WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1  
24 October 2013  
(13-5857)  Page: 1/387  
Trade Policy Review Body 
16 and 18 July 2013 Original: English/French/Spanish  
anglais/français/espagnol  
inglés/francés/español  
 
  TRADE POLICY REVIEW 
EUROPEAN UNION 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING 
Addendum 
Chairperson: H.E. Mr. Shahir Bashir (Pakistan) 
This document contains the advance written questions and additional questions by WTO 
Members, and replies provided by the European Union. 
 
 
Organe d'examen des politiques commerciales 
16 et 18 juillet 2013 
EXAMEN DES POLITIQUES COMMERCIALES 
UNION EUROPÉENNE  
COMPTE RENDU DE LA RÉUNION 
Addendum 
Président: S.E. M. Shahir Bashir (Pakistan) 
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 l'Union européenne. 
 
 Órgano de Examen de las Políticas Comerciales 
16 y 18 de julio de 2013 
EXAMEN DE LAS POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES 
U
NIÓN EUROPEA  
ACTA DE LA REUNIÓN 
Addendum 
Presidente: Excmo. Sr. Shahir Bashir (Pakistán) 
En el presente documento figuran las preguntas presentadas anticipadamente por escrito y 
las preguntas adicionales de los Miembros de la OMC, así como las respuestas facilitadas por la Unión Europea. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 2 - 
 
  RESPUESTAS DE LA UE A LAS PREGUNTAS DE LA ARGENTINA 
La Argentina se ha abstenido de formular preguntas escritas sobre temas que, aunque 
tratados en el informe de la Secretaría , se encuentran actualmente bajo los 
Procedimientos de Solución de Diferenc ias de la OMC (WT/ DS443 y WT/DS459) y 
refieren a crecientes restricciones de la Unión Europea en el comercio de 
biocombustibles. 
I. Informe de la Secretaria (WT/TPR/S/284) 
2. RÉGIMEN DE COMERCIO E INVERSIONES 
2.4 Acuerdos y arreglos co merciales preferenciales 
2.4.1 Preferencias unilaterales 
En el párrafo 2.22 se hace referencia al Sistema Generalizado de Preferencias (SGP). Al respecto, 
la introducción del nuevo régimen del SGP a partir del 1º de enero de 2014 implicará un aumento 
arancelario en alrededor de seis mil posiciones arancelarias para la mayoría de los países 
emergentes. En el caso de la Argentina se verán afectadas alrededor de mil posiciones arancelarias 
con exportaciones a la UE. 
1. ¿No considera la UE que una elevación semejante y masiva de los aranceles 
aplicados constituye de facto una medida  proteccionista inconsistente con la 
voluntad de sostener un comercio más libre, declamada permanentemente por las 
autoridades europeas? 
EU reply: The revision of GSP scheme has been done fully in line with WTO principles and the 
Enabling Clause: the scheme is adapted to the changes that have occurred in the global landscape 
and in the trade, financial and developmen t needs of different developing countries. 
3. POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS 
3.1 Medidas que afectan directamente a las importaciones 
3.1.1 Procedimientos aduaneros  
En el párrafo 3.4 se menciona que los controles documentales y físicos se encuentran armonizados 
a nivel europeo (Comunicación de la Comisión, COM (2012 791 final) página 9). Sin embargo, 
algunos operadores han indicado que los procedimientos de toma de muestras y contra-muestras 
(en caso de dudas sobre el cumplimiento de requisitos sanitarios) no se encuentran armonizados. A su vez, en el párrafo 3.6 se señala que el reclamo ante las autoridades aduaneras sigue procedimientos nacionales y varía según los Estados miembros. 
2. ¿Planea a Unión Europea armonizar en el futuro los procedimientos de reclamo 
ante  las autoridades aduaneras? 
EU reply:  Article 243 of the Customs Code, provides for the right of appeal in two stages: it may 
be exercised initially before the customs authorit ies in the Member State where the decision has 
been taken or applied for. Appeal decisions taken by the individual Member State's customs authorities could be then appealed before an independent body, usually a judicial or other 
independent authority in that Member State. 
The Code does not interfere with the way the MS implement the right of appeal but just stresses 
the obligation to provide for a two stage appeal. Consequently, there is no plan to harmonize appeal procedures in the future. 
3.1.4 Aranceles 
3.1.4.1 Aranceles NMF 
En el cuadro 3.2. (párrafo 3.37) se observa que el promedio arancelario simple de los derechos 
aduaneros ha disminuido levemente entre 2008 y 2013 (de 6,7% a 6,5%). En el caso de los 
productos agrícolas el promedio arancelario bajó de 17,8 a 14,8%. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 3 - 
 
  Sin embargo, también puede verse que el porcentaje de crestas arancelarias (definidas como 
aquéllas superiores a 15% ad valorem ) ha aumentado de 8,4 a 9,1% del total de líneas 
arancelarias.  
También puede verse que el porcentaje de aranceles no ad valorem  ha aumentado de 10,1 a 
10,7% del total entre 2008 y 2013. A su vez, en el párrafo 3.40 se indica que el promedio EAV de 
los derechos no ad valorem es de 24,5%, casi cinco veces más que el promedio de los derechos ad 
valorem. Los derechos no ad valorem se emplean casi exclusivamente para los productos 
agrícolas. 
Por lo tanto, puede concluirse que la UE ha disminuido el nivel de protección promedio, pero ha 
aumentado en sectores o productos específicos.  
3. ¿Podría indicar la UE de manera general en  qué sectores se amplió la protección y 
cuáles fueron las razones, en un contexto de recuperación de precios de los 
productos agrícolas? 
EU reply: These figures have been calculated by the WTO Secretariat according to its 
methodology. The suggested increase in the share of MFN applied international tariff peaks in total 
MFN tariff lines covers both agricultural and non-agricultural sectors. To the extent that agriculture is concerned, changes in world prices, Article XX VIII GATT negotiations, changes in the HS and in 
the EU Combined Nomenclature for classification of goods and potentially the expiry of temporary 
applied tariff reductions could all have played a role. The EU therefore cannot identify any specific sectors concerned.  
4. ¿Podría la UE especificar el nivel de prot ección expresado en ad valorem para los 
productos agropecuarios procesados con aranceles muy complejos del Anexo I de 
la Lista de Concesiones de la UE (también llamada la Tabla de Meursing, referida 
en el párrafo 4.23 del Informe de la Secretaría)? 
EU reply: The EU is unable to specify exactly the AVEs for the products concerned as the duty 
payable depends on the precise composition of each lot. However, the AVEs calculated in the DDA 
context in conformity with the AVE guidelines of  the Paris-Groser methodology (as agreed by WTO 
Members in 2005) may be consulted on the Members' section of the WTO website.  
3.1.5 Impuestos internos recaudados en la frontera En el párrafo 3.52 se menciona que los diferentes tipos del IVA en la UE "pueden generar costes 
de cumplimiento añadidos para los comerciantes" y que la aplicación de un tipo reducido, además 
de no permitir alcanzar los objetivos políticos buscados con ellos, equivaldría a la concesión de 
importantes subvenciones. 
5. ¿Podría la UE elaborar sobre estas afirmaci ones, en particular en lo que respecta a 
la caracterización de esos "tipos re ducidos" del IVA como "importantes 
subvenciones" y, de ser así, la compatibilidad de los mismos con los compromisos asumidos en el marco de la OMC? 
EU reply: The current VAT treatment of the supplies of goods and services reflects the choice of 
the EU legislator in defining the scope of the reduced rates allowed by the VAT Directive and the 
freedom of action enjoyed by Member States under that Directive.  
VAT is essentially a consumption tax which is neutral for undertakings. Since VAT is not borne by 
the taxable persons (the suppliers) collecting the tax but it is passed on in the price of their 
supplies to the final consumers, the reduced rates would mainly (if not exclusively) directly benefit the consumers, so that the State aid (or subsidy) qualification may generally be excluded in that 
regard. 
Article 96 of the VAT Directive requires Member States to apply a standard VAT rate which may 
not be less than 15%. However, its Article 98 provides that Member States may apply one or two 
reduced VAT rates of no less than 5% to supplies of goods and services referred to in Annex III to WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 4 - 
 
  the VAT Directive. These rules apply to all Member States except where specific derogations have 
been granted.  
When a Member State opts for the application of a reduced VAT rate, the same reduced VAT rate 
shall apply to domestic transactions and to imports of the same good (Art. 94 of the VAT 
Directive). In such a way, the reduced rates do not directly affect imports. 
Within this basic structure of the VAT rates, Member States can fix the level of their rates without 
the need to amend the VAT Directive. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, it is up to the 
Member States to make their choice on this matter according to their budgetary policy. The 
Commission does not intend to change this basic structure. 
However, in order to increase the efficiency of the VAT system and tackle the legal uncertainty and 
the compliance costs triggered by differences in the VAT rates across Member States, three 
guiding principles for a review of the scope of the VAT reduced rates have been identified and are 
set out in the Communication on the future of VAT (adopted by the European Commission on 6 December 2011):  
 Abolition of those reduced rates which constitute an obstacle to the proper functioning of the 
internal market; 
 Abolition of reduced rates on goods and services for which the consumption is discouraged by 
other EU policies; 
 Similar goods and services should be subject to  the same VAT rate and progress in technology 
should be taken into account in this respect. 
As a follow-up, the Commission launched a public consultation on the review of existing legislation 
on reduced VAT rates. A report summarizing the outcome of the consultation, along with the 
submissions, has already been published and is available on the Commission's website. This 
consultation is part of the overall assessment process launched in 2012 which is still on-going. 
3.1.7 Medidas Comerciales especiales 
3.1.7.1 Panorama General 
En el párrafo 3.65 se señala que, en octubre de 2011, la Comisión puso en marcha una iniciativa 
encaminada a modernizar los instrumentos de defensa comercial. El 11 de abril de 2013, la Comisión Europea hizo pública una propuesta de reforma de los reglamentos de defensa comercial. 
Entre los nuevos elementos que deberán incorporar se, la Comisión propone que no se aplique la 
regla del derecho inferior (" lesser duty"),  tanto en el caso de investigaciones por subvenciones 
como de dumping, en el caso de "distorsiones en el mercado de materias primas".  
De acuerdo con el argumento de la Comisión, los terceros países cada vez interfieren más en el 
comercio de materias primas con el fin de beneficiar a los usuarios nacionales aguas abajo ("downstream users" ). Como consecuencia, los productores de la UE no competirían en igualdad 
de condiciones con estos productores.  
6. ¿Podría indicar la UE cómo este fund amento es compatible con el Acuerdo 
Antidumping o con el Acuerdo sobre Subvenciones y Medidas Compensatorias? 
EU reply:  According to the WTO anti-dumping and subsid y agreement it is up to the authorities to 
decide whether to impose a duty at the level of the full dumping margin or less. It is "desirable" to 
impose a lesser duty if such lesser duty is adequate to remove the injury, but it is not an obligation. Many WTO members do not apply the lesser duty rule at all, and some apply it 
occasionally on a case by case basis. Therefore, not applying the lesser duty rule in certain cases 
is in full compliance with the WTO agreements.  
El párrafo 3.66 se indica que, de acuerdo con la Comisión Europea solo el 0,2% del volumen total 
de las importaciones de la UE estuvo sujeto a medidas de defensa comercial.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 5 - 
 
  7. ¿Podría indicar la UE la metodología para llegar a esa cifra? 
EU reply: The ratio 'imports under measures/total impo rts (%)' results from the relation between 
the import value of products under measures – i.e. those imports that were subject to provisional 
or definitive anti-dumping and/or countervailing du ties - and the total value of all imports from all 
origins excluding some agricultural goods and energy. 
8. ¿Cuál sería ese porcentaje, de incluirse el comercio afectado por los derechos 
provisionales establecidos sobre el biodie sel de origen argentino e indonesio, así 
como los paneles solares de origen chino? 
EU reply: The EU is not in a position to give such figure, as both measures have just entered into 
force and no data is available yet. Provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of biodiesel 
originating in Argentina and Indonesia entered into force on 28 May 2013. Provisional 
anti-dumping duties on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components 
(i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China entered into force on 6 June 2013. 
3.1.8 Reglamentos técnicos y normas 
Dificultades de los terceros países proveedores  de biocombustibles en el mercado de la 
UE 
Desde el 25 de junio de 2009, se encuentran en vigor las Directivas 2009/28/CE, relativa a la 
promoción del uso de energías renovables, y 2009/30/CE, relativa a la calidad de los combustibles 
que se utilizan en la UE. Ambas normas legales regulan, entre otras cuestiones, los criterios de 
sostenibilidad a que deben someterse los biocombustibles producidos y comercializados en el 
mercado de la Unión Europea. Asimismo, el 17 de octubre de 2012 la Comisión Europea propuso 
una enmienda de estas dos Directivas que incorpora elementos con el potencial de entorpecer aún 
más el flujo del comercio internacional de biocombustibles a la Unión Europea, discriminar aún 
más los biocombustibles importados frente a la producción nacional y acrecentar los 
procedimientos burocráticos a los que deberán someterse los exportadores, con costos 
administrativos y financieros acrecentados.  
Si bien en la anterior revisión de la política comercial de la Unión Europea en 2011 se plantearon 
cuestiones específicas respecto de estas normas  legales y aunque el Documento WT/TPR/S/284 no 
hace alusión a este tema, siguen existiendo preo cupaciones específicas en los terceros países 
abastecedores de la UE que no han sido suficientemente respondidas hasta el presente. 
9. El Artículo 18, párrafo 4 de la Directiva 2009/28/CE y el Artículo 7, quater, párrafo 
4 de la Directiva 2009/30/CE establecen que la Unión Europea procurará celebrar acuerdos bilaterales o multilaterales con terceros países sobre la aplicación de 
criterios de sostenibilidad a los biocombustibles.  
a. ¿Podría mencionar la Unión Europea con qué países o grupos de países ha 
celebrado o tiene en negociación este tipo de acuerdos? 
EU reply:  No such agreements have been concluded or are currently under negotiation.  
b. ¿En qué medida estos acuerdos contempl an las disposiciones en materia de 
equivalencia del Artículo 4 del Acuerdo so bre Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias?  
EU reply:  Article 4 of the SPS Agreement does not apply to these Directives. 
10. Ciertas tecnologías de producción amig ables con el ambiente, tales como la 
siembra directa, sumadas a buenas práctica s agrícolas, reducen significativamente 
las emisiones de gases de ef ecto invernadero durante todo el ciclo de vida de los 
biocombustibles.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 6 - 
 
   ¿En qué medida ha tomado en cuenta la  Comisión Europea estas realidades al 
efectuar la revisión prevista en el Artículo 19, párrafo 5 de la 
Directiva 2009/28/CE y en el Artículo 7, quinquies, párrafo 5 de la Directiva 
2009/30/CE?  
EU reply:  No revision according to Art 19(5) has taken place at the date of writing. Different 
cultivation methods can have different emissions from cultivation and this is fully taken into 
account in the GHG calculation methodology contained in Annex V of Directive 2009/28/EC. 
11. En los valores típicos y por defecto incl uidos en el Anexo V de la Directiva 
2009/28/CE y en el Anexo IV de la Dire ctiva 2009/30/CE se menciona la frase 
"producidos sin emisiones netas de carbono debidas a cambios en el uso del 
suelo". Asimismo, la propuesta de modifica ción de ambas Directivas presentada el 
17 de octubre de 2012 dispone la obligación de que los operadores económicos 
informen sobre los cambios indirectos en el uso del suelo debidos a la producción 
de biocombustibles.  
a) ¿Podría informar la Unión Europea si ex iste una definición internacionalmente 
aceptada del concepto de "cambio indirecto en el uso del suelo"?  
EU reply:  The European Union understands that Argentina is fully involved in international 
activities on that issue. The European Union intends to develop its policy and legislation on indirect 
land use change (ILUC) with due account for all relevant elements, including such international 
activities.  
b) ¿Qué herramientas científicas existen a di sposición de los operadores a efectos de 
poder informar con veracidad re specto de este concepto?  
EU reply:  Given the fact that indirect land use change is a global phenomenon, these effects are 
calculated for EU consumption of biofuels as a whole, differentiated for different feedstock.   
The EU takes the view that ILUC is caused by the use of food and feed crop based biofuels in the 
EU and the resulting changes in the global agricultural system. 
All the information related to the Commission's proposal of 17 October 2013 on the amendments 
in the Directives mentioned above, including the scientific studies, is published on the 
Commission's website: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/biofuels/land_use_change_en.htm .  
c)  ¿Están los operadores económicos lega lmente habilitados para informar cambios 
en el uso del suelo, que incluso pueden haberse producido por acciones de 
terceros, fuera del territo rio de su propiedad?  
EU reply: According to the GHG methodology in Annex V of Directive 2009/28/EC operators have 
to take into account emissions from direct land use change when applicable. For ILUC, operators 
would report values set by the amended Directive. Additionally, the EU sustainability criteria on 
land use change currently in force does not allow certain types of direct land use change (such as 
deforestation of primary forest and highly divers grassland for biofuel feedstock production etc.). 
These criteria equally apply to biofuels and biof uel feedstocks that are counted towards the EU 
targets or receive support, irrespectively their orgin.  
d)  ¿A quién atribuirá la Unión Europea re sponsabilidad por estos cambios indirectos 
en el uso del suelo?  
EU reply: The EU takes the view that this ILUC is caus ed by the use of food and feed crop based 
biofuels in the EU and the resulting changes in the global agricultural system.  
e)  ¿Cómo asegurará la Unión Europea que es ta obligación de informar no signifique 
una carga administrativa y financiera desproporcionada para los operadores 
económicos, ni restrinja innecesariamen te el comercio de biocombustibles? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 7 - 
 
  EU reply:  According to the Commission proposal, operators would report ILUC values which are 
set out in the Directive according to the feedstock used. Operators would not have to calculate any 
ILUC values themselves nor incur any additional costs.  
En el párrafo 3.86 se menciona que la CE reconoce que "los obstáculos técnicos a la libre 
circulación de mercancías en la UE siguen estando muy extendidos, aún cuando se apliquen 
indistintamente a todos los productos nacionales o extranjeros". 
12. ¿Podrían brindar mayores precisiones sobr e los esfuerzos desplegados por la UE 
para reducir o eliminar tales obstáculos técn icos, en particular en lo concerniente a 
lograr una mayor armonización de la le gislación comunitaria en la materia? 
EU reply: In principle and according to the free move ment of goods principle laid down in 
Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of th e European Union (hereinafter: TFEU), a product 
that is lawfully placed on the market in one EU Member State can be introduced in any other 
Member State. However, the principle of free movement of goods may be subject to certain limits based on Article 36 TFEU or, as established by the case-law of the European Court of Justice, on 
the basis of other overriding reasons of public interest and which are proportionate to the aim 
pursued. Hence, Member States retain the possibility to determine their own level of protection, notably as regards the protection of public health and safety, of the environment etc. 
When applying these restrictions Member States  must follow a detailed procedure prescribed by 
Regulation (EC) No 764/2008, whose aim is to im prove the free movement of goods within the EU 
internal market.  
Another effective means of preventing intra-EU barriers to trade arising from Member States 
technical regulations is Directive 98/34/EC, which imposes an obligation upon the Member States 
to notify to the Commission and to each other all the draft technical regulations concerning products before they are adopted in national law.  Such procedure aims at providing transparency 
and control with regard to those regulations in relation to Member States' obligations under EU 
law. 
Where a Member State fails to comply with EU law, in particular the obligations set out in 
Artt. 34-36 of the TFEU, the European Commission has powers of its own to try to bring the 
infringement to an end and, where necessary, may re fer the case to the European Court of Justice. 
The first pre-litigation administrative phase is called "Infringement proceedings", whose purpose is 
to enable the Member State to conform voluntarily to the requirements of the TFEU. 
Where there is significant disparity between non-harmonized requirements across Member States 
and free movement cannot be effectively guaranteed  by the mutual recognition principle, then 
harmonisation legislation at EU level is adopted. 
En el cuadro 3.7, la Secretaría de la OMC menciona las preocupaciones comerciales específicas 
relacionadas con obstáculos técnicos al comercio de la UE desde enero 2011 a febrero 2013. Entre 
ellas, se incluye al Reglamento relativo al registro, la evaluación, la autorización y la restricción de 
las sustancias y preparados químicos (REACH), cuyo primer planteo data del 2/11/2005. Por otro 
lado, la UE no hace mención alguna al funcionamiento del REACH en su informe. 
Teniendo en cuenta que muchas de las preocupaci ones planteadas consistentemente por Miembros 
de la OMC en relación con el REACH se refieren a la carga excesiva que su cumplimiento implica 
para las PYME (impacto que es reconocido por la Comisión Europea en su Informe de febrero de 
2013 sobre el funcionamiento del REACH),  
13. ¿Podría la UE señalar:  
a) ¿Qué acciones ha adoptado o contempla adoptar para reducir la carga 
administrativa de las PYME  de terceros países, que siendo mayor a la carga 
a d m i n i s t r a t i v a  d e  l a s  P Y M E  d e  l a  U E ,  afecta seriamente las condiciones de 
competencia?  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 8 - 
 
  EU reply: The role of the impact assessment of any Commission initiative is to assess the 
potential economic, social and environmental consequences that they may have. The core interest 
in the impact assessment of REACH was on the effects of REACH registration – both with regard to the costs to the industry and also possible benefits  to the society in terms of improved health and 
environment. With regard to the SMEs, the Commi ssion did not differentiate between foreign and 
EU based SMEs in the calculation of cost of registration. Many adjustments made with regard to the impact on SMEs have been made in the Commission proposal and during the legislative 
process leading to the adoption of REACH in the Council and the European Parliament, for example 
in simplifying the registration obligations for lo w tonnage substances, exemption of polymers from 
registration, reducing registration requiremen ts for transported intermediates under certain 
conditions, establishing ECHA fee reductions and so on – these measures are available to all SMEs 
– both domestic and foreign based. The EU woul d like to stress that registration and other 
obligations are directly applicable only to EU-based operators. Foreign companies can (as an option) nominate their Only Representative to facilitate dealing with the obligations imposed on 
their partner importers in the EU and to improve handling of confidential business information. We 
also need to remind in this context, that foreign based manufacturers can benefit from a competitive advantage of not being required to register substances used in the 'upstream' 
processes. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 254/2013 of 20 March 2013 amending 
Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 on the fees and char ges payable to the European Chemicals Agency 
pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the 
Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) has further reduced 
the fees applicable to SMEs.  
b) ¿Qué acciones ha adoptado o contempl a adoptar para asegurar el reparto 
equitativo de costos en los Foros de In tercambio de Información sobre Sustancias 
(FIIS), ámbito en el que las PYME, pa rticularmente de terceros países en 
desarrollo, son más vulnerables a las mala s prácticas de las grandes empresas?  
EU reply: As has already been explained by the EU in the TBT Committee meetings (e.g. in 
March 2011) with regard to the functioning of SIEFs, ECHA and the Commission have continued 
their efforts to help industry to make SIEFs functioning (ECHA webinars, stakeholders' days, awareness campaigns). An informal Directors' Contact Group was created in February 2010, in which stakeholders (including SME's and importer s) were represented and which discussed, inter 
alia, practical issues on the functioning of the SIEFs. The Directors' Contact Group extended its 
mandate to tackle the issues relevant for the second registration deadline in 2013, which has just passed successfully. However, it is for the SIEF participants to organise themselves. 
REACH does not regulate the formation of consortia. Any such activity is voluntary. Work that may 
have been developed in a consortium would, however, be part of the information that should be exchanged within the SIEF.  
Por otro lado, en relación con los aceites vegetales derivados de plantas genéticamente 
modificadas y la falta de definición sobre el alcance de la excepción establecida en el párrafo 9 del 
Anexo V del REACH,  
14. ¿Podría la Comisión Europea indicar có mo actuará en caso de eventuales 
divergencias en la aplicación de esta  excepción por parte de los Estados 
miembros?  
15. ¿Cuáles serán las acciones que adoptará pa ra prevenir perjuicios comerciales si 
algún Estado miembro, al implementar el  REACH, excluye a los aceites vegetales 
derivados de plantas genéticamente modi ficadas de la excepción referida?  
EU reply to questions 14 and 15:  The scope of the exemptions from the obligation to register in 
accordance with Article 2(7)(b) as foreseen by  Annex V of REACH is clarified by the ECHA 
Guidance for Annex V; Exemptions from the obligation to register (version 1.1 from 
November 2012). This document is available at the following address: http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13632/annex_v_en.pdf . The European Commission 
clarified its interpretation regarding vegetable oils derived from GMOs in a document titled "Status 
of vegetable oils obtained from Genetically Modified Plants under REACH Regulation (EC) 
No. 1907/2006" presented at the 4th Meeting of Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 9 - 
 
  (CARACAL), where Member States' Competent Authorities provided comments on this document. 
The document is available at the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemi cals/files/reach/com-rev-an-v-oils-from-gm-
plants_en.pdf . Furthermore, ECHA Guidance document on Annex V in its last version from 
November 2012 makes specific reference to this interpretation ( see footnote 15 on p. 30), 
according to which vegetable oils obtained from GM plants are to be covered by the exemption 
under point 9 of Annex V of REACH provided that all conditions for this specific exemption are met. 
Should a Member State go against the interpretation as expressed above, the European 
Commission can decide to launch infringement proceedings against the Member State concerned pursuant to Article 258 TFEU.  
En el párrafo 3.97 se hace referencia de las organizaciones europeas de normalización. A la luz del 
nuevo Reglamento 1025/2012 sobre la temática, 
16. ¿Cómo planea la Unión Europea incorporar los principios adoptados en la Decisión 
del Comité OTC "relativa a los principios para la elaboración de normas, guías y 
recomendaciones internaciona les con arreglo a los artícu los 2 y 5 y al Anexo 3 del 
Acuerdo", de noviembre de 2000, en partic ular las necesidades de los países en 
desarrollo? 
EU reply: The six principles of the Decision of the Co mmittee on Principles for the Development of 
International Standards, Guides and Recommendations with Relation to Articles 2, 5 and Annex 3 
of the Agreement (G/TBT/9, 13 November 2000, para. 20 and Annex 4) are incorporated in the procedures for development of European Standa rds by European Standardisation Organisations 
(ESOs): CEN, CENELEC or ETSI.  
With regard to the particular needs of developing countries, the EU promotes standardisation 
activities at the international level through European national standardisation bodies, which are all 
member of ISO and IEC. The EU acknowledges that international standards contribute to the 
removal of trade barriers resulting from differences in technical regulations of various countries. 
ESOs have signed cooperation agreements with  their international counterparts ISO and IEC 
("Vienna Agreement" - ISO and "Dresden Agreement" - IEC). Furthermore, there are several 
cooperation agreements in place between CEN/CENE LEC and standardisation organisation of third 
countries, as well as memoranda of understanding  with regional standardisation organisation. 
En los sectores donde existen reglamentos técnicos y procedimientos de evaluación de la 
conformidad armonizados,  
17. ¿Cómo se aseguran países terceros que acceden realmente a un mercado único, es 
decir, no enfrentan requisitos nacional es diferentes o más exigentes que los 
incorporados en las directivas europeas? 
EU reply:  In case where EU legislation fully harmonizes requirements for specific products, 
Member States are not allowed to maintain or to adopt additional national legislation for the same 
requirements. Only products or certain aspects of products that are not covered by the EU's "fully 
harmonizing" legislation may be subject to national technical regulations or conformity assessment procedures.  
However, even in those cases where Member States are allowed to enact national technical 
regulations or conformity assessment procedures, a Member State may not prohibit the sale on its 
territory of products which are lawfully market ed in another Member State, even where those 
products were manufactured in accordance with technical rules different from those which apply in 
the Member State in question (mutual recognit ion principle of Art 34 of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union – TFEU). 
The only exception to the mutual recognition principle is based on Article 36 TFEU or, as 
established by the case-law of the European Cour t of Justice, on the basis of other overriding 
reasons of public interest (e.g. public order, publ ic security, the protection of health and life of 
humans and animals, consumer and environmental protection) and which are proportionate to the 
aim pursued.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 10 - 
 
  When applying these restrictions Member States must follow a detailed procedure prescribed by 
Regulation (EC) No 764/2008, whose aim is to im prove the free movement of goods within the EU 
internal market. 
18. ¿Cómo compatibiliza la UE el objetivo de convergencia de los reglamentos con las 
normas internacionales con su política de promover la convergencia de los 
reglamentos de países terceros con las normas europeas? ¿Por ejemplo, el Acuerdo de Libre Comercio entre la UE y Corea que remite a los reglamentos de NU 
CEPE en materia de automóviles? 
EU reply: The EU has been active to promote regulatory and standardisation activities at the 
international level, and thus also the work within the United Nations Commission for Europe 
(UNECE). Furthermore, the EU has repeatedly expressed its support to international 
standardisation as a basis, where appropriate, for European Standards.  
The EU considers the work of European Standardisation Organisations (ESOs) and international 
standardisation organisations complementary and non-competing. ESOs have signed cooperation 
agreements with their international counterpart s ISO and IEC ("Vienna Agreement" - ISO and 
"Dresden Agreement" - IEC). These agreements prov ide for procedures of cooperation and transfer 
of work from the European Standards Organisations to the international level. ETSI's procedures 
provide for direct participation of stakeholders, including foreign stakeholders.  
El 16 de diciembre de 2010 la Comisión publicó su Comunicación 2010/C 341/04 sobre Directrices 
de la UE sobre las mejores prácticas aplicables a los regímenes voluntarios de certificación de productos agrícolas y alimenticios. 
La Comunicación indica que estos regímenes pueden reportar ventajas, pero también costos y 
cargas para los agricultores, riesgo de rechazo del mercado para los productores que no participen en los regímenes de certificación principales, y repercusiones en el comercio internacional, 
especialmente con los países en desarrollo. 
19. El cumplimiento de estas Directri ces ¿es voluntario u obligatorio? 
EU reply:  Compliance with the guidelines is voluntary. 
20. ¿Podría la UE indicar qué contenido de estas Directrices apunta a la situación 
específica de los países en desarrollo? 
EU reply:  One of the main purposes of the guidelines is to give best practice recommendations, 
for example on how to reduce the administrative and financial burden on farmers and producers, 
including those in developing countries. 
The section with recommendations regarding sc heme participation and development, mutual 
recognition and benchmarking is very relevant in this respect. One recommendation refers 
specifically to small scale producers in developing countries: 
"6.5. Provisions for small-scale producers Schemes should include provisions enabling and 
promoting the participation of small-scale producers (especially from developing countries, if 
relevant) in the scheme."  
21. ¿Podría la UE proporcionar información so bre la aplicación de estas Directrices por 
los operadores europeos?  
EU reply: The Commission has recently launched a study to check the extent to which certification 
schemes comply with the guidelines. Results are not yet available.  
22. ¿Ha conducido a la modificación de regímenes de certificación? 
EU reply:  The guidelines have been received positive ly by stakeholders, who contributed to the 
development of the guidelines. The study may shed some light on this question.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 11 - 
 
  Teniendo en cuenta que el "Informe sobre el Comercio Mundial 2012" señala que las normas 
privadas con frecuencia se transforman en precursores de reglamentos técnicos (pág. 168) o pueden funcionar como reglamentos técnicos de facto  (pág. 86).  
23. ¿Tiene previsto la UE extender a los prod uctores de normas privadas la obligación 
de cumplir con la Decisión del Comité OTC "r elativa a los principios para la elaboración 
de normas, guías y recomendaciones internac ionales con arreglo a los artículos 2 y 5 y 
al Anexo 3 del Acuerdo", de noviembre de 2000? 
EU reply:  The EU acknowledges that private companies or  retailers increasingly create their own 
"private standards" to respond to particular consumer demand or to gain a competitive advantage. 
These "private standards" go beyond the regulato ry requirements and are neither encouraged nor 
endorsed by regulatory authorities as a means to comply with regulatory requirements. The 
obligation to adopt them is of a purely contractual nature, stemming from a voluntary commercial 
buyer-seller agreement between two private parties in a free market, and is therefore not subject 
to any regulatory intervention. It is the EU's view that these so-called "private standards" are not 
covered by the definition of standard in Annex 1 of the TBT Agreement and, as a result, fall 
outside the scope of the TBT Agreement.  
For these reasons, the EU considers that neither the Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, 
Adoption and Application of (national and region al) Standards (Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement) nor 
the TBT Committee Decision of 13 November 2000 on Principles for the Development of 
International Standards, Guides and Recommendations with Relation to Articles 2, 5 and Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement applies to entities de veloping the so-called "private standards". 
3.1.9 Normas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias  
En el párrafo 3.106 se menciona que la UE considera que, de las 41 medidas notificadas a las que 
era aplicable una norma internacional, 29 estaban en conformidad con esa norma internacional, 
por lo cual, 12 medidas notificadas no estaban en conformidad con las normas internacionales, a 
pesar que era aplicable una norma internacional. 
24. ¿Podría explicar la UE porque decidió ap artarse de normas internacionales que ha 
contribuido a crear y que tienen, precis amente, el objetivo de permitir una 
convergencia de las medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias para evitar obstáculos 
innecesarios al comercio? 
EU reply: EU measures are based on solid scientific pr inciples. In determining such measures, the 
EU draws both on international standards and the risk assessments provided by the European Food 
Safety Authority. Any measures taken on this basis are not more trade restrictive than is necessary and are applied in a non-discriminatory manner. 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.  
En el párrafo 3.106 se explica que, aparte de las notificaciones de medidas de urgencia, casi el 
85% de las notificaciones especificaban el plazo de 60 días recomendado a nivel multilateral para 
la formulación de observaciones (en comparación con el 60% en el último examen de las políticas comerciales); en el resto de los casos, la UE consideró que no procedía establecer un plazo para la 
formulación de observaciones, o que el plazo entre la publicación de la notificación y la adopción 
de la medida era inferior a 60 días. 
Teniendo en cuenta que la normativa de la UE es compleja y extensa, cuyo proceso de 
conformación y preparación es burocrático, con intervención de varias áreas e instituciones y lleva 
mucho tiempo. En tal sentido, y principalmente teniendo en cuenta que esta legislación impacta en el comercio y en el acceso al mercado de la UE  de productos de terceros países, es necesario 
contar con un tiempo razonable, que debería ser proporcional además a la extensión y complejidad 
de las nuevas medidas, a los fines de poder comprenderlas en su totalidad, analizar su potencial impacto, efectuar los comentarios o reclamos correspondientes y/o permitir la adaptación de las autoridades de control y los operadores comerciales a la nueva situación.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 12 - 
 
  25. ¿Podría explicar la UE por qué no fueron respetados esos plazos, teniendo en 
cuenta la importancia que atri buye a la transparencia?  
EU reply:  Argentina is correct to note the importance attached by the European Union to the 
principle of transparency. As has been described  in the Secretariat report, the customary 60-day 
period for comment has been respected in an ever-increasing number of cases. In fact, in some 
cases, particularly where the legislation being proposed is particularly comprehensive and detailed, a rather more generous comment period of up to 120-days can be provided. In the remaining, few 
cases, this was not possible largely due to procedur al issues within the EU that also need to be 
respected. Members of the WTO are nevertheless always invited to send comments at any time 
which, where relevant, will duly be considered. 
En el párrafo 3.107 se señala que, durante el período objeto de examen, entre los Estados 
miembros de la UE, sólo los Países Bajos y Francia presentaron notificaciones individuales a través 
del organismo encargado de la notificación y los servicios de información de la UE. Respecto de estas medidas, 
26. ¿Podría la UE indicar si existe norm ativa armonizada a nivel de la UE? 
EU reply:  The EU SPS Notification Authority is responsible for notifying all SPS measures adopted 
at an EU level. In those few cases, where measures are not harmonised at the EU level, measures 
adopted at a national level, will, when relevant, be notified to the WTO by the EU SPS Notification 
Authority. 
De acuerdo al cuadro 3.8, no se han comunicado soluciones a las preocupaciones comerciales 
específicas planteadas a la UE por otros miembros de la OMC desde el último examen de la UE. 
27. ¿Podría la UE explicar por qué no hubo ni nguna solución comunicada al Comité de 
Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias? ¿Continúan estos problemas o se han 
solucionado? 
EU reply: As stated in table 3.8, these specific trade concerns are classified as 'not reported', 
which means that to date no mutually agreed so lution has been found by the concerned parties. 
En el párrafo 3.111 se señala que "la legislación MSF está, en gran medida, armonizada en la UE" 
y que "sólo en muy pocos casos, los Estados miembros pueden adoptar también MSF a título 
individual". 
28. ¿Podrían brindar mayores precisiones sobre esos "pocos casos"? 
29.  ¿En qué productos no hay armonización  de legislación MSF a nivel UE, sino 
legislaciones nacionales? 
EU reply to questions 28 and 29:  SPS measures are extensively harmonised within the EU. SPS 
measures remain non-harmonised only in very ma rginal areas. Some examples are: commodities 
such as crocodile meat and certain exotic non-ungulate mammals. 
De acuerdo a lo señalado en el párrafo 3.112, la UE adopta en ocasiones medidas basadas en el 
enfoque de precaución o de cautela. Las mismas deberían ser proporcionales al riesgo y no afectar 
el comercio más de lo necesario para alcanzar el nivel adecuado de protección. A su vez dichas 
medidas deberían aplicarse en circunstancias específicas y en forma previsional y transitoria y ser revisadas en un plazo de tiempo razonable. Sin embargo se percibe que generalmente la UE aplica el criterio de cautela prácticamente en forma sistemática como medida preventiva, sin relación con 
el riesgo real. Tal situación es el criterio actualmente adoptado por la UE para los controles y 
rechazos por detección de cualquier cepa de Escherichia coli verotoxigénica  en carnes, sin tener en 
cuenta la patogenicidad de las mismas. 
30. ¿Podría informar la UE si realiza evaluaci ones de impacto que tengan en cuenta la 
necesidad y proporcionalidad de las medidas adoptadas? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 13 - 
 
  EU reply:  Yes. The EU implements a smart regulation policy which recognises the need for the 
impacts of proposed legislation to be assessed. 
En el párrafo 3.113 se señala que las medidas que se adopten en el marco de la Legislación 
Alimentaria General deberán tener en cuenta las normas internacionales, "salvo que esas normas, 
o partes importantes de las mismas, constituyan un medio ineficaz o inadecuado de cumplir los 
objetivos legítimos de la legislación alimentaria, o que exista una justificación científica, o que el nivel de protección que ofrezcan sea diferente al  determinado como apropiado en la Comunidad". 
En el contexto del último examen de la UE, alg unos Miembros pidieron aclaraciones sobre el nivel 
real de protección adoptado por la UE y la coherencia en la aplicación de la protección. En lo que respecta a la sanidad animal y los alimentos de origen animal, la Comisión ha indicado que la legislación de la UE se basa en gran medida en las recomendaciones, normas y directrices de la 
OIE y del Codex; en los raros casos en los que la UE no sigue las recomendaciones de la OIE y del 
Codex, sus medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias se basan en los dictámenes científicos de la AESA. 
En cuanto a las medidas fitosanitarias y relativas a productos de origen no animal, la Comisión ha 
indicado que la UE siempre se basa en las normas internacionales pertinentes, si las hay.  
Sin perjuicio de ello, la UE en muchos casos no basa sus normas sanitarias/fitosanitarias en 
normas internacionales de referencia bajo el justificativo de los riesgos que enfrentarían los 
consumidores europeos (tal es el caso de los límites máximos de residuos de pesticidas para los 
cuales existen normas Codex).  
31. ¿Podría la UE explicar con más detalle po r qué desconoce en este último caso las 
normas Codex y la base científica con que cuentan las mismas? 
En relación con el párrafo 3.118 ,  
EU reply:  As stated in paragraph 3.113, in those cases where the EU does not follow Codex 
recommendations, EU measures are based on the scientific opinion of EFSA. This also applies to 
Codex MRLs for pesticide residues. 
32. ¿Podría la UE explicar por qué incluye en  el certificado sani tario que ampara las 
exportaciones de carnes desde terceros países a dicho mercado requisitos sobre 
bienestar animal, cuando éste no es un tema contemplado en el Acuerdo sobre la 
Aplicación de Medidas Sanitarias  y Fitosanitarias (AMSF)?  
Asimismo, el Reglamento 1099/2009 incorpora un gran número de aspectos que los países que 
exportan productos animales a la UE deben garantizar y certificar. No todos estos elementos 
específicos están totalmente en conformidad con las normas OIE sobre bienestar animal y no se 
contemplan tampoco las características específicas de producción o las dificultades de algunos países para establecer la totalidad de las medidas exigidas en el Reglamento. Tampoco se 
contempla la equivalencia con medidas de bienestar animal en los países exportadores.  
EU reply:  EU import requirements covering animal welfare derive from OIE guidelines on animal 
welfare. To the relevant extent, these have been included in health certificates since 1993 when 
Directive 93/119/EC entered into force. These certif icates cover conditions for animal and public 
health and animal welfare on a single certificate. 
33. ¿Podría la UE explicar las razones por la s cuáles no se cumplen con las normas 
internacionales en la materia, ni  se contempla la equivalencia? 
En relación con el párrafo 3.119, cabe destacar que en cuanto a la inocuidad de los alimentos la 
UE aplica controles sobre determinados microorganismos sin que se hayan establecido criterios específicos en su normativa (Reglamento 2073/2005). Tal es el caso de las diferentes cepas de 
Escherichia coli verotoxigénicas  en carnes. En tal sentido considera a todas estas cepas como 
patógenas.   
EU reply: Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009
 on the protection of 
animals at the time of killing, which applies fr om 1st January 2013, has been developed in line 
with international animal welfare standards. The measures are not more trade restrictive than those of the repealed Directive 93/119/EC. To benefit from equivalence, exporters from third WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 14 - 
 
  countries must be able to demonstrate that standards equivalent to those applicable in the EU are 
observed. These must not necessarily be strictly identical but must be able to demonstrate that they deliver similar results.  
34. ¿ P o r  q u é  l a  U E  n o  h a  i n c o r p o r a d o  e n  s u  normativa criterios específicos para el 
control y la prevención de estos micr oorganismos, con el objeto de que las 
autoridades sanitarias que certifican los productos cárnicos que se exportan a la 
UE cuenten con un marco claro, defi nido y previsible al respecto? 
EU reply:  The EU approach to control VTEC in meat is  not based on imposing endpoint testing of a 
product because this would result in excessive sampling costs due to the low prevalence of VTEC in 
meat. Instead, a farm to fork approach is considered to be a more appropriate and efficient way of controlling VTEC. There are no specific microbiological criteria set for VTEC in meat in EU 
legislation nor in the relevant international standards, i.e. Codex Alimentarius.   
Asimismo, para los controles reforzados en frontera (Artículo 24 de la Directiva 97/78) la 
legislación comunitaria establece claramente que las 10 partidas del mismo origen sucesivas a una 
notificación de alerta serán controladas. Para los controles reforzados sistémicos (Artículo 20 de la 
Directiva 97/78), la legislación de la UE no establece la duración de los mismos ni los criterios por los cuales dichos controles pueden finalizarse.  
35. ¿Cuáles son las bases del criterio es tablecido en el Artículo 24 de la 
Directiva 97/78?  
EU reply: Article 24 of Directive 97/78/EC lays down that a "serious or repeated" infringement of 
import legislation shall trigger a harmonised reaction from the Member States for the next 10 
consignments from the same origin to be checked. This has been established in the interest of 
protecting the health of consumers in the EU.  
36. ¿Por qué no se establece asimismo un criter io claro relativo al Artículo 20 de la 
Directiva 97/78? 
EU reply:  Article 20 of Directive 97/78/EC gives the official veterinarian or the competent 
authority the power to carry out appropriate investigations in order to confirm or rule out any kind 
of suspicion arising during import controls for a specific consignment. No specific criterion is 
provided because all possible infringements with EU legislation are addressed in this Article. If by any chance the infringement detected during "Article 20 controls" falls within the category of "serious or repeated" infringements, then Article 24 shall apply. 
En relación con el párrafo 3.121, respecto a las sustancias plaguicidas para protección vegetal, la 
reglamentación de la UE relativa a la comercialización de productos fitosanitarios (Reglamento 1107/2009) establece un "corte basado en algún peligro identificado" de acuerdo con las 
características intrínsecas de las sustancias, autorizando solo aquellas que se categoricen como 
"no peligrosas", pero no tiene en cuenta una evaluación o gestión de riesgo. En contraposición a esta norma, el Reglamento 396/2005 establece los límites máximos de residuos de pesticidas 
(LMRs), en teoría sobre la base del riesgo que repr esentan las sustancias que se utilicen. En el año 
2005 la UE dio de baja numerosas sustancias plaguicidas por el solo hecho de que comercialmente fueron reemplazadas por otras, aun cuando han sido utilizadas por mucho tiempo en forma segura. Para estas sustancias, y al igual que para las sustancias consideradas como peligrosas, el 
LMR quedó establecido por defecto en el nivel de detección (0,01 ppm), aun cuando para varias de 
estas sustancias el LMR establecido en el Codex es superior.  
La UE solo contempla para estos casos un mecanismo de tolerancias a la importación, para lo cual 
se invierte la carga de la prueba, ya que se debe demostrar con información provista por el 
interesado la inocuidad de combinaciones sustancia activa/productos, a niveles de LMRs diferentes a los establecidos por defecto por la UE.  
37. Teniendo esto en cuenta, para las sustancias cuya renovación de registro no tendrá 
lugar en virtud de sus características cons ideradas "peligrosas" de acuerdo con el 
Reglamento 1107/2009, ¿la UE considerará el mecanismo de tolerancia a la importación establecido en el Reglamento 396/2005? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 15 - 
 
  EU reply:  Maximum residue levels (MRLs) of pesticide residues, including import tolerances, 
continue to be set under Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, and any expected modifications to the 
current MRLs will continue to be notified to WTO under the SPS agreement. The EU will ensure that 
any links in respect of MRLs that derive from ot her legislation are made as, and when, appropriate. 
En el párrafo 3.124 se detalla las características del Sistema de Alerta Rápida para Alimentos y 
Piensos de la UE (RASFF). Al respecto, es importante remarcar el alto grado de discrecionalidad y la falta de armonización de criterios en los controles en frontera que aplican los diferentes Estados 
Miembros de la UE, entre cuyos aspectos principales vale resaltar, por ejemplo, los siguientes: 
 diferencias significativas y variaciones en los plazos de las notificaciones; 
 divergencias en el número de embarques de las empresas que son puestos bajo vigilancia 
luego de una notificación RASFF inicial;  
 imprecisiones para establecer el cálculo de los 10 embarques posteriores a ser puestos bajo 
vigilancia (control reforzado) en to da la UE luego de una notificación; 
 el sistema no permite disponer de un tiempo prudencial para dar respuesta a la notificación 
antes de que la misma se publique en la página web del RASFF; 
 impacto negativo que genera a los operadores el ser identificados en la página web del RASFF 
-muchas veces injustificadamente-, ya que la mera inclusión puede desprestigiar al producto y 
origen de la mercancía frente a los importadores con el consiguiente perjuicio comercial, independientemente de las características particulares de la notificación;  
 plazos largos para la suspensión de alerta indebidamente aplicada, generando dificultades para 
la(s) empresa(s) involucrada(s) y para la imagen del país ante otros socios comerciales.  
 Asimismo las notificaciones que se cargan erróneamente, luego se dan por finalizadas sin 
ninguna aclaración resarcitoria que evite o disminuya el impacto negativo en la imagen del 
operador comercial. 
EU reply:  The EU is working on "Standard Operating Procedures" to ensure the functioning of 
RASFF to the highest standards . 
Argentinean authorities are informed of all notifications concerning Argentina via the web 
application "RASFF Window". RASFF Window is an on-line database where notifications are uploaded within 24 working hours after transmi ssion via RASFF system and can be accessed by 
authorized officers who have been granted access to it. The system foresees follow-up messages 
that can complete and correct information. If a notification turns out to be unfounded, it is withdrawn from the system. The reason  for withdrawal is made public. 
38. ¿Planea la UE evaluar estos aspect os del funcionamiento del RASFF y 
enmendarlos? 
En relación con el párrafo 3.125, cabe destacar que el número y la complejidad de los cultivos 
modificados genéticamente que se están desarrollando y cultivando actualmente en todo el mundo 
aumentan cada año. Esta situación amenaza con acrecentar el número de aprobaciones 
asincrónicas y asimétricas entre la UE y sus principales socios comerciales y, en consecuencia, aumentar el riesgo de interrupciones de los flujos comerciales destinados a la UE debido a la baja 
presencia (LLP) de eventos no autorizados. Evitar o reducir las aprobaciones asincrónicas de la UE 
en relación con los principales países que le exportan productos agrícolas derivados de OGMs es la forma más efectiva de evitar problemas en la comercialización. El procedimiento de la UE para la 
aprobación de eventos de organismos genéticamente modificados es excesivamente burocrático, 
complejo y extenso. Mientras que en promedio, las aprobaciones de eventos OGMs en la UE se extienden por un período de 45 meses, en los principales países exportadores de productos 
agrícolas a la UE ese plazo es de 27 meses. Se percibe en el proceso de la UE una demora 
injustificada, principalmente en la etapa de decisión política ("comitología") luego del dictamen favorable de la EFSA.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 16 - 
 
  39. ¿Cuáles son las causas o razones principales de estas demoras?  
40. ¿Prioriza al respecto la UE las influencia s e intereses políticos por sobre la opinión 
científica de la EFSA para la decisión final?  
41. ¿Tiene la UE planeado mejorar esta etap a de aprobación de eventos transgénicos 
mediante el cumplimiento estricto de lo s plazos establecidos en su propia 
normativa, a fin de acortar los tiempos actuales de aprobación?  
EU reply to questions 39, 40 and 41:  The EU approval regime continues to be science based 
and transparent. In 2012, the Commission authoris ed five GMOs and renewed the authorisation of 
one more. In 2013, authorisation of at least a further 6 GM events is foreseen.  
It is important to note that authorisations are considered on a case-by-case basis and as such 
EFSA may request additional scientific information if needed. Such requests require time for 
applicants to respond and for EFSA to thoroughly assess the new information. 
Regulation No (EU) 503/2013 on applications for auth orisation of GM food and feed will clarify the 
requirements for applications and the protocols to be followed. The Regulation will minimise the 
impact of asynchronous authorisation by furthe r simplifying the authorisation process. It will 
improve the scientific certainty for applicants as it will clarify the requirements to be fulfilled for the submission of an application and the protocols to be followed for conducting trials/studies. It 
should also therefore minimise the need for EFSA to request additional studies/data and reduce 
the time needed for the risk assessment phase. 
The Regulation foresees a transitional period of 6 months during which companies have the choice 
to submit applications either in line with this Regulation or with the previous rules (Regulation No 
641/2204 and 2011 EFSA guidelines). 
En relación con el Reglamento 619/2011, por el que se establecen los métodos de muestreo y 
análisis para el control oficial de los piensos y de la presencia en ellos de material modificado 
genéticamente cuyo procedimiento de autorización esté pendiente o cuya autorización haya 
caducado, la UE mantiene su política de "tolerancia cero" a la presencia de OGMs no autorizados, ya que ha expresado en reiteradas oportunidades que el umbral establecido en la norma es 
técnicamente "cero" (0.1%, o sea, el límite de detección armonizado en los laboratorios). Debido a 
la situación descripta en el párrafo anterior, es necesario abordar urgentemente el riesgo al comercio derivado de ocurrencias LLP y desarrollar enfoques prácticos y efectivos para la gestión de LLP de manera transparente, predecible, basada  en la ciencia y que sea comercialmente viable. 
Para ello existen foros multilaterales específicos en los cuales se han establecido directrices 
internacionales basadas en la ciencia para abordar el tema de baja presencia de OGMs no autorizados, tales como el Codex Alimentarius  y la OCDE. 
Asimismo se ha conformado un grupo de trabajo en la FAO para abordar esta temática. Un grupo 
de países exportadores e importadores han también conformado un foro de trabajo y discusión tendiente a buscar una solución de fondo efectiva.  
42. A fin de buscar una solución efectiva y de  largo plazo, ¿planea la UE cambiar su 
política de tolerancia cero a la pr esencia de OGMs no autorizados?  
43. Si no fuera el caso, ¿cuáles son las ra zones de continuar con este enfoque? 
44. ¿Cuáles son las razones por las cuales la UE no sigue las directrices de los foros 
sobre la materia (Codex/OCDE/FAO), las cuales se basan principalmente en 
criterios específicos de riesgo? 
45. ¿Tiene en cuenta la UE el potencial impa cto que el mantenimiento de esta política 
podría tener en diferentes sectores expo rtadores ante disrup ciones comerciales 
por detección de OGMs no autorizados? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 17 - 
 
  46. Teniendo en cuenta que el Reglamento 619/2011 cubre únicamente los piensos, 
pero no los productos importados destin ados a alimentación humana, ¿planea la 
UE ampliar la cobertura de dicho Reglam ento a los alimentos? ¿En qué plazos? 
EU reply to questions 42 to 46: The EU will continue to maintain its zero tolerance policy for 
non-authorised GMOs. It is important to note that Regulation 619/2011 does not change zero 
tolerance policy but sets the technical zero at a level at which results can be interpreted robustly. 
The EU will continue to engage in the relevant fora at international level to monitor and report on 
any developments on Low Level Presence. 
The EU is committed to address the issue for food . In preparation for the impact assessment that 
will precede this work, an independent evaluation of the available data will be performed. The EU 
welcomes the input from Argentina on this subject as this will be important, not solely in terms of 
the repercussions of a possible discovery of an unauthorised GMO in the food chain, but more 
importantly on the actual risk of this happening.  
Con referencia al párrafo 3.126, la Comisión ha expresado que el objetivo del Reglamento de 
Ejecución que allí se menciona, relativo a los requisitos que han de cumplir las empresas que 
presenten solicitudes para aprobación de nuevos OGMs, es reforzar y mejorar el proceso de autorización de OGMs. No obstante, se interpreta que su aplicación podría ser causa de las 
siguientes dificultades, con un efecto contrario al objetivo buscado por la Comisión Europea, ya 
que: 
 creará un procedimiento muy rígido, perdiéndose la evaluación de riesgo "caso por caso", de 
acuerdo con las características del evento OGM en cuestión, siguiendo las orientaciones de la 
EFSA y no mediante una regla única en un cuerpo normativo; 
 se vería afectada la independencia de la EFSA; 
 incrementará los reclamos legales en contra de los OGMs; 
 incrementará las demoras indebidas, ya que el Reglamento exige, para todos los eventos que 
se presenten, una batería de pruebas e información que tal vez no sea estrictamente necesaria 
en todos los casos; 
 riesgo de efectos sobre la cadena de suministros de alimentos y piensos; 
 posibilidad de disrupción del comercio. 
Como fuera expresado anteriormente, las principales demoras en las autorizaciones de los OGMs 
en la UE se producen durante la fase política del proceso, en la etapa de la comitología, y no 
durante la evaluación científica de la EFSA. 
47. ¿Cómo piensa evitar la Unión Europea estas dificultades en la aplicación del 
Reglamento de Ejecución mencionado?  
48. ¿Cómo minimizará la carga burocr ática para los exportadores?  
49. ¿Cómo piensa evitar disrupciones inne cesarias de los flujos comerciales? 
EU reply to questions 47, 48 and 49: The adoption of the Regulation (EU) No 503/2013 on 
applications for authorisation of GM food and fe e d  w i l l  n o t  c h a n g e  t h e  E U  a p p r o a c h  o n  r i s k  
assessment of GMOs which will continue to be science based and transparent. It will clarify the requirements for applications and the protocols to be followed and minimise the impact of 
asynchronous authorisation by further simplifying the authorisation process. It will improve the 
scientific certainty for applicants as it will clarify the requirements to be fulfilled for the submission of an application and the protocols to be followed  for conducting trials/studies. It should also 
therefore minimise the need for EFSA to request additional studies/data and reduce the time 
needed for the risk assessment phase.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 18 - 
 
  The Regulation foresees a transitional period of 6 months during which companies have the choice 
to submit applications either in line with this Regulation or with the previous rules (Regulation No 641/2204 and 2011 EFSA guidelines). 
The EU would also like to note that Argentina's concerns were examined and addressed in an EU 
reply to Argentina's comments on the draft notified in notice G/SPS/N/EU/32. 
En el párrafo 3.127 se señala que, en determinadas circunstancias, los Estados miembros pueden 
restringir o prohibir temporalmente la utilización o la venta en su propio territorio de productos 
modificados genéticamente que estén autorizados a nivel de la UE.147 En la actualidad, seis 
Estados miembros aplican restricciones a la utilización (incluida la venta) de determinados OMG: Alemania, Austria, Francia, Grecia, Hungría y Luxemburgo.  
50. ¿Podría la UE explicar si estas salvagua rdias están en conformidad con las normas 
de la OMC?  
51. ¿Cómo afectan el mercado interno único de la UE? 
EU reply to questions 50 and 51:  Most of the Member States of the EU which have safeguard 
measures in place against GMOs raise justifications related to risks to health or to the 
environment. WTO law and in particular the SP S Agreement recognises the possibility for the 
parties to use such grounds to justify trade restrictions. The EU will use appropriate measures at 
its disposal, including infringement procedures wh ere relevant, to repeal measures which are not 
considered justified. 
En el párrafo 3.128, se detalla el fallo de la Cort e de Justicia de la Unión Europea (CJUE), referido 
al polen de plantas modificadas genéticamente. Al respecto, se resolvió que el polen proveniente 
de plantas genéticamente modificadas contenido en la miel es un "ingrediente alimentario" y 
requiere autorización, en contradicción con la norma internacional respectiva, ya que la definición de miel del Codex Alimentarius  establece que el polen es un componente natural y no un 
ingrediente de la miel. 
Si bien la propuesta efectuada por la Comisión Eu ropea para modificar la Directiva de la UE de 
miel, que está siendo evaluada en el Consejo y el Parlamento Europeo, se alinea con la posición 
del Codex , a casi dos años del comienzo del problema aún no se ha tomado una definición al 
respecto, por lo que la incertidumbre comercial continúa. 
52. ¿En qué tiempos espera o estima la UE tomar una resolución sobre este tema?  
53. ¿Se está analizando una propuesta alternat iva en caso de que la resolución se 
demore demasiado o no se llegue a un acuerdo entre el Parlamento y el Consejo?  
EU reply to questions 52 and 53: The EU's Ordinary Legislative Procedure applies to the 
proposal to amend Directive. 2001/110/EC which is currently under-going a first reading in the EP 
and Council. 
3.3 Medidas que afectan a la producción y el comercio 
3.3.2 Subvenciones y otra asistencia gubernamental 
3.3.2.3 Ayuda no relacionada con la cris is prestada en los Estados miembros 
En el párrafo 3.182 se indica que en 2010 y 2011 se concedieron en la UE "73.300 millones de 
euros" y "64.300 m illones de euros", respectivamente, "en forma de ayudas estatales no 
relacionadas con la crisis". Asimismo, en el párrafo siguiente (3.183) se señala que uno de los 
sectores que ha sido receptor sustancial de esta ayuda estatal es el Agrícola (13% del total, o sea 
unos 8.359 millones de euros en 2011). 
54. ¿Se podría indicar a que rubros específico s se destina ese 13% de la ayuda estatal 
no relacionada con la crisis que se  vuelca en el sector agrícola?. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 19 - 
 
