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) as donors to the Enhanced Integrated Framework (EIF)  that 
can support the implementation of the TFA in the LDCs. The EU will provide €10 million  to the EIF 
for phase two.  
 
In the future, EU support for trade facilitation will be channelled bilaterally through regional and 
thematic programmes as well as through multi -donor instruments. The aid programming until 
2020 is under way, in which specific suppo rt for trade facilitation projects is expected to exceed 
€300 million globally . All WTO Members benefitting from EU assistance and multilateral 
instruments should be able to request and access such funding, primarily by way of their national 
NCTFs drawing up their needs and contacting the local EU delegations for information on 
programmes and implementing partners.  
 
1: The European Union in the Global Trading System  
 
1.6. The EU is pursuing a progressive trade and investment agenda, where, besides increased  
transparency and better understanding and communication of the gains of trade, the following 
elements are crucial: (1) making sure that benefits from trade are shared more equally; and (2) 
establishing a comprehensive, fair and effective regulatory interf ace between trade and investment 
and issues such as labour or environment.  
 
Question 3  
 
Noting the importance of the elements in pursuing a progressive trade and investment agenda, 
would appreciate the initiatives undertaken in establishing a comprehensive, fair and regulatory 
interface between trade and investment issues such as labour and e nvironment.  
 
EU reply:  This question seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the text under consideration. 
The report states that it's crucial to establish a regulatory interface between, on the one side, 
trade and investment and, on the other side, is sues such as labour or environment. In this regard, 
the EU Trade for All Strategy seeks to ensure that trade agreements create new economic 
opportunities while at the same time safeguarding and promoting values such as sustainable 
development, human rights , fair and ethical trade and the fight against corruption.  
 
This being said, like many other trading partners, the EU believes that there is a need to 
strengthen policy coherence between trade and investment, since they are increasingly 
complementary, inte rdependent and intertwined in today's global economy. The EU is supportive 
of initiatives aimed at making international trade and investment rules more integrated and global. 
In this respect, the EU endorses the work done by the G20 Trade and Investment Wo rking Group, 
in particular the enhanced G20 policy coordination on investment issues which has led to the 
adoption of the Guiding Principles on Investment Policymaking. In the longer term, we support the 
incorporation of investment rules into the WTO, as a n opportunity to simplify and update the 
current web of bilateral agreements to set up a clearer, more legiti mate and more inclusive 
system.  
 
2.1: The EU economic environment and its macroeconomic policy  
 
2.2. In 2016, GDP growth was around 1.8% compared t o 2.2% in 2015. Looking forward and on 
the basis of the 2017 winter forecast1, the European Commission expects growth to continue at 
about the same pace in 2017 and 2018 as in 2016. Private consumption is expected to continue 
being the backbone of the EU e xpansion driven by employment growth and a stronger rise in 
wages.  
 
Question 4  
 
Would appreciate as to how the EU sees her relationship with ASEAN in the near future?  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 374 - 
 
  EU reply:  The EU pursues a comprehensive trade and investment agenda with ASEAN. 
Negoti ations for a region -to-region Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the EU and ASEAN were 
launched in 2007 and paused in 2009 to give way to bilateral FTAs negotiations, conceived as 
building blocks towards a future region -to-region agreement. At the 15th ASEAN Economic 
Ministers (AEM) -EU Trade Commissioner Consultations, held in March 2017, discussions took place 
on the next steps towards the resumption of the ASEAN -EU FTA negotiations. EU -ASEAN Senior 
Economic Officials further discussed this issue in July 2 017 and the EU remains committed to 
engage in this process.  
 
2.2: Trends in Foreign Trade and in FDIs  
 
2.11. Table 2 summarizes the EU FDI inward and outward stocks and flows with Extra -EU28. It 
shows that in 2015 Extra -EU28 inward FDI stocks increased by more than 20% compared to 
inward stocks in 2014 and inward flows amounted to almost €470 billion, significantly higher 
compared to 2014. The outward FDI stocks reached almost €6,900 billion, compared to €6,000 
billion in 2014. The main three leading source s of FDI are the United States, Switzerland and 
Japan, while the leading destinations of EU FDI are the United States, Brazil and Switzerland.  
 
Question 5  
 
Could the EU elaborate on the details of the private investments, such as the composition of 
service s as well as the manufacturing sector during the period under review?  
 
EU reply: The EU does not have such a level of detailed data for 2015 but can provide the below 
data for 2014.  
 
Extra EU -28 FDI flows by economic activity, EU -28, end 2014  
(EUR billon)  
 Outward  Inward  
Total  58.3 98.7 
Agriculture hunting and fishing  0.5 -0.2 
Mining and quarrying  35.9 8.1 
Manufacturing  35.5 13.5 
Food products, beverages and tobacco products  12.6 6.4 
Textiles and wood activities  -1.0 0.2 
Petroleum, chemical, pharmaceutical products  8.8 7.6 
Metal and machinery products  -4.9 -6.5 
Vehicles and other transport equipment  14.6 5.6 
Other manufacturing  5.4 0.3 
Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning  3.5 0.7 
Water supply;  sewerage, waste management  0.0 0.4 
Construction  3.3 0.2 
Services  -35.2 62.9 
Trade; repairs of motor vehicles and motorcycles  10.7 -3.7 
Transportation and storage  -0.3 -3.1 
Accommodation and food service activities  3.1 0.9 
Information and communication  -108.0  3.1 
Financial and insurance activities  67.2 46.7 
Real estate activities  2.0 6.6 
Professional, scientific and technical activities  -21.3 4.2 
Other services (NACE Rev. 2 Sections N to U)  11.4 8.3 
Other, including activities not allocated  14.8 13.1 
Source:  Eurostat (online data code: bop_fdi6_flow).  
 
3: Developments in the Internal Market: The Single Market Strategy  
 
3.3. On 28 October 2015, the European Commission presented a new Single Market Strategy5 
which aims at unlocking the full potential of the Single Market.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 375 - 
 
  3.4. The Strategy aims at reviving and modernizing the Single Market in a way that improves the 
functioning of the markets for products and services, and guarantees appropriate protection for 
citizens. It is made up of targeted actions in three ke y areas:  
 
- creating opportunities for consumers, professionals and businesses;  
- encouraging and enabling the modernization and innovation that Europe needs;  
- ensuring practical delivery that benefits consumers and businesses in their daily lives.  
 
Question 6  
 
In developing the single market strategy, what are the key challenges faced by the EU?  
 
Q7: Secondly, since tariffs are no longer an issue, what are the strategies for the EU to reduce or 
eliminate non -tariff barriers (NTBs) / non -tariff measures (NTMs)  within the region? Is there any 
monitoring mechanism such as a scorecard being developed by the EU to monitor the 
NTBs/NTMs?G3+F3 – note: re -attributed to: GROW 3 TBT then under work FH  
 
EU reply to questions 6 and 7 : all updated information since last EU  TPR has been reported in 
the EU government report in particular with respect to mutual recognition principle which should 
avoid  EU internal NTBs and NTMs.  
 
In addition, developing the single market is an ongoing process and it has many angles: goods, 
services, IPR, competition, regulations on transport, on consumer rights, state aid etc. please refer 
to EU statement on 5 and 7 July, to EU government report and WTO Secretariat reports as well as 
to the following webpage: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single -market/strategy_en  
 
3.5. On 19 May 2015, the European Commission adopted the comprehensive Better Regulation 
Package aiming at reducing the unnecessary costs of regulation. Better regulation is about 
designing EU policies and laws so that they achieve their objectives at minimum cost. It is a way of 
working to ensure that policy is prepared, implemented and reviewed in an open, transparent 
manner, informed by the best available evidence and backed up by the comprehensive 
involvement of stakeholders.  
 
Question  8 
 
In implementing a transparent policy, regulations or reforms in the EU, where could an exporter / 
importer able to refer to the regulations i.e. is there any trade and investment repository available 
/ developed by the EU as reference?   
 
EU reply : The EU operates an Export Helpdesk ( http://exporthelp.europa.eu/thdapp/index.htm ), 
which is designed to provide information on the conditions for importing into the EU, including 
tariffs, preferential arrangements, statistics, applicable health, safety and technical standards, 
internal taxes and rules of origin.  
 
3.6. To ensure that the EU action is effective, the European Commission assesses the expected 
and actual impacts of policies, leg islation, and other important measures at every stage of the 
policy cycle – from planning to implementation to review and subsequent revision. For example, 
each time that the EU takes action, the European Commission publishes a roadmap and an 
inception imp act assessment describing the planned initiative and the evaluation of the existing 
legislation. Later, once they have been implemented for a sufficient period of time, the initiatives 
are evaluated to check their performance against standard criteria. Sta keholders are able to 
express their views over the entire life -cycle of a policy.  
 
Question 9  
 
In developing a roadmap, could the EU share the overall GRP process undertaken to ensure that 
the stakeholders are engaged.  
 
EU reply:  There are ample opportuni ties for any person to provide input to the development of 
Commission legislative proposals and the accompanying impact assessments:  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 376 - 
 
  o First, at the very early stage of development, an inception impact assessment sets out 
ideas for new laws and policies. Th ey describe the policy context, the objectives, the 
options to be considered and a preliminary outline of the types of impacts that are 
expected. These inception impact assessments are published on -line with a possibility for 
stakeholders to provide feedba ck for 4 weeks.  
o Second, open 12 -week internet -based stakeholder consultation is part of every impact 
assessment process. It is based on a consultation document and a questionnaire, which 
should address all main impact assessment elements.  
o Finally, once t he Commission has adopted the proposal, any person can submit its views 
on the proposal and, where relevant, accompanying impact assessment during the period 
of 8 weeks.  
 
It should be also noted that the European Commission adopts proposals, which are further 
considered and may be amended by the European Parliament and the Council. There is, therefore, 
still ample opportunity for stakeholders to c omment on them in that process.  
 
Worth also noting that: all contributions received in 12 -week open public c onsultations are 
published online on consultation website.  
 
o A report outlining the overall results of the consultation work and providing feedback 
(synopsis report) is published on the consultation website and, where applicable, added 
as an annex to the im pact assessment/evaluation report. This report also summarises 
relevant feedbacks received in parallel (e.g. on inception impact assessment).  
o In addition, for legislative proposals, the explanatory memorandum should reflect how far 
the main contributions h ave been taken into account in the draft policy initiative.  
o For delegated acts the key outcomes of the consultation process are reflected in the 
explanatory memorandum, which should give a short and proportionate summary of the 
consultation.  
o For implemen ting acts the Committee is informed about the outcome of the consultation 
and the discussion will be reflected in the minutes of the meeting, which are public.  
o The Commission also collects the feedback on its legislative proposals and accompanying 
impact a ssessments, and presents it to the Parliament and Council.  
 
Modernization of the European standardization system  
 
3.8. As one concrete achievement of the Single Market Strategy, on 1 June 2016 the European 
Commission adopted a Communication setting out th e basis for a single and coherent European 
Standardisation System that adapts to the changing environment, supports multiple policies and 
brings benefits and predictability to consumers and businesses. This was followed by a Joint 
Initiative on Standardisa tion, signed on 13 June 2016, setting out a shared vision for European 
standardization with the aim to speed up and better prioritize standard setting across the board. 
The initiative is driven by stakeholders (EU and EFTA Member States, standardization 
organizations and bodies, European industry and industry associations, SMEs, and societal 
stakeholders), with the European Commission playing a mainly coordinating role and building 
consensus, bringing together the expertise of all parties involved.  
 
Questio n10 
 
Could the EU share the list of MRAs signed by the EU / harmonisation of standards to date? In 
addition, could the EU deliberate on the key challenges in finalising or implementing these 
MRAs?F3/GROW TBT  
 
EU reply:  Mutual recognition agreements on conf ormity assessment (MRAs) lay down the 
conditions under which one Party (non -member country) will accept conformity assessment results 
(e.g. testing or certification) performed by the other Party's (the EU) designated conformity 
assessment bodies (CABs) to show compliance with the first Party's (non -member country) 
requirements and vice versa. Accordingly, the MRAs do not require harmonization of technical 
requirements or standards of the Parties. The EU has concluded MRAs with Australia, Canada, 
Israel, Jap an, New Zealand, the United States and Switzerland.  
 
For more information please consult: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single -market/goods/  
international -aspects/mutual -recognition -agreements_en . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 377 - 
 
  Mutual recognition of professional qualifications  
 
3.16. A policy of mutual recognition of professional qualifications between EU Member States has 
been one of the core policies of the EU since its creation. Professionals and their activities are 
regulated by Member States at national, regional or sometimes local level.  
 
Question11  
 
Since the free movement of professionals between EU Member States is one of the core policies of 
the EU, what is EU’s main challenge in implementing the mutual recognition of professional 
qualifications?  
 
GROW SERVICES/B1 see also repli es to Australia on the same issue  
 
EU reply : In the EU, movement of qualified professionals is enhanced by EU Directive 2005/36/EU 
on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications.68 This Directive includes three systems of 
mutual recognition of qua lifications obtained in another Member State .69 
 
One of the main challenges in implementing the mutual recognition of professional qualifications is 
the different level of regulation and regulatory approaches that might exist between EU Member 
States regard ing access to specific professions and professional activities. This becomes even more 
challenging when the competence for regulating a profession is decentralised at the regional or 
local level in the various States.  
 
Access to up -to-date and pertinent in formation and the use of electronic communication channels 
between the national authorities is also an important aspect of our implementation policy which 
requires a constant maintenance and monitoring together with the EU Member States.  
 
Finally, discussi ons with, and periodic reviews by, the EU Member States to ensure that their 
professional regulations remain justified and proportionate to the public interests that they seek to 
protect are also an important and challenging aspect of this policy. Adaptati ons to new 
developments are promoted in that context.   
 
International Procurement Instrument  
 
3.20. According to the Commission, on 29 January 2016, the European Commission has adopted a 
revised proposal for an International Procurement Instrument (IPI).  
 
Question12  
 
Appreciate if the EU could provide further information on IPI as well as countries that would be 
subjected to it.  
 
EU reply : The European Commission remains convinced of the need to further open -up third 
country procurement markets. Therefore, the Commission adopted on 29 January 2016 a revised 
proposal for a Regulation on the access of third -country goods and services to the Union's internal 
market in public procurement and procedures supporting negotiations on access of Union goods 
and service s to the public procurement markets in third countries (COM(2016)0034 – C8-
0018/2016 – 2012/0060(Cod)/ the International procurement Instrument (IPI). The revised 
proposal represents both an elaboration and a simplification of the original proposal. The 
Commission has submitted the revised proposal to the two legislative bodies – the European 
Parliament and the Council. The negotiation and adoption procedure is currently on -going. The 
Commission proposal may be modified during this process this is why we ca nnot reply to the 
question with more details at this stage.  
 
                                                
68 Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional 
qualifications, OJ. L 255, 30.09.2005, p.22 . 
69 Among which an automatic recognition regime for seven professions for which the education a nd 
training requirements have been harmonised at a minimum level, a system based on professional experience 
for the crafts professions and a general system where the set of qualifications required in the home Member 
State is compared with what is required in the host Member State with the possibility for the host Member 
State to impose compensator y measures on the professional.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 378 - 
 
  3.44. On 2 December 2015, the European Commission adopted an ambitious new Circular 
Economy Package. It is aimed at using resources in a more sustainable manner for the benefit of 
both the econom y and the environment, and to contributing to the sustainable development Goals 
under the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development, notably on responsible consumption and 
production. The Package is now being implemented with a range of concrete actions. In this 
context, the EU is in the process of adopting new rules on waste, while a strategy on plastics use, 
reuse and recycling (including the issue of marine litter) is expected in the course of 2017.  
 
Question13  
 
Could the EU provide her definition on “a more sustainable manner”? In addition, could EU 
elaborate on the mechanism to develop and implement their sustainable and consumption 
production (SCP)?  
ENV/D1+SG  
 
EU reply:  As already briefly mentioned in the report, the European Commission's Circular 
Economy Package,  adopted on 2 December 2015, consists of a Circular Economy Action Plan (54 
actions) and a legislative proposal to review the EU waste legislation. It covers the whole life cycle 
of products and materials from sustainable production and consump tion to waste management and 
secondary raw materials. It aims at bringing economic, social and environmental gains by 
maintaining the value of products, materials and resources in the economy for as long as possible 
and minimising waste generation while bo osting the competitiveness with new business 
opportunities and innovative products and services. The EU Circular Economy Package contributes 
to the Sustainable Development Goals under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 
notably to SDG 12 on Sustai nable Consumption and Production. The Package is now being 
implemented with a range of concrete actions and keeps delivering on track. One year after the 
adoption of the package, the European Commission has taken key measures in areas such as 
waste, eco -design, food waste, organic fertilisers, guarantees for consumer goods, and innovation 
and investment. Circular economy principles have been gradually integrated in industrial best 
practices, green public procurement, the use of cohesion policy funds, and th rough new initiatives 
in the construction and water sectors. New, additional measures proposed this year include a 
Commission Communication on Waste to Energy and a revision of the RoHS (Restriction of 
Hazardou s Substances) Directive. The latter is expecte d to be adopted by the EU legislators still in 
2017. Further deliverables in the pipeline for the end of 2017 include a Strategy on Plastics (which 
will also address the issue of marine litter), options at the interface between chemical, products 
and waste  legislation, a legislative proposal for minimum requirements for water reuse and a 
monitoring framework to measure progress of the transition towards a circular economy . 
 