  EU reply: The European Commission's Scoreboard on State Aid provides a transparent and 
publicly accessible source of information on the overall state aid situation in each EU Member 
State. 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_a id/studies_reports/expenditure.html .  
3.3.2.4 Ayuda relacionada con la crisis 
A partir del párrafo 3.187 se hace referencia a las ayudas relacionadas con la crisis, señalándose 
que la Comisión ha permitido la prórroga de unos 23 programas de asistencia (párr. 3.188). 
55. ¿Se podría informar si toda esta Ayuda ha  sido debidamente notificada a la OMC? 
y, de no ser así, ¿las razones por las cu ales no se hicieron tales notificaciones? 
EU reply:  In the EU's 2013 new and full subsidy notification under Article 25 SCM Agreement (all 
specific subsidy programmes adopted and ad hoc subsidies granted by the Member State during 
the calendar years 2011 and 2012), all specific subsidies are notified, i.e. subsidies granted to 
certain enterprises in the meaning of Article 2 SCM Agreement. If eligibility for such programs is based on objective criteria such as the size of  the enterprise or number of employees, the scheme 
is considered to be non-specific and should therefore not be notified. The notification only concerns 
subsidies for the production of goods and not the service sector. The EU's 2013 new and full 
notification will consist of the contributions by 27 EU Member States and the Commission's 
contribution regarding subsidies funded from the EU budget.   
3.3.3 Contratación pública 
3.3.3.2 El ACP y la contratación pública internacional 
En el párrafo 3.223 del documento WT/TPR/S/284 se hace mención a la propuesta de Reglamento 
presentada por la Comisión Europea sobre el acceso de los bienes y servicios de terceros países al 
mercado de compras públicas europeo. En dicha propuesta se establecen dos mecanismos que hacen condicional la apertura del mercado europeo de compras públicas al principio de 
"reciprocidad". En los casos en que la CE determine la existencia de "falta sustancial de 
reciprocidad" en el país de origen de los bienes y servicios, ésta podrá aprobar la exclusión de un oferente de ese país de una contratación específica o del país en cuestión del mercado europeo de 
compras en general. 
56. ¿Podría la UE explicar en detalle cuáles serán los criterios (p arámetros, umbrales, 
etc.) para evaluar la "falta sustancial de reciprocidad"?  
57. ¿Dicho principio se aplicará solo para caso s en los que el desvío respecto al trato 
nacional implique la existencia de reserva de mercado para las compañías 
nacionales o la exclusión de los bien es y servicios europeos a través de 
preferencias de precios prohibitivas? 
En el considerando número 5 de la propuesta de Reglamento se establece que la UE aboga por un 
mercado de compras públicas internacional abierto y ambicioso. Al mismo tiempo la propuesta presentada por la Comisión incluyó un análisis de seis "opciones de política", incluyendo un marco 
legal del tipo "buy European ", cuyo impacto ha sido analizado en dos documentos que 
acompañaron la propuesta (SWD (2012) 57 final y 58 final).  
58. ¿No cree la UE que es contradictorio intent ar favorecer la apertura de mercados y a 
la vez aplicar medidas cuyo efecto prot eccionista puede llegar a ser elevado?  
59. ¿No cree que la credibilidad de la UE en su búsqueda por liberalizar este mercado 
se ve afectada por este tipo de medida s y que puede dar lugar a retaliaciones que 
deriven en una creciente fragmentación del mercado internacional de compras 
públicas?  
EU reply to questions 56 to 59:  Argentina is referring to a Commission proposal which may be 
modified during the EU's legislative process. Th e proposal is currently on the table of the EU 
co-legislators - the European Parliament and the Council. In the Council, the Member States have WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 20 - 
 
  worked through a first reading of the proposal at technical level. The European Parliament is likely 
to express its views in a first reading vote on the proposal in autumn.   
3.3.5 Derechos de propiedad intelectual 
3.3.5.3 Propiedad industrial 
3.3.5.3.5 Indicaciones geográficas 
En el párrafo 3.282 se señala que el registro de indicaciones geográficas se encuentra abierto para 
terceros países. Sin embargo, varios países -incluida la Argentina- han experimentado problemas 
para registrar, por ejemplo, "expresiones tradicio nales", que la UE considera parte de su sistema 
de protección de Indicaciones Geográficas (IG).  
60. ¿Podría explicar la UE las razones por la s que el registro de IG parece ser más 
difícil para terceros países? 
EU reply: There are no indications that the registration  of geographical indications in the EU is 
more difficult for applicants from non-EU count ries than for applicants from inside the EU.  
En el párrafo 3.284 se señala que, entre las 1.104 indicaciones geográficas registradas en la UE, 
solo 14 pertenecen a terceros países. A su vez, de acuerdo con la información proporcionada en el 
párrafo 3.285, en el caso de vinos se encuentran registradas 1.310 Denominaciones de origen contra 2 no comunitarias. Finalmente, existen 1.100 DOP registradas en función de Acuerdos de 
Libre Comercio. 
61. ¿Podría explicar la UE las razones que -en su opinión- explican esta desproporción? 
EU reply: A comparison of the number of domestic GIs registered and the number of GIs 
registered from non-EU countries is unrelated to opportunities for international trade. The GI is an 
intellectual property right which, like trade mark s and patents, ensures inter alia that trade in 
products bearing certain names may only be carried out by legitimate holders/users of the authentic product.  
Intellectual property is commonly registered in the territory of the country where the goods are 
produced and the EU register of GIs, with a majority of EU GIs, is no exception. Also many GIs from non-EU countries are protected in the EU through bilateral agreements. These GIs do not 
appear in the EU Registers but are listed in the bilateral agreements concerned.  
62. En relación con los Acuerdos bilaterales de  Libre Comercio, ¿podría la UE explicar 
cómo se relaciona la protección a las 1. 100 DO registradas con el artículo 4 del 
ADPIC? ¿Podría otro Miembro de la OMC solicitar la misma protección otorgada 
mediante estos acuerdos? ¿Existe algún ante cedente en relación con ello? En caso 
positivo, ¿cuál sería el procedimiento para tal solicitud? 
EU reply: The protection of more than 1,100 geographic al indications and names of origin from 
non-EU countries stems from bilateral agreements on trade in wine that the EU has concluded with 
a number of trading partners in accordance with Article 23 paragraph 1 of the TRIPS Agreement, by virtue of which WTO Members have agreed to enter into negotiations aimed at increasing the 
protection of individual geographical indications un der Article 23. The level of protection in the EU 
for geographical indications protected via bilateral or regional agreements is not greater than the 
level of protection for geographical indications protected subsequent to an individual application on the basis of the relevant EU legislation. Moreover, any WTO Member may at any time propose to 
enter into negotiations with the European Union with the view to concluding an agreement 
providing for the protection of geographical indications.  
63. ¿Resulta más sencillo demostrar el carácter de IG de un término en el curso de una 
negociación comercial que bajo el Reglamento 1151/2012 y en el 
Reglamento 491/2009? 
EU reply: There is no difference of approach between the procedures applied in case of bilateral 
agreements and those established at EU level on  the basis of Regulations (EU) No 1151/2012 and 
(EC) No 1234/2007 as to whether a term can be protected as a geographical indication in the EU.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 21 - 
 
  In particular, during the process of negotiating a bilateral agreement on GIs or an update of an 
existing agreement, the parties carry out an ex amination and opposition procedure as regards 
names to be protected. The outcome of these procedures determines the list of GIs to be annexed to the agreement. 
Por otro lado, cabe destacar que el documento de la Secretaría WT/TPR/S/284 y el documento de 
la UE WT/TPR/G/284 no proporcionan detalle s sobre los "términos opcionales de calidad" 
introducidos por el Reglamento 1151/2009. 
64. ¿Podría explicar la UE cual es la re lación de estos nuevos términos con las 
expresiones tradicionales y las marcas colectivas?  
65. ¿Podría explicar la UE la relación de  estos nuevos términos con el ADPIC? 
EU reply to questions 64 and 65:  Like the traditional specialities guaranteed, the optional 
quality terms are not IPR but labeling terms that may be voluntarily used by operators to 
communicate to consumers the attributes of the product labeled, in order to add value to it and better inform them.  
Compulsory information related to IPR (collective trade marks or GIs in the sense of TRIPs), may 
be supplemented by this optional terms on the label of agricultural products.  
The decision to use these terms would be left to the operators. However, if a term is used, the 
relevant conditions specified by the EU in the definition of this particular term must be fulfilled.  
El nuevo Reglamento 1151/2012 contempla en varios de sus artículos la relación entre 
Indicaciones Geográficas y términos genéricos. Por otro lado, la Comisión ha empleado determinados criterios en el pasado con el objeto de responder a las demandas de oposición 
presentadas por terceros países. Entre ellas, por ejemplo, no reconocer la existencia de una norma 
Codex  o basar la decisión exclusivamente en la "percepción" de los consumidores europeos. Las 
decisiones de la Comisión se adoptan en consulta con un Comité del que participan los estados 
miembros, incluido el estado miembro que patrocina la solicitud de registro. 
66. ¿Considera la UE que los derechos de los terceros estados están convenientemente 
protegidos bajo el sistema actual? 
EU reply: The European Union considers that the rights of non-EU countries are adequately 
protected under the current system. As regards th e opposition procedure in particular, the legal 
framework does not discriminate against non-EU countries.  
4. EVOLUCIÓN DE DETERMINADOS SECTORES 
4.1 Agricultura 
4.1.3 Políticas agrícolas 
El párrafo 4.8 menciona que la reforma de la Política Agrícola Común (PAC) post-2013 continuará 
en la dirección de una mayor orientación de mercado, con el sistema de pagos desacoplados como 
eje central de los gastos de la política agrícola común.  
Sin embargo, se tiene conocimiento que la prop uesta de reforma 2014-2020 otorga a los Estados 
miembros amplios grados de libertad permitiendo otorgar pagos acoplados de hasta el 10% de 
cada presupuesto nacional dentro de la PAC a aquellos Estados miembros que hoy apliquen entre 5 y 10% bajo esa modalidad y mayores aún en los casos que pudieran estar justificados. Tampoco impondría límites sectoriales a las ayudas acopladas, lo que implica un retroceso respecto de las 
reformas de 2003 y 2008. 
67. Permitir un aumento en la proporción de  pagos acoplados y eliminar los límites 
s e c t o r i a l e s ,  ¿ a c a s o  n o  v a  e n  c o n t r a  d e  este principio, declarado por la Comisión 
Europea en todos los documentos sobre esta materia? 
EU reply:  The successive reforms of the CAP, including those of 2003 and 2008, have increased 
market orientation of European agriculture while improving the integration of environmental WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 22 - 
 
  requirements and reinforcing support for rural development as an integrated policy for the 
development of rural areas across the EU. The main direction of the policy in recent years has been the decoupling of support which has given freedom to farmers to produce to market needs while providing them with income support to ensu re provision of basic public goods desired by 
European society. The CAP for the period 2014-2020 is in no way aimed at reversing this 
successful reform process of the CAP over the last 20 years. The policy will continue along the path 
towards greater market orientation, whilst responding to demands for a better distribution of 
support among and within Member States, as well as calls for a better targeting of measures 
aimed at addressing environmental challenges and better addressing increased market volatility.  
Coupled support will be limited. In the CAP for the period 2014-2020 it will be possible for the EU 
Member States to use part of their national ceilings for direct payments for coupled support in 
certain sectors and regions where specific types of farming or specific agricultural sectors are 
particularly important for economic, environmental and/or social reasons. The legislation will contain a list of sectors which may receive coupled support. Applying coupled support will be 
optional for Member States and limited to an appr opriate level. Payments will be based on fixed 
areas and yields or on a fixed number of animals.  
Al final del párrafo 4.8 del Informe de la Secretaría se reconoce que "No obstante, la reforma 
posterior a 2013, al igual que reformas anteriores, no abordará directamente las condiciones de 
acceso a los mercados de la UE, y los aranceles, los contingentes arancelarios y la salvaguardia especial para la agricultura no se verán afectados." 
68. ¿Podría la UE coincidir en que la conti nuación del proceso de la reforma de la 
agricultura comprometido en el artículo  20 del Acuerdo sobre Agricultura está 
detenido en lo que concierne al acceso a mercado? 
EU reply: A successful completion of a balanced and comprehensive DDA package would among 
other things lead to improvements in market access. 
69. ¿Ha considerado la UE realizar  alguna reducción de la pr otección no discriminatoria 
en productos agropecuarios, como una contribución a la lucha contra el 
proteccionismo? 
EU reply: The EU has no plans to autonomously change its tariffs for agricultural products. Any 
change will result from a successful conclusion to  the DDA. In the meantime, the EU will continue 
to respect its WTO commitments.  
Desde 1995, la UE ha iniciado varios procedimientos al amparo del artículo XXVIII del GATT94 
para aumentar sus aranceles consolidados. Sin contar los procedimientos aplicados como consecuencia del ingreso de nuevos Estados Miembros a la UE, la UE ha concluido cuatro 
procedimientos en que resultó un sustancial aumento de aranceles y se encuentra negociando 
actualmente tres procedimientos, todos ellos en productos de gran interés comercial, especialmente para países en desarrollo. Por su frecuencia y alcance en términos de comercio, el 
uso de estos procedimientos por parte de la UE ya no puede considerarse excepcional. 
70. Al respecto: 
a)  ¿Cuáles son las razones de fondo po r esta alta intensidad en el uso de 
procedimientos para aumentar  aranceles consolidados?  
b)  ¿Ha considerado la UE el efecto  adverso en la predecibilidad de sus 
consolidaciones arancelarias a fin de da r seguridad jurídica a los exportadores, 
especialmente en los países en desarrollo?  
c)  ¿Compartiría la UE la idea de que es tos aumentos del nivel de protección son una 
reversión de cierta reducción  del proteccionismo alcanzada en la Ronda Uruguay? 
d)  Por lo tanto, ¿no serían contrarios al  principio consagrado en el artículo 20 del 
Acuerdo sobre Agricultura de continuidad de l proceso de reforma de la agricultura? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 23 - 
 
  e) ¿Cómo se condice el uso de estos proced imientos de aumento de protección con el 
compromiso político de la UE enfrentar el proteccionismo?  
EU reply for questions 70.a to 70.e : The number of Article XXVIII GATT negotiations concluded 
by the EU since 1995 is very limited and very few tariff lines were concerned. In accordance with 
Article XXVIII GATT rules, for each negotiation an agreement was concluded between the EU and 
the WTO Members having a principal supplying interest, a substantial interest or INRs on the level of compensation to be granted. All the necessary procedures were fully respected.  
Adicionalmente, el anexo 3-E del Análisis de Impacto  que acompaña la propuesta de la CE sobre la 
reforma de la PAC 2014-2020 estableció que el mayor impacto de desacoplar los pagos directos sobre los márgenes de beneficio de los productores se produciría en las "áreas menos favorecidas" de producción y no en las principales regiones productivas (v.g. análisis del sector de la carne).  
Teniendo en consideración que dichas "áreas menos favorecidas" podrán recibir ayuda específica 
hasta 5% del presupuesto nacional para pagos directos dentro de la propuesta de la CE ,  
71. ¿No considera la UE que es redundante en  este contexto mantener un instrumento 
de ayudas distorsivo como los pagos acopla dos e, incluso, permitir una ampliación 
de su participación dentro del P ilar I y de su ámbito sectorial? 
EU reply:  As part of direct payments to farmers for the period 2014-2020, optional coupled 
support and optional support in areas with natura l constraints have different objectives and are 
both strictly limited. Payments for areas with specific natural constraints can provide additional income support to farmers located in areas where difficult natural conditions (e.g. mountains) create challenging circumstances for agricultural activity. The measure could help to combat land 
abandonment in marginal areas and would thus co ntribute to the continued provision of public 
goods. Coupled support will be allowed in certain sectors and regions where specific types of farming or specific agricultural sectors are particularly important for economic, environmental 
and/or social reasons. This optional support ma y only represent a limited share of the direct 
payments to farmers. 
72. ¿No considera la UE que en este contexto ésta hubiera sido una buena oportunidad 
para eliminar este mecanismo distorsivo?  
EU reply:  No, EU Member States should be allowed to use part of their national ceilings for direct 
payments for coupled support in clearly defined cases where specific types of farming or specific 
agricultural sectors undergo certain difficulties and are particularly important for economic and/or 
social and/or environmental reasons. Applying coup led support will be optional for Member States 
and limited to an appropriate level. Payments will be based on fixed areas and yields or on a fixed 
number of animals.   
4.1.3.1 Ayuda interna 
73. Teniendo en cuenta las corrientes crisis fiscales y de deuda, ¿por qué eligen los 
miembros de la UE centrar medidas de au steridad en gasto público focalizado en 
programas sociales y de bienestar y no en  programas de subsidios y subvenciones 
al sector agrícola? 
EU reply:  Since the beginning of the crisis the EU has been advocating a consolidation strategy 
based on two components:  
 the speed of consolidation has to be differentiated across countries according to their fiscal 
space, to strike the right balance between pote ntial negative growth effects and the risks to 
debt sustainability. The EU rule-based fiscal framework – the Stability and Growth Pact – offers the appropriate framework to guide the different iated speed of adjustment, while at the same 
time anchoring agent's expectation on the future course of policy; 
 while focusing the consolidation on the expenditur e side, there is a need to devise an overall 
growth-friendly mix of revenue and expenditure, with targeted measures within available fiscal 
space to protect key growth drivers whil e ensuring efficiency of expenditure. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 24 - 
 
  In general, the Commission advice for Member States economic policies aims at avoiding 
macroeconomic and financial instability and creating conditions for sustainable economic growth.  
Commission's analysis shows that EU Member States have to a large extent implemented fiscal 
strategies in line with the above principles. In  particular, the pace of consolidation has been 
differentiated across countries, with vulnerable countries frontloading the necessary adjustment, 
while countries with larger fiscal room for manoeuvre maintaining broadly neutral fiscal stance.  
Concerning the composition of consolidation, contrary to what Argentina suggests, consolidation 
measures have been broadly balanced between expenditure and revenue sides of budgets. Even 
more, on the expenditure side we have seen increases in social spending, driven by increasing unemployment and short-term rigidity of entitlemen ts, while the share of subsidies in total public 
spending has fallen.  
En el párrafo 4.9 y 4.10 se explican las limitacion es sectoriales y de proporción sobre el total de 
las ayudas directas de los pagos acoplados, según lo establecido, entre otros, en el Artículo 68 del Reglamento del Consejo (EC) N° 73/2009. En el cuadro 4.5 puede apreciarse, asimismo, la 
reducción gradual en la proporción de pagos acoplados sobre el total de ayudas directas (con 
excepciones en algunos sectores). Sin embargo, incluso para los años 2009/10, éstos representan 13% de los pagos directos totales. Adicionalmente , en las discusiones entre el Parlamento Europeo 
y el Consejo se prevé que los pagos acoplados puedan representar hasta 15% (posición del 
Consejo) sin ningún límite sectorial. 
74. ¿Podría la UE confirmar si la reforma de la PAC para el período 2014-2020 no 
impondrá ningún límite sectorial a las ayudas acopladas?  
EU reply:  Coupled support will be limited. It may only be granted to sectors or to regions of a 
Member State where specific types of farming or specific agricultural sectors undergo certain 
difficulties and are particularly important for economic and/or social and/or environmental reasons. 
The legislation will contain a list of sectors which may receive coupled support which will be 
optional for Member States and limited to an appropriate level. Payments under voluntary coupled support will be based on fixed areas and yields or on fixed number of animals.  
75. En caso afirmativo, ¿no considera que se  trata de un retroceso respecto a los 
límites impuestos por las reformas de 2003 y 2008? 
EU reply:  We do not agree with such view. Successive reforms of the CAP, including those of 2003 
and 2008, have increased the market orientation of European agriculture while improving the 
integration of environmental requirements and reinforcing support for rural development as an 
integrated policy for the development of rural ar eas across the EU. The main direction of the policy 
in recent years has been the decoupling of support which has given freedom to farmers to produce 
to market needs while providing them with income support to ensure provision of basic public 
goods desired by European society. The CAP for the period 2014-2020 is in no way aimed at reversing this successful reform process of the CAP. The policy will continue along the path 
towards greater market orientation, whilst responding to demands for a better distribution of 
support among and within Member States, as well as calls for a better targeting of measures aimed at addressing environmental challenges an d better addressing increased market volatility.   
4.1.3.1.1 Desarrollo rural 
En el párrafo 4.11 se señala que en 2005 se estableció, para el período 2007-2013, el marco 
jurídico de la política de desarrollo rural de cada Estado miembro, que incluye las medidas de política que pueden adoptar. La política de desarrollo rural se basa en tres "ejes temáticos": 
aumento de la competitividad; mejora del medio ambiente; y promoción de la diversificación y 
mejora de la calidad de vida en las zonas rurales. Además, parte de los fondos deben utilizarse para prestar apoyo a proyectos comunitarios "Leader", que son proyectos administrados por 
organizaciones locales para resolver problemas locales concretos. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 25 - 
 
  76. ¿Puede la UE explicar específicamente a que se refiere con el  deber de utilización 
parcial de los fondos destinados al Desa rrollo Rural para proyectos comunitarios 
"leader", que son administrados por or ganizaciones locales para resolver 
problemas locales concretos?  
a. ¿A que problemas concretos se refiere? 
EU reply: At EU level, the Leader method is a prominent policy instrument to address the 
development problems of rural areas, such as remo teness, depopulation, sparse population, etc. It 
is aimed at enhancing local rural governance and structures and so enhances the effectiveness and 
efficiency of rural development policies. Leader is based on a bottom-up approach and strongly advocates the creation of new public-private partnerships in rural areas. It integrates local constituents into the decision-making process, st rengthens the self-governance potential of rural 
areas and increases local stakeholders' "ownership " of EU funded projects. Leader encourages 
socio-economic players to work together, to produce goods and services that generate maximum added value in their local area. 
One key priority in the Leader framework is boosting regional governance capacity. Leader actions 
can activate and mobilise local actors by supporting predevelopment projects (such as diagnostic and feasibility studies or local capacity building) which will improve these areas' capacity to access 
and use not only Leader funds but also other sources of support. The population in general is 
involved, including economic and social interest groups and representatives of public and private 
institutions. Leader also has a strong focus on capacity building for all actors involved in its implementation. Leader has therefore become an obligatory part of the rural development 
programmes and EU Member States have to spend 5% of the budget on this approach.  
El párrafo 4.11 continúa indicando que para finales de 2008 se habían acordado todos los planes 
estratégicos nacionales, con financiación de fuentes nacionales (el 40% en promedio) y del 
FEADER. El importe total de los pagos efectuados  en 2011 para el desarrollo rural con cargo al 
presupuesto de la UE fue de 11.500 millones de euros, la mayoría en el marco del FEADER. El gasto presupuestario de la UE en medidas agroambientales, que forman parte del desarrollo rural, 
aumentó en el marco de la estrategia de 2007-2013 (tras un arranque relativamente lento en 
2007) y alcanzó la cifra de 3.000 millones de euros en 2010, con 2.000 millones de euros adicionales con cargo a los presupuestos de los Estados miembros 
77. ¿Puede la UE explicar por que decidi ó aumentar los pagos en concepto de 
"Desarrollo Rural" efectuados a través de l Fondo Europeo Agrícola de Desarrollo 
Rural (FEADER)?  
EU reply: The financing under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) is 
fixed for the 7-year programing period on the basis of national rural development programmes 
prepared by the EU Member States. Within this peri od there are variations in the level of spending 
from one year to another. This is related to the rhythm of implementation and financial execution 
of the national rural development programmes in the Member States. 
78. ¿Qué tan necesario es otorgar fondos bajo este concepto en un país desarrollado 
como la UE? 
EU reply: The sustainability principle applies also for the developed countries. With over 56% of 
the population in the 28 Member States of the Eu ropean Union living in rural areas, which cover 
over 90% of the territory, rural development is a vitally important policy area. Farming and forestry remain crucial for land use and the management of natural resources in the EU's rural 
areas, and as a platform for economic diversification in rural communities. The strengthening of EU 
rural development policy is, therefore, an overall EU priority.  
4.1.3.1.2 Medidas de sostenimiento del mercado interno 
En el párrafo 4.17. se indica que en el marco del "chequeo" decidido en noviembre de 2008, las 
cuotas aplicadas a la leche aumentaron un 2% en 2008 y están sujetas a incrementos anuales del 1% de 2009 a 2013 (excepto en el caso de Ita lia, en el que hubo un único aumento del 5% en 
2009). Asimismo, se señala que aunque la producción de la UE en su conjunto ha sido inferior a la WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 26 - 
 
  cuota, cinco Estados miembros sobrepasaron sus cuotas en 2010/2011 y seis en 2011/2012. Los 
productores que sobrepasen sus cuotas deben pagar un gravamen de 27,83 euros por cada 100 kg en que su producción sobrepase su cuota, en la proporción en que cada uno de ellos haya contribuido al exceso total del Estado miembro. 
79. ¿Podría la UE explicar el destino de la  producción de leche de las campañas 
2010/2011 y 2011/2012 de los países miembros que sobrepasaron sus cuotas pre-establecidas?  
a. ¿Que se prevé hacer con posibles futuras sobreproducciones? 
EU reply:  Whether milk is produced in or out of quota has no influence on its subsequent use. As 
correctly explained in the WTO Secretariat's report , milk producers that exceed their quotas are 
required to pay a levy of 27.83 €/100 kg of producti on in excess of their quota to the extent they 
contributed to the Member State's overshoot. It is for the private operators in the dairy sector to 
find an appropriate outlet for the milk. No modification is envisaged as dairy quotas will be abolished in 2015.  
En el párrafo 4.19 se explica que el Régimen europeo de distribución de leche en los centros 
escolares sigue en curso. En su marco, los Estados miembros pueden elegir entre una diversidad de productos lácteos los que desean proporcionar a los escolares. 
80. ¿Podría la UE indicar si en el marco de  este programa se distribuyen productos 
lácteos importados en el régimen europeo en los centros escolares?  
EU reply:  There is no specific data available on the origin of the products distributed to pupils 
under the School Milk Scheme. The categories of products are defined as well as a maximum 
subsidy amount, but no restriction is put on the origin of the products. That aspect is therefore not 
monitored.  
81. ¿Qué ocurre en el caso de las frutas y hortalizas distribuidas en el plan de consumo 
de fruta en las escuelas? 
EU reply:  The scheme aims at nutritional and health objectives; therefore products eligible for aid 
should offer a high level of health protection and promote healthy eating habits. According to 
Article 103ga point 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, as amended by Regulation (EC) 
No 13/2009 of 18 December 2008, there is no restriction on sourcing the fruit for this scheme from imports.  
4.1.3.2 Subvenciones a la exportación 
En el párrafo 4.23 hace mención a los subsidios a las exportaciones en la UE .  
82. ¿Podría la UE brindar una justificación sobre la continuidad de este tipo de 
instrumento distorsivo en un contexto de recuperación de precios internacionales 
para los productos agrícolas?  
EU reply: The EU is fully in line with its WTO commitments. 
83. ¿Tiene definido la UE un horizonte temporal  para la eliminación de estos subsidios? 
EU reply: On export competition, the EU is committed to the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, 
and in particular its paragraph 6, in its entirety. This states: "the date … for the elimination of all 
forms of export subsidies, together with the agr eed progressivity and parallelism, will be confirmed 
only upon the completion of the modalities".  
84. Tomando en cuenta su bajo uso en general en la actualidad, ¿podría la UE hacer 
una contribución en la 9° Conferencia Ministerial de la OMC con vistas a su total eliminación?  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 27 - 
 
  EU reply: The EU is taking a constructive and pro-active role in the appropriate forums for 
discussing certain limited agricultural issues for the 9th WTO Ministerial Conference, in particular 
the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture, and respectfully refers Argentina to those discussions for the EU's positions.  
85. En caso que no fuera ése el caso, ¿podría dar las razones? 
EU reply: On export competition, the EU is committed to the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, 
and in particular its paragraph 6, in its entirety. This states: "the date … for the elimination of all 
forms of export subsidies, together with the agr eed progressivity and parallelism, will be confirmed 
only upon the completion of the modalities".  
El esquema tarifario para el sector agrícola se vinculó históricamente al funcionamiento efectivo de 
los instrumentos de intervención de mercados agrícolas (v.g. precios sostén). La reducción 
nominal de la mayor parte de los precios sostén no derivó, sin embargo, en modificaciones 
sustanciales del perfil arancelario del sector agrícola en la UE.  
86. ¿Tiene previsto la UE efectuar modificaci ones arancelarias sustanciales para el 
sector agrícola a partir de la reforma post-2013, teniendo en consideración el 
contexto internacional de recuperaci ón de precios internacionales?  
EU reply: CAP reforms are not intended to change the EU's agricultural tariffs. Any change will 
result from a successful conclusion to the DDA. In  the meantime, the EU will continue to respect 
its WTO commitments.  
4.1.3.3 Acceso a los mercados En el párrafo 4.29 se señala que "las tasas de utilización varían considerablemente de un 
contingente arancelario a otro" y que "en la última notificación…de un total de 112 contingentes 
arancelarios con respecto a productos agrícolas 34 se habían utilizado plenamente" y "31 tenían una tasa de utilización inferior al 1%". 
87. ¿Podrían explicar cuáles son las razones para que un 28% (31) de los 112 
contingentes arancelarios para producto s agrícolas tenga una tasa de utilización 
inferior al 1%? ¿Podrían identificar a estos 31 contingentes arancelarios? 
EU reply: Low fill rates for tariff quotas may result from market conditions such as competitive 
domestic production.  
For the specific quotas concerned, see the EU's notification referred to in paragraphs 4.27 and 
4.29.  
4.3 Servicios 
4.3.1 Servicios financieros 4.3.1.2 Cambios normativos recientes y en proyecto 
4.3.1.2.6 Próximos pasos previstos en la  reforma de los servicios financieros 
En el párrafo 4.112 se señala que, en relación con "Pagos", la Comisión proyecta el 
establecimiento de un mercado europeo integrado con métodos de pago innovadores. En enero de 
2012 se publicó un Libro Verde sobre pagos mediante tarjeta, pagos por Internet y pagos móviles, 
que son los métodos de pago minorista de más rápido crecimiento en Europa. La Comisión se propone adoptar propuestas legislativas que aborden los obstáculos a la integración del mercado en esas esferas en el primer semestre de 2013.  
88. ¿De qué modo define la UE a los "métodos  de pago innovadores" y qué se incluye 
dentro de dicha categoría? 
EU reply: The Commission did not define the concept of innovative methods of payment in its 
legislation. However, in broad sense, the concept encompasses all payments offered outside the 
traditional banking channels (these are, in rough approximation, payments offered at the bank WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 28 - 
 
  premises or through bank controlled access channels, including bank kiosks or bank online 
applications as well as traditional card payments on the basis of physically issued cards). 
4.3.3 Servicios de transporte 
4.3.3.1 Servicios de transporte aéreo 
En la Tabla 4.31 se reseñan las normas que integran el marco regulatorio al que están sujetos los 
servicios aéreos en la Unión Europea. Al final de dicha tabla, al hacer referencia a la Directiva 
2008/101/EC que incluye a las actividades de la aviación dentro del Sistema Europeo de Comercio 
de Emisiones (ETS) a partir del 1º de enero de 2012, se señala que la Comisión Europea propuso 
en noviembre de 2012 posponer la aplicación del ETS a la aviación hasta después de la Asamblea 
General de la OACI que tendrá lugar en el otoño boreal de 2013.  
Aun cuando en la Tabla 4.31 se señala que la prop uesta de la Comisión aún no ha sido adoptada, 
en el Diario Oficial del 25 de abril de 2013 fue publicada la Decisión 377/2013/UE del Parlamento 
Europeo y del Consejo, del 24 de abril de 2013, que establece la mencionada excepción temporal, 
decisión que entró en vigor en el momento de su publicación. Sin embargo, se indica que si la 
solución que adopte la Asamblea General de la OACI en 2013 no contiene tres elementos 
considerados esenciales por la UE, a saber, que reduzca las emisiones de la aviación al menos en 
la misma proporción prevista por el ETS; que sea no discriminatoria para todas las aerolíneas; y 
que contenga objetivos y medidas aplicables a los Estados miembros de la OACI, volverá a 
aplicarse en plenitud la legislación europea que somete a las actividades de la aviación al ETS 
(Directiva 2008/101/CE). 
89. ¿Podría la UE aclarar si la normativa eu ropea incluiría a las compañías aéreas de 
los países en desarrollo? En tal caso, ¿podría explicar como se condice este 
objetivo buscado por la UE con el prin cipio de "responsabilidades comunes pero 
diferenciadas", reconocido como principi o general del derecho internacional del 
medio ambiente? 
EU reply: The EU ETS/aviation legislation (Directive 2003/87/EC as amended for aviation by 
Directive 2008/101/EC) is applicable to all aircraft operators irrespective of nationality which 
operate flights to and from the airports in the European Union. The legislation does include 
exemptions, inter alia flights performed by aircraft with a certified maximum take-off mass of less than 5700 kg or flights performed by a commercial aircraft operator operating either fewer than 
243 flights per period for three consecutive four-month periods, or flights with total annual 
emissions lower than 10 000 tonnes per year. the EU ETS. As a consequence of the scope of the 
legislation, including the "de minimis" provisions, 98 ICAO States have no commercial carrier covered by the EU ETS, including most developing countries. 
In the UNFCCC the EU has always and conti nues to support the principle of Common but 
Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities. But this principle is about the respective responsibilities and capabilities of states an d should not be interpreted to imply that any 
passengers or operators from non-Annex I States, no matter where in the world they fly, must be 
exempt from any measure or responsibility – this would make it impossible to address effectively the problem at hand. Any accommodation of special circumstances and respective capabilities (SCRC) of States in a global measure must not only take into account the principles of UNFCCC, 
but equally the ICAO principles of non-discriminatio n and of equal and fair opportunities to develop 
international aviation.  
90. ¿En qué medida las condiciones fijadas por la Unión Europea para suspender la 
aplicación de la Directiva 2008/101/CE no condicionan a priori las deliberaciones 
de la Asamblea General de la OACI? 
EU reply: The "stop-the-clock" derogation is provided  by the European Union to facilitate an 
agreement at the 38th session of the ICAO Assemb ly on a realistic timetable for the development 
of a global MBM beyond the 38th session of the IC AO Assembly and on a framework for facilitating 
the comprehensive application of national and regional MBMs to international aviation, pending the application of the global MBM. On this basis, with a view to facilitating the optimal interaction 
between any such outcome and the scheme for gree nhouse gas emission allowances trading within 
the Union, further steps could be considered.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 29 - 
 
  The EU calls on Argentina to take a constructive approach to the on-going negotiations at ICAO on 
both the MBM framework and the global MBM scheme in order to reach a successful outcome at 
the ICAO Assembly in September/October 2013. 
La normativa europea que aplica el ETS a las actividades de la aviación ha sido criticada por 
constituir una aplicación extra-territorial del derecho de la UE.  
91. ¿Podría la UE explicar qué opina respec to a que la condicionalidad que está 
planteando a las deliberaciones de la Asamblea General de la OACI podría 
considerarse también una aplicación extra- territorial del derecho interno europeo? 
EU reply:  The EU ETS is in line with international law and with the Chicago Convention. In 2011, 
the highest Court in the EU, the European Court of Ju stice, issued its ruling on the case brought by 
a group of American airlines and IATA (C-366/10). The Court confirmed that the legislation is fully 
compatible with international law, including the Chicago Convention and bilateral air service 
agreements.  
The EU has always pursued addressing international aviation emissions multilaterally, notably at 
ICAO, and effective actions agreed there woul d be the best way forward. In 2001, ICAO 
recommended developing open emissions trading as part of a comprehensive approach to reducing emissions from international aviation, but in 2010 the ICAO favoured a framework for national and 
regional action. A single global MBM is not in place, nor is likely to be before 2020.  
92. ¿Existe suficiente evidencia científica qu e avale que la aplicación de "medidas de 
mercado" a los servicios de transporte aé reo asegura una reducción efectiva de las 
emisiones de gases de efecto invernader o, sin obstruir innecesariamente el 
comercio internacional de servicios aéreos?  
EU reply: Before introducing the EU ETS, comprehensive studies based on scientific evidence were 
made and the results made public concluding that market-based measures were the most cost-
effective way to reduce GHG emissions from intern ational aviation. At ICAO, already in 2001 it was 
agreed at the 33rd Assembly that emissions trading was a cost-effective method for reducing aviation emissions.  
93. ¿En qué medida son eficientes este tipo  de medidas de mercado en el actual 
contexto de caída abrupta del precio del carbono?  
EU reply:  The ETS is efficient in ensuring global reductions in CO2 emissions across multiple 
economic sectors since operators decide to either reduce their own emissions, or to purchase 
allowances from other participants or other sectors where emissions reductions are more cost-
effective, or to acquire allowances from auctions. In all of these cases, an operator will decide on its concrete course of action on the basis of an assessment how most emissions can be reduced for 
the lowest economic price. 
94. ¿Ha considerado la Unión Europea medidas alternativas? 
EU reply:  Yes. Taxation, upstream ETS (fuel suppliers), were also considered, but emissions 
trading was identified as the most cost-effective and least market distortive option. 
4.3.3.3 Servicios de transporte marítimo En el cuadro 4.40 (Marco normativo de los servicios de transporte marítimo de la UE) y en lo que 
respecta a "Emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero", se menciona que la "Comisión está 
preparando una propuesta legislativa sobre el establecimiento de un sistema de vigilancia, 
notificación y verificación como primer paso para abordar las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero procedentes del transporte marítimo". 
95. ¿Podría brindarse mayor información sobre esta "propuesta legislativa"? 
EU reply: The proposal foresees setting up a system for ships to monitor and report their fuel 
consumption, associated emissions as well as some additional information linked to the efficiency WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 30 - 
 
  of the ship. It applies to all ships above 5000 GT wh ich are linked to EU traffic (last port of call 
before an EU port, intra-EU movement, next port of call from an EU port). Applicable to all ships, regardless of flag.  
a. ¿Cuándo podría entrar en vigor? 
EU reply:  The proposal was adopted by the Commission on 28
th June 2013. It will be discussed by 
the colegislators, European Parliament and the Council of the EU.   
b. ¿En qué consistiría?  
EU reply:  see above 
c ¿Se aplicará también a buques extra-comunitarios? 
EU reply:  Yes. 
II.- Informe de la Unión Europea (WT/TPR/G/284) 
1. INTRODUCCIÓN 
En el párrafo 1.5 se indica que "el comercio ha desempeñado hasta la fecha una importante 
función como motor de crecimiento, y se espera que siga siendo la principal fuente de crecimiento 
d e  l a  e c o n o m í a  d e  l a  U E  e n  2 0 1 3 .  L a  U n i ó n  E u r o p e a  s e  h a  a p o y a d o  e n  g r a n  m e d i d a  e n  s u  
programa comercial y la Comunicación "Comercio, crecimiento y asuntos mundiales: La política comercial como elemento fundamental de la Estrat egia 2020 de la UE" -que forma parte integrante 
de la Estrategia Europa 2020- sigue siendo el pilar de su política comercial y de inversiones. En la 
reunión del Consejo Europeo celebrada los días 7 y 8 de febrero de 2013 se reiteró la determinación de la UE de fomentar un comercio libre, justo y abierto, defendiendo sus intereses con un espíritu de reciprocidad y provecho mutuo." 
Asimismo, en el párrafo siguiente (1.6) se señala que la UE reconoce "la suma importancia de 
combatir todas las formas de proteccionismo, también en lo que se refiere a las barreras comerciales no arancelarias. Por último, en el párrafo 4.5 se indica que "la política comercial 
seguirá poniéndose al servicio del desarrollo, y la Unión Europea y sus Estados miembros seguirán 
esforzándose por ayudar a los países en desarrollo en sus esfuerzos por lograr el crecimiento y reducir la pobreza en el marco de un desarrollo sostenible". 
96. ¿Cómo se condicen estas afirmaciones con: 
a. El proteccionismo permanente ejercido por la  UE en el sector agrícola, de principal 
interés para las economías de los países en desarrollo? 
EU reply:  The EU is committed to resisting protectionism and reinforcing the multilateral trading 
system and strengthening the role of trade as an  engine of growth. The EU maintains that the 
most viable way of ensuring the liberalisation of trade is to ensure a successful outcome for the Doha Development Round. In terms of market access opportunities granted to developing 
countries, EU policies remain unparalleled. The EU is the biggest importer of agricultural products 
in the world and by far the greatest importer of agricultural products from developing countries, 
importing more than the next four largest developed country importers combined. By the 
Everything but Arms initiative, the General System of Preferences and Economic Partnership 
Agreements with the ACP countries, the EU prov ides duty-free quota-free market access for all 
LDCs. 
b. La renuencia, también permanente, a re ducir y/o eliminar sus programas de 
subsidios al sector como los elevados y complejos derechos ar ancelarios que aplica 
a las importaciones de estos productos? 
EU reply: The EU reaffirms its commitment to conclude the DDA in order to establish a fair and 
market-oriented trading system by offering to substantially improve market access conditions, to 
phase out all forms of export subsidies and substa ntially reduce trade-distorting domestic support WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 31 - 
 
  as part of an overall balanced package. In the meantime, the EU will continue to respect its WTO 
commitments.  
2. LA UNIÓN EUROPEA EN UN MUNDO CAMBIANTE 
2.1 Resultados económicos y retos futuros 
En el párrafo 2.11 se menciona que el mercado único ha sido decisivo para crear empresas 
competitivas a nivel mundial en Europa y ha constituido una piedra angular de la capacidad de la Unión Europea para competir en un mundo globalizado. Asimismo, ha promovido el desarrollo de 
reglas y estándares de gran calidad que contribuyen a la determinación de las normas globales. La 
ampliación de la Unión Europea y la integración en su seno, junto con la adopción por terceros países de normas de la Unión Europea, significa que las empresas de la Unión Europea operan en el mayor mercado único del mundo, lo que ha facilitado la aparición de eficientes cadenas de valor 
europeas. Las empresas europeas exportan no sólo  gracias al valor que se crea en el Estado 
miembro de la UE en el que se registran las exportaciones, sino también gracias a contribuciones procedentes de todo el mercado único. La distribución de los puestos de trabajo creados por las 
exportaciones refleja esta situación. Por cada dos puestos de trabajo creados en un Estado 
miembro de la UE en el que se contabilizan estadísticamente las exportaciones, se crea uno en otro lugar de la Unión Europea." 
97. Si bien Argentina valora y comparte los aporte hecho por la UE en lo que respecta 
al desarrollo de normas y estándares para la mejora de la calidad, ¿podría la UE explicar por qué las mismas no pueden ser debatidas y desarrolladas en los foros pertinentes a fin de que puedan ser contem pladas las características propias de los 
diversos participantes del comercio mundial?  
EU reply:  Requirements and standards for products im posed or developed in the EU's internal 
market are in principle based on international standards when those exist, are effective and 
appropriate and guarantee the high level of protec tion of health, safety, environmental protection 
and consumer protection to which the EU is committed to (Article 114 TFEU).The EU is active in numerous international for a where product characteristics are discussed. Moreover, measures 
such as regulatory co-operation (to make regulatory requirements and market surveillance 
systems more compatible); harmonisation (to create single technical rules); mutual recognition agreements ; support for the development of international standards (to create compatibility and interoperability of products and, eventually, to provide a common technical basis for technical 
regulations); and the development of codes of conduct and technical assistance (to provide 
support for the setting-up of a quality infrastructure in third countries), are all actions that EU uses to facilitate trade. 
As standardisation plays an increasingly important role in international trade and the opening-up 
of markets, the EU promotes cooperation betw een European standardisation organisations and 
international standardisation bodies, and also bilateral approaches with third countries to 
coordinate standardisation efforts. 
European standardisation organisations, CEN an d CENELEC have agreements with ISO and IEC 
respectively in order to avoid duplication, ov erlap and conflicting standards at European and 
international level. For example, almost 80% of all European standards in the electro-technical 
sector are either identical or based on IEC standards. Whenever possible, the European 
Standardisation Organisations CEN, CENELEC and ETSI adopt international standards as harmonised European standards.  
2.3 Evolución del mercado interior y de l os elementos principales de política general 
Normalización En el párrafo 2.39 se indica que las normas y la normalización son un importante instrumento de 
política para la Unión Europea. En octubre de 2012, el Consejo Europeo y el Parlamento Europeo 
adoptaron el Reglamento (UE) Nº 1025/201214 sobre la normalización europea, aplicable a partir 
del 1º de enero de 2013. En este Reglamento  se establecen las normas básicas sobre la 
cooperación entre las organizaciones de normalización, la Comisión Europea y los Estados WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 32 - 
 
  miembros de la UE. El Reglamento tiene por objeto modernizar y mejorar el sistema europeo de 
normalización y hacer que el proceso de normalización sea más rápido e inclusivo." 
98. En relación con el Reglamento (UE) Nº 1025/2012, ¿Podría la UE explicar si prevé 
la posibilidad de efectuar acuerdos de  reconocimiento muto en materia de 
normalización con organismos de terceros Estados, ya que los mismos resultarían 
una herramienta muy útil sobre todo para los países en desarrollo? 
EU reply:  European standards are adopted by the European standardisation organisations, namely 
CEN, CENELEC and ETSI. European standardisat ion organisations are independent non-profit 
organisations which provide platform for the deve lopment of European Standards (ENs) and other 
consensus documents. 
CEN, CENELEC and ETSI are committed to international standardization, and open for 
cooperation/collaboration with other standardiz ation bodies worldwide. Whenever possible, 
European standards are identical to international ones. For example, CEN and CENELEC have agreements with ISO and IEC in order to avoid co nflicting standards between the international and 
the European level.  
Cooperation/collaboration between CEN/CENELEC and third country National Standardization 
Bodies (NSBs) or with regional standardization bodies may take several shapes: affiliation; 
standardization partnership (PSB); cooperation agreements or Memorandum of Understanding 
(MoU). The ESOs are also sometimes involved in relevant Technical Assistance projects financed by the European Union. Any standardisation body in the world can adopt European standards – the rules and procedures are explained on the ESOs' websites.  
Finally, it can be stressed that the European Cooperation for Accreditation (EA) and its national 
Members are active members of ILAC (International  Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation) and IAF 
(International Accreditation Forum) as well as of the multilateral recognition arrangements 
operated by these organisations. 
3. PRINCIPALES ACONTECIMIENTOS REGISTRADOS EN LA POLÍTICA COMERCIAL DE LA 
UE (2011-2012) 
3.2 La OMC y el programa multilateral 
La Ronda de Doha y la Novena Conferencia Ministerial de la OMC En el párrafo 3.6 se señala que para la UE el paquete de medidas a acordar en Bali (CM9), "como 
primer paso hacia la conclusión de la Ronda de Doha", debería girar en torno a un Acuerdo sobre 
Facilitación del Comercio e incluir también "un componente de desarrollo, así como determinadas 
cuestiones, de alcance limitado, relacionadas con la agricultura" (esto es reiterado nuevamente en párrafo 4.10). 
99. ¿A que se refieren por "alcance limitad o" para el pilar agrícola de estas 
negociaciones pre-Bali? 
100.  ¿Qué medidas debería incluir un paquet e agrícola de "alcance limitado"?  
EU reply to questions 99 and 100: The EU believes that an agreement at the 9
th WTO 
Ministerial Conference is possible on a limited se t of issues centring on the Trade Facilitation 
agreement, but also including development and certai n limited agricultural issues. The EU is taking 
a constructive and pro-active role in the appropriate forums for discussing certain limited 
agricultural issues for the 9th WTO Ministerial Conference, in particular the Special Session of the 
Committee on Agriculture, and respectfully refers Argentina to those discussions for the EU's positions.  
101.  ¿Por qué esa calificación de "alcance lim itado" se aplica solamente a un posible 
acuerdo en ese sector y no, por ejemplo, en lo que se refiere al Acuerdo sobre Facilitación del Comercio? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 33 - 
 
  EU reply: Ministers admitted in 8th WTO Ministerial Conference that Doha Round negotiations are 
in an impasse and committed to advance negotiations, where progress can be achieved including 
focusing on the elements of the Doha Declaration that allow Members to reach provisional or definitive agreements based on consensus earlier than the full conclusion of the single 
undertaking. The Trade Facilitation agreement and particularly its win-win nature and the benefits 
it will bring to all WTO Members, make it an ideal candidate to respond to the guidance given by Ministers. The same cannot be said for other elements of the Doha mandate that are still being 
negotiated. The EU is taking a constructive and pro-active role in the appropriate forums for 
discussing certain limited agricultural issues for the 9th WTO Ministerial Conference, in particular the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture, and respectfully refers Argentina to those discussions for the EU's positions. 
102 ¿La agricultura no debería estar en el centro de un paquete destinado al 
desarrollo? 
EU reply: Agriculture is indeed in the centre of the Doha Development Round. Ministers agreed 
however in the 8th WTO Ministerial Conference that negotiations are at an impasse and committed 
to advance negotiations, where progress can be achieved. The EU believes that by keeping reasonable expectations for the 9
th WTO Ministerial Conference and focusing on those issues that 
can be addressed, there is a real chance of accelerating negotiations on the more difficult areas of 
the Doha mandate, including agriculture and NAMA, after the 9th WTO Ministerial Conference.  
Vigilancia del proteccionismo En el párrafo 3.13 se indica que la Unión Europe a ha reconocido y apoyado plenamente la función 
de la OMC en la vigilancia del proteccionismo y atribuye gran importancia al pilar de transparencia 
de la Organización. Por tal motivo, ha contribuido al esfuerzo de la OMC por asegurar la transparencia, presentando información sobre sus medidas relacionadas con el comercio en una 
cantidad y un nivel inigualados. Además, la Unión Europea no pierde ocasión de subrayar, en los 
Comités de la OMC, la importancia de que los Miembros cumplan la obligación de notificación formal de sus medidas. 
A su vez, el párrafo 3.14 señala que los progresos en cuanto al cumplimiento por los Miembros de 
la OMC de las obligaciones de notificación siguen siendo lentos, y persisten algunas lagunas importantes en todas las esferas de la labor de la Organización. El historial de cumplimiento no es plenamente satisfactorio, aunque en cada uno de los Comités de la OMC se han emprendido 
iniciativas para mejorar la situación. La Unión Europea ha apoyado de manera activa y sistemática 
todas las iniciativas destinadas a fortalecer el sistema de vigilancia de los acontecimientos relacionados con el comercio y a mejorar la transparencia de las políticas y prácticas comerciales 
en la OMC. 
A lo largo de estos años Argentina ha obse rvado con preocupación, la proliferación de 
reglamentaciones por parte de la UE que gene ran una particular afectación del comercio 
y que por distintas causas, no han sido notificadas a la OMC. 
103 ¿Podría la UE explicar las razones por la cuales medidas que son claramente 
reglamentos técnicos o sanitarios, como  las relativas a la calidad de los 
biocombustibles (Directiva CE 2009/28 y Directiva CE 2009/30) no pueden ser 
debatidas en el Comité de Obst áculos Técnicos al Comercio?  
104 ¿Por qué el Reglamento CE 1099/2009 referido a bienestar animal no fue 
notificado al Comité de Obstáculos Técnicos al Comercio?  
EU reply to questions 103 and 104: If legislation to be put in place in the EU has an impact on 
trade, it will invariably be notified to the WTO. Council Regulation N°1099/2009 was not notified 
because its adoption did not change the conditions of import into the EU.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 34 - 
 
  3.3 El programa comercial bilateral 
3.3.1 Acuerdos bilaterales/regionales amplios y modulados 
En el párrafo 3.20 la UE señala que, con un planteamiento adecuado, los acuerdos de libre 
comercio pueden favorecer, sobre la base de las normas de la OMC y otras normas 
internacionales, una apertura mayor y más rápida, al abordar cuestiones que no están listas para 
el debate multilateral y preparar el terreno para el siguiente nivel de liberalización multilateral.  
A su vez, en el párrafo 3.21 la UE entiende  que la conclusión de acuerdos ambiciosos, 
especialmente con grandes países desarrollados, puede tener repercusiones sistémicas. Esos 
acuerdos constituyen un laboratorio para superar las lagunas de la reglamentación multilateral y formular soluciones normativas en las que pu eda basarse una labor ulterior en el plano 
multilateral. 
105 ¿Antes de proceder a ese "siguiente nivel de liberalización" en el ámbito 
multilateral (al cual se hace referencia t a m b i é n  e n  e l  p á r r a f o  4 . 1 2 ) ,  n o  d e b e r í a  
darse cumplimiento pleno al Mandato de la Ronda de Doha, en particular su 
componente más importante para el desarrollo que es la agricultura? 
106 ¿Podría la UE explicar cómo pretende un comercio internacional más justo, abierto, 
si las nuevas normas que se multilateralizarían ya van a estar negociadas entre 
"grandes países desarrollados", sin la pa rticipación de los otros integrantes del 
sistema multilateral?  
EU reply to questions 105 and 106: The EU believes that the issues set out in the Doha 
mandate, including the agriculture component, remain as relevant as ever and need to be resolved 
within the ongoing Doha Round of negotiations.  
3.4 Comercio y desarrollo sostenible 
3.4.2 Sistema de Preferen cias Generalizadas (SPG) 
En el párrafo 3.41 se indica que el SPG revisado mantiene los rasgos más destacados del sistema 
actual, pero se adapta a los cambios del panorama mundial. Las preferencias se han centrado en los 89 países más necesitados. Dichos países son los PMA y otras economías de ingreso bajo 
(según la clasificación del Banco Mundial) que no disfrutan, en virtud de otros regímenes, de 
acceso preferencial a la Unión Europea con preferencias arancelarias iguales o más favorables que en el marco del SPG. Los países en desarrollo cuya s preferencias se hayan aplazado siguen siendo 
elegibles y volverán a disfrutar de las preferencias del SPG si se los clasifica de nuevo como PMA 
(por las Naciones Unidas) o como países de ingreso bajo (por el Banco Mundial). La situación de 
los países elegibles se reexaminará cada año. 
Teniendo en cuenta que esta reforma establec e criterios de elegibilidad para los países 
beneficiarios que no contempla muchas de la s variables que dan cuenta de la dimensión 
del desarrollo de los países, dejando fu era del Sistema a muchos países que han 
realizado inversiones y especialización para poder participar del mercado comunitarios, 
107 ¿Ha analizado la UE las implicancias que la reforma del SGP que, tendría para estos 
países y si prevé alguna medida comercial de  mitigación de sus efectos en el actual 
contexto de crisis mundial? 
EU reply: The EU is of the view that bilateral and pl urilateral agreements need to be shaped in 
such a way as to contribute to and accelerate multilateral negotiations. Each WTO Member has the 
right to engage in bilateral negotiations it sees fit, while plurilateral initiatives that are currently underway are open to all WTO Members who are willing  to join. In the end, these initiatives will 
contribute to achieving progress on multilateral negotiations, but cannot replace a multilateral 
effort in which all WTO Members take part.  
4. UNA MIRADA AL FUTURO 
En el párrafo 4.11 se señala que "los beneficios que un acuerdo sobre facilitación del comercio (por 
el Acuerdo que se está negociando con miras a Bali) reportaría a la economía mundial serían WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 35 - 
 
  comparables a los beneficios totales previstos de la liberalización del comercio de bienes y 
servicios contemplada en el mandato inicial del PDD. 
108 ¿Tienen al respecto algún estudio de impacto que avale esta afirmación? 
EU reply: Developing countries will not be excluded fr om the system; rather, preferences will be 
deferred, not withdrawn. More advanced economies will receive preferences again in case their 
trade, financial and development needs change. 
The effects of the revised scheme on those countries have been analysed. The impact will be 
marginal since: a) for those countries, exports under the EU GSP do not account for a significant 
portion of their total exports to the EU; b) EU MFN tariff duties are in any case already reasonably 
low; c) many current beneficiaries for which preferences are deferred are EU FTA partners, 
therefore enjoy even better preferential access to the EU market. 
109 ¿De ser así, ¿cuál es su fuente y dónde se podría obtener? 
EU reply: The EU commissioned CEPII in 2011 to analyse the potential impacts of a Trade 
Facilitation agreement in the WTO. The study, published in October 2011, clearly demonstrated 
the global benefits of the agreement for all WTO Members and confirmed that developing countries 
would gain the most from this agreement.  
110 ¿Acaso no cree que el resultado que se  alcance en facilitación de comercio no 
tendrá el mismo impacto para los produc tos agropecuarios y pesqueros en razón 
de que éstos están sujetos a una barrera  adicional, las medidas sanitarias y 
fitosanitarias? 
EU reply: The study commissioned by the EU is available on the website of the European 
Commission (http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/october/tradoc_148337.pdf). It has been 
available since its publication in 2011. Interested Members are also referred to the work conducted by the OECD regarding the benefits of Trade Facilitation for developing countries. 
III. OTROS TEMAS 
Medioambiente y comercio: Huella ambiental 
En abril de 2011, en el marco del "Single Market Act",  la CE comenzó a evaluar y desarrollar una 
metodología común a nivel europeo con el fin de  establecer objetivos de política que brinden 
incentivos al consumo de los productos más amigables con el medioambiente. En la actualidad la 
fase de desarrollo metodológico se ha completado . 
1 1 1  ¿ P o d r í a  l a  U E  i n f o r m a r  s i  h a  d e f i n i do el objetivo de política que pondrá a 
consideración en su propuesta legislativa? 
EU reply: In April 2013, the European Commission adopted a package entitled "Single Market for 
Green Products". Two methods to measure envi ronmental performance - Product Environmental 
Footprint (PEF) and Organisational Environmental Footprint (OEF) - are part of this package. The 
Commission recommendation of 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations 
(2013/179/EU) recommends use of these methods to Member States, companies, private 
organizations and the financial community. The proposal is still to be discussed by the Commission, probably at the end of July. 
112 ¿Ha considerado la UE la compatibilidad de una iniciativa de este tipo con la 
normativa de la OMC, en especial con el  Acuerdo sobre Obstáculos Técnicos al 
Comercio, teniendo en cuenta las dificu ltades para establecer una metodología 
científica generalmente aceptada en la materia?  
EU reply:  The use of these environmental footprint methods is voluntary. Manufacturers will 
continue to be able to use alternative methods for the calculation of the environmental footprint of WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 36 - 
 
  their products and organisations. The EU consider s that the methods are in conformity with WTO 
rules, including the TBT Agreement.  
The methods are based on existing international and European methodological standards and 
guidance documents (ISO 140064, Global Report ing Initiative, WRI GHG Protocol, CDP Water 
Footprint, DEFRA guidance on GHG reportin g, ADEME Bilan Carbone, etc). The PEF/OEF 
methodology is an attempt to combine the best  features and further develop these existing 
methodologies/guidance documents with the aim to help operators produce more reliable, science 
based, comprehensive and comparable environmental footprint information.  
The methods were developed through an open and transparent process involving also third 
country stakeholders. Moreover, participation in a three years piloting of these methodologies is also open for third country stakeholders (call for volunteers opened until 26 July 2013). 
The EU considers that a widespread use of these methodologies would bring advantages for 
international traders because of reduced need to apply multiple criteria from different schemes in the EU and create new market opportunities for genuinely green products and organisations. The 
EU provides financial support to UNEP for capacity building activities in developing countries and 
emerging economies on environmental footprin t, life cycle assessment methods and data 
gathering.  
113 ¿Podría detallar cuál es el cronograma de  largo plazo hasta la entrada en vigor de 
la iniciativa? 
EU reply: As a follow-up to this project, the European Commission will organise a three-year 
testing period of the methodologies with the participation of volunteering stakeholders from and 
outside the EU. A call for volunteers to participate in this process has been launched. The 
objectives of the testing will be 1) to set up  and validate the process of the development of 
product group-specific rules (Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules – PEFCRs) and 
(Organisational Environment Footprint Category Rules), including the development of performance 
benchmarks; 2) to test different compliance and verification systems, in order to set up and validate proportionate, effective and efficient co mpliance and verification systems; 3) to test 
different business-to-business and business-to-consumer communication vehicles. At the end of 
the testing period the results will go through and internal evaluation and a peer review.  
PREGUNTAS ADICIONALE S DE LA ARGENTINA 
I. Informe de la Secretaria (WT/TPR/S/284) 
4. EVOLUCIÓN DE DETERMINADOS SECTORES 
4.2 Pesca 4.2.3.1 Total admisible de capturas (TAC) 
En virtud del Reglamento (UE) Nº 1026/2012, la Comisión podrá adoptar medidas contra un tercer 
país que considere permite una pesca no sostenible de poblaciones de peces que comparte con la UE. Se entiende que un país "permite una pesca no sostenible" cuando no coopera en la gestión de 
una población de peces de interés común "en plena conformidad" con la legislación internacional y 
no adopta medidas de gestión de la pesca o adopta medidas de esa índole sin tener debidamente en cuenta a otros países y a la UE. Entre las medidas que podrán adoptarse figuran las siguientes: imposición de restricciones cuantitativas a las importaciones de ejemplares procedentes de la 
población de peces en cuestión, a las importacione s de especies asociadas con dicha población de 
peces, a las importaciones de productos elaborados a partir de la población de peces o las especies asociadas o que los contengan, y otras restricciones. Antes de adoptar esas medidas, se notificará 
al tercer país la intención de hacerlo, y éste dispondrá de un plazo de un mes para responder y 
"remediar la situación". 
1. ¿Podría la UE explicar si se han tomado  medidas comerciales desde la entrada en 
vigencia del Reglamento (UE) N° 1026/2012? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 37 - 
 
  EU reply: Following a prior notification to Faroe Islands of the Commission's intention to identify 
this country as a country allowing non-sustainabl e fishing, on the basis of Regulation 1026/2012, 
the European Commission adopted on 20 August 2013an implementing regulation establishing measures in respect of the Faeroe Islands to ensure the conservation of the Atlanto-Scandian 
herring stock. For your reference, the Co mmission Implementing Regulation 793/2013 was 
published in the Official Journal of the European Union L 223 on 21 August 2013. 
2. En caso afirmativo, ¿qué medidas y contra qué países? 
According to Article 1 of the mentioned implementing regulation, Faeroe Islands is identified as a 
country allowing non-sustainable fishing of the Atlanto-Scandian herring stock. With regard to the applied measures, please refer to Article 5 of the said regulation. 
4.2.3.6 Ayuda a la pesca 
El informe de la FAO "El Estado Mundial de la pesca y la acuicultura" (2012) señala que en 2010, 
los países en desarrollo confirmaron su importancia fundamental como proveedores de los mercados mundiales con más del 50 por ciento de todas las exportaciones pesqueras en términos 
de valor y más del 60 por ciento en cantidad (peso vivo); y que, para muchos de estos países, el 
comercio pesquero representa una fuente importante de ganancias en moneda extranjera, además del papel importante del sector como generador de ingresos, fuente de empleo y proveedor de 
seguridad alimentaria y nutrición. 
3. Teniendo en cuenta el papel distorsivo de l comercio internacional de las ayudas al 
sector pesquero, ¿no considera la UE que una reducción sustancial de los subsidios 
a la pesca sería una gran contribución, no sólo para el mantenimiento de los 
recursos pesqueros, sino tambié n a la seguridad alimentaria? 
EU reply: The EU is of the view that what really matters, rather than the overall volume of 
subsidies is whether subsidies do remedy market failure or not as the objective is to reach 
sustainability. 
Public support by the EU to the fisheries sector ai ms at contributing to the objectives of the CFP. 
These are defined in the new basic Regulation as follows: The CFP shall ensure that fishing and 
aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long-term and are managed in a way 
that is consistent with the objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits, and of contributing to the availability of food supplies. 
4. ¿Cuál sería la disposición de la UE a realizar tal contribución? 
EU Reply: 
The Commission's proposal for the new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) 
contemplates public support from the perspective of market failure. Hence it envisages removing 
all forms of fleet public support. It focuses inst ead on innovation, emphasizing among others on 
innovative projects intended to contribute to the achievement of environmental sustainability (e.g.: by reducing discards and by-catches or the impact on marine ecosystems). The draft EMFF 
is still going through examination by the co-legislators, hence its final contents cannot be 
anticipated at this point in time. Trilogues among the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission are scheduled to start by early October. The adoption of the EMFF is 
expected to take place by early 2014, with retroactive effects from 1 January 2014. 
En el párrafo 4.61 se explica que además del FE P, los Estados miembros pueden prestar ayuda 
estatal a la pesca, con sujeción a las normas generales sobre la ayuda estatal y las directrices específicas con respecto al sector de la pesca. 
5. ¿Podría la UE detallar cuál fue el presup uesto total de ayuda estatal al sector 
pesquero en el período objeto de examen? 
EU reply:  As regards the European Union, the financial envelope of the European Fisheries Fund 
(EFF) for the period 2007-2013 was EUR 4.3 billion. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 38 - 
 