Secretariat Report  
 
1.2.2: Services  
 
1.36. EU services sector trade has been influen ced by gradual liberalization and reforms resulting 
from the 2006 Services Directive. In 2012, the European Commission estimated that the Directive 
would generate 0.8% of GDP growth over five to ten years.72 The benefit to services trade and 
FDI flows was also expected, with estimated increases of 7% and 4%, respectively.  
 
Question 13 bis  
 
If Eu could deliberate on the market opening and reforms that have taken place in the EU services 
sector? What other factors contributed to a stronger expansion in EU ser vices sector?B1+GROW 
SERVICES  
 
EU reply : Following the adoption of the Services Directive in 2006, Member States undertook 
substantial reform efforts adopting more than thousand laws in order to abolish existing barriers. 
In 2012 a Commission assessment an alysed the restrictions removed following the transposition of 
the Services Directive by sector and by Member State. The assessment found that that the 
estimated EU -level impact of the reforms undertaken up to that point on GDP was 0.8%, with the 
impact va rying considerably across Member States (ranging from below 0.3% to more than 1.5%) WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 379 - 
 
  and mainly determined by the combination of the undertaken barrier reduction and the share of 
the covered sectors in their economies.70 
 
The Services Directive adopted in 20 06 provides a horizontal framework which covers 46% of EU 
GDP (including business services, wholesale and retail and construction). Enforcement of the 
existing requirements under the Services Directive remains an important instrument in ensuring 
that the f ull potential of the services market liberalisation is realised. To reap the full potential 
benefits offered by the Services Directive, in the framework of the European Semester exercise 
numerous Country -specific Recommendations have been proposed by the C ommission and 
adopted by the Council.  
 
1: Economic Environment  
 
1.3: Foreign Direct Investment  
 
1.41. According to a comparative FDI Attractiveness Scorecard assessment carried out on behalf of 
the European Commission by Copenhagen Economics, EU countries  were seen to have a wide 
range of attractiveness from a high score of 75 to below 50 (out of 100). Finland, Ireland and the 
Netherlands had the highest scores, while Italy and Greece had the lowest. The assessment was 
based on four criteria - political, r egulatory and legal environment; infrastructure and good market 
access; knowledge and innovation capacity; and cost competitiveness (including corporate tax 
rates). Those countries which were ranked lower tended to score poorly in terms of cost 
competitive ness and the burdensomeness and lack of transparency of the regulatory environment. 
Not all countries have an identical potential to attract FDI and the study did not take into account 
the fundamental drivers of FDI, such as the size and affluence of the d omestic market and 
geographical situation, but only those factors which could be influenced by policymakers.  
 
Question14  
 
Appreciate if the EU could elaborate on the difference between high and low ranked countries 
based on the comparative FDI Attractiveness Scorecard and their fundamental drivers?  
 
EU reply: Although the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Attractiveness Scoreboard was 
commissioned and financed by the European Commission, the views expressed are those of the 
consultants and do not represent the official view of the Commission on the actual FDI 
attractiveness of EU Member States. The objective of the report was to establish an Attractiveness 
Scoreboard based only on those factors that EU policy -makers can influence in the short or 
medium term through policy changes – e.g. the quality of infrastructure, the administrative burden 
on business or the achievements of the educational system. The "fundamental drivers" of FDI, on 
which policy -makers have little or no influence, such as the si ze of the market or its geographical 
location, are therefore disregarded in the Scoreboard, although in practice they do play an 
important role in the actual choice of location for international investors.  
 
2: Trade and Investment Regime  
 
2.2: Trade Polic y Objectives  
2.16. Furthermore, the EU wants to integrate investment rules, including liberalization and 
protection provisions, into its broader trade agreements; prior to the entry into force of the Lisbon 
Treaty, investment protection agreements were neg otiated exclusively by EU member States. A 
significant challenge for the EU's reformed investment policy is to ensure dispute settlement 
procedures are fair and independent; this challenge is being addressed through the 
implementation of a new approach of clarifying the substance of investment protection standards 
and reforms with respect to the traditional investor -state dispute settlement system, as reflected 
in recently concluded FTAs with Canada and Viet Nam.  
 
Question 15  
 
What is the difference between  new approach of investment protection standards to new reform 
trade agreements and the traditional investor -state dispute settlement system?  
 
                                                
70 http://ec.europa.eu/econo my_finance/publications/economic_paper/2012/pdf/ecp_456_en.pdf . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 380 - 
 
  Question 16  
 
As reflected in the concluded FTAs with Canada and Viet Nam, and the draft Myanmar BIT, how 
does the  EU’s proposal on the setting up of the Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) fit into its 
future FTAs i.e. with ASEAN? and how will the MIC be implemented?  
 
EU replies to questions 15 and 16 : The EU is modernizing its traditional approach to 
investment prot ection and the associated investment dispute resolution system, introducing 
changes to ensure that the right of governments to regulate is guaranteed in its bilateral trade and 
investment agreements and that it replaces the current private investor -state d ispute settlement 
system by an investment court system, thereby improving transparency, accountability, 
consistency and legitimacy. This reformed approach to investment dispute resolution and to 
investment protection rules provides a stronger focus on the state's right to regulate, and is 
embedded in the CETA and the EU -Vietnam agreements. It is the intention of the EU to include 
these reforms in all future trade and investment deals. The creation of a permanent international 
court will require building con sensus with other likeminded countries. The multilateral court would 
need to be a legal entity under international law but it is too early to say whether it would be a 
new stand -alone body, or be docked into an existing international organisation. We will work with 
our partners to identify the best way forward.  
 
3.2.1: Export procedures and requirements  
 
3.77. Goods to be taken out of the customs territory of the Union are subject to customs 
supervision and may be subject to customs controls. A hard copy of  the Export Accompanying 
Document is no longer to be presented at the office of exit; only the Master Reference Number 
needs to be notified. The Export Control System (ECS) is a trans -European system enabling EU 
member States to exchange the export declara tion data and exit information between the customs 
office of export and the customs office of exit. The ECS covers indirect exports, where goods are 
exported from one member State and exit the customs territory of the Union from another 
member State, meani ng that the Office of Export and the Office of Exit are located in two different 
member States. For indirect exports, the usage of the ECS has been mandatory since July 2009. 
Direct exports, where the Office of Export and Office of Exit are in the same mem ber State, are 
handled by the National Export System of each member State. The ECS will be replaced by the 
Automated Export System (AES) and will be built on the functionalities of the current Export 
Control System Phase 2 (ECSP2) and will cover the change s introduced by the UCC. According to 
the Commission, new customs simplifications, such as centralized clearance, require the 
development of new system functionalities in the AES.  
 
Question17  
 
Appreciate if EU could indicate and explain the difference betw een Export Control System (ECS), 
Automated Export System (AES) and current Export Control System Phase 2 (ECSP2)?  
 
EU reply : AES aims to automate the finalization of goods export and exit formalities covering 
external, national and common domains. The nex t phase of ECS, which would provide the 
complete functionality related to export and exit of goods as well as the required adaptations to be 
in line with the UCC and its implementing and delegated acts (IA & DA), is called the "AES".  
 
The objective of AES is to ensure that operations started in one MS can be finalised in another MS. 
This includes the exchange of electronic messages related to the different steps of the operations 
amongst the various actors (traders, customs and other governmental administra tions). 
Development of this project has been divided into 3 phases:  
 
Phase 1: ECS, Export Control System:  Tax module: started in January 2007 in several MS, 
with full application agreed from 1 July 2007;  
 
As the initial step of the AES, was to provide for the full control of the end of export operations 
through the electronic exchange of export / exit information between customs offices of export and 
customs offices of exit, in particular where different MS are involved. ECS procedure starts when a 
Trader s ubmits an export declaration to the related Customs Office of Export. Then, after the 
acceptance of the export declaration, a unique Movement Reference Number (MRN) which 
identifies the movement is delivered and the Export Accompanying Document (EAD) is pr inted. WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 381 - 
 
  Then goods covered by this document are transported to the Office of Exit. Normally, the 
consignment arrives at the declared Office of Exit (or due to a transportation diversion goods are 
presented to another Custom Office of Exit (actual one). Once  the exit process is completed, the 
Office of Export close the export movement and trader receives the exit notification  
 
The core element of the ECS is the information exchange between the office of export and the 
office of exit:  
 
 to inform the office of  exit of the anticipated arrival of goods for which export formalities 
have been completed at the office of export;  
 to handle diversions if goods left European Union from another Customs Office (or  Member 
State) than the one which was planned  ;  
 to inform the office of export of confirmation of exit and/or control results including the 
date of exit from the customs territory of the European Union;  
 
Phase 2 Export Control System: (ECS): Safety and security module:  "safety and security 
"controls linked to th e implementation of Regulation (EC) No 648/2005;  
 
ECS Phase 2 provides for the electronic handling of export declarations or exit summary 
declarations under the Security Amendment. It requires additional information to be included in 
export declarations fo r safety and security purposes, amongst other things. This provides Customs 
administrations with the infrastructure for fast reception and treatment (particularly risk analysis) 
of the pre -departure declarations. This Phase preserves and builds upon the fu nctionalities 
delivered in ECS Phase 1 giving better control of movements and a more rational use of resources.  
 
For the administrations: fast reception and treatment (notably risk analysis) of the pre -departure 
declarations; better control of movements, and a more rational use of resources for control;  
 
For the economic operators: flexibility in their connection with the customs authorities.  
 
AES, Automated Export System Full deployment of Export system: – (Centralised 
Clearance Simplifications, missing f unctionalities,)  
 
Full deployment of AES will allow the full computerisation of export procedures and ensure full 
integration of all export related requirements. It builds upon and includes the functionalities of ECS 
Phase 1, Phase 2 and will be aligned to  the new requirements of the UCC and further developed to 
become the full AES that will have all required functionalities and would cover the necessary 
interfaces with supporting systems . 
 
Customs administrations across the EU will have a completely automated system for the 
lodgement and treatment of all information linked to export declarations.  
 
The advantages brought by this system are:  
 
 Addition of missing functionalities  
 Adaptation of the system to allow for simplifications at export;  
 Adaptation of the system for link with UCC Customs Decisions;  
 Alignment of the export and exit processes to the legal provisions of the UCC;  
 Alignment of the information exchanges to the data requirements of the UCC  
o IA/DA and to the EU Customs Data Model (EUCDM);  
 Development of the necessary interfaces with supporting systems;  
 Development of the necessary exchange of information between different  
o Customs Offices in case of Centralised Clearance;  
 Development of a harmonised interface with EMCS;  
 Development of a harmoni sed interface with NCTS, for the scenario 'export followed by 
transit'  
 
4.1: Agriculture  
AES aims to automate the finalization of goods export and exit formalities covering external, 
national and common domains  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 382 - 
 
  The next phase of ECS, which would provide t he complete functionality related to export and exit 
of goods as well as the required adaptations to be in line with the UCC and its implementing and 
delegated acts (IA & DA), is called the "AES".  
 
The objective of AES is to ensure that operations started in one MS can be finalised in another MS. 
This includes the exchange of electronic messages related to the different steps of the operations 
amongst the various actors (traders, customs and other governmental administrations). 
Development of this project h as been divided into 3 phases:  
 
Phase 1: ECS, Export Control System: Tax module : started in January 2007 in several MS, 
with full application agreed from 1 July 2007;  
 
As the initial step of the AES, was to provide for the full control of the end of export  operations 
through the electronic exchange of export / exit information between customs offices of export and 
customs offices of exit, in particular where different MS are involved. ECS procedure starts when a 
Trader submits an export declaration to the r elated Customs Office of Export. Then, after the 
acceptance of the export declaration, a unique Movement Reference Number (MRN) which 
identifies the movement is delivered and the Export Accompanying Document (EAD) is printed. 
Then goods covered by this doc ument are transported to the Office of Exit. Normally, the 
consignment arrives at the declared Office of Exit (or due to a transportation diversion goods are 
presented to another Custom Office of Exit (actual one). Once the exit process is completed, the 
Office of Export close the export movement and trader  receives the exit notification.  
 
The core element of the ECS is the information exchange between the office of export and the 
office of exit:  
 
 to inform the office of exit of the anticipated arrival of goods for which export formalities 
have been completed at the office of export;  
 to handle diversions if goods left European Union from another Customs Office (or  Member 
State) than the one which was planned;  
 to inform the office of export of confirmation of exit and/or control results including the 
date of exit from the customs t erritory of the European Union;  
 
Phase 2 Export Control System: (ECS): Safety and security module : "safety and security 
"controls linked to the implementation of Regulation (EC) No  648/2005;  
 
ECS Phase 2 provides for the electronic handling of export declarations or exit summary 
declarations under the Security Amendment. It requires additional information to be included in 
export declarations for safety and security purposes, amongs t other things. This provides Customs 
administrations with the infrastructure for fast reception and treatment (particularly risk analysis) 
of the pre -departure declarations. This Phase preserves and builds upon the functionalities 
delivered in ECS Phase 1  giving better control of movements and a more rational use of resources.  
 
 For the administrations: fast reception and treatment (notably risk analysis) of the pre -
departure declarations; better control of movements, and a more rational use of resources 
for control;  
 For the economic operators: flexibility in their connection with the customs authorities.  
 
AES, Automated Export System Full deployment of Export system: – (Centralised 
Clearance Simplifications, missing functionalities,)  
 
Full deployment of AES  will allow the full computerisation of export procedures and ensure full 
integration of all export related requirements. It builds upon and includes the functionalities of ECS 
Phase 1, Phase 2 and will be aligned to the new requirements of the UCC and fur ther developed to 
become the full AES that will have all required functionalities and would cover the necessary 
interfaces with supporting systems.  
 
Customs administrations across the EU will have a completely automated system for the 
lodgement and treatme nt of all information linked to export declarations.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 383 - 
 
  The advantages brought by this system are:  
 Addition of missing functionalities  
 Adaptation of the system to allow for simplifications at export;  
 Adaptation of the system for link with UCC Customs Decisio ns; 
 Alignment of the export and exit processes to the legal provisions of the UCC;  
 Alignment of the information exchanges to the data requirements of the UCC  
 IA/DA and to the EU Customs Data Model (EUCDM);  
 Development of the necessary interfaces with supporting systems;  
 Development of the necessary exchange of information between different  Customs Offices 
in case of Centralised Clearance;  
 Development of a harmonised interface with EMCS;  
 Development of a harmonised interface with NCTS, for the scenario 'export followed by 
transit'  
 
4.4. In 2015, the EU had a surplus in trade in agricultural products (WTO definition) with exports 
of US$141 billion and imports of US$126 billion. In U.S. dollar terms, both exports and imports of 
agricultural products have d eclined since 2013, although agricultural imports as a percentage of 
total imports increased to 6.5% in 2015 and agricultural exports as a percentage of total exports 
increased to 6.9%. Distilled spirits followed by wine are the biggest exports, while coff ee and soya 
bean cake are the main imports (Table 4.3).  
 
Question18  
 
Palm oil is one of the major agricultural imports to the EU. However, the adoption of the 
Resolution on Palm Oil and Deforestation of Rainforest by the European Parliament on 4 April 2017  
which discriminates against oil palm cultivation by singling it out as being the largest contributor to 
deforestation is damaging to the palm oil industries in the region. Does the EU recogniz e the 
certification of the Sustainable Palm Oil Schemes in the countries concerned which is a 
manifestation of commitment to the UN Sustainable Development Goals? ENER/ENV+D1  
 
EU reply: The EP resolution on palm oil and deforestation of rainforests represents a useful 
contribution to a broader debate on these issues, which we believe should also fully involve 
producer countries. The resolution is not part of a legislative initiative. The Commission will soon 
issue a reply to this resolution, presenting its views on the matter and on the main proposals put 
forward by th e EP. The Commission is aware that palm oil production is a complex issue that 
presents both opportunities and challenges and requires a balanced approach. The Commission 
believes that it is essential to cooperate and support the efforts of producer countr ies to minimize 
deforestation and other negative impacts that palm oil cultivation can have, in order to achieve 
sustainable production of this commodity. In this context, we are interested in the efforts made by 
countries such as Malaysia on certification  schemes and look forward to further exchanges on this 
matter.  
 
4.1.2.3: Market Access  
 
Secretariat Report  
 
4.41. On average, bound tariffs on agricultural products (WTO definition) (simple average MFN 
tariff of 14.1%) remain higher than on non -agricultura l products (simple average MFN tariff of 
4.3%) and vary considerably from one agricultural product to another with a standard deviation of 
23.7 compared to 4.4 for non -agricultural products (Section 3.1.4). In addition, many agricultural 
products are subje ct to non -ad valorem  duties that can also vary from simple specific duties to 
more complex forms, such as those in the Meursing Table. However, imports of agricultural 
products from least developed countries and from many developing countries can enter the  EU at 
zero or reduced tariffs under the EU's everything -but-arms initiative, its GSP and GSP+ schemes, 
and its network of trade agreements.  
 
Question19  
 
Could the EU explain the determination Agricultural products that are subjected to non -ad valorem  
in Meursing Table?  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 384 - 
 
  EU reply:  In the EU Schedule, all processed agricultural products which contain the remark "See 
Annex 1" in the column "Other terms and conditions" are subject to a non -ad valorem duty in 
addition to an ad valorem duty. That non -ad valorem duty is calculated on the basis of the 
composition of the product as specified in the so called "Meursing" Tables, Annex 1, Annex 1.a and 
Annex 1.b in the Schedule. The Tables are also contained in Annex 1 to the Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 201 6/1821 of 6 October 2016 amending Annex I to Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common 
Customs Tariff. See: http://e ur-lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2016:294:TOC . 
  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 385 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM EL SALVADOR  
 
Documento WT/TPR/S/357  
 
2 REGÍMENES DE COMERCIO E INVERSIÓN  
2.3.2 Acuerdos regionales y preferenciales  
 
2.3.2.1 Preferencias recíprocas  
 
2.26 La Comisión señala además que en todos los nuevos acuerdos comerciales que se celebren 
durante el período 2016 -2020 se prestará también una atención especial a las pymes.  
 
Pregunta1: ¿Podría la UE indicar que tipo de disposiciones específicas en materia de py mes se han 
incluido o se pretenden incluir en los acuerdos comerciales que se celebren durante el período 
2016-2020, destinadas a promover una mayor integración de las mismas en el comercio mundial?  
 
EU reply:  SMEs are the dominant size of enterprises in a ll countries. Provisions in chapters 
relevant for SMEs should ensure that small companies from both sides benefit from FTAs. The EU 
envisages in new FTA negotiations to include a dedicated SME chapter containing provisions to 
increase the transparency, not ably provisions for sharing information through website information 
and a searchable database to find product specific import requirements. An appropriate 
institutional set -up would follow -up SME relevant issues with the committees responsible for the 
chapter of the FTA.  
 
2.27. Con el fin de garantizar el cumplimiento de los acuerdos, la UE se propone introducir 
disposiciones a fin de dotarse de un sistema eficaz de solución de diferencias entre los Estados…  
 
Pregunta 2 ¿Podría la UE indicar qué tipo de disposiciones espera introducir en sus nuevos 
acuerdos comerciales durante el período 2016 -2020, distintas a las incluidas en los acuerdos que 
fueron negociados antes de este período, que le ayudarán a dotarse d e un sistema más eficaz de 
solución de diferencias entre Estados?  
 
EU reply:  The state -to-state dispute settlement chapters in EU free trade agreements build on, 
improve and streamline the WTO model and contain detailed mediation mechanisms. In this 
regar d, they offer efficient and effective state -to-state dispute settlement mechanisms that allow 
disputes to be solved in an effective, efficient and transparent manner.  
 
3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES  
3.1.1 Procedimientos y requisitos aduaneros  
3.1.1.1 .1 Resoluciones anticipadas, a saber, información arancelaria vinculante (IAV)/información 
vinculante en materia de origen (IVO)  
 
3.16. En cuanto a las decisiones IVO, el principal cambio ha sido que la decisión es ahora 
vinculante para el titular de la de cisión, respecto de las autoridades aduaneras de la UE. Los 
detalles pertinentes de las decisiones IVO se comunican a la Comisión Europea de forma 
trimestral, y se reúnen en un archivo que se pone a continuación a disposición de todas las 
autoridades aduan eras de la UE. El artículo 23 del Acto de Ejecución del CAU establece un 
procedimiento para asegurar una determinación de origen correcta y uniforme, principalmente con 
el objetivo de evitar la adopción de decisiones IVO discrepantes.  
 
Pregunta3: ¿Tiene previsto la UE que las decisiones IVO sean accesibles al público en general y no 
solo a las autoridades aduaneras internas?  
 
EU reply : According to Article 19 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 of 28 July 
2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) N o 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code, all data of the 
BOI decisions, with the exception of the confidential information, may be disclosed to the public 
via the internet site of the Commission. Any public disclosure of data shall respect the right to 
personal data protection. The following elements will be disclosed to the public via the internet site 
of the Commission: Member State, date of start of validit y, date of cessation of validity, 
classification of the goods, legal framework, preferential origin or non -preferential origin, origin 
determined.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 386 - 
 
  3.1.7.2 Salvaguardias  
 
- En el párrafo 3.69 se establece que la Unión Europea (UE) adoptó nuevos reglamentos relativos 
a las salvaguardias, que actualizan los reglamentos del 2009 y los sustituyen. La legislación de la 
UE en materia de salvaguardias se establece en tres reglamentos distintos, en función de los 
países o productos de que se trate. Se aplica un regl amento específico a los productos textiles y 
otros dos dependiendo de que el país en cuestión sea o no Miembro de la Organización Mundial del 
Comercio.  
 
Pregunta4: ¿Cuántos casos de salvaguardias ha llevado la UE a cabo sobre la base de cada uno de 
los tre s reglamentos incluyendo a países no miembros y a qué productos los ha aplicado?  
 
EU reply:  No safeguard investigation was started under the above mentioned legislation. The EU 
only uses safeguards very rarely. The last investigations started by the EU dat e back to early 
2000s.  
 
- En el párrafo 3.70 se menciona que según la Comisión, los reglamentos publicados en el 2015 
no son nuevos como tal, sino que cada uno incorpora simplemente en un nuevo reglamento todas 
las modificaciones realizadas desde el 2009. Por otra parte, el párrafo 3.74 establece que al mes 
de marzo de 2017, la UE no había notificado al Comité de Salvaguardias ninguno de los cambios 
introducidos en su legislación o  reglamentación en este ámbito.  
 
De conformidad al artículo 12 del Acuerdo sobre Salvaguardias, los Miembros notificarán con 
prontitud al Comité de Salvaguardias sus leyes, reglamentos y procedimientos administrativos en 
materia de medidas de salvaguardia, así como toda modificación de los mismos.  
 
Pregunta5: ¿Podría comentar la UE cuando prevé notificar al Comité de Salvaguardias sobre las 
modificaciones en su normativa en esta materia?  
 
EU reply : On 12 June 2015 the European Union notified (G/SG/N/1/EU/2) the WTO safeguards 
committee of regulation 2015/478 of the European Parlia ment and of the Council of 11 March 
2015. EU regulation 2015/936 on common rules for imports of textile products from certain third 
countries not covered by bilateral agreements, protocols or other arrangements, or by other 
specific Union import rules was notified to the Import licensing committee on 18 September 2015 
(G/LIC/N/1/EU/6).Indeed these regulations are the result of a codification exercise of EU existing 
Safeguard Regulation in order to consolidate the existing provisions on EU safeguards procedu res 
and the above amendments into the text of a new Regulation. These Regulations thus fully 
preserve the substance of the acts being codified.  
 
3.3.2 Medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias  
 
Párrafo 3.164 . “Durante ese período los Miembros de la OMC acudieron  también al Comité MSF 
para plantear dos preocupaciones comerciales específicas nuevas respecto de medidas adoptadas 
en la UE o en un Estado miembro155 y abordaron ocho preocupaciones planteadas con 
anterioridad.156 La UE también acudió al Comité para plan tear sus preocupaciones en relación con 
nueve asuntos.”  
 
Pregunta6: En el marco del Proceso de aprobación de la biotecnología agrícola (ID 110), ¿podría la 
UE indicar si ha implementado recientemente procedimientos para minimizar los retrasos en el 
proceso  de autorización para comercializar los productos de biotecnología?  
 
EU reply:  All applications for authorization of GMOs are processed in line with the EU legislative 
framework on GMOs. The Commission is proceeding with all the applications having a posit ive risk 
assessment performed by the European Food Safety Authority and endeavours to keep to a 
minimum the time needed to comply with administrative and procedural steps.  
 
Documento WT/TPR/G/357 – Informe de Gobierno  
 
1 THE EUROPEAN UNION IN THE GLOBAL TRADING SYSTEM  
 
1.6. The EU is pursuing a progressive trade and investment agenda, where, besides increased 
transparency and better understanding and communication of the gains of trade, the following WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 387 - 
 
  elements are crucial: (1) making sure that benefits fro m trade are shared more equally; and (2) 
establishing a comprehensive, fair and effective regulatory interface between trade and investment 
and issues such as labour or environment.  
 
Pregunta7: ¿Podría indicar la UE cómo se espera lograr una mayor transpa rencia y un mayor 
entendimiento y comunicación sobre las ganancias del comercio, que los beneficios del comercio 
sean compartidos más equitativamente y una interfaz regulatoria comprensiva, justa y efectiva 
entre el comercio y la inversión y otros asuntos como laboral?  
 
EU reply : In its Trade for All policy strategy, the EU set as objective that international trade be 
beneficial to society as a whole, including producers, consumers, small and medium -size 
enterprises, as well as our partner countries. The E U considers that trade openness leads to win -
win solutions, provided that trade is underlined by common rules to ensure a level playing field 
and fairness to the exchanges. Core labour and environmental standards are crucial in ensuring 
that trade and inve stment contribute to the broader objectives of sustainable development, in the 
EU and in its partners.  
 
3.8. As one concrete achievement of the Single Market Strategy, on 1 June 2016 the European 
Commission adopted a Communication setting out the basis for  a single and coherent European 
Standardisation System that adapts to the changing environment, supports multiple policies and 
brings benefits and predictability to consumers and businesses. This was followed by a Joint 
Initiative on Standardisation, signe d on 13 June 2016, setting out a shared vision for European 
standardization with the aim to speed up and better prioritize standard setting across the board. 
The initiative is driven by stakeholders (EU and EFTA Member States, standardization 
organizations  and bodies, European industry and industry associations, SMEs, and societal 
stakeholders), with the European Commission playing a mainly coordinating role and building 
consensus, bringing together the expertise of all parties involved.  
 
Pregunta8 ¿Podría  la UE profundizar sobre el funcionamiento de esta iniciativa, especialmente en 
el rol que juega la Comisión como coordinadora y la participación de las demás partes interesadas? 
Modernization of the European standardization system.  
 
EU reply:  All information about the Joint Initiative on Standardisation (JIS) can be found online: 
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools -databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.c fm?item_id=8852 . 
 
It is composed by a document underlining the common values underpinning European 
standardisation signed by more than 100 European stakeholders (EU and EFTA Member States, 
standardisation organisations and bodies, European industry and ind ustry associations, SMEs, and 
societal stakeholders) and by 15 practical actions with the common aim of improving and 
modernizing the European standardisation system in order to face the current challenges 
(increased importance of services, blurring betwee n products and services, ICT everywhere) and 
optimize the implementation of the Regulation (EU) 1025/2012on European standardisation.  
 
The actions, accompanied by pilot projects, are based on three cluster domains identified as 
priorities:  
 
1. Awareness, E ducation and Understanding about the European Standardisation System 
  i.e. increasing the relevant use of standards and participation in the process at all 
  levels;  
2. Coordination, Cooperation, Transparency and Inclusiveness, i.e. ensuring adequate, 
high-quality, user -friendly and timely European standards; and  
3. Competitiveness and International dimension, i.e. standards supporting European 
competitiveness in the global markets.  
 
In line with the EU's Better Regulation policy, the JIS has been prepared  in a collaborative, open, 
highly inclusive and transparent manner that reconciles both bottom -up and top -down needs and 
expectations.  
 
The initiative is driven by stakeholders, with the European Commission playing a mainly 
coordinating role and building c onsensus - bringing together the expertise of all parties involved. 
The implementation of JIS is guided by the Steering group composed by relevant stakeholders and WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 388 - 
 
  the European Commission is acting as a secretariat of the Steering group providing the neces sary 
administrative support. The Steering Group takes decisions by consensus.  
 
4.59. Commitments with regard to gender equality are an integral part of the Trade and 
Sustainable Development chapters of the EU’s recently ne gotiated free trade agreements.  
 
Pregunta9: ¿Podría explicar la UE cuáles son algunos de los compromisos sobre igualdad de 
género que han sido incluidos en sus Capítulos de Comercio y Desarrollo Sostenible? Gender 
equality and economic empowerment of women  
 
EU reply : The main relevant com mitment on gender equality in Trade and Sustainable 
Development Chapters of EU trade agreements (including the EU -Central America Association 
Agreement) is a commitment to effectively implement the ILO fundamental Conventions, including 
those concerning no n-discrimination, namely the Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100) 
and the Discrimination (Employment and Occupatio n) Convention, 1958 (No. 111).  
 
4.1.4.3 The bilateral negotiating agenda  
 
4.94. Negotiations between the EU and the U.S. for a Transa tlantic Trade and Investment 
Partnership (TTIP), launched in 2013, continued during the years under review. Fifteen rounds of 
talks had taken place by October 2016. The negotiations were launched in order to contribute to 
addressing the challenges of today 's global trading environment, to deliver growth, including in 
third countries' markets and to reinforce  the transatlantic partnership.  
 
Pregunta10: ¿Cuáles son las expectativas de la UE en términos de tiempo para finalizar el TTIP con 
los Estados Unidos d e América?  
 
EU reply:  Following three years of intense talks, TTIP negotiations are now effectively on hold. 
The EU stays committed to ensuring a strong trade and investment relationship with the US but 
the new US administration is still in the proces s of defining its trade policy.  
 
The economic and strategic case for TTIP stands. But before any decision to relaunch the 
negotiations, the EU needs clarity that there is sufficient common ground for taking the 
negotiations to conclusion in a balanced manner.  
  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 389 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTION FROM TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO  
 
Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/357)  
 
Page 35 -36, Reciprocal preferences  
2.34. The Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), which have replaced the trade regime of the 
Cotonou and Lomé Conventions, intend to support trade diversification by shifting ACP countries' 
reliance on commodities to higher -value products and services. Th e majority of ACP countries are 
either implementing an EPA or have concluded EPA negotiations with the EU.  
 
2.35. The EPA process involves seven regional configurations: West Africa, Central Africa, Eastern 
and Southern Africa (ESA), East African Communit y (EAC), Southern African Development 
Community (SADC), CARIFORUM, and the Pacific Region.  
 
Question 1  
After the official exit of Britain from the EU, which is expected to take place in March 2019, will 
existing commitments with Britain under the CARIFORUM -EPA still hold?  
 
EU reply : As EU explained during the TPR meetings, on 29 March 2017, the UK Government 
formally notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union 
pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on European U nion. An agreement on the UK's withdrawal will 
be negotiated following the rules established in the Treaty on European Union (TEU).  
 
On 29 April 2017 the European Council adopted guidelines defining the framework for negotiations 
under Article 50 TEU and s etting out the overall positions and principles that the Union will pursue 
throughout the negotiation. The adoption of the European Council guidelines was followed by a 
Commission proposal on 3 May for a Council Decision authorising the Commission to open 
negotiations, and proposing negotiating directives. The Council Decision including negotiating 
directives were adopted on 22 May by the Council of the European Union.  
 
Negotiations will start after the general elections in the UK on 8 June. They will focus  in a first 
phase on the withdrawal arrangements notably on citizens' rights, financial settlement and new 
external borders. An agreement must be reached by October 2018, in order to allow for the 
ratification process to be completed and the UK to withdraw  from the Union by the end of the two -
year deadline, at the end of March 2019.  
 
Until its withdrawal, the UK remains a Member State of the European Union with all rights and 
obligations of a Member State. The EU Treaties continue to apply to the UK and in the UK during 
that period. Until its withdrawal, the UK continues to be bound by the Union's exclusive 
competence in respect of the common commercial policy pursuant to Article 3 of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union and, more generally, t he principle of sincere cooperation 
pursuant to Article 4(3) TEU.  
 
The EU will engage with the UK in a cooperative manner in order to guarantee an orderly process 
leading up to the withdrawal of the UK from the EU.  
 
The EU will revert to the WTO Membership  after engaging with the UK bilaterally on any WTO 
related aspect of the UK's withdrawal from the EU.  
 
Page 38, Aid for Trade  
2.46. As was the case at the time of the previous Review, the EU and its member States are 
collectively the world's leading provid ers of Aid for Trade (AfT), covering all six categories: trade 
policy and regulation; trade development; trade -related infrastructure; building productive 
capacity; trade -related adjustment, and other trade -related needs.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 390 - 
 
  Question 2  
How does the EU antic ipate that its provision of Aid for Trade to the world will be affected, given 
recent announcement of the departure of the United Kingdom (UK) from the EU?  
 
EU reply : see reply to question No 1  
Page 39, 3.1.1 Customs procedures and requirements  
3.1. Pursuant to Article 3 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, the EU has 
exclusive competence with respect to the customs union. The EU's customs legislation provides for 
its uniform application throughout the customs territory of the Union , but at the same time 
provides that the customs administrations of the member States are responsible for applying the 
customs legislation and are primarily responsible for the supervision of the EU's international 
trade.1 The individual member States also  determine the location of the offices and areas for 
which they are competent. Thus, there is no central EU customs authority.  
 
Page 42, 3.1.1 Customs procedures and requirements  
3.12. There was also €394 million in unpaid duties detected in 2015 due to all types of fraud and 
irregularities discovered by Customs involving entitlements of over €10,000.  
 
Question 3  
How does the European Union (EU) intend to deal with unpaid duties, fraud and irregularities 
discovered by Customs?  
 
EU reply : The Union Customs  Code (UCC) brought new legal provisions in respect of the 
guarantee to be provided for the purpose of securing the payment of a customs debt. Mandatory 
provision of guarantee has been extended to all customs procedures and temporary storage of 
goods, the provision of guarantees being intended to safeguard the financial interests of the Union 
and of the Member States. In other words, all Member States must apply the rule whereby, when 
the placing of goods under a customs procedure gives rise to a customs de bt, the amount of 
import or export duty corresponding to the customs debt must be paid, or guaranteed, before the 
goods can be released. In cases of regular import of goods for which a guarantee is required, the 
guarantee must be provided by the declarant or by the person on whose behalf the declaration is 
made (i.e. " the debtor or the person who may become the debtor").  
 
As a preventive measure, Article 244 UCC Implementing Act gives the possibility to the customs 
authorities to ask for additional guarant ee where they consider that the verification of the customs 
declaration may result in a higher amount of import or export duty or other charges to become 
payable than that resulting from the particulars of the customs declaration e.g. AM notification. 
Consequently, the release of the goods shall be conditional upon the provision of a guarantee 
sufficient to cover the difference between the amount according to the particulars of the customs 
declaration and the amount which may finally be payable.  
 