  In addition, there is also EU support for a series  of actions not covered by the EFF (The Second 
Financial Instrument -EC 861/2006); namely 
 Control and enforcement: EUR 345 million for 2007-2013.  
 Data collection and scientific advice: EUR 360 million for 2007-2013. 
 Governance of the CFP: EUR 45 million for 2007-2013 
 International relations: voluntary and compulsory contributions to Regional Fisheries 
Management Organisations (RFMOs) and UN bodies dealing with fisheries and law of the sea 
amounted to EUR 9.8 million in 2010 (EUR 11 million are programmed for 2013).  
The European Agriculture Guarantee Fund (EAGF) finances market intervention and compensation 
for production and marketing planning in the Common Market Organisation for fisheries and 
aquaculture products. A part of the scheme (about EUR 15 million per year), finances interventions 
in fisheries products. The EAGF also supports th e scheme to compensate for the additional costs 
incurred in the marketing of certain fishery products from the outermost regions. The total amount of the compensation is around EUR 15 million per year. 
6. ¿Cuáles son los límites presup uestarios y las condiciones para el otorgamiento de 
este tipo de ayuda? 
EU reply:  The budgetary limits are explained in th e reply to question 5 above. Regarding 
conditions, the general limits are set by the rules on State aid in the Treaty (Article 107 TFEU), 
according to which any aid given by a Member State or through State resources which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain 
g o o d s ,  i s  d e e m e d  t o  b e  i n c o m p a t i b l e  w i t h  t h e  c o m m o n  m a r k e t ,  i n  s o  f a r  a s  i t  a f f e c t s  t r a d e  
between Member States. This principle is subject to derogations provided in Articles 107(2) and 
107(3). 
In addition, State aid in the fisheries sector is only justified it is in accordance and complies with 
the objectives of the CFP.  
National financial contributions to operations co-f inanced by the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) are 
considered to fulfil these objectives and hence are not State aid, provided that all the general 
conditions in the EFF and any particular conditions in any of its measures are complied with. For 
example, operations financed by the EFF shall no t increase fishing effort. There are also rules 
regarding maximum aid intensity (the total contributi on of public support to a given operation) and 
co-financing between the EFF and national funds. 
Finally, beyond State aid control, the Commission and MS shall ensure that assistance from the 
EFF is consistent with the policies, priorities and activities of the EU and complementary to other financial instruments of the EU. The operational programme has to explain how consistency and 
complementarity are complied with. 
En el párrafo 4.62 se señala que para tener derecho a financiación, una organización de 
productores debe establecer un programa operativo que incluya medidas encaminadas a adaptar 
las capturas a la demanda del mercado, una estrategia de comercialización, un plan de capturas 
en el caso de la pesca o un plan de producción de la acuicultura, y un sistema interno de sanciones. 
A su vez, el párrafo 4.47 señala que la sobrepesca sigue siendo un importante problema con el 
que se enfrenta el sector de la pesca de la UE; que en 2007, 29 de las 33 principales especies de peces comerciales de Europa estaban sobreexplotadas y que, de acuerdo a un informe de 2009 de la Comisión Europea, "la capacidad de captura de la flota europea sigue siendo más del doble de la 
necesaria para la explotación sostenible de [las] poblaciones de peces." WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 39 - 
 
  7. ¿Cómo se asegura la UE que los incentivos a las organizaciones de productores no 
generen sobrecapacidad y la consecuente so brepesca de los recursos, teniendo en 
cuenta que el programa operativo debe te ner medidas para adaptar las capturas a 
la demanda del mercado, pero no me didas para controlar la capacidad? 
EU reply: As stated above, the general principle of support under the EFF is that operations 
financed by it shall not increase fishing effort. This applies also to support to producer 
organisations 
On the contrary, one of the main objectives of th e EFF is to support Member States in promoting a 
sustainable balance between resources and the fishing capacity of the EU fleet. The tools to a c h i e v e  t h a t  t o  b e  f o u n d  i n  P r i o r i t y  A x i s  1  o f  the EFF, in particular public aid for permanent 
cessation of fishing activities. On average, Member  States have allocated around 22% of their EFF 
allocation to the permanent cessation of vessels, mostly in the form of decommissioning. As a 
result, close to 3,700 vessels would be eliminated with public support in the programming period 2007-2013. 
Finally, the situation of stocks is improving quit e significantly since 2009. In 2012 there were 25 
fish stocks in European seas which were known not to be overfished, compared to 21 in 2011 and with only 2 in 2005. The latest figures show that only 39% of assessed stocks in EU waters of the 
Northeast Atlantic are overfished, down from 47% last year and 95% in 2005. Fleets are 
benefiting from that evolution as shown by the fact that their overall performance has been positive for the last 3 years.  
El párrafo 4.62 continúa explicando que en la organización común del mercado pesquero también 
incluye medidas de sostenimiento de los precios que compensan a las organizaciones de 
productores si los precios del mercado descienden por debajo del precio de retirada establecido para las diversas especies. El nivel de compensación disminuye al aumentar la proporción de la 
producción de las organizaciones de productores que se retira. El primer 4% de producción obtiene 
un 85% del precio de retirada y el siguiente 4% (el 6% en el caso de las especies pelágicas) obtiene un 55%, tras lo cual no se otorga más compensación. También se presta ayuda para la 
transformación y el almacenamiento de hasta el 18% de las capturas de la organización de 
productores, de manera que la producción pueda venderse más tarde, presuntamente a precios más altos. 
Teniendo en cuenta que, de acuerdo a lo señalado párrafo 4.44, la UE tiene competencia exclusiva 
con respecto a la conservación de los recursos biológicos marinos, 
8. ¿Podría la UE explicar qué tipo de medidas toma para asegurarse la retirada de los 
productores compensados? 
EU reply: Following the reform of the Common Organisation of the markets, the new regulation 
does not foresee any intervention/withdrawal mechanisms. The only mechanism in place will be 
storage aid. However, the EU is still finalising its internal adoption procedures and therefore cannot 
prejudge of the final outcome. 
En el párrafo 4.63 se señala que, según la OCDE, las transferencias financieras estatales al sector 
de la pesca marina de captura en la UE alcanzar on en total la cifra de 369 millones de dólares 
EE.UU. en 2009; alrededor de la mitad de esa cifra correspondió a servicios generales, un tercio a 
pagos directos y el resto fueron transferencias para reducir costes. 
9. ¿Podría la UE explicar con mayor detalle qu é tipo de actividades son transferencias 
para reducir costes? 
EU reply:  The definitions of financial transfers used by the OECD are not necessarily the same as 
for the EU. The same applies to the amounts of public support. As a general principle under State 
aid control rules, operating aid which reduces th e recipient's production costs or improves its 
income is in principle incompatible with the common market. Nevertheless, any such support may 
be considered compatible only if the aid clearly and firmly contributes to serving the objectives of the CFP. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 40 - 
 
  It has to be added, that the automatic incompatibility principle does not apply to aid which is 
compensatory in nature, such as aid to make good damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences. This is the reasoning behind public aid for temporary cessation of fishing activities under Article 24 of the EFF. It has to  be added that Article 24 limits not only the 
circumstances under which temporary cessation can be granted, but also the maximum amounts 
and the time. As of 31 July 2012, EUR 288 million had been committed to temporary cessation since 2007, EUR 180 million of EFF resources and EUR 108 of national contributions. 
10. ¿Las subvenciones a los combustibles fós iles entran dentro de esta categoría? 
EU reply:  The definitions of financial transfers used by the OECD are not necessarily the same as 
for the EU. The same applies to the amounts of public support. As a general principle under State 
aid control rules, operating aid which reduces th e recipient's production costs or improves its 
income is in principle incompatible with the common market.  
Nevertheless, any such support may be considered compatible only if the aid clearly and firmly 
contributes to serving the objectives of the CFP. 
It has to be added, that the automatic incompatibility principle does not apply to aid which is 
compensatory in nature, such as aid to make good damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences. This is the reasoning behind public aid for temporary cessation of fishing 
activities under Article 24 of the EFF. It has to  be added that Article 24 limits not only the 
circumstances under which temporary cessation can be granted, but also the maximum amounts and the time. As of 31 July 2012, EUR 288 million had been committed to temporary cessation since 2007, EUR 180 million of EFF resources and EUR 108 of national contributions. 
El párrafo 4.65. indica que el presupuesto de la UE para el sector de la pesca fue en promedio de 
678 millones de euros, en pagos anuales, en el período 2008-2011 y de 726 millones de euros en 2011. Más de la mitad de esos 726 millones de euros se destinó al FEP, alrededor de una quinta 
parte a acuerdos internacionales de pesca y la mayor parte del resto a sufragar el coste de las 
medidas de control y ejecución y las intervenciones en el mercado (cuadro 4.15)  
11. ¿Podría la UE explicar con mayor detalle qu é tipo de intervenciones en el mercado 
se realizan con el presupuesto de la Unión? 
EU reply:  There is no public support at EU level for fuel used by the fishing industry although 
individual Member States can provide fuel tax exem ptions for fuel for fishing operations within the 
framework of Council Directive 2003/96/EC.  
En el párrafo 4.9 se señala que desde finales de 2012 se ha restringido la posibilidad de otorgar 
pagos directos vinculados a la producción, de ma nera que sólo pueden efectuarse con respecto a 
las vacas nodrizas, el ganado ovino y caprino, y el algodón (el 35% del componente del Régimen 
de Pago Único relativo al algodón sigue estando asociado a la producción). 
Observamos que el Informe de la Secretaría no contiene información detallada sobre las 
subvenciones al algodón. 
12. ¿Podría la UE informar sobre el estado de situación de estas subvenciones? ¿Cuál 
es el plan para su desmontaje a fin de  poder cumplir con la propuesta del Grupo 
Cotton-4?  
EU reply:  EU's statements at the relevant meetings of the Special Session of the Committee on 
Agriculture give all details requested regardin g the position of the EU on the proposal.  
13. En relación con ello, dada las demoras en las notificaciones, ¿podría la UE informar 
la cuantía de las subvenciones al algodón que se otorgan en la actualidad? 
EU reply: The EU recommends Argentina to refer to supporting table DS:3 of the EU's annual 
DS:1 notifications for the expenditure related to the coupled payment for cotton. The latest 
notification covers the marketing year 2009/2010 (G/AG/N/EU/10 of 19 November 2012) and the 
notification for the year 2010/2011 is under preparation. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 41 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM AUSTRALIA 
WT/TPR/S/284 SUMMARY Page 9, Paragraph 8 
1.  Are any efforts being made to improve the tr ansparency of procurement processes at the 
sub-national level, for example, with links to E-procurement portals or similar, which are features of many federal states' procurement regimes? 
EU reply:  Many Member States have set out a central and single point of access including all 
tenders published at national, regional or local level.  
Moreover, the Commission has launched a number of flanking measures to support the transition 
to e-procurement. In particular, two reports ha ve been made available to Member States and 
suppliers. They respectively identify good practices (the so-called Golden Book) and design a blue 
print for the development of e-procurement (the e-Teg report). Both reports inter alia provide suggestions aiming at increasing the transp arency of public procurement opportunities. 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS 3.1.1 Procedures 
Page 39, Paragraph 3.4 
2.  The Secretariat's report states that the European Union (EU) has exclusive competence in 
the field of customs policy and legislation and is responsible for harmonizing customs 
procedures at the EU level. Australia has, however, found that regulations can be applied 
inconsistently across member states, particularly in regard to the importation of 
agricultural products. Does the EU have any processes in place to improve the consistency of application of customs regulations by member states?  
EU reply: Customs legislation is harmonized at EU level and directly applicable in all Member 
States. Member States shall take all appropriate measures to ensure the effective implementation 
of the harmonized customs legislation. The European Commission regularly monitors the uniform 
application of customs law throughout the Union. 
Where a Member State fails to comply with EU law, traders have the possibility to resort to 
national means of redress. Any person shall have the right to appeal against decisions taken by the customs authorities which relate to the application of customs legislation and which concern 
him or her directly and individually. In national proceedings, should a national court have doubts 
about the interpretation or validity of an EU law it may (if it is a court of last instance, it must) ask the Court of Justice of the European Union for a 'preliminary ruling'. The preliminary ruling is valid 
throughout the territory of the EU, ensuring the proper and uniform interpretation and application 
of EU law in all Member States. 
In addition, traders have the possibility of submitting written complaints to the European 
Commission against a Member State for any measure (law, regulation or administrative action) or 
practice attributable to a Member State which they consider incompatible with a provision or a principle of EU law. The Commission then takes appropriate action which could include the initiation of infringement proceedings against the Member States that fails to comply with EU 
customs legislation. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 42 - 
 
  3.1.4 Tariffs 
Page 45, Paragraph 3.37 and Table 3.2 
3.  Australia notes that the average applied MFN tariff rate for agriculture is 14.8 per cent 
(down from 15.2 per cent in 2011). We also note that in Paragraph 1.5 (page 3) of 
WT/TPR/G/284, the European Council recently  (in February 2013) reiterated the "EU's 
determination to promote free, fair and open trade whilst asserting its interests, in a spirit of reciprocity and mutual benefit". What is the EU's justification for maintaining high tariff 
rates for agricultural products, given that such rates serve to impede open trade and 
impact negatively on the capacity of Europe an agricultural producers to improve their 
competitiveness, productivity and innovation?  
Page 48, Paragraph 3.40 
4.  Australia notes that the EU's highest average tariff rates are for agricultural products and 
that all MFN tariff rates above 100 per cent  are ad valorem equivalents relating to 
agricultural goods. How does the EU justify such high levels of tariff protection for its 
agricultural producers?  
EU reply to questions 3 and 4:  The EU is the world's largest importer of agriculture products, 
with imports exceeding EUR 102 billion in 2012. The EU has only a limited number of tariff peaks 
(see the EU notification to the WTO Secretariat on ad valorem equivalents), which were accepted 
and bound as part of the Uruguay Round Agreement. The EU has concluded and continues to negotiate ambitious FTA agreements to reduce agricultural tariffs in bilateral trade. A successful conclusion of the DDA would lead to a reduction in tariff peaks on an MFN basis. In the meantime 
the EU will continue to respect its WTO commitments. 
3.1.7 Contingency measures 
3.1.7.2 Anti-dumping and countervailing 
Page 53, Paragraphs 3.68-3.69 
5. With respect to industrial goods, the EU is to  be commended on the relative transparency of 
its trading regime. Australia has, however, found that there is a lack of clarity around the 
application of the lesser duty rule in anti-dumping matters. In the Secretariat's report, 
reference is made to application of a lesser duty when considering provisional measures. However, it is not clear how the lesser duty might be applied to definitive measures. Could the EU clarify whether and how lesser duty might be considered in the 
application of definitive measures? 
EU reply: The basic regulation No 1225/2009 is clear on the lesser duty role, which applies to 
both provisional and definitive duti es. Article 9(4) stipulates that 'the amount of the anti-dumping 
duty shall not exceed the margin of dumping established but it should be less than the margin if 
such lesser duty would be adequate to remove the injury to the Community industry'. 
Link to the basic regulation No 1225/2009: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:343:0051:0073:EN:PDF .  
3.1.8 Technical regulations and standards 
Page 57, Paragraph 3.84 
Australia notes that technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures are adopted at 
both the EU level and at the level of the EU member states.  
6.  Could the EU explain how it ensures national  treatment obligations are incorporated into 
the development of technical regulations so that goods produced outside the EU are 
treated no less favourably than goods pr oduced within an EU member state? 
EU reply: Both, the EU and the EU Member States are members of the WTO and are therefore 
bound by the obligations laid down in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and in the 
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, notably the national treatment obligation and WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 43 - 
 
  non-discrimination principle. The EU and the EU Member States are therefore responsible for the 
implementation of these obligations within their legal systems. Consequently, technical regulations laid down in the EU or in Member States legislation shall apply to all products on the EU market irrespective of their origin.  
7.  Could the EU explain how it ensures consistency of application of EU level technical 
regulations across all member states?  
EU reply: The European Commission is the EU institution that monitors the application of EU law 
in the EU Member States. By virtue of Article 17 of the Treaty establishing the European Union 
(hereinafter: TEU), the Commission is the "Guardian of the Treaties", ensuring the uniform application of EU law by the Member States. Arti cle 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union (hereinafter: TFEU) enables the Commission to initiate legal proceedings against a 
Member State that has adopted or maintained in force rules or administrative practices which 
contravene EU law. 
Uniform application of EU law is also ensured by  mechanisms such as expert groups between the 
Commission, Member States and stakeholders, guidance documents on application of EU law 
developed with full stakeholder involvement etc.  These documents are publicly available on the 
internet and regularly updated. Finally, outreach events, training, delivery of technical assistance, 
etc. are also mechanisms aimed at uniform application of EU law. 
8.  Could the EU explain how it manages reports of inconsistent application of technical 
regulations by different member states? 
EU reply: As mentioned before, the European Commission, in its role of "Guardian of the Treaty" 
monitors the application of EU law in the EU Member States. It therefore prepares own reports on 
the application of EU level technical regulations in the EU Member States, examines any issue relating to their inconsistent application and ensures the appropriate follow-up, which can go until 
the initiation of legal proceedings. Complaints are handled in line with the administrative measures 
defined in the Communication from the Commission on updating the handling of relations with the complainant in respect of the application of Union law [COM(2012) 154 final]. 
The current state of communication of national tr ansposition measures by sector and by Member 
State appears on the website of the Secretariat General and DG Internal Market and Services: 
"Internal Market Scoreboard" ( http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/score/index_en.htm ). 
Furthermore, the annual reports of the Commission on monitoring the application of EU law 
provide details on the situation in each sector and each Member State 
(http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/infringemen ts/infringements_annual_report_en.htm ). 
3.1.9 Sanitary and phytosanitary measures 
Page 68, Paragraph 3.124 
9.  The European Commission (EC) stated in its 2011 Trade Policy Review (TPR) that its 
Standard Operating Procedures for the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) 
were under review and would be made public in 2013. Can the EU advise on when in 2013 
it expects this review will be made available? 
EU reply:  The RASFF Standard Operating Procedures are still under review and no exact date for 
publication is available at the moment. 
Page 69, Paragraph 3.128 
10. Australia notes that the Commission is seeking to amend the Honey Directive to provide 
that pollen is a 'constituent' of honey. Can the EU advise when it expects this amendment 
will come into force?  
EU reply: There is currently no fixed date foreseen for the entry into force of the amended Honey 
Directive. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 44 - 
 
  3.3 MEASURES AFFECTING PRODUCTION AND TRADE 
3.3.3 Government procurement 3.3.3.2 GPA and international procurement 
Page 85, Paragraph 3.223 
Australia seeks clarification of the EC's proposal for a Regulation on the access of third-country 
goods and services to the EU's internal market in public procurement: 
11. As stated in the Secretariat's Report, the definition of 'substantial reciprocity' is open to 
interpretation by the EC. This has the potential to create uncertainty for Australian 
companies involved in EU tender processes. Can the EU provide greater clarity on what constitutes 'substantial reciprocity'? 
12. The Report also states that the EC will assess (during an investigation) whether third 
countries' public procurement systems are 'in accordance with international standards'. Do 
these international standards refer to the WTO GPA and/or EU FTAs?  
13. Can the EU provide more information about the requirements for the EC to consult with 
third countries should a member state reject a bid? Are there any mechanisms for appeal? 
14. Can the EU confirm that the new Regulation would override member state legal processes? 
EU reply to questions 11 to 14 above: Australia is referring to a Commission proposal which 
may be modified during the EU's legislative proce ss. The proposal is currently on the table of the 
EU co-legislators - the European Parliament and the Council. In the Council, the Member States have worked through a first reading of the proposal at technical level. The European Parliament is likely to express its views in a first re ading vote on the proposal in autumn.  
3.3.5 Intellectual property rights 
3.3.5.3 Industrial property 3.3.5.3.5 Geographical indications 
Page 99, Paragraph 3.279 
The stated objective of the EU regulations for the protection of geographical indications includes 
the creation of a more robust framework for the protection and promotion of quality agricultural 
products. 
15. Could the EU explain how it provides protection for geographical indications which are 
protected through its bilateral agreements, including details of relevant laws and enforcement procedures?  
EU reply:  The provisions concerning the protection of geographical indications are laid down in the 
relevant bilateral agreements. The latter are publ ished in the Official Journal of the European 
Union and publicly available on the Commission's relevant websites, in particular the Treaties 
Office Database and, more specifically for wines, 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets/wine/third/index_en.htm ; 
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/agreements/ .  
16. In addition, could the EU provide details of objection or cancellation procedures which are 
available for GIs which are protected through its bilateral agreements? 
EU reply: The procedures for objections and possible cancellations are laid down in the relevant 
bilateral agreements referred to in answer to Question 15. 
Page 100, Paragraph 3.286 
Australia notes that the EC has requested the inclusion of a chapter providing for the protection of 
geographical indications protection in all new free trade agreements. Australia remains concerned 
about the EU's creation of legal obligations for geographical indications through its bilateral WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 45 - 
 
  agreements, which prevent countries from freely trad ing products that are widely understood to be 
common or generic in third markets.  
17. Noting the extensive use of GIs by the EU, but few applications of these by third-countries, 
can the EU explain how the GI system would enhance opportunities for all countries to 
trade internationally? 
EU reply:  The comparison of the number of GIs regi stered domestically and the number of GIs 
registered from non-EU countries is not relevant to assess trading opportunities internationally. 
The GI is an intellectual property right which, like trade marks and patents, ensures inter alia that 
trade in products bearing certain names may only be carried out by legitimate holders/users of the authentic product. 
Australia understands from the EU's answers to qu estions at its previous TPR In 2011 that there is 
no difference of approach in respect of the obje ctions procedures applied in the case of GIs 
protected under bilateral agreements and those protected pursuant to EU regulations as: the 
negotiating parties carry out an objection procedure as regards names entitled to be protected. 
The outcome of these objections procedures determ ines the list of GIs annexed to the agreement. 
(From the answer to Question 2 from New Zealand.) 
Australia understands from the EU's answers to qu estions at its previous TPR in 2011 that there is 
no difference of approach in respect of the obje ctions procedures applied in the case of GIs 
protected under bilateral agreements and those protected pursuant to EU regulations as: the 
negotiating parties carry out an objection procedure as regards names entitled to be protected. The outcome of these objections procedures determ ines the list of GIs annexed to the agreement. 
(From the answer to Question 2 from New Zealand.) 
18. Could the EU provide further information on the opposition process it undertook prior to 
protecting the 22 Swiss terms it states it has protected under the Agreement on the 
Protection of Designations of Origin and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products 
and Foodstuffs?  
EU reply:  The procedure followed prior to the protection of the 22 Swiss names under the 
Agreement is referred to in the public consultation publicly available at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:320:0039:0040:EN:PDF .  
19. Could the EU provide information on whether any PGIs and PDOs have been refused 
registration on the basis of an objection under Article 7(2) of Council Regulation 
No. 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 since the Regulation entered into force? 
EU reply:  There are no cases so far where a request for registration has been rejected on the 
basis of opposition under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. However, overall there 
were 111 requests for registration of PDOs-PGIs that were rejected by the Commission through a 
formal decision before even starting the opposition procedure. In addition, hundreds of applications have been withdrawn by the applicant, usually after discussions with the Commission 
before any formal decision was taken. For the overwhelming majority of PDOs-PGIs registered so 
far - more than 90 % - there was no opposition. 
4 DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTED SECTORS 
4.1 AGRICULTURE 
4.1.1 Agriculture in the European Union 
Page 111, Table 4.2 
20. The data in table 4.2 indicate that farm size is roughly correlated to output. Has the EU 
undertaken any analysis on the impact of CAP support on the consolidation and expansion 
of farming enterprises?  
EU reply:  The standard output per holding is the av erage monetary value of the agricultural 
output obtained with each hectare and head of livestock of the holding, it does not include direct 
payments. Therefore the average farm size and the standard output per holding are closely WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 46 - 
 
  correlated. The European Commission is indeed cond ucting an evaluation of the structural effects 
of direct support. The purpose of the evaluation  is to examine the effects of direct support 
schemes on farm structures. The Commission plan s to publish the evaluation report by the end 
of 2013. 
4.1.3 Agricultural policies 
4.1.3.1 Domestic support 
Page 114, Paragraph 4.9 
The EU has further restricted direct payments li nked to production to suckler cows, sheep and 
goats, and cotton.  
21. What is the EU's policy rationale for limiting these payments to these specific commodities? 
EU reply:  As far as the suckler cow and sheep and go at premia are concerned, the reason is a 
need to maintain a minimum level of agricultural production in certain regions, in particular those 
where farmers cannot have recourse to other economic alternatives. In relation to cotton, it was deemed necessary to provide support linked to the cultivation of cotton through a crop specific per 
hectare payment at the time when the sector was integrated into the Single Payment Scheme. The 
payment ensures against risk of disruption to production in the cotton producing regions and it is maintained in accordance with objectives set out in Protocol No 4 on cotton attached to the 1979 
Act of Accession of Greece. These payments are based on fixed areas and yields or on a fixed 
number of animals. 
22. Does the EU anticipate further reducing the number of commodities to which direct 
payments linked to production are available?  
EU reply:  The vast majority of direct payments are decoupled from production. In the CAP for the 
period 2014-2020 it will be possible for the EU Member States to use part of their national ceilings 
for direct payments for coupled support in cert ain sectors and regions where specific types of 
farming or specific agricultural sectors are particularly important for economic, environmental 
and/or social reasons. The legislation will contain a list of sectors which may receive coupled support. Applying coupled support will be optional for Member States and limited to an appropriate 
level. Payments will be based on fixed areas and yields or on a fixed number of animals. 
Page 122, Paragraph 4.34 Australia welcomes the reforms the EU has undertaken in recent years in relation to the Common 
Agricultural Policy. Nevertheless, Australia notes that support (regardless of how it is categorised 
under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture) is still considerable in both absolute and relative terms. 
This is particularly the case given that – as the Secretariat notes – at least some of the reduction in the OECD Producer Support Estimate is due to the increase in international prices.  
23. How does the EU justify such substantial levels of support?  
EU reply:  The CAP has three main aims: viable food production, sustainable management of 
natural resources, and a balanced development of the EU's territory which is home to 
500 million Europeans. All 28 EU Member States share these objectives, none of which can be 
attained without providing financial support to farming and rural areas, and to farmers in return for delivering public goods. Indeed the CAP ensures the European people a dependable and plentiful supply of high-quality food, as well as a healthy environment and exceptional landscapes. 
The EU is pleased that the CAP reform process undertaken over the last two decades in a 
WTO-consistent fashion is acknowledged. 
24. Does the EU plan to reduce the level of support provided under future CAP programs? 
EU reply:  There will be a significant net decrease in spending under the CAP for the period 
2014-2020 in comparison to the period 2007-2013. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 47 - 
 
  25. At its previous TPR the EU indicated that it was carrying out a study on the structural 
effects of direct support. Has this study been  publicly released? If so, what were its 
findings? 
EU reply:  The European Commission is conducting an evaluation of the structural effects of direct 
support under the CAP. The purpose of the evaluati on is to examine the effects of direct support 
schemes on farm structures. The Commission plan s to publish the evaluation report by the end 
of 2013. 
26. Can the EU advise on which elements of the 2014-20 CAP reforms are expected to reduce 
support to EU farmers? 
EU reply:  As mentioned in the reply to question 24, there will be a significant net decrease in 
global CAP spending in comparison to the period 2007-2013 which will apply to both pillars of the 
CAP which encompass direct payments, market measures, and rural development programmes. 
These decreases will be applied in differentiated wa ys to ensure that support for priority objectives 
remains sufficient and more effective, th rough a better targeting of instruments. 
4.1.3.2 Export subsidies 
Page 118, Paragraph 4.23 
27. Australia would support the abolition of all EU export refunds for agricultural products. We 
note the use of export subsidies has declined however export refunds continue to apply to 
a number of agricultural products. Is the EC co mmitted to abolishing all its export refunds? 
EU reply:  On export competition, the EU is committed to the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, 
and in particular its paragraph 6, in its entirety. This states: "the date … for the elimination of all 
forms of export subsidies, together with the agr eed progressivity and parallelism, will be confirmed 
only upon the completion of the modalities". 
4.1.3.3 Market access 
Page 118, Table 4.7 
Australia applauds the reduction in some export refunds for certain agricultural products, e.g. fruit 
and vegetables; milk and milk products; and non-Annex I products (prepared food containing 
e g g s ) .  H o w e v e r ,  w e  a l s o  n o t e  t h a t  r e f u n d s  i n creased substantially for beef and veal from 
2010-2011.  
28. Can the EU explain why refunds ha ve increased for beef and veal? 
EU reply: Export refund rates for beef and veal were unchanged in the 2010/11 marketing year. 
Any change in refund uptake was driven by market  developments leading to a change in quantities 
exported. 
29. Does the EU have a plan on how it will reform its export refunds in order to bring them 
into compliance with the goals established under the Doha Agriculture modalities to 
eliminate export subsidies by 2013? If so, can the EU outline this plan? 
EU reply:  Export refund rates for beef and veal we re unchanged in the 2010/11 marketing year. 
Any change in refund uptake was driven by market  developments leading to a change in quantities 
exported. 
30. Does the EU agree that export subsidies, like other trade distortions, can increase 
commodity price volatility? 
EU reply:  Price volatility results from a wide range of complex sources such as for example 
weather conditions that affect harvest.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 48 - 
 
  Page 119, Paragraph 4.25 
31. Australia notes that agricultural products entering the EU continue to face high tariffs. 
Could the EU confirm whether the reduction in the average applied AVE tariff on agricultural products from 18.6 per cent in 2006 to 14.8 per cent in 2013, is a result of 
world price fluctuations or tariff reform?  
EU reply:  World price fluctuations are a likely explanation, but this would depend on the detailed 
methodology used by the WTO Secretariat to produce these figures. 
32. Australia also notes that seasonal duties apply to some products, particularly fresh fruit 
and vegetables. What is the EU's rationale for imposing such duties? 
EU reply: Seasonal tariff lines for fruit and vegetables  are contained in the EU's schedule resulting 
from the Uruguay Round Agreement. 
Page 119, Paragraph 4.29 
33. Australia notes that the level of fill of tariff rate quotas continues to be low for a range of 
agricultural products. Does the EU consider the high number of tariff quotas not utilized an 
indication that these quotas are not commercially meaningful? 
EU reply:  No. Low fill rates for tariff quotas may result from market conditions such as 
competitive domestic production. 
4.3 SERVICES 
4.3.1 Financial services 4.3.1.2 Recent and unplanned regulatory evolutions 4.3.1.2.2 Reforming financial institut ions and markets to improve stability 
4.3.1.2.2.2 Banks and insurance companies 
Page 139, Paragraph 4.84 
34. Has the EU undertaken any studies, or can the EU provide any information on, the impact 
that the Solvency II Directive, to be applied from 2014, will have on foreign insurance 
companies? 
EU reply: Solvency II gives the Commission the authority to decide about the equivalence of third 
countries' solvency regimes. The need to recognise third countries as equivalent arises where 
either an insurer or reinsurer ((re)insurer) is he adquartered in the EU, but has participations or 
subsidiaries in third countries or a (re)insurer is headquartered in a third country, but has participations or subsidiaries in the EU. For EU groups the issue is how to integrate third country 
entities into the calculation of group solvency (A rticle 227). For third country groups the issue is 
how supervision is carried out and by which superv isory authority (Article 260). Equivalence is also 
relevant for reinsurers headquartered outside the EU, as it allows reinsurance contracts concluded 
with third country reinsurers to be treated in the same way as reinsurance contracts concluded in 
the EU (Article 172).   
Legal implication of a positive or negati ve equivalence finding by the European 
Commission, Reinsura nce (Article 172) 
Positive equivalence: reinsurance contracts with third country reinsurers will be treated in the 
same manner as those concluded with EU reinsurers. MS cannot require the pledging of assets to 
cover unearned premiums and outstanding claims provisions or the location of assets within the 
Community.  
Negative equivalence: the treatment of reinsurance cessions will be a matter for Member States. 
MS cannot apply provisions to third country reinsurers than grant a more favourable treatment 
than that granted to domestic reinsurers.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 49 - 
 
  No decision taken by EC: as with  a negative equivalence decision. 
Group Solvency (Article 227) 
Equivalence is only relevant when using the deduction and aggregation method for calculating 
group solvency, not when using the default method, which is based on accounting consolidation. 
The objective is to know whether the solo local calculations can be used to integrate the third 
country entity within the assessment of the group solvency position. The assessment only concerns the quantitative solvency requ irements of Solvency 2 (Pillar 1).  
Positive equivalence: the calculation of group solvency as regards the specific undertaking can be 
based upon the solvency calculated in accordance with third country requirements where the supervisory authority has allowed the use of deduction and aggregation method for calculating group solvency. However, the use of local solven cy requirements is subject to a Member State 
option.  
Negative equivalence: the Solvency II requiremen ts must be used. The Co mmission's decision on 
equivalence is determinative, and supersedes any existing assessments/determinations by the 
Group Supervisor. 
No decision taken by EC: the Group supervisor may carry out the verification of the equivalence of 
the third country regime, and shall do so at the request of the participating undertaking (parent 
undertaking).  
Group Supervision (Article 260) 
Equivalence is only relevant for groups with the head outside the EEA. The objective is to know 
whether group supervision has to be performed by EEA supervisors or whether EEA supervisors 
can rely on third country group supervision. The assessment concerns the quantitative and 
qualitative requirements.  
Positive equivalence: MS must rely on the gr oup supervision exercised by the third country 
insurance supervisor. The Commission's decision is determinative, and supersedes any existing 
assessments/determinations by the Group Supervisor.  
Negative equivalence: MS may either apply group supervision at the level of the insurance holding 
company / third country undertaking or use altern ative methods to ensure appropriate supervision 
of the EU group.  
No decision taken by EC: the EU supervisory authority that would be the Group Supervisor absent 
the third country parent may carry out the verification of the equivalence of the third country 
regime, and shall do so at the request of the parent undertaking or any of the insurance or 
reinsurance undertakings authorised in the Community 
There is no specific EU study of the impact of Solvency II on foreign insurances providers. 
4.3.1.2.6 Planned next steps of  financial services reform 
Page 147, Paragraph 4.112 Australia welcomes the European Commissions' MiFID II proposal to expand the 'European 
passport' initiative to foreign companies' branches.  
35. Does the EU have any information on the impact this expansion will have upon trade and 
investment?  
EU reply:  The proposed third country regime under the proposals for the review of MiFID will 
(once adopted by the legislative process and und er discussions by the EU co-legislators) bring 
clarity and uniformity within the EU and, as a resu lt, will give clear benefi t to trade and investment 
in financial services. In particular, it will overcome existing fragmentation arising from 27 different 
national regimes by harmonising conditions for access to the EU market. Furthermore, it will give WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 50 - 
 
  the possibility to firms to benefit from a "passport" within the EU. It will also help improving 
reciprocal knowledge and cooperation between regu lators and supervisors across the world thanks 
to the cooperation agreements that will be necessary for the implementation of the system.  
Australia is interested in the EU's 'planned next steps for financial services reform'. 
36.  Has the EU created an implementation plan  for these 'next steps'? If so, can the EU 
provide any further details on this?  
EU reply: Completing the banking union: After the agreement on the Single Supervisory 
Mechanism (SSM) and Capital requirements for banks (CRD IV), the next step is to agree on the 
proposals for a Recovery and Resolution Direct ive (BRRD) and for a Deposit Guarantee Scheme 
Directive (DGS).  
Well advanced is the COM work on a proposal for single resolution mechanism to resolve banks' 
failures and coordinate by applying common tools directly to banks in Member States participating 
in the Banking Union.  
Structural reform in the banking sector: The Commission is currently considering the need of 
structural reforms of the EU banking sector and wo uld come up with a proposal by the end of the 
summer/early autumn 2013.  
Shadow banking: The Commission plans to adopt a Communication on Shadow Banking in the 
near future, which will set out the roadmap for our initial approach in Europe, and a proposal for a 
Money Market Funds regulation.  
A proposal on legislation on securities law is planned for the second half of 2013.  
A crisis management framework for other important financial institutions: A legislative proposal on 
non-bank resolution (especially CCPs) is under preparation. Payments: The Commission adopted on 8 May 2013 a proposal for a Directive on the transparency 
and comparability of payment account fees, pa yment account switching and access to a basic 
payment account. The Commission intends to adopt a proposal to revise the Directive on Payment 
Services ('PSD2') by end-July 2013. 
37. Will there be a process for public consultations in the development of the specific policies 
for each of these 'next steps'? 
EU reply:  A number of public consultations have already taken place.   
38. What does the EU envisage the impact of these planned 'next steps' will be on foreign 
financial services providers? 
EU reply:  The planned next steps of financial reform, including the establishment of a Banking 
Union, aim at providing an integrated response to the common problems faced by the countries 
sharing the single currency, and at increasing the stability and robustness of the financial system. 
An EU financial system which is more stable, better integrated and more uniform can only have a 
positive impact on the foreign financial services providers and in general on trade and investment. 
4.3.3 Air transport services 
4.3.3.1 Air transport services 
Page 155, Table 4.31 Australia welcomes the EU's ongoing initiatives to improve market access and competition in the 
air transport services sector. In particular, we note the EU's 'airport package'.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 51 - 
 
  39. How did the EU determine which elements (i.e. ground-handling, slots and noise, "Airport 
policy in the European Union – addressing capacity and quality to promote growth, connectivity and sustainable mobility") would be included in the package?  
EU reply: Commission's proposals on slots, ground handling services and noise restrictions at EU 
airports were designed to contribute to the completion of the Single European Transport Area and 
the move towards a smart, resource-efficient and competitive transport system.  
They were tabled following continuous monitoring of the functioning of the existing legal 
framework and consultation of the interested parties. Also, an in-depth analysis was conducted on 
the challenges that lie ahead. Two key challeng es were identified, capacity and quality, and 
conclusion was that if the objective is to address these two fundamental challenges, EU rules governing the use of airport infrastructure and the provision of ground handling services need to 
be revised.  
As indicated in the Report by the Secretariat [T able 4.31 Regulatory framework for EU aviation 
services], the "airport package" was proposed  by the Commission on 1 December 2011. The 
proposals of the package are still under discussion in the Council of the EU and the European 
Parliament.  
40. Does the EU see any scope to expand the package in the future? 
EU reply: The latest studies indicate that Europe would not be able to meet demand over the next 
twenty years because of capacity shortfalls on  the ground [COM(2013) 408: "Accelerating the 
implementation of the Single European Sky]. This confirms previous forecasts as well as concerns highlighted in Commission's communication 'Airport policy: addressing capacity and quality to 
promote growth, connectivity and sustainable mobility': if no action is taken to increase capacity 
where it is needed, airport capacity will remain an issue for Europe. 
In view of that, the Commission will explore possible avenues for action including requiring 
Member States to develop and provide national strategies on airport capacity in the future. A 
modern, European network of competitive and attractive airports is essential also to the successful delivery of the Single European Sky project. 
The Commission will also give careful considerations to issues of airport charges in its report on 
the application of the 2009 Directive due by end of 2013. 
4.3.3.4 Road transport services Page 169, Table 4.42 
41. Can the EU provide an update on the report  being produced by the European Commission 
in response to the June 2012 High-Level Group on the internal market for road transport? 
As the Secretariat's report states, first results from the Commission's report suggest that 
the situation seems to be appropriate for fu rther opening of the domestic road-haulage 
market. Can the EU expand upon this statement? 
EU reply:  On the basis of the conclusions of the HLG report, the Commission is currently 
assessing the situation of the EU road haulage market. A report on the subject will be presented 
by the end of 2013. Depending on the conclusions of  the report and in line with the requirements 
of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009, a proposal to better enforce and simplify the provisions relating to the EU road haulage internal market could be presented alongside it. 
WT/TPR/G/284 
1 INTRODUCTION Page 3, Paragraph 1.5 
42. Australia welcomes the EU's update on its response to the Global Financial Crisis. Australia 
also notes the European Council's February 2013 determination to continue pursuing the WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 52 - 
 
  trade agenda outlined in the 2010 Communica tion 'Trade, Growth and World Affairs – 
Trade policy as a core component of the EU's 2020 strategy'. As the EU begins to move towards economic recovery, could the EU provide further information on plans (if any) to continue pre-GFC processes of liberalisation in services?  
EU reply: Trade in services are the backbone of the European economy, representing roughly 
70% of EU GDP and creating the majority of new jo bs. Also, the EU is the biggest exporter of trade 
in services accounting for roughly one fourth of cross-border trade in services worldwide. 
Therefore, the further liberalisation of trade in se rvices and ensuring a level playing field for EU 
services suppliers in third countries is one of the core objectives of the EU with a view to create 
jobs and growth. The EU pursues these objectives including by negotiating trade agreements with 
third countries. Concerning the latter point, from th e EU points of view, it would be desirable to 
have these negotiations in the multilateral Doha negotiations. However, the DDA market access 
negotiations are at an impasse for several years and Ministers acknowledged this impasse at the eighth Ministerial Conference in 2011, asking WTO-members to "advance negotiations, where 
progress can be achieved", and to "explore different negotiation approaches while respecting the 
principles of transparency and inclusiveness." It is in this spirit, that the EU is currently engaged, together with Australia and 20 other WTO-members, in the negotiations of a Trade in Services 
Agreement.  
2 THE EUROPEAN UNION IN A CHANGING WORLD 
2.3 DEVELOPMENTS IN THE INTERNAL MARKET AND CENTRAL POLICY AREAS 
Digital agenda for Europe and e-commerce 
Page 10, Paragraphs 2.46-2.47 
43. Australia is interested in the EU's framework to build trust in the digital single market for 
e-commerce and online services. Can the EU provide further information about this 
framework, including any initiatives that address privacy and consumer protection? 
EU reply: All information relating to the recent initiatives towards an EU digital single market can 
be found here: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/our-goals/pillar-i-digital-single-market . 
3 KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN EU TRADE POLICY (2011-2012) 
3.3 THE BILATERAL TRADE AGENDA 3.3.1 Comprehensive and modulated bilateral/regional agreements 
Page 12, Paragraph 3.15 
Australia commends the EU's efforts to pursue an ambitious bilateral trade agenda which supports 
the multilateral system. The agriculture sector in the EU remains one of the most protected in the 
world and further deregulation would clearly strengthen the EU's hand in trade negotiations as well 
as generate its own efficiencies. Some of the EU's current and future negotiating partners, such as 
Canada, Mercosul, Japan and the US, are likely to have high expectations for what the EU can deliver on agriculture.  
44. Are EU member states prepared to do what it takes to make concessions in FTA 
negotiations in the area of agriculture, in order to ensure that the EU can negotiate genuinely liberalising and growth-producing outcomes?  
45. If the EU is intending to deal with sensitive agricultural products in its FTA negotiations by 
agreeing to tariff rate quotas, what impact, if any, does the EU believe this would have on 
the size and nature of the global tariff quotas that the EU has signalled it would be willing to offer once the Doha Round is concluded? 
46. Is the EU intending to ensure that any market access concessions in the area of agriculture 
do not lead to further distortions and inequities in world markets (i.e. through the creation of trade diversion)? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 53 - 
 
  EU reply to questions 44 to 46:  The EU will play an active and assertive role in promoting an 
open trade policy agenda in all relevant global trade forums. Indeed open markets will play a 
pivotal role in establishing strong, sustainable an d balanced growth. The detail of FTA negotiations 
between the EU and its partners remains a matter for the countries concerned. More generally, 
completing the Doha Round remains a top priority for the EU. In the meantime, the EU will 
continue to respect its WTO commitments and in particular will continue to ensure that its FTAs fully comply with the relevant WTO rules. 
Page 12, Paragraphs 3.15 and 3.21 
Australia congratulates the EU on its decision to  embark on an FTA negotiation with the US. We 
have noted the comments that TTIP may have a systemic reach and 'fill gaps' in the 'multilateral rulebook', etc.  
47. Can the EU provide more specific guidance on the areas that may be covered in TTIP which 
it believes, if successful, may be brought into the WTO?  
EU reply:  The result of the TTIP negotiations will not only set a standard for our future bilateral 
trade and investment relations, but would also have the potential to contribute to the development 
of global rules in areas where we have not been able to agree so far at the multilateral level. 
3.3.3 External public procurement initiative 
Page 14, Paragraph 3.24 
Australia welcomes the EU's efforts to clarify rules about third-country access to the EU 
government procurement market, and urges the EU to  ensure that 'reciprocity' is not defined or 
practiced in a way that precludes access by firms from countries, like Australia, with open 
government procurement markets, but no formal arrangement with the EU (through either the 
GPA or an FTA).  
48. How will the EU ensure that certain EU members do not seek to use the 'reciprocity' 
requirement as an excuse to close EU markets for non-substantive reasons?  
49. How will the EU go about assessing reciprocity and who will make the assessment?  
EU reply to questions 48 and 49:  Australia is referring to a Commission proposal which may be 
modified during the EU's legislative process. Th e proposal is currently on the table of the EU 
co-legislators - the European Parliament and the Council. In the Council, the Member States have worked through a first reading of the proposal at technical level. The European Parliament is likely to express its views in a first reading vote on the proposal in autumn.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 54 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM BRAZIL 
PART I: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE  Pages 64/65 – Paragraphs 3.109 and 3.113 
In paragraph 3.109 the report of the Secretariat in forms that the EU is a member of the IPPC, and 
states, in paragraph 3.113, that the EU follow s the relevant international standards on plant 
health, where they exist. 
Questions: 
1.  Why does the EU not apply the regionalization principle so as to recognize a production 
site in Brazil as an area free of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri, according to the IPPC' ISPM 10 standard (Requirements for the establishment of pest free places of production 
and pest free production sites)?  
EU reply: The EU has applied the regionalization principle by recognizing Brazil free of 
Xanthomonas campestris (all strains pathogenic to  Citrus) with the exception of the States of 
Maranhão, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, Paraná, Rio Grande do Sul, Roraima, 
Santa Catarina and São Paulo (Commission Decision 2006/473/EC as amended by Commission Decision 2013/253/EU). 
2.  Why does the EU not apply the pertinent IPPC standards - ISPM 2 (Framework for pest risk 
analysis) and ISPM 11 (Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified orga nisms) – to establish phytosanitary import 
requirements to import citrus fruit from Brazil? (If an appropriate pest risk analysis defined 
by the IPPC had been used to establish th e phytosanitary import requirements, there 
would be no requirements regarding the Guiguinardia citricarpa pest.) 
EU reply: The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has launched a pest risk analysis on citrus 
black spot. Based on the outcome of this analysis , risk management options will be considered. 
Pages 64/65 - Paragraphs 3.109, 3.112 and 3.113 In paragraph 3.109, the report of the Secretariat informs that the EU is a member of the CODEX, 
and stated, in paragraph 3.113, that the EU must take into consideration the relevant international 
standards. Also, in paragraph 3.112 the report states that the EU's measures are always based on risk analysis. 
Question: 
3.  In this regard, Brazil notes that the CODEX has adopted MRL for ractopamine after a long 
technical and scientific debate. However, the EU has not so far implemented such MRL and has justified its restrictions on the use and commercialization of that substance on the 
basis of EFSA's comments on the CODEX decision. Considering Articles 3 and 5 of the SPS 
Agreement, could the EU provide the scientific basis for its restrictions, which disregard the CODEX MRL standard? 
EU reply: The scientific basis is the opinion of EFSA ( Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Additives 
and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP ) on a request from the European 
Commission on the safety evaluation of ractopamine. The EFSA Journal (2009) 1041, 1-52) which 
is available on the following website: http ://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1041.htm WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 55 - 
 
  Page 65 - Paragraph 3.113 
According to Document WT/TPR/S/284, page 65, pa ragraph 3.11.3, "regarding animal health and 
food of animal origin, the Commission stated that EU legislation is largely based on OIE/Codex recommendations, standards, and guidelines".  
Question: 
4.  Considering that in July 2012 the Codex Alimentarius Commission adopted an international 
standard setting maximum residue levels (MRLs) for ractopamine when used as food 
additive for cattle and pigs destined for human consumption and also that the WTO SPS 
Agreement (Article 3.1) provides that "Members shall base their sanitary or phytosanitary measures on international standards, guidelines or recommendations, where they exist", could the EU explain why the EU does not follow this standard, maintaining its prohibition 
to imports of meat with ractopamine residues within the MRLs? 
EU reply: In line with Article 3(3) of the SPS Agreemen t, the EU considers that it has a scientific 
justification for maintaining its measures for ractopamine. 
Page 85 - Paragraph 3.223 
In March 2012, the EC proposed new legislation to regulate the access of foreign providers to the 
EU government procurement market, which is currently under discussion in the European 
Parliament and the Council. Some analysts have seen the proposed regulation as a possible "buy 
European" law.  
Question: 
5.  How does the EU respond to these critics? 
EU reply:  B razi l is  re fe rring  to a Commis s ion p rop os al whic h  may b e  mod ifie d  d uring  the  EU's 
legislative process. The proposal is currently on the table of the EU co-legislators– - the European 
Parliament and the Council. In the Council, the Me mber States have worked through a first reading 
of the proposal at technical level. The European Parliament is likely to express its views in a first 
reading vote on the proposal in autumn. 
Page 90 - Paragraph 3.243 
Paragraph 3.243 states that the European Patent Office recorded an increase in patent filings when 
compared with previous years. 
Question: 
6.  Could the EU please elaborate on the policies put in place in order to address this rising 
number of patent applications and, if any, its effect on the quality of the examination 
carried out by the Patent Offices with jurisdiction over EU-members? 
EU reply:  Please refer to point 3.1. of the Commissi on Communication (COM(2008) 465 final) on 
an industrial property rights strategy for Europe outlines the EU policies on quality aspects of 
patents and the relevant quality study. 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/in dprop/docs/patent/patqual02032011_en.pdf .  
Page 96 - Paragraph 3.264 
Paragraph 3.264 states that both Spain and Italy have decided not to participate in the enhanced 
cooperation for the creation of unitary patent protection. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 56 - 
 
  Questions: 
7.  Could the EU please explain why, in its view, Spain and Italy decided not to participate in 
the enhanced cooperation?  
EU reply:  Spain and Italy did not agree with the system of language arrangements which is based 
on the working languages of the EPO.  
8.  Is the EU taking any step to ensure that such countries participate in the "unitary patent 
protection"? 
EU reply:  Spain and Italy are free to join the enhanced cooperation at any time.  
Page 96 - Paragraph 3.266 
Paragraph 3.266 describes the system in force for granting patents to biotechnological inventions. 
It is known that such patents are often related to access to genetic resources (GRs), their 
derivatives and associated traditional knowledge (ATK). Furthermore, it is of note that the 
European Union signed the Nagoya Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity on June 23rd, 2011, and that the Protocol includes provisions regarding the access to genetic resources 
and associated traditional knowledge and the sharing of benefits arising from their utilization. 
Lastly, the Protocol stipulates the establishment of checkpoints to, among others, collect and provide relevant information on prior informed consent and mutually agreed terms regarding 
accessed genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. 
Questions:  
9.  Could the EU please provide more details on th e provisions, if existent, of EU regulations in 
respect of the disclosure of the origin of genetic resources and traditional knowledge 
involved in patent applications?  
EU reply: There are no EU regulations in respect of the disclosure of the origin of genetic 
resources and traditional knowledge involved in patent applications.  
10. In the absence of such regulations, could th e EU please explain which measures are being 
adopted to fight against the misappropriation of GRs, their derivatives and ATK? 
EU reply: On October 2012, the Commission adopted a proposal of Regulation on Access to 
Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization in 
the Union, which is currently under consideratio n of the Council of the EU and the European 
Parliament (COM(2012) 576 final)  
11. Is the EU planning to establish a checkpoint as provided by Article 17 of the Nagoya 
Protocol?  
EU reply: The Commission proposal (COM(2012) 576 final) implements Article 17 of the Nagoya 
protocol.  
12. Could that checkpoint be, for instance, the European Patent Office, despite the fact that 
the EU's and the EPO's membership are different? 
EU reply: Under the proposal of the Commission, not yet adopted, Member states will decide 
which checkpoint is appointed for the purposes of Article 17. The proposal of the Commission does 
not prejudice the role of any existing Euro pean authority in relation to Article 17.  
13. Does the EU plan to provide, if any, sanction s to patents granted in violation of the Nagoya 
Protocol?  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 57 - 
 
  EU reply: The Commission proposal (COM(2012) 576 final) does not explicitly propose sanctions 
for patents granted in violation of the Nagoya protocol nor prejudice whether a patent can be 
granted in violation of the Nagoya Protocol. 
14. Does the EU plan to provide a pre-grant mechanism for oppositions in respect of patent-
related access to GRs and ATK in violation of the Nagoya Protocol?  
EU reply: The Commission proposal (COM(2012) 576 final) does not envisage such a mechanism 
nor prejudge whether a patent can be granted in violation of the Nagoya Protocol. The document 
can be found at the following link: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/i nternational/abs/pdf/PROPOSAL_FOR_A_REGULATI
ON_EN.pdf .  
15. What would be the relation of both mechanisms with the unitary patent protection? 
EU reply:  The Commission proposal (COM(2 012) 576 final) does not en visage such mechanisms in 
relation to patents.  
Page 99 - Paragraphs 3.278 and 3.279 
In paragraph 3.278, it is stated that GIs are pr otectable under EU regulations and under national 
appellation systems in EU member states. Paragraph 3.279 lists the Regulations regarding the request for the protection of GIs which identify wine, spirits and agricultural products and 
foodstuffs in the EU.  
Questions: 
16. Considering that the TRIPS Agreement does not specify the class of goods which shall 
receive protection as GIs, could the EU plea se clarify if there is any EU regulation 
stipulating rules for the protection of goods other than wine, spirits and agricultural 
products or if other goods are protected only under national appellation systems. 
EU reply: Within the EU, goods other than wine, spirits and agricultural products are protected 
under national appellation systems. 
17. Is the EU planning to extend the protection for EU-wide GIs to other products?  
EU reply: The Commission has not yet taken a decision on whether to create a system of 
geographical indication (GI) protection for non-agricultural products at European Union level. The 
Study on Geographical Indication protection for non-agricultural products in the internal market conducted in 2012 and the first feedback received from stakeholders at the public hearing organised in April 2013 indicate that such a system at EU level would have a number of positive 
aspects. However, additional analysis and further consultations are still required. 
18. If so, please elaborate.  
EU reply:  See above 
Page 101 - Paragraph 3.289 
A public hearing on geographical indication protection for non-agricultural products was organized 
by the EC in April 2013. During the meeting, the EC presented a study on this issue commissioned 
by DG Trade and mentioned the possibility of further action at EU level, possibly by the creation of 
a system of protection for non-agricultural products, similar to the one already in force for agricultural items.  
Question:  
19. Is there any conclusion so far, especially on the potential impact that a new system for 
non-agricultural products could have on EU trade with developing countries? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 58 - 
 
  EU reply: see reply to question 17 
Page 103 - Paragraph 3.299 
In paragraph 3.299, it is stated that the informat ion on the regulations of the enforcement of IP 
rights provided by the EU and available at Table 3.15 dates back to 1997. 
Question: 
20. Is the EU planning to update such information?  
21. When can WTO members expect this to happen? 
EU reply questions 20 and 21: The EU notified the WTO of its most recent legislations on IPR. 
Reference WTO IP/N/1/EU/1 of 3 April 2013. 
Page 105 - Paragraph 3.300 In June 2013, the European Parliament approved the reform of Regulation EC 1383/2003. The text 
approved mentions the "particular importance that customs authorities ensure that any measures 
taken up by them are in line with the Union's international commitments and its development cooperation policy under Article 208 TFEU, and do not detain or suspend the release of generic 
medicines the passage of which across the territory of the Union, with or without transhipment, 
warehousing, breaking bulk, or changes in the mode or means of transport, is only a portion of a complete journey beginning and terminating beyond the territory of the Union, where there are no 
clear and convincing evidence that they are intended for sale in the Union."  
Question:  
22. How can the EU ensure that Member States customs authorities do not seize in-transit 
medicines that were legally produced in the country of manufacture and destined for legal 
use in the final country of import? 
EU reply: The new Regulation (EU) 608/2013, like Re gulation 1383/2003, are of a procedural 
nature and therefore do not contain any substantive rules defining the conditions in which goods in 
transit infringe IPR other than by reference to the relevant substantive IP laws. Moreover the 
Guidelines of the European Commission concerning  the enforcement by EU customs' authorities of 
IPR with regard to goods, in particular medicines, in transit through the EU aim to address the 
specific concerns raised by India and Brazil with regard to medicines in genuine transit through the 
EU which are covered by a patent righ t in the EU. Link to the Guidelines: 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/customs/customs_controls/counterfei
t_piracy/legislation/guidelines_on_transit_en.pdf .  
Page 107 - Paragraph 3.305 
In paragraph 3.305, it is stated that the EU is in the process of revising Regulation (EC) nº. 
1383/2003, which regulates the enforcement of IPRs by Customs authorities, especially in its 
relation with the apprehension of legitimate trade in generic medicines. 
Questions: 
23. Could the EU please explain how the draft prop osal submitted by the EU is compliant with 
WTO agreements, especially with Article 51 of the TRIPS Agreement, which does not allow 
suspension of release of in-transit goods,  and Article V of the GATT, which obliges 
Members to guarantee freedom of transit of legitimate goods?  
EU reply:  The text of the new EU Regulation (EU) 608/2013 of 12 June 2013, which repeals 
Regulation 1383/2003, complies with WTO agreements.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 59 - 
 
  24. What measures is the EU taking to guarantee that the approved revision of 
Regulation (EC) No. 1383/2003 is compliant with the WTO agreements mentioned above? 
EU reply:  The text of the new Regulation (EU) 608/201 3 is in line with the EU's international 
commitments 
25. What are, if any, the provisions available fo r the EU to ensure that EU-members comply 
with an eventual revision of Regulation (EC)  No. 1383/2003 in respect of guaranteeing the 
free flow of in-transit legitimate trade? 
EU reply: Regulations are directly applicable in the EU Member States. The legal acts adopted by 
the Union on the basis of the Treaties have pr imacy over the law of Member States, under the 
conditions laid down in well settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.  
Paragraph 3.309 provides information on the e fforts by the EU to measure the impact of 
counterfeiting and piracy. In addition to such information, it is also known that enforcement 
mechanisms may be abused by rightholders for anticompetitive purposes, thus damaging competitors and consumers alike. 
Questions:  
26. What are the measures available for the combat of abuse of enforcement mechanisms, 
such as sham litigation?  
EU reply: There are no measures to specifically combat sham litigation. However, the IPR 
Enforcement Directive (IPRED) states in its article 3-general obligations that safeguards against 
the abusive use of enforcement measures and reme dies are to be provided. Such safeguards are 
foreseen for most enforcement measures and include the revocation of measures under certain 
conditions, the compensation of the defendant when measures are revoked and the protection of 
witnesses' identity.  
27. Has the European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy so far gathered any 
information regarding the anticompetitiv e effects of the abuse of enforcement 
mechanisms?  
28. If not, does the EU plan to include the measurement of such data in the future? 
EU reply to questions 27 and 28: The European Observatory on the infringements of IPR is for 
the moment not gathering information on the effe cts of the abuse of enforcement mechanisms. It 
has not been decided yet whether the measurement of such data would be covered in the future but this is an issue the EU is attentive to. 
4. DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTED SECTORS 
Page 113 – Paragraph 4.5 Paragraph 4.5 in the Secretariat's report refers to the fact that, for the EU "the main imports tend 
to be of raw products for processing while the main exports tend to be processed products".  
Question: 
29. Does the EU intend to reform its trade policy, more specifically its tariffs and quotas 
regime, in order to allow the entrance of more  imports of processed products, particularly 
from developing countries? 
EU reply:  The EU has no plans to autonomously change its tariffs for agricultural products and in 
particular CAP reforms are not intended to do so. Any change will result from a successful 
conclusion to the DDA. The EU has and will continue to negotiate preferential market access 
including for developing countries. In the meantime, the EU will continue to respect its WTO commitments. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 60 - 
 