Moreover, Article 89(4) UCC provides for possibility to use the guarantee for the recovery of 
amounts payable following post -release control of goods, as long as guarantee has not been 
released and depending on the national legislation at the level of Member States.  
 
Question 4  
Based on the detection of fraud and irregularities by Customs, has the EU given consideration to 
the establishment of a central EU customs authority? If not, why?  
 
EU reply : The Commission has taken initiative to explore ways to further streng then functioning 
and modernisation of the customs union (in a broad sense covering protection as well as 
facilitation elements) and to identify suitable approach to cope with challenges coming from 
internal and external environment. An external study was c arried to evaluate the customs union 
functioning and also a broad consultation with Member States took place on this issue.  
 
Results of both undertakings have shown that the implications of an eventual proposal for a central 
EU customs authority, while att ractive as a theoretical concept, would in practice be excessively 
high and far -reaching in terms of competencies, costs and organisational changes. Such option 
would mean a massive deviation from both the current legal background and the institutional set -
up. Furthermore, it should be underlined that most if not all national customs administrations have 
integrated tasks and competencies that go above and beyond those of the customs union (most WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 391 - 
 
  notably in the area of taxation). Therefore, setting up a centr al EU customs authority is not 
considered by the Commission to be a viable option at this point in time.  
 
The current approach to ensure modern and well performing customs consists in the harmonised 
implementation of the Union Customs Code, underpinned by appropriate IT systems operational at 
the EU level, and in strengthening the governance of the customs union to enhance uniform, 
effective and efficient procedures and processes across the EU while co -operating effectively with 
stakeholders from relevant p olicy areas (mainly related to security and safety).  
 
Page 40, 3.1.1 Customs procedures and requirements  
3.4. Thus, the combination of the enactment and entering into force of these new regulations 
begins a new era that incorporates many changes and moves towards electronic customs 
clearance and harmonized IT processes. (See Section 3.1.1.1.2 for developments in IT processes.) 
The UCC aims to streamline and modernize customs procedures as well as better align the 
customs rules to new EU treaties. It is envi sioned that full implementation of all the changes will 
be complete by 2020. The UCC replaces the previous Community Customs Code of 1992 that 
remained in force until 1 May 2016 when all the provisions of the UCC became applicable. The 
changes to various c ustoms procedures and processes are numerous.  
 
Question 5  
What is the impact of the Uniform Customs Code on customs procedures related to preferential 
trade agreements?  
 
EU reply: The EU notes that each FTA is specific and the result of negotiations with t hird 
countries. The question raised is rather wide. This taken into account, the EU can reply the 
following within the limits of the above considerations: the Union Customs Code has introduced 
changes in several areas which may or may not impact an economi c operator involved in 
preferential trade depending on its specific situation. This being said, without pretending this to be 
an exhaustive list, the UCC changes may impact businesses in the FTA areas dealing with the 
following issues: authorised economic operators, guarantees, the definition of exporter, customs 
valuation, customs declaration, special procedures, binding tariff/origin information.]  
 
Page 43, Advanced Rulings, i.e. Binding Tariff Information/Binding Origin Information  
3.14. The EU's rules and process for issuing advance rulings, i.e. Binding Tariff Information (BTI) 
and Binding Origin Information (BOI), have undergone changes with the entry into force of the 
UCC. In the case of BTI decisions, the main changes relate to the tightening of pro cedures and the 
validity period of the information, which has been reduced from six years to three.  
 
Question 6  
What is the reason for the reduction in the validity period for advance rulings (Binding Tariff 
Information) from six years to three?  
 
EU reply : The validity period of BTI decisions are now aligned to the validity period of BOI 
decisions. They are both valid for 3 years. Moreover, the customs nomenclature is a living 
document, hence commodity codes may change over time. This takes into account the  rapid 
changes in technology. In case of commodity code change the concerned BTI decisions need to be 
revoked. BTI decisions issued for 3 years can be considered more stable and provide the expected 
legal certainty.  
 
Page 53, Preferential tariffs  
3.49. The  EU maintains preferential tariffs for imports from certain countries pursuant to its 
reciprocal or preferential agreements. The agreements generally provide for duty -free access for 
57% to 99.9% of tariff lines. There has generally been an increase in the  duty-free coverage since 
the last Review, reflecting the ongoing reduction of commitments gradually being staged in. A 
number of trading partners/agreements, i.e. Andorra, CARIFORUM, ESA, Economic Partnerships, 
Fiji, Morocco, Palestine, San Marino, and LD C (EBA), have achieved tariff elimination on nearly all 
products, i.e. 99% or above (Table A3.1).  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 392 - 
 
  Question 7  
Does the EU anticipate that its reciprocal and preferential agreements, particularly the 
CARIFORUM -EU EPA will be affected by the recent announcem ent by the UK to exit the EU? If yes, 
what types of changes are anticipated?  
 
EU reply : see reply to question No 1 . 
  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 393 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS FROM THE P.R C HINA  
Part I. Questions based on Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/357)  
 
Page 9, para 3  
In October 2015, the European Commission issued a new trade and investment policy for the EU  
Trade for all: Towards a more responsible trade and investment policy . The new policy is intended 
to support the growth of global value chains, services trade, and  e-commerce.  
 
Question 1: What specific policy supports does this new trade and investment policy provide to 
support the growth of e -commerce?  
 
EU reply : In addition to the measures described in Section 4.3.2 of the Secretariat Report, the EU 
has been further integrating e -commerce and other digital issues in its trade agreements. In 
bilateral agreements, the e -commerce chapter has been expanded to cover issues such as no 
customs duties on electronic transmissions, source code, principle of no prior authorisation, 
conclusion of contracts by electronic means, electronic authentication and electronic trust services, 
consumer protection, unsolicited commercia l electronic messages, as well as regulatory 
cooperation on electronic commerce.  
 
In addition to its bilateral trade agreements, the EU is also interested to see progress on e -
commerce in the WTO. In this context, the EU has made a proposal to negotiate re gulatory 
disciplines, including on consumer protection; unsolicited communications; e -signatures and e -
contracts.  
 
Question 2: How will this new trade and investment policy guide the signing of new preferential 
trade agreements by the EU in the future?  
 
EU reply : The EU plans to cover these types of issues in all its future agreements.   
 
Page 9, para 4  
On 1 May 2016, the main provisions of the new Union Customs Code (UCC) became applicable, 
replacing the Community Customs Code of 1992.  
 
Question 3: In addit ion to facilitation, what are the new institutional innovations made by the new 
UCC?  
 
EU reply:  The UCC is aligned with the institutional changes made in the Treaty of Lisbon, the 
international agreement which amended the two previous treaties forming the constitutional basis 
of the European Union (EU) and which entered into force on 1 December 2009. The Treaty of 
Lisbon granted delegated and implementing powers to the Commission with regard to legislation. 
As a consequence, the UCC package consists not jus t of a general Regulation (the UCC Regulation) 
but also a Delegated Act (designed to modify or complement non -essential provisions of the UCC) 
and an Implementing Act (complementing the UCC, by laying down uniform conditions for the 
implementation of the U CC in the EU). There is also a Transitional Delegated Act, because the 
rules of the UCC and its related legal acts can only be fully applied once the relevant IT systems 
are fully operational. The package entered into force on 1 May 2016. The UCC Work Prog ramme 
which the Commission adopted on 11 April 2016 relates to the development and deployment of 
the electronic systems provided for in the UCC and is closely linked to the UCC Transitional 
Delegated Act. For further information please see:  
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/union -customs -code/ucc -legislation_en . 
 
The UCC Package contains several innovations that, in addition to faci litating trade, are aimed at 
protecting the EU's financial resources, ensuring safe and secure trade of goods, protecting the 
Union from unfair and illegal trade, protection of the environment and meeting other objectives 
such as combating terrorism. In pa rticular the Package aims at a more streamlined and 
harmonised application by Member States of customs legislation so as to offer greater legal 
certainty and uniformity to businesses and improve clarity for customs officials; complete the shift 
by customs to a paperless and fully electronic and interoperable environment; and reinforce 
benefits such as swifter customs procedures for compliant and trustworthy economic operators. 
Particularly important features are the introduction of EU -wide harmonised rules on guarantees, WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 394 - 
 
  that apply no matter where products enter the EU. Another modern concept introduced under the 
UCC is centralised clearance. For further details see:  
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/union -customs -code/ucc -introduction_en  and 
 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/general -inform ation-customs/eu -customs -strategy_en . 
 
Question 4: What new institutional improvements has the new UCC made to the rules of origin and 
customs valuation?  
 
EU reply : As regards the non-preferential rules of origin , some changes were introduced. The 
basic principles remain as per the wholly -obtained or substantial transformation definitions in the 
UCC. The existing list of goods for which detailed rules for origin determination are included has 
been extended in the UCC Delegated Act (Annex 22 -01) for a few categories of goods, the 
production of which involves more than one country or territory. Thus, traders are referred to this 
Annex containing lists of substantial processing or working operations conferring origin. The lists 
mirror the work of the WTO Comm ittee on Rules of Origin as per its Harmonised Work Programme 
(HWP) on harmonizing rules of origin but there are deviations. Article 32 UCC -DA provides that 
“goods listed in Annex 22 -01 UCC -DA shall be considered to have undergone their last substantial 
processing or working, resulting in the manufacture of a new product or representing an important 
stage of manufacture, in the country or territory in which the rules set out in that Annex are 
fulfilled or which is identified by those rules”. For products no t listed in Annex 22 -01 UCC -DA the 
origin is assessed on a case by case basis by application of the principle of last substantial 
transformation. Another element introduced for non -preferential origin determination was a list of 
minimal operations that may  not be used to meet the substantial transformation test.  
 
As regards the preferential rules of origin , the UCC lays down the preferential rules of origin for the 
Generalized System of Preferences and for Autonomous Trade Measures. With the UCC, the rules 
have not been modified in the substance but the drafting has been made clearer. The structure of 
the concerned provisions has been modified to allow identifying more easily the ones concerning 
the new system of Registered Exporters (the REX system) which i s applicable for the GSP since 1 
January 2017.  
 
As regards customs valuation , the main rules for customs valuation remain substantially 
unchanged, compared to the previous legislation. Some provisions have been updated, for 
example in order to comply with the new customs paperless environment.  
 
Page 11, para 13  
Based on the Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe, presented by the Commission in May 
2015, work was under way during the review period to further modernize the legal framework for 
copyright pro tection and enforcement, in particular as regards copyright -protected goods in the 
online environment.  
 
Question 5: Please briefly introduce the Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe. How does this 
strategy coordinate the contradiction between the prot ection of personal privacy data in the 
Member States and the free flow of data between Member States?  
 
EU reply : the EU would like to refer to existing replies on the DSM strategy for Europe and to the 
webpage: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/digital -single -market_en . 
 
Regarding copyright enforcement in an online world, there are existing replies for example to 
Chile, India, that  are relevant in document TD/TPR/806.  On 14 September 2016, the European 
Commission adopted the following legislative proposals:  
 
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital 
Single Market. It aims at a dapting certain key exceptions to copyright to the digital and cross -
border environment; improving licensing practices and ensuring wider access to content; and 
achieving a well -functioning marketplace for copyright.  
 
Proposal for a Regulation of the Europ ean Parliament and of the Council laying down rules on the 
exercise of copyright and related rights applicable to certain online transmissions of broadcasting 
organisations and retransmissions of television and radio programmes. Its objective is to facilit ate 
the clearance of rights for cross -border online transmissions of television and radio programmes WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 395 - 
 
  and retransmissions over closed networks, therefore fostering the cross -border distribution of 
television and radio programmes.  
 
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the cross -border 
exchange between the Union and third countries of accessible format copies of certain works and 
other subject -matter protected by copyright and related rights for the benefit of persons who are 
blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled."  
 
Question 6: How will the EU standardize copyright -protected goods in the online environment, and, 
in particular, how will the dispute settlement mechanism be arranged?  
 
EU reply : Directive 2004/4 8/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights concerns the 
measures, procedures and remedies necessary to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property 
rights in the European Union. The Commission is finalising the review of the Directive and w ill 
present its conclusions before the end of the year.  
 
Page 33, box 2.1(iv)  
Progress in negotiations to shape globalization by: Re -energizing multilateral negotiations and 
designing an open approach to bilateral and regional agreements; Strengthening EU  presence in 
Asia and setting ambitious objectives with China; Requesting a mandate for FTA negotiations with 
Australia and New Zealand.  
 
Question 7: Does the EUs new trade and investment policy objective mean that the EU is still 
focusing on the multilate ral framework in its negotiations? If not, where is the EUs focus, the 
multilateral, the bilateral or the regional framework?  
 
EU reply : The EU has consistently stated that multilateral negotiations remain its priority. 
Nevertheless, the lack of multilater al progress on certain issues coupled with opposition from some 
WTO Members to even hold exploratory talks in certain areas, means that the EU is also exploring 
alternative avenues to pursue its objectives.  
 
Page 37, para 2.43  
In negotiations, the EU deal s with investment rules both in free trade agreements with third 
countries, for example with Canada and Singapore, and also in stand -alone investment 
agreements, for example with China and Myanmar. With respect to such agreements, one as yet 
unresolved que stion concerns which aspects of investment now fall under exclusive EU 
competence: on the one hand there is the view that the common commercial policy covers only 
foreign direct investment and not portfolio investments; on the other hand, there is the view  that 
the EU derives an implicit exclusive competence on portfolio investments from third countries from 
a rule in the internal market prohibiting the introduction of barriers at member State level to 
capital and payment flows from third countries.  
 
Questi on 8: Please provide information on the contracting practice relating to investment 
jurisdiction of the two types of treaties.  
 
EU reply : The procedure to be followed within the European Union for the signing and conclusion 
of international agreements in the field of trade and investment depends on whether the subject 
matter of the agreement falls within areas of EU exclusive competence or areas of competences 
which are shared between the Union and its Member States. If the subject matter of the 
agreement only covers areas of EU exclusive competence, only the EU will sign and conclude the 
agreement. If the subject matter covers areas of competences which are shared between the 
Union and its Member States, the Member States may also sign and conclude the agr eement.  
 
Question 9: Regarding to the two views on different scopes of the common commercial policy, 
please specify which one EU will adopt.  
 
EU reply : The scope of EU's competence to sign and conclude trade agreement has recently been 
clarified by the Op inion of the Court of Justice of the European Union, delivered on 16 May 2017, 
as regards areas covered under the Free Trade Agreement with Singapore (Opinion 2/15). The 
Court determined the following areas fall under the Union's exclusive competence: trad e in goods 
and services; protection of foreign direct investment; IPR; public procurement; competition; trade 
and sustainable development; transparency; State -to-State Dispute Settlement when applied to WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 396 - 
 
  these areas. Only indirect investment (ex. portfolio investment) and Investor -to-State dispute 
settlement fall under competence shared with the Member States.  
 
Page 39, para 3.2  
According to EU calculations, 91% of import declarations were cleared within one hour.  
 
Question 10: Please further explain the sta rting and the ending nodes when the clearance of 
import declarations is calculated, the reasons for declarations not cleared within one hour and the 
overall average time spent for declarations to be cleared. TAXUD – FH 
 
EU reply : The quoted figure (91%) re presents the percentage of import declarations presented 
electronically under standard procedures which are cleared within one hour. The beginning and 
ending time for this calculation is defined as follows: it is the time it takes Customs to process a 
declaration from the moment of the acceptance of the declaration to the moment of the release of 
goods for the declared procedure. If the declaration is submitted to Customs before the goods are 
presented, the processing time starts when the declaration is acc epted by Customs after 
presentation of goods; the processing time ends when there is a decision to release the goods.  
 
The overall average processing time for declarations is not measured at the EU level. The EU 
measurement of processing time is based on m easurement of time it takes Customs to process 
declarations within certain time frames (0 -5 minutes, 5 -60 minutes, 1 -12 hours, 12 -48 hours, 
more than 48 hours). This means that the situations when it takes Customs to process the 
declarations longer are usu ally linked to carrying out documentary or physical checks.  
 
Page 39, para 3.2  
Most of the customs procedures are now done electronically, as more than 98% of customs 
declarations were submitted electronically in 2015. It should also be noted that, in some  cases, 
accompanying documents were required in paper form.  
 
Question 11: Please further explain the types of accompanying documents required and the reason 
for requiring these accompanying documents.  
 
EU reply : Accompanying documents include all types of  documents required in accordance with 
the respective Union legislation, e.g. documents related to origin, prohibition/restriction 
documents, transport documents, commercial documents, etc.  
 
The supporting documents are provided for in Article 163 UCC:  
 
1. The supporting documents required for the application of the provisions governing the 
customs procedure for which the goods are declared shall be in the declarant's possession and at 
the disposal of the customs authorities at the time when the customs dec laration is lodged.  
2. Supporting documents shall be provided to the customs authorities where Union legislation 
so requires or where necessary for customs controls.  
3. In specific cases, economic operators may draw up the supporting documents provided the y 
are authorised to do so by the customs authorities.  
 
Page 40, para 3.6  
Other changes as a result of the UCC involve nearly all aspects of customs procedures and 
processes, as well as modifications to other rules such as customs valuation, origin, etc.  
 
Question 12: Please provide information on the EUs policy regulations on the processing of entry 
and exit goods by enterprises in the region and specific business developments since 2015. Are 
there any changes in policy regulations  after the UCC came into f orce?  
 
EU reply : Following the implementation of UCC, conditions and requirements as well as processes 
have been aligned; the full benefits and advantages coming from streamlined and harmonised 
requirements, conditions and processes will only materialise a fter the IT and administrative 
transitions are completed. There are no changes in policy regulations after the UCC came into 
force.  
 
 
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 397 - 
 
  Page 41, Para 3.7  
Free zones are special areas designated within the EU customs territory where import duties, 
charges, e tc. are not applied until they are formally imported into the territory. With the changes 
introduced by the UCC, there is now only one type of free zone that has a physical boundary 
supervised by the customs authorities. Not all member States have free zon es; as of early 2017, 
19 member States had free zones, of which Croatia, Lithuania, and the Czech Republic had the 
most. Authorization to set up a free zone rests with the national authorities of the member State 
concerned. With the changes introduced by t he UCC as of 1 May 2016, in accordance with Article 
243 of the UCC, type II free zones do not exist anymore. The situation is now equivalent to the 
customs warehousing procedure.  
 
Question 13: Please brief us on the procedures for goods to enter free zones , the policies on and 
the control over the operations or processing of enterprises in free zones and other relevant 
contents after the UCC entered into force.  
 
EU reply : Free zones are mainly a service for traders to facilitate fair and legal trading procedures 
while reducing customs formalities. For instance, it is not necessary to lodge a customs declaration 
for the free zone procedure. All persons carrying on an activity involving the storage, working or 
processing, or the sale or purchase of goods in free zones must keep records which enable the 
customs authorities to supervise such activities. In cases of non -compliance with customs 
legislation or other legislation including provisions on the fight against money laundering and 
terrorist financing, the customs authorities have to take the required action.  
 
Question 14: Please brief us on the status of bonded warehouses after simplified in types since the 
entry into force of the UCC, including: introduction to the different types of bonded warehouses,  
introduction to the responsibilities of bonded warehouse operators or traders, relevant systems 
based on which bonded warehouses are established, and relevant bonded logistics systems and 
goods processing systems of bonded warehouses, etc.  
 
EU reply : Two  categories of customs warehouses exist, namely public and private.  
Public customs warehouses are identified as follows:  
 
(a) type I when the responsibility lies with the holder of the authorisation and with the holder 
of the procedure;  
(b) type II when th e responsibility lies with the holder of the procedure;  
(c) type III when the warehouse is operated by the customs authority.  
 
Private customs warehouses are where the responsibility lies with the holder of the authorisation 
who is also the holder of the p rocedure but not necessarily owner of the goods.  
 
Responsibilities of the holder of the authorisation or procedure are mainly the following:  
 
 Not to alter the state of the goods placed under the procedure other than allowed by 
the Usual Forms of Handling;  
 Not to remove temporarily goods from customs warehouse without prior authorisation 
by customs except in case of 'force majeure';  
 To inform the competent customs authority/supervising customs authorities about any 
customs related irregularities.  
 
The opera tion of storage facilities for the customs warehousing of goods requires a customs 
authorization. All details are laid down in such authorization. For instance, which IT systems have 
to be used etc.  As far as possible, IT systems which are used for commerc ial purposes may also be 
used for customs purposes.  
 
Page 41, para 3.8  
The programme consists of two different statuses, Authorised Economic Operator, Customs 
(AEOC) for economic operators authorized for simplification of customs procedures, and Authorised  
Economic Operator, Security and Safety (AEOS), for those entitled to facilitations relating to 
security and safety.  
Question 15: Does the EU have plans to include AEOC in the scope of mutual recognition so as 
to further extend relevant mutual recognition and facilitation measures to the simplification of 
customs procedures?  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 398 - 
 
  EU reply : Since AEO programmes internationally focus primarily on security, only AEOs S and AEO 
F (“Full” – the combination of AEO S and C) can be considered for Mutual Recognition purp oses. 
Nevertheless, the EU -China Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) includes elements of customs 
simplifications, in particular priority at customs controls for MRA partner companies. The EU 
remains open to explore the inclusion of additional benefits rega rding customs simplifications into 
current and future MRAs.  
 
Page 45, para 3.21  
As regards simplification, special authorization may be granted to determine value on the basis of 
specific criterion when they are not quantifiable. According to the Commission, this authorization is 
granted on the condition that the customs value determined will not significantly differ from that 
determined in the absence of an authorization.  
 
Question 16: Please illustrate how the above provisions should be interpret ed. Please explain 
whether these provisions are consistent with the relevant provisions of the WTO Customs 
Valuation Agreement?  
 
EU reply : The customs valuation rules (see Article 73 of the UCC) allow for an authorization to be 
granted to determine specifi c amounts relating to the customs value, on the basis of specific 
criteria, where such amounts are not quantifiable when the customs declaration is made. It is up 
to the economic operator to decide whether or not to avail of the opportunity to use such a 
simplification, by requesting a relevant authorization.  
 
The rules (Article 71 UCC DA) also stipulate that such an authorization may be granted only when 
the use of the procedure of the simplified (incomplete) declaration would represent, in the 
circumstanc es, disproportionate administrative costs, and when the customs value so determined 
would not significantly differ from that as determined in the absence of an authorization. A typical 
example would be the calculation of costs of transport (in the absence of a breakdown of such 
costs).  
 
These simplification possibilities offered to economic operators, to use (at their own initiative, 
subject to authorization) a simplified way to establish certain elements of the customs value of 
goods provisions, are consi stent with the relevant provisions of the WTO Customs Valuation 
Agreement. Indeed, these simplification possibilities support the application of the primary 
valuation method (transaction value).  
 
Page 59, para 3.58  
The most significant change from 2014 is that now the Commission has responsibility for imposing 
anti-dumping and anti -subsidy measures, with no formal involvement of the Council. Member 
States are, however, consulted through a number of different types of procedures which apply 
under the EU's co mitology rules, including an appeals procedure. Some specific rules were also 
introduced regarding the exchange of information with the European Parliament and Council.  
Question 17: What is the background and considerat ion for this procedural change?  
 
EU reply:  The change stems from the Treaty of Lisbon that transferred this competence to the 
Commission.  
 
Question 18: The last sentence mentioned the introduction of some specific rules. What are the 
specific contents?  
 
EU reply : The specific rules concern t he fact that the European Parliament and the Council shall 
have access to information on comitology proceedings and also that they have a right of scrutiny. 
These rules are set in Articles 10 and 11 of the Comitology Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of 16 
Febru ary 2011.  
 
Page 63, para 3.73  
Thus, importers of certain iron and steel products are required to submit a surveillance document 
(obtained automatically upon a simple request) before the products can be released for free 
circulation, in order to provide adv anced statistical information allowing for the rapid analysis of 
import trends.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 399 - 
 
  Question 19: In general, customs and other relevant departments may keep the import data of 
iron and steel products, and there is no urgent need for the surveillance documents  provided by 
importers. Is it necessary for the EU to take this measure? Even an application cycle of 5 working 
days will greatly affect import efficiency. How will the EU prevent this policy from becoming a new 
trade barrier?  
 
EU reply : Rapid and anticip ated trade data is necessary to deal with the vulnerability of the EU 
steel market to sudden changes on world steel markets. This is particularly important in the 
present crisis situation marked by uncertainties as to whether the demand will structurally p ick up 
and whether the EU industry will actually benefit from it. As already explained, the system has 
been designed in a way that does not create any significant additional burden and should not 
lengthen the import process. Therefore steel surveillance do es not constitute a new trade barrier.  
 
Page 63, para 3.73  
Thus, importers of certain iron and steel products are required to submit a surveillance document 
(obtained automatically upon a simple request) before the products can be released for free 
circulation, in order to provide advanced statistical information allowing for the rapid analysis of 
import trends. The regulations provide that the surveillance document is to be issued within five 
working days by authorized national authorities listed in  the Annex, and it applies to imports from 
all non -EU member countries except products originating from Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway.  
 
Question 20: Which product catalogues are included in the surveillance of imports of relevant 
products in the iron and steel industry?  Which elements and indicators are involved in the 
surveillance? What kind of surveillance methods and tools are applied? Which specific agencies and 
departments are responsible for the surveillance?  
 
EU reply : Steel surveillance covers  products listed under Annex I of Regulation 2016/670 as 
recently modified by EU Regulation 2017/1092 (OJ L 158 of 21.6.2017). Once the surveillance 
documents are issued by the relevant national authorities, the data is transferred to an integrated 
system for the management of licences for imports of steel to the EU, namely a central database 
called SIGL and managed by the European Commission Directorate General for Trade (DG TRADE). 
Quantitative information on intended import volumes for all concerned stee l products, per month 
and per exporting country is collected. On this basis, DG TRADE sends monthly reports with this 
information to the Member States authorities and publishes aggregated data on the EU website. 
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/sigl/index.html  
 
Page 65~66, para 3.2.3.1  
3.84 Dual -use export controls implement international commitments to prevent the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction (WMD)  
3.85 According to Article 2(i) of Regulati on 428/2009  
3.86 The Commission acknowledges the challenges  
3.87 As described in detail in the previous Review  
3.88 The 2009 dual -use Regulation recognizes four types of export authorization  
3.89 The Regulation has been amended on multiple occasions since its adoption  
3.2.3.1Dual -use items export control regime  
 
Question 21: Please explain how to implement effective control over pure technology exp orts with 
no physical carriers?  
 
EU reply : Intangible transfers of dual -use technology (or ITT) controls are covered by Regulation 
(EC) No 428/2009. There are best practices discussed in international export control regimes such 
as in the NSG which China can refer itself to given China's membership to the NSG. The EU has 
developed best practices in this regard an d seminars were held in China at the request of China in 
the past to explain how EU manages ITT controls. Some Member States additionally provide 
national guidance on ITT controls to exporters.  
 
Page 66, para 3.89  
The Regulation has been amended on multipl e occasions since its adoption; however, the 
September 2016 proposal by the Commission recommends a modernization of EU export controls, 
which can be broadly grouped into two categories: changes that seek to clarify and simplify the EU 
dual-use export cont rol regime, and the introduction of a new category of controls aimed at cyber -WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 400 - 
 
  surveillance technology. T he proposal has been submitted to the Council and the European 
Parliament for discussion in the ordinary legislative procedure.  
 
Question 22: What is th e current progress of the EUs 2016 proposal on dual -use export control? 
Are there any latest developments in the new category of export control on cyber -surveillance 
technology? What products may be involved?  
 
EU reply:  The Commission proposal for a modernisation of EU export controls is currently 
discussed with Member States in the Council and in the European Parliament, as part of the 
legislative process. The discussion also applies to the definition and list of items (products) under 
the proposed c ategory of "cyber -surveillance technology" (see Annex IB for the list of items as per 
Commission proposal).  
 
Page 66, para 3.90  
EU governments, as other governments in the world, provide officially supported export credits 
through Export Credit Agencies (E CAs) in support of national exporters competing for overseas 
sales. Such support can take the form of: loans offered to foreign buyers of ECA countries' goods 
and services; loan guarantees by an ECA covering the repayment risk on the foreign buyer's debt 
obligations incurred in the purchase of the ECA country's exports; export credit insurance provided 
to exporters in the ECA's home country; or, if the foreign borrower defaults, the ECA will pay the 
exporter the outstanding balance owed by the foreign borro wer/purchaser. ECAs can be 
government institutions or private companies operating on behalf of governments (Table 3.12 and 
Appendix Table A3.2).  
 
Question 23: Please describe more details on supported export credits through Export Credit 
Agencies (ECAs) in  support of national exporters competing for overseas sales.  
 
EU reply : the EU regrets that the question is too general to be answered with any degree of 
detail.  
 
Page 69, para 3.103  
The EU has introduced extensive amendments to both the WSR (in 2014) and  the WEEE Directive 
(in 2012) concerning inspections and enforcement. Amendments to the WSR introduced in June 
2014 will not fully come into force until 2017. These amendments have the potential to improve 
inspection and enforcement on the ground, to the e xtent that the individual member States are 
willing and able to provide the necessary budgetary and staff resources to implement the new 
provisions effectively. As the Commission has pointed out, while some member States have 
thorough, well -functioning ins pection systems targeting either illegal waste shipments in ports or 
on the sites of waste producers and collectors, others lag behind. This leads to "port hopping"  
exporters of illegal waste choosing to export their waste from member States with the most lenient 
controls.  
Question 24: Does the EU have special measure to  trace flow of the waste trade?  
 
EU reply:  The EU waste shipment regulation 1013/2006/EC prohibits exports of hazardous waste 
and unlisted waste to non -OECD countries and waste for disposal outside the EU and EFTA. Green, 
non-hazardous waste can be exported also outside the OECD for recovery and recycling. Such 
shipments are not subject to any prior, written notification and it is only required that certain 
information shall accompany the shi pment, which is listed on a specific form (Article 18 and Annex 
VII of the Waste Shipment Regulation). Therefore, the authorities can obtain documentation 
concerning the shipment of green, non -hazardous waste outside the OECD, e.g. with regard to 
destinati on countries and facilities when they inspect the shipment in ports or on roads. For 
example, the authorities have to ensure that the waste goes only to environmentally sound 
management in third countries and could for this purpose inspect the shipment.  
 
Question 25: Does the EU have any measure to recycle the waste material in EU i nstead of trading 
them abroad.  
 
EU reply : A shipment of green, non -hazardous waste outside the OECD shall be prohibited if an 
inspection shows that the waste will not go to a fa cility that could ensure environmentally sound 
management and as a consequence, the waste can be treated at an environmentally sound facility 
elsewhere (in the EU or abroad).  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 401 - 
 
  Page 72, para 3.113  
This Regulation also deals with the rapid evolution of techn ology and the way in which new 
products and services, such as 'smart' or connected devices (referred to as the 'Internet of 
Things') or the Cloud, transform markets. The process outlined in Articles 13 and 14 seeks to 
ensure that innovative state -of-the-art global information, communication and technology (ICT) 
specifications can be used in Europe as enablers for innovation and growth.  
 
Question 26: Are the ICT Standardisation Priorities for the Digital Single Market (COM(2016)176) 
issued by the EU in 2016 mandatory in EU Member States? What are the main aspects of ICT 
standardization are involved? How have they been implemented in practice ? 
 
EU reply : A Commission Communication is a policy document with no mandatory authority, 
published by the Commission wh en it wishes to set out its policy views to the Council and the 
European Parliament on a topical issue, and it has no binding /legal effect. The Commission has 
adopted on 19th April 2016 a Communication setting up ICT standardisation priorities as part of 
the package on "Digitising European Industry" delivering on a Commission Strategy to create a 
Digital Single Market. The Communication proposes a two -pillar plan to prioritise and deliver an 
efficient and sustainable ICT standard -setting for the DSM, to ad dress the challenges of the 
digitisation of the economy. Firstly, it identifies a list of priority building blocks in five technology 
priority areas: 5G, IoT, Cybersecurity, Cloud and Big Data where improved ICT standardisation is 
most urgent, proposing ac tions with concrete deliverables and a timeline in those domains. 
Secondly, the Commission proposes a high -level political process to validate, monitor and if 
necessary adapt the list of priorities fostering a high -level commitment from a broad stakeholder  
base, including from industry, standard -setting organisations, and the research community, as well 
as from EU institutions and national administrations. Eighteen months after the publication of the 
Commission priorities, the actions are progressing at a d ifferent pace. Depending on the domain, 
the actions proposed vary from further standard setting to coordination or leveraging of current 
work within the respective policies. Focus may lay more on aspects like reference architectures, 
reference platforms an d use cases to support digital transformation or other standardisation 
deliverables to support vertical innovation in the domain.  
 
Page 91, para 3.187  
Although Article 101 and 102 of the TFEU and Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 are generally 
applicable, there are specific rules for some sectors. During the period under review there has 
been no change to the rules for these specific sectors, including agriculture, fisheries, insurance, 
postal services, professional services, transport, and tele communications.  
 
Question 27: Please brief us on the specific rules of telecommunications and other sectors. Is there 
a plan for adjus tment in the future?  
 
EU reply : On 14.9.2016, the Commission adopted a Proposal for a Directive of the European 
Parliament  and of the Council establishing the European Communications Code, which is a recast 
and modernization of four existing directives (COM(2016) 590 final, with error corrections in 
COM(2016) 590 final/2 of 12.10.2016. However, its legal basis is not Articles  101 or 102 T FEU or 
Council Regulation (EC) No.  1/2003 on Competition Policy. Its legal basis is Article 114 of the 
TFEU, as it aims to achieve the internal market for electronic communications and ensure its 
functioning.  
 
Page 117, para 3.279  
The interfac e between standards and patents was already discussed in the previous TPR report. 
Since then, the CJEU followed the opinion of the Advocate General and, in a judgment of 16 July 
2015, clarified the conditions under which a holder of a patent essential to a  standard can apply 
for an injunction without infringing competition law.  
 
Question 28: What are the specific conditions under which a holder of a patent essential to a 
standard can apply for an injunction with out infringing competition law?  
 