  Page 114 – Paragraph 4.8 
Paragraph 4.8 in the Secretariat's report states that, although some steps have been taken in 
reducing the CAP spending and moving towards support decoupled of production, "the reform post-2013, like earlier reforms, will not directly address market access conditions into the EU 
market, and tariffs, tariff quotas and the Special Ag ricultural Safeguard will not be affected".  
Questions: 
30. Does the EU intend to reform its market access policies, reducing its current high level of 
protection for agricultural products?  
31. Is there any proposal currently under consideration in the EU so as to achieve this 
objective? 
EU reply to questions 30 and 31:  The EU has no plans to autonomously change its tariffs for 
agricultural products and in particular CAP reforms are not intended to do so. Any change will 
result from a successful conclusion to the DDA. The EU has and will continue to negotiate preferential market access including for developing countries. In the meantime, the EU will 
continue to respect its WTO commitments. 
Page 114 – Paragraph 4.9 Paragraph 4.9 in the Secretariat's report mentions that, from end-2012, "the possibility to grant 
direct payments linked to production has been further restricted so that only suckler cows, sheep 
and goats, and cotton are eligible (where 35% of the cotton component of the Single Payment Scheme remains coupled to production)". 
Questions: 
32. Does the EU intend to completely eliminate the possibility of granting such direct payments 
linked to production? 
33. If so, is there a timeframe under consideration?  
EU reply to questions 32 and 33:  This is not envisaged in the CAP for the period 2014-2020. EU 
Member States should be allowed to use part of their national ceilings for direct payments for 
coupled support in clearly defined cases where spec ific types of farming or specific agricultural 
sectors undergo certain difficulties and are particularly important for economic and/or social and/or 
environmental reasons. Applying coupled support will be optional for Member States and limited to an appropriate level. Payments will be based on fixed areas and yields or on a fixed number of animals. 
Paragraph 4.10 states that, "under Article 69 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 73/2009 each 
member State may reserve up to 10% of the total amount available for direct payments to fund support for quality, marketing, environment, or risk management, or to assist farmers in 
disadvantaged areas, or types of farming in the da iry, rice, bovine meat, or sheep meat and goat 
meat sectors". 
Questions: 
34. How are the said direct payments implemented?  
EU reply:  Article 69(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No  73/2009 gives the possibility to EU Member 
States to use up to 10% of their national ceiling for direct payments to grant specific support. Nine 
categories of support measures can be implemented which are listed in Article 68(1) of the 
Regulation. The Member States notify their deci sion to implement the scheme to the European 
Commission by describing the support measures in a detailed way, including the objectives and the reasons of their decision. The Member States  ensure consistency between specific support 
measures and measures implemented under other EU support instruments, including specific 
support, as well as measures funded by state aids. They also ensure that the support measures WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 61 - 
 
  they implement are verifiable and controllable. The European Commission carries out the 
assessment of the measures notified in view of ensuring their compliance with the legal framework. Some of the measures are subject to the Commission's approval. 
35. Is there any link to production in the funding of marketing activities or the assistance of 
farmers in disadvantaged regions?  
EU reply:  Some of the measures listed in Article 68(1) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 may be 
linked to a volume of production and are subject to a limited maximum percentage of the Member 
State's national ceiling for direct payments fixed at 3.5% according to Article 69(4) of the 
Regulation. Such measures are provided for in particular in the case of the sector-specific measures implemented under Article 68(1)(b) of the Regulation, which are allowed to the extent necessary to create an incentive to maintain current levels of production. 
36. What are the criteria for defining "disadvantaged regions" in the EU? 
EU reply:  The Member States target the sector-specific support granted under Article 68(1)(b) of 
Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 at economically vulner able or environmentally sensitive areas. Under 
Article 68(1)(c) of the Regulation, the support is for areas subject to restructuring and/or 
development programs in order to prevent land being abandoned and/or to address specific disadvantages of farmers in those areas. There is  no further EU definition of "disadvantaged 
regions" for the purposes of the scheme. It is up to Member States to identify the areas or regions 
where targeted support might be able to address specific difficulties and to implement the scheme 
accordingly. 
Page 115 – Paragraph 4.13 
In paragraph 4.13 of the Secretariat's report, the EU's public intervention mechanism is described, 
including its annual buying ceilings, and reference is made to the possibility of "purchases beyond these ceilings if the "market situation and, in particular, the development of market prices, so 
requires." In such cases buying-in would take pl ace by tendering at a price not higher than the 
intervention price".   
Questions: 
37. Could the EU inform the criteria for defining which market situation or trend in market 
prices may trigger public interventions beyond the annual buying ceilings?  
EU reply:  Article 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 provides that "… the Commission 
may decide to continue public intervention beyond the amounts (….) if the market situation and, in 
particular, the development of market prices, so requires." 
38. How are the intervention prices determined in such cases? 
EU reply:  In such cases public intervention prices an d quantities for intervention are determined 
by means of tendering procedures (see Article 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007). 
Page 118 – Paragraph 4.22 Regarding EU's production quotas for sugar, paragraph 4.22 of the Secretariat's report states that 
"unlike milk production, the quota can be exceed ed without penalties, provided the excess is 
exported, sold for non-food uses (such as biofuels ) or counted against the following year's quota". 
Questions:  
39. Does the EU intend to strengthen its sugar production quotas regime by applying penalties 
when the established limits are exceeded, as is the case with milk.  
EU reply:  No. Sugar quotas will be abolished in 2017 under the CAP reform. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 62 - 
 
  40. How does the EU justify the fact that one of  the possibilities of exceeding the quotas 
without being subjected to any penalty is through the exportation of sugar, a possibility which tends to distort the world market? 
EU reply:  The EU exports of out-of-quota sugar respect WTO commitments. 
Page 118 – Paragraph 4.23  
Paragraph 4.23 of the Secretariat's report informs that "the use of export subsidies in the EU 
continued to decline although they were still bein g used in 2011 for some products such as poultry 
meat, eggs, beef and veal, processed pig meat products and some Non-Annex I products 
(prepared foods containing eggs)". 
Question: 
41. Does the EU intend to reform its agricultural policy in order to eliminate its current export 
subsidies, a practice that undeniably distorts international trade? 
EU reply:  On export competition, the EU is committed to the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, 
and in particular its paragraph 6, in its entirety. This states: "the date … for the elimination of all 
forms of export subsidies, together with the agr eed progressivity and parallelism, will be confirmed 
only upon the completion of the modalities". 
Page 123/124 – Paragraph 4.38  
Paragraph 4.38 of the Secretariat's report includes data on the total catch in the EU and its 
participation in the world catch. According to the report, "in 2000 the EU-27 catch was 6% of world catch and in 2010 it had fallen to 3.9%". 
Questions: 
42. Could the EU inform the total catch by EU vessels outside EU waters, as well as provide an 
estimation of its participation in the world total catch? 
EU reply: While the EU does not develop aggregated data on the total catch by EU vessels outside 
EU waters and estimation of its participation in the world total catch, EU vessels' catches data 
based on the fishing area as defined by FAO are available at the following web address: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/publications/pcp_en.pdf . 
Then, for more detailed dataset, see: 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database . 
World total catches can be obtained from FAO annual reports: 
http://www.fao.org/fishery/sofia/en . 
43. In addition, could the EU provide the total catch figures of EU vessels in foreign waters 
(including third countries' EEZs) under access agreements, especially in developing countries? 
EU reply: Regarding fisheries agreements, information is available on the web address: 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/international/agreements/index_en.htm .  
Page 127 – Paragraph 4.47 
Paragraph 4.47 of the Secretariat's report states that "overfishing continues to be a major problem 
facing EU fishing with the majority of commercial fi sh stocks in EU waters giving cause for concern. 
In 2007, 29 out of 33 of Europe's most important commercial fish species were over-fished while 
"decisions on catch levels remain dominated by short-term thinking, and the catching capacity of 
the European Fleet remains more than twice what is needed to harvest [the EU's] fish stocks WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 63 - 
 
  sustainably.". Paragraph 4.51 (page ), on the other hand, describes the EU's total allowable catch 
and quota allocation system.  
Questions: 
44. Are there more stringent measures under consideration in the EU in order to address the 
overfishing problem in its waters?  
EU reply:  The European Commission evaluates the number of overfished stocks (the stocks where 
the latest estimate of fishing mortality rate is higher than the rate corresponding to maximum 
sustainable yield) based on analyses by independent scientists working at the "International 
Council for the Exploration of the Sea", the "Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries", and the scientific committees of various regional fisheries management organisations.  
According to these analyses from 2005 until 2013 the number of overfished stocks subject to 
annual regulations limiting fishing opportunities in EU waters (and nearby waters) in the Northeast 
Atlantic, including the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, fell from 32 to 16 (from 94% to 39% of the assessed resources).  
Management of fishing capacity is subject to an  entry/exit system. The fleet capacity for each 
Member State may not exceed certain levels, expressed in Kilowatt (KW) engine power and gross tonnage (GT). When a Member State withdraws a vessel using state funds (i.e. decommissioning) 
the maximum permitted levels are decreased by amounts corresponding to the capacity 
withdrawn. 
This system has led to gradual reductions in ceilings on fleet capacity. The actual capacities of the 
fleets concerned have also reduced. 
The European Commission expects that, based on the reform of the EU Common Fisheries Policy, 
overcapacity will be further reduced, where needed. The reform foresees some measures in this view. However, the final outcome of the reform of  the EU Common Fisheries Policy is not known at 
this juncture as it is subject to adoption under  ordinary legislative procedure foreseen by the 
Treaty on the functioning of the European Union and this procedure has not yet been completed by 
date of writing. 
45. More specifically, is the EU envisaging any reform in its total allowable catch and quota 
allocation system? 
EU reply:  The reform of the EU Common Fisheries Po licy is subject to adoption under ordinary 
legislative procedure foreseen by the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union and this 
procedure has not yet been completed by date of writing. Its outcome cannot be predicted at this 
stage. The proposal presented by the European Commission foresees the gradual introduction of an obligation to land all catches in various fisheries and species beginning in 2015. The nature of 
Total Allowable Catches and quotas would therefore change from limits on landings to limits on 
catches. The allocation system among EU Member States would remain unchanged. Member States would retain the facility to exchange quotas among themselves. 
Page 128 – Paragraph 4.53 
In paragraph 4.53 of the Secretariat's report, there is a description of the Regulation (EU) No. 
1026/2012, which gives the Commission the power to "adopt measures against a third country which it has identified as allowing non-sustainable fishing of a fish stock it shares with the EU. 
Allowing non-sustainable fishing is defined as failure to cooperate in management of the shared 
stock 'in full compliance' with international law, and failing to adopt fishery management measures 
or adopting such measures without due regard fo r other countries and the EU. The measures that 
may be taken include: imposing quantitative restrictions on imports of fish from the stock, on 
imports of species associated with the stock, on imports of products made of or containing the stock or species associated with it; and other restrictions. Before taking such measures, the third 
country would be notified and it then has one month to respond and "remedy the situation".  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 64 - 
 
  Questions: 
46. Could the EU explain the legal basis, espe cially under the WTO Agreements, for the 
imposition of import restrictions in such cases?  
EU reply:  The EU will implement, if needed, measur es under Regulation (EU) No. 1026/2012 in a 
manner consistent with its WTO obligations. The EU notes in this context that trade relations 
between WTO Members should be conducted with due regard to the objective of sustainable development, including the protection and preser vation of the environment and the conservation 
of natural resources, as stated in the WTO Agreement. 
47. What are the criteria for assessing other countries' compliance to "international law" and 
how is "international law" defined for the purposes of Regulation (EU) No. 1026/2012? 
EU reply:  The criteria for assessing other countries' compliance are set out in Article 3 of 
Regulation (EU) No. 1026/2012. In assessing compliance, the European Commission will consider 
international law, including international cooperation and conservation obligations designed to govern the sustainable exploitation of fish stocks, which is applicable to the other countries 
concerned, namely (i) international treaty law, including UNCLOS, UNFSA, international treaties 
setting up RFMOs and internationally binding measures established thereunder and/or international fisheries agreements, and (ii) international customary law. Relevant international practice, as, 
inter alia, reflected in the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and/or the FAO 
International Plans of Action including the one for the management of fishing capacity and/or the one to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, will be taken into account. 
Pages 130/132 – Paragraphs 4.59/4.65 
In paragraphs 4.59 to 4.65 of the Secretariat's report, the EU's policies to support fisheries are 
described. 
Questions: 
48. Could the EU inform how much support is provided for operational costs incurred in 
fisheries activities, i.e. the fuel tax ex emptions referred to in paragraph 4.64?  
EU reply:  The EU does not provide financial support to operational costs. Individual Member 
States can provide fuel tax exemptions in the framework of Council Directive 2003/96/EC. 
49. Could the EU explain what the "cost-reducing transfers" mentioned in paragraph 4.63 are? 
EU reply:  Cost reducing transfers refer to aid provided by the EU to the Member States for the 
implementation and enforcement of the Common Fish eries Policy. Such support is provided within 
the framework of such regulations as:  
 Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 of 25.02.2008 concerning the establishment of a 
Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy. 
 Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control 
system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy. 
 Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27.07.2006 on the European Fisheries Fund. 
Page 156 - Table 4.31 
Table 4.31 makes reference to the planned reform of Regulation 868/2004 concerning protection 
against subsidization and unfair pricing practices causing injury to EU carriers. One of its 
objectives is the definition at EU level of a template for a "fair competition clause" as a basis for 
inclusion in air services agreements.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 65 - 
 
  Question: 
50. How can the EU ensure that these "fair co mpetition clauses" will not prevent foreign 
carriers from exploring air transport services in the EU? 
EU reply:  As key objective of EU external aviation policy, fair competition is meant to ensure that 
airlines compete on a level playing field which is not distorted by unfair practices by market 
players or state intervention. 
Indeed, fair competition clauses are included in existing EU comprehensive air transport 
agreements establishing a liberal market access re gime (complete liberalisation of third and fourth 
freedom traffic rights complemented by a gradual lib eralisation of further traf fic rights). Therefore, 
fair competition clauses will not prevent foreign carriers from having access to the EU air transport market; on the contrary, they will facilitate further access. 
PART II: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT REPORT 
3. KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN EU TRADE POLICY (2011-2012) Page 13 - Paragraphs 3.17, 3.20 and 3.21 
Questions:  
51. In FTAs between the EU and developing co untries, does the EU seek to establish 
intellectual property provisions that limit in any way the flexibilities contained in the TRIPs 
Agreement, such as compulsory licenses?  
EU reply:  No, the EU does not introduce IP provisions in its FTAs with developing countries that 
limit the flexibilities in the TRIPS Agreement including as regards compulsory licenses. 
52. If so, how does the EU explain the compatibility of such provisions and the Doha 
Declaration on TRIPs and Public Health? 
Irrelevant given that the reply to the above question 51 is negative 
53. In FTAs between the EU and developing co untries, does the EU seek to establish 
intellectual property provisions that restrict in any way the flexibilities in the TRIPs 
Agreement regarding data exclusivity protection for pharmaceutical products?  
EU reply:  In several FTA's, the EU and its Partners have agreed to implement the TRIPS data 
protection obligation through the definition of a period of exclusivity during which third parties 
cannot rely on the data submitted by the originator. This is, for instance, in line with the way Brazil implemented this obligation for agro-chemical products.  
54. If so, how does the EU explain the compatibility of such provisions and the Doha 
Declaration on TRIPs and Public Health, as such measures would delay the registration of 
generic drugs? 
EU reply:  The European Union specifically addresses the respect of the Doha Declaration on the 
TRIPS Agreement and Public Health in the IP Chapters of its FTAs with developing countries, which 
include a provision ensuring the consistency of its IPR provisions with such Declaration. Regarding an alleged delay in the registration of generic drugs, the EU points out that, in the overwhelming 
majority of cases, the data exclusivity protection expires before the patent protection and 
therefore has no effect on the entry into the market of generics.  
55. In FTAs between the EU and developing co untries, does the EU seek to establish 
intellectual property provisions that allow for patentability of modifications and "new use" 
of pharmaceutical inventions (also know as "evergreening" of patents)?  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 66 - 
 
  EU reply:  No, in its FTAs with developing countries, the EU does not seek to establish IP 
provisions that allow for the "new use" of pharmaceutical inventions. 
56. If so, does the EU recognize the impact of su ch provisions on the price of medicines (as 
established in paragraph 3 of the Doha Declaration on TRIPs and Public Health? 
EU reply:  Irrelevant as answer to Q 55 is negative  
57. In FTAs between the EU and developing co untries, does the EU seek to establish 
intellectual property provisions that allow for extension of the patent term of protection?  
EU reply:  In a number of FTAs, the EU and its Partners  agreed on the possibility of an optional 
mechanism, in accordance with the domestic legisl ation of the Parties, to compensate the patent 
owner of a product that is subject to a marketin g approval for the unreasonable curtailment of the 
effective patent term resulting from th e marketing approval of that product. 
58. If so, how does the EU explain their compatibility with the Doha Declaration on TRIPs and 
Public Healh and, in particular, the impact of such provisions on the price of medicines (as established in paragraph 3 of the Doha Declaration on TRIPs and Public Health)? 
EU reply:  The European Union specifically addresses the respect of the Doha Declaration on the 
TRIPS Agreement and Public Health in the IP Chapters of its FTAs with developing countries, which 
include a provision ensuring the consistency of its IPR provisions with such Declaration. 
Furthermore, the European Union considers that  such supplementary protection provides an 
important encouragement to pharmaceutical research, thus playing a decisive role in the continuing improvement to public health 
59. In FTAs between the EU and developing co untries, does the EU seek to establish 
intellectual property provisions establishing stricter rules for enforcement of patent 
products?  
EU reply:  No, the enforcement rules in FTAs apply to all IPR in the same manner. 
60. Do such rules allow for customs officers to apprehend pharmaceutical products in transit?  
EU reply:  In a certain number of FTA's, the parties agreed that customs authorities must be 
empowered to temporarily detain goods, including when goods are claimed to be in transit, when 
they have grounds for suspecting that there is an infringement of trademarks or copyrights. These 
measures also exist in Brazil. There are no specific references to the case where the product suspected of such infringements would be a pharmaceutical. 
61. If so, how does the EU explain the compatib ility of such provisions with the Doha 
Declaration on TRIPs and Public Health, as they would affect the access to drugs? 
EU reply:  The European Union specifically addresses the respect of the Doha Declaration on the 
TRIPS Agreement and Public Health in the IP Chapters of its FTAs with developing countries, which 
include a provision ensuring the consistency of its IPR provisions with such Declaration. The EU 
does not envisage the possible detention of a pharmaceutical product suspected of trademark counterfeiting as being incompatible with the Doha Declaration.  
Page 16 - Paragraph 3.41 
Regulation (EU) No 978/2012, which establishe s a revised General System of Preferences, 
eliminates the benefits of the System for Members classified by the World Bank as "High Income" or "Medium High Income" countries. In doing so, the EU adopted criteria based on income as a 
proxy for level of development.  
Question: 
62. Could the EU explain how such criteria conf orm to the requirements of the Enabling 
Clause? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 67 - 
 
  EU reply:  The criterion conforms to the requirements of  the Enabling Clause as it responds to the 
'development, financial and trade needs' of developing countries.  
GSP shall respond to the needs of developing co untries, to enhance exports and, as a result, 
economic growth—which is typically measured by income. Different levels of income signal 
different needs by partners and elicit a differentiated response by GSP. 
The income criterion used by the EU's revised GS P is based on the World Bank's GNI per capita, 
Atlas method. In line with the principles of the Enabling Clause, this is an objective, internationally 
accepted and widely used indicator which every ye ar defines categories of countries and reflects 
different needs to which GSP responds. 
The EU claims that with the revised GSP "preferences have been focused on 89 countries in 
greatest need".  
Question: 
63. Could the EU explain how such claim can be reconciled with the results of the impact 
assessment for the revised GSP, which antici pate a reduction in exports from LDCs?  
EU reply:  Actually, the impact assessment forecasts a significant improvement of the situation of 
LDCs and countries most in need. The results of the impact assessment imply that the impacts of 
preference erosion are reduced. In addition, dy namic effects will cause the exports figures to 
increase further as additional opportunities arise given the deferral of preferences for key 
competitors. 
Page 17 - Paragraph 3.43 Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 modifies the graduation mechanism of the GSP.  
Question: 
64. Could the EU inform whether the new mechanism results in more or less countries and 
sections being graduated, in comparison with the previous version of the system?  
EU reply:  A quantitative comparison between the two systems is hardly significant, since the 
current one defines 21 'GSP Product Sections' while the revised system defines 32 of them, in 
order to ensure more objectivity. Plus, the two systems rely on a set of import data that cover two 
different periods (current: 2006-08; revised: 2009-11). For information, the current system 
graduates 18 sections from 6 different countries. The revised one graduates 43 sections from 8 different countries. 
PART III: OTHER QUESTIONS 
Reference: Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 
GSP 
The impact assessment for the revised GSP anticipates a net reduction of imports worth 
3.6 billion euros and an increase of 1.7 billion in customs revenues as a result of the application of 
the new GSP.  
Question: 
65. Could the EU explain how this conclusion can be reconciled with item 3.c of the Enabling 
Clause? 
EU reply:  The revision adapts EU's GSP to the changes that have occurred in the global landscape 
in order to address better and more efficiently the trade, financial and development needs of 
developing countries in line with the Enabling Clause. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 68 - 
 
  The Impact Assessment estimated that LDCs and countries most in need will see their exports to 
the EU increasing, with a further possible increase due to the opportunity to diversify the product range of their exports. The entirety of the net reduction of total imports is borne by countries 
which will exit the beneficiaries' list, i.e. count ries which have already successfully integrated in 
world trade and whose trade, financial and development needs cannot be addressed by GSP any 
longer. 
Reference: Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 
Technical Standards 
Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012, of 25 Octobe r 2012, introduces several modifications to 
the European standardisation regime.  
Questions: 
66. Could the EU explain the main features of this Regulation?  
EU reply:  The new Regulation focuses on five aspects: 
1. The procedures for the European Commission to ask European standardisation organisations to 
develop European standards which then could support Union legislation and policies. 
2. Speed of standardisation. Standardisation n eeds to become faster and more efficient. 
3. Increased involvement of SMEs and weaker societal stakeholders (consumers, environmental 
NGOs, employees) into the standardisation process. 
4. Clarifying the legal framework for services standardisation. Product standards were essential in 
the development of the single market for good s and there is potential also for the single 
market for services to use standards to expand it. 
5. Possibility of using ICT technical specifications  drafted by non-European and non-international 
fora and consortia in public tenders. 
A more extensive introduction can be found here: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/european-standards/standardisation-policy/general-
framework/index_en.htm .  
67. To what extent has such Regulation already been implemented? 
EU reply:  The Regulation entered into force in all Member States on 1 January 2013. It is directly 
applicable (no national transposition) as it mainly regulates European standardisation 
organisations, National standardisation bodi es and the processes where the Commission is 
responsible actor.  
Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 provides for the pa rticipation in the standardisation process of 
non-industry stakeholders.  
Questions:  
68. What level of participation of such actors does it allow?  
EU reply:  The Regulation does not require a specific level, but asks Member States and National 
Standard Bodies to actively encourage participation to the standardisation process at national 
level, and set out the criteria for the European Commission to fund European stakeholder 
organisations in order for them to represent weaker societal stakeholders at European level. 
69. Does the Regulation make it compulsory for standardisation organisations to take into 
account the views of non-industry stakeholders? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 69 - 
 
  EU reply:  No, see answer to question 68. The Regula tion aims to have a consensus building 
process where the relevant stakeholders participate both at national and European level. The 
outcome of such a process likely better reflects also views of other than industry stakeholders. 
Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 provides for th e elaboration of standards in the services 
industry.  
Questions: 
70. Will this process be developed according to the same system in place for goods?  
EU reply:  Yes. In practise this service "addendum" is related only to the Commission's possibilities 
to issue standardisation requests to the European Standardisation Organisations on service 
standards when there is Union legislation and policy on relevant services.  
71. Are there specific services sectors identified as priority for the standardisation process?  
EU reply:  No. 
72. Will new standardisation organisations be established exclusively for services? 
EU reply:  No, the European standardisation organisations are and remain CEN, CENELEC and 
ETSI. 
Reference: Directives 2009/28/EC (RED) and 98/70/EC (FQD) 
Renewable Energy  
Questions: 
73. Could the EU explain why the goals established in the Renewable Energy Directive for 
integration of renewable energy sources in the EU Member-States national energy mixes, in particular the use of E10 mixture, are not being completely fulfilled? 
EU reply: The Directive includes, besides the 20% ov erall target for the share of renewable 
energy by 2020, a 10% target (by energy) for each Member State for the share of renewable 
energy in transport by 2020. There is no ob ligation to use the E10 fuel mixture. The 
implementation of the Directives is the responsi bility of the Member States and they are making 
progress towards reaching the renewable energy targets by 2020.  
74. What are the expected impacts on EU trade of  the amendments proposed to the EU Fuel 
Quality Directive (98/70/EC as amended by 2009/30/EC) and of the EU Renewable Energy 
Directive (2009/28/EC)?  
EU reply:  Since the contribution of biofuels from food and feed crops towards achieving the 10% 
target would be limited to the current level of us e of these biofuels, the impact on EU trade in 
these biofuels and in feedstocks for these biofuels would be minimal. 
75. How would these amendments impact EU trade on bioenergy and bioenergy feed stocks?  
EU reply: There would be no trade impact on bioenergy and bioenergy feedstocks, since those are 
not covered by the two directives. 
76. Would the EU be able to fulfil its 20-20-20 targets? 
EU reply:  The Commission considers that the EU as a whole is on track to reach the targets of 
20% reductions of GHG emissions compared to 1990 levels and a 20 % share of renewables in 
final energy consumption by 2020, while some Member States need to undertake additional efforts to meet their national targets. As regards the ta rget to reduce primary energy consumption with 
20% by 2020 compared to projections made in 2007, the Commission will carry out an in-depth 
assessment in 2014 of the progress made and wh ether the EU is likely to achieve it. The WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 70 - 
 
  Commission currently believes that more measures will be necessary to meet the energy savings 
target.  
The most recent assessments in this regard is found in the Commission's Green Paper "A 2030 
framework for climate and energy policies" 
(http://ec.europa.eu/energy/green_paper_2030_en.htm ) and "Renewable Energy Progress 
Report" ( http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/reports/reports_en.htm ) adopted in late 
March 2013. 
Reference: Regulation (EU) Nº 995/2010 
FLEGT 
Questions: 
77. Considering the EU Timber Regulation (Regulation (EU) Nº 995/2010), would the Forest 
Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification 
(PEFC) be considered "due diligence" partners?  
EU reply: "Due diligence partners" is a term, which does not exist in the EUTR or the non-
legislative measures adopted by the Commission . The role and place of the voluntary forest 
certification is highlighted in the EU Timber Regualtion (Art. 6(1)) and further clarified in Commission Regulation (EU) 607/2012 (Art. 4) and in a Guidance document elaborated in 
collaboration with the EU Member States (issue No 6).  
78. To what extent would private schemes of certific ation constitute sufficient proof of legality?  
EU reply: Certificates issued by private certification bodies can be used as a tool in the due 
diligence system as stated in the provisions cite d in the reply to question 77 above. Under the EU 
Timber Regulation such schemes are not considered  to provide an automatic proof of legality.  
79. Could the EU elaborate on the role of third-countries national programmes of certification 
and their acceptance as proof of origin? 
EU reply: The role of voluntary certification is explained in the documents cited in the reply to 
question 77 above.  
Reference: Regulation (EU) Nº 1907/2006 
REACH 
Successful REACH applicants are, according to Title VII of Regulation (EU) Nº 1907/2006, the ones 
capable of providing good quality application, which includes the justification for granting an authorisation and a clear view of the costs and benefits of a granted authorisation.  
Question: 
80. What measures is the EU envisaging to ensure that SMEs in particular avoid or minimize 
burdensome dossier preparation costs and remain competitive? 
EU reply: The role of the impact assessment of any Commission initiative is to assess the 
potential economic, social and environmental consequences that they may have. The core interest 
in the impact assessment of REACH was on the effects of REACH registration – both with regard to 
the costs to the industry and also possible benefits  to the society in terms of improved health and 
environment. With regard to the SMEs, the Commi ssion did not differentiate between foreign and 
EU based SMEs in the calculation of cost of registration. Many adjustments made with regard to the impact on SMEs have been made in the Commission proposal and during the legislative 
process leading to the adoption of REACH in th e Council and EP, for example in simplifying the 
registration obligations for low tonnage substances, exemption of polymers from registration, reducing registration requirements for transp orted intermediates under certain conditions, 
establishing ECHA fee reductions and so on – th ese measures are available to all SMEs – both 
domestic and foreign based. We would like to stress that registration and other obligations are directly applicable only to EU-based operators. Foreign companies can (as an option) nominate WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 71 - 
 
  their Only Representative to facilitate dealing with the obligations imposed on their partner 
importers in the EU and to improve handling of confidential business information. We also need to remind in this context, that foreign based manuf acturers can benefit from a competitive advantage 
of not being required to register substances used in the 'upstream' processes. 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 254/2013 of 20 March 2013 amending Regulation 
(EC) No 340/2008 on the fees and charges payable to  the European Chemicals Agency pursuant to 
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Pa rliament and of the Council on the Registration, 
Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) has further reduced the fees 
applicable to SMEs. 
Reference: Council Directive 96/22/EC 
Prohibition of Imports of Meat with Ractopamine Residues 
Question:  
81. Given Articles 2.3 and 8, as well as Annex C(1)(a), of the SPS Agreement, is there any 
justification for the adoption of such different testing requirements? 
EU reply: Residues of ractopamine may be tested in a number of different matrices, both edible 
(e.g. muscle and liver) and inedible (e.g. urine). The same testing requirements apply to Brazil 
and to the EU Member States. In the verification system applied for imports of pork meat from 
Brazil testing of urine is preferable as it reveals immediately if pigs have received ractopamine, 
either as a result of deliberate feeding or by exposure to cross-contaminated feedingstuffs. Nevertheless, according to its residue monitoring plan, Brazil is also testing bovine and pig muscle for residues of ractopamine. 
Reference: Commission Regulation Nº 810/2008 
Tariff Quotas for High-Quality Beef 
Commission Regulation Nº 810/2008 opens and provides for the administration of tariff quotas for 
high-quality fresh, chilled and frozen beef and for frozen buffalo meat. Article 2 of this Regulation 
sets out the definitions of the beef to which the quota is applicable. These definitions vary 
according to the country of origin of the beef. Regarding beef originating from Brazil, the quota is 
applicable to selected cuts from steers or heifer s having been exclusively fed with pasture grass 
since their weaning.  
Question: 
82. Is there any scientific justification for the application of different criteria according to the 
country of origin? 
EU reply:  Definitions of beef eligible for preferential import tariff quotas under Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 810/2008 are an integral part of these preferential trade concessions and as 
such were negotiated with each of the countries concerned. 
Reference: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) Nº 1238/2011 
Quantitative Limits for the Export of Out-of-Quota Sugar 
According to data from the European Commission, the EU exports of out-of-quota sugar for the 
marketing year 2011-2012 reached 2.065 million tones.  
Questions: 
83. Could the EU explain why it has once again ex ceeded its export limits for sugar in this 
marketing year?  
EU reply:  The EU has never exceeded its quantitative commitment on subsidised exports. The EU 
monitors its' WTO commitments on the basis of export licenses issued. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 72 - 
 
  84. Could the EU indicate whether there are any measures being taken to prevent such 
exports from exceeding the export limits? 
EU reply:  The EU has never exceeded its quantitative commitment on subsidised exports. 
EU REPLIES TO 2ND BATCH OF QUESTIONS FROM BRAZIL 
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 
SUMMARY Page 9 (Paragraph 7) 
There is little official information available at the EU level on state-owned or controlled enterprises 
although some sources indicate that there ar e several hundred among the member States. The 
total number may have increased over the past few years as a number of banks have been taken over by some member States in response to the financial crises. Of course, the definition of a 
"state-owned or controlled" enterprise is not the same as a "state-trading enterprise" in the sense 
of Article XVII of GATT and the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XVII. However, any 
of these state-owned enterprises in the EU member States are commercial entities which have 
effects on trade and investment. 
Question: 
1.  What are the effects on competition with third-countries' institutions, in the international 
financial services market, of take overs of financial institutions performed by EU Member 
States? 
EU reply:  As a response to the financial crisis, some EU Member States had to take over some 
failing banks which became state-owned. Under arti cle 345 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union, the EU rules have to be neutra l as regards the ownership of the entity. This 
applies also to the rules governing competition and State aid control. Therefore, in the context of 
the financial crisis, State aid rules have been applied in the same way for all banks that had to 
resort to public support, whether state-owned or privately-owned. Those state aid rules are 
designed to protect financial stability while at the same time ensuring a level playing field for all competitors. 
In particular, EU state aid rules provide guidance of how failing banks should return to viability 
while limiting moral hazard for banks through mitigation of competition distortions and burden sharing measures. 
4. DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTED SECTORS 
Page 137 (Paragraph 4.72) and page 142 (Table 4.23) 
These legislations and draft legislation have basically five aims around which their description can 
be organized: (I) creating a banking union, (II) reforming financial institutions and markets to 
improve stability, (III) reinforcing accountability of  the financial system and its user friendliness, 
and (IV) instituting a financial transaction tax while (V) not hampering market access. 
Objectives of the FTT 
To create appropriate disincentives for financial transactions which do not contribute to the 
efficiency of financial markets or to the real economy. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 73 - 
 
  Questions: 
2.  Are there any objective criteria defining "financial transactions which do not contribute to 
the efficiency of financial markets or to the real economy" ? Or will it be a matter subject to the interpretation by supervision authorities? 
EU reply:  Speculative transactions as such cannot be singled out. However, it can be reasonably 
expected that, to the extent that the FTT increase s the costs of transactions in financial markets 
and because of its cumulative effect, it becomes an appropriate measure to significantly 
discourage Automated Trading, and notably High-Frequency Trading while it rewards transactions 
that have a longer term structure and that are less leveraged. 
3.  Is it possible that the origin of the capital or the nationality of the financial institution 
becomes a criterion regarding financial transaction tax enforcement? 
EU reply:  In the 2013 proposal of the Commission the taxing rights of Member States 
participating in the enhanced cooperation are defined in article 4 of this proposal, essentially based 
on the residence of the financial institution while respecting territoriality rules. 
Page 138 (Paragraph 4.78) and pages 139/140 (Paragraph 4.89) 
These new European authorities work together with Member States' supervisors to foster improved 
cross-border supervisory cooperation and work towards harmonized rules and their strict and 
coherent enforcement. More specifically, the ESAs  can (i) draw up specific rules for national 
authorities and financial institutions; (ii) take action in emergency situation (including banning certain products); (iii) mediate and settle disputes between national supervisors; and (iv) ensure the consistent application of EU law. 
In October 2011, the Commission presented new legislative proposals to revise the rules on 
markets in financial instruments.[1] The proposals aim at making financial markets more efficient, resilient and transparent, and strengthen invest or protection. They extend the existing rules 
regarding transparency and conduct of business to new and innovative types of trading platforms, 
thus ensuring safety and creating a level playing fi eld. The new rules will also allow supervisors to 
ban specific products, services or practices in case of threat to investor protection, financial 
stability or the orderly functioning of markets. 
Questions: 
4.  Is the ban of specific financial products or services devised to obey any objective criteria, 
or will it be a discretionary act by supervisors? 
EU reply:  The legislative process for the review of the market in financial instruments directive 
(MiFID) is on-going. The legislative proposals recognise powers to ESMA and national supervisors 
in the area of intervention on products, services or practices raising investor protection concerns 
or threatening the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of whole or 
part of the financial system in the Union. These cr iteria will be further specified by implementing 
measures to be adopted by the European Commission. Decisions taken by ESMA and by national 
supervisors are subject to the right of appeal in  accordance with, respectively, the regulation 
establishing ESMA and the legislation transposing MiFID in Member States. 
5.  Is there any guarantee that the banning of specific products will be non discriminatory for 
third-countries' institutions? 
EU reply:  The banning cannot be discriminatory for third country institutions 
Page 139 (Paragraph 4.85) 
In June 2012, the Commission proposed a new co mprehensive EU crisis management framework 
which would provide more comprehensive and effect ive arrangements to deal with failing banks. 
Under the draft Bank Resolution Directive[2], public authorities will be in a position to act in a more coordinated way should banks be in difficulty . The framework provides public authorities with WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 74 - 
 
  a wide-ranging toolbox of powers, including early in tervention to reorganise a bank in difficulty 
and, if the financial situation of a bank deterior ates beyond repair, the power to ensure that its 
critical functions can be rescued, with the costs falling upon the bank's owners and creditors, and not on taxpayers. Cross-border cooperation mechanisms would be established, as these were 
clearly inadequate, as shown in recent years. The measures also foresee robust European 
financing arrangements, based on contributions from  the banking sector itself. The aim is to avoid 
further recourse to taxpayers' money to rescue failing institutions. 
Questions: 
6.  In the case of financial rescues, will deposits' owners be qualified as clients or creditors? 
Will the costs of these rescues also be imposed on them? 
EU reply:  The procedure for adoption of the Bank Resolution Regulation is not completed at the 
time we are answering those questions. All information on that issue can be found here: 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/bank/crisis_management/ .  
7.  What will be the effect on foreign investors of the imposition of financial rescue costs on 
bank owners and creditors? 
EU reply:  See reply to question 6 
Page 141 (Paragraph 4.99) 
The Commission has proposed amendments in the Deposit Guarantee Scheme Directive to 
increase the confidence of bank-account holders by  further harmonizing the protection of deposits, 
ensuring faster pay-outs, and improving th e financing of deposit guarantee schemes. 
Questions: 
8.  Does the Deposit Guarantee Scheme Directive include any provisions concerning 
bank-account holders from third countries? 
EU reply:  Current legislation on deposits guarantee in Europe does not differentiate between 
account holders on the base of nationality. 
9.  Will there be any form of discriminatory treatment between EU and third-countries' 
nationals regarding the Deposit Guarantee Scheme? 
EU reply:  See reply to question 6 
Page 144 (Paragraph 4.105) 
Regarding cross-border supply of services, most of the recent legislation adopted by the EU 
includes third-country regimes under which foreig n-based operators are allowed to pursue their 
activities linked with European financial markets, provided that certain prudential requirements are 
met, in particular that the regulatory system under which they operate locally is considered of equivalent quality with that of the EU. 
Questions: 
10. Are prudential requirements, that will be mandatory for third-countries' institutions in 
order to operate in the European financial market, already present in draft texts of 
international agreements under negotiation by the EU? 
EU reply:  The requirements for equivalence assessment are set in the EU legislative texts. 
11. In the case prudential requirements by a third-country have been more rigorous than 
those adopted by the EU, will the EU agree on reciprocity of treatment or consider them a 
barrier to trade in financial services? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 75 - 
 
  EU reply:  We would not consider more stringent prudential requirements adopted by a third-
country to be an unjustified barrier to trade in financial services as long as those requirements are 
proportionate and can be justified for prudential reasons 
Page 144 (Paragraph 4.106) 
This system thus guarantees that, for instance, foreign credit-rating agencies and foreign auditors 
can provide their services to European consumers from abroad if their national supervisory and regulatory systems have been granted equivalence by the European Commission on the basis of 
recommendations by European in dependent supervisory agencies. 
Question: 
12. What measures are being taken in order to prevent money laundering and other illegal 
activities in the EU and its offshore financial centers? 
EU reply:  On 5 February 2013 the European Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on 
Anti-Money Laundering which contains several measures to improve the current legislative 
framework. This improvement is essential to enhance clarity and consistency of the rules across 
Member States, to broaden the scope to address new threats and vulnerabilities and to ensure 
compliance with the FATF standards. 
The measures we are proposing to revise the curr ent EU AML/CTF are intended to update it and 
improve the functioning. By aligning the framework to new international standards, in a way which 
respects the integrity and consistency of the Internal Market, and where necessary going beyond international standards to target specific EU we aknesses, we are aiming to achieve the highest 
standards. The EU needs to remain open for business, an attractive place for legitimate 
investments, but needs to clamp down hard on criminal exploitation. We believe that the set of 
rules we are proposing are finely balanced in order to achieve that aim, and will result in increased focus on effectiveness and enforcement.  
With respect to the fight against Money Laundering in the offshore financial centres, the 
information on beneficial ownership is crucial to improve the transparency and effectively address the existing concerns on these jurisdictions. The proposal of Directive improves clarity and 
transparency on beneficial ownership. The proposal clarifies the definition of "beneficial owner" and 
requires legal persons to hold information on their own beneficial ownership. This information should be made available to both competent authorities and obliged entities. For legal arrangements (e.g. trusts), trustees will be required to declare their status when becoming a 
customer, and information on beneficial ownership w ill similarly be required to be made available 
to competent authorities and obliged entities 
The European Council Conclusions of last 22 May and the G8 communique of last 18 June 
demonstrate clearly that the EU is making concrete efforts in this area, also at the international 
level. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 76 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM CANADA 
 
Report by the Secretariat WT/TPR/S/284 
Summary. paragraph 8, page 9: 
The Secretariat Report states that "It is not clear how procurement takes place below the 
threshold because of differences in reporting among member States, including procurement by 
sub-national authorities and state-owned enterprises. This problem is not peculiar to the EU, but 
public procurement is a large portion of GDP in the EU and some member States have federal 
structures with a significant proportion of procurement taking place at sub-federal level."  
1.  Given the importance of transparency and the size of public procurement in the EU, what 
steps is the Commission taking to address the problem created by the differences among 
member States in their reporting of procurement below thresholds?  
EU reply: The public procurement directives are only applicable to contracts above the threshold 
values. Moreover, the reporting obligations only co ncern public contracts covered by the directives 
and they are similar to all the contracting authorities. There is no obligation to report contracts 
below the threshold. 
Part I. Economic Environment: (1.1.2) Po licy Measures: table 1.1 and paragraph 1.18, 
page 16:  
The divergent economic performances by different EU member States highlighted by Business 
Europe's  Spring 2013 Economic Outlook, make economic management challenging.  
2.  Are the measures undertaken by the EU such as "six pack" or its April 2012 "employment 
package" described in its Trade Policy Review proving effective?  
EU reply: 
(i) On the six-pack: The Commission will conduct a review on the functioning and 
implementation of the various regulations stre ngthening the stability and growth pact and 
introducing the macroeconomic imbalances procedure, publishing a report on this by 14 December 2014. The report shall evaluate in ter alia the effectiveness of the regulations 
and the progress in ensuring closer coordination of economic policies and sustained 
convergence of economic performances of th e Member States. Where appropriate, this 
report shall be accompanied by proposals for amendments to the regulations.  
(ii) During the last year, the European Commission has proceeded with the implementation of 
the measures proposed in the Employment Package. Among many others, the most 
outstanding results have been the Youth Employment Package, including a proposal for a Youth Guarantee, the Grand Coalition for Digital Jobs, the EU Skills Panorama, and the 
recent proposal for a Decision on "enhanced cooperation between public employment 
services".  
The effectiveness of the Employment Package as a wh ole is difficult to assess at this stage, given 
the magnitude of the employment challenge especial ly in some EU countries and the ownership by 
Member States of structural labour market reform processes. Further reform impetus, in line with 
the suggestions of the Employment Package, has been given by the Commission through its 
country-specific recommendations to the Member States which were issued on May 29, 2013 and 
will be adopted by the European Council on June, 27.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 77 - 
 
  Part II. Trade and Investment Regime: (2.1) Legal and Institutional Framework: 
paragraph 2.10, page 28:   
The EU states that "The European Parliament rati fies trade agreements by simple majority, while 
the Council generally needs a qualified majority to give consent. Unanimity by the Council is 
required for agreements on trade in services [...]".  
3.  Could the EU elaborate further on any Lisbon Treaty provisions relating to requirements on 
the language of trade agreements submitted fo r ratification, when these require unanimity 
of the Council? 
EU reply:  The rules concerning the use of language in the EU institutions are set out in Council 
regulation N. 1 of 1958, as amended (consolidated version here http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1958R0001:20070101:EN:PDF ) under 
which the official languages and the working languages of the institutions of the Union are 
Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, 
Spanish and Swedish. These languages apply also to the conclusion of international treaties, with a 
transitional regime applicable to Irish, as se t out in Regulation 920/2005, extended by Council 
regulation 1257/2010. The linguistic regime will be adapted in light of the accession of Croatia.  
Part II. Trade and Investment Regime: (2.5.2 ) Foreign Investment: Bilateral Investment 
Treaties: paragraph 2.56, page 37:  
4.  Could the EU explain how its new regulation on bilateral investment treaties (BITs) will 
affect the existing BITs of its member States? In particular, when the EU negotiates with a 
partner country an FTA that includes a comprehensive investment chapter with protection 
disciplines, what will become of an existing BIT with that partner country?  
EU reply:  Regulation 1219/2012 does not directly affect existing bilateral investment treaties 
signed by Member States with third countries be fore 1 December 2009 (the date of entry into 
force of the Lisbon Treaty). The Regulation only  endorses the status of these agreements under 
the EU law by confirming that these agreements may be maintained in force by Member States 
until they are replaced by a bilateral investment agreement between the Union and the same third 
country. The replacement mechanism is also applicable to agreements which were signed (or will be signed) by Member States after 1 December 2009 subject to specific authorisations issued by the Commission.  
Given that the Regulation does not provide fo r co-existence of Member States' and Union 
investment agreements with the same third country , future EU investment agreements will include 
clauses specifying that an EU agreement with a given third country replaces agreements between 
EU Member States with the same country, and confirming that provisions of Member States' 
agreements will cease to apply from the date of entry into force of the EU agreement.  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure; (3.1) Measures Directly Affecting 
Imports; 3.1.4 Tariffs; 3.1.4.1 MFN Tariffs: paragraph 3.39, page 48: 
According to the Secretariat's Report, around 11% of tariff lines are non- ad valorem , mostly on 
agricultural products. Furthermore, the EU uses se asonal duties and duties that are reduced if a 
product's declared price is above a certain level (entry prices). Entry prices apply on 28 tariff lines 
for agriculture products at the 8-digit level. The EU also uses a "Meursing Table" to determine the 
customs tariffs for processed agricultural products based on their composition. The table results in 
thousands of possible combinations of tariffs. 
5.  Given the various intricacies of the EU's tariff structure for agriculture goods described in 
the report, is the EU considering reforming its tariff regime in the near future? 
EU reply:  The EU has no plans to autonomously change its tariff structure for agricultural 
products. Any change will result from a successful conclusion to the DDA. In the meantime, the EU 
will continue to respect its WTO commitments. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 78 - 
 
  6.  If so, what means does the EU intend on taking to improve the transparency and 
predictability of its import regime for agriculture products? 
EU reply:  The EU import regime for agricultural prod ucts, including the entry price system and the 
composition grid (Meursing table) are fully tran sparent and predictable and are contained in the 
EU's schedule, as agreed in the Uruguay Round. We recall the EU is the world's largest importer of 
agricultural products, with imports exceeding EUR 102 billion in 2012. 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure; (3.1) Measures Directly Affecting 
Imports; 3.1.4 Tariffs; 3.1. 4.3 Tariff Suspensions and Tariff Rate Quotas: paragraph 
3.46, page 49: 
The Secretariat's Report notes that the EU's autonomous tariff suspensions are automatically 
prolonged if they are sufficiently used, and that measures are reviewed regularly. 
7.  Could the EU describe, in a bit more detail , the review process and the considerations 
involved? 
EU reply: The monetary threshold for granting a suspen sion is that the duty forgone should be 
above 15.000 €. This is the criteria also us ed for the automatic prolongation of running 
suspensions. In other words products for which their import value multiplied by the conventional rate of duty results to an amount above 15.000€, are automatically prolonged. 
8.  Could the EU identify which products have had their autonomous tariff suspension 
reviewed in the past 2 years and the outcome of such reviews? 
EU reply: In 2012, the EU revised the existing autono mous tariff measures for fishery products. 
The Council Regulation (EU) No 1220/2012 of 3 December 2012 on trade related measures to 
guarantee the supply of certain fishery produc ts to Union processors from 2013 to 2015 has 
amended Regulations (EC) No 104/2000 and (EU) No  1344/2011 as well as revised the provisions 
of Regulation (EC) No 1062/2009 which expired on 31 December 2012." 
For more information kindly consult Council Regulation (EU) No 1232/2012 of 17 December 2012 
amending Regulation (EU) No 1344/2011 suspen ding the autonomous Common Customs Tariff 
duties on certain agricultural, fishery and industrial products ( http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:350:0008:0035:EN:PDF ) and Council 
Regulation (EU) No 1344/2011 of 19 December 2011 suspending the autonomous Common 
Customs Tariff duties on certain agricultural, fishery and industrial products and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 ( http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:349:0001:0089:EN:PDF ).  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (1) Measures Directly Affecting 
Imports; 7 Contingency Measur es: paragraph 3.65, page 53: 
It is noted that the European Commission launched an initiative to modernize trade defence 
instruments in October 2011. Legislative proposals are to be released by spring 2013 and changes in practice which do not require a legislative chan ge are expected to be implemented during 2013.  
9.  Can the European Union please provide more detail about the current status of the 
modernization exercise, and in particular, what changes in practices not requiring legislative change have been and are being implemented?  
EU reply:  In the framework of the modernisation exercise, the European Commission adopted a 
Communication, a legislative proposal and draft gu idelines on 10 April 2013. These documents are 
publicly available on the website of the European Commission: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/april/tradoc_150837.pdf .  
The legislative proposal was transmitted to the European Parliament and the Council and follows 
the ordinary legislative procedure which will hope fully be concluded by April 2014. The proposals 
that do not require a legislative change (as expl ained in the Communication) will be implemented 
by the Commission in the coming months. The guidelines are under public consultation until the WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 79 - 
 
  end of July 2013, and after taking into account the comments received, the final guidelines will be 
adopted by the Commission in due course.  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (1) Measures Directly Affecting 
Imports; 7.2 Anti-dumping and count ervailing: paragraph 3.69, page 53: 
It is noted that 17% of AD measures remain in place for more than ten years. Furthermore, 
according to the European Commissioner for Trade, the European Commission is considering ways to ensure that the levels of the duties are appropriate after such long periods of time.  
10. Given that interim and expiry reviews are prov ided for in EU anti-dumping policy, can the 
European Union please explain why it is necessary to explore "ways to make sure levels of the duties are still appropriate after such a long time"? Could the EU comment on any perceived gaps in the current system and comment on any new methodologies under 
consideration? 
EU reply:  In line with Article 11 of the AD Basic Re gulation 1225/2009, the EU, when conducting 
expiry reviews, re-examines the overall situation for both dumping and injury. Measures can only 
be maintained if there is sufficient evidence that the expiry would be likely to result in a 
continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. The EU also examines the Union interest in maintaining measures. There is also a possibility to combine an expiry and an interim review 
(Article 11(5)). 
11. Noting that information pertaining to the extended duration of countervailing measures is 
not given, could the EU comment on the duration of those measures and indicate if the Commission's consideration of ways to ensure duties are appropriate after longer periods 
of time applies to countervailing duties as well as AD duties? 
EU reply:  Since 1996, only 10,5% (4 out of 38) of all the applied countervailing measures and 
18,2% (2 out of 11) of the measures currently in force remained in place for more than ten years. 
Again, as in AD cases, Articles 18 and 19 of the AS Basic Regulation 597/2009 provide that the EU 
when conducting expiry reviews, re-examines the overall situation for both subsidization and injury. Measures can only be maintained if there is sufficient evidence that the expiry would be 
likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of subsidization and injury. The EU also examines 
the Union interest in maintaining measures. 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (1) Measures Directly Affecting 
Imports; (viii) Technical Regulations an d Standards paragraph 3.95, page 61: 
The report notes that, in addition to the "new approach" to technical harmonization, " Other specific 
approaches to EU harmonization have been developed in sectors such as pharmaceuticals, chemicals, cosmetics, construction products, tailored to their particular needs ."  
12. Can the Commission elaborate on the nature of these other specific approaches for 
harmonization and the criteria for choosing them? 
EU reply: The specific needs of these sectors either require recourse to a regulatory approach 
different from the New Approach (e.g. pharmaceuticals, chemicals or cosmetic products) or a 
specific adaptation of the common principles and reference provisions of the New Approach as consolidated in Decision 768/2008 (e.g. construction products). 
These specific approaches range from prior marketing authorisation for pharmaceuticals to 
registration possibly followed by an authorisation procedure for chemicals of concern (REACH) to 
labelling requirements and notification of info rmation about cosmetics products through an EU 
web-based portal. In the field of construction products, the concepts of Notified Bodies and CE 
marking are used but a specific approach is adopted to establish harmonised rules on the 
performance requirements for construction products. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 80 - 
 
  Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (1) Measures Directly Affecting 
Imports; (viii) Technical Regulations an d Standards paragraph 3.99, page 62: 
The report notes that " the designation of notified bodies by member states involves a technical 
assessment of their competence and adequacy of  their organization and procedures, typically 
based on accreditation  . . ."  
13. Can the commission indicate what other criteria may be used, and in what circumstances, 
to assess the technical competence of notified bodies, in addition to accreditation? 
EU reply: Member States are responsible to notify conformity assessment bodies within their 
jurisdiction that are technically competent to assess the compliance of products with the 
requirements of the EU legislation that applies to them and the principles laid down in Decision 768/ 2008/EC.  
According to the EU legislation the verification  of the technical competence of conformity 
assessment bodies can be supported either by an accreditation certificate or by an alternative 
assessment process. While accreditation is no t obligatory, it is the preferred means of 
demonstrating the technical competence of conformity assessment bodies.  
When a Member State decides to use an alternative assessment method and not to base its 
notification on accreditation, the alternative assessment process against applicable requirements 
consists in a review of documents verifying the completeness and appropriateness from a 
substantial point of view with regard to conformity  to the applicable requirements as well as of an 
on-site assessment to check technical and procedural aspects such as availability and appropriateness of facilities/equipment, technical co mpetence of staff, existence of an appropriate 
management system and to check other aspects demo nstrating that conformity to requirements is 
properly implemented. The assessment must include witnessing of technical activities. Furthermore, a systematic surveillance and rela ted sanction mechanism providing for periodic 
surveillance including on-site visits, in order to verify the continued fulfilment of requirements by 
the Notified Body, exists. 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (1) Measures Directly Affecting 
Imports; (viii) Technical Regulations an d Standards paragraph 3.103, page 63: 
The report states that, " For products subject to mandatory third-party conformity assessment in a 
non-harmonized area pursuant to member State legislation, member States' national authorities may refuse to accept conformity attestations issued under accreditation by non-European 
accreditation bodies that do not comply with th e new European requirements even if they are 
signatories to the ILAC/IAF MRA/MLA."   
14. Can the Commission elaborate on the criteria that would be used in such cases to refuse 
attestations from conformity assessment bodies that are accredited by IAF or ILAC?  
EU reply: For products subject to mandatory third-party conformity assessment in the non-
harmonized area it is for each Member State to determine, in relation to its specific regulatory 
needs, the eligibility criteria for conformity asse ssment bodies. In general terms, the refusal of the 
Member States' national authorities to accept conformity attestations issued under accreditation by non-European accreditation bodies even if they ar e signatories of the ILAC/IAF MRA/MLA, could be 
based on the doubt as to the quality and value of that accreditation in relation to the specific 
requirements foreseen in the national legislation in question and therefore as to the quality and 
confidence in the certificates or reports issu ed by conformity assessment bodies under such 
accreditation.  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (3.1.9) Sanita ry and Phytosanitary 
Standards (SPS): paragraph 3.125, page 68: 
The Secretariat notes that Regulation (EU) 619/ 2011, which laid down methods of sampling and 
analysis for the official control of feed as regards presence of genetically modified material, 
entered into force on 15 July 2011.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 81 - 
 
  15. Does the EU intend to extend Regulation (EU) 619/2011 to cover food? 
EU reply:  The European Commission is currently examining the implementation of Regulation No 
(EU) 619/2011 as part of the review clause detailed in Article 8 of this measure. Given the 
importance of carefully considering potential impacts and of taking into account stakeholder views, 
any proposal put forward by the Commission on th is matter would have to be preceded by an 
impact assessment (IA). 
It is intended that an independent study evaluation will initially gather data from all relevant 
sources, which will input into the IA process.  The Commission will decide on the way forward 
based on the outcome of the IA. 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (3.1.9) Sanita ry and Phytosanitary 
Standards (SPS): paragraph 3.126, page 68: 
The Secretariat notes that in March 2013 the Co mmission adopted the Implementing Regulation 
on requirements for applications for authorization of new GMOs for food/feed uses, with a key objective of clarifying the requirements for submitting a request. 
16. A requirement for a mandatory 90-day whole food/feed rodent feeding study is not 
prescribed in the relevant Codex guideline. Could the EU provide additional rationale for its inclusion of this mandatory requirement? 
EU reply: With regard to the inclusion of mandatory 90 day feeding studies in the recently 
adopted Regulation (EU) No 2013/503 it has not proved possible to define with the necessary 
precision the level of uncertainties which would require the submission of 90-day feeding studies. Considering this, as well as to improve consumer confidence, such studies are, for the time being, 
requested in all applications related to genetically modified plants with single transformation 
events and, where appropriate, on genetically mo dified plants containing stacked transformation 
events. 
The current uncertainties in relation to the need  and design of 90-day feeding trials will be 
addressed by a large research project under the 2012 work programme of Theme 2 'Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnologies' of  the seventh Framework Programme for Research 
(FP7). The requirements regarding animal feeding trials in the context of GMO risk assessments 
will be reviewed in the light of the outcome of th is project expected to be available by the end of 
2015 at the latest. Other credible scientific knowledge which might be available at that time will also be taken into account. 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (3.1.9) Sanita ry and Phytosanitary 
Standards (SPS): paragraph 3.127, page 68: 
The Secretariat notes that the Commission proposed to allow member States to restrict or prohibit 
the cultivation in all or part of their territories GMOs authorized at the EU level. 
17.  Could the EU provide further information on the status of this proposal? 
EU reply:  The EU's Ordinary Legislative Procedure a pplies to the proposal to amend Directive 
2001/18/EC. It is currently under 1st reading stage in the EP and the Council.  
18. Elements of this proposal do not appear to be consistent with a science-based approach. 
Could the EU provide further detail on how it intends to ensure that any future measure related to the cultivation of GMOs is compliant with the EU's WTO obligations?  
EU reply:  Under the Commission's proposal, trade and marketing of GM crops in the EU will 
remain to be regulated at EU level under the current authorisation system, which is fully 
compatible with WTO rules.  
Furthermore, the Commission's proposal specifies that measures by MS regarding cultivation of 
GMOs must be in conformity with the EU international obligations and most particularly WTO rules. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 82 - 
 
  Therefore, Member States' measures should be adopted in full respect of the relevant WTO 
obligations such as the principle of non-discrimination. 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (3.1.9) Sanita ry and Phytosanitary 
Standards (SPS): paragraph 3.128, page 69: 
The Secretariat notes that the Commission adopted a proposal in September 2012 for an 
amendment to the Honey Directive providing that pollen is not an "ingredient" but a "constituent" of honey. 
19. Could the EU provide an update on the timeline for implementation of this amendment?  
EU reply:  The EU's Ordinary Legislative Procedure applies to the proposal to amend 
Directive 2001/110/EC. The proposal is currently under 1st reading in the EP and Council. No date 
for adoption is available at the moment. 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (3) Measures Affecting Production and 
Trade; 2.3 Non-crisis aid at member-S tate level: paragraph 3.184, page 75: 
It is noted that 90% of state aid in the European  Union to industry and services was earmarked for 
non-specific horizontal objectives. Only Malta and Portugal spent less than half of their state aid on 
horizontal objectives.  
20. Can the European Union please elaborate on the nature of state aid that is non-horizontal?  
EU reply:  As reported in paragraph 3.184 of the Secret ariat report, 90% of state aid to industry 
and services was earmarked for horizontal objectives. For more details on the state aid granted, 
please refer to the latest version of the scoreboard: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_a id/studies_reports/2012_autumn_en.pdf .  
More in general, details on the state aid rules provided in the EU can be found on the Commission 
website: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/overview/index_en.html . 
The EU law (the core provisions are set in Arti cle 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union (TFEU), formerly called "Treat y establishing the European Community" (EC)) 
pronounces the general prohibition of State aid. The founders, however, saw of course that in 
some circumstances, government interventions are necessary for a well-functioning and equitable 
economy. Therefore, the Treaty leaves room for a number of policy objectives for which State aid 
can be considered compatible.  
Article 107(3)(a) and (c), horizontal rules, which apply across all industries, set out the 
Commission's position on particular categories of aid. These categories of aid are aimed at solving 
problems that may arise in any industry and country in so far as the aid will not distort 
competition. 
Base on the provisions above set in the Treaty, the Commission has developed sector specific 
rules, for clarifying the application of such general rules in certain specific sector. Sectoral rules 
exist for example on broadband, agriculture, bankin g Sector specific rules can be consulted at the 
following address: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/specific_rules.html .  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (3.3.3) Government Procurement; 
3.3.3.1 Legislative Framework; paragraph 209, page 82: 
The Secretariat Report states that "The proposed new Directive on concessions covers not only 
works of maintenance and development of infrastruc tures but also the services supplies of general 
economic interest (e.g. energy, health, water supply and treatment, and waste disposal)." 
21. To what extent will the work concessions an d services concessions, as governed by the 
new Directive on Concessions, be covered by the EU's current GPA market access 
commitments and other existing EU international trade obligations?  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 83 - 
 
  EU reply: The proposal for a Directive on concessions covers both works and services concessions, 
but it is still debated by the legislators.  
22. To what extent will the work concessions an d services concessions, as governed by the 
new Directive on Concessions, be covered by the EU's revised GPA market access 
commitments especially in light of the commitments towards Iceland, Liechtenstein, 
Norway, the Netherlands on behalf of Aruba,  Switzerland and Korea (see Annex 6)? Will 
there be any difference between this coverage as defined now and coverage as governed 
by the new Directive on Concessions? 
EU reply: The proposal for a Directive on concessions covers both works and services concessions, 
and it is still debated by the legislators. 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (3.3.3) Government Procurement; 
3.3.3.1 Legislative Framework; paragraph 214, page 83:  
The Secretariat Report states that "In the proposals to "modernize" the procurement Directives, in 
December 2011 the Commission proposed "an increased possible use of negotiation through the 
competitive procedure with negotiation and prior publication". In response to concerns with regard 
to the risks involved in the increased use of negotiation, the Commission stated that it is conscious of the risk, and negotiations therefore must be supervised in a transparent manner: contracting 
authorities must specify at the time of prior pu blication the subject matter of the contract, the 
award criteria and the minimum requirements to be  met, which may not be changed in the course 
of negotiations. Any change in those parts of the technical specifications must be communicated to all firms participating in the negotiations allowing them to submit new, adapted tenders. Before 
the negotiations are concluded, every interested supplier must be given the possibility to submit a 
final tender." 
23. Is there any guideline or criteria that were developed to help the Commission advise and 
supervise the use of negotiation for public procurement?  
EU reply: Before adopting the proposal for new dire ctives the Commission undertook to consult 
the stakeholders and became aware of possible conc erns related to increased use of negotiations. 
The proposal is currently discussed by the legisl ators, the Council and the European Parliament. 
24. Are there specific sectors to which negotiations are expected to be used more frequently or 
sectors where negotiations may not be used by contracting authorities? 
EU reply: The proposal is currently discussed by the legislators, the Council and the European 
Parliament. 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (3.3.3) Government Procurement; 
3.3.3.1 Legislative Framework; paragraph 216, page 84:  
The Secretariat Report states that "The EU Procurement Directives do not apply to below-threshold 
procurements; and they are covered by national le gislation. Therefore, there is no obligation for 
national authorities to follow EU Directives. However, contracting authorities and entities are still 
required to comply with the rules and principles of the TFEU, including those on transparency and 
competition, especially for contracts that are potentially of cross-border interest." 
25. Since national authorities are not required to follow the EU Procurement Directives when 
procuring under the thresholds, how does the Commission ensure that contracting 
authorities and entities comply with the rules and principles of the TFEU for 
under-threshold procurement?  
EU reply: The Commission may verify that the content of national rules on procurement below 
thresholds is coherent with the rules and principles of the TFEU. The Commission may also 
investigate the tendering procedures for such contracts either based on complaints or on its own initiative if it considers the case to have a cross-border interest. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 84 - 
 
  26. What are the mechanisms in place to ensure compliance with these specific principles of 
the TFEU? Are there any restrictions in seeking redress through these mechanisms? 
EU reply: There are two ways for ensuring compliance with TFEU principles. Either the 
Commission starts a procedure which may lead to opening up of a formal procedure leading to a 
judgement by the European Court of Justice or a ca se is brought before a national court which may 
in turn bring it before the Court of Justice for its opinion. Both ways ensure that the TFEU principles are respected.  
The Secretariat Report states that "Most member States have laws or regulations governing 
below-threshold procurement, sometimes covering contracts above and below thresholds in the same laws, although these laws may apply different rules to each group." 
27. Please identify which member States do not have laws or regulations governing 
below-threshold procurement. 
EU reply: The EU directives on public procurement do  not apply below the thresholds. However, 
the Member States are in any case bound to apply the principles of transparency and non-
discrimination based in EU law. It is up to them  to ensure the proper implementation of these 
principles according to the legal tradition of the country concerned. 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (3.3.3) Government Procurement; 
3.3.3.2 GPA and international proc urement; paragraph 219, page 84: 
The Secretariat Report states that "Although the thresholds are the same, the coverage of the GPA 
is different from that of the Directives. The GPA covers entities, goods, and services, including construction services, as specified in EU's Appe ndix I. In 2009, out of the total €420 billion above-
threshold procurement in the EU, some €352 billion was open to GPA Parties." 
28. What are the entities, goods, and services th at are covered by the Procurement Directives 
but not by the GPA? 
29. In 2009, what share of the procurement contracts open to GPA Parties went to non-EU 
firms? 
30. Among such firms, what share of the procurement contracts open to GPA Parties went to 
non-EU firms from GPA parties? 
31. What share of the procurement contracts open to GPA Parties went to non-EU firms from 
non-GPA parties? 
EU replies to questions 28 to 31:  
Such detailed statistics are not available at EU level. However, a recent study on 
cross-border-procurement above the EU threshol ds shows that over 2007-2009 approximately 12 
per cent of all cross border contracts were awarded to non-EU countries. Of all the indirect cross 
border procurement through foreign affiliates th e percentage of contracts to firms owned or 
affiliated to non–EU corporations would be 40%.  
32. Is there a practice for member States to indicate on notices of intended procurement 
whether a contract is covered by the GPA? 
EU reply: Yes. The EU has established standard forms for publication of notices for public 
contracts. The notices contain a field for indicating whether the contract is covered by GPA. 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (3.3.3) Government Procurement; 
3.3.3.2 GPA and international proc urement; paragraph 222, page 84: 
The Secretariat Report states that "the Defence Directive leaves it up to member States to decide 
whether or not to accept foreign bids." WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 85 - 
 
  33. How does the Commission work with member States to guide them in determining when a 
defence procurement is covered under the GPA and requires procuring authorities/entities 
to accept foreign bids? 
EU reply: Article XXIII (1) of the GPA provides that nothing in the Agreement shall be construed 
to prevent any Party from taking any action or not disclosing any information which it considers 
necessary for the protection of its essential securi ty interests relating to the procurement of arms, 
ammunition or war materials, or to procurement indispensable for national security or for national 
defence purposes. By virtue of this Article, th e contracts covered by the EU Defence Procurement 
Directive are exempted from the application of the GPA. This exclusion means that, in the specific 
context of defence and security markets, Member St ates retain the power to decide whether or not 
their contracting authority/entity may allow economic operators from third countries to participate 
in contract award procedures. As to the Commission, it retains the power to open an infringement 
procedure in specific cases where it would come to the conclusion that a specific contract would fall out of the scope of the EU Defence Procurement Directive. 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (3.3.3) Government Procurement; 
3.3.3.2 GPA and international procur ement; paragraph 223, page 85:  
The SecretariatReport states that "In March 2012, the Commission adopted a proposal for a 
Regulation on the access of third-country goods and services to the European Union's internal 
market in public procurement. In the proposed Regulation, access of third-country goods and services to the EU's public procurement market may be made conditional upon the openness of their procurement market. According to the Commissi on, this does not concern goods and services 
originating in a country or countries with which the EU has concluded an international agreement 
in the field of public procurement, including market access commitments (like GPA and FTAs) and in respect of which the relevant agreement app lies. There is a threshold of €5 million in the 
proposed Regulation: for above-threshold contract s, contracting authorities may exclude, subject 
to approval by the Commission, tenders comprising a significant part (e.g. more than 50%) of third-country content; below the threshold, there is a default rule of openness according to the 
Commission. Furthermore, the Commission states that if it finds that restrictive practices exist and 
result in "lack of substantial reciprocity" and all attempts to consult and negotiate with the third country in question are in vain, the Commission may consider EU-wide restrictive measures." 
34. Will the determination of a "lack of substantial reciprocity" in a specific sector revisit the 
trade-offs agreed upon by the EU and its trading partners, considering that these trade-
offs could have resulted in an as ymmetrical market access opening? 
35. For the purpose of Article 8(1) of the proposal for a Regulation on the access of 
third-country goods and services to the European Union's internal market in public 
procurement that establishes that an interested party or a member State could initiate an external procurement investigation into alleged restrictive procurement measures, what 
are the safeguards the Commission will put in place in order to prevent this mechanism to 
be used for anti-competitive purposes? 
36. How will the Commission communicate the details pertaining to the enforcement of this 
potential new regulation to members States and to trading partners?  
EU reply to questions 34 to 36: The EU understands that Canada is referring to the IPI proposal 
of the Commission. The EU recalls that this proposal is not yet adopted and is under the 
examination of the co legislators.  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure: (3.3.5) Intellectual Property 
Rights; undisclosed information: paragraph 3.294, page 102:  
It is noted the Commission has commissioned studies and surveys on trade secrets. 
37. Can the EU indicate when all the results of thes e studies should be available or if they have 
other plans for further studies? 
EU reply: The Commission will decide about an initiative on trade secrets in the autumn. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 86 - 
 
  Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector: (4.1) Agriculture: 4.1.3 Agriculture Policies; 
paragraphs 4.7 and 4.8, page 114: 
The Secretariat Report states that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has been substantially 
reformed in the past decades, including reforms such as the Health Check in 2008 which continued 
the direction of reforms of the Mid-Term Review (2003). However, over the past two years, there 
have not been any significant changes to the CAP, even as the implementation of previous reforms 
continued. It is expected that further reforms of the CAP will be decided in 2013 for 
implementation in 2014. Proposals are currently being discussed with the European Parliament and 
Council, and reforms are expected to continue towards market orientation of policy while decoupled direct payments will remain the core of CAP spending. The reform post-2013 will not 
directly address market access conditions into the EU market, and tariffs, tariff quotas and the 
Special Agricultural Safegu ard will not be affected. 
38. As reforms are expected to continue towards market orientation of policy, is the EU 
contemplating other measures outside of CAP reform that will eventually address market 
access conditions into the EU market?  
EU reply:  The EU has no plans to autonomously change its tariffs for agricultural products. Any 
change will result from a successful conclusion to  the DDA. In the meantime, the EU will continue 
to respect its WTO commitments. 
39. While the CAP has been substantially reformed in the past decades, could the EU provide 
some indication of the direction it is envisioning for the CAP beyond what is currently being considered post-2013? 
EU reply:  Through successive reforms the CAP has increased market orientation for agriculture 
while providing income support to producers,  improved the integration of environmental 
requirements and reinforced support for rural development as an integrated policy for the 
development of rural areas across the EU. The current reform proposals continue along this path 
towards greater market orientation, whilst responding to demands for a better distribution of support among and within Member States, as well as calls for a better targeting of measures 
aimed at addressing environmental challenges and better addressing increased market volatility. 
The current reform of the CAP concerns the policy for the period 2014-2020 which is the EU's multiannual perspective for financial planning. It is difficult to predict the policy beyond that time period. 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector: (4.1) Agri culture: 4.1.3 Agricult ure Policies; 4.1.3.1 
Domestic Support; 4.1.3.1.1 Rural Deve lopment; paragraph 4.11, page 115: 
The Secretariat Report notes that the legal framework for each member State's rural development 
policy was established in 2005 for the period 2007 to 2013. In addition to the programme 
revolving around three thematic axes, some of th e funding attributed should be used to support 
"Leader" community projects. 
40. Can the EU say when the next legal framework will be established and what are its 
expected policy objectives? 
EU reply:  The three broad objectives of the future CA P are 'viable food production', 'sustainable 
management of natural resources' and 'balanced territorial development', which respond directly 
to the economic, environmental and territorial ba lance challenges identified in the European 
Commission's Communication 'The CAP towards 2020: Meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future' published in 2010, and which guide the proposed legislative 
changes to the CAP. The reform of the CAP for the period 2014-2020 is based on 4 main 
regulations which concern: 
 rules for direct payments, 
 the Single Common Market Organisation, 
 support for rural development programmes, WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 87 - 
 
   horizontal matters related to financing, management and monitoring of the CAP. 
The European Commission presented legislative proposals for these four regulations in October 
2011. The proposals have been subject to a process of inter-institutional negotiations between the European Commission, the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament which led 
to a political agreement on the reform of the CAP reached on 26 June 2013. The formal adoption 
of the reform is expected later in 2013 with a view to having the new CAP in place as from 1 January 2014. 
Detailed information about the CAP po st 2013 reform can be found at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/index_en.htm .  
41. Could the EU provide examples of "Leader" co mmunity projects being funded through rural 
development policy? 
EU reply:  Different local and cooperation projects are presented at: 
http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/policy-in-act ion/rdp_view/en/view_projects_en.cfm .   
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector: (4.1) Agri culture: 4.1.3 Agricult ure Policies; 4.1.3.1 
Domestic Support; 4.1.3.1.2 Internal Market  Support Measures; paragraph 4.13, page 
115 and 116: 
The Secretariat Report notes that there are provisions for purchases beyond determined ceilings 
for common wheat, durum wheat, maize, barley, so rghum and paddy rice, if the "market situation 
and, in particular, the development of market pric es, so requires". In such cases, buying-in would 
take place by tendering at a price not higher than the intervention price. 
42. Could the EU provide more information as to what generally have been the market 
conditions and market prices that have trigge red a public intervention beyond determined 
ceilings since 2011? For what commodities? 
EU reply:  The EU would recall that as a result of th e 2008 reform of the CAP the limits of buying 
in to public intervention were set at zero for durum wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and paddy rice 
(Article 13(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) 1234 /2007). As a result, public intervention is not 
automatically available for these products. No buyi ng in to public intervention has since taken 
place for cereals (see table 4.6 on page 116 of the WTO Secretariat's report for this TPR which 
provides detailed information). 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector: (4.1) Agri culture: 4.1.3 Agricult ure Policies; 4.1.3.1 
Domestic Support; 4.1.3.1.2 Internal Market  Support Measures; paragraph 4.13, page 
115 and table 4.6, page 116: 
The Secretariat Report indicates that, historically, public intervention was one of the main tools 
used to maintain domestic prices in the EU, but in  recent years, the use of intervention has greatly 
declined as, according to the Commission, it has become a genuine safety net. 
43. Given that intervention prices seem to have remained relatively stable except for sugar, 
could the EU indicate if the decline of public interventions into the internal market is the 
result of a shift in agricultural policy and/or a change in EU regulations, or the result of 
higher commodity prices in recent years?  
EU reply:  The decline in the use of public intervention is a result of the change in policy 
orientation of the CAP from product (price) support through market intervention measures towards 
producer support through income support. Reforms of the CAP since the early 1990s have changed 
public intervention policy, decreasing both the ad ministered prices and buying in quantities and 
completely eliminating the system for some produc ts. This was one of the elements of the reforms 
targeted at market orientation in 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 AMS has decreased dramatically and most CAP support is WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 88 - 
 
  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 meas ures are maintained in the CAP as a safety net 
mechanism. 
At the same time long-term price developments on  global markets also contributed to the reduced 
role of the EU's market intervention measures. However, this continued notwithstanding the recent spikes in some commodity prices. The intervention price for wheat has been lower than both the 
EU and world market prices in the last decade, with EU prices following the same trend as 
international prices. The intervention price for beef has been much lower than EU and world market prices during the last 8 years, with EU prices following the same trend as international 
prices. 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector: (4.1) Agri culture: 4.1.3 Agricult ure Policies; 4.1.3.1 
Domestic Support; 4.1.3.1.2 Internal Market  Support Measures; paragraph 4.18, page 
117: 
According to the Secretariat Report, under the Milk Package agreed in December 2011 and 
formalized in March 2012, member States may make it compulsory for farmers and processors to have written contracts. The Package also allows farmers to negotiate collectively with processors 
with limits on the amount of milk subject to su ch negotiations. The Package also allows member 
States to regulate the supply of cheeses with protected designations of origin or protected geographical indications. 
44. Could the EU provide more information as to th e policy objectives it seeks to achieve with 
the Milk Package? 
EU reply:  The Milk Package is aimed at strengthening the position of the dairy producer in the 
dairy supply chain and preparing the sector for an even more market-oriented and sustainable 
future. It provides for written contracts between milk producers and processors, the possibility to 
negotiate contract terms collectively via producer organisations to balance the bargaining power of milk producers relative to major processors, specific EU rules for inter-branch organisations, and 
measures for enhancing transparency in the market. It also provides for the supply management 
of cheeses with a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication (PDO/PGI) 
which are particularly important for vulnerable rural regions. 
45. Furthermore, could the EU give more details as to the process under which farmers 
negotiate with processors and whether this has the effect of increasing returns to 
producers? 
EU reply:  Farmers can join together in producer organisations (POs) that can collectively 
negotiate contracts terms for the delivery of raw milk with processors, including the price. The 
v o l u m e  o f  m i l k  t h a t  a  P O  c a n  n e g o t i a t e  i s  l i m i t e d  t o  3 . 5 %  o f  E U  p r o d u c t i o n  a n d  3 3 %  o f  t h e  national production of the Member States involved. These limits allow negotiations by a PO of 
approximately the same size as a major dairy processor while maintaining effective competition on 
the dairy market. The elements of contracts ar e freely negotiated between the parties. The 
provisions on collective negotiations by produc er organisations only applied from October 2012 
and Member States are required to provide for nati onal legislation in order to formally recognise 
producer organisations. Nevertheless, collective negotiations have been reported in one Member 
State at the end of 2012. It is too soon to draw conclusions regarding the effect on farmer's returns. 
46. Could the EU explain why it allows member States to regulate the supply of protected 
cheeses, and not other cheeses? 
EU reply:  In the context of the expiring milk quot a system Member States are allowed, under 
certain strict conditions, to apply rules to regulate the supply of PDO/PGI cheeses in the defined 
geographical area in view of the importance of protected designations of origin (PDO) and 
protected geographical indications (PGI), notably for vulnerable rural regions, in order to guarantee their added value of and to maintain their quality. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 89 - 
 
  Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector: (4.1) Agri culture: 4.1.3 Agricult ure Policies; 4.1.3.1 
Domestic Support; 4.1.3.1.2 Internal Market  Support Measures; paragraph 4.22, page 
118: 
The Secretariat Report notes that production quotas continue to apply to the sugar sector. 
However, unlike milk production, the quota can be exceeded without penalties, provided the 
excess is exported, sold for non-food uses or counted against the following year's quota. Sugar produced in excess does not qualify for the sugar beet minimum price. There are reference prices 
for sugar and raw sugar and the reference price fo r white sugar has been reduced over the past 
few years. Public intervention for sugar ended in 2010. 
47. Could the EU provide more details as to the manner in which it disciplining excess sugar 
production, in particular, what portion of excess production is exported, sold for non-food 
uses or counted against the following year's quota? 
EU reply:  Exports of out-of-quota sugar are disciplined  by only issuing export licences within the 
limits of the EU WTO export subsidies quantity commitment for sugar. 
For details on exports for non-food uses and carry over to the next marketing year, see the 
balance sheet at http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sugar/balance-sheets/index_en.htm .  
48. Could the EU explain the factors that led to  the end of public intervention in 2010? 
EU reply:  This decision was part of a general reform process of the CAP aimed at further market 
orientation. 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector: (4.1) Agri culture: 4.1.3 Agricult ure Policies; 4.1.3.3 
Market Access; paragraph 4.29, page 119: 
According to the Secretariat Report, fill rates vary widely from one tariff quota to another. In the 
last notification, out of a total of 112 tariff quotas  for agricultural products, 34 were fully used, 9 
had a fill rate between 80% and 99%, while 31 had a fill rate below 1%, among which 19 were 
managed on a first come-first served basis. 
49. Could the EU describe the causes for the variance and inconsistency of the fill rates across 
the tariff quotas it maintains, in particular in the case of the 31 that had a fill rate below 
1%? 
EU reply:  Low fill rates for tariff quotas may result from market conditions such as competitive 
domestic production. 
Part IV. Developments in Sele cted Sectors: (4.3.1.2.1) Bank ing Union Project: paragraph 
4.73 to 4.76, page 137:  
As described in this section, the EU has undertaken a series of important initiatives to encourage 
banking union and fiscal integration. In this context, the IMF has urged that for the proposed 
Single Supervisory Mechanism, legislative agreements be adopted swiftly, a single rule book be 
established and that operational details be clarified.  
50. Could the EU expand on its intentions in this regard?  
EU reply: The Banking Union (BU) is at the forefront of the EU vision for a deep and genuine 
Economic and Monetary Union. The European Commission is working towards the swift realization 
of the BU.  
The agreements on the Single Supervisory Mech anism (SSM) and Capital requirements for banks 
(CRD IV) are already a key success. The next step is to agree on the proposals for a Recovery and 
Resolution Directive (BRRD) and for a Deposit Guarantee Scheme Directive (DGS), which will 
complement the single rulebook in the banking sector applicable across the European Union.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 90 - 
 
  Well advanced is the Commission work on a proposal for Single Resolution Mechanism that would 
allow for bank resolution at the centralized level and applying common tools for resolution at European level to banks supervised by the SSM. The Commission plans to table a proposal for the 
Single Resolution Mechanism before summer 2013 
Part IV. Development in Selected Sectors: (4.3.2) Environmental Services: paragraph 
4.118, p. 154: 
It is noted that "The trade regimes of EU envi ronmental services appear very open. Under GATS, 
all environmental services are covered by commitments save some minor intra-sectoral exceptions 
mostly concerning new member States."  
However, in GATS the EU has the following hori zontal limitation for Mode 3, which includes 
environmental services: "All EC member States: services considered as public utilities at a national 
or local level may be subject to public monopolies or to exclusive rights granted to private 
operators". 
51. Could the EU explain how this horizontal limitation in GATS affects their specific 
commitments in environmental services? Could the EU clarify the meaning of "very open" 
given that a few members States have listed limitations in various environmental services sectors in GATS?  
EU reply:  The horizontal limitation on public utilities reflects the fact that some monopolies may 
exist or exclusive rights may be granted to private operators at the national or local level for 
environmental services. When this is the case, su ch monopolies or exclusive rights are granted on 
the basis of transparent and non-discriminatory procedures. 
We share the statement contained in paragraph 4. 118 of the report that the trade regimes of EU 
environmental services appear very open. This  statement is made by the WTO Secretariat 
presumably after an attentive comparison of the trade regimes of EU environmental services with 
those of other WTO members. 
Part IV. Developments in Selected Sectors: (4.3.3.3) Maritime Transport Services: table 
4.40 EU regulatory framework for maritime transport services, page 165: 
Please indicate for each member State: 
52. Which States allow the use of foreign registered vessels to provide cabotage services when 
EU shipowners' vessels are not suitable and available;  
53. When are foreign registered vessels permitted by waiver/licence or reciprocal agreement;  
EU reply to question 52 and 53:  These aspects are regulated in dependently by each MS.  
54. The number of reciprocal agreements in place and whether these are subject to time 
limitations or are perpetual in nature;  
EU reply:  Information non available.  
55. Information on the types of conditions applied with respect to the use of foreign workers 
on vessels above and below the 650GT threshold – what are the different requirements by 
State and/or Host?;  
EU reply: Questions of manning have traditionally been the responsibility of the flag States. Since 
there exists no EU legislation harmonising manning conditions on vessels providing cabotage, the 
rules vary greatly from one register to another. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 91 - 
 
  Council Regulation 3577/92 on maritime cabotage1 provides that "host" Member States may 
impose their own manning rules on ships carrying out island cabotage. "Host" Member States may also decide the manning rules applicable to small ships (ships smaller than 650 gt). In practice, five Member States have chosen to avail themse lves of these provisions of the Regulation.  
The Regulation stipulates that the rules of the flag State continue to apply to cargo ships over 
650 gt carrying out island cabotage where the voyage concerned follows or precedes a voyage to or from another State ("consecutive cabotage").  
56. With respect to waivers/licences, please provide information on:  
a. the value of any duties and taxes applied towards foreign vessels that provide 
cabotage services;  
EU reply: Information non available.  
b. the cost of waivers/licences;  
EU reply: Information non available.  
c. the amount of time required to obtain a waiver/licence;  
EU reply: Information non available.  
d. whether the process to obtain a waiver/licence is available publically on the internet 
and whether proponents can apply electronically;  
EU reply: Information non available.  
e. whether waivers/licences are limited in time (i.e. waivers have a max 12 month 
period) and if there are limits on the number of waivers issues per year/category of service;  
EU reply: These aspects are regulated independently by each Member State.  
f. whether waivers/licences can be renewed or a new application must be made – and 
whether there is a limit on the number of renewals or re-applications;  
EU reply: Information non available.  
g. the number of waivers/licences issued for each member State (per year as well as 
5-year average);  
EU reply: Information non available. 
h. the percentage of cabotage carried onboard non-member State registered vessels 
(exclude carriage onboard member State vessels registered outside the EU);  
EU reply: Member States do not record such data since the cabotage market has been fully 
opened to non-national vessels as of 1999 (and in 2004 in Greece).  
i. other conditions that must be met in order to obtain the authority to provide cabotage 
services in member States.  
EU reply: Information non available.  
                                               
1 Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide 
services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage),  O.J. L 364 , 12/12/1992 P. 0007 - 0010. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 92 - 
 
  Report by the European Union (WT/TPR/G/284) 
Part II. The European Union in a Changing World: (2.3) Developments in the Internal 
Market and Central Policy Areas; Public  procurement; paragraph 36, page 8: 
The Government Report notes that "The European Union keeps its public procurement market 
largely open to international competition, despite growing pressure on its domestic market, in 
particular from emerging economies on certain key sectors (railways, construction, IT services). In 
the European Union, public expenditures represent nearly 19% of GDP and it is an essential lever 
for kick-starting growth." 
57. Given the size of below-threshold procurement and that member States report differently 
on it, how does the Commission evaluate the level of intra-EU cross-border procurement that is below threshold value of EU directives as well as the share of below-threshold 
contracts awarded to foreign bidders?  
EU reply:  The cross-border interest of contracts below threshold is rather limited. Therefore, and 
as the information on those contracts is not complete, the Commission does not evaluate them on 
a regular basis. 
Part II. The European Union in a Changing World: (2.3) Developments in the Internal 
Market and Central Policy Areas; Public  procurement; paragraph 37, page 8: 
The Government Report notes that "On 20 Decemb er 2011, the European Commission adopted a 
proposal aimed at a modernization of public procurement in the European Union. This programme includes the revision of Directives No 2004/17/EC  (procurement in the water, energy, transport 
and postal services sectors) and No 2004/18/EC (public works, supply and service contracts), as 
well as the adoption of a directive on concessions, which were until now only partially regulated at 
European level. The legislative procedure for the adoption of these proposals progressed well in 2012." 
58. How is the partial nature of the coverage for works concessions reflected in the EU's 
market access schedule in its Annex 6? 
EU reply:  It is to be noted that the above mentioned text is still in discussion with the co 
legislators in the EU.  
Part II. The European Union in a Changing  World (3) Developments in the Internal 
Market and Central Policy Areas: A Renewed In dustrial Policy: paragraph 2.49, page 10: 
It is noted that in October 2012, the Commission proposed to focus on investment and innovation 
in six priority areas identified for immediate ac tion. In its communication entitled, "A Stronger 
European Industry for Growth and Economic Recovery" the Commission proposed composing dedicated task forces before the end of 2012 to define roadmaps for each area. 
59. Would the EU indicate whether or not these task forces were composed and if the 
roadmaps for the six priority areas were defined? If so, would the EU indicate where the roadmaps may be viewed? 
EU reply:  The "task forces" for the six priority action lines  have been set up in the Commission. 
They have established roadmaps, which may be consulted at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/industrial-competitiveness/industrial-
policy/files/report_on_task_forces_april_final_en.pdf .  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 93 - 
 
  Other  
October 17, 2012 Proposal to amend the Renewable Energy Directive and the Fuel 
Quality Directive (2012/0288) . 
Renewable Energy Directive an d Indirect Land Use Change  
60. Canada requests the EU provide clarification on their rationale for a proposed five percent 
limit on first generation biofuels under the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED). 
EU reply:  Food and feed crop based biofuels cause ILUC which reduces the GHG performance of 
these biofuels significantly. This is why the Commi ssion proposes to limit the contribution of food 
and feed crop based biofuels towards the EU re newable energy target for transport in 2020 at 
roughly their current level of use in the EU. The aim of the Commission's proposal is also to start the transition to biofuels that deliver substantial greenhouse gas savings when also estimated 
indirect land-use change emissions are reported. They have established roadmaps, which may be 
consulted at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/industrial-competitiveness/industrial-
policy/files/report_on_task_forces_april_final_en.pdf "  
61. Has the Commission considered what the potential impact of the proposed 5 percent limit 
would be on investment for first and second generation biofuel technologies? 
EU reply:  The cap does not limit production or use of first generation biofuels, but the amount of 
such biofuels that can be counted towards EU Member States renewable energy target for 
transport sector. The Commission expects that if its proposal were adopted there would be greater investments in the production of second generation biofuels, while investment trends for first generation biofuels would depend on market conditions. 
62.  Canada notes there is no international scientific consensus with respect to calculating the 
effect of Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Canada requests the EU provide a rationale for proposing a single ILUC GHG estimate for all oil 
crops in proposed Directive 2012/0288.  
EU reply:  The cap does not limit production or use of first generation biofuels, but the amount of 
such biofuels that can be counted towards EU Member States renewable energy target for 
transport sector. The Commission expects that if its proposal were adopted there would be greater 
investments in the production of second generation biofuels, while investment trends for first generation biofuels would depend on market conditions. 
63. The current RED has no ILUC obligations, and the current proposal has a reporting function 
only. Will the next amendment move further towards mandatory inclusion of ILUC in GHG 
calculations in their 2017 mandatory reduction targets?  
EU reply: The Commission's proposal is based on the best available science with regards to the 
indirect land use change impacts of biofuels consumed in the EU. In this context, the Commission 
has proposed to use a more robust average value for all oil crops for reporting purposes, given the fact that vegetable oil markets are closely interconnected. Analysis shows that the difference in 
ILUC impacts is negligible amongst the different  oil crops, as shown by the IFPRI study. The 
Commission has proposed that these estimates are only included in the reporting obligations by Member States. 
Fuel Quality Directive  
64. How will the EU ensure that the implementing measures for its Fuel Quality Directive:  
(a) remain transparent, impartial and non-discriminatory while still achieving the goal of 
environmental protection? 
EU reply: When necessary, measures will be underpinned by an impact assessment focusing, in 
particular on the potential environmental, econ omic and social impacts of a number of possible 
policy options including trade aspects. Any measures will be non-discriminatory, based on WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 94 - 
 
  objective criteria. Transparency is ensured through extensive consultations of stakeholders. 
Results from consultations linked to the Fuel Quality Directive can be found at: https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/3d2aa2c7-e514-47ee-a412-be400694de2a .  
(b) remain based on the best available scientific data? 
EU reply: Policy development normally draws on a numbe r of analytical studies and peer-reviews. 
As preparation for an implementing act under the Fuel Quality Directive, results of studies and a 
peer-review were discussed with stakeholders at  a meeting on 27 May 2011. The results of those 
activities, together with subsequent information, are the subject of an in-depth examination with a 
view to the adoption of such an implementing act. Once adopted, implementing acts may be 
revised to adapt them to technical and scientific progress. 
65. Given the complexities of the global oil tr ading system, how does the EU propose to 
minimise the administrative burden which ma y be imposed by the implementation of any 
level of disaggregation of crudes in its Fuel Quality Directive? 
EU reply: A proposal will be completed after the finalisation of an impact assessment where also 
the administrative burden is taken into account.   
66. How will the implementing measures of the EU Fuel Quality Directive take into account 
domestic schemes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (such as carbon taxes) in the 
country of crude supply? 
EU reply: The Fuel Quality Directive provides that implementing measure adopted pursuant to 
Article 7a shall include the proper accounting of the lifecycle greenhouse gas intensity of fuels 
placed on the EU market. If fiscal schemes outside of the European Union yield reductions in such 
emissions and if these emissions are accurately reported, it may be possible to take account of 
such reductions to the fullest extent practicable. 
67. Has the EU considered the extent to which the proposed FQD will contribute towards its 
objective of reducing GHGs, taking into account  that a likely effect of the measure, as 
drafted, is to "shuffle" more GHG intensive crudes to less administratively burdensome markets? 
EU reply: A proposal pursuant to Article 7a of the Fuel Quality Directive will be completed 
subsequent to the finalisation of an impact assessment, where the likely impacts on the level of 
GHGs will be assessed.   
68. What could be reasonably requested from a Canadian timber and timber product exporter 
under a due diligence process to fulfill the requirements under the EUTR? 
EU reply: I t  i s  a n  o b l i g a t i o n  o f  E U  o p e r a t o r s ,  t o  w h o m  t h i s  R e g u l a t i o n  a p p l i e s ,  t o  r e q u e s t  
information from their suppliers in third countries. The information, necessary to exercise due 
diligence, is explicitly listed in Article 6(1)(a) of the EUTR. Any demands for additional information 
go beyond the legal requirements. With regard to the need for information on sub-national region and the concession of harvest, it is clarified in Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EU) 607/2012 
that such information should be provided where th e risk of illegal harvesting between sub-national 
regions/concessions varies. Therefore, where op erators assess the risk of illegal harvesting 
between sub-national regions/concessions as uniform they do not need to request information to this level of detail. 
69. What is the level of information that Canadian companies can be reasonably expected to 
provide?  
EU reply: The Canadian companies should assist the EU operators in assessing the risk of sourcing 
illegally harvested timber by providing them with the information listed in Article 6(1)(a) of the 
EUTR, as well as with general information regarding the management of forests and harvesting practices in Canada.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 95 - 
 
  70. How is the risk assessment process going to function for countries of negligible risk, such 
as Canada?  
EU reply: In order to conclude that a supply of timber products is of negligible risk (of containing 
illegally harvested wood) the EU operator must have access to the information referred to in 
previous questions. This information includes bu t is not limited to country of harvest. If the 
operator concludes that the supply of products presents a negligible risk the operators will not need to take mitigating measures.   
71. When do you expect to recognize the moni toring organisations and when are they 
expected to be up and running? 
EU reply: The Commission expects to recognise the first monitoring organisations well before the 
end of this year. It is our expectation that they will be up and running immediately upon 
recognition.  
72.  What will be the monitoring organizations' precise role?  
EU reply: The role of monitoring organisations is to assist operators in meeting the requirements 
of the EUTR. 
73. Now that the EUTR is in effect, what kind of outreach on the application of the EUTR is 
planned? 
EU reply: Both the Commission and the EU Member States have taken various measures with the 
aim to reaching out and explaining the new Regula tion to domestic and third country stakeholders. 
Some examples are a communication campaign commissioned by the Commission with materials in all EU languages; participation of EU officials in various national and international fora where the 
EUTR is discussed; providing explanations and clarification to partners within the framework of 
bilateral dialogues and video-conferences; translation of the Regulation into Russian, Chinese and other languages. The EU Member States, who are responsible for the implementation of the EUTR, 
are also undertaking outreach work with national stakeholders and their international partners.  
74. What guidance will be issued on the treatmen t of information gathered as a result of the 
due diligence requirements under the EUTR? 
EU reply: The operators are obliged, in accordance with Article 5 of the Commission Regulation 
(EU) 607/2012, to document through adequate records the information obtained in the process of 
the due diligence. They are also required to make it available for checks by national competent authorities, which will follow the applicable national and EU legislation when dealing with 
information containing personal data. No additional guidance is currently being considered.   
75. How is the EU ensuring that penalties are dissuasive and consistent across the EU 
regarding the EUTR? 
EU reply: It is the Commission`s obligation to ensure uniform implementation of the EUTR by the 
EU Member States, and in this relation to verify that penalties laid down by the EU Member States 
are effective, proportionate and dissuasive, as required by the EUTR. The Commission coordinates 
regular meetings of representatives from Member  States, which report and discuss inter alia the 
range of penalties enacted by each of them. The Commission will produce a report in late 2015 on 
the effectiveness of the implementation of the EUTR ; part of the report will focus on the penalties 
laid down and applied by the Member States. Various criteria will be taken into consideration in 
assessing the effectiveness, proportionality and dissuasiveness of penalties across the EU.  
Slovakia's revised Public Procurement Act,  due to enter into force on 1 July 2013 
76. Has the Commission provided any comments or guidelines to this member State either 
before, during or since the adoption of this revised law? If so, please provide a copy of 
such comments or guidelines. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 96 - 
 
  EU reply: The European Commission has not provided any comments or guidelines to Slovakia as 
the Commission does not issue any prior approvals of the national transposition measures  
ADDENDUM  
Slovakia's revised Public Procurement Act,  due to enter into force on 1 July 2013 
77. Given that Slovakia's revised Public Procurement Act provides that the normal rules of 
competition will not apply for certain services, how will the Commission ensure that Slovakia is compliant with its obligations under the GPA in light of its market access 
schedule? 
EU reply: The implementation of EU law transposition of the European Directives is the 
responsibility of the Member States. Member States have to ensure that this is done in conformity 
with the EU international obligations, such as those stemming from the GPA.  
78. Given that Slovakia's revised Public Procurement Act provides that the normal rules of 
competition will not apply for certain services, does the Commission assess Slovakia's revised Public Procurement Act to be in conformitynwith the EU's Public 
Procurement directives? 
EU reply: Each Member State is responsible for the implementation of EU law within its own legal 
system. Where a Member State fails to comply with EU law, the Commission has powers to try to 
bring the infringement to an end and, where necessary, may refer the case to the European Court 
of Justice. The Commission enjoys a discretionary power in deciding whether or not to commence infringement proceedings against a Member State. The European Commission does not issue any prior approvals of the national transposition measures. 
 WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 97 - 
 
  RESPUESTAS DE LA UE A LAS PREGUNTAS DE CHILE 
INFORME DE LA SECRETARIA 3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS 
3.1 Medidas que afectan directamente a las importaciones 
3.1.7 Medidas comerciales especiales 
3.1.7.2 Medidas antidumping y compensatorias 
3.69.  La Secretaría afirma que: "La Comisión ha indicado que la duración media de las medidas 
antidumping en la UE es de siete años; el 17% aproximadamente de las medidas antidumping 
permanecen en vigor durante más de 10 años. Según el Comisario de Comercio de la Unión Europea, la Comisión ha de considerar formas de asegurar que los niveles de los derechos sigan siendo apropiados después de tanto tiempo. PREGUNTA : ¿Cuándo y cómo planea la Comisión 
abordar el asunto referido a que los derechos sean  apropiados después de tanto tiempo aplicada la 
medida? 
EU reply:  In line with Article 11 of the Basic Regulation 1225/2009, the EU, when conducting 
expiry reviews, re-examines the overall situation for both dumping and injury. Measures can only 
be maintained if there is sufficient evidence that the expiry would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. The EU also examines the Union interest in 
maintaining measures. There is also a possibility to combine an expiry and an interim review 
(Article 11(5)).  
3.71.  La reconsideración por expiración puede dar lugar a la supresión o al mantenimiento de los 
derechos en vigor, pero no a un cambio del nivel o la forma de los derechos. Si en la 
reconsideración por expiración se determina que debe mantenerse la medida, los derechos suelen 
permanecer en vigor durante otros cinco años. PREGUNTA : ¿Por qué la UE en la reconsideración 
por expiración no considera la posibilidad de una modificación del nivel o la forma de los derechos? 
En caso que se determine que debe mantenerse la medida, en el segundo periodo de aplicación 
PREGUNTAS: ¿Se puede suprimir esta medida antes de su  expiración al quinto año? ¿Es posible 
solicitar una revisión administrativa para modificar el nivel de los derechos aplicados? 
EU reply:  It is possible to modify or terminate a me asure before its expiry, through an interim 
review. Such an interim review can be initiated on the initiative of the Commission, or upon a 
request made by a member state or, provided that a reasonable period of time of at least one year 
has elapsed since the imposition of the definitive  measure, by any importer or exporter or by 
Community producers. The detailed procedures fo r interim and expiry reviews are laid out in 
Article 11 of the Basic Regulation 1225/2009 . 
3.1.9 Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standars (SPS) 
3.112.  Se menciona que la Legislación Alimentaria General permite el establecimiento de medidas 
"provisionales" cuando "se observe la posibilidad de que haya efectos nocivos para la salud, pero siga existiendo incertidumbre científica" (Pág. 65) . Agrega que las medidas "serán proporcionadas 
y no restringirán el comercio más de lo requerido pa ra alcanzar el nivel elevado de protección de la 
salud" en la UE y se revisarán "en un plazo de tiempo razonable" PREGUNTAS : ¿Podría la UE 
explicar cuáles podrían ser estas medidas "provisionales", así como los parámetros para 
determinar la "proporcionalidad" de la medida a adoptar en caso de considerarlo necesario? 
Asimismo, ¿En qué se basará la UE para definir el "plazo de tiempo razonable" para revisar esta 
medida? 
EU reply:  In accordance with Article 3.3 of the WT O Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures (the SPS Agreement), the EU sets its sanitary protection, as regards human, animal and 
plant health, at a level that it considers appropriate. Recourse to provisional measures in light of precaution is a central plank of Union policy, and one that is consonant with the SPS Agreement.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 98 - 
 
  Provisional measures may be adopted in the event of a potential risk, including when this risk 
cannot be fully quantified or its effects determined because of the insufficiency or inconclusive nature of the scientific data.  
Such measures are only maintained while the scientific uncertainty exists, and for a "reasonable 
period of time" as per the provisions of Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement. The 'reasonable period' 
envisaged in the SPS Agreement includes the ti me needed for completion of the necessary 
scientific work and the time needed for the performa nce of a risk analysis based on the conclusions 
of this scientific work. 
3.3.5.2 Copyright and related rights 3.250 Chile sees with interest the topics included in the Directive 2012/28/EU and the 
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) September 2011 and would welcome more information 
about their implementation process. Chile would also appreciate more information about the MoU 
September 2010 regarding to access of books for the visually impaired, especially in relation with 
the network of trusted intermediaries. QUESTIONS : Who are they? Will there be one in each 
member state or just one for the entire EU? Which would be the requirements to become a trusted 
intermediary in the EU?  
EU reply: Member States still have till 29 October 2014 to implement the provisions of the 
Directive 2012/28/EC (orphan works) into national la w. We are therefore not in position to provide 
information on the implementation process. 
In September 2010, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on access to works by people with 
print disabilities was signed by representatives of European authors, publishers and libraries 
associations, some national associations for the print disabled as well as of collective management 
organisations. The MoU is a concrete step to increase the number of books that print impaired persons can enjoy for study or leisure. It is based on a system of distribution through Trusted 
Intermediaries, which can be institutions such as associations for the blind, libraries and special 
schools. The MoU also sets out a system of mutu al recognition among Trusted Intermediaries so 
that the registered persons will be able to access books from all over the EU, enabling cross-
border distribution and ensuring that works in accessible formats, such as Braille, and files in Daisy 
audio format, can be much more easily distribute d across the EU Member States. The definition of 
a Trusted Intermediary (TI) is generally any entity that facilitates interactions between two parties who both trust the third party. The TI should fulfil certain requirements. The main purpose of a TI 
is the controlled distribution of accessible copi es of works, when these are not commercially 
available, to persons with a print disability. TIs must have the trust of representatives of both 
persons with a print disability and rightholders and be specifically accredited at national level. A 
(potential) Trusted Intermediary (TI) is likely to have a number of characteristics, some of which 
are contained in the MoU. The purpose is that in the future there is a TI in every EU Member State.  
The stakeholders, with the support of the Euro pean Commission, are currently working on the 
practical implementation of the commitments set ou t in the MoU. For this purpose the parties have 
established the "European Network of Trusted Intermediaries" (ETIN). This is a Brussels-based network representing both trusted intermediary organisations and rights holders. It aims to have pan-European coverage. The ETIN has agreed a model licence/agreement for the cross-border 
transmission of accessible copies of works. This model licence/agreement is put forward as a basis 
for arrangements between potential TIs and rightsholders at national level. 
3.3.5.3 Industrial property 
3.3.5.3.2 Supplementary pr otection certificates 
Chile would welcome more information of the supplementary protection certificates (SPC) 
QUESTION : Is there any need of delay to grant an SPC?  
EU reply: Information on legal and background documents, including case law, on the EU system 
of supplementary protection certification can be found at the website of Euro-lex at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992R1768:EN:NOT  Information of the 
paediatric-related extensions of the pharmaceut ical SCP can be found on the website of the WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 99 - 
 
  Commission Directorate General for Health and Consumers at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/human-
use/paediatric-medicines/developments/ .  
3.3.5.3.5 Geographical indications 
Chile would welcome more information of the regime of protection for GI. Chile would welcome 
more information about the regime of protection for foreign GI recognized in international treaties.  
EU reply:  At EU level, the key provisions for the protection of GIs in the form of PDOs or PGIs are 
laid down for wine in Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) 
491/2009, for spirits in Regulation (EC) No 110/2008, and for agricultural products and foodstuffs 
in Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. Furthermore, useful information on the EU Agricultural Product Quality policy can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/index_en.htm , and for the 
wine sector at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets/wine/index_en.htm .  
Provisions on the protection of foreign GIs listed in bilateral agreements are laid down in those 
agreements. These are published in the Official  Journal of the European Union and publicly 
available on the EU's websites, in particular the Treaties Office Database and 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gi-international/index_en.htm .  
3.3.5.3.7 Undisclosed information 
Chile would welcome more information about the protection of undisclosed information, especially 
of the link between trade secret (39.2 of TRIPS) an d the protection of clinical test data (39.3 of 
TRIPS).  
EU reply:  Article 39.2 of TRIPS refers to the protec tion of undisclosed information which can 
comprise confidential business information (CBI), otherwise known as trade secrets, and test data. 
CBI should be kept secret in perpetuity or as long as the originating company requires.  
Art 39.3 of TRIPS refers to the situation where companies apply for marketing approval of a 
product. Undisclosed test or other data should be protected against unfair commercial use. It is 
general practice that data submitted for registration may only used by, or with the permission of, 
the original submitter during a period of exclusivity. Copy products – which are equivalent – may rely on the data for registering after the expira tion of the exclusivity period. However, data 
submitted for registration should not enter the pu blic domain, even after the expiration of the 
exclusivity period. CBI should never be released by regulators just as mentioned above in the case of Article 39.2 TRIPS. 
3.3.5.4.2 IPR enforcement at the EU's external borders  
Chile would welcome more information regarding paragraph  3.303  that refers to "Guidelines 
concerning the enforcement by EU Custom's authorities of IPRs with regards to goods, in particular medicines, in transit through EU." QUESTION : Is there any data regarding use of the guidelines? 
Chile would also welcome information of the status of the modification process of Council 
Regulation No. 1383/2003. 
EU reply:  The Guidelines are publicly available on the web site of the European Commission 
Directorate General for Taxation and Customs Union and may be consulted at any time. They are 
destined for the Member States customs administration and form part of their daily task in risk management in order to make selections of shipments that may contain goods suspected of infringing IPR.  
The new Regulation concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights, adopted by 
the EU after a vote in the European Parliament on 12.06.2013, will be applicable as from 01.01.2014. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 100 - 
 
  3.3.5.4.5 International cooperation in IPR enforcement  
Due to the "overwhelming rejection of ACTA by the European Parliament", as stated in 
paragraph 3.316 , Chile would welcome more information regarding the ratification and 
implementation process of ACTA.  
EU reply:  In view of the rejection of ACTA by the Eu ropean Parliament, the EU will not ratify the 
Agreement. However, since ACTA was in line wi th European legislation on IPR enforcement, 
nothing will change within the EU as regards the laws pertaining to the enforcement of IPR. 
INFORME DEL GOBIERNO  
2.2.3 Mecanismos eficaces de resolución de las crisis Introducción La producción industrial de la Eurozona de abril superó las expectativas del mercado, al registrar 
un incremento mensual de 0,4%, siendo este el tercer registro positivo consecutivo. La producción 
de bienes de consumo mostró la mayor debilidad. Los bienes de consumo duradero cayeron fuertemente, mientras que los bienes de consumo no duradero repuntan luego de un primer 
trimestre en terreno contractivo. Por su parte la  producción de bienes intermedios se mantuvo 
prácticamente sin variaciones, mientras que la producción de bienes de capital creció por tercer mes consecutivo, con un incremento mensual de 2,7%. Por países, las economías centrales 
mostraron una mayor fortaleza, mientras que las economías de la periferia continúan con cifras 
negativas. En Francia, la industria registró un incremento mensual de 2,3%, en tanto que en Alemania el registro fue de 1,2%. En contraste, en España e Italia el sector industrial presentó una contracción de 0,9% y 0,3%, respectivamente, aunq ue en Italia, a pesar de obtener un registro 
negativo, el índice mejora respecto a los datos del primer trimestre. Con todo, este incremento de 
la producción industrial en la Eurozona es una señal positiva respecto de la reactivación de la economía en el segundo trimestre.  
A pesar de la incipiente recuperación, los indicadores anteriores son una señal de las dificultades 
en la aplicación de las medidas a las diferentes economías que forman parte de la UE, desearíamos conocer PREGUNTA: ¿Cuáles serán las medidas que se adoptarán en el futuro en relación a la 
refinanciación, especialmente por los efectos negativos derivados de la aplicación de políticas de 
austeridad (troika Grecia)? 
EU reply:  Four euro area countries benefit from a macro financial assistance programme: Greece, 
Ireland, Portugal and Cyprus. Conditionality covers a broad set of issues, including fiscal 
consolidation, measures to improve competivenes s and economic efficiency and banking sector 
restructuring. Progress under these broad reform agendas is assessed on quarterly basis; benchmarks/policy conditions can be modified on that occasion also in light of the external 
environment. 
2.3 Evolución del mercado interior y de l os elementos principales de política general 
2.29 Dado que la recuperación del crecimiento de la UE, y la mejoría en los datos de generación 
de empleo se ha debido a mejor intercambio dentro de los países del mercado común, 
PREGUNTA: ¿Cuáles son sus expectativas respecto de los vectores de crecimiento del ingreso de 
Croacia (julio 2013) y de otros candidatos? 
EU reply:  Previous enlargements of the EU have brought economic benefits to both the acceding 
countries and the EU as a whole. Such benefits mostly stemmed from the widening of the internal 
market. The same can be expected to happen with the accession of Croatia. 
Reforma de la política agrícola común (PAC)  
PREGUNTA: ¿Cuáles son los principales avances de la propuesta de Reglamento relativo a la 
ayuda al desarrollo rural, parte de la reforma agraria común (PAC)? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 101 - 
 
  EU reply:  The reform of the CAP for the period 2014- 2020 is based on 4 main regulations which 
concern: 
 rules for direct payments, 
 the Single Common Market Organisation, 
 support for rural development programmes, 
 horizontal matters related to financing, management and monitoring of the CAP. 
The European Commission presented legislative proposals for these four regulations in 
October 2011. The proposals have been subject to  a process of inter-institutional negotiations 
between the European Commission, the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament which led to a political agreement on  the reform of the CAP reached on 26 June 2013. 
The formal adoption of the reform is expected later in 2013 with a view to having the new CAP in 
place as from 1 January 2014. 
As far as the rural development policy in the period 2014-2020 is concerned, it will retain its 
current, successful basic approach: Member States or regions will continue to design their own 
multi-annual programmes on the basis of the menu of measures available at EU level – in 
response to the needs of their own rural areas. These programmes will be co-funded from national 
envelopes. New rules for the programming of measures will provide a more flexible approach and 
will be focused around six priorities which cove r: Fostering knowledge transfer and innovation; 
Enhancing competitiveness of all types of agriculture and the sustainable management of forests; Promoting food chain organisation, including processing and marketing, & risk management; 
Restoring, preserving & enhancing ecosystems; Promoting resource efficiency & the transition to a 
low-carbon economy; and Promoting social inclusion, poverty reduction and economic development in rural areas. Member States will have to spend at least 30% of their rural development funding from the EU budget on certain measures related to land management and 
the fight against climate change, and at least 5 % on the LEADER approach.  
Detailed information about the CAP po st 2013 reform can be found at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/index_en.htm . 
2.42. - 2.43. - 2.44. PREGUNTA: ¿La reforma de la PAC 2013 considerará la eliminación del 
monto y número de productos cubiertos por los pagos directos? 
EU reply:  The vast majority of direct payments are decoupled from production. In the CAP for the 
period 2014-2020 it will be possible for the EU Member States to use part of their national ceilings 
for direct payments for coupled support in cert ain sectors and regions where specific types of 
farming or specific agricultural sectors are particularly important for economic, environmental and/or social reasons. The legislation will contain a list of sectors which may receive coupled 
support. Applying coupled support will be optional for Member States and limited to an appropriate 
level. Payments will be based on fixed areas and yields or on a fixed number of animals. 
Hacia una economía ecológica y una mejor gobernanza  
2.45.  Chile comparte la meta de ahorro energético (para Chile es de un 12% mientras que de la 
UE es 20% al 2020 Directiva 2012/27/UE), cons iderando la importancia histórica de las 
inversiones de la UE en este sector, Chile es pera que ambos Bloques tengan un beneficio mutuo 
en relación a este objetivo, por lo tanto, es de gran interés conocer algunos aspectos de lo 
realizado por la UE PREGUNTAS: ¿Cuál es la política o medida implementada que la UE considera 
como decisiva hasta ahora en este plano? ¿Cuáles serían los principios en que se basarían para 
esta reforma? 
EU reply:  Please refer to the webpage: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm .   
3.2 La OMC y el programa multilateral 
El examen del acuerdo sobre Tecnol ogía de la Información (ATI)  
3.12.  Se señala que en mayo de 2012, los partic ipantes en el ATI reanudaron el proceso de 
examen del Acuerdo, PREGUNTAS : ¿Podría la UE explicar más en detalle, de qué se trata la WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 102 - 
 
  revisión del Acuerdo que está en curso de modificación, y si hay más intereses además del tema 
arancelario? ¿Será incluido algún apartado vinculado con Servicios?  
EU reply: The ITA is the most successful sectoral tariff agreement in its sort with widespread 
membership representing more than half the WTO-Members, but representing 97% of trade. 
However, the ITA has not yet been reviewed since it s coming into force over 15 years ago, in spite 
of the rapid technological development in the sector. The EU and many other participating countries feel it is high time for such a review. New products will have to be added to the ITA as 
well as new sectors that have developed towards IT over the last 15 years, such as medical 
equipment, IT machine tools and more recent semi-conductor related machinery and products. Also, the EU finds it important to cover the area of Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs) in this update of the ITA. IT-related services are another important area for expansion and increasingly part of 
integrated business models. However, other delegations seemed less ready to now engage on the 
new area of IT-related services. In the meantime, while limited progress has been made on NTBs, a draft-list of products for inclusion in an expanded  ITA is expected to be finalised by this month 
of July.  
3.4 Comercio y desarrollo sostenible 
Responsabilidad Social 
3.27.  El 25 de octubre de 2011 la Comisión Europea adoptó la Comunicación "Estrategia renovada 
de la UE para 2011-2014 sobre la responsabilidad social de las empresas'26, con el fin de promover un comportamiento responsable de las empresas, así como el respeto de los principios y directrices reconocidos internacionalmente en esta esfera." PREGUNTA : ¿Podría la UE indicar a 
cuáles principios y directrices internacionalmente reconocidos alude? 
EU reply:  As indicated in the 2011 Communication referred to in the Government Report, the EU 
considers that the key internationally recognised principles and guidelines on Corporate Social 
Responsibility include: the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the UN Global Compact, 
the ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, the ISO 26000 Guidance Standard on Social Resp onsibility, and the UN Guiding Principles on 
Business and Human Rights. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 103 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM CHINA 
PART I: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT SUMMARY Page 10 (Para 9) 
To a large extent, SPS measures are harmonized at EU level as is EU legislation on technical 
requirements. However, there remain significant differences in some areas among Member states. 
As noted by the Commission: "Technical obstacles to the free movement of goods within the EU 
are still widespread." During the review period, the EU had an agreement on conformity 
assessment and acceptance enter into force, which not only aligns legislation on technical requirement but also foresees the possibility of mu tual market access of specific products that are 
lawfully placed on partners' markets.  
Questions: 
1．As there are differences in implementation by Member States of technical regulations and 
conformity assessment procedures, foreign producers have to make different arrangements with 
respect to different situations in different Member States, which causes additional operation costs. How the agreement on conformity assessment and a cceptance in EU, which has entered into force 
as indicated in the Secretariat Report, has aligned and streamlined the implementation legislations 
of various Member States on technical requirements? What are the main contents of this agreement? 
EU reply:  With regard to the first sentence of question 1; the EU notes that, as stated in the 
Report by the Secretariat, technical regulati ons and conformity assessment procedures are 
adopted at EU level and at the level of its Member States, i.e. national level. 
A large amount of legislation on technical requirements and conformity assessment has, however, 
been harmonized at EU level, and thus technica l obstacles to free movement of goods have been 
removed where EU level technical regulations have been adopted. Therefore, compliance with such 
harmonised technical requirements gives access to the whole EU single market and Member States 
cannot impose additional national requirements in relation to the aspects that have been fully 
harmonised at EU level. 
In principle, in accordance with the provisions on free movement of goods laid down in Article 34 
of the Treaty on the Functioning of the Europe an Union (TFEU) and the principle of mutual 
recognition of national requirements (established by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) goods 
that are not covered by EU harmonized legislation and have been lawfully placed on the market of 
a Member State can be marketed in any other Member State.. Derogations from Article 34 can 
only exist on the basis of Article 36 TFEU or, as established by the case-law of the ECJ, on the 
basis of other overriding reasons of public interest and which are proportionate to the aim pursued. For instance, under Article 36 TFEU the Member States may, referring to grounds of 
public interest, e.g. public order, public securi ty and the protection of health and life of humans 
and animals, introduce stricter national rules than those applied in other Member States, even where these rules may limit the free movement of products lawfully marketed in another Member State. 
When applying these restrictions Member States must follow a detailed procedure prescribed by 
Regulation (EC) No 764/2008, whose aim is to im prove the free movement of goods within the EU 
internal market.  
Another effective means of preventing intra-EU barriers to trade arising from Member States 
technical regulations is Directive 98/34/EC, which imposes an obligation upon the Member States to notify to the Commission and to each other nati onal draft technical regulations before they are 
adopted in national law. This procedure aims at providing transparency and control in relation to 
Member States' obligations under EU law. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 104 - 
 
  With regard to the second and third sentences of question 1., the Agreement on Conformity 
Assessment and Acceptance of Certificates (ACAA)  is not a tool for ensuring free movement of 
goods within the EU, but a specific type of mutual recognition agreement based on the alignment of the legislative system and infrastructure of a third country concerned with those of the EU. The 
third country adopts the EU system contributing thus to the elimination of technical barriers to 
trade and thereby increasing the accessibility of third country's market to products for the EU and vice versa. The ACAA contributes towards upgrad ing of the quality infrastructure and technical 
development in the partner country while ensuring  the level of health and safety protection 
existing in the EU. The first ACAA with Israel on good manufacturing practice for pharmaceutical products has entered into force on 19 January 2013. 
2．How effective is this agreement so far? 
EU reply:  The ACAA between the EU and Israel has en tered into force on 19 January 2013 and it 
is not possible to determine how successful it has been so far as it has been in force for only 
6 months.  
1. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT Page 15 (Para 1.13) 
In 2010, the Commission rolled out its growth strategy, "Europe 2020", for the coming decade. In 
the context of this strategy, five objectives (concerning employment, innovation, education, social inclusion and climate/energy) were set to be reached by 2020. Each Member State has adopted its own national targets in each of these areas.  
Questions: 
3．How will the EU promote "reindustrialization" in "Europe 2020" to solve such problems as 
imbalance of the economic structure and high unemployment rate? How will "reindustrialization" 
affect the future import and export trade, foreign direct investment and outbound investment of the EU? 
EU reply:  The Commission with its communication "A Stronger European Industry for Growth and 
Economic Recovery"2 of 10 October 2012 seeks to reverse the declining role of industry from its 
current level of around 15.1% of GDP to as much as 20% by 2012. To achieve such goal, a strong, 
competitive and diversified industrial manufacturing value chain is of central importance for the 
EU's competitiveness and job-creation potential. Th e renewed industrial strategy of the EU focuses 
on investment and innovation but also on mobilising all the levers available at EU level, notably the single market, trade policy, SME policy, competition policy, environmental and research policy 
in favour of European companies' competitiveness. 
The EU is committed to dramatically step up investment into new technologies and give Europe a 
competitive lead at a time when the speed of innovation and technological development has put 
the world on the edge of an industrial break-through. The European Commission thus proposes to 
jointly focus innovation and investment on six priority action lines: advanced manufacturing 
technologies, key enabling technologies, bio- based products, sustainable industrial and 
construction policy and raw materials, clean vehicles, smart grids. In such framework, the joint 
action of industry and public authorities should al so contribute to reduce economic imbalances and 
competitiveness gaps across the Member States and EU regions. 
As far as the labour market is concerned, the Commission believes that investment in human 
capital and skills is key to the success of industrial  policy. Policies aimed at job creation and tools 
to anticipate skill needs and reduce skills mismat ches are necessary to equip the labour force for 
industrial transformations. Therefor e, job creation policies are emphasised by the EU, especially in 
exploiting the potential of new technologies  and the green economy and to address youth 
unemployment. Such transformation will provide an important source of job creation that is 
indispensable to achieve the 75% EU employment target by 2020. 
                                               
2 COM(2012)582 final, available at http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0582:FIN:EN:PDF . WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 105 - 
 
  In order for the EU's reindustrialisation strategy to be successful, opening markets and connecting 
Europe to the main sources and regions of global growth is crucial. The Commission will thus push for an ambitious trade and investment agenda
3, in a spirit of reciprocity and mutual benefit as well 
as a comprehensive enforcement agenda, focusing in particular on market access, dismantling 
barriers, opening up public procurement, ensuring effective enforcement of trade rules, the best 
standards of protection for international investments and the full protection of intellectual property rights.  
Page 16 (Para 1.16) 
In February 2012, the Commission presented its first "Alert Mechanism Report" (AMR) which 
identified 12 member States needing further economic analysis in order to determine whether macroeconomic imbalances existed or risked em erging (Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, 
Finland, France, Italy, Hungary, Slovenia, Sp ain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom). Further 
analysis confirmed that these 12 member States faced macroeconomic imbalances of different natures. The Commission considered that Spain and Cyprus were experiencing "very serious" 
imbalances, while the imbalances of France, Hungary, Italy, and Slovenia were considered 
"serious". None of these imbalances were deemed "excessive" in the sense of the procedure, but they all needed to be closely monitored. During  the second AMR in November 2012, Malta and the 
Netherland were added to the list. 
Questions: 
4．What are the definitions or meanings of "serio us", "very serious" and "excessive" imbalances 
indicated in the conclusion of the AMR? With respect to trade and investment risks, what do the 
different judgments imply? What is the latest development of this alert? 
EU reply:  MIP (Macroeconomic imbalance procedure) was designed as a part of the challenge of 
enhancing the economic governance in the EU and considering areas beyond budgetary 
surveillance. It became apparent that imbalances such as persistently large current account imbalances, excessive external or internal debt, or housing booms may jeopardise the proper 
functioning of the economic and monetary union. Hence, any development that could significantly 
impede the proper function of the economy of a Member States, the monetary union or the EU 
may be considered as an imbalance in the sense of the MIP.  
In order to ensure a wide scope, the MIP looks into several issues and a number of indicators. 
However in the MIP no decision – would it be the initial selection of a country for an in-depth 
review (IDR) or the subsequent steps – is take n in a mechanical manner by setting quantified 
rules for each concept or variable. Given the multi-dimensional nature of MIP and the complexity 
of the links between the several areas, depend ing on each country and circumstances, the 
procedure is judgemental in nature and the policy decisions will never depend only on quantitative criteria. What is critical is the sustainability of a given trend, and the risk of disruptive adjustments 
if no policy action is taken, or whether given trends are related to underlying damaging distortions.  
In the AMR (alert mechanism report), the countries for which an IDR is required are identified. The 
Commission selects a country for an IDR if it believes a specific issue is worth a more detailed analysis in the context of the procedure. In February 2012, 12 countries were selected for an IDR, 
while in November 2012, the 12 previously selected + 2 additional countries (the Netherland and 
Malta) were considered for that purpose. In th e IDR, the Commission concludes whether there is 
an imbalance. Imbalances are the macroeconomic developments which adversely affect, or may 
adversely affect, the proper function of the econ omy of a Member States, or more widely in the 
monetary union or the EU. In practice, developments are considered as an imbalance if they reflect unsustainable dynamics, including distortions, or negative externalities.  
If an imbalance is established in the IDR, it remains to determine whether this imbalance is 
excessive. For 12 countries for which the Commission prepared an IDR during the 2012 cycle, the Commission concluded that all of them were facing imbalances of various natures: either " without 
further qualification" ; or " serious imbalances" , or " very serious imbalances."  This additional 
                                               