EU reply : Som e conditions under which a holder of a standard essential patent can apply for an 
injunction without infringing competition law are specified in the Decision of the European Court of 
Justice in case C -170/13 . According to this decision: "Article 102 TFEU must be interpreted  as 
meaning that the proprietor of a patent essential to a standard established by a standardisation 
body, which has given an irrevocable undertaking to that body to grant a licence to third parties on WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 402 - 
 
  fair, reasonable and non -discriminatory (‘FRAND’) term s, does not abuse its dominant position, 
within the meaning of that article, by bringing an action for infringement seeking an injunction 
prohibiting the infringement of its patent or seeking the recall of products for the manufacture of 
which that patent has been used, as long as:  
 
- prior to bringing that action, the proprietor has, first, alerted the alleged infringer of the 
infringement complained about by designating that patent and specifying the way in which 
it has been infringed, and, secondly, after the alleged infringer has expressed its 
willingness to conclude a licensing agreement on FRAND terms, presented to that infringer 
a specific, written offer for a licence on such terms, specifying, in particular, the royalty 
and the way in which it is to be  calculated, and  
- where the alleged infringer continues to use the patent in question, the alleged infringer 
has not diligently responded to that offer, in accordance with recognised commercial 
practices in the field and in good faith, this being a matter w hich must be established on 
the basis of objective factors and which implies, in particular, that there are no delaying 
tactics."  
- This jurisprudence is being further developed by national courts, in particular in Germany.  
 
Question 29: Are there any provis ions in EU laws on the disclosure of patent information and 
licensing commitments of a holder of a patent essential to a standard during t he development of 
the standard?  
 
EU reply : The Communication from the Commission (2011/C 11/01) 'Guidelines on the 
applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to horizontal co -
operation agreements' are designed to help companies determine on a case -by-case basis whether 
their co -operation agreements are compatible with the revised c ompetition rules by providing a 
framework for assessment under Articles 101(1) and 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of 
the European Union. These contain among others the requirement of good faith disclosure of 
participants' IPR that might be essenti al for the implementation of the standard under 
development . 
 
Page 118, para 3.284  
The above Communication also called for exploring the introduction of an SPC manufacturing 
waiver in order to allow EU -based generic and biosimilar manufacturers to produce for export 
during the lifetime of the SPC. Such a waiver has already been included as an option in the 
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) concluded with Canada. The section on sui 
generis protection for pharmaceuticals explicitly provides fo r an exception that allows "the making, 
using, offering for sale, selling or importing of products for the purpose of export during the period 
of protection".  
 
Question 30: Has the SPC waiver system already been established or is it still in the process of  
demonstration? GROW IPR - B3- see existing replies  
 
Question 31: Please explain in detail the main contents of the SPC waiver system. GROW IPR - B3- 
see existing replies – SR 
 
EU reply to questions 30 and 31 : No SPC waiver has been established in EU legislation. At this 
stage, the European Commission is analysing the potential merits of such a waiver.  
 
Page 126, para 3.320  
The final Report on the Economic Review of Industrial Design in Europe  was released in January 
2015. It reviewed the economic contribution of designs, how these are protected in the EU, and 
the rationale for protecting designs. It also discussed specific issues, including in rela tion to 
enforcement and the advent of new technologies such as 3D printing, as well as the divergent 
situation in EU member States regarding the availability of design protection for visible spare parts 
for complex products. The Report noted that only a mi nority of designs are formally protected in 
the EU, partly because firms seek other ways to protect their designs, partly because they are 
simply not aware of existing avenues to protect them.  
 
Question 32: In addition to the industrial design protection s ystem, what are the other ways in 
which enterprises seek to protect their designs?  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 403 - 
 
  EU reply : In most EU countries, an industrial design needs to be registered in order to be 
protected under industrial design law as a “registered design”. Industrial design  laws in some 
countries grant – without registration – time and scope limited protection to so -called 
“unregistered industrial designs”. The Community Design System caters for both possibilities. 
Depending on the particular national law and the kind of des ign, industrial designs may also be 
protected as works of art under copyright law. It may also be possible to patent innovative product 
design features, such as the way a new product works. Finally, it is possible that some enterprises 
may choose to regist er a 3D trade mark to protect their design if it constitutes a sign capable of 
distinguishing their goods from those of anyone in a similar business. However, this should not be 
seen as an alternative to Design protection, but rather as a compliment as it is possible to have 
both forms of protection. Registration as a 3D mark protects the distinctiveness of the sign 
compared to the other existing signs in use for the same products or services whereas registration 
as a design protects the novelty and the ind ividual character of a product.  
 
Page 136, para 4  
Trade policies by sector  
Question 33: 4 Trade Policies by Sector includes trade policies in the three sectors of agriculture, 
fisheries and services, but does not include the manufacturing sector. Does this  mean that there 
were no changes in the EUs manufacturing -related tra de policies during this review?  
 
EU Reply:  The WTO secretariat is responsible for the format and structure of the Secretariat 
Report.  
 
Page 169~170, para 4.3.2  
Ecommerce in the Digital S ingle Market  
Question 34: What are the EUs legal provisions on and surveillance models for cross -border e -
commerce customs surveillance? Next, what measures will be taken to address the challenges on 
customs surveillance brought along by cross -border e -commerce?  
 
EU reply : all the applicable EU legislation that is in force applies to online transactions. Regarding 
intangible transfers of technologies, the EU has replied to that question above.  
 
Page 175, para 4.124  
Regarding the first pillar, only one new r egulation was adopted during the period under review, 
namely Regulation (EU) 2015/2365 of the EU parliament and of the Council on Transparency of 
Securities Financing Transactions (SFTR). This new regulation, proposed by the European 
Commission in January 2014, improves the transparency of securities financing transactions in the 
shadow banking sector. These new rules also help identify the risks associated with these financial 
transactions, as well as their magnitude. The Regulation enhances transparency i n three ways: 
first, it introduces the reporting of all securities financing transactions (SFT), except those 
concluded with central banks, to central databases known as trade repositories.  
 
Question 35: How to implement the reporting system of SFTS in pra ctice?  
 
EU reply : The SFTR requires the adoption of a number of technical standards and a delegated act. 
These measures are currently discussed with the view of adoption in due course. Once the 
technical standard on the details of SFT reports is adopted th e industry will have 12 months to 
implement SFT reporting in practice.  
 
Question 36: Will these initiatives aimed at improving the transparency of securities financing 
transactions be able to be in harmony with the work of the Financial Stability Board? Ho w to 
harmonize and synchronize these initiatives?  
 
EU reply : The technical standards under SFTR will be in line with the FSB standards on SFT 
reports.  
 
Page 176, para 4.126  
The second, still un -adopted, proposal of this pillar is a proposal for a regulation on structural 
measures improving the resilience of EU credit institutions.  The goal of this proposal is to stop the 
biggest and most complex banks from engaging in the risky activity of proprietary trading. The 
new rules would also give supervis ors the power to require those banks to separate certain WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 404 - 
 
  potentially risky trading activities from their deposit -taking business if the pursuit of such activities 
compromises financial stability.  
 
Question 37: We would like to know more about the progress of the above proposal and the 
specific timetable to implement it.  
 
Question 38: How to define the specific scope of the biggest and most complex banks to which the 
rule applies?  
 
Question 39: Does the regulatory rule prohibit all banks from engaging in ris ky activities of 
proprietary trading? Are there exceptions?  
 
EU reply to questions 37 to 39 : Discussions on the Commission proposal for a regulation on 
structural measures improving the resilience of EU credit institutions are currently paused. It is 
unlikely that these discussions will resume in a near future and that the proposed measures are 
adopted in their present form. Under these circumstances giving a detailed answer to questions 37 
to 39 would be meaningless.  
 
Page 176, para 4.129  
The first such adopted proposal is the Directive (EU) 2016/97 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 20January 2016 on insurance distribution (so -called IDD/IMD). It clarifies procedures 
and rules for cross -border business, and it contains rules for the supervis ion and sanctioning of 
insurance distributors in case they breach the provisions of the Directive. The rules apply to the 
sale of all insurance products.  
 
Question 40: The rules apply to the sale of all insurance products  has objectively brought Internet 
insurance under supervision as a traditional insurance product. How should regulators respond to 
the challenges on the traditional regulatory system in terms of regional regulation, data security 
and information disclosure by Internet insurance and strike a  balance between encouraging 
innovation and strengthening regulation?  
 
EU reply : The overriding principle, enshrined in Article 17 (1) of this Directive, is that insurance 
distributors (or insurance services suppliers) shall always act honestly, fairly and  professionally in 
accordance with the best interests of their customers.  Before the conclusion of an insurance 
contract, all insurance distributors, whether intermediaries or not, have to disclose their identity, 
whether they provide advice as well as inf ormation on potential conflicts of interests. They have to 
inform customers about the source and the nature of their remuneration. If they ask for a fee, 
they must disclose its amount.  
 
The Directive also prescribes the way in which these disclosures are to be made. Some 
requirements relate to insurance undertakings. For example, manufacturers of insurance products 
will have to ensure that there are product approval processes in place before putting a product on 
the market and that the product is designed for a specific market.  
 
A further, universal requirement of the Directive is that insurance distributors need to check 
whether the product on offer meets the demands and needs of the customer.  
 
The Directive also introduces a new requirement for "manufactu rers" (generally insurers) of non -
life insurance products, namely to draw up an Insurance Product Information Document.  
 
This will be a simple document summarising the main features of a non -life insurance contract. It 
is not the insurance contract. It wil l not be required for life insurance contracts. It is designed to 
give customers basic information about the type of non -life insurance, the obligations of the 
parties, claims handling and a summary of the non -life insurance cover.  A standardised format fo r 
such documents will soon be adopted by the Commission.  
 
Page 185, para 4.183  
The technical pillar is aimed at saving firms from having to submit multiple applications for 
operations extending beyond one single member  State. The European Railways Agency (ERA) will 
issue authorizations for placing vehicles on the market and safety certificates for railway 
undertakings that are valid throughout the EU. Until now, railway undertakings and manufacturers WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 405 - 
 
  have been required to be certified separately by all national safety authorities (NSA) in those 
member States with rail systems, depending on where the trains would operate.  
 
Question 41: The report notes that railway undertakings and manufacturers in the EU should be 
certified separately by all national safety authorities (NSA) in those Member States with rail 
systems, depending on where the trains would operate. Where does this provision come from? 
What are the criteria and legal basis for review by the NSAs? Does the EU pl an designate a certain 
EU agency to be responsible for this review?  
 
EU reply : The new rules for the authorisation of rolling stock and railway undertakings are 
provided by the 4th Railway Package. Directive 2016/797, Article 21 provides that the European 
Union Agency for Rail (ERA) will be the primary authorising authority, but with the possibility 
retained of using national safety authorities to authorise vehicles for purely domestic use within a 
Member State. As regards the safety approval of rail undert akings, Directive 2016/798, Article 10 
gives ERA the primary role of granting a Single Safety Certificate, but with the possibility for a rail 
undertaking to seek certification at national level where its activities are confined to a Member 
State.  
 
Part II . Questions based on Report by the EU (WT/TPR/S/357)  
 
Page 6, para 3.6  
To ensure that the EU action is effective, the European Commission assesses the expected and 
actual impacts of policies, legislation, and other important measures at every stage of the policy 
cycle from planning to implementation to review and subsequent revision.  
 
Question 42: When amending policies, laws and other important measures, how will the EU show 
concern over the views expressed by stakeholders? Are there any institutional arrangements to 
respond to them?  
 
EU reply: The European Commission is committed to open up policy making and offers citizens 
and stakeholders to express their views over the entire lifecycle of a policy . Opening up policy -
making can make the EU more trans parent and accountable and ensures that policies are based on 
the best available evidence  and makes them more effective.  
 
All stakeholder consultation and feedback mechanisms are accessible through the web portal 
'Contribute to law making ' 
 
Stakeholder consultation  
 
Getting input from citizens and stakeholders is an indispensable part of preparing and reviewing 
policy. 
 
The importance of consulting is recognised and establishe d in the EU Treaties: They contain the 
legal obligation to consult the citizens to ensure that the Union's actions are  both coherent and 
transparent.  
 
The outcome of all consultation activities is summarized in a 'Synopsis and includes a summary 
and qualit ative assessment of the input received through the feed -back and consultation activities 
carried out throughout the preparatory phase, and explain how this input has been taken into 
account.  
 
Feedback mechanisms  
 
The Commission collects feedback from citizens and stakeholders on roadmaps, inception impact 
assessments, legislative proposals and their accompanying impact assessment and draft 
implementing and  delegated acts.  
 
Feedback on roadmaps and inception impact assessments  
 
Feedback on roadmaps and inception impact assessments can be provided for a period of four 
weeks, which allows comments to usefully feed into the further preparatory work of the initiative, WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 406 - 
 
  including the preparation of external studies and contracts as well as the finalisation of the 
stakeholder consultation strategy.  
 
Feedback should be summarised and referred to in the 'synopsis report' (see above). For 
legislative proposals and for delegated acts, information on stakeholder input in general, including 
feedback, should in additio n be referred to in the 'explanatory memorandum'  
 
Legislative proposals  
 
After adoption of a legislative proposal by the College, feedback can be provided on the proposal 
and, where relevant, on the accompanying impact assessment for a period of 8 weeks.  
 
A summary of the feedback is provided to the European Parliament and Council, aiming to feed 
into the further legislative debate.  
 
Draft delegated and implementing acts  
 
Citizens and stakeholders can provide feedback on draft delegated and implementing acts as well 
as on draft measures subject to regulatory procedure with scrutiny (RPS) for a period of four 
weeks. The draft texts are published after inter service consultat ion and before adoption of the Act 
or measure.  
 
For delegated acts, the way the feedback has been taken into account should be explained in the 
explanatory memorandum accompanying the delegated act.  
 
For implementing acts and measures subject to regulatory  procedure with scrutiny, the way the 
feedback has been taken into account should be explained in the committee meeting. This 
explanation should be included in the summary record of the meeting, that is then made public in 
the Comitology Register  
 
Page 6, para 3.7  
The European Commissions ' main goal is to ensure the free movement of goods  within the single 
market, and to set high safety and health standards for citizens and the protection of the 
environment.  
 
Question 43: While setting high level standards on safety and health, how does the  European 
Commission prevent non -technical trade barriers?  
 
EU reply : all updated information since last EU TPR has been reported in the EU government 
report and in the WTO Secretariat reports' relevant sections in particular with respect to the 
mutual rec ognition principle which is the main instrument within the single market to avoid  the 
creation of internal NTBs and NTMs. In addition, developing the single market is an ongoing 
process and it has many angles such as: goods, services, IPR, competition, reg ulations on 
transport, on consumer rights, state aid etc. please refer to EU statement on 5 and 7 July, to EU 
government report and WTO Secretariat reports as well as to the following webpage:  
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single -market/strategy_en . 
 
3.5. On 19 May 2015, the European Commission adopted the comprehensive Better Regulation 
Package aiming at reducing the unnecessary costs of regulation. Better regulation is about 
designing EU policies and laws so that they achieve their objectives at minimum cost. It is a way of 
working to ensure that policy is prepared, implemented and reviewed in an open, transparent 
manner, informed by the best available evidence and backed up by the compreh ensive 
involvement of stakeholders.  
 
Page 6, para 3.9 & 3.10  
3.9 As a concrete action for the implementation of the Single Market Strategy, on 22 November 
2016 the European Commission adopted the "Start -up and Scale -up Initiative" that aims at 
improving th e conditions for start -ups and SMEs to grow, creating more jobs and enhancing 
Europe's competitiveness.  
 
3.10 On IPR the Communication mentions that in 2017 -18 the Commission intends to adopt a set 
of measures to support the use of IPR by SMEs namely . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 407 - 
 
  Question 44: The Report by the EU shows that the EU has done a lot to support SMEs, especially 
promoting the development of SMEs through intellectual property rights. The Report lists the 
measures taken by the EU in this regard. Please describe in detail the s pecific concrete content, 
programs and actions of these measures.  
 
EU reply : the European Commission Communication "Start -up and Scale -up Initiative" 
COM(2016)733 of 22/11/2016 foresees with regard to intellectual property the following actions: 
Streamlini ng awareness on IP support schemes – exchange of practices. EU IP mediation and 
arbitration network - mapping study on mediation, including arbitration. EU IP insurance schemes 
– possibly a study on IP insurance. Better coordination of IP support funding s chemes – 
establishing an expert sub -group on SME support.  
 
Page 9, para 3.29  
E. In September 2016, the European Commission adopted a legislative proposal to adapt EU 
copyright rules to the realities of the DSM and presented an ambitious overhaul of EU tele coms 
rules putting connectivity and access to the Internet for all EU citizens at the heart of EU telecoms 
policy.  
 
F. In January 2017, the European Commission proposed to update its ePrivacy policy rules, 
enabling better online protection and new business  opportunities. As a further DSM cornerstone, it 
also adopted a Communication on building a European data economy, which tackles rules and 
regulations impeding the free flow of data and unjustified data location restrictions, as well as 
outlining legal iss ues regarding access to and transfer of data.  
 
Question 45: What is the relationship between the European Electronic Communications Code 
issued by the EU this time and the package of telecommunications legislations introduced by the 
EU in 2002 (such as the  Directive on a common regulatory framework for electronic 
communications networks and services, the Directive on the authorisation of electronic 
communications networks and services, the Directive on access to, and interconnection of, 
electronic communica tions networks and associated facilities, and the Directive on universal 
service and users rights relating to electronic communications networks and services)?  
 
EU reply : As stated in Article 116 of the proposed European Electronic Communications Code, 
when adopted it will replace Directives 2002/19/EC (Access Directive), 2002/20/EC (Authorisation 
Directive), 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) and 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive).  
 
Question 46: What is the relationship between the provisions on the f ree flow of data and data 
location of the Communication on building a European data economy adopted by the EU in January 
2017 and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)? Are there conflicts between relevant 
provisions of the two documents?  
 
Page 11,  para 3.36  
At the same time it will protect the flow of goods transiting or moving in and out of the Union.  
 
Question 47: Please brief us on relevant regulations on and specific practices of protecting the flow 
of transit goods and facilitating the safe an d convenient customs clearance of transit goods.  
 