3 COM(2010)612 final, “Trade, Growth and World Affairs” of 9th November 2010, available at http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0612:FIN:EN:PDF . WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 106 - 
 
  granularity was useful to better distinguish the different situations and the urgency of the required 
policies. 
In May 2013, the latter qualifications were not use anymore. The focus has been put on whether 
the imbalance is " excessive" . In fact, as regard the countries selected in November 2012 for 
having further investigation, 2 countries (i.e. Spain and Slovenia) were qualified as facing 
"excessive macroeconomic imbalances."  The others countries were qualified as " experiencing 
macroeconomic imbalances, which deserve monitoring and policy action."  
5．How does the Commission think of the impact of the crisis-solving mechnism of the Cyprus 
banking crisis on the future stability in the banking and financial sector in Europe? 
EU reply:  The Cypriot banking crisis has had an impact on the national financial sector; an impact 
on the funding costs of vulnerable banks in other Member States was also observed in the 
immediate aftermath, although this impact quickly dissipated.  
In order to mitigate such challenges in the future, EU policy makers are working to establish a 
harmonized approach to banking crises and resolution measures. Legislative proposals will ensure 
legal certainty and enable the application of harmonised tools and powers across all Member States. This will go a long way in restoring market confidence in the current context and 
supporting future financial stability. 
The proposed Bank Recovery and Resolution Direct ive, for example, will establish a harmonised 
resolution framework applicable across all EU Member States, providing authorities with the necessary tools and powers to facilitate orderly, cross-border resolution. This will be accompanied 
by greater harmonisation and enhancement of nati onal deposit guarantee schemes, as currently 
proposed in the new Directive on DGS. Both proposals are currently undergoing the co-legislation process, with a view to swift completion.  
Financial stability will be further ensured by moving towards a Banking Union. Agreement has 
already been reached on a Single Supervisory Mechan ism, which will secure a single rule book and 
common supervisory standards. Second, the Commissi on will this year propose the establishment 
of a Single Resolution Mechanism that will complement the move to European supervision with a 
centralised, European system for the resolution of banks. These various legislative initiatives will provide a more grounded basis for securing financial stability in the euro area and the EU as a whole. 
2. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
Page 27 (Para 2.3) 
Under the Lisbon Treaty, the EU has exclusive co mpetence, inter alia, for trade and investment 
policies and member States may develop legal acts in these areas only when authorized by the EU. 
…… Member States retain varying degrees of independent regulatory authority, which may result in the adoption of national measures that affect trade within the EU, and with non-EU countries. 
Questions: 
6．How does the EU cope with the conflicts of au thorities between the EU and the Member States? 
What arrangements has the EU made to protect th e rights of foreign companies and investors in 
international trade and investment when coping with the conflicts of authorities between the EU 
and the Member States? 
EU reply:  The EU is not aware of any conflicts of authorities between the EU and its Member 
States having an effect on the rights  of foreign companies and investors. 
Page 29 (Para 2.13) 
According to the European Commission, the objectiv es of the EU's trade policy for the next decade 
include 'tailoring trade and investment policy for those countries most in need'. The EU intends to 
differentiate between developing countries  and focus on those most in need.……" WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 107 - 
 
  Questions: 
7．What is the exact meaning of "tailoring trade and investment policy for those countries most in 
need"? How would the EU differentiate between developiong countries? Base on what criteria? 
What are the standards that are used to determine whether a country is "most in need" or not? 
What will be the tailored trade and iunvestmen t measures of the EU? Could the EU please 
elaborate on the relationship between these tailore d measures and the principles and rules of the 
WTO in particular the MFN principle? 
EU reply: The EU's trade and development policy was overhauled in 2012 based on the European 
Commission's Communication on 'Trade, growth and development'. The objective of the EU's trade 
and development policy is to respond to the need s and priorities of developing countries, in 
particular through enhancing synergies between trade and development. This objective is 
integrated into each of the EU trade and development policy instruments, particularly the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP), trade and investment agreements, as well as Aid for 
Trade. Under the new policy, priority is given to countries that would have limited prospects of 
long-term growth and sustainable development without external assistance, particularly Least-Developed Countries (LDCs) and other countries most in need.  
The GSP modulates the EU's unilateral preferences depending on the trade, financial and 
development needs of developing countries. Under th e revised GSP, whose preferences will start to 
apply in 2014, preferences under the general arrangement will be granted to lower middle-income and low-income countries in sectors where help is still needed. As for LDCs, they will continue to 
enjoy duty-free and quota-free access to the EU market for all their products except arms and 
ammunition under the special arrangement for LDCs - 'Everything but Arms' (EBA).  
Regarding the bilateral and regional trade and in vestment agreements which the EU negotiates 
with developing countries, they cover a broad range of issues which are essential to sustainable 
growth and development. Beyond tariffs, trade ag reements increasingly look at behind-the-border 
issues, including trade facilitation, technical rules, sustainable development, investment, services, 
intellectual property rights, public procurement, etc.  The aim is to contribute to the creation or the 
strengthening of a favourable legal environment for business and investment. Evidently, each trade agreement is the outcome of a thorough  negotiation between the EU and its trading 
partners, and is thus adapted to each partne r's needs and priorities. The EU is currently 
negotiating Economic Partnership Agreements with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, 
as well as a series of Free Trade Agreements with other developing countries and regions, notably in Asia, Latin America, and the EU's Eastern and Mediterranean neighbourhood. 
Good governance and sound domestic policies play a key role in maximising the contribution of 
trade to sustainable growth and development. Aid for Trade plays a complementary role in this respect, by helping countries most in need create favourable domestic conditions, for instance in 
terms of capacity and infrastructure. In line wi th the principle of country ownership, which 
underpins the EU's development policy, priorities for aid allocation, including Aid for Trade, are determined on the basis of the partner countries' priorities for EU development aid. EU Aid for 
Trade is thus fully aligned with the development strategy of EU partners. 
The EU's trade and development instruments ar e fully in line with the WTO's special and 
differential treatment for developing countries (ena bling clause), which give developing countries, 
particularly LDCs, special rights, and allow developed countries to treat them more favourably than 
other WTO members.  
Page 29 (Para 2.15) 
The Commission carries out impact-assessment analysis to support its decision-making for all 
proposals with significant direct impact, including in the trade policy area. The impact-assessment 
process assesses different policy options by comparing both potential benefits and costs in economic, social and environmental terms. The sy stem relies on stakeholder consultations, and 
impact-assessment reports are published once the Commission's decision has been taken. In the 
case of trade negotiations, the Commission carries out "trade sustainability impact assessments" 
(SIAs) to analyse the economic, environmental and social impact of the EU trade agreements for 
the EU and its trading partners.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 108 - 
 
  Questions: 
8．What is the decision-making mechanism of the Commission in relation to the analysis and 
reports generated based on the comments from various parties? What are the weights of different 
factors in the decision-making? Can other WTO members participate in the impact-assessment 
analysis process? If yes, what are the procedures and conditions? 
EU reply: Impact assessments are an essential element of the EU's decision-making process. They 
prepare evidence for the Commission on the adva ntages and disadvantages of possible policy 
options by assessing their potential impact. 
During preparation, a (draft) impact assessmen t is steered by an Impact Assessment Steering 
Group made up of relevant Commission services. It is then subject to a formal and independent 
quality assessment by the Impact Assessment Board. 
Once finalized, the impact assessment accompanies policy initiatives (for example, requests for 
negotiating mandates or legislative proposals) throughout the Commission's and EU institutionsf 
decision-making procedure.  
The College of Commissioners takes the impact assessment report into account when taking its 
decisions. The impact assessment supports – but do es not replace – decision-making: the adoption 
of a policy proposal is always a policy de cision that is made only by the College. 
Other WTO members can participate in the impact assessment process via the public consultations 
linked to particular impact assessments (which are available on-line); or through their usual communication channels with the EU. 
9．How will the SIA of the EU affect trade negotiations? Could the EU please present some specific 
cases? 
EU reply: Unlike the impact assessments referred to above (which are written by the services 
responsible for preparing policy initiatives), Trade SIAs are external studies commissioned by the 
EU from independent consultants. 
They are launched immediately following the Council decision to allow negotiations to begin with 
the partner country or countries concerned. They should accompany the subsequent negotiation 
process, and draw the attention of negotiators to the expected or possible impacts – notably in relation to social or environmental aspects – of the various trade measures under consideration by 
the negotiating teams involved. 
Trade SIAs should also provide suggestions on the design of complementary (flanking) policy 
initiatives, which are intended to maximize the positive impacts and mitigate any negative impacts 
associated with the proposed trade agreement. 
Reports received during the course of each stud y are submitted as drafts, and are published only 
after the Commission has given its approval. 
Following approval of the final report(s) submitte d by the consultants, the Commission publishes a 
Position Paper  in which it sets out its own views on the basis of the impacts identified in the 
assessments, and on the policy measures proposed to address them. 
Page 31 (Para 2.24) 
The EU considers that the impact of removing "more advanced developing countries" out of GSP 
preferences is small, and the "marginal drop in  exports by the more advanced economies can 
potentially provide significant opportunities for the poorest". WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 109 - 
 
  Questions: 
10．Is the conclusion of the EU, i.e. "the impact of removing 'more advanced developing countries' 
out of GSP preferences is small, and the 'mar ginal drop in exports by the more advanced 
economies can potentially provide significant oppo rtunities for the poorest'", based on detailed 
research and analysis? Could the EU please inform the extent of impact obtained by it through the research?  
EU reply:  The effect of the revised scheme has been assessed though economic modeling in the 
public impact assessment which has been publishe d in 2011, prior to the adoption of the revised 
scheme: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2011/sec_2011_0536_en.pdf .  
Page 31 (Para 2.25) 
Under Regulation (EU) No. 978/2012, the thresholds  for graduation will increase to 17.5% (from 
15% previously) in 2014 and for textiles 14.5% (up from 12.5%). Production sections used for 
graduation increase from 21 to 32. 
Page 31 (Para 2.28) 
The new regulation provides that EU producers may request initiation of a safeguard investigation 
if the GSP imports in volumes and/or at prices cause or threaten to cause serious deterioration in 
the economic and/or financial situation of the EU producers; ……  
Questions: 
11．Although the new GSP provisions lower the thresh old for graduation, the types of products for 
graduation are increased and there are additional clauses on safeguard measures. Are these 
provisions implicit burdens on exporters to benefit from the GSP? 
EU reply:  The fact that GSP Sections pass from 21 to 32 does not mean that there are more types 
of products for graduation, but on the contrary, that calculations for graduation of sections will be 
more refined, since they will be made on a more  homogenous set of products. The purpose of the 
safeguard measures is not to impede exports but to give temporary relief to the domestic industry 
of the European Union in case there is a deterioration in their economic and/or financial situation 
due to the preferential arrangements under the GS P Regulation. Therefore such measures (i.e. the 
reintroduction of the Common Customs Tariff) sha ll not exceed 3 years and can be extended only 
in duly justified cases. 
12．Could the EU please give a brief description of the detailed procedures to adopt the safeguard 
measures under the GSP? Are there already specific cases initiated? 
EU reply:  The applicable procedure to adopt a general safeguard measure (Chapter VI, Section I) 
as referred to in Article 39(3) of the GSP regulation, would be the so called examination 
procedure. Under the examination procedure the committee composed of the representatives of 
the Member States ('committee') shall deliver its opinion on the European Commission's proposal 
by qualified majority. If this opinion is in favour of the proposal, the Commission shall adopt the proposal. If this opinion is against the proposal, the Commission can either submit an amended 
version or submit the proposal to the a ppeal committee for further deliberation.  
On duly justified grounds of urgency, the so called urgency procedure shall apply as referred to 
under Article 39(4). Under this procedure the Commission is empowered to adopt immediately applicable implementing acts (i.e. a safeguard measure in this case) without its prior submission to 
the committee.  
In the textile, agriculture and fisheries sectors (C hapter VI, Section II), the applicable procedure to 
adopt an implementing act to yearly remove the agreed tariff preferences would be the so called 
advisory procedure as referred to in Article 39(2) of the GSP regulation. Under the advisory 
procedure the committee shall deliver its opinion on the European Commission's proposal by simple majority. The Commission should take utmost account of the results of the vote. Safeguard WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 110 - 
 
  measures in these sectors are subject to the same procedure as described above under the 
general safeguards.  
So far no such cases were initiated.  Page 32 (Para 2.34) 
The EU has 33 FTAs with other countries (Table 2.2). The FTAs with Albania, CARIFORUM States, 
Chile, Croatia, Korea, the Former Yugoslav Repu blic of Macedonia, Mexico, and Montenegro, cover 
both goods and services. The EU considers that "new trade agreements go beyond import tariffs, 
whose importance has diminished, addressing regulatory barriers in goods, services and 
investment, intellectual property rights, government procurement, the protection of innovation, sustainable development and other important issues". 
Questions: 
13．How does the EU think of and handle the relationship between its bilateral and regional FTAs 
and the multilateral trading system represented by the WTO? 
14．How does the EU think of the future of the negotiations of the Doha Development Agenda as 
well as that of the multilateral trading system? 
EU reply to questions 31 and 14:  The EU remains fully committed to the multilateral system 
and attaches great importance to the conclusion of negotiations on the Doha Development 
Agenda. The EU believes that a successful MC9, which sees an agreement among Members on a limited set of DDA issues including on Trade Facilitation, is a prerequisite for further on the DDA in 
the immediate future. 
15．Which FTAs among the 33 concluded by the EU contain environment clauses? What are the 
details of the environment clauses? 
EU reply:  Consistently with the indication in the Secretariat report that EU "new trade 
agreements" address sustainable development is sues, the EU-Korea FTA includes a trade and 
sustainable development chapter, containing provisions on environmental (as well as labour) 
issues of relevance in a trade context. These provisions notably include: the effective 
implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agr eements; the recognition of the right to regulate 
of each Party; the non-relaxation of domestic environmental laws in order to attract trade or 
investment; the promotion of practices favouring sustainable development such as trade and 
investment in environmental- and climate-friendly products, sustainability assurance schemes, or Corporate Social Responsibility; transparency in the development and implementation of relevant 
domestic environmental measures; cooperation on trade-related aspects of environmental policies 
(with regard to, inter alia, climate change, biodiversity, sustainable fishing practices, tackling 
deforestation); and the set-up of a dedicated institutional mechanism, including the involvement of civil society, dealing with im plementation and monitoring.  
Provisions addressing similar issues are included in the EU-CARIFORUM EPA, under the 
Environment chapter. The interim EU-Papua New Guinea/Fiji EPA contains provisions on sustainable development (including environmental aspects), as an objective for the whole 
Agreement.  
The agreements concluded with, respectively, Albania, Algeria, Chile, Croatia, Eastern and 
Southern Africa States, Egypt, the Former Yugo slav Republic of Macedonia, Israel, Jordan, 
Lebanon, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, South Africa, and Tunisia, as well as the European 
Economic Area and the association of Overseas Countries and Territories, contain, generally under 
a heading on cooperation, provisions on environmental cooperation, covering a broad range of areas including, among others, the implementation  of MEAs; the conservation and sustainable use 
of biodiversity, forestry, and wildlife resources; climate change; waste management; 
environmental impact assessments; soil and water quality.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 111 - 
 
  Page 34 (Table 2.3) 
Sectors GATS FTA with Korea 
…… …… …… 
6. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES √ Improved 
……   
Note:  Improved: Improved commit ments made under the Agreement compared to those under the GATS. 
Questions: 
16．How has the commitment of the EU on opening up  the market of environment services under 
its FTA with the Republic of Korea been improved compared with its commitments under the 
GATS? 
EU reply: In comparison to the GATS, the EU FTA with Korea contains improved commitments in 
mode 1 (where the EU is now committed for consulting services) as well as in modes 2 and 3 
(where the existing reservations of some  Member States have been lifted).  
Page 35 (Para 2.46) 
The EU is in the process of developing and implementing a comprehensive investment policy. The 
Commission believes that EU international investment policy should seek to ensure the uniform 
treatment of EU investors, and the network of exis ting BITs resulting in an "uneven playing field 
for EU companies investing abroad, which depends on whether they are covered as a 'national' 
under a certain Member State BIT or not." 
Questions: 
17．Regarding the comprehensive investment policy that is being developed, could the EU please 
introduce its content, timetable of adoption and im plementation as well as its relationship with 
existing investment policies of the Member States? 
EU reply: The Commission outlined its approach for the EU's future investment policy in its 
Communication 'Towards a comprehensive European  international investment policy of July 2010'. 
The EU's investment policy is focused on providing EU investors and investments with market access and with legal certainty and a stable, predictable, fair and properly regulated environment in which to conduct their business. 
The Communication does not set specific timetables for deployment of any of the specific 
initiatives indicated. The first initiative following the Communication is the Regulation No 1219/2012 establishing transitional arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between 
Member States and third countries. It spells out the relationship with the investment policies of 
Member States. Almost 1200 Bilateral Investment Agreements of Member States that currently offer investment protection to many European investors will be preserved until they are replaced 
by EU agreements. 
18．How will the comprehensive investment policy of the EU address problems resulting from the 
inconsistency among the existing investment policie s of the Member States? For example, will the 
restrictions on investment access to certain sectors in one Member State be expanded to be part 
of the comprehensive investment policy of th e EU? How will the EU maintain the overall 
liberalization level in respect of investment access in the course of its development of EU 
comprehensive investment policy? 
EU reply: The EU will continue to aim at improving, rather than maintaining, the overall level of 
liberalization in respect of investment market access. Thus through our negotiations with FTA 
partners, as well as in WTO, we seek the progressi ve abolition of restrictions on trade and foreign 
direct investment. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 112 - 
 
  Page 36 (Para 2.49) 
The Commission considers that investor-to-state dispute settlement mechanisms ensure effective 
enforcement of investment agreements. Investor-state dispute settlement forms a key part of the inheritance that the EU receives from its member States BITs, and will be included in future EU 
investment agreements with other countries. 
Questions: 
19．Could the EU please inform the investor-to-state dispute settlement mechanisms contained in 
the Member States' bilateral investment agreements? What is the thinking of the EU on the role of 
these mechanisms in future bilateral investment agreements that it will sign as a single entity? 
EU reply:  Bilateral Investment Agreements of Member  States that currently offer investment 
protection to many European investors, and therefore its ISDS provisions, will be preserved until 
they are replaced by EU agreements. Regula tion No 1219/2012 establishing transitional 
arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between Member States and third countries. 
In order to ensure effective enforcement, EU ag reements including investment protection should 
include investor-state dispute settlement.  
20．Could the EU please clarify that, as the EU will  enter into investment agreements as a single 
entity, in case of disputes whom an investor from a third country should sue, the EU or its member 
States? Logically, it seems that the investor shou ld sue the EU. In addition, who should bear the 
liability for compensations if in the end such a liability is involved? 
EU reply:  The proposed Regulation establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility 
linked to investor-state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to 
which the European Union is party sets out the conditions and procedures to be followed with 
respect to the financial responsibility of the EU and its Member States resulting from investment 
agreements to which the Union is a party. The proposed Regulation is still being discussed at the Council and the European Parliament, but sets out the main principle that financial responsibility 
would lie with the author of the act found to be in  breach of the investment agreement in question. 
Page 36 (Para 2.50) 
On 21 June 2012, the Commission released a draft Regulation establishing a framework for 
managing financial responsibility linked to inve stor-state dispute settlement tribunals established 
by international agreements to which the European Union is party. …… 
Questions: 
21．When will the regulation on the investor-state  dispute settlement indicated in the Secretariat 
Report be officially adopted? How will it affect the procedural and substantive rights of investors in 
investor-state disputes? How will the EU ensure that  the award, when it is not favorable to the EU, 
will be duly enforced and implemented? 
EU reply:  The proposed Regulation is currently being discussed at the Council and the European 
Parliament. Adoption is not foreseen before mid- to end 2014. The proposal aims to regulate the 
relationship between the Union and its Member States with respect to investor-to-state dispute 
settlement and will not have an impact on the proc edural and substantive rights of investors. The 
question of enforcement is one that should be dealt in the text of the investment agreements 
themselves; it is the Union's aim that awards pursuant to disputes under investment agreements to which the Union is a party are effectively enforced across its territory. 
Page 37 (Para 2.54) 
Some member States such as France, Germany, and the United Kingdom maintain FDI review 
procedures for national security purposes. On 9 May 2012, French Decree No. 2012-691 on foreign 
investments subject to prior authorisation entered into force. The Decree specified the sectors for 
which foreign investments shall be subject to prior authorisation and removed all references to the WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 113 - 
 
  notion of indirect control by an investor of a third country. The Act on the Monitoring of Foreigners' 
Corporate Acquisitions in Finland entered into force on 1 June 2012, with an objective to monitor and restrict when required by national interests, th e transfer of assets to foreigners and to foreign 
organizations and foundations; compared to the prev ious act of 1992, the categories of enterprises 
subject to potential review have been reduced.  
Questions: 
22．It is understood that even the EU will enter in to external investment agreements as a single 
entity, it has no intention to establish a national security review mechanism at the EU level. How 
will the EU deal with the national security review issue when negotiating external investment agreements in the future? If the authority of the security review is in each member country, how 
will foreign investors be secured with certainty? 
EU reply:  Provisions allowing countries to take any action which they consider necessary for the 
protection of their essential security interests are included in all trade and investment agreements 
signed and being negotiated between the EU and it s foreign partners, irrespective from internal 
competence issues.  
Page 37 (Paras 2.56 and 2.57) 
On 12 December 2012, the European Parliament and the Council adopted the Regulation 
establishing transitional arrangements for b ilateral investment agreements between Member 
States and third countries. ……The regulation confirms that Member States may maintain in force these agreements notwithstanding the EU's compet ences relating to investment, until they are 
replaced by investment agreements concluded by the EU. Member States must notify the 
Commission which agreements they want to maintain. The regulation also provides for a mechanism authorizing member States, under certain conditions, to negotiate bilateral investment 
agreements with third countries not immediately scheduled for EU-wide investment negotiations, 
or to re-negotiate existing agreements. 
As of 15 June 2010, there were more than 1,100 bilateral investment treaties (BITs) between the 
EU member States and third countries. 
Page 14 (Para 3.23) of the Report by the European Union 
This is designed to expand the scope of invest ment protection currently available to European 
investors. All appropriate safeguards are in pl ace to ensure that Member States' investment 
agreements do not create any serious obstacles to the smooth implementation of the European 
Union investment policy. 
Questions: 
23．What circumstances does "under certain conditions" refer to with respect to giving 
authorization to Member States? Has the EU au thorized relevant Member States so far? 
EU reply:  Member States' negotiations with third countries to amend or conclude bilateral 
investment agreements (BIAs) can be authorised unless the Commission concludes that the 
opening of such negotiations would: 
(a) be in conflict with Union law; 
(b) be superfluous, because the Commission has submitted or has decided to submit a 
recommendation to open negotiations with the third country concerned; 
(c) be inconsistent with the Union's principles and objectives for external action; or 
(d) constitute a serious obstacle to the negotiation or conclusion of bilateral investment 
agreements with third countries by the Union. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 114 - 
 
  There have been several cases so far where Member States have been authorised by the 
Commission to: i) open negotiations of BIAs, ii) sign and conclude BIAs, or iii) maintain in force (enter into force) BIAs signed after 1 December 2009. 
24．Does the Commission need to obtain authorization from all Member States if it intends to 
conduct negotiations on investment agreements with any third country in the name of the EU? 
EU reply:  In accordance with Article 207 of the Treaty  on the Functioning of the European Union, 
the Council must authorize the Commission to open negotiations.  
25．What measures will the EU adopt to ensure the smooth implementation of the EU investment 
policy? What measures will the EU adopt during the transition period to protect the interests of 
investors from a third country as the authorization given to Member States "under certain 
conditions" is designed to expand the scope of investment protection currently available to the EU investors? 
EU reply:  The Commission outlined its approach for the EU's future investment policy in its 
Communication 'Towards a comprehensive European  international investment policy of July 2010'. 
This Communication covers the main building blocks of an international investment policy by the EU and indicates the initiatives that will be adop ted to ensure a smooth implementation of the EU 
investment policy. 
The transition of competence stemming from the Lisbon Treaty will be handled gradually. Under 
public international law there is no uncertainty on the status of Bilateral Investment Agreements 
that Member States concluded with third countries before the Lisbon Treaty: they remain binding.  
To ensure their legality under EU laws, the European Parliament and the Council adopted on 
12 December 2012 a Regulation establishing transitional arrangements for bilateral investment 
agreements between Member States and third countries, which, under certain conditions, allows 
Member States to maintain in force these treaties until they are replaced by EU agreements. 
The Regulation lays down as well certain conditions under which Member States are empowered to 
conclude and/or maintain in force bilateral investment agreements. These include the obligation of 
notification to the Commission, that the it is not in conflict with EU law, that is not superfluous, 
that it is consistent with the Union's principles and objectives for external action and that do not constitute an obstacle for the EU to negotiate with third countries.  
26．How does the Lisbon Treaty affect the bilateral or multilateral trade and investment promotion 
agreements concluded by the Member States of the EU? What measures does the EU plan to 
adopt, or has the EU adopted to further develop and improve its policies on foreign trade and 
investment?  
EU reply:  Bilateral Investment Agreements of Member  States that currently offer investment 
protection to many European investors will be preserved until they are replaced by EU 
agreements. 
The Commission outlined its approach for the EU's future investment policy in its Communication 
'Towards a comprehensive European international investment policy of July 2010. This 
Communication was adopted in 2010 and covers the main building blocks of an international 
investment policy by the EU and indicates the init iatives that will be adopted to ensure a smooth 
implementation of the EU investment policy. A second adopted initiative is the above mentioned Regulation that grants legal security to the existing BIAs between our Member States and third 
countries until they are replaced by EU-wide investment deals. An initiative that is planned for 
adoption is the draft Regulation establishing a framework for managing fi nancial responsibility 
linked to investor-state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to 
which the European Union is party. In addition, we continue to negotiate investment protection 
and liberalisation in the context of FTAs and, soon ad hoc investment agreements.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 115 - 
 
  3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
Page 39 (Para 3.1) 
The Modernized Customs Code (MCC) was adopted in June 2008 but has not yet been applied. The 
European Commission submitted on 20 February 2012 a proposal to recast the Customs Code as 
the Union Customs Code (UCC), which will replace the MCC. 
Questions: 
27．Why has MCC not been applied? When is U CC expected to be adopted and applied? 
EU reply:  MCC (Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
23 April 2008 laying down the Community Customs Code) entered into force on 24 June 2008, but 
has not been applied for reasons of institutional, technical and practical nature. 
On 20 February 2012, the Commission tabled a proposal to recast the Modernised Customs Code 
(MCC), implying its repeal. That proposal aimed to adress all the reasons for which the MCC has 
not been applied and consequently had a three-fold purpose: 
(1) postponing the application of the MCC beyond the ultimate deadline of application of the MCC, 
to offer sufficient time to define related mo re detailed rules and develop the supporting IT 
systems; 
(2) aligning the MCC on the requirements of Articles  290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union (Treaty of Lisbon), conc erning the empowerments to be given to the 
Commission to adopt UCC-related delegated or implementing acts; 
(3) adjust those provisions of the MCC that revealed no longer in line with the evolution of their 
legal environment since 2008, or unclear or diff icult to implement, however without putting 
into question the initial objectives of the MCC. 
The adoption of that new Regulation is planned to take place in September 2013 by the European 
Parliament and the Council. It will be applicable on 1 May 2016. 
Insofar as parts of the new legislation depending on IT systems are concerned, that Regulation 
allows for transitional periods and measures to be defined by the Commission through a delegated 
act and applied until the corresponding IT systems are operational, but no later than 31 December 
2020. 
28．What changes will the UCC make to the MCC? 
EU reply:  MCC aimed at the adaptation of customs legislation to fit, but also to govern, the 
electronic environment for customs and trade. Since the UCC is a recast of the MCC there are no 
major changes in substance. Mainly they concern the finetuning of the Code with the evolution of 
other customs related legislation, a clearer view of the rights and obligations of the economic 
operators and an enhancement of the benefits of the AEO status. 
Page 39 (Para 3.2) 
According to the Commission, existing customs proc edures are to be streamlined in the UCC, once 
adopted; this also applies to the rules for custom s declarations and for the placing of goods under 
a customs procedure which will be modernized, in particular by requiring that customs declarations, as a rule, be made electronically and providing for only one type of simplified 
declaration. 
Questions: 
29．Could the EU please explain the meaning of "o nly one type of simplified declaration" ?  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 116 - 
 
  EU reply: The UCC will provide different  types of simplifications.  
Page 39 (Para 3.3) 
The Trade Contact Group is the main framework for regular consultations between the European 
Commission and economic operators on EU customs matters.  
Questions: 
30．Please explain whether the Trade Contact Group is  an affiliate of the European Commission or 
a wholly independent third party organization. 
EU reply:  The Trade Contact Group is neither affiliated, nor an independent 3rd party 
organization, it is a consultation platform, invi ted by and hosted by the COM. The Trade Contact 
Group (TCG), consultation platform of DG TAXU D for customs policy, gathers representatives of 
the main international associations involved in customs related activities at the European level. 
The status of the trade representatives within the TCG is of consultative nature. It provides a forum for a mutual exchange of views between economic operators and the Commission's services 
on all customs-related issues.  
The meetings of the TCG, at least twice a year, are hosted by the European Commission's Taxation 
and Customs Union Directorate-General and are chaired by its Customs Policy Director. For further 
information please refer to: 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/policy_issues/customs_trade_consultations/index_
en.htm .  
Page 39 (Para 3.4) 
National customs laws provide for the implementation of EU customs legislation while national 
administrations and courts in the member States are in charge of applying EU customs legislation under monitoring by the Commission and oversi ght of the Court of Justice of the EU. The 
Commission adopted a Communication on the State of the Customs in December 2012. According 
to the Communication, a review of governance of the Customs Union will be initiated, with an aim 
of improving efficiency, effectivene ss and uniformity of customs services. 
Questions: 
31．What are the specific content of the monitoring by the Commission and oversight of the Court 
of Justice of the EU in respect of the implementa tion of EU customs legislation by the national 
administrations and courts in member States? 
EU reply:  Customs legislation is harmonized at EU level and directly applicable in all Member 
States. Member States shall take all appropriate measures to ensure the effective implementation 
of the harmonized customs legislation. The European Commission regularly monitors the uniform 
application of customs law throughout the Union. 
Monitoring: The Commission sets up and carries out monitoring activities in cooperation with the 
Member States under the Customs 2013 Programme. On the basis of this Programme, the 
Commission carries out monitoring visits to the customs administrations of the Member States, 
usually on the basis of targeted sectorial enquiries. In these visits, the Commission gathers information about the practices of the national customs, provides technical and legal advice and 
when it detects that a Member State has failed to comply with EU customs law, the Commission 
has powers of its own (action for non-compliance) to initiate infringement proceedings. 
Court oversight: Where a Member State fails to comply with EU law, traders have the possibility to 
resort to national means of redress. Any person shall have the right to appeal against decisions 
taken by the customs authorities which relate to the application of customs legislation and which concern him or her directly and individually. In national proceedings, should a national court have doubts about the interpretation or validity of an EU law it may (if it is a court of last instance, it 
must) ask the Court of Justice of the European Union for a 'preliminary ruling'. The preliminary WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 117 - 
 
  ruling is valid throughout the territory of the EU , ensuring the proper and uniform interpretation 
and application of EU law in all Member States. 
In addition, traders have the possibility of submitting written complaints to the European 
Commission against a Member State for any measure (law, regulation or administrative action) or 
practice attributable to that Member State which they consider incompatible with a provision or a 
principle of EU customs law. The Commission may also act ex officio, if there is suspicion of infringement of EU customs law on the part of a Member State. The Commission then takes 
appropriate action which could include the initiation of infringement proceedings against the 
Member States that fails to comply with EU customs legislation. 
Member States have an obligation to comply wi th the judgment of the Court. If the Commission 
considers that the Member has not complied, the Commission may bring the case before the 
Court, which can impose a lump sum or penalty payment on that Member State. 
32. What are the coordinating and monitoring mechanisms to ensure that the EU customs 
legislation and procedures are uniformly implmented by all member States? 
EU reply:  See also answer under question 33 above. The Commission and the Member States 
have set up a Monitoring Programme on the Application of EU Customs Law to ensure the effective 
implementation of the harmonized customs legisl ation (Decision No 624/2007/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council) and a Monitoring Guide, which establishes how this monitoring 
exercise takes place. The relevant aspects of EU  customs rules to be monitored are proposed and 
agreed annually by the Commission, jointly with Member States. The monitoring teams that visit the Member States are composed of Commission o fficials and officials fr om different Members. 
After each visit they draft a report on the facts and a list of recommendations to that Member 
State, for which a proper follow-up is ensured. In cases where a Member State fails to comply with EU customs law, this exercise may result in the initiation of an infringement proceeding against it 
(action for non-compliance).  
33．What are the details of the review of governan ce of the Customs Union? What are specific 
goals in relation to improving efficiency, effectiveness and uniformity of customs services? 
EU reply:  The details of the review of the Custom's Union governance will be identified and 
discussed in close cooperation with the Member States' customs administrations. The results of 
this work should be available in the first half of 2014. 
Page 39 (Para 3.5) 
The time needed to complete import procedures varies between member States. 
Questions: 
34．Does the EU have any measure or plan to improve the customs clearance efficiency of 
member States that take a relatively long er time to complete customs clearance? 
EU reply:  The EU has the same customs rules in all the member States. It may happen, however, 
that, in certain ocassions, specific controls are needed, which may delay the customs clearance. 
However, the EU wishes to ensure that the time to complete import procedures across the EU is as short as possible, and cases of difficulty must be addressed. 
Page 40 (Para 3.7) 
Since July 2009, a system of Economic Operation Registration Identification (EORI) has been in 
place. 
Questions: 
35．How many digits are there in an EORI code? Is the code applicable to both an enteprise and a 
natural person? What materials need to be submitted when someone applies for an EORI code? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 118 - 
 
  EU reply:  The EORI number is structured as follows: 
Field Content Field type Format Examples 
1 Identifier of the Member State 
assigning the number (ISO alpha 2 
country code) Alphabetic 2 a2 PL 
2 Unique identifier in a Member State Alphanumeric 15  an..15 1234567890ABCDE 
Examples of EORI numbers: 
PL1234567890ABCDE  for a Polish exporter (country code: PL) whose unique national number is 
1234567890ABCDE. 
LTRU1234567890ABC  for a Russian carrier (country code: RU) who has been assigned in 
Lithuania (country code: LT) the unique number: RU1234567890ABC. 
Consequently, the EORI number may have maximum 17 characters. 
The Economic Opertors established in the EU will need to have an EORI number. 
Article 1(12) of the EU Customs code implementing provisions (CCIP) stipulates that "Economic 
operator means: a person who, in the course of his business, is involved in activities covered by 
customs legislation".  
Pursuant to Article 4(1) of the EU Customs Code "person" means: 
 a natural person, 
 a legal person, 
 where the possibility is provided for under the rules in force, an association of persons 
recognised as having the capacity to perform legal acts but lacking the legal status of a legal 
person. 
The national law of each Member State defines who is considered a natural person, a legal person 
or an association of persons recognized as having  the capacity to perform legal acts but lacking 
the legal status of a legal person. 
The requirments concerning the registration proce ss are presented in the document "EORI national 
implmentation": 
http://ec.europa.eu/ecip/documents/who_i s/eori_national_implementation_en.pdf .  
Page 40 (Para 3.8) 
In accordance with the relevant provisions, declarants may be authorized, subject to conditions, to 
lodge: incomplete declaration, simplified declaration, or declaration under the local clearance 
procedure. From 1 January 2011, the use of a simplified procedure or the local clearance procedure is conditional on the lodging of electronic customs declarations and notifications. 
Questions: 
36．Please elaborate respectively the meanings of incomplete declaration, simplified declaration 
and declaration under the local clearance procedure. 
EU reply:  Incomplete declaration: the declaration omits certain of the particulars or some 
documents required; 
Simplified declaration: a commercial or administ rative document, accompanied by request for the 
goods to be placed under the customs procedure in question; WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 119 - 
 
  Local clearance procedure: the goods enter in the procedure in question by means of an entry in 
the records; in this case, the customs authorit ies may waive the requirement that the declarant 
presents the goods to customs. 
Page 40 (Para 3.10) 
Wider use of single authorisations for simplified procedures is expected to lead to implementation 
of centralized clearance as a standard procedure under the Union Customs Code, once adopted. 
Questions: 
37．Could the EU please describe the meaning and the process of centralized clearance? 
EU reply:  The customs authorities may, upon application, authorise a person to lodge at a 
customs office responsible for the place where he is established, a customs declaration for goods 
which are presented to customs at another customs office. 
The requirement for the authorisation referred to in the first subparagraph may be waived where 
the customs declaration is lodged and the goods presented to customs offices under the 
responsibility of one customs authority. 
The applicant for the authorisation shall be an  authorised economic operator for customs 
simplifications. 
The customs office at which the customs declar ation is lodged shall supervise the placement 
placing of the goods under the customs procedure concerned, carry out the customs controls for 
the verification of the customs declaration, reques t from the customs office at which the goods are 
presented to carry out the customs controls for th e verification of the customs declaration, and 
carry out the customs formalities for the recovery  of the amount of import or export duty 
corresponding to any customs debt. 
The customs office at which the customs declaration is lodged and the customs office at which the 
goods are presented shall exchange the informatio n necessary for the verification of the customs 
declaration and for the release of the goods. 
The customs office at which the goods are presente d shall, without prejudice to its own controls 
pertaining to goods brought into or taken out of the customs territory of the Union, carry out the 
customs controls and provide the customs office at which the customs declaration is lodged with the results of these controls. 
The customs office at which the customs declaration is lodged shall release the goods taking into 
account the results of its own controls for the verification of the customs declaration and the 
results of the controls carried out by the customs office at which the goods are presented for the verification of the customs declaration and the controls pertaining to goods brought into or taken 
out of the customs territory of the Union. 
Page 41 (Para 3.12) 
EU member States may grant authorized economic operator (AEO) status, based on common 
criteria, to interested economic operators involved in activities covered by customs legislation. 
...... Participation in the authorized economic operator programme is voluntary, but not open to persons established outside the EU. …… 
Questions: 
38. Can foreign persons established in the Member States of the EU apply for "authorized 
economic operator" (AEO)? If yes, what are th e requirements to be met in addition to the 
above-mentioned common criteria? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 120 - 
 
  EU reply:  According to the current legislation the status of AEO can be granted, subject to the 
criteria provided for in the legislation, to any economic operator established in the customs 
territory of the European Union, where to be established in the Union refers to: 
(a)  a natural person that is normally resident there, 
(b) a legal person or an association of persons which has in the Union: 
 its registered office, or 
 central headquarters, or 
 a permanent business establishment. 
A foreign person which is an economic operator and it is established in the Union according to the 
above mentioned rules can apply for the AEO status and as far as it is complaint with the common 
criteria can get the status. 
39. How many AEO enterprises held C, S and F certificate respectively as of 31 January 2013? 
EU reply:  AEOC 5714, AEOS 326, AEOF 5794 (The figures refers to the number of valid 
certificates as of 31/01/2013). 
Page 41 (Para 3.13) 
Advance rulings issued by the customs authoritie s of one member State are binding on national 
customs authorities of all other member States. 
Questions: 
40．Could the EU please explain how to deal with the inconformity of the binding information in 
advance rulings issued by two or more member States? 
EU reply:  Where different binding information exists between EU Member States, the Member 
States concerned should endeavour to agree on the uni form classification or origin of the goods. If 
these consultations cannot be concluded successfully, the item must be submitted to the Commission for discussion at a committee with experts from all EU Member States. The Commission, in consultation with this committee, shall adopt a measure to ensure uniform 
application of nomenclature or origin rules,as applicable, as soon as possible.  
Page 48 (Para 3.39) 
Furthermore, the EU uses seasonal duties and duties that are reduced if a product's declared price 
is above a certain level (entry price system). Entry prices apply on 28 tariff lines at the 8-digit 
level, including tomatoes, cucumbers, courgettes, citrus fruits, grapes, apricots, and plums (Table A3.1). The EU uses the "Meursing Table" to determine the customs tariffs for processed 
agricultural products based on what they are made of. These products include confectionary, 
cakes, and biscuits. Their tariffs are defined according to the level of milk fats and proteins, sugar, and starch they contain. The table results in thousands of possible combinations of tariffs. 
Questions: 
41．What is the proportion of tarrif lines subject to seasonal duties? 
EU reply:  The tariff lines subject to seasonal duties represent 1.8% of the total tariff lines for 
agricultural products. 
42．The "Meursing Table" used by the EU makes the system of import duties of confectionary, 
cakes, and biscuits extremely complicated. Does the EU plan to reform the tariff system of 
agricultural products to improve the transparancy? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 121 - 
 
  EU reply:  The tariff lines concerned are bound in the EU schedule resulting from the Uruguay 
Round Agreement. An explanation is given in its Annex 1. The EU has no plans to autonomously 
change its tariff structure for agricultural products. Any change will result from a successful conclusion to the DDA. In the meantime, the EU  will continue to respect its WTO commitments. 
Page 49 (Para 3.49) 
However, traders need to cope with different import VAT rules depending on the member State of 
importation; there is no uniformity between member States with regard to the liability and 
different payment regimes applied. 
Page 50 (Para 3.53) 
In December 2011, the Commission adopted a Communication on the future of VAT, which called 
for "a more efficient VAT system", through reviewin g the rate structure and more restriction on the 
application of reduced rates. If all reduced rates were removed, the standard rate could in certain 
Member States theoretically be reduced by up to 7.5%, without any impact on overall revenue. 
Questions: 
43．Is there any concrete implementation plan for the EU to reform its value-added tax regime? 
What would be the latest time when all tax conce ssions of all Member States would be cancelled? 
EU reply:  Under the current VAT system, a minimum standard rate of 15% has been set, with 
regular review of this rate. Member States are free to set their own rate at or above this minimum. 
There are no plans to change this rule. 
Member States have the option of applying one or  two reduced rates to a restricted list of goods 
and services. The reduced rate cannot be less than 5%, and the list of eligible goods and services 
must be strictly interpreted. In addition, there is a multitude of derogations on the application of zero rates, super-reduced rates (lower than 5%),  and reduced rates for products or services not 
usually eligible.  
The Communication sets out the guiding principles for review of the VAT rates structure. As a 
follow-up, the Commission launched a public consultation on the review of existing legislation on 
reduced VAT rates. A report summarizing the outcome of the consultation, along with the 
submissions, has already been published and is available on the Commission's website. This consultation is part of the overall assessment process launched in 2012 which is still on-going. 
However, there is no deadline planned to cancel all options and derogations of all Member States. 
Page 52 (Para 3.62) 
The EU maintains import restrictions on, inter alia , security, technical, sanitary, phytosanitary, and 
environmental grounds. Some such controls/restrictions stem from treaties and international 
conventions to which it, and/or its member States, are party, for instance the Convention on 
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.  
Questions: 
44．Is the EU required to fulfill the obligation to impose import restrictions under an international 
treaty as long as one Member State is a party to the international treaty or are such import 
restrictions only applicable to the Member State which is a party to the treaty? 
EU reply:  In principle, the international agreements to which the European Union is not a party 
are not legally binding upon the European Union. However, the European Union may decide to 
implement the obligations imposed by an international agreement even if it is not party to such 
agreement. For example, in some cases the European Union cannot become a party to a 
convention dealing with matters falling within the EU competence because the convention in question does not provide for the participation of regional economic international organization. In WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 122 - 
 
  such cases the European Union may authoirze, or even require, the Member States to participate 
in the convention and will implement internally any obligations arising from that covention. 
Page 53 (Para 3.65) 
The Commission launched an initiative to modernize trade defence instruments in October 2011. 
The exercise covers the anti-dumping and counter vailing instruments, with the aim of improving 
the efficiency of the instruments and effectiveness of actual anti-dumping and countervailing measures imposed. Safeguards are not part of the initiative because the criteria and procedure to 
impose safeguard measures are very different from those of the AD and AS instruments.  
Questions: 
45．How does the EU appraise the impact of trade defence instruments on its overall economic 
interests? How do the relevant impact tests reflect the interests of the EU importers and 
consumers affected by anti-dumping and countervailing measures? Would anti-dumping and countervailing measures be cancelled because such interests are significantly affected? 
EU reply:  Article 21 of the Basic anti-dumping Regulati on and Article 31 of the Basic anti-subsidy 
Regulation provide for an analysis of the so called Union interest, i.e. the interests not only of the 
domestic industry but also of users and consumers are taken into account. In this examination 
special consideration is given to the need to eliminate the trade distorting effects of injurious 
dumping and restore effective competition. In cases where the negative impact on users and consumers of measures would be disproportionate as compared to the benefits for the Union producers, measures may not be applied.  
Page 53 (Para 3.67) 
The legislative framework for anti-dumping (AD)  and countervailing (CV) measures in the EU 
remained largely unchanged duri ng the period under review.  
Questions: 
46．Although the legislative framew ork for anti-dumping and countervailing measures in the EU 
remained largely unchanged during the period und er review, the frequency of remedy measures 
adopted by the EU on Chinese products has increased considerably, and in particular, investigation 
has been initiated by the Commission where there has been no application from industry. Is this an indication that the policy of the EU on trade remedies is undergoing changes? 
EU reply: China is a major trading partner of the EU and both the volume and value of trade are 
significant. This fact together with certain trade distortions usually resulting from State 
interference in the Chinese economy may lead to  a number of trade defence investigations of 
i m p o r t s  f r o m  P R C .  H o w e v e r ,  i t  h a s  t o  b e  n o t e d  t h a t  o n l y  a  v e r y  s m a l l  f r a c t i o n  ( a b o u t  1 % )  o f  
Chinese imports are subject to measures. Other WTO Members have initiated more investigations against imports from China (e.g. Canada, USA) than the EU. 
Antidumping and CVD cases are a response to di stortions of trade operated by the exporting 
countries and/or the exporters. The possibility to initiate trade defense investigations, ex-officio 
(not based on a complaint), in exceptional circumstances, is provided for in the WTO agreement and also in the EU's Basic Anti-dumping and Anti-S ubsidy Regulations. There have been hardly any 
investigations initiated ex-officio. Such investigations could be initiated also in cases of injury of 
the Union industry, where threats of retaliation mi ght have dissuaded the industry from submitting 
a complaint. 
Page 54 (Para 3.69) 
According to the European Commissioner for Trade, the Commission is to consider "ways to make 
sure that the levels of the duties are still appropriate after such a long time". WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 123 - 
 
  Questions: 
47．Has the EU reviewed and amended the existing sunset review system? If not, does the EU 
have any intention to do so? 
48．If there is such a plan, could the EU please de scribe the content and the expected time-table 
of the plan? 
EU reply to questions 47 and 48:  The exisiting EU sunset review system is based on the WTO 
agreement and the EU does not intend to go be yond WTO standards in such reviews. However, 
since sunset reviews are rather complex investigations which involve likelihood analyses and projections in the future, the EU proposes to issue guidelines for the benefit of all parties involved 
in sunset reviews.  
Page 54 (Para 3.74) 
At the end 2012, the EU had 112 AD measures in force, affecting 20 trading partners (Table A3.3). 
The majority of AD measures in force in recent years were on imports from Asia, in particular 
China. Over the past five years, Asia accounted for 74% of the AD measures imposed, with other European countries outside the EU accounting for 17% (Chart 3.1 and Table A3.4) 
Questions: 
49．The EU carried out anti-dumping investigation on the ceramic tiles from China in June 2010, 
which involved a trade volume of USD 340 million and more than 1000 enterprises. In September 
2011, the EU issued the final ruling on the case, by which 120 Chinese enterprises were levied 
with separate rates or weighted average rate. Chinese enterprises asserted that the industrial scale of the applicant enterprises did not reach 25% of the overall ceramic tile industry in the EU 
and therefore the conditions to launch the case were not met. Could the EU please disclose the 
names and the market shares of the applicant enterprises? 
EU reply:  In special circumstances the identity of complainants may be kept confidential. WTO 
jurisprudence has confirmed that e.g. threats of re taliation fall under the category of such special 
circumstances. Regarding the ceramic tiles case, the standing analysis has shown that the 
applicant represented a major proportion of the Union producers and thus the investigation was initiated. The non-confidential standing file was available for inspection by interested parties 
during the investigation.  
Page 58 (Para 3.92) 
In the context of the last TPR of the EU, some WTO Members were concerned that the EU's 
technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures would create unnecessary obstacles 
to trade such as the compliance overburdens on foreign small-and-medium-sized enterprises. In 
response, the EU indicated that its regulations, most of which are subject to an impact assessment, are developed according to a transparent process allowing ample opportunity for 
interested parties from other WTO Members to participate and make their views known, and are 
largely based on relevant international standa rds. Moreover, regulatory impact assessments 
contain a specific "SME test" that analyses in detail the effects of the legislative proposals on 
SMEs. The Commission pointed out that several measures were taken to mitigate the compliance 
burdens on SMEs (e.g. reduced registration or conformity assessment fees, simplified administrative requirements, etc.). The EU also pr ovides technical assistance to assist developing 
countries meet regulatory requirements on bilateral and multilateral bases. …… 
Questions: 
50．In what proporation are technical regulations and comformity assessment procedures 
implemented by the EU subject to impact assessmen t? Is there any standard specifying the types 
of the technical regulations and comformity asse ssment procedures which are subject to impact 
assessment? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 124 - 
 
  51．What technical regulations of the EU are not su bject to an impact assessment? Could the EU 
please describe major issues and standards involved in the regulatory impact assessments that 
have been conducted? 
EU reply to questions 50 and 51 : According to the 2009 Impact Assessment Guidelines4, 
Impact Assessments are necessary for the most important Commission initiatives and those which 
will have the most far-reaching impact. This is the case for all legislative proposals in the 
Commission's Work Programme and for all other legislative proposals which have clearly 
identifiable economic, social and environmental impacts. Non-legislative initiatives defining future policies are also subject to an impact assessm ent. The same applies to implementing and 
delegated acts likely to have a significant impact
5.  
Commission services are expected to establish at an early stage of the planning process, whether 
the initiative under consideration requires an Impact Assessment or not. Roadmaps informing the public on the nature of the possible initiative, the planned consultation process and the reasons 
why an impact assessment is planned or not are published as early as possible on: 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/planned_ia_en.htm .  
Automatic alerts on the publication of new roadmaps are available for registered stakeholders. An 
RSS feed is also available. Thanks to the information provided in the roadmaps, (EU and non-EU) 
stakeholders and citizens can challenge any initial finding that an initiative is unlikely to lead to significant impacts and that thus carrying out an IA would not be proportionate.  
All impact assessments are made public after the adoption of the relevant initiatives: 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/ia_carried_out/cia_2013_en.htm .  
Information on overall trends regarding impact assessments can be found in the yearly report of 
the independent Impact Assessment Board: 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/iab/iab_en.htm .  
52．What is the legal basis for the EU to conduct SME test? And what are the standards, 
procedures and impact of the test? Could the EU please give a brief introduction on the 
implementation of the SME test since 2011 and th e performance of Chinese enterprises in the SME 
test? 
EU reply:  In line with its "Think Small First" principle6, the Commission strives to take into 
account SMEs' interests at a very early stage of policy making so as to make legislation more SME 
friendly.  
For all initiatives for which an impact assessment is required (see answer to Q.50), Commission 
services are required to take SMEs into consideration in each step of the process ('SME test'). This 
requirement is set out in the 2009 Impact Assessment Guidelines which more generally establish the standards and procedures for an impact assessment: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htm .  
Annex 8.4 of the Impact Assessment Guideline prov ides specific guidance on the 'SME test'. 
Further operational guidance on the specific case of micro-enterprises was provided in 2011: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/key_docs/docs/meg_guidelines.pdf .  
The quality of impact assessments (including with regard to their consideration of SMEs) is subject 
to the independent scrutiny of the Impact Assessment Board which regularly reports on its findings: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/iab/iab_en.htm .  
                                               
4 http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htm . 
5 The Commission is entrusted with and implements its executive powers in relation to a wide range of 
day-to-day decisions – which products  to authorize as safe or how to regulate agricultural markets, for 
instance. These decisions can be either of a legislative nature (delegated acts) or straightforward implementing 
measures (implementing acts). These acts are often of a more technical nature than general legislative 
proposals but should still be accompanied by an Impact Assessment where there will be significant impacts.   
6 See COM(2008) 394 final "Think Small First" – A "Small Business Act" for Europe, COM(2011) 78 final 
"Review of the "Small Business Act" for Europe. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 125 - 
 
  All impact assessment reports (including those from 2011 onwards) are public along with their 
related Impact Assessment Board opinions: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/ia_carried_out/cia_2013_en.htm .  
53．Section 4 in the procedure of "SME test" on the relevant EU website is "to consult with 
stakeholders, collect professional knowledge and assess results". How are "stakeholders" defined? 
Are foreign SMEs regarded stakeholders? Can they participate in the test? If yes, how can such 
foreign SMEs obtain the information regarding "SME test"? Are there specific application 
procedures for them to participate? 
EU reply:  The Commission consults widely, openly and transparently following international best 
practice minimum standards. For a statement of the Commission consultation policies see: 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/better_regulation/consultation_en.htm .  
Foreign citizens and stakeholders can participate in open public consultations and may also be 
approached through targeted consultations whenever considered relevant. All open public 
consultations can be accessed through the "Your Voice in Europe" website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/index_en.htm .  
In the last two years, the Commission has put in place measures aimed at facilitating SMEs 
participation in public consultations: Extending the minimum period for public consultation from 
eight to twelve weeks, organising dedicated co nferences in Member States for SMEs and micro 
companies to directly voice their problems and concerns, running a targeted consultation on the top ten most burdensome piece of EU legislation for SMEs and responding to its results. Non-EU 
SMEs participated to the exercise as detailed in annex II of the summary of the results: 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/better_regulation /documents/1_EN_autre_document_travail_serv
ice_part1_v3.pdf .  
F o r  m o r e  d e t a i l s  o n  a l l  o f  t h e s e  i s s u e s  s e e :  
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/better_regulation/index_en.htm .  
54．Could the EU please provide information on its provision of assistance to developing countries 
since 2011?  
EU reply:  The EU and its Member States provides assistance to developing countries concerning 
trade policies and practices through a wide range of EU and national instruments, at country, 
regional and, in the case of Africa, continental level. These actions are outlined in the EU annual 
Aid for Trade report, of which the latest version can be found at the following internet address: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-
policies/financing_for_development/documents/swp-199-annexa4-aid-for-trade-report.pdf .  
The 2013 Aid for Trade Monitoring Report will be published in July 2013.  
M o r e  i n  d e t a i l ,  e x a m p l e s  o f  E U  s u p p o r t  t o  A i d  f o r  T r a d e  c a n  b e  f o u n d  a t :  
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/docu ments/2012/ec_aid-for-trade_en.pdf .  
Finally, all EU development programs and projects are available from the OECD Creditor Reporting 
System: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?QueryId=33364 .  
55．China is very concerned with the implementa tion of REACH by the EU and the excessive 
burden it has imposed on SMEs including those from China. Has REACH (EC) No.1907/2006 as a 
technical regulation been subject to any regu latory impact assessment? Has there been any 
analysis on its impact on overseas SMEs? Has there been any adjustment made accordingly in 
view of the negative impacts on SMEs especially those from abroad? 
EU reply:  The role of the impact assessment of any Commission initiative is to assess the 
potential economic, social and environmental consequences that they may have. An impact 
assessment was of course carried out before the proposal for the REACH Regulation was made. 
The core interest in this impact assessment was on the effects of REACH registration – both with regard to the costs to the industry and also possi ble benefits to the society in terms of improved 
health and environment. With regard to the SMEs, the Commission did not differentiate between WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 126 - 
 
  foreign and EU based SMEs in the calculation of cost of registration. Many adjustments made with 
regard to the impact on SMEs have been made in the Commission proposal and during the legislative process leading to the adoption of REACH in the Council and the European Parliament, for example in simplifying the registration obligations for low tonnage substances, exemption of 
polymers from registration, reducing registration  requirements for transported intermediates under 
certain conditions, establishing ECHA fee reductions and so on – these measures are available to all SMEs – both domestic and foreign based. The EU would like to stress that registration and other 
obligations are directly applicable only to EU-based operators. Foreign companies can (as an 
option) nominate their Only Representative to facilitate dealing with the obligations imposed on their partner importers in the EU and to improve handling of confidential business information. The EU also reminds in this context, that foreign based manufacturers can benefit from a competitive 
advantage of not being required to register substances used in the 'upstream' processes. 
56．Although the EU said that it had adopted some measures in relation to the excessive burdens 
suffered by foreign SMEs due to its implementation  of technical regulations including REACH, many 
WTO Members, including China, continued to express concerns on REACH during January 2011 to Feburary 2013 as reflected in Table 3.7 on Page 59 of the Secretarial Report, which indicates that 
WTO Members are not satisfied with the progress and the measures adopted by the EU to address 
their concerns on REACH. For example, REACH im poses requirements only on enterprises outside 
the EU to authorize their "sole representative" in the EU to fulfill their obligations under REACH. This seems to be a discrimination against foreign enterprises and products. What other efforts will 
the EU make to address the concerns of the Members on REACH? 
EU reply:  While in the beginning of the introduction of the REACH legislation, the new obligations 
triggered many questions from other WTO members, it appears that with the continued application 
of the legislation these have been solved, ensu ring a smooth application and functioning of the 
REACH legislation, and especially of the registration procedure.  
Under REACH each individual importer  of a substance as such, in a mixture or, under certain 
conditions, in an article needs to register that substance. However, REACH foresees the possibility 
for a non-EU manufacturer/formulator/article producer to appoint an Only Representative (OR) 
to carry out the required registration of the su bstance imported into the EU. The primary aim of 
this mechanism is to ensure protection of a sensitive information hold by the third-country 
operators vis-à-vis importers. Furthermore, the possibility of having an OR aims to ensure that a 
third-country manufacturer using a large number of EU importers to place his substance on the EU market could have a single registration per substance. Thus appointing an OR may constitute an 
option to be used by foreign based manufacturers to optimize the costs of their operations inside 
the EU. The attractiveness of this mechanism increases with the possibility for an OR to apply for authorisation. 
57．Are there any new measures and information that the EU could share in respect of China's 
specific trade concerns on other technical measures adopted by the EU as indicated in Table 3.7 on 
Page 59 of the Secretarial Report? 
EU reply:  Detailed replies to questions of China concerning the EU measures enumerated in Table 
3.7 have been provided in the meetings of the TBT Commitee and in the written EU replies to the 
comments of China on these measures. Any related draft EU measure that would contain technical 
regulations or conformity assessment procedures will be notified under the TBT Agreement. The 
EU is prepared to provide additional information on bilateral basis to China and reply to its specific questions in relation to these measures.  
58．China would also like to take this opportunity to express its concern on the transparency of 
certain technical regulations of the EU. For example, it is obvious that necessary appendices on 
product test conditions and methods are missing in such notifications submitted by the EU as 
G/TBT/N/EU/34, G/TBT/N/EU/45, G/TBT/N/EU/ 46, G/TBT/N/EU/47 and G/TBT/N/EU/48. As a 
result producers cannot assess whether the performance of their products satisfies the requirements contained in the EU's notified regulati ons. Does the EU have any plan to notify such 
necessary appendices? 
EU reply:  Transitional methods establishing the measurement methods of relevant parameters 
defined in the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling Regulations that were recently notified under the WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 127 - 
 
  TBT Agreement (G/TBT/N/EU/34, G/TBT/N/EU /45, G/TBT/N/EU/46, G/TBT/N/EU/47 and 
G/TBT/N/EU/48) are currently being developed by  the European Commission. These transitional 
methods may be used until harmonised standards are developed. The draft transitional methods are not part of the legislative text of the notified  regulations, their use is voluntary and therefore 
they do not need to be notified under the TBT Agreement in their draft stage. 
According to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European  Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 
2009 establishing a framework for the setting of  ecodesign requirements for energy-related 
products (Ecodesign Directive) the use of harmonised standards provides presumption of 
conformity for the products. However, other re liable, accurate and reproducible measurement 
procedures that take into account the generally recognised state of the art measurement methods 
can be applied. The use of transtitional meth ods and future harmonized standards therefore 
remains voluntary and manufacturers can use other means to proof conformity with the 
requirements of the regulations in question. 
Page 71 (Para 3.150) 
Since 2012, the simplified "escape clause" for short-term export insurance under the Temporary 
Union framework for State-aid measures to support access to finance in the financial and economic crisis, has been terminated.  
Questions: 
59．Has the simplified escape clause for short-term export insurance in the financial and economic 
crisis favorably promoted export? For the indemnification granted to exports under the 
implementation of the simplified escape clause which would not have been granted in normal 
circumstances, isn't it a kind of subsidy? 
EU reply:  Based on the feedback from Member States  and industry the EU considers that the 
simplification provided by the Temporary Framework has contributed to address the difficulties of 
access to finance in the financial and economic crisis.  
It should be noted that the Temporary Framework only provided a procedural simplification by 
alleviating the burden of proof for the use of th e escape clause, without affecting the substantive 
conditions. Since the escape clause only concerns risks that are temporarily non-marketable, it could not distort competition. 
Page 72 (Para 3.152) 
The EU provides assistance to promote its agricultural products and food outside the EU. Export 
promotion schemes are in place at the national or sub-national levels. In November 2011, the 
European Commission adopted a Communication whic h aims at creating conditions for European 
SMEs to seize new business opportunities outside the EU. The fields of action defined include the 
reinforcement of existing support services, the crea tion of a single virtual gateway to disseminate 
information to SMEs, and promoting networks. 
Questions: 
60．The ECA institution in the EU provides insurance for long and medium term buyer credit. Is it 
the case that the insurance coverage does not include short-term trade financing of agricultural 
products and food? What measures have been adopted at the EU level to promote the import and 
export trade of agricultural products and the food industry ？ 
EU reply:  European Export Credit Agencies rather focu s their activities on insurance coverage for 
medium and long term exports of capital goods. 
Under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), a regime  in favour of agricultural products has been 
in place without major changes since 2000, offering  EU co-financing for promotional campaigns on 
the EU and other markets to producer organisations, such as those covering specific agricultural 
products. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 128 - 
 
  61．How does the Commission determine "SMEs"? Will the Commission refer to relevant standards 
of the country where the enterprise is located? What are the new measures adopted by the EU in 
terms of financial supports and financial servic es to encourage SMEs overseas development? 
EU reply:  SME" stands for small and medium-sized enterprises. The exact definition for small and 
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the EU is defined in the Commission Recommendation of 
6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:124:0036:0041:EN:PDF . 
The main factors determining whether a company is an SME are: 
1. number of employees  and  
2. either turnover  or balance sheet total .  
Company category  Employees 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 firm s only. A firm which is part of larger grouping 
may need to include employee/turnover/balance sheet data from that grouping too. 
The Commission carries out regular monitoring of the implementation of the SME definition. 
Building on the results of previous evaluati ons performed in 2006 and 2009, a new independent 
study was carried out in 2012, which focused on how the SME Definition works in practice in the 
implementation phase. The study concluded that th ere is no need for a major revision of the SME 
Definition at the present time. An eventual update of the EU's SME definition will be necessary to 
adjust for inflation, labour productivity and change s in the ratio of turnover to balance sheet totals, 
but these changes are not urgent and may be incorporated into a future revision. 
As regards the question on new measures adopte d by the EU in terms of financial supports and 
financial services to encourage SMEs overseas development, there are no EU-wide EU-financing 
instruments geared specifically to the support of  individual SMEs´ exporting. As regards main 
financial support instruments for SMEs in general these will be largely financed out of the new Programme for the Competitiveness of enterp rises and SMEs (COSME) and the Framework 
Progamme for Research and Innovation (Horizon 2020). Both will take into effect with the new 
Multi-year financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020, i.3 from 2014 onwards.  
A concise overview of the existing finance instruments for SMEs can be found at 
http://access2eufinance.ec.europa.eu.  
Page 73 (Paras 3.162 and 3.163) 
Gradual market opening and liberalization are under way in rail transport and postal services. ……  
The 3rd Directive on postal services adopted on 20 February 2008 provides for the termination of 
all remaining postal monopolies by the end of 2012. The Commission indicated in the context of 
this report that it was too early to assess the full implementation of the Directive. 
Questions: 
62．Could the EU please describe the updates of th e opening of the postal and express courier 
services market, including the commercial presen ce in the EU of postal and express courier 
enterprises established outside the EU, and the detailed qualification requirements and 
examination procedures for overseas service providers to enter the market? 
EU reply:  As of 1 January 2013 postal markets in European Union are fully liberalized. From this 
date and according to Article 7(1) of the Postal Services Directive (Directive 97/67/EC as amended WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 129 - 
 
  by Directive 2002/39/EC and by Directive 2008/6/EC ) Member States shall not grant or maintain 
in force any exclusive or special right for the establishment and provision of postal services. 
In this context we would also like to clarify that the statutory monopoly even before the full 
market opening never covered express services, which were traditionally open to competition. 
The European Commission (EC) does not manage th e register of postal operators that are either 
established within or outside the European Union and are commercially present in the European Union. These registers, where they exist, ar e run and managed by the competent national 
regulatory authorities whose list is available on the following website of the European Regulators 
Group for postal services: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/ergp/links/index_en.htm .  
As far as detailed requirements and examination procedures that postal providers may be subject 
to, it should be emphasized that the Member States of the EU do not differentiate between postal 
providers established within or outside the EU eith er in terms of requirements or the procedures 
applied.  
The EC does not specifically collect the list of the possible licensing requirements and procedures 
that may be envisaged, but would like to refer to Articles 2(19) and 9 of the Postal Services 
Directive, which outline the licensing conditions that may be required and applied by the Member States. The implementation of these provisions will be presented in the 5th Application Report that 
the European Commission will present at the beginning of 2014 and will be available on the 
following website once adopted: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/post/reports/index_en.htm .  
Page 73 (Para 3.168) 
Rules for the compatibility assessment of state aid are set out in specific Commission guidelines. 
They are detailed in a number of "horizontal" or "sectoral" guidelines: horizontal guidelines for 
regional aid, research, development, innovation, ri sk capital, environmental aid, training aid, and 
aid for disadvantaged or disabled workers; sector-specific guidelines for the financial sector, 
agriculture, audio-visual production, broadband (new guidelines adopted in 2012), broadcasting, 
coal industry, electricity, fisheries, postal services, shipbuilding (new guidelines adopted in 2011), steel, synthetic fibres, motor vehicles industry, and transport. 
Questions: 
63．Could the EU please provide the list of the guidelines on rules for the compatibility assessment 
of state aid in the postal services sector? Is there any detailed rule on state aid for universal postal 
services in such guidelines? If yes, please give a brief description. 
EU reply:  The compatibility of State aid in the postal services sector is not based on a "sectoral" 
State aid guideline for postal services. Depending on the objective of the aid measure, the 
compatibility is based on the relevant horizontal State aid guidelines, if any, or even directly on 
the basis of the Treaty itself in the absence of a relevant guideline.  
Most of aid measures granted to postal operators consist in compensations for the delivery of 
services of general economic interest (SGEI) entrusted to these postal operators. The legal basis 
for the compatibility of SGEI compensations will de pend on the SGEI which is entrusted to postal 
operators and compensated by Member States. 
For all SGEIs but the universal postal service, this legal basis is either: 
 the SGEI Decision (Commission Decision of 20 December 2011 on the application of Article 
106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to State aid in the form of 
public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest) entered into force on 31 January 2012 which apply to SGEI compensations below € 15 million/year WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 130 - 
 
   the SGEI Framework (Community Framework for State aid in the form of public service 
compensation) entered into force on 31 January 2012 which apply to SGEI compensations 
above €15 million/year.  
As regards State aid for the universal postal service, the SGEI Framework or the SGEI Decision 
also apply depending on the aid amount but in combination with the 3rd Postal directive (Directive 
2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 amending Directive 
97/67/EC with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services). While the SGEI Framework or the SGEI Decision do not contain any specific rule for universal postal services, the 3rd Postal Directive only allows the compensation of the net cost of 
the universal postal service if it can be demonstrated that this universal postal service represents 
an unfair financial burden for the universal service provider.  
The EU applies these rules in a strict way. See for example the decisions to recover state aid by 
the European Commission regarding Deutsche post and Belgian post. 
 Deutsche Post (DP): On 25.01.2012, the Commissio n approved a compensation of €5.6 billion 
granted by Germany to DP over 1990-1995 to cover the cost of the universal postal service. 
Indeed, these public transfers did not provide an undue advantage to DP because they just 
covered the costs of the SGEIs and did not lead to overcompensation. However, the 
Commission also ordered Germany to recover from DP incompatible aid estimated to be in a 
range between €500 million and €1 billion out of €37 billion pension subsidies it had received since 1995, as the combination of high regulated prices and a pension relief placed DP in a 
better position than its competitors. 
 Belgian Post (bpost): On 25.01.2012, the Commiss ion approved a pension relief of € 3.8 billion 
pension liabilities granted to bpost by the Belgian state in 1997 which only relieved it from 
excessive pension costs related to retired civil servants and therefore did not confer bpost any undue advantage. At the same time, the Commission ordered Belgium to recover €417 million 
from bpost, representing overcompensation of its costs of delivering various SGEIs (mainly 
press distribution) for which it had received a total compensation of € 5.2 billion over 
1992-2010 which exceeded the net cost of the SGEIs. On 30.04.2013, the Commission approved € 900 million compensation to bpost for delivering a series of SGEIs (mainly a press 
distribution SGEI) between 2013 and 2015 since the aid did not exceed the net cost for 
providing the SGEIs. However, the decision is  also based on the commitment by Belgium to 
recover, €123 million, significant overcompen sation which bpost received over 2011-2012. 
Furthermore, Belgium committed to organise a competitive, transparent and 
non-discriminatory tender for the delivery of the Press distribution SGEI.  
Page 74 (Para 3.171) 
On 8 May 2012 the Commission launched a Communica tion on State Aid Modernisation (SAM), by 
introducing a reform package, the main reforms of  which should be in place by the end of 2013. 
The objective of the SAM is to make state aid more supportive for sustainable growth without distorting competition.  
Questions:  
64．Could the EU please describe the main contents  of the reforms to be implemented under SAM 
by the end of 2013? 
EU reply:  The State aid Modernisation initiative aims at creating a stronger and well-enforced 
regime, enhancing the growth potential of the inte rnal market and contributing to better quality 
public finances. State Aid Modernisation should facilitate focusing scarce public resources on 'good 
aid', which shall tackle proven market failures, have a real incentive effect, maintain firms' 
incentives to compete and innovate and does not lead to undue distortion of competition. A clear and predictable framework shall ensure a transpar ent level playing field in the internal market. 
Most of the revised instruments will be in place by end 2013 / beginning 2014. 
The Commission proposals include in particular: WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 131 - 
 
   The identification of common principles for assessing the compatibility of aid with the internal 
market, across various guidelines with a view to revising, streamlining and possibly 
consolidating them in a consistent way (e.g. Guidelines on Regional Aid, Research & 
Development & Innovation, Energy & Environmental aid, Risk finance, Broadband); 
 The revision of the General Block Exemption Regulation, the Enabling Regulation, and the de 
minimis Regulation (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/legislation.html); 
 A communication which will clarify and better explain the notion of State aid; 
 A revision of the Procedural Regulation with re gard to complaint-handling, the introduction of 
market information tools and sector inquiries in State aid; 
65．As indicated in the report, the objective of the SAM is to make state aid more supportive for 
sustainable growth without distorting competition. Does the "competition" here mean the 
competition among enterprises within the EU or the competition between the EU enterprises and enterprises in other countries and regions? If the state-aid reforms have impact on the competition 
between the EU enterprises and the enterprises of other WTO members, are the reforms 
consistent with relevant rules of the WTO on subsidies ？ 
EU reply:  While the EU aims at ensuring a level-playing field among all firms in the EU; the EU 
state aid control rules are and will continue to be consistent with the WTO rules on subsidies, as is 
required from all members of the WTO. 
66．What is the relationship between the state aid programs of the EU and the subsidies specified 
in the subsidy notifications submitted by the EU to the WTO ？ 
EU reply:  In the EU's 2013 new and full subsidy notification under Article 25 SCM Agreement (all 
specific subsidy programmes adopted and ad hoc subsidies granted by the Member State during 
the calendar years 2011 and 2012), all specific subsidies are notified, i.e. subsidies granted to certain enterprises in the meaning of Article 2 SCM Agreement. If eligibility for such programs is 
based on objective criteria such as the size of  the enterprise or number of employees, the scheme 
is considered to be non-specific and should therefore not be notified. The notification only concerns subsidies for the production of goods and not the service sector. The EU's 2013 new and full 
notification will consist of the contributions by 27 EU Member States and the Commission's 
contribution regarding subsidies funded from the EU budget.   
Page 75 (Para 3.180) 
In addition, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was set up in 2007 to help workers 
made redundant as a result of globalisation to return to employment. According to the 
Commission, for the period May 2009 to December 2011, the scope of the Fund was broadened to include workers made redundant as a result of the global financial and economic crisis. By the end 
of 2012, the Fund had received applications totalling almost €450 million and targeting almost 
100,000 redundant workers. Twenty member Stat es had implemented over 100 EGF cases; these 
were in support of workers made redundant in a broad range of sectors, from basic metals to 
manufacturing (automotive, textiles and numerous others), construction and services.  
Questions: 
67．Could the EU please provide more information of the fund, including its legal basis, the way it 
is used and the effects? 
EU reply:  All the information available on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) can 
be downloaded from the EGF website ( http://www.ec.europa.eu/egf ).  
The legal basis of the Fund is the Regulation (E C) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 20 December 2006. The regulati on and the corrigenda and amendment which are 
applicable to the Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 can be found here (http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=326&langId=en ) in the section 'related links'. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 132 - 
 
  Information on how the Fund was used and what are its effects can be tracked in various 
documents such as the Results of the Mid-Term Evaluation of the EGF report, the Statistical Portrait of the EGF 2007-2011 and the annual reports on the activities of the EGF. The available 
annual reports cover the activities of the Fund for the period 2007-2011. The report covering the 
activities in 2012 will be made available in the fourth quarter of 2013. All these documents can be 
downloaded from the same website as the legal basis either from the related documents section or the related links. 
68．Will this fund be maintained  for a long time in future ？ 
EU reply:  The current European Globalisation Adjustment Fund will come to an end on 30 
December 2013. The European Commission made a proposal for a regulation on the EGF for the 
period 2014 – 2020. The proposal is currently be ing discussed in the European Parliament and the 
Council. 
Page 81 (Para 3.206) 
Contracting authorities may lay down specific environmental conditions relating to the performance 
of the contract and may ask for evidence  of environmental management measures. 
Questions: 
69. What environmental requirements have been attached to the procurement contracts in 
government procurement practice? Could the EU please give some relevant examples? 
EU reply: Environmental considerations can be taken into account into public procurement 
procedures by contracting authorities at specific stages. Examples that could be relevant in a 
procurement procedure can be found at the following: 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocur ement/other_aspects/index_en.htm#mainconten
tSec2 .  
Page 82 (Para 3.213) 
In the same period, open competition, i.e. publication of a notice inviting all interested bidders to 
submit their tenders, accounted for approximately 73% of all contract award notices (accounting 
for 52% of the total value of contracts awarde d and published), while restricted procedures 
accounted for 9% of contract award notices and 23% of the total value. The main procurement 
procedures available under the Directives are open procedure, restricted procedure, competitive dialogue procedure, and negotiated procedure with prior publication of a contract notice 
Questions: 
70．Does the open competition mentioned here only refer to open bidding? If not, please inform 
other procurement methods covered. 
EU reply: In this context, the reference to open comp etition concerns open procedures (bidding).  
Page 85 (Para 3.222) 
There are currently no explicit provisions in the EU Directives generally excluding the participation 
of suppliers from third countries in the EU pr ocurement market. …… There are only two specific 
cases where the EU public procurement market can be closed to foreign bidders from third countries: the Utilities Directive contains provisions which allow contracting authorities to reject 
foreign bidders while the Defence Directive leaves it up to member States to decide whether or not 
to accept foreign bids. The Commission indicated that 85% of procurement in the EU is opened to international competition via the GPA and FTAs concluded by the EU. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 133 - 
 
  Questions: 
71．Are the purchasers required to obtain governmental approval if they will exclude the 
participation of a supplier from a third country? Can the suppliers raise complaints against this ？ 
EU reply:  Tenders covering products originating in third countries with which the EU has not 
concluded, whether multilaterally or bilaterally, an agreement ensuring comparable and effective 
access for EU undertakings to the markets of those third countries, may be rejected by contracting 
entities under the conditions specified in Articl e 58 of Directive 2004/17/EC. This provision does 
not require any governmental approval in order to be applied by contracting entities. 
In accordance with Directive 92/13/EEC, Member States have set up remedies systems the aim of 
which is to ensure that, as regards contracts falling within the scope of Directive 2004/17/EC, 
decisions taken by contracting entities may be reviewed effectively. 
Page 85 (Para 3.223) 
In March 2012, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Regulation on the access of third-country 
goods and services to the European Union's internal market in public procurement. In the proposed Regulation, access of third-country good s and services to the EU's public procurement 
market may be made conditional upon the openness of their procurement market. According to 
the Commission, this does not concern goods and services originating in a country or countries 
with which the EU has concluded an international agreement in the field of public procurement, 
including market access commitments (like GPA and FTAs) and in respect of which the relevant 
agreement applies. There is a threshold of €5 million in the proposed Regulation: for above-
threshold contracts, contracting authorities may ex clude, subject to approval by the Commission, 
tenders comprising a significant part (e.g. more than 50%) of third-country content; below the 
threshold, there is a default rule of openness according to the Commission. 
Page 14 (Para 3.24) of the Report by the European Union 
Furthermore, in March 2012 the European Commission proposed a new regulation (i.e. the 
International Procurement Initiative) in the area of the European Union's international 
procurement policy.  
Questions: 
72．Could the EU please provide information on the latest development of this new regulation? 
73．Is "comprising more than 50% of a third-country content" the only standard ？ 
74．Is there any formula in the EU to calculate that the tenders comprise more than 50% of 
third-country content? What are the specific factors considered? What are the exact procedures to 
appraise or determine the tenders comprising more than 50% of third-country content or meeting 
other relevant standards? Will this be done by any third party or by the purchaser itself? Is there 
any relevant legislation? 
75．Is there any corresponding remedy mechanism if the supplier has objections against the 
determination that it or another supplier comprises more than 50% of third-country content in the 
bidding? 
EU reply to Questions 72 to 75:  China is referring to a Commission proposal which may be 
modified during the EU's legislative process. The proposal is currently on the table of the EU co-
legislators– - the European Parliament and the Council. In the Council, the Member States have worked through a first reading of the proposal at technical level. The European Parliament is likely to express its views in a first reading vote on the proposal in autumn WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 134 - 
 
  Page 89 (Para 3.238) 
Amid the increasing number of M&A activities in the EU involving firms from emerging economies, 
the Commission stressed the current merger control regime's equal treatment of foreign firms in relation to their investment in the EU and the importance of staying away from using merger 
control as a protectionist measure against foreign investment in the EU. Notably, a number of 
mergers involving firms owned by the Chinese St ate were approved by the Commission, which 
stated that the same criteria that it adopts to assess mergers involving member-State-controlled 
firms were applied, irrespective of the nationality of the companies. 
Questions: 
76．Could the EU please inform whether in its competition enforcement procedures all China's 
state-owned enterprises or all state-owned enterprises in a specific industry sector in China would 
not be treated as a whole or as one economic unit?  
EU reply:  It is not possible to give a generalised answer to this question, as any conclusion would 
depend on the facts of the case at hand. 
77．Could the EU please confirm that Chinese enterprises including state-owned ones would 
continue to be respected equally as independent market competitors as said in the Secretariat 
Report?  
EU reply:  EU competition enforcement is based on a principle of non-discrimination regardless of 
ownership or nationality. The European Commission's competition assessment is made on the 
basis of economic competition criteria only. The European Commission will apply the same legal 
analysis to cases involving Chinese enterprises, including state-owned Chinese companies. 
Page 96 (Para 3.261) 
The European patent with unitary effect will provide uniform protection and will be automatically 
valid in the participating member States. Validation in individual member States (and thus costly translation requirements) will no longer be necessary. …… In order to obtain a European patent with unitary effect, the right holder will have to request, no later than one month after the grant of 
the European patent by the EPO, the "unitary effect " at the EPO. Otherwise, the patent will remain 
a "classical" European patent (which needs to be  validated in individual member States). ……  
Questions: 
78．How will the European uniform patent system affect the quantity of the patent applications 
submitted to EPO and to any single Member State? Has there been any appraisal or expectation on 
this before? Will EPO and the patent offices in the Member States accordingly adjust the numbers 
of examiners or the setup of the institutions? 
EU reply: No data available  
79．Is there any remedy procedure if the patent owner fails to submit the application for "unitary 
effect" within one month? One month is a bit shorter for applicants, especially those outside 
Europe. 
EU reply:  These issues are still to be decided. They will be decided by the Member States in the 
select committee. 
Page 96 (Para 3.262) 
The translation arrangements for European patents with unitary effect are based on the EPO's 
linguistic regime, under which a patent is granted in English, French or German; the claims are 
translated into the other two languages. Applicants can, however, file patent applications in any official EU language. The translation arrangemen ts will also provide for the reimbursement of 
translation costs. …… WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 135 - 
 
  Questions: 
80．Could the EU please explain in detail the conditions to be met to obtain the reimbursement of 
translation costs? What are the exact procedures to obtain the reimbursement? 
EU reply:  On the basis of Art. 5 Regulation 1260/2012 it is clear that a compensation scheme for 
the reimbursement of all translation costs up to a ceiling shall be set up for SMEs (as well as 
natural persons, non-profit organisations, universities and public research organisations having 
their residence or principal place of business within a Member State) filing patent applications at 
the EPO in one of the official languages of the Union that is not an official language of the EPO. This scheme will be administered by the EPO. Yet more detailed rules still need to be agreed by the participating Member States in the Select Committee.  
Page 97 (Para 3.268) 
Making supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) available aims to restore effective patent 
protection for certain regulated products; they are designed to compensate the right holder for the 
time it takes from the filing of a patent application to the marketing authorization, and the 
potentially negative impact resulting from the reduction of the effective period of market exclusivity to recover R&D invest ment. SPCs are available for medicinal products (Regulation (EC) 
No. 469/2009) and plant-protection products (Regulation (EC) No. 1610/96). …… 
Questions: 
81．The extension of the patent protection period of medicinal products will certainly affect the 
availability of medicinal products and adversely impact public health. Has the EU also established 
some measures to protect public health when  establishing the supplementary protection 
certificates (SPCs)? 
EU reply: Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 
2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate (SPC) for medicinal products (Codified 
version), in its recital 2 claims that pharmaceutical research, which is encourage by the SPCs, plays a decisive role in the continuing improvement in public health. Further, its recital 10 lays 
down that: "All the interests at stake, including those of public health, in a sector as complex and 
sensitive as the pharmaceutical sector should nevertheless be taken into account. For this purpose, the certificate cannot be granted for a period exceeding five years (plus the peadiatric 
extension). The protection granted should furtherm ore be strictly confined to the product which 
obtained authorisation to be placed on the market as a medicinal product."  
82．Does the EU provide intellectual property right protection to products and health products of 
traditional medicine? If so, could the EU please inform the legislation or policy documents by which 
the protection is offered? 
EU reply: Inventions based on products and health products based on traditional medicines can be 
protected via national patents if the invention is new and involve inventive step against prior art, 
and has industrial application. A supplementary protection certificated could also be obtained according to Regulation (EC) No 469/2009. National  trademark protection is available according to 
the trademark national laws, harmonized by  Directive 2008/95/EC, and EU-wide trademark 
protection is provided by Regulation (EC) No  207/2009. In the same vein, national design 
protection can be obtained in EU Member States individually according to national laws, which are harmonized by Directive 98/71/EC, and EU-wide protection is available according with Regulation 
(EC) No 6/2002.  
Page 99 (Para 3.278) 
In the EU, there are three approaches for protecting geographical indications: as protected 
designations of origin (PDOs) or protected geographical indications (PGIs) for wine, spirits, and 
agricultural and foodstuff products (Table A3.6); as collective Community trademarks (Table A3.6); and through national appellation systems in EU member States. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 136 - 
 
  Questions: 
83．Who are the respective competent authorities in  the Commission for the three approaches for 
protecting geographical indications? 
EU reply:  As regards agricultural products, foodstuffs , wine and spirit drinks Directorate General 
for Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Commission is competent for the 
registration of PDOs/PGIs. The legal requirements are laid down in Regulations (EC) No 
1234/2007, (EC) No 110/2008 and (EU) No 1151/2012 for applications from EU and non-EU 
countries. As regards collective trade marks, the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM), supervised by the European Commission, is the European Union agency responsible for registering trade marks that are protected in all 28 countries of the EU. 
Page 105 (Para 3.300) 
The right holder must submit an application for action within three working days of receiving the 
notification. 
Questions: 
84．Must the application be filed in a hard copy? Will the customs accept an application filed over 
p h o n e ,  b y  f a c s i m i l e  o r  b y  e m a i l ?  I f  y e s ,  w i l l  t h e  c u s t o m s  a c c e p t  a n  a p p l i c a t i o n  o n l y  s u b m i t t e d  
during the working hours? 
EU reply:  According to Council Regulation 1383/2003, the right holder is notified by customs of 
the suspected infringement of their IPR in the fram ework of an ex officio intervention (article 4). 
Right-holders then should apply in writing for customs` action under article 5 of the Regulation. 
This application for action shall be made out on the standardized form as established by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1891/2004 of 21 October 2004, which must be duly signed and 
accompanied by a declaration from the right-ho lder. Regulation (EC) No 1891/2004 does not 
foresee submitting of applications for action by facsimile or by email. The application for action shall be submitted to the competent customs department during the days and hours appointed for opening. 
Page 106 (Para 3.303) 
Following an understanding reached with the Government of India, the European Commission, in 
February 2012, issued "Guidelines concerning the enforcement by EU Customs authorities of IPRs 
with regards to goods, in particular medicines,  in transit through the EU".… In particular, the 
guidelines laid down the understanding that the mere fact that medicines are transiting through 
the EU territory and are subject to a patent rights in the EU "does not in itself constitute enough 
grounds for customs authorities to suspect that those medicines are infringing patent rights." 
....However, a substantial likelihood of diversio n of such medicines onto the EU market "may 
constitute enough grounds for customs authorities to suspect that the medicines at stake infringe 
patent rights" and justify the detention. 
Questions: 
85．Is the guidelines merely applicable to medicines? Is it applicable also to other patent rights 
and other IPRs? 
EU reply:  The Guidelines of the European Commission concerning the enforcement by EU customs 
authorities of intellectual property rights with rega rd to goods, in particular medicines, in transit 
through the EU aim to address the specific concer ns raised by India and Brazil with regard to 
medicines in genuine transit through the EU which are covered by a patent right in the EU. In 
addition, these Guidelines aim to clarify the scope for the customs control of any goods in transit through the territory of the EU in the light of th e findings in the judgment of the Court of Justice 
issued on 1 December 2011 in the joined cases C-446/09 (Philips) and C-495/09 (Nokia). WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 137 - 
 
  Page 106 (Table 3.16) 
Questions: 
86．In accordance with EC/1383/2003 of the EU  on the enforcement by the EU Customs 
authorities of IPRs, infringing goods cannot be re-exported. However, 0.01% of the infringement 
cases investigated by the EU in 2011 were re-export cases as indicated in Table 3.16. Could the EU please clarify? 
EU reply:  Contrary to the Table 3.16. of the Secretariat report the EU statistics for 2011 do not 
contain any figures on customs action with regard to goods suspected of infringing IPR entered for 
re-export. A corrigendum will be sent to WTO. At the same time it should be clarified that the prohibition of re-exportation concerns goods found to  infringe an intellectual property right at the 
end of the procedure. Such goods are subject to different measures (e.g. destruction). The 
European Commission report on EU Customs enforcement of intellectual property rights at the EU border contains information about goods detain ed by customs upon suspicion in different 
situations enumerated under Article 1(1) of the Regulation. 
87．In case of conflict between provisions for intell ectual property enforcement of the customs of a 
member State and the Regulation (EC) 1383/2003, how will it be dealt with? 
EU reply:  Regulation 1383/2003 is directly applicable in all Member States. The legal acts adopted 
by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of Member States, under the 
conditions laid down in well settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. 
88．Does the EU customs have a border enforcement right or a domestic enforcement right on 
infringing goods sold on the Internet? What are the measures against such goods? 
EU reply: The EU customs are empowered to enforce inte llectual property rights with regard to 
any kind of goods suspected of infringing intellectu al property rights and in the customs situations 
enumerated under Article 1(1) of Regulation 1383/ 2003, including goods sold on the Internet. The 
measures are the same with regard to all such goods.  
89．What will the EU customs do to protect the intellectual property rights of the exhibits on 
exhibitions? 
EU reply: Where the customs authorities, in the course of action in one of the situations referred 
to in Article 1(1) of Regulation 1383/2003 have a suspicion that goods infringe an intellectual 
property right, they are entitled suspend the release of the goods or detain them. 
4. DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTED SECTORS 
Page 114 (Para 4.8) 
It is expected that further reforms of the CAP will be decided in 2013 for implementation in 2014. 
…… According to the Commission, post-2013 reforms are expected to continue the direction 
towards market orientation of policy while decoupled direct payments will remain the core of CAP 
spending. However, the reform post-2013, like earlier reforms, will not directly address market access conditions into the EU market, and tariffs, tariff quotas and the Special Agricultural 
Safeguard will not be affected. 
Questions: 
90．Please inform the considerations of the EU on not making corresponding reforms of the 
relevant policies on agricultural products market access while continuously promoting common 
agricultural policy reforms. 
EU reply:  CAP reforms are not intended to change the EU's agricultural tariffs. Any change will 
result from a successful conclusion to the DDA. In  the meantime, the EU will continue to respect 
its WTO commitments. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 138 - 
 
  Page 117 (Para 4.20) 
Support in the fruit and vegetables sector is structured through Producer Organizations, which 
may set up a fund to finance operational prog rammes approved by member States. …… Among the 
eligible actions that producer organizations may choose to implement under operational 
programmes are: crisis prevention and management  measures such as market withdrawal (where 
products are withdrawn from the market); non-harvesting (where no commercial produce is taken); and green harvesting (total harvesting  of non-marketable products before normal 
harvesting). Crisis prevention and management also include promotion and communication, 
training, harvest insurance, and support for the admi nistrative cost of setting up mutual funds. In 
addition, they may also implement measures related to planning of production, improvement and maintenance of product quality, marketing and pr omotion, training and environmental actions. 
Questions: 
91．The Secretarial Report indicated that fruit and vegetable producer organizations may select 
several support programs, including crisis prevention, non-harvesting and green harvesting. Could 
the EU please describe in detail the operations in practice of such programs? How are these 
programs classified in the notifications submitted by the EU to the WTO under the Agriculture 
Agreement? 
EU reply:  The EU would like to refer China to no tification G/AG/N/EEC/69 of 24 January 2011 
which presents the reform of the fruit and vegetables sector. 
Page 118 (Table 4.7) 
 Outturn 
2007 Outturn 
2008 Outturn 
2009 Outturn 
2010 Outturn 
2011 
Cereals 41.80 9.70 0.85 -0.37 0.05 
Rice 0.05 0.00 -0.03 0.00 0.01 
Questions: 
92．Please indicate the meaning of the negative va lue of the expenditures on cereals (2010) and 
rice (2009) in the table. 
EU reply:  Unlike export subsidy notifications to the WTO which are based on licences issued, 
Table 4.7 contains export subsidy payments from the EU budget. Negative values in the budget 
indicate that the previously paid amounts have been recovered. The reason for such recoveries 
could be, for example, the exporter's non-complia nce with the criteria for granting the refund. 
Such recoverees are made on a regular basis, af ter the ex-post checks carried out by the EU and 
Member States authorities. 
Page 147 (Para 4.113) 
Environmental services constitute an important economic sector for the EU as their two main 
susbsectors (water collection treatment and supply on the one hand, and sewerage, waste management, and remediation on the other hand) employed 1,037,000 persons in 2007 and 
accounted for a gross value added of €100.5 billion  (€29.6 billion for water, €69.8 billion for the 
remainder), i.e. an approximate turnover of €250 billion. 
Questions: 
93．Does the EU have its own definitions and classifications in relation to the environment services 
sector? What are the definitions and classifications? 
EU reply:  The European Union submitted to the WTO "Communication from the European 
Communities and their Member States: GATS 2000 environmental Services", S/CSS/W/38 dated 
22 December 2000 as well as "Communication from the European Communities and their Member States: Classification issues in the Environmental Sector", S/CSC/W/25 dated 28 September 1999, WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 139 - 
 
  by which presented the proposal for classification fo r environmental services that is used by the EU 
in its bilateral agreements. 
94．Which department in the Commission is resp onsible for regulation of the environment 
protection sector? 
EU reply:  The Directorate-General for the Environment. 
95．Does "sewage" only refer to domestic sewage in the EU's definition? Or does it include 
industrial waste water and municipal sewage? 
EU reply:  Directive 91/271/EEC on urban waste water treatment covers both 'domestic waste 
water' meaning waste water from residential settlements and services which originates 
predominantly from the human metabolism and from household activities; and 'industrial waste 
water' meaning any waste water which is discharged from premises used for carrying on any trade or industry, other than domestic waste water and run-off rain water. 
96．What does "waste management" cover? Does "waste management" cover the disposal or 
treatment of industrial solid waste, domestic rubbish, dangerous waste and medical waste? 
EU reply:  Waste management' means the collection, transport, recovery and disposal of all types 
of waste, including the supervision of such operat ions and the after-care of disposal sites, and 
including actions taken as a dealer or broker (Directive 2008/98/EC on waste).  
97．How does the Member States of the EU collec t and manage "sewage"? Is there any specific 
responsible authority? How do the responsible institution and the local and central governments of 
a Member State cooperate with each other? 
EU reply: The EU Member States are obliged to collect and manage sewage following the letter of 
articles 3, 4 and 5 (when applicable) of Directive 91/271/EEC. The basic principles of collection and 
treatment (which mostly depend on the size of  the settlement and the nature of the area of 
discharge) are regulated by these articles, with a dditional details in the Annexes and Tables of 
reference. Regarding the Authorities which are resp onsible for collection and treatment in each MS 
and the linkages between Authorities, it is MS' choice to regulate such issues (subsidiarity principle), whenever it is enabled comp liance with the aforementioned articles. 
98．Have the Member States of the EU established specific institution or authority to regulate the 
solid medical/dangerous wastes? Who are these institutions? 
EU reply: Member States have to transpose Directive 2008/98/EC on waste which governs how 
such waste shall be managed. It is up to the Member States to set up the necessary 
institutions/authorities 
99．Which authorities take responsibility for regulating the clearing, transportation and disposal of 
the domestic rubbish in the solid waste? How to regulate? 
EU reply: See reply to Question 98. 
100．What is the proportion of industrial solid waste in the solid waste management in the 
Member States of the EU? What is the proportion of recycling? 
EU reply: The proportion of industrial waste (NACE B – F) of total waste generation in EU Member 
States (EU 27) amounts to 83%, in 2010. It is worth recalling that industrial waste is not a 
separate category in European waste statistics, the aggregate of NACE B to F is usually understood as representing industrial waste. In 2010, 39 % of the total amount of waste treated in Member 
States has been recycled. Worth stressing also that recycling is not a separate category in 
European waste statistics, recovery excluding energy  recovery and backfilling is the best proxy for 
recycling.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 140 - 
 
  101．What is the proportion of government procurem ent in the overall enviro nment services of the 
EU? 
EU reply:  The Commission does not possess data on the proportion of government procurement 
in the overall environmen t services of the EU. 
Page 155 (Table 4.31 Regulatory framework for EU aviation services) 
Airport charging is regulated at EU level by Di rective 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges.  
Questions: 
102．Could the EU please inform types, standards, collecting targets and methods of airport 
charging? 
EU reply: The term 'airport charges' is used in Europe to describe charges levied on airlines for 
the use of aeronautical infrastructure at airports . They cover the use of services and facilities 
provided by the airport managing body for landing,  take-off, lighting and parking of aircraft, and 
the processing of passengers and freight. Typically this relates to the use of runways and associated area and terminal infrastructure. 
Charges for groundhandling services are not included in this definition. Such services may be 
provided by an airport, an airline or an in dependent groundhandling agent and are charged for 
separately. 
At EU level, airport charges are governed by th e Airport Charges Directive (Directive 2009/12/EC, 
OJ L 70 of 14.3.2009), which applies at the largest airport in each Member State plus all airports 
handling 5 million passengers per year.  
This framework sets out minimum standards with regard to the following: 
 Greater transparency on the costs which charges are to cover. Airports are obliged to share a 
detailed breakdown of costs with airlines in order to justify the calculation of airport charges. 
 Non-discrimination: airlines receiving the same service shall pay the same charge. However, 
airports can differentiate their services as long as the criteria for doing so are clear and 
transparent. Airports can also vary charges on  environmental grounds (e.g. lower charges for 
more environmentally-friendly aircraft).  
 Systems of consultation on charges between airp orts and airlines (which are already in place 
at many EU airports) will become mandatory at all airports covered by the Directive. 
 Member States will designate or set up an inde pendent supervisory authority whose job will be 
to help settle disputes over charges between airports and airlines.  
Due to the perception that in many cases airports are monopoly providers of infrastructure, many 
Member States have put in place, for example, specific sectoral rules for the setting of airport charges, or apply competition rules to airports' pricing behavior. Member States may apply 
systems of economic regulation, which can take th e form, for example, of a price or revenue cap. 
103．How will the airport charges be used? Is there any competent management authority? If yes, 
please inform how it operates. 
EU reply:  For those airports to which the Airport Charges Directive applies, airport charges are 
levied for the use of the facilities referred to in the answer to question 102. Member States are 
free to assign a role to a competent management authority, although in principle airports are 
responsible for setting their own airport charges. Under the Directive, however, the Member State 
must designate an independent supervisory authority which has the power to intervene in disputes WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 141 - 
 
  over airport charges between airlines and airpor ts and is responsible for ensuring that the 
minimum standards set out in the Directive are properly applied. 
As referred to in the answer to question 102, Member States may apply systems of economic 
regulation to the independent supervisory author ity, where the latter sets airport charges. The 
procedures and rules on how such authorities oper ate are the responsibility of the Member State. 
Page 156 (Table 4.31 Regulatory framework for EU aviation services) 
Emission trading scheme (ETS) for aviation 
Questions: 
104．The EU has included international aviation into ETS. How to ensure that the EU legislations 
will not conflict with or violate the international laws such as Chicago Convention and bilateral 
aviation agreements? 
EU reply:  The EU ETS is in line with international law and with the Chicago Convention. In 2011, 
the highest Court in the EU, the European Court of Ju stice, issued its ruling on the case brought by 
a group of American airlines and IATA (C-366/10). The Court confirmed that the legislation is fully 
compatible with international law, including the Chicago Convention and bilateral air service agreements. The EU has always pursued addressing international aviation emissions multilaterally, 
notably at ICAO, and effective actions agreed there would be the best way forward. 
In 2001 ICAO recommended in principle developing open emissions trading as part of a 
comprehensive approach to reducing emissions from international aviation, but in 2010 the ICAO favoured a framework for national and regional action. A single global MBM is not in place, nor is 
likely to be before 2020. 
The "stop-the-clock" derogation is provided by the Union to facilitate an agreement at the 38th 
session of the ICAO Assembly on a realistic time table for the development of a global MBM beyond 
the 38th session of the ICAO Assembly and on a framework for facilitating the comprehensive 
application of national and regional MBMs to international aviation, pending the application of the global MBM. On this basis, with a view to facilitating the optimal interaction between any such 
outcome and the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowances trading within the Union, further 
steps could be considered. The EU calls on China to take a constructive approach to the on-going negotiations at ICAO on both the MBM framewor k and the global MBM scheme in order to reach a 
successful outcome at the ICAO Assembly in September/October 2013. 
Page 157 (Para 4.123) 
In terms of applied regime, save for commercial aviation (airlines and air taxi), the air transport 
sector obeys the general rules of treaties on establishment and there is therefore no foreign 
ownership restriction (Table A3.10)  
Questions: 
105．It seems that there is no Table A3.10 mentioned in paragraph 4.123 in the Secretarial 
Report. Could the EU please clarify? 
EU reply:  The EU notes that there is table A4.10 of the Secretariat. 
Regional Aviation Tran sportation of the EU  
Questions: 
106．The regional aviation of the EU is quite mature , but it seems that the Secretarial Report has 
not indicated the development of the regional aviation and the relevant polices in the section of air 
transportation. Could the EU please briefly desc ribe the current development of its regional 
aviation? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 142 - 
 
  EU reply:  The regional aviation in the EU is governed in general by the same regulations as for 
other types of commercial air transport. That is to say, carriers operating regional routes are 
licensed in the same way as for other carriers. However, there are several provisions in place which recognize the importance of regional air routes, in particular for those parts of Europe where 
access by air to the large population centers is particularly important due to geography and where 
other transport modes do not offer a viable alternative. 
Regarding the development of the regional aviation market, it is clear that the internal aviation 
market, established 20 years ago, has had an important impact on the connectivity of Europe's 
regions. Since 1992, the number of intra-EU routes  operated has more than doubled and there has 
been a 150% increase in long-haul flights departing from European airports. In 1992, just 93 European routes were served by more than tw o airlines. In 2010 there were 479 such routes. 
In recent years, the emergence of low cost carrier s has played an important role in providing new 
point to point connections between regions in Europe. More recently, larger regional airports have been able to attract non-European carriers offering direct connections to points outside the 
European Union. This has been a response both to increasing congestions (and scarcity of slots) at 
some large hub airports and also as a result of a gradual opening up of traffic rights to such carriers. 
On the other hand, the market share of classic regional carriers, operating smaller jet aircraft and 
turboprop aircraft, has been decreasing during the past decade (from 22,6% in 2001 to 16,7% in 2010, based on capacity available). This share is split by turboprop and jet type of aircraft, the latter having taken an increasingly important role in the regional market. 
107．What support policies have the EU and its major Member States adopted in relation to the 
development of regional aviation? If yes, could th e EU please inform the sources of the funds for 
and the methods, standards and related information of such supports? 
EU reply: With regard to the support for the developmen t of regional aviation, this is covered by 
the EU infrastructure development policies (Trans -European Networks), by the EU cohesion policy, 
EU State aid policy and the public service obligation provisions in transport policy. 
 In terms of development of airport capacity, EU funds are available to fund air traffic 
management systems, environmental improvements, multi-modal connections and capacity 
i n c r e a s e .  P r o j e c t s  h a v e  t o  b e  o f  c o m m o n  E u r o p e a n  i n t e r e s t  ( n o t  o n l y  i n t e r e s t  o f  p a r t i c u l a r  regions or Member States). Funding for capacity increase in the upcoming financial period 
(2014-2020) is still under discussion. If it will be possible, increase of airport capacity would be 
funded under the future Connecting Europe Faci lity. The EU also provides funds for airport 
development from the so-called Structural Funds. 
 The EU state aid policy is a unique regime controlling and regulating the use of public subsidies 
within the EU. Subsidies (called State aid) are perceived as distorting fair competition and trade between EU Member States. The European Commission is the sole enforcement body for 
State aid control in the EU and, as a rule, has to authorize any State aid a Member State intends to grant. 
 State aid for airports is allowed only under strict conditions. Airlines can in principle receive 
three types of State aid. First, airlines in financial difficulties can receive rescue and restructuring State aid under very strict conditions. Second, airlines flying from regional 
airports can receive so-called start-up aid as a way of attracting airlines to new destinations. Finally, airlines can receive State aid in form of compensation of costs related to the provision of the so-called public service obligation.  
 Public Service Obligations (PSOs) are to be considered as an exception to the freedom to 
provide air services as defined in Article 15 of the Air Services Regulation (Regulation 
1008/2008, which also lays down rules for the li censing of air carriers in the European Union). 
The role of PSOs is to set fixed standards of co ntinuity, regularity, pricing or minimum capacity 
to ensure the access to isolated regions or in the framework of the regional development policy 
when a Member State finds that its objectives will not be adequately met by free play of 
market forces. However, PSOs must respect the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality and they must not go beyond what is needed to attain the policy objectives. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 143 - 
 
  As PSOs are an exception to the general principle of the freedom to provide services, any 
restrictions arising from the imposition of PSOs need to be interpreted narrowly. Member States enjoy an ample discretionary power - under the supervision of the Commission - to judge the need for a PSO, which however should not lead to an excessive recourse to PSOs or 
to obligations disproportionate to the economic and social objectives pursued. 
PART II: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT REPORT 1 INTRODUCTION 
Page 3 (Para 1.6) 
In promoting free, fair and open trade, the Euro pean Union has always been fully committed to a 
strong, rules-based multilateral trading system recognising the utmost importance of fighting all forms of protectionism, including as regards non-tariff trade barriers, ensuring better market 
access, promoting appropriate investment conditions (see paragraph 1.3 above), enforce and 
promote intellectual property rights – an d opening up public procurement markets. 
Questions: 
1．In the context of slow economic recovery, instability of the Euro and the impact of sovereign 
debt crisis, has the EU taken measures and utilized corresponding internal mechanisms to ensure 
its decisions and enforcement measures not inconsistent with its obligations within the WTO 
framework? 
EU reply:  The continuing financial and economic crisis has been addressed by intense and 
sustained action by the European Union's institutions and national governments. All have been 
working closely together to support financial stability, to put in place a stronger governance 
system for the future and to strengthen the necessary conditions to boost growth and employment. In the face of the crisis, important decisions were taken in the course of the year 
that considerably enhanced the Union's capacity to address the crisis and to move beyond it ( for 
more details see: the TPR government report point (2), para 20-33 and the WTO Secretariat report, chapter 1, section 1.1.2). For doing so, the EU systematically uses its internal coordination 
mechanism to ensure that trade-related decisions and measures remain in full compliance with 
WTO rules. The Trade Policy Committee in the main  body whom such issues are being discussed if 
need be.  
2 THE EUROPEAN UNION IN A CHANGING WORLD 
Page 5 (Para 2.17) 
On 13 December 2011, the European Council and the European Parliament adopted a set or 
legislative measures to reform the Stability and Growth Pact. This set of measures is known as the 
'Six-Pack' and it aims at strengthening the proc edures to reduce public deficits and address 
macroeconomic imbalances. In 2012, the first im plementation of these measures significantly 
strengthened budgetary surveillance and introduced the Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure to 
prevent and correct macroeconomic imbalances, both of which are backed up by the possibility of 
financial sanctions for euro area Member States. The 'Six-Pack' also included a proposal for a Directive defining minimum requirements for national budgetary frameworks to ensure that Member States' fiscal frameworks are fit to respect the EU rules  
Questions: 
2．What is the main content of the "Six-Pack"? And how has it been implemented? 
EU reply:  The European framework of economic and budgetary surveillance was overhauled in 
December 2011 with the adoption of a package of six legislative proposals (known as the six-pack) 
designed to address the weaknesses revealed by the economic and financial crisis. It comprised three Regulations strengthening the European budgetary surveillance framework (the SGP - 
Stability and Growth Pact), two Regulations introducing a new surveillance procedure for WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 144 - 
 
  macroeconomic imbalances and a Directive imposing minimum standards for Member States' 
national budgetary frameworks which has b een implemented and applied ever since. 
The legislative package drastically reinforced th e preventive arm of the SGP by introducing an 
expenditure rule anchoring expenditure growth to the medium-term growth rate of potential GDP. 
The legislation also introduced the possibility of sanctions early in the process. Countries will now 
face lodging an interest-bearing deposit of 0.2% of GDP if their underlying budgetary position is not strong enough. The new legislation also provides for stronger action to correct gross policy 
errors within the corrective arm of the SGP and a new quantified rule requiring those Member 
States that exceed the debt threshold of the Maas tricht Treaty to reduce the excess rapidly. The 
launch of an Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP) can now result from unfavourable government debt developments as well as from high government de ficits. The introduction of the reverse qualified 
majority rule significantly strengthens the Commission's hand in decisions relating to sanctions on 
euro area Member States. Whereas in the past, su ch decisions required the support of a qualified 
majority in the Council, in future, a qualified majority would be required to halt the sanction 
proposed by the Commission.  
The six-pack also included the adoption of a Di rective to be implemented by the Member States 
defining minimum requirements for national budgeta ry frameworks to ensure that Member States' 
fiscal frameworks are fit to respect the EU rules. 
A major weakness of the pre-crisis surveillance arrangements was the lack of systematic 
surveillance of macroeconomic imbalances and competitiveness developments. The six-pack introduced a new Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure (MIP) to close this gap: a new surveillance 
mechanism aiming to prevent macroeconomic imbalances and to identify and allow the timely 
correction of any emerging competitiveness divergences. It is based on an alert system that uses a scoreboard of indicators and in-depth country studies to identify imbalances and launch a new 
Excessive Imbalance Procedure (EIP) where necessary. The new procedure is backed up by 
enforcement provisions in the form of financial sanctions for euro area Member States which do not comply with the EIP. 
3．Are there any problems encountered during the implementation of the "Six-Pack"? If yes, how 
are they solved? 
EU reply:  The Commission will conduct a review on the functioning and implementation of the 
various regulations strengthening the stability and growth pact and introducing the macroeconomic 
imbalances procedure, publishing a report on this  by 14 December 2014. The report shall evaluate 
inter alia the effectiveness of the regulations and the progress in ensuring closer coordination of 
economic policies and sustained convergence of economic performances of the Member States. 
Where appropriate, this report shall be acco mpanied by proposals for amendments to the 
regulations.  
Page 6 (Para 2.21) 
The Banking Union would take the form of a Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) and a Single 
Resolution Mechanism (SRM)…… 
Questions: 
4．What are the details of the SSM and SRM mentioned in the Secretariat Report? And what 
measures will the EU take to ensure a smooth functioning of the Mechanisms?  
EU reply:  
Details of the SSM and SRM in the Secretariat report 
A major point on the Commission's regulatory agenda is the Banking Union project. The Banking 
Union entails four major elements: a single rulebook, a Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM), a 
European deposit guarantee system, and a Eu ropean resolution framework for banks.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 145 - 
 
  1.The SSM would apply to all the euro-area member States and is open to the participation of 
other Member States who wish to embark on a path of deeper integration. Non-euro-area member States may decide to join the SSM by establishing close cooperation between their competent authorities and the European Central Bank (ECB). In  that case they may, on an equal footing with 
the euro-area Member States, participate in the ac tivities of the newly created Supervisory Board 
which is in charge of planning and executing the supervisory tasks conferred upon the ECB. 
The Council of the European Union agreed on a position regarding the SSM Regulation on 
13 December 2012 ( http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-
2014/barnier/headlines/news/2012/12/20121213_en.htm ). The regulation gives key supervisory 
tasks and powers to the ECB over all the credit institutions established within the euro area and 
the Member States which decide to join the SSM. The ECB carries out its tasks within an SSM 
composed of ECB and national competent authoritie s. The ECB shall have particular responsibility 
for direct supervision of banks having assets of more than EUR 30 billion or whose total assets constitute at least 20% of their home country's GDP or which have requested or received direct 
public financial assistance from the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) or the European 
Stability Mechanism. National supervisors will have responsibility for less significant banks, while the ECB may at any time decide to directly supervise any bank at any time. The governance 
structure of the ECB will consist of a separa te Supervisory Board supported by a steering 
committee, the ECB Governing Council, and a mediation panel to solve disagreements that may arise between national competent authorities and the Governing Council. The SSM is envisaged to be fully operational by September 2014. To allow for a smooth transition to the new mechanism, 
the ECB may extend the deadline. 
After the establishment of the Single Supervisory Mechanism, the Commission intends to progress 
on next logical step towards a the Banking Union, i.e. a Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) built 
around a Single Resolution body, which will involve all relevant actors and a single resolution fund. 
The SRM should mirror the SSM and cover all bank s in the Euro area. The Commission plans to 
table a proposal for the Single Resolution Mechanism before summer 2013.  
The Commission is also working with the Council and the European Parliament for a swift adoption 
of the pending proposals on Deposit Guarantee Schemes and Bank Recovery and Resolution, which will complement the single rulebook in the banking sector applicable across the European Union 
A2: What measures will the EU take to ensure a smooth functioning of the Mechanisms? 
The EU is committed to strengthening its arrangements in the financial, fiscal, economic and 
political domains in order to overcome the crisis in a sustainable way and to restore confidence. The Banking Union is at the forefront of the EU vision for a deep and genuine Economic Monetary 
Union.  
The agreement on the Single Supervisory Mechan ism (SSM) is already a key success. The next 
step is to agree on the proposals for a Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) and for a Deposit 
Guarantee Scheme Directive (DGS). Well advanced is the Commission's work on a proposal for 
Single Resolution Mechanism that would allow for bank resolution at the centralized level and applying common tools for resolution at European level to banks in Member States supervised by the SSM. 
Page 7 (Para 2.28) 
The Single Market remains the European Union' s most important vehicle for growth and job 
creation. …… The European Commission launched an ambitious process to give new momentum to 
the Single Market. Following the Communication on  the Single Market Act adopted in April 2011, 
as a response to the crisis and the need to foster growth, the European Commission adopted a second Communication, Single Mark et Act-II, on 3 October 2012.  
Questions: 
5．Has the EU introduced relevant legislative proposals or drafts concerning the Single Market 
Act II? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 146 - 
 
  EU reply:  All relevant information regarding proposals and implementation in relation to the 
Single Market Act-II agenda can be found here : 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/smact/news/index_en.htm . 
6．Could the EU please describe the details of the implementation of the Single Market Act-II and 
its impact on the market? 
EU reply:  Same as reply above to q 5  
Page 10 (Para 2.48) 
On 9 November 2011, the European Commission adopted the Communication on "Small Business, 
Big World - a new partnership to help SMEs seize global opportunities". This Communication aims to establish a more coherent and effective European Union strategy for supporting SMEs in 
international markets and to make better use of existing resources. To reach these objectives, the 
new strategy sets out 6 fields of action: strengthening and mapping the existing supply of support services; creating a single virtual gateway to information for SMEs; making support schemes at EU 
level more consistent; promoting clusters and networks for SME internationalisation; rationalising 
new activities in priority markets; leveraging existing EU external policies. 
Questions: 
7．Would the EU please inform the latest progress made with respect to the internationalization of 
SMEs and the implementation of the policies as stated in the Communication? Are there important 
experiences and lessons that the EU would like to share? 
EU reply:  Currently the European Commission services are working to implement the 
Communication. One important element that the Communication mentioned as being the 
predecessor of new measures was the mapping exercise of the existing support services for SME 
internationalisation in place at the EU, national and even regional level. The first part of this 
exercise has been completed and, the Commission is currently developing the SME Internationalisation Portal (also mentioned in the Communication). This portal will work as a one-entry-point for SMEs considering internationalisation activities and where the information 
collected during the mapping on the existing services is uploaded. The portal will be launched 
before the end of 2013.  
8．What are the specific financing and investment protection policies and measures adopted by 
the EU to support the SMEs' exploitation of the international market? 
9．What is the EU's opinion concerning different views on whether it is SMEs or large enterprises 
that should be given support for their internationalization? 
EU reply:  Although not prejudging the role and import ance of large companies in the economy in 
general and particularly in internationalisation, the EU has observed that the SMEs need more help 
in going abroad. 
According to a study commissioned by the European Commission7, one could see that, in general, 
the smaller the company the larger are the barriers, both internal and external, to 
internationalisation. Usually SMEs do not have the proper human and financial resources to 
conduct international activities, while these problems affect less large companies. Furthermore, the same study shows that public support (e.g. pr ovision of information, trainings, advice and 
consultancy, etc) can indeed play a role in the promotion of greater internationalisation of SMEs. 
55% of internationally active SMEs participating in the study mentioned at least one of the four 
positive options: no internationalisation without support, earlier internationalisation, more internationalisation or better insight in possibilities on foreign markets with support. All public 
support offered, also to SMEs, has to comply with the EU state aid rules.  
                                               
7 Study on the level of internat ionalisation of European SMEs, 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/mark et-access/internationalisa tion/index_en.htm#h2-3.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 147 - 
 
  Also, by targeting SMEs, a large part of the EU economy is covered. SMEs in the EU represent 
99.8% of all enterprises, contributing with 67.4% to employment and 58.1 to value added8.  
3 KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN EU TRADE POLICY (2011-2012) Page 12 (Para 3.10) 
Following the political guidance of the 8th WTO Ministerial Conference, the European Union has 
been in discussions with other WTO members with a view to making progress on services liberalisation. In participating in plurilateral negotiations on trade in services, the European Union 
is ready to contribute to an ambitious agreement that would attract broad participation and which 
could be multilateralised in the future. 
Questions: 
10．Would the EU please inform its considerations for further opening up services sectors within 
the framework of the plurilateral negotiations on trade in services?  
EU reply:  The EU recalls that it attaches great importance to progressing the multilateral talks 
including on trade in services. Given the current situation of the DDA negotiations and in the spirit 
of the conclusions of the 8th Ministerial Conference, the EU is actively participating in the Trade in 
Services Agreement negotiations aimed at contributing to the progressive further liberalisation of 
trade in services. The EU is pleased that the negoti ations are firmly anchored in the GATS and that 
the structure caters for its future multilateralisation. It is however too early to predict the outcome of the negotiation and the commitments that the EU may take in its framework.   
11．European countries have great demand for service in trade of traditional Chinese medicine. 
The key issues in the liberalization of service in trade of traditional Chinese medicine are the 
accreditation of qualification and market access of practitioners of the industry. What are the 
policies and guidelines of the EU to promote the accreditation of qualification and market access of 
practitioners of the service in trad e of traditional Chinese medicine? 
EU reply:  Traditional Chinese medicine is (at least arguably) a branch of medicine and as such 
falls under the general service sector of medica l and dental care (CPC 9312; more precisely, 
"general medical services", CPC 93121 and "specialised medical services", CPC 93122). 
As concerns the EU GATS commitments for this se ctor, about three quarters of Member States are 
'unbound' for mode 1 (cross-border provision), while  a majority of Member States have taken at 
least partial commitments for the establishment of providers of medical services (eight MS are 
instead in essence 'unbound'). This entails that Chinese doctors may - in certain MS, subject to prior authorisation or membership of a professional organisation – seek to gain access to the EU 
market by establishing in one of the MS (or by pr oviding cross-border services in the few MS that 
are open).  
However, GATS commitments (even full commitments) do not preclude individual Member States 
from subjecting the practice of the medical professi on (or other professions, for that matter) to the 
possession of certain professional qualifications or accreditation (degree, minimum training, 
admission to the profession in the country of origin  fo the provider, etc.). This stems from Article 
VII GATS, which stipulates that "a Member may [not: shall] recognize the education or experience 
obtained, requirements met, or licences of certifications granted in a particular country". In the 
absence of any mutual recognition agreements between the EU and China, the decision to 
recognise the qualifications of a third country providers rests solely with the individual Member 
State. This is also confirmed by recital 10 of the Professional Qualification Directive (EU Directive 
2005/36 of 7 September 2005). Thus, there are no EU -wide policies or guidelines to promote the 
recognition of the professional qualifications of traditional Chinese doctors, since this is a matter left to individual Member States.  
                                               
8 SME Performance Review 2012, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise /policies/sme/facts-figures-
analysis/performance-rev iew/index_en.htm#h2-3.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 148 - 
 
  PART III: OTHER QUESTIONS 
Questions: 
1．The European Commission released a statement on its website on 23 May 2013 stating that the 
EU has officially started to apply for authorization regarding its negotiation of bilateral investment 
agreement with China, and that it will soon subm it a "negotiation guideline" to the Council. Could 
the EU please inform relevant procedures of the authorization and the expected time frame for 
completing the procedures? 
EU reply:  On 23 May, the Commission submitted a proposal for a Council decision authorising the 
Commission to open negotiations on an investment agreement between the European Union and 
the People's Republic of China, including draft negotiating guidelines. At this stage it would be 
difficult to provide a precise time frame for th e Council approval as there are no mandatory 
deadlines for the adoption of the decision. 
Questions: 
Regarding COMMISION REGULATION (EC)No.616/2007 of 4 June 2007 and WTO 
G/SECTOR/32/Add.1 of 20 December 2012 
2．Since the SPS measure was removed in 2008, China's poultry meat export to the EU has seen a 
steady increase. The average annual growth ra te from 2009 to 2011 was 53.7%. According to the 
EU statistics, China's export of cooked chicken (meat content >57%) to the EU in 2011 reached 9,062.4 ton, making up 79.2% of the EU's quota for "other countries". Considering China's export 
potential, it is surely reasonable for China to ask the EU to take it as a supplier with "substantial 
interests" with either separate arrangement of quota or quota increase for "other countries" in accordance with the relevant rules of the WTO. However, the EU modified its tariff rate quota 
schedule with tariff rate quotas newly established for poultry meat products of eight tariff lines, 
and selected the period of 2006 and 2008 as the reference period for bilateral negotiations. During that reference period, China had little export to the EU due to the SPS measure, and the EU carried out negotiations by excluding China as one of the main suppliers. In March 2013, the EU 
started to implement the tariff rate quota administration of the eight newly added tariff lines of 
poultry meat products. Among them, China has alre ady recorded export performance in six tariff 
lines, and for four lines among the six, China's export has made up more than 25% of the EU's 
total import. According to relevant rules of the WT O and also the EU's understanding of the quotas 
for suppliers with "substantial interests", China will continue to request that the EU makes separate arrangement of quotas or increase the quotas for "other countries". Could the EU please 
inform if it will study this request and develop a timetable to address China's legitimate request? 
EU reply:  Negotiations on this matter have been concluded scrupulously applying the rules of 
GATT Article XXVIII in a non-discriminatory manner. 
Questions: 
Regarding the New Energy Law IV  jointly issued by the Ministry of Economic Development and 
Ministry of Finance of Italy. 
3．According to Article 14 paragraph 1 (d) of this law, if more than 60% of the facility investment 
of a newly built PY power system is used to purchase products produced by enterprises located 
within the EU, the system operator will receive a subsidy that is 10% of the electricity price. Could the EU please clarify details of the policy and elaborate on its consistency with Article 3 of the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ? 
EU reply:  The question appears to refer to a piece of legislation that is the object of consultations 
between China and the EU pursuant to the Dispute Settlement Understanding. Clarifications about 
that piece of legislation have been provided in that context. For the purposes of the TPR, it may be 
useful to point out that, as a matter of fact, individual or companies planning to set up a solar PV generation facility in Italy can no longer rely on that piece of legislation.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 149 - 
 