EU reply:  Union transit may take the form of "external transit", meaning that non -Union goods 
may be moved from one point to another within the customs territory of the Union to the point of 
final destinati on, or "internal transit", meaning that Union goods may be moved from one point to 
another within the customs territory of the Union, passing through a country or territory outside 
the customs territory ("common transit countries": EFTA, Serbia, FYROM and Turkey), without any 
change in customs status.  
 
Use of a customs transit procedure normally takes place before or after other customs procedures.  
As the transit procedure involves a certain risk of non -payment of duty, the goods are moved 
under Customs supervision and a guarantee must be lodged for each consignment. The guarantee 
is calculated in such a way that it covers the full amount of the customs debt likely to be incurred 
and is based on the import duties that would be applicable to goods of the s ame kind in the 
country of departure if the goods were released for free circulation.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 408 - 
 
  Most goods entering the EU do not remain at the border and instead are further transported to a 
consignee inland. Customs transit procedures permit the further transport  (whilst duties, other 
charges and commercial policy measures are suspended) so that customs clearance of goods can 
take place at their final destination rather than at the point of entry.  
 
The transfer of customs clearance from the external border to the  final destination brings with it a 
number of advantages for both traders and the Customs administrations involved. Because the 
goods are being cleared near their final destinations, traders (and customs) can simultaneously 
inspect the goods; thus while th e traders determine whether the goods meet contractual 
requirements the customs can establish whether they are in line with customs declarations. 
Furthermore, the transfer of the clearance procedures to a place at a distance from the border 
relieves the bo rder customs offices and traffic can move faster.  
 
The New Computerised Transit System (NCTS) must be used by operators for all transit 
declarations in the EU involving the EU and "common transit countries". The NCTS is mandatory 
regardless of the mode of transport concerned, with the exception of transit procedures where a 
commercial document serves as the transit declaration (such as for example in transit procedures 
in air, sea, or rail where, respectively, the manifest or the international waybill for t ransport of 
goods by rail s erves as transit declarations).  
 
Under the TIR procedure, which unlike the Union or common transit procedure is paper based, a 
condition is that the movement of the goods between the countries that have signed up to those 
procedu res and the EU must include transport by road and that the goods are accompanied by an 
internationally accepted customs transit document, the TIR carnet, which also demonstrates that 
the issuer is covered by a financial guarantee for the payment of the sus pended duties and taxes 
by the international guarantee system that is administered by the International Road Transport 
Union (IRU). In the EU the customs territory of the Union is considered to be a single territory and 
TIR may be used only where the movem ent either starts or ends in a third country, or where 
goods are transported via a third country. The TIR operations in the EU are integrated into NCTS 
and thus handled partly electronically.  
 
For further information see:  
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_custo ms/business/customs -procedures/what -is-customs -transit_en  
 
Page 16, para 4.1.3.2  
4.30: that it replaces the current private investor -state dispute settlement system by an 
investment court system, thereby improving transparency, accountability, consistency  and 
legitimacy.  
 
4.31: This reformed approach to investment dispute resolution and to investment protection rules 
provides a stronger focus on the state's right to regulate, and is embedded in the CETA and the 
EU-Vietnam agreements. It is the intention of  the EU to include these reforms in all future trade 
and investment deals.  
 
Question 48: When will the investment court system be established? Please brief us on the 
expected timetable and the administration authority of the system?  
 
EU reply : The bilateral Investment Court System foreseen in CETA will become operational upon 
the entry into force of the agreement. The timing of the entry into force of CETA will depend on 
the time needed for the completion of the respective internal procedures of the  EU and Canada. It 
is foreseen that the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) will act as 
Secretariat for the Investment Court System of CETA.    
 
Question 49: How will this plan impact on the on -going negotiations of the China -EU Bilateral 
Investment Agreement (BIT)?  
 
EU reply : The EU also proposes to establish a bilateral Investment Court System (ICS) for the 
resolution of investment disputes under the EU -China Bilateral Investment Agreement. The 
negotiation of this agreement i s currently ongoing. The ICS established under CETA has no direct 
impact on the negotiations of the China -EU BIT.  
 WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 409 - 
 
  Part III. Other Questions  
 
Question 50: Please brief us on the implementation of the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) and 
Deposit -Guarantee Schemes (DGS) at the EU level, the EUs policy considerations for pooling banks 
adequate or disposal funds, and the guidance or coordination plans for Member States to pool 
relevant funds by levying taxes pegged to banks liabilities or deposits. It is under stood that some 
Member States levy such bank taxes from local branches of foreign banks (including the foreign 
banks registered in other EU Member States). The implementation requirements may be contrary 
to non -retroactivity and anti -discrimination princip les, and may lead to double taxation.  
 
Question 51: Is there a government agency of the EU which is now responsible for studying the 
impacts of Brexit on trade and investment in the EU? Are there data indicating that Brexit will have 
extremely adverse impa cts on trade and investment in the EU?  
 
EU reply : The EU explained during the TPR meetings that, regarding BREXIT, we are not in 
capacity to give more information than what was given orally and in previous replies distributed by 
the WTO in the document RD/ TPR/806 of 29 June.  
 
Question 52: Please provide measures which are not in conformity with existing national 
treatment, most -favoured nation treatment, senior management and board of directors, 
performance requirements and market access in securities and f utures at EU and member state 
level (including securities and futures business institutions and securities and futures investors 
(individual investors and institutional investors)) and the legal basis.  
 
Question53: Will the above non -conforming measures be  further relaxed in the future?  
 
EU reply to questions 52 and 53 : The EU would like to refer to its GATS schedules. In addition, 
the EU would like to stress that we have demonstrated considerable openness of its financial 
services markets compared to other  trading nations. It has taken extensive multilateral 
commitments in the area of financial services and has provided transparency as regards any non -
conforming measures through its reservations. The EU and its Member States reserve the right to 
modify the current legal framework, subject to the conditions set by its international 
commitments.  
 
Question 54: How to determine the natures of the securities and futures exchanges of the EU 
Member States? Will they perform some of the government's supervisory duti es in operation?  
 
EU reply : the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II) leaves little room for self -
regulation, except for the monitoring compliance of activities carried out b y tied agents – cf. art. 
29(4).  The remainder of supervisory tasks  in MiFID II need to be carried out by public authorities – 
cf. Article 67.  
 
Question 55: How does the EU deal with patent disputes encountered in the process of drug 
marketing approval? If a drug patentee finds that a generic drug that is applying for mar keting 
approval falls within the scope of its patent protection, does it have the right to request the drug 
approval department to stop the examination and approval process? Is there a system in the EU 
similar to the patent linkage in the US?  
 
EU reply: Th ere is no system in the EU similar to the so -called patent linkage. In the EU, patent 
holders can take alleged infringers to competent courts. Courts in the EU, when it comes to 
infringement of IPRs, apply the transposed rules of  IPRED and therefore Member  States shall 
provide for the measures, procedures and remedies necessary to ensure the enforcement of the 
intellectual property rights covered by this Directive. Those measures, procedures and remedies 
shall be fair and equitable and shall not be unnecess arily complicated or costly, or entail 
unreasonable tim e-limits or unwarranted delays.  
 
Question 56: Since 2009, the EU has sent inspection teams twice to pay field visits to the shellfish 
of Zhangzidao, and China side has made a number of rectifications i n accordance with the 
requirements of the EU. In the first half of 2015, the EU inspection team also expressed 
satisfaction over China's rectifications. But until now, the EU has only agreed to import a part of 
China scallop products (wild scallops without  eggs). China believes that the quality and safety 
control system of scallop products exported to the EU has been recognized by the EU, and hopes WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 410 - 
 
  that the EU may, in the spirits of "candid cooperation" and "mutual benefit", completely resume 
exports of sca llop products with eggs from Zhangzidao to the EU.  
 
EU reply: The EU continues analysing all the elements related to China's request. As China has 
correctly indicated the EU has already agreed on import of frozen scallop's adductor muscle 
without gonads fr om all Chinese areas. This is a step forward in comparison to the past. The EU 
will continue efforts in pursuing this possibility with the spirit of good cooperation and mutual 
benefits which mark the relationship with China.  
 
The EU is also considering un dertaking audits in China to verify the application of all the measures 
in place in this area and to verify their implementation and effectiveness on the spot.  
 
Question 57: The EU is currently banning China's gelatin exports to Europe, and has turned down  
the registration applications in the EU submitted by all the Chinese enterprises. Please explain it.  
 
EU reply:  There is no ban on imports of gelatin for human consumption derived from raw 
materials for which China is currently authorized. However, there are currently no Chinese 
establishments approved for exports of this product. Thus, it is up to China to provide the list of 
establishments which fulfil the EU requirements and request their approval. The relevant 
application should be sent to Directorate General Health and Food Safety of the European 
Commission. The listing procedures are available on the following website of Directorate General 
Health and Food Safety: https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/international_affairs/trade/non -eu-
countries_en . 
  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 411 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM THE P HILIPPINES  
 
Notwithstanding current good economic relations with the EU, we would like to raise a few queries 
on some matters that currently or prospectively affect Philippine interests in the EU:  
 
1. In relation to Paragraph 3.3 of the Secretariat report, which covers the Measures Affecting 
Production and Trade, the Philippines would like to clarify some issues as follows:  
a. 1 We received reports from stakeholders from the food processing sector about EU 
regulations on packaging that specifies that bottles used for packaging should be 
manufactured in the EU, which limit their capacity to export to the EU.71 
 
EU reply : All packaging placed on the EU market has to comply with Directive 94/62/EU on  
packaging and packaging waste (the Packaging Directive, see:   
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/packaging/legis.h tm). The Packaging Directive does not 
require that packaging has to be manufactured in the EU but it has to comply with the EU 
legislation. Commission Decision 97/129/EC establishes an identification system for packaging 
materials, which is used on a volun tary basis. However, where Member States have a system of 
identification in place, it is the system established in this Decision that must be used. No other 
system may be used.  
 
For packaging itself no other labelling is in place in the EU. Of course, depe nding on the product 
(e.g. foodstuffs, chemicals, medical devices, electric machinery, etc.) these products may need to 
comply with EU rules on consumer information and/or consumer protection. Often these 
indications are on the packaging, but this does not  depend on the packaging that is used but on 
the product that is packaged and the rules are laid down in the relevant areas of EU law.  
 
2 We have also received queries from concerned exporters about the requirement to 
switch from BPA Free cans/lids to BPANI cans.72 May we seek more information on the 
said packaging regulations and inquire on the specific guidelines for the enforcement 
of such regu lations?  
 
EU reply: The current rules on the use of Bisphenol A in food contact materials (FCMs) relate to 
plastics and can be found in Commission Regulation (EU) No. 10/2011. A draft amendment to this 
regulation has recently been notified under the WTO SPS Agreement in notification 
G/SPS/N/EU/159/Add.1, with a possibility to comment before 4 November 2017. This amendment 
lowers the specific migration limit (SML) for BPA from plastic FCMs, whilst extending the same 
restriction to varnishes and coatings. Furthermore, it prohibits BPA migration from FCMs for infants 
and young children in addition to the prohibition on the use of BPA to manufacture polycarbonate 
baby bottles. This would include, for example, varnishes used to coat the lids of jarred baby foods.  
 
The EU does not have any guidance at EU level or specific rules in relation to the subject of "BPA -
free" vs  "BPA non -intent", which is referred to in the question. Member States are responsible for 
the enforcement of food safety legislation, including labelling claims which may mislead the 
consumer.  
 
b. 3 During the Meeting on NTM Work Programme at the sidelines o f the TBT Meeting 
on 30 March 2017, it was discussed that electronic -labelling will be done on a 
voluntary basis and will apply for products with built -in electronic screen. May we 
seek further information on how the EU will contribute to the successful  
implementation of e -labelling?  
 
4 Are there existing policies on this?  5Will EU limit it to products with built -in 
electronic screen?  
 
EU reply: The EU harmonized legislation does not envisage electronic labelling for the purpose of 
showing compliance with regulatory requirements. Electronic labelling is allowed, as a voluntary 
provision of regulatory and other information, but it does not replace conventional marking 
                                                
71 Based on feedback from exporters from the food processing (e.g., virgin coconut oil) sector gathered 
during DTI -’s One Country, One Voice (OCOV) stakeholder consultation held last 26 May 201 7 in Tagaytay.  
72 Based on feedback from PTIC -Paris, 9 February 2017.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 412 - 
 
  obligations such as CE marking and indication of the name and address of the manufacturer and 
importer, as appropriate, which remain applicable and mandatory.  
 
The use of electronic labelling is currently not under consideration by EU regulatory authorities. 
However, the Radio Equipment Directive 2014/53/EU of 16 April 2014, which started to apply on 
13 June 2016, envisages that the European Commission shall review the operation of the Directive 
by 12 June 2018 and in that context exami ne the feasibility of replacing the requirements for 
affixing: the manufacturer's name, registered trade name or registered trade mark and a single 
point or postal address at which they can be contacted, CE marking and EU declaration of 
conformity with eit her a function whereby such information is automatically displayed upon 
starting up the radio equipment, or a function allowing the end -user to select the display of the 
relevant information.  
c. In relation to fees and charges payable to the European Chemica ls Agency (ECHA) 
and the ECHA's decision to reduce the REACH fees and charges for registrants that 
qualify for the EU definition of SMEs, 5how many SMEs (EU and non -EU) have 
benefited fr om the reduced fees since 2015?  
 
EU reply : 1. As mentioned in the ques tion, registration fees for SMEs payable to ECHA have been 
further reduced following the 2013 REACH review and this reduction can amount to 95% of the 
standard fee. For the period referred to (01.01.2015 till today), ECHA has received submissions 
from abou t 3,400 registrants. Out of these, about 900 (approx. 26%) benefited from an SME 
discount and about 2500 (approx. 74%) are in the non -SME category.  
 
6 What other measures are being implemented and planned to support SMEs in 
implementing REACH?73 
EU reply : Other activities designed to help SMEs include:  
- An Implementing Regulation on the joint submission of data and data -sharing under 
REACH (adopted by the Commission in January 2016) which should increase the 
transparency of data and cost -sharing in Substan ce Information Exchange Forums (SIEFs) 
and, therefore, prevent abusive practices as regards the price of Letters of Access for SMEs 
in particular.  
- The Commission and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) are working to help SMEs 
with registration by raisi ng awareness about the last registration deadline in 2018 and 
improving the accessibility of information that SMEs need.  
- The Commission is looking at ways to reduce the burden of authorisation by simplifying 
the application process in specific cases, su ch as substances used in very small volumes.  
- The Commission and the Executive Agency for Small and Medium -sized Enterprises 
(EASME) launched a project using the European Enterprise Network to support SMEs which 
look for safer alternatives to substances of very high concern.  
- On a more general not e, the Commission is currently preparing the second of the five 
yearly evaluations of REACH required by the Regulation (the final report /Communication 
is due before end of 2017). The Commission carried out a specific consultation with SMEs 
which will enab le it to assess the effects of the current activities and to identify possible 
additional measures.  
2. Paragraph 2.26 of the Secretariat Report states that any new trade agreements of the EU, 
concluded in the period 2016 - 2020, will also include a special  focus on SMEs. 7What policies does 
EU have in place to ensure that SMEs are able to participate in international trade?  
 
8 Do you have specific provisions/rules under any of your Free Trade Agreements 
 (FTAs) specific to SMEs to facilitate their availmen t of the benefits of the FTAs?  
 
EU reply to Qs 7 & 8 (taken from p. 121 of TPR replies):  SMEs are the dominant size of 
enterprises in all countries. Provisions in chapters relevant for SMEs should ensure that small 
companies from both sides benefit from FTAs. The EU envisages in new FTA negotiations to include 
a dedicated SME chapter containin g provisions to increase transparency, notably provisions for 
                                                
73 While DTI-EMB notes that no exporter has raised it and that ECHA offers reduced REACH fees, it 
would be good to know if the measure is effective and has reduced/eased compliance costs to SMEs.  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 413 - 
 
  sharing information through website information and a searchable database to find product specific 
import requirements. An appropriate institutional set -up would follow -up SME relevant issues wi th 
the committees responsible for the chapter of the FTA.  
 
3. Paragraph 2.9 of the Secretariat Report raise the issue on the need to clarify the scope of EU 
competence to conclude the EU -Singapore Free Trade Agreement.  The Philippines notes that last 
16 Ma y 2017, the European Court of Justice ruled that, in its current form, the EU -Singapore FTA 
cannot be concluded by the EU alone since two of its provisions (i.e., on non -direct foreign 
investments and dispute settlement between States and investors) fall w ithin the competences 
shared between the EU and its Member States.74 What is the impact of this ruling to the 
architecture of EU’s future FTAs? 9 
 
EU reply:  The Philippines can refer to EU opening statement at the TPR meetings and to EU 7 July 
statement. In  short, the consequences of this Opinion are currently being considered. The EU is 
not therefore in a position to give a clear answer to this question at this stage.  
  
                                                
74 See https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2017 -05/cp170052en.pdf . WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 414 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM ICELAND  
 
Other questions  
 
1. Icelandic importers of products from third countries, for example China, often need to 
import such products through the customs territory of the EU. This is due to the fact that the 
products are a part of a larger shipment that is sent to a warehouse in th e EU for a split -up of the 
products prior to their transport to their final destination. As the products are customs -cleared into 
the EU, the importers need to pay customs duties on imports into the EU, even though the 
products are later re -exported to Ice land.  
 
Has the EU considered whether it is possible to allow such imports, for which the final destination 
of the imported products is outside the EU, without payments of customs duties, or to provide for 
a possibility for the reimbursement of the customs  duties paid upon such imports?  
 
EU reply : The EU answered the question during the 7th July statement, quote "A  few Members 
referred to the EU's tariff profile , mentioning explicitly our tariffs for agricultural and fish 
products. Some of you have higher agricultural tariffs while others have very high industrial ones. 
While tariff liberalisation efforts have been undertaken recently through bilateral and plurilateral 
tracks, such efforts have not been undertaken recently in the WTO. Future adjustments of 
Members' tariff structures need to take place within the context of comprehensive market access 
negotiations".  
 
2. How does the EU foresee best to contribute to the achievement of the SDG 14.6 
commitment by 2020, prohibiting certain forms of fisheries subs idies which contribute to 
overcapacity and overfishing, eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and 
unregulated fishing and refrain from introducing new such subsidies?  
 
EU reply : The EU has a leading role in the ongoing negotiations in  the WTO on the prohibition of 
certain forms of fisheries subsidies, in line with SDG 14.6. The EU has presented a fair and 
balanced proposal to the WTO in October 2016 and a revised version in July 2017 to take into 
account concerns from other WTO members . The EU remains committed to achieving an ambitious 
agreement in MC11 in Buenos Aires.  
  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 415 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM THAILAND  
 
Report by the WTO Secretariat  
 
Item/Page: 4.116/171  
 
Issue: E-commerce in the digital single market  
 
Question: Please clarify the scope and elaborate more on the details of the said ecosystem.  
 
EU reply:  The EU understands that Thailand refers to online platforms and EU initiatives in this 
regard. Thailand may be interested in a research financed by the EU regarding social innova tions 
enabled by platforms in the document to be found at:  
https://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/dsireport.pdf . 
 
Report by the EU  
 
Item/Page: 3.4/5 
 
Issue: The Single Market Strategy  
 
Question: Please clarify what manner of functioning of the markets for products and services the 
EU is looking to improve  
 
EU reply: The question is rather vague and the EU would refer to the WTO Secretariat section on 
standards and on the single  market. The EU webpage can also be consulted as it is kept updated. 
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single -market_en . 
 
  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 416 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA  
 
Secretariat Report WT/TPR/S/357  
4. Trade Policies by Sector  
4.3 Services  
4.3.3 Financial Services  
4.3.3.2 Regulatory developments  
 
Paragraph 4.134. States:  
“The fifth adopted element of the second pillar is regulation on long -term investment funds. 102 It 
provides for a new investment fund framework designed for investors who wish to put money into 
companies and projects for the long -term. The creation of clearly defined European long -term 
investment funds (ELTIFs) will help tackle barriers to long -term investment in, for exa mple, 
infrastructure projects, thereby stimulating employment and economic growth. ELTIFs only focus 
on alternative investments that fall within a defined category of long -term asset classes whose 
successful development requires a long -term commitment from  investors.”  
 
Q1. Could you please elaborate further on the definition of the European long -term investment 
funds (ELTIFs)?  
 
EU reply: ELTIF is a closed -ended (normally no early redemptions) alternative investment fund 
(AIF) located in the EU and managed by an EU alternative investment fund manager (AIFM). It is 
clearly focused on long -term investments therefore, the defining qualification of ELTIFs is a 
permission to invest in illiquid, hard to value assets, which require commitments for a certain 
period of time, such as equity, quasi -equity or debt issued by undertakings not listed on a 
regulated market or holdings via qualifying undertakings of individual real assets with a value of at 
least EUR 10 000 000. An ELTIF can also grant loans with maturities n ot exceeding the life of the 
ELTIF. Under certain conditions, the funds can be marketed to retail investors.  
 
Q2. What is the projected impact of the new investment fund framework on the power and energy 
projects?  
 
EU reply: The focus of ELTIF is to boost European long -term investment in the real economy. It is 
suitable for financing projects such as transport infrastructure, sustainable energy generation or 
distribution, social infrastructure (housing or hospitals), the roll -out of new technologies and 
systems that reduce use of resources or energy, or further growth of SMEs. The projected impact 
is hard to assess precisely because the market is fragmented. However, it is possible to make 
some estimates. For infrastructure transaction volumes have been stab le at between €100 and 
€150 billion each year since 2007, indicating a consistent demand for financing. While the size of 
the property fund market is similarly difficult to assess, one estimate puts it at €258 billion while 
the value of aircraft that have been ordered but not yet delivered is put at $700 billion worldwide.  
  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 417 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES  
 
WT/TPR/S/357  
 
Page 20, Paragraph 1.23   
U.S. 1: A measure adopted by the Government of Hungary (Act XXV of 2017) threatens the 
continuing operations of higher education institutions that have their primary establishment 
outside of Hungary. While WTO Members retain the right to establish measures to ensure the 
quality of education, the referenced Hungarian measure appears counter -indicative of this policy 
objective. The measure would have particular impact on Central European University (CEU), which 
has been in operation in Hungary for over 25 years, and is widely recognized as providing a top 
flight education to thousands of studen ts from around the world. What is the justification for this 
measure?  
 
EU reply: The EU and Hungary are discussing and examining this measure with a view to better 
understand the situation.  
 
Page 78, paragraph 3.139 : 
The Secretariat report states “As noted in the last report, to a large extent SPS measures in the EU 
have been harmonized, and most measures are taken by the EU, although Member States may, 
and sometimes do, take specific measures in specific circumstances .”  
 
32. Are Member States considered the competent authority for implementation and enforcement of 
their own food safety control systems? If so, please explain the differences that exist among 
Member States in terms of implementation and enforcement of SP S measures.  
 
EU reply:  Member States are responsible for the implementation of harmonised EU legislation. 
This implementation is done consistently across the EU and in accordance with the relevant 
legislation. Consistency of implementation is overseen and audited by the European Commission – 
DG SANTE.  
 
Information on the national competent authorities and the organization of official controls in each 
Member State is available in this page: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/country_profiles/index.cfm.  
 
33. Please explain the formal process on how trading partners are to raise their concerns when 
Member States implement SPS measures differently and why the procedures for acceptance of SPS 
certificates upon food products imported into the EU are not harmonized  across Member States.  
 
EU reply:  Trading partners should use the appropriate SPS channels to raise their concerns in 
case of issues with the implementation of SPS measures.  
 
Also, please see the answer to question 32.  
 
U.S. Follow -up 2: Please clarify what “appropriate SPS channels” in question (33) are being 
referred to? Is the intention that we raise all concerns at the SPS Committee?  
 
EU reply to the follow up question:  If trading partners experience difficulties with the 
implementation of SPS measur es within the EU, as a rule, in individual cases of limited scope they 
may raise the issue with the competent authorities of a Member State. If they consider that there 
is a possible problem of systematic nature, trading partners may raise their concerns w ith the 
relevant services of the European Commission.  
 
Page 81, paragraph 3.147 : The Secretariat report states that “According to the Commission, 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.”  
 
39. Can the EU explain the process or criteria used when EFSA indicates that a product is safe 
based on standards that are more restrictive than existing international st andards?  
 
EU reply:  European Union measures are adopted in accordance with the principles of risk analysis. 
As a consequence, risk assessment is carried out independently from risk management. As the 
EU's risk assessor, the European Food Safety Authority ( EFSA) is an independent source of WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 418 - 
 
  scientific advice and communication on risks associated with the food chain. The risk managers 
(European Commission, the European Parliament and the EU Member States), acting on the basis 
of EFSA's risk assessments adopt t he risk management decisions.  
 
Thanks to EFSA’s independence and broad remit – which covers food and feed safety, nutrition, 
animal health and welfare, plant protection and plant health – the EU risk managers have solid 
scientific advice on the basis of wh ich to determine its chosen level of protection. It is also on this 
basis that the EU establishes its contribution to the standard -setting process at international level.  
 
As stated in the Secretariat Report, EU measures are generally based on the relevant  international 
standards. Where there are no such standards, the EU relies on scientific advice provided by the 
EFSA. In accordance with Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement, the EU also relies on EFSA's scientific 
advice when it differs from international sta ndards.  
 
Any measures that are taken on the basis of EFSA's risk assessments, are not more trade 
restrictive than necessary and are applied in a non -discriminatory manner both to intra -EU trade 
as well as to imports from third countries. The EU fully supp orts the activities of the international 
standard setting bodies, notably the OIE/CODEX/IPPC, and works assiduously in the three sisters 
to help reach the objective of providing a comprehensive framework of standards at an 
international level.  
 
U.S. Follow -up 3: Can the EU explain the process or criteria used when EFSA indicates that a 
product is safe based on standards that are more restrictive than existing international standards?  
 
EU reply to the follow up question:  The process and criteria used in EFSA  assessments can be 
found in relevant EFSA opinions available on the EFSA website: 
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/publications . 
 
4 Understanding the separation of risk assessor from risk manager, please explain what would 
happen in the case of the EFSA (risk assessor) finding no risk to human, plant or animal health. 
Further, in such a case, what role would the EC/Parliament/MS (risk managers) play when there is 
no risk to manage?  
 
EU reply:  The ta sks of risk assessors and risk managers are laid down in Article 6 of Regulation 
(EC) No 178/2002. The exact roles of the risk managers, i.e. the European Commission, the 
European Council and the European Parliament, depend on the relevant regulatory proce dure. 
 
Page 84, paragraph 3.162 : The Secretariat report states that the EU and each Member State have 
notified enquiry points under the SPS Agreement. The Directorate -General for Health and Food 
Safety (DG SANTE) is the EU notification authority.  
 
52. Plea se clarify who has the obligation to notify a measure to the WTO under the following 
different scenarios. First, in the case where an EU Member State sets an MRL lower than the level 
set by the Commission, who should notify the measure to the WTO?  Where t he EU has not set an 
MRL, but an EU Member State has determined the need, who should notify the measure to the 
WTO? For either of these scenarios, is there a requirement to provide the justification for the EU 
Member State deviating from the harmonized req uirement or EU practices?  
 
EU reply:  The European Union is responsible for setting MRLs based on Regulation (EC) 396/2005. 
Member States are only allowed to adopt MRLs in very limited cases. Such measures need to be 
motivated on the basis of a serious heal th risk. Member States measures are to be notified to the 
European Commission and to be compatible with the WTO Agreement on the Application of 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.  
 
U.S. Follow -up 5:  The EU did not respond to the question asked – who has t he obligation to 
notify the WTO when a Member State implements an MRL lower than the EU level or where there 
is no EU level? We would like to know how the EU will meet its international obligations in these 
cases.  
 
EU reply:  Measures taken by EU Member Sta tes are notified by the EU notification authority.  
  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 419 - 
 
  EU REPLY  TO QUESTION FROM MONTENEGRO  
 
 
 
How Strategy of reviewing and modernizing the single market would affect countries in accession 
process to join European Union including Montenegro?  
 
EU reply : The  EU thanks Montenegro for having participated at Ministerial level in the Trade Policy 
Review meeting of 5 July in the WTO in Geneva. Candidate countries have to align on the EU 
acquis, hence as the EU acquis develops, so do the obligations for the candida te countries to align 
on the EU acquis.  
 
  WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 420 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM ISRAEL  
 
Endocrine Disruptors in Pesticides and Biocide s (reference: Paragraph 3.3.2.4 :SPS 
Committee in the WTO - page 84, the report by the secretariat)  
 
Israel has previously expressed its concerns regarding the latest developments in the EU Plant 
Protection Regulations, specifically regarding Endocrine Disruptors, Israel is concerned of the EU 
latest choice of the second option in the Endocrine Disruptors Roadmap for the purpo se of the 
Pesticides (EC 1107/2009) and Biocides ((EU) 528/2012) Regulations.  
 
Israel's concerns stem from the fact that the criteria do not include the element of potency and it 
is a hazard -based criteria rather than a risk -based criteria.  
 
Israel is con cerned by the decision of the Commission to split the Endocrine Disruptors criteria and 
the derogations to these criteria into two separate proposals subject to two different (and not 
parallel) processes of approval.  
 
1. Could the European Union provide fu rther information and explain the rationale for t he 
separation of the proposals?  
 
EU reply:  Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 528/2012 on biocidal products (BPR) and point 3.6.5 
of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 on plant protection products (PPP R) provide the legal 
basis for the European Commission to adopt measures specifying scientific criteria for the 
determination of endocrine -disrupting properties. Within these mandates the basic regulatory 
approach for endocrine disruptors (EDs) already set  in the PPPR and the BPR, adopted in 2009 and 
2012 respectively, cannot be changed. The EU informed the WTO Members about this regulatory 
approach by notifying the proposals of these Regulations to the WTO in due time.  
 
The proposed criteria for EDs ensure a high level of protection of human health and the 
environment, are based on science, and are proportionate: the proposed criteria are based on the 
internationally agreed WHO definition of EDs which is widely supported by governments, scientists 
and stakeholders. They identify only EDs (neither suspected EDs, nor endocrine active 
substances). The proposed criteria do not include potency (option 4 of the roadmap), as this is an 
element of hazard characterisation  and shoul d not be considered at the hazard identification stage 
of EDs. 
 
In order to facilitate the decision -making, in December 2016, the plant protection products act has 
been split into two acts without change in content: one text containing the criteria and another one 
containing the technical amendment to the clause on negligible exposure. This offers EU Member 
States the possibility to express their opinion on each of them separately. This split also allows the 
Council and European Parliament to consider ea ch draft act separately during the scrutiny period.  
 
The criteria for endocrine disruptors proposed by the European Commission were voted by Member 
States on the 4th of July. The EU -decision making is still on -going as the text is now under scrutiny 
at the  European Parliament and the Council. The Commission has committed itself to resume 
discussions on the amendment to the clause on negligible exposure once the criteria are adopted.  
 
2. Additionally, in this context, we would like to ask the European Union to clarify how MRLs 
and Import Tolerance levels would be determined under the regulation EC 396/2005 that requires 
decisions based on a risk assessment, in cases where an active substance would be deemed as an 
Endocrine Disruptors and banned under the EC 1 107/2009, which i s based on a hazard 
assessment.  
 
EU reply: Until today, due to the transitional measures of Regulation (EC) No . 1107/2009 and the 
delays in the renewal programmes  of the approved active substances, the EU does not have yet 
any experience o n MRL and import tolerance setting for substances falling under these criteria.  
 
Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 only allows for the setting of MRLs for active substances authorised  
in the EU. However, import tolerances can be set even for unapproved active su bstances, if the 
active substance is not approved for reasons other than public health. Given the regulatory 
situation, the EU will carefully evaluate on a case by case basis the import tolerance requests for 
the active substances falling under the criteri a of Regulation (EC) No . 1107/2009, considering the WT/TPR/M/357/Add.1  
 
- 421 - 
 
  objectives of consumer protection of the EU pesticide legislation but also the EU's international 
obligations arising from the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures.  
 
Market Authorization of medicinal products (reference: Paragraph 2.12: Legal and 
Institutional Framework - page 32, the report by the secretariat)  
 
One of Israel's concerns pursuant to the decision of the U.K. to exit the EU relates to the Marketing 
Authoriza tion of medicinal products.  
 
The U.K. has been one of the leading Member States acting as a Reference Member State in the 
context of pan -European approval procedures for medicines, providing hundreds of authorizations 
every year. The withdrawal of the U.K. from the EU may cause severe problems for the companies 
relying on these Authorizations. Finding a new reference Member State and splitting a significant 
number of marketing authorizations is a complex and lengthy procedure that could take years.  
 
3. In this context, we would like to better understand the concrete steps the EU would consider 
taking in order to mitigate a potentially harmful situation for both exporters and consumers. Israel 
is interested in learning if the EU would allow for a transition period for the pharma sector in order 
to ensure trade is not disrupted and that EU citizens are no t denied access to medications.  
 
EU reply:  On 29 March 2017, the U.K. Government formally notified the European Council of its 
intention to withdraw from the European Union pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on European 
Union. An agreement on the U.K.'s withdrawal will be negotiated following the rules established in 
the Treaty on European Union (TEU).  
 
On 29 April 2017 the European Council adopted guidelines defining the framework for negotiations 
under Article 50 TEU and setting out the overall positions and principles that the Union will pursue 
throughout the negotiatio n. The adoption of the European Council guidelines was followed by a 
Commission proposal on 3 May for a Council Decision authorising the Commission to open 
negotiations, and proposing negotiating directives. The Council Decision including negotiating 
directives were adopted on 22 May by the Council of the European Union.  
 
Negotiations will start after the general elections in the U.K. on 8 June. They will focus in a first 
phase on the withdrawal arrangements notably on citizens' rights, financial settlement  and new 
external borders. An agreement must be reached by October 2018, in order to allow for the 
ratification process to be completed and the U.K. to withdraw from the Union by the end of the 
two-year dead line, at the end of March 2019.  
 
Until its withdr awal, the U.K. remains a Member State of the European Union with all rights and 
obligations of a Member State. The EU Treaties continue to apply to the U.K. and in the U.K. 
during that period. Until its withdrawal, the  U.K. continues to be bound by the Uni on's exclusive 
competence in respect of the common commercial policy pursuant to Article 3 of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union and, more generally, the principle of sincere cooperatio n 
pursuant to Article 4(3) TEU.  
 
The EU will engage wi th the U.K. in a cooperative manner in order to guarantee an orderly process 
leading up to the wi thdrawal of the U.K. from the EU.  
 
The EU will revert to the WTO Membership after engaging with the U.K. bilaterally on any WTO 
related aspect of the U.K.'s withdrawal from the EU.  
_________