  Questions: 
4．It is understood that the Commission adopted a legislative proposal package in May 2013 
aiming at improving food safety. The package plan s to reduce the number of laws concerning food 
safety from 70 to 5. After this adjustment, apar t from further improving food safety, will the 
legislation concerned further raise regulatory standards in this respect? What is the latest development of this proposal? Has there been any legislation draft introduced? 
EU reply:  Four legislative proposals, forming part of the so-called 'smarter rules for safer food' 
package were adopted by the European Commission on 6 May 2013. These proposals deal 
respectively with animal health, plant health, plant reproductive material and official controls and have been notified to the WTO in notification s G/SPS/N/EU/43, G/SPS/N/EU/44, G/SPS/N/EU/45 
and G/SPS/N/EU/46. 
The proposals on plant reproductive material and official controls have also been notified under the 
WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade in notifications G/TBT/N/EU/116 and 117. 
Trading partners have been invited to carefully study these important legislative proposals which 
complement the existing EU framework that ensures a safe agri-food chain. Partners are also invited to submit comments during the extend ed comment period that  is currently open. 
The main objective of the proposals is to strengthen, simplify and modernise the current legal 
framework ensuring its continued harmonisation with international standards. This framework has largely proven to be effective in both preventing and countering risks that have arisen to date. The 
new proposals seek therefore to complement the existing framework by addressing some of the 
newer challenges posed by our increasingly complex, global marketplace.  
Once adopted, the proposals will provide part of th e legal basis for food safety in the EU. Further, 
more detailed provisions - in the form of implementing rules – can then be expected to follow. 
Questions: 
5．It is understood that the EU adopts notice filing instead of licensing for investment into the 
telecommunication service sector. How does the EU ensure that the service suppliers have the 
qualification and capacity to provide reliable services and that the legitimate rights of end-users 
are well protected?  
EU reply: The EU regulatory framework for electronic communications provides for a general 
authorisation regime. Providers may be required to submit a notification to the competent national 
regulatory authorities. Upon notification operat ors may begin their activity without having to 
obtain an individual licence. Individual rights of use may be granted by EU Member States for radio 
frequencies and numbers.  
The general authorisation, and individual licences for the use of radio frequencies and numbers, 
may be subject to certain conditions (from an enumerative list), including sector-specific consumer protection rules. In addition this respect, national regulators have the powers to monitor the 
behaviour compliance of operators with these conditions. In addition, providers have to comply 
with general consumer protection laws. 
6．What measures has the EU taken in respect of market access to new services such as mobile 
Internet business (including OTT and APPs et c.) and cloud computing and their regulation? 
EU reply:  In the EU regulatory barriers to entry for O TT services are very low. Most OTT services 
are considered as information society services within the meaning of the e-commerce directive, 
which provides for free movement of these services  within the internal market and prohibits any 
kind of prior authorization. These services are subject to general rules applicable to all businesses such as the general data protection rules and general consumer protection rules. Those OTT 
services which constitute electronic communications services are subject to the rules applicable to 
these services.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 150 - 
 
  As regards cloud computing services, the Commission issued the Cloud Commuting 
Communication in September 2012. The measures that facilitate market access for cloud services providers that are envisaged in this Communication are: 
 Standards and certification 
The Cloud strategy introduces as a key action "c utting through a jungle of standards. This key 
action composes of both standardisation and certification activities. The standardisation aims at 
mapping the existing standards available for cloud computing. The certification activities aim to encourage the establishment of voluntary certification schemes. The Commission has tasked ETSI 
to coordinate in an open and transparent way with all stakeholders the mapping of the existing 
cloud standards. The aim is to gain better knowle dge to what standards already exist and to help 
the cloud providers and their customers to compare the cloud services offers. 
 European Cloud Partnership and pre-commercial procurement action, where the Commission 
intends to stimulate public sector procurers of cloud-based services to identify common cloud 
requirements for the public sector, and to advance towards joint procurement of cloud 
computing services by public bodies. 
Questions: 
7．In October 2010, the Commission published a green paper titled Audit Policy-Lessons from the 
Crisis . Based on the reform proposals in the green paper, the European Parliament issued 
Resolution 2011/2037 (INI) in September 2011, and in November 2011 the Commission issued the proposal concerning special requirement on statutory auditing of PIEs and the proposal to amend 
its Directive on statutory auditing of annual financial statements. These resolutions and proposals 
gave comments on the reform proposals mentioned in the green paper, but the European Parliament and the Commission seem to diverge on views on such issues as mandatory rotation of 
audit firms and non-auditing service etc. How will  the EU deal with the different views of the 
European Parliament and the Commission on regula ting the auditing market? Where is the policy 
heading for? 
EU reply:  The Commission made ambitious proposals for the European audit sector in November 
2011 which aimed at clarifying the role of auditors , strengthening their independence, stepping up 
supervision and bringing more diversity into the current highly concentrated audit market. A major 
step was achieved in the discussions in the European  Parliament with the adoption of a negotiation 
mandate for Rapporteur Sajjad Karim by the Legal Affairs Committee on 25 April 2013. With this 
vote, the Legal Affairs Committee endorsed the ke y elements of the proposed audit reform. The 
Commission is ready to show openness to exceptions and flexibility when it is necessary and 
justified. However, it is important not to lower our level of ambition.  
Negotiations continue in the Council and could begin with the European Parliament. 
8．On 13 April 2012, the Commission adopted two directives and one decision, recognizing that 
the accounting standards of Chinese enterprises ar e equivalent to the IFRSs adopted by the EU. 
On 19 January 2011, the Commission announced that the public supervision of auditing in ten countries, including China, is recognized to be equivalent to that of the EU. Such recognitions of 
equivalence are a significant part of the EU's economic cooperation with other countries and 
contribute to further promotion of trade ties and capital flows. Under the current system, non-EU accounting firms may provide auditing service in the EU Member States without subject to double 
regulation. However, in respect of registration procedure, business scope, regulatory cooperation 
and other rules concerning non-EU accounting firms' access to major capital markets in the EU, one-by-one negotiations with the EU Member Stat es are necessary. In view of the progress of 
accounting standard equivalence and auditing regulation equivalence, what role will the EU play to 
promote auditors from EU and non-EU countries to provide services in each other's capital 
markets? 
EU reply: It is appropriate to consider the public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and 
penalty systems for auditors and audit entities of some third countries as equivalent to the public 
oversight, quality assurance, investigation and pe nalty systems for auditors and audit firms of the 
EU. Thus, the Commission has adopted an Implementing Decision on certain third countries on 13 WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 151 - 
 
  June 2013. This decision recognized as equivalent a number of new countries, such as: Abu Dhabi, 
Brazil, Dubai International Financial Centre, Guernsey, Indonesia, Isle of Man, Jersey, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand. Other countries were put in a transitional period as they have recently established or are in the process of establishing  public oversight systems are: Bermuda, Cayman 
Islands, Egypt, Mauritius, New Zealand, Russi a and Turkey. However, there are a number of 
third-countries which benefited from the transition al period granted by the previous Decision, but 
are now excluded as since 2011 they have not established independent systems of public 
oversight: Hong Kong, India and Israel.  
In addition to this, the Commission monitors regularly the implementation of the equivalence 
decisions while also encouraging Member States to conclude bilateral agreements in order to promote provision of audit services in the EU and in the respective equivalent third countries. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 152 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM  
THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU 
PART 1: ON REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT (WT/TPR/S/284) 
1. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 
1.5  Foreign direct investment (FDI) 
Page 22 (Para 1.35) The EU continues to be the world's largest recipient and supplier of FDI. In addition, it continues to 
be a net investor in the rest of the world. Both stocks held by the EU and those held by the rest of 
the world have risen steadily during the last years (Chart 1.9); however the trend of flows reflected the impact of the financial turmoil. 
Question(s):  
1. The financial turmoil has influenced the confidence of investors, especially in member 
countries with serious financial crises. Will the EU or its members be adopting any new policies aimed at increasing flows of investment and capital? 
EU reply:  The EU and its Member States are well aware of the impact of the recent years' 
sovereign debt crisis on investors' confidence at large.  
The EU, euro area and Member States have, respec tively engaged in a comprehensive strategy to 
address weaknesses and to restore stability and competitiveness: 
 At Member States' level, and in particular in vulnerable Member States, ambitious measures of 
fiscal consolidation and structural reforms have been taken over previous years, reinforced, in 
the countries under programme, by the programme conditionality framework.  
 The framework of governance of economic and fiscal policies in Member States has been 
profoundly strengthened. 
 The euro area established very efficient and la rge mechanisms, the EFSF and the ESM, to act 
as crisis intervention tools in case of liquidity crises facing any of the Member States belonging to the euro area.  
 The establishment of the Single Supervisory Mechanism will profoundly strengthen financial 
supervision in Europe. This element, together with the forthcoming bank resolution and 
framework, will mark important steps towards a full-scale banking union. 
 At EU level, legislation, following G-20 commitmen ts and beyond, on financial-sector regulation 
has been profoundly overhauled and led to a more resilient financial sector.  
Information on all these measures to overcome the root causes and effects of the crisis is widely 
available, for example under http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/focuson/crisis/index_en.htm . 
2. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.1 Legal and Institutional Framework 
Page 28 (Para 2.10) 
The European Parliament ratifies trade agreements  by simple majority, while the Council generally 
needs a qualified majority to give consent. Unanimity by the Council is required for agreements on trade in services, trade-related intellectual prop erty rights, and foreign direct investment that 
include "provisions for which unanimity is required fo r the adoption of internal rules", as well as for 
agreements on trade in cultural and audiovisual services that "risk prejudicing the Union's WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 153 - 
 
  linguistic and cultural diversity", and for agreemen ts in the field of social, education, and health 
services that "risk seriously disturbing the national organization of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of a member State to deliver them". 
Questions:  
2. It would be appreciated if the EU could please define precisely what is meant by the 
descriptions "prejudicing" and "seriously di sturbing" in the context of the above? 
3. Are there any specific criteria for evaluating whether or not agreements "risk prejudicing the 
Union's linguistic and cultural diversity" or "seriously disturbing the national organization" of 
the relevant services"? 
EU reply to questions 2 and 3:  The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union does not 
define these terms, nor does it provide specific criteria for their evaluation. 
2.4.2 Reciprocal preferences 
Page 35 (Para 2.44) On 29 November 2012, the Commission was mandated to open free-trade negotiations with Japan.  
Question(s):  
4. Now that EU-Japan FTA negotiations are underway and in light of concerns expressed by 
Europe's automakers that this FTA will benefit the Japanese auto-industry at their expense, 
what specific measures will the Commission be taking to address these concerns and 
consolidate domestic opinions with a view to moving the negotiations forward? 
EU reply:  In the FTA negotiations with Japan, the Commission will pursue both the offensive and 
the defensive interests of the EU auto industry. The defensive interests of the auto industry will be 
taken into account when negotiating tariff concessions with Japan. On the offensive side, the 
Commission will aim at solving NTBs currently hindering access of European producers to the Japanese market, in particular via the objective of seeking full convergence of Japan's national 
requirements with the relevant UNECE regulations.  
2.5.2 Bilateral investment treaties Page 37 (Para 2.56) 
On 12 December 2012, the European Parliament and the Council adopted the Regulation 
establishing transitional arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between member States and third countries. This Regulation provides legal certainty in EU law for bilateral investment agreements which were signed by EU member States before the entry into force of the 
Lisbon Treaty. The regulation confirms that member States may maintain in force these 
agreements notwithstanding the EU's competences re lating to investment, until they are replaced 
by investment agreements concluded by the EU. Member States must notify the Commission 
which agreements they want to maintain. The regulation also provides for a mechanism 
authorizing member States, under certain conditions, to negotiate bilateral investment agreements with third countries not immediately scheduled for EU-wide investment negotiations, or to 
re-negotiate existing agreements. 
Question(s): 
5. What exactly are the "certain conditions" referred to in the above paragraph in the Report, 
and does the relevant regulation contain any pr ecise provisions that define the "conditions" 
under which member States may negotiate bilateral investment agreements with third 
countries not immediately scheduled for EU-wide investment negotiations, or re-negotiate existing agreements? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 154 - 
 
  EU reply:  The conditions under which Member States may negotiate or re-negotiate existing 
bilateral investment agreements are set out in Arti cle 9 of the Regulation establishing transitional 
arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between member States and third countries. It provides that the Commission shall authorise the Me mber States to open formal negotiations with 
a third country unless it concludes that the opening of such negotiations would: 
 be in conflict with Union law other than the incompatibilities arising from the allocation of 
competences between the Union and its Member States;  
 be superfluous, because the Commission has submitted or decided to submit a 
recommendation to open negotiations with the third country concerned; 
 be inconsistent with the Union's principles and objectives for external action as elaborated in 
accordance with the general provisions laid down in Chapter 1 of Title V of the Treaty on 
European Union;  
 constitute a serious obstacle to the negotiation or conclusion of bilateral investment 
agreements with third countries by the Union. 
3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures directly affecting imports  3.1.9 Sanitary and phytosanitary standards (SPS) 
Page 67 (Para 3.123)  
As indicated in the Report, plants and plant products listed in Council Directive 2000/29/EC (Annex 
V, Part B) must be accompanied by a phytosanit ary certificate issued by the competent authority 
of the exporting country. 
Question(s): 
6. Does the European Union adopt a range of different phytosanitary requirements for plants of 
different risk categories? (For example, are the requirements for tissue culture plants in 
sterile condition the same as those for field-grown plants?) 
EU reply:  The EU has adopted a range of phytosanitary import requirements according to different 
levels of risk posed by different types of plan ts or plant products, including in some cases a 
differentiation between field-grown plants and ti ssue culture plants. Council Directive 2000/29/EC, 
Annex IV.A.I points 11.4, 39., 40. and a number of other specific points in the Annex can be given as examples of such risk-specific approach. In ad dition, the existing requirements are subjected to 
a risk-based review if new scientific information becomes available. 
4. DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTED SECTORS 
4.3 Services 4.3.1 Financial services 
4.3.1.2.5. Third–country regime 
Pages 144-146 (Para 4.107) Table 4.24 (State of play of equivalence decision s) gives an overview of the equivalence decisions 
adopted under the EU financial services legislations. 
The following abstract is from Table 4.24 on page 146. 
UCITS Directive 
Directive 2001/108/EC of 21 January 2002 
(viewed at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2002:041:
0035:0042:EN:PDF )  Equivalence decisions are taken 
by the competent authorities of 
the UCITS home member State. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 155 - 
 
  According to Article 50(2)(a) of the UCITS Directive, UCITS can invest in a third country's 
investment funds, including TPKM's investment fu nds, which are other than those referred to in 
Article 50(1) of the UCITS Directive. 
On 20 November 2012, the European Securities an d Market Authority  (ESMA) published Opinion 
2012/721. In this Opinion, ESMA said that UCITS may only invest in units or shares of collective 
investment undertakings as defined in Article 50(1 )(e) of the UCITS Directive. ESMA expected that 
any portfolio adjustments required to ensure compli ance with this opinion will be made taking into 
account the best interests of investors and at th e latest by 31 December 2013. According to this 
Opinion, UCITS cannot have any exposure to TPKM's  investment funds after the end of this year. 
We believe that this Opinion has created an unfair barrier to trade in services. 
Question(s):  
7. What is the rationale behind ESMA's policy expressed in Opinion 2012/721?  
8. Would the EU consider revising or modifying the ESMA Opinion 2012/721 in the future to ease 
the constraints on UCITS investments?  
EU reply to questions 7 and 8:  According to Art. 50(2)(a) of the UCITS Directive a UCITS is not 
allowed to invest more than 10 % of its assets in transferable securities or money market 
instruments other than those referred to in Art. 50(1) of the UCITS Directive. 
Art. 50(2) is a derogation from a general rule set out in Art. 50(1) UCITS Directive, notably that 
UCITS may solely invest in the categories of assets set out in that article. It follows from the nature of a derogation that it has to be interpreted strictly, therefore UCITS could only invest in units or shares of open-ended collective investme nt undertakings which comply with the conditions 
provided for in Art. 50(1) point (e) of the UCITS Di rective. The reference to 'transferable securities 
or money market instruments other than those referred to in paragraph 1' in Article 50(2) should be understood as a derogation from the provisions of Art. 50(1) points (a) to (d) and it does not 
cover point Art. 50 (1) point (e). 
ESMA's opinion is based on Art. 29 (1)(a) of the ESMA Regulation. According to this provision 
ESMA shall play an active role in building a common Union supervisory culture and consistent 
supervisory practices, as well as in ensuring uniform procedures and consistent approaches 
throughout the Union. Therefore, in order to en sure a common understanding of Art. 50 (2) of the 
UCITS Directive and to avoid different kind of prac tices throughout Member States ESMA issued an 
opinion.  
ESMA is an independent European Authority and therefore the European Commission cannot revise 
or modify the ESMA opinion. Al so, the Commission services are of the view that ESMA's opinion 
contains an appropriate interpretation of the UCITS Directive. 
UCITS are still allowed to invest in units or shares of open-ended collective investment 
undertakings provided that they fulfil the conditions outlined in Art. 50(1) point (e) of the UCITS Directive. According to this provision, UCITS are in principle also allowed to invest in funds which 
are established in a third country. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 156 - 
 
  RESPUESTAS DE LA EU A LAS PREGUNTAS DE COLOMBIA  
Informe de la Secretaría WT/TPR/S/284 2 RÉGIMEN DE COMERCIO E INVERSIONES 
2.2 Objetivos de la política comercial y consultas 
El párrafo 2.13 del informe de la Secretaría señala que... "Según la Comisión Europea, entre los 
objetivos de la política comercial de la UE para la próxima década figura "una política de comercio e inversión a medida para los países más necesitados". La UE tiene intención de diferenciar entre 
los países en desarrollo y centrarse en los más necesitados. Entre las propuestas presentadas por 
la Comisión figuran las siguientes: la reforma del SGP; el uso de nuevas normas de origen para fomentar la complementariedad entre el comercio y el desarrollo; mejorar las disposiciones de los acuerdos en materia de inversiones para proporcionar seguridad jurídica a los inversores, y 
promover así la IED; dar acceso a los mercados de determinados sectores de servicios a los países 
menos adelantados; y concluir acuerdos de asociación económica con los países ACP interesados." 
1. ¿Colombia agradecería que se explicara en detalle cuáles serían las mejoras en las 
disposiciones de los acuerdos en materia de inversiones? 
EU reply:  EU investment policy aims to include investment liberalization and investment 
protection in its trade agreements with third countries, including in agreements with developing 
countries. This will provide for an open, stable an d secure investment regime for investors of both 
parties, capable of attracting long term and sustainable investments in both the EU and the third country in question.  
As regards Economic Partnership Agreements, the concept can be enshrined in specific provisions 
in a dedicated chapter. A case in point is the Cariforum EPA between where the specific provisions 
are intended to stimulate investment flows thro ugh better governance in countries that need 
investment. These provisions – still not fully-fledged in terms of investments disciplines – are 
intended to foster investors' confid ence a key element in this issue. 
2.5 Inversiones extranjeras 
2.5.1 Régimen de inversiones extranjeras 
El párrafo 2.46 del informe de la Secretaría seña la que... "La UE está elaborando y aplicando 
actualmente una política global de inversiones. La Comisión considera que la política de inversión internacional de la UE debe tener el objetivo de asegurar el trato uniforme de los inversores de la 
UE, ya que la red de convenios bilaterales de inve rsión (CBI) vigentes da lugar a unas "condiciones 
de desigualdad entre las empresas de la UE que invierten en el extranjero, en función de si están o 
no amparadas, como 'nacionales', por el CBI de un determinado Estado miembro". 
Pie de página Número 37:  
"Documento de la Comisión Europea COM(2010) 343 final, de 7 de julio de 2010. Consultado en: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexU riServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0343:FIN:ES:PDF " 
2. ¿Son medidas que podrían encontrarse dentro de las llamadas "medidas de última 
generación" como las políticas sobre protección del medio ambiente, trabajo digno, 
salud y seguridad en el trabajo, protección de los consumidores, diversidad cultural, y en especial el desarrollo sostenible? 
EU reply:  A key objective of the EU Common Commercial Policy is to promote trade and 
investment in such a way as to contribute to sustainable development.  
The EU international investment policy is consistent with the other policies of the EU and its 
Member States, including development, human righ ts, protection of the environment, health and 
safety at work, consumer protection and cultural diversity. EU agreements relating to investments 
include sustainability provisions, as it is already the case under the EU's Free Trade Agreements.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 157 - 
 
  3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS 
3.1 Medidas que afectan directamente a las importaciones 3.1.1 Procedimientos 
El párrafo 3.12 del informe de la Secretaría indica  que... "Los Estados miembros de la UE pueden 
otorgar la condición de operador económico autorizado (OEA), sobre la base de criterios comunes, 
a los operadores económicos interesados que realicen actividades abarcadas por la legislación aduanera. Las ventajas de la condición de OEA depe nden del tipo de certificado que se otorgue al 
operador económico, y pueden comprender una reducción de los controles aduaneros o un mejor 
acceso a las simplificaciones aduaneras (cuadro 3.1). La participación en los programas de operadores económicos autorizados es voluntaria, pero no está abierta a las personas establecidas fuera de la UE. La condición de operador económico autorizado otorgada por un Estado miembro 
es reconocida por los demás Estados miembros de la UE. Cuando un OEA solicita una determinada 
autorización de procedimientos simplificados, las condiciones y los criterios ya examinados no se vuelven a examinar. Al 31 de enero de 2013 se había otorgado la condición de operador 
económico autorizado a 12.464 solicitantes." 
3. ¿Tiene la UE Acuerdos de Reconocimiento Mutuo con países no Parte?  
EU reply:  Yes, EU has MRA with Switzerland, Norway , Japan. EU is also in the process of 
negotiating with other countries (i.e. CN, CA, NZ).  
4. ¿Cuáles fueron los mayores desafíos en el establecimiento de este tipo de Acuerdo? 
EU reply: For a MRA to be effective both in terms of negotiations and later on implementation 
some steps have to be followed. The most import ant are the following and for each of them there 
are some issues and challenges to deal with: 
(1) Desk review of existing AEO legislation and procedures in the respective countries/parties. This 
stage is meant to assess whether the legislation and the procedures for the implementation of 
the AEO are compatible. If this is not the case they need to be aligned and this can take time, 
above all in the cases a legislative change is required. In this context, the WCO SAFE helps as if both legislation and procedures are in line with the minimum SAFE requirements; it is easier 
to achieve such compatibility; 
(2) Joint validation visits. This stage is meant to assess how the procedure has been implemented 
in practice and how the whole process actually works. This implies that MRA negotiations can start only when the partner country concerned has a functioning AEO programme and has 
some practical experience having issued already a certain number of AEO 
certificates/authorisations.  
(3) Establish an automatic data exchange mechanism to exchange each other AEO details. In this 
case the most relevant challenges are related to the IT infrastructure the partner countries has 
and to the interoperability of the relevant IT systems of the concerned partner countries. Issues related to privacy and data protection are important as data can be exchanged just 
after there is assurance that the AEO details are exchanged in a secure way and only for the 
purpose of the agreement.  
(4) Make the details exchanged compatible with the transaction systems in the partner countries 
in order to identify the AEO concerned and provide them the agreed benefits. One of the big 
problems at this stage is that the trader iden tification numbers used by national systems are 
not compatible and then a "match mechanism" needs to be implemented in order to allow the different numbers to be recognized in the relevant systems. Another challenge related to 
better risk analysis is not just recognizing the AEO status but also the specific role this AEO 
has in the international supply chain. 
(5) Agree and implement a monitoring system to ensu re that the implemented system will work in 
the right way also for the future. Financial and economic restraints can be challenging for this. 
El párrafo 3.13 del informe de la Secretaría señala que… "De conformidad con la legislación 
aduanera de la UE, las administraciones adua neras nacionales deben formular resoluciones WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 158 - 
 
  escritas anticipadas en materia de clasificación arancelaria y origen. Las resoluciones anticipadas 
formuladas por las autoridades aduaneras de un Estado miembro tienen carácter vinculante para las autoridades aduaneras nacionales de todos los demás Estados miembros. Las disposiciones de aplicación del Código aduanero establecen un procedimiento para resolver los casos de información 
vinculante divergente emitida por dos o más Estados miembros. La Comisión mantiene en línea 
una base de datos pública de las resoluciones escritas anticipadas relativas a la clasificación arancelaria." 
5. ¿Estos instrumentos han sido de uso frecuente de los empresarios?  
EU reply:  Advance ruling on tariff classification, which in the EU legislation are referred to as 
"binding tariff information" (BTI) are frequently requested by economic operators. At the end of 
2012, a total number of 234.250 BTI were valid in the EU and this number has constantly grown 
during recent years.  
6. ¿Ha contemplado la UE expedir resoluciones anticipadas en otras materias?  
EU reply:  Advance ruling on other matters than tariff classification and origin are currently not 
envisaged within the EU.  
3.1.2 Valoración en aduana El párrafo 3.16 del informe de la Secretaría se ñala que... "La Sección del Valor en Aduana del 
Comité del Código Aduanero publica un compendio de comentarios y conclusiones del Comité 
sobre temas específicos relacionados con la valoración en aduana, con inclusión de la interpretación de determinadas normas sobre la materia señaladas a la atención del Comité. El compendio contiene también una revista general de las resoluciones del Tribunal de Justicia de la 
UE relativas a la valoración en aduana. La última actualización del compendio se publicó en 
septiembre de 2008." 
7. ¿Estos comentarios y conclusiones del comité pueden ser cuestionados por la 
comunidad empresarial? 
EU reply:  The content of the Compendium is to be co nsidered as "guidelines", therefore without 
strength and value of legislative provisions. 
As such, they cannot be challenged by stakeholders, who have on the other hand the right to 
challenge any customs decisions, including those taken on application of guidelines. 
3.1.4 Aranceles 
3.1.4.3 Suspensiones y contingentes arancelarios 
El párrafo 3.48 del informe de la Secretaría indica  que... "La UE otorga contingentes arancelarios 
preferenciales de conformidad con acuerdos comerciales unilaterales o recíprocos (cuadro A3.2). También aplica una serie de contingentes a productos agrícolas (sección 4.1)." 
8. ¿Qué mecanismos utiliza la UE para controlar que no se soliciten preferencias para 
mercancías por fuera de los cupos de los contingentes? 
EU reply: At EU level, two methods of mana gement of tariff quotas exist: 
 The license-based management which is requiring the presentation of a specific import license 
at the moment of import. This document is issued prior to the import by competent authorities 
in the EU Member States and mentions the allocated volume. The initial volume of the tariff 
quota is, therefore, fully respected. Indeed, if the import license is not presented, the out of 
quota customs duty is automatically applied. 
 The "first come, first served" management system which is taking into account the 
chronological order of presentation and acceptan ce of the import customs declaration. These 
requests are sent to the EU Commission where a central allocation is processed on a daily WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 159 - 
 
  basis (working days). Here, as well, the initial volume of the tariff quota is fully respected. 
Indeed, if the available balance of the tariff quota is not sufficient to satisfy the request, the out of quota customs duty is automatically applied. 
3.1.8 Reglamentos Técnicos y Normas 
El párrafo 3.85 del informe de la Secretaría indica que... "El Reglamento (CE) Nº 764/2008 
establece procedimientos relativos a la aplicación de prescripciones técnicas de los Estados miembros y obliga a la Comisión a publicar "una lista no exhaustiva de los productos que no estén 
sujetos a la legislación comunitaria de armonización"…  
9. ¿Existe algún criterio para determinar cuál producto requiere legislación comunitaria?  
10. ¿Exista alguna forma de priorizar los productos que necesitan ser legislados?  
EU reply to questions 9 and 10: On the basis of Article 114 of the Treaty on Functioning of the 
European Union, and in order to ensure the proper  functioning of the single market for products, 
the EU has the right to act by adopting measures for the approximation of the provisions laid down 
by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States. As mentioned in the Report by the 
Secretariat, the most common reasons for adopting harmonisation legislation at EU level are: 
 significant disparity between non-harmonized requirements across Member States that 
impedes free movement for goods as in those cases free movement cannot be effectively 
guaranteed by the mutual recognition principle; 
 the need to regulate new policy areas or emerging risks where little or no national legislation 
exists. 
In this context, Directive 98/34/EC9 requiring Member States to notify their draft national technical 
regulations permits to the European Commission to detect those areas where EU harmonisation 
appears appropriate due to the above-mentioned reasons.  
The harmonisation at EU level brings uniform rules across the EU, ensures free movement of 
goods, level-playing field and legal certainty and predictability while at the same time providing 
high-level of protection of public interest. 
… "La Directiva 98/34/EC impone a los Estados miembros la obligación de notificar a la Comisión y 
a los demás Estados miembros todo proyecto de reglamento técnico relativo a cualquier producto, 
junto con una declaración de los motivos que hacen necesaria la promulgación de ese reglamento. Si la norma técnica propuesta se considera justificada, la Comisión pedirá a los Estados miembros que incluyan en el texto notificado una "cláusul a sobre reconocimiento mutuo" en aras de la 
transparencia y seguridad jurídica de administraciones nacionales y agentes económicos. Ese 
procedimiento de notificación está en vigor desde comienzos del decenio de 1980." 
11. ¿Esta notificación se hace de manera simultánea con la notificación al Registro Central 
de Notificaciones de la OMC?  
12. ¿Este procedimiento se realiza de manera  previa a la notificación a la OMC?   
EU reply to questions 11 and 12: The notifications of the EU Member States' draft technical 
regulations under Directive 98/34/ EC either prec ede the notifications under the TBT Agreement or 
are done in parallel if the timing does not permit one notification after another. Ideally, the draft technical regulation is notified first under Directive 98/34/EC in order to solve potential problems concerning EU law. Once compliance with EU law is ensured the draft is notified under the TBT 
Agreement.  
                                               
9 Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical 
standards and regulations and of  rules on Information Society  services ( http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1998L0034:20130101:EN:PDF ). WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 160 - 
 
  Según lo expresado en el párrafo 3.86 del informe de la Secretaría… "En principio, los productos 
de la UE y los productos importados que no están abarcados por la legislación de armonización de la UE y se han introducido legalmente en el mercado de un Estado miembro pueden comercializarse en otro Estado miembro, aunque no cumplan los reglamentos técnicos del Estado 
miembro de destino (principio de "reconocimiento mutuo" establecido en el Reglamento (CE) 
Nº 764/2008)".  
13. En teoría, y a manera de ejemplo, si un producto colombiano cumple con la legislación 
española e ingresa a ese mercado, este producto puede ingresar a los mercados de los 
demás Estados Miembros sin ningún inconveniente. ¿En la práctica si sucede este supuesto y de ser así, qué documentos se deben presentar al momento del ingreso del producto a los demás mercados? 
EU reply:  In principle and according to the principle of free movement of goods laid down in 
Article 34 of the TFEU, a product that is lawfully placed on the market in one EU Member State can 
be introduced in any other Member State. Hence, a Colombian product that is compliant with 
Spanish regulations and has been marketed in Spain can thereafter be placed on the market of all 
the other EU Member States i.e. can freely circul ate within the EU internal market. However, the 
principle of free movement of goods may be subject to certain limits based on Article 36 TFEU or, 
as established by the case-law of the European Co urt of Justice, on the basis of other overriding 
reasons of public interest and which are proportionate to the aim pursued. Hence, Member States retain the possibility to determine their own level of protection, notably as regards the protection of public health and safety, of the environment etc. Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 lays down the 
rules and procedures to be followed by the comp etent authorities of a Member State when taking 
or intending to take administrative decision on the basis of technical regulations which would hinder the free movement of a product lawf ully marketed in another Member State. 
En el párrafo 3.95 del informe de la Secretaría se menciona que… "El sector de los vehículos 
automóviles está sujeto al denominado "antiguo enfoque", basado en prescripciones técnicas detalladas por productos específicos. En sectores tales como los de productos farmacéuticos, 
productos químicos, cosméticos o materiales de construcción se han desarrollado otros enfoques 
específicos de la armonización de la UE, adaptado s a las necesidades concretas de esos sectores".  
14. ¿El enfoque utilizado para reglamentar estos sectores esta de conformidad con lo 
establecido en el Artículo 2.8 del Acuerdo OTC de la OMC?  
EU reply: When adopting the approaches in the above mentioned specific sectors, the EU has fully 
taken into account and respected its obligations arising out of the WTO TBT Agreement.   
15. ¿Qué tipo de enfoque se utiliza para reglamentar los sectores de productos 
farmacéuticos, productos químicos, cosméticos o materiales de construcción? 
EU reply: The specific needs of these sectors either require recourse to a regulatory approach 
different from the New Approach (e.g. pharmaceuticals, chemicals or cosmetic products) or a 
specific adaptation of the common principles and reference provisions of the New Approach as 
consolidated in Decision 768/2008 (e.g. construction products). 
These specific approaches range from prior marketing authorisation for pharmaceuticals to 
registration possibly followed by an authorisation procedure for chemicals of concern (REACH) to 
labelling requirements and notification of information about cosmetics products through and EU 
web-based portal. In the field of construction products, the concepts of Notified Bodies and CE marking are used but a specific approach is adopted to establish harmonised rules on the 
performance requirements for construction products. 
De acuerdo con el párrafo 3.96 del informe de la Secretaría… "Las soluciones técnicas adoptadas 
para cumplir los requisitos esenciales con arreglo a los reglamentos basados en el "nuevo enfoque" 
se establecen, para la mayoría de los productos, en las normas europeas armonizadas, elaboradas 
por las organizaciones europeas de normalización a solicitud de la Comisión"… 
16. ¿Estas normas están basadas en alguna norma internacional? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 161 - 
 
  EU reply:  Whenever possible, the European Standardisation Organisations CEN, CENELEC and 
ETSI adopt international standards as harmonis ed European standards. CEN and CENELEC have 
agreements with ISO and IEC respectively in orde r to avoid duplication, overlap and conflicting 
standards at European and international level. Fo r example, almost 80% of all European standards 
in the electro-technical sector are either identical or based on IEC standards.  
… Según el mismo párrafo 3.96, "El cumplimiento de las "normas europeas armonizadas", 
elaboradas, según la Comisión, teniendo en cuenta los últimos adelantos técnicos en relación con 
determinados productos o riesgos, confiere presunción de conformidad con los requisitos 
esenciales abarcados por esas normas. Por consiguiente, los fabricantes que se han basado en las normas armonizadas no tienen que justificar con detalle la idoneidad de las soluciones técnicas aplicadas".  
17. ¿La no justificación con detalle de la idoneidad de las soluciones técnicas aplicadas 
hace referencia a los certificados de evaluación de la conformidad? 
EU reply:  Sector-specific EU legislation provides in which form the conformity of the product with 
the applicable requirements must be demonstr ated by the manufacturer. Decision 768/2008 sets 
out eight different basic conformity assessment modules, in accordance with relevant international standards and fully transposing in EU law the co nformity assessment toolbox developed by the ISO 
Conformity Assessment Committee. When EU harmonising legislation requires conformity 
assessment to be performed in respect of a partic ular product / risk, the legislator must choose 
the applicable procedures from among those modu les in order to keep overall consistency and 
coherence of the system. In doing so, the legislator is guided by a number of criteria, including in 
particular the nature of the product risks involved. As described in the Secretariat's Report, in 
most product areas compliance with EU legislation can be demonstrated through the least burdensome conformity assessment procedure – Supplier's declaration of conformity (SDoC), 
corresponding to Module A – Internal production control. . For some product categories considered 
of high risk, EU legislation provides for mandatory third party conformity assessment requiring the intervention of a Notified Body.  
Regardless of the procedure to be followed (SDo C or third-party) the application of European 
harmonised standards provide for the presumpt ion of conformity of the product with the 
requirements covered by those standards. Harmonised standards are voluntary and the manufacturer is free to demonstrate compliance through other means. If he does not use EU 
harmonised standards, the technical documentation he is required to establish on the product (and 
keep at the disposal of market surveillance auth orities in case of checks) must describe how the 
technical solutions applied render the product compliant with the essential requirements of the 
applicable EU legislation. 
De acuerdo con el párrafo 3.101, del informe de la Secretaría… "El organismo notificado designado 
puede subcontratar determinadas partes de sus actividades de evaluación de la conformidad a una 
persona jurídica distinta, de acuerdo con la legislación y las normas conexas para las que está 
acreditado y sólo en la medida en que lo permitan esa legislación y esas normas".  
18. ¿Esta opción permitiría que algunos organismos de evaluación de la conformidad 
pudieran certificar la conformidad de los productos colombianos a exportar a la Unión 
Europea? 
EU reply:  In those limited areas where the EU requires mandatory third party conformity 
assessment the EU system provides significant flexib ilities for the acceptance of foreign conformity 
assessment results. Apart from the actual issuance of certificates, all other stages of conformity 
assessment (including full testing and factory inspections for quality assurance purposes) can, in principle, be subcontracted by EU Notified Bodies  (NBs) to their non-EU subsidiaries or other non-
EU conformity assessment bodies (CABs). NBs take full responsibility for the tasks performed by 
subcontractors or subsidiaries, including as regards their technical competence. Given that product testing and factory audits are the most expensive parts of conformity assessment, these flexibilities offer, in the EU's view, significant trade facilitation potential. Non-EU CABs holding 
accreditation certificates issued by an accreditation body signatory to the IAF (International 
Accreditation Forum) MLA (multilateral recognition arrangement) or the ILAC (International WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 162 - 
 
  Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation) MRA (mutual recognition arrangements) will generally be 
presumed to fulfil the technical competence requirements to qualify as an eligible subcontractor. 
In addition to sub-contracting arrangements, international voluntary cooperation arrangements 
between CABs such as the IECEE CB scheme10 or the IECEx system11, to which EU NBs actively 
participate, also offer an important avenue for the acceptance of foreign conformity assessment 
results in the regulated area in EU when, for the products and risks covered by those schemes, EU harmonizing legislation provides for mandatory third-party conformity assessment. 
El párrafo 3.102 del informe de la Secretaría establece que… "Con arreglo a la política de la EA, las 
relaciones de los organismos de acreditación europeos con los organismos de acreditación de países no pertenecientes a la AELC o a la "v ecindad europea" deben gestionarse a través del 
Acuerdo Multilateral de Reconocimiento del Foro Internacional de Acreditación (IAF) y el Acuerdo 
de Reconocimiento Mutuo de la Cooperación Internacional sobre Acreditación de Laboratorios de 
Ensayo (ILAC)".  
19. ¿Esto garantiza que, al ONAC ser parte de los foros IAF e ILAC, los certificados de 
evaluación de la conformidad expedidos por organismos acreditados por el ONAC son 
válidos en la Unión Europea? 
EU reply:  In those areas where EU legislation permits self-declaration of conformity by the 
manufacturer, the latter is free to have his products tested either in-house or in a laboratory of his 
choice regardless of its location. Hence, when SD oC applies, a manufacturer can use non-EU CABs 
to assist him in complying with the applicable conformity assessment procedure. As mentioned in the previous answer, where EU legislation prov ides for a mandatory third-party conformity 
assessment requiring the intervention of a Notifi ed Body, and in the absence of an Agreement 
between the EU and the third country concerne d on the Mutual Recognition of conformity 
assessment results, non-EU CABs holding accreditation certificates issued by an accreditation body 
signatory to the IAF MLA or the ILAC MRA will ge nerally be presumed to fulfil the technical 
competence requirements to qualify as an eligible  subcontractor to a Notified Body. In addition, 
they will be able to participate in relevant international voluntary cooperation arrangements 
between CABs to which EU Notified Bodies also take part. 
El párrafo 3.103 del informe de la Secretaría menciona que… "En cuanto a los productos sujetos a 
evaluación obligatoria de la conformidad por terceros en un ámbito no armonizado con arreglo a la legislación de un Estado miembro, las autoridades nacionales de los Estados miembros pueden 
negarse a aceptar los certificados de conformidad emitidos en virtud de una acreditación por 
organismos de acreditación no pertenecientes a países de la UE que no cumplan las nuevas prescripciones europeas, aun cuando sean signatarios del Acuerdo Multilateral de Reconocimiento 
del IAF y del Acuerdo de Reconocimiento Mutuo de la ILAC"… 
20. ¿Cuáles son las nuevas prescripciones europeas para los organismos de acreditación no 
pertenecientes a países de la Unión Europea?  
EU reply: Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 established a European common accreditation framework 
in order to reinforce the unity of approach in the assessment of the technical competence of 
conformity assessment bodies operating in the EU. 
The EU's common accreditation framework is a tool to support the EU's internal regulatory policy 
and is based on the existing international accreditation framework. It is not intended to change or 
undermine international cooperation arrangements operated under ILAC and IAF and to affect or force changes in accreditation practices in other WTO Members. 
Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 does in no way affect the conditions for the acceptance of foreign 
conformity assessment in the regulated area in the EU. 
                                               
10 Worldwide System for Conformity  Testing and Certification of Electrotechnical Equipment and 
Components (IECEE) Certific ation Body (CB) Scheme. 
11 International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) System for Certification to Standards Relating to 
Equipment for Use in Ex plosive Atmospheres. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 163 - 
 
  21. ¿Por qué razones un Estado Miembro no aceptaría certificados de evaluación de la 
conformidad emitidos por organismos acreditados por el ONAC, incluso cuando este hace parte de IAF e ILAC? 
EU reply:  As mentioned in the answers to QQ 18-19, when a SDoC is required, a manufacturer 
can use non-EU CABs to assist him in complying with the applicable conformity assessment 
procedure. In those limited areas where the EU requires mandatory third party conformity assessment the current EU legislation requires th at the conformity assessment bodies designated 
by EU Member States to perform the relevant ta sks (so-called Notified Bodies) be established in 
their territory under applicable national law for reasons of legal liability as well as monitoring and supervision by the competent national authoritie s. The EU has entered into a number of Mutual 
Recognition Agreements with third countries permitting non-EU CABs to issue certificates carrying 
the same validity as those issued by Notified Bodies. In addition to such formal agreements, as 
explained above the EU conformity assessment system  provides for significant flexibilities for the 
acceptance of foreign conformity assessment results through either subcontracting or other 
voluntary cooperation arrangements among EU and non-EU CABs.  
…en el mismo párrafo 3.103 se establece que "Cuando esté prevista la evaluación obligatoria de la 
conformidad por terceros en el ámbito armonizado, la  legislación pertinente de la UE especifica los 
procedimientos aplicables, las condiciones que deben cumplir los organismos de evaluación de la 
conformidad (por ejemplo, los organismos notifica dos), incluidas, si procede, las condiciones de 
aceptación de pruebas y certificados de organismos de evaluación de la conformidad no establecidos en la UE".  
22. En el caso de la legislación armonizada.  ¿La infraestructura de la calidad en Colombia 
podría cumplir con las condiciones para la aceptación de pruebas y certificados de evaluación de la conformidad emitidos por organismos nacionales?  
EU reply: Please refer to the answers given to QQ 18-21.  
Comentarios en materia Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias (MSF) para el TPR de la UE : 
Desde el último TPR de la UE no se han dado cambios en el marco legislativo de las MSF: el 
Reglamento Nº 178/2002 (Legislación Alimenta ria General); los Reglamentos Nºs 852/2004, 
853/2004 y 854/2004, sobre higiene de los alimentos; el Reglamento Nº 882/2004 sobre controles oficiales y la Directiva 2000/29/EC del Consejo, sobre sanidad vegetal. 
Los Estados miembros de la UE hacen parte de la Comisión del Codex Alimentarius, de la 
Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (OIE) y de la Convención Internacional de Protección 
Fitosanitaria (CIPF). Por su parte la UE es miembro del Codex y de la CIPF. 
La legislación MSF está armonizada en gran medida, por lo que las medidas sanitarias y 
fitosanitarias se adoptan principalmente a nivel de la Unión. Sólo en muy pocos casos los Estados 
miembros adoptan MSF a título individual. 
3.1.9 Normas sanitari as y fitosanitarias 
El párrafo 3.108 del informe de la Secretaría señala que... "Desde el último examen de la UE, los 
Miembros de la OMC han examinado las preocupacion es planteadas en el Comité MSF en relación 
con algunas medidas de la Unión. Durante el período objeto de examen se plantearon por primera vez cinco nuevas preocupaciones comerciales (cuadro 3.8)." 
Cuadro 3.8 Preocupaciones comerciales específicas relacionadas con MSF de la UE, enero de 2011 
a febrero de 2012 
 Documento de 
referencia de la 
OMCa Planteada por Fecha en la que 
se planteó por 
primera vez Solución 
Aplicación y modificación del 
Reglamento sobre nuevos alimentos G/SPS/R/64 Colombia; 
Ecuador; Perú 1/3/2006 No comunicada 
Reglamento Nº 1099/2009 G/SPS/R/63 India 29/6/2010 No comunicada WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 164 - 
 
   Documento de 
referencia de la 
OMCa Planteada por Fecha en la que 
se planteó por 
primera vez Solución 
Niveles máximos de residuos 
de plaguicidas G/SPS/R/64 India 20/10/2010 No comunicada 
Reglamento sobre artículos 
plásticos de poliamida y 
melamina para la cocina G/SPS/R/62 China; Hong 
Kong, China 30/3/2011 No comunicada 
Reglamentos relativos al 
contenido de cadmio de los granos de cacao G/SPS/R/64 Ecuador 19/10/2011 No comunicada 
Decisión del Tribunal de 
Justicia de la UE relativa al 
polen de OMG G/SPS/R/64 Argentina 19/10/2011 No comunicada 
Límites al contenido de 
aluminio en los productos a 
base de harina G/SPS/R/66 China 27/3/2012 No comunicada 
Pruebas de residuos de 
plaguicidas G/SPS/R/67 India 10/7/2012 No comunicada 
23. ¿Durante el período objeto del presente examen se plantearon por primera vez cinco 
nuevas preocupaciones comerciales, entre estas, la aplicación y modificación del 
Reglamento sobre nuevos alimentos, presentada por Colombia, Ecuador y Perú 
(G/SPS/R/64), cuya solución definitiva todavía no ha sido comunicada. Colombia desea conocer cuando tiene previsto la UE dar a conocer la solución definitiva sobre la 
aplicación y modificación del Reglamento sobre nuevos alimentos? 
EU reply:  The European Commission is currently working on a new legislative proposal to revise 
the current Novel Food Regulation. Its adoption by  the Commission is foreseen by the end of 2013. 
24. ¿Ecuador planteó en 2011 interrogantes sobre los normas relacionadas con el 
contenido de cadmio en los granos de cacao. ¿Qué respuesta hay sobre esta consulta? 
EU reply:  Since responding to the concerns of Ecuador in 2011, the EU has been in constant 
dialogue with cocoa producing countries as well as with food business operators transforming 
cocoa beans into chocolate, cocoa powder and derived products which are then sold to the 
consumer. Cocoa producing countries have been invited to submit data on levels of cadmium in cocoa beans, and all data received have been taken into consideration during the preparation of 
the draft legislative proposal. Once the proposal is finalised it will be notified to the WTO as is 
customary. The EU looks forward to receiving inform ation on residual concerns, if any, during the 
comment period that will follow the notification.  
El párrafo 3.112 del informe de la Secretaría seña la que... "Todos los productos alimenticios deben 
cumplir las prescripciones generales establecidas en la Legislación Alimentaria General y las 
prescripciones específicas previstas en función del producto. En la Legislación Alimentaria General se establecen los principios generales aplicables a los alimentos y piensos a nivel de la UE y de los 
Estados miembros; la Comisión ha indicado qu e las medidas adoptadas en el marco de esa 
Legislación se basan siempre en el análisis de riesgos. La Legislación Alimentaria General permite la adopción de medidas "provisionales" cuando "se observe la posibilidad de que haya efectos 
nocivos para la salud, pero siga existiendo incertidumbre científica". Esas medidas "serán 
proporcionadas y no restringirán el comercio más de  lo requerido para alcanzar el nivel elevado de 
protección de la salud" por el que ha optado la UE, y deberán revisarse "en un plazo de tiempo razonable". 
25. ¿Con el fin de entender mejor el procedimiento sobre medidas provisionales que aplica 
la UE, nos gustaría que a través de varios ejemplos se pudiera establecer que no han no han sido excesivas y no se han converti do en un obstáculo innecesario al comercio? 
EU reply:  The possibility that Members may provisionally adopt sanitary or phytosanitary 
measures is provided for in Article 5.7 of the SP S Agreement. This article obliges Members to seek 
additional information necessary for a more objective assessment of risk and to review the 
measure within a reasonable period of time. The decision to take provisional measures may be 
exercised where scientific information is insufficient, inconclusive, or uncertain and where there WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 165 - 
 
  are indications that the possible effects on human, animal or plant health may be potentially 
dangerous and inconsistent with the Member's chosen  level of protection. The provisions of the EU 
General Food Law cited in the Secretariat report fall within the spirit of this article. No such measures have been adopted in the EU since the last TPR Review.  
El párrafo 3.113 del informe de la Secretaría indica que... "Las medidas que se adopten en el 
marco de la Legislación Alimentaria General deberán tener en cuenta las normas internacionales, "salvo que esas normas, o partes importantes de las mismas, constituyan un medio ineficaz o 
inadecuado de cumplir los objetivos legítimos de la legislación alimentaria, o que exista una 
justificación científica, o que el nivel de protección que ofrezcan sea diferente al determinado como apropiado en la Comunidad". En el contexto de l último examen de la UE, algunos Miembros 
pidieron aclaraciones sobre el nivel real de protección adoptado por la UE y la coherencia en la 
aplicación de la protección. En lo que respecta a la sanidad animal y los alimentos de origen 
animal, la Comisión ha indicado que la legislac ión de la UE se basa en gran medida en las 
recomendaciones, normas y directrices de la OIE y del Codex; en los raros casos en los que la UE 
no sigue las recomendaciones de la OIE y del Codex, sus medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias se 
basan en los dictámenes científicos de la AESA. En cuanto a las medidas fitosanitarias y relativas a productos de origen no animal, la Comisión ha in dicado que la UE siempre se basa en las normas 
internacionales pertinentes, si las hay." 
26. ¿Podría la UE explicar en detalle los parámetros y estudios científicos que aplican para 
determinar que las normas internacionales son insuficientes para alcanzar el nivel de protección requerido? 
EU reply: As stated in the Trade Policy Review Report, EU measures are based on relevant 
international standards. In some cases however, wh ere there are no such standards, the EU relies 
on scientific advice provided by the European Fo od Safety Authority (EFSA). Any measures that 
are taken on this basis, 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.  
Por otro lado; 
Al respecto, Colombia reitera la posición manifestada oficialmente a la UE a través de su 
E m b a j a d a  e n  B r u s e l a s  y  a n t e  e l  C o m i t é  M S F  d e  l a  O M C ,  e n  c u a n t o  a  l a  e n m i e n d a  d e l  
Reglamento 1881/2006 que introducirá niveles máximos de residuos para cadmio en chocolate y cacao en polvo, la cual tiene grandes implicaciones comerciales, económicas y 
sociales para los países productores de este grano y sus derivados. 
En este sentido, Colombia ha puesto en consideración de las autoridades europeas, los siguientes 
argumentos: 
(1) De acuerdo a la última opinión científica de la Agencia de Seguridad Alimentaria Europea -
EFSA (EFSA journal 2012;(1):2551), el chocolate y productos del cacao no son la principal fuente que contribuye a la ingesta dietaria de Cadmio. Sin embargo, estos mayores contribuyentes identificados por la EFSA no fuer on incluidos en la enmienda del Reglamento, 
"con el fin de permitir a los agricultores y los operadores de empresas alimentarias más tiempo 
para poner en marcha medidas apropiadas para reducir los niveles de cadmio" y poder proteger a grupos poblacionales vulnerables. 
(2) De igual manera y como muy bien se conoce, a la fecha no existen estándares internacionales 
en el Codex Alimentarius para el contenido de Cadmio en cacao y sus productos, ni tampoco existen a nivel internacional métodos o procedimientos analíticos estandarizados para 
determinar dicho contaminante en estos alimentos, lo cual se constituye en una dificultad para 
lograr la comparación de los resultados obtenidos en diferentes estudios de concentraciones de Cadmio presentes en los alimentos.  
(3) Cualquier nueva medida que se adopte debe cump lir con los principios básicos planteados por 
la OMC, lo cual significa que las medidas deben:  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 166 - 
 
   Basarse en principios científicos,  
 Deben tomar en cuenta toda la evidencia científica disponible y los métodos de análisis y 
muestreo relevantes,  
 Tener en cuenta las necesidades de los países en desarrollo,  
 Tener en cuenta la notificación obligatoria a todos los miembros de la OMC en etapas 
tempranas, lo cual permite la inclusión de comentarios para ser tenidos en cuenta. 
 Permitir en tiempo razonable que los miembros de la OMC realicen comentarios escritos, para 
ser discutidos y tomar en cuenta las observaciones y resultados de dicha discusión. 
 Ser proporcionales al riesgo y 
 Establecer límites que restrinjan el comercio lo menos posible. 
El párrafo 3.124 del informe de la Secretaría seña la que… "El Sistema de Alerta Rápida para los 
Productos Alimenticios y los Alimentos para Animales (RASFF) es una red gestionada por la 
Comisión que permite a las autoridades de control de los alimentos y los piensos de los Estados 
miembros intercambiar información sobre las medidas adoptadas en respuesta a riesgos graves detectados en relación con los alimentos y los piensos. Las medidas que adopten los Estados 
miembros, por ejemplo la retirada del mercado o el rechazo en la frontera de productos 
alimenticios o piensos, deben notificarse inmediatamente a la Comisión (cuadro 3.9). Hay dos clases de notificaciones del RASFF: notificaciones relativas a la comercialización y notificaciones de rechazo en frontera. Un miembro de la red envía una notificación relativa a la comercialización 
cuando detecta un riesgo en un producto alimentici o o pienso comercializado, o una notificación de 
rechazo en frontera cuando se ha denegado la entrada a un producto en la UE. En el contexto del anterior examen de la UE, algunos Miembros de la OMC plantearon preocupaciones y formularon 
preguntas acerca de la transparencia del RASFF y las posibles restricciones al comercio. La 
Comisión ha indicado que uno de los objetivos del R ASFF es facilitar la evaluación del riesgo de los 
productos alimenticios y los piensos, y que se envía una notificación al país exportador afectado y 
se le permite dar su respuesta cuando el envío se notifica al RASFF. Según la Comisión, las 
notificaciones al RASFF no activan restricciones inmediatas al comercio. La Comisión ha señalado que se están examinando los procedimientos operativos estándar de utilización del RASFF, que se harán públicos en 2013. La finalidad de esos procedimientos es armonizar la utilización del RASFF 
entre los Estados miembros de la UE y propiciar un funcionamiento más coordinado del sistema." 
27. ¿Cuáles son los resultados de dicha evaluación con el fin que sus medidas preventivas 
no se conviertan en un obstáculo injustificado al comercio? 
EU reply:  The RASFF Standard Operating Procedures are still under review and no exact date for 
publication is available at the moment.  
3.2 MEDIDAS QUE AFECTAN DIRECTAMENTE A LAS EXPORTACIONES 
3.2.3 Restricciones y controles 
El párrafo 3.143 del Informe de la Secretaría señala que... "Tras la entrada en vigor del 
reglamento de modificación de 2011, los Estados miembros de la UE pueden denegar determinadas autorizaciones generales de exportac ión de la UE a un exportador si tienen dudas 
razonables acerca de la capacidad de ese exportador para cumplir los términos de la autorización. 
Sin embargo, en esos casos, los Estados miembros están obligados a intercambiar información sobre esos exportadores. Además, en virtud del Reglamento Nº 428/2009, la UE puede negociar 
acuerdos de reconocimiento mutuo con terceros países (facultad que, hasta ahora, no se ha 
utilizado). 
28. ¿Qué tipo de controles se realizan para llegar a determinar que el exportador no tiene 
la capacidad para cumplir con los términos de la exportación? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 167 - 
 
  EU reply: The EU controls exports of dual-use items to prevent the proliferation of Weapons of 
Mass Destruction. Exports of dual-use items is thus normally subject to prior authorisation. 
However, in order to facilitate low risk transa ctions, the EU has introduced "general export 
authorisations" that enable exporters, where certain conditions are fulfilled, to export certain items 
to certain destinations without prior license. The us e of EUGEAs is subject to certain conditions and 
requirements, e.g. in terms of registration, notifica tion of transactions and reporting and liability of 
the exporter. Considering the risks associated wi th the export of dual-use items, competent 
authorities have the possibility to prohibit the use of these general authorisations if there is 
reasonable suspicion about the exporter's ability to comply with those conditions or with other provisions of the export control legislation.  
3.2.5 Financiación, garantía s de seguros y promoción 
El párrafo 3.152 del informe de la Secretaría señala que... "La UE presta asistencia para la 
promoción de sus productos agrícolas y alimenticios fuera de sus fronteras, y aplica programas de promoción de las exportaciones tanto a nivel nacional como subnacional. En noviembre de 2011, la 
Comisión Europea adoptó una comunicación cuyo objetivo es crear las condiciones necesarias para 
que las PYME europeas aprovechen las oportunidade s comerciales que surjan fuera de la UE. Entre 
las medidas previstas figuran el fortalecimiento de los actuales servicios de apoyo, la creación de 
un portal virtual único para difundir información a las PYME y la promoción de redes." 
Entre las actuales iniciativas financiadas por la Comisión para facilitar el acceso de las 
PYME a terceros mercados figuran las siguientes: la red Enterprise Europe Network; el Centro Empresarial y Tecnológico Europeo en la India; el Centro para las PYME de la UE en 
Beijing (China); y el Centro UE-Japón de  Cooperación Industrial en el Japón". 
29. ¿Nos gustaría saber qué resultados han arrojado estas medidas? ¿Y qué otras se han 
implementado dentro de esta política para qué PYMES europeas aproveche las 
oportunidades en el sector agropecuario fuera de sus fronteras? 
EU reply:  The main objective of the Commission Communication "Small Business Big World…" of 
November 2011 is aimed at facilitating EU SMEs access to third country markets by supporting a 
number of tools, investing in structures as well as creating a better synergy between the 
assistance offered at EU and Member States leve l to European SMEs. This Communication does not 
make any distinction between various sectors and no  particular measures related to the agriculture 
sector are taken in this framework.  
Several measures are in place to help the European companies to internationalise. The Enterprise 
Europe Network is a unique network put at the disposal of SMEs in and outside Europe. With 600 partners, it currently covers 53 countries, all over the world.  
The European Commission supports also a number of structures in Asia, for instance the EU-SME 
Centre in China, the European-ASEAN Business Centre in Thailand, the European Business and 
Technological Centre in India, as well as the IPR Helpdesks in China and in ASEAN countries. All of 
them provide services to European companies helping them to establish commercial activities with 
third country partners.  
4 EVOLUCIÓN DE DETERMINADOS SECTORES 
4.1 Agricultura 
4.1.1 La agricultura en la Unión Europea 
4.1.3.1 Ayuda interna 4.1.3.1.2 Medidas de sostenimiento del mercado interno 
El párrafo 4.13 del informe de la Secretaría indica  que… "Tradicionalmente, uno de los principales 
instrumentos utilizados en la UE para sostener los precios internos era la intervención pública, pero en los últimos años la utilización de la intervención ha disminuido considerablemente (cuadro 
4.6), ya que, según la Comisión, se ha convertido en una verdadera red de seguridad. Desde el 
principio de la campaña de comercialización 2001/2002, el precio de intervención del trigo común, el trigo duro, el maíz, la cebada y el sorgo ha sido de 101,31 euros la tonelada; en el caso del arroz paddy, el precio de intervención ha sido de  150 euros la tonelada desde la iniciación de la 
campaña de comercialización 2004/2005. La compra al precio de intervención se limita a WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 168 - 
 
  3 millones de toneladas anuales en el caso del trigo común y a cero toneladas en el del trigo duro, 
el maíz, la cebada, el sorgo y el arroz paddy. No obstante, existen disposiciones sobre compras más allá de esos límites cuando la "situación del mercado y, en particular, la evolución de los precios del mercado así lo requieran." En tales casos, la compra tendría lugar mediante licitación a 
un precio no superior al precio de intervención." 
30. ¿Con el fin de entender mejor este giro en la política de la UE, agradecemos se nos 
explique en forma detallada que se entiende por "red de seguridad".? 
EU reply: Reforms of the CAP since the early 1990s have changed public intervention policy 
decreasing both the administered prices and buyi ng in quantities or completely eliminating the 
system for some products. This was one of the elements of the reforms targeted at market 
orientation of the CAP. Most CAP support to farmers is now granted in the form of decoupled 
income support with no obligation to produce which allows farmers to produce to market needs. 
However, the CAP also provides for safety net mechanisms in order to respond to economic, health- or weather-related crises. These mechanisms include public intervention and private 
storage aid.  
El párrafo 4.18 del informe de la Secretaría señala  que... "Con arreglo al "Paquete sobre la leche" 
acordado en diciembre de 2011 y formalizado en marzo de 2012, los Estados miembros pueden 
hacer que sea obligatorio que los agricultores y los transformadores tengan contratos por escrito. 
El "Paquete" permite también que los agricultores negocien colectivamente con los transformadores, con límites sobre la cantidad de leche sujeta a esas negociaciones: los límites son el 3,5% de la producción de la UE o el 33% de la producción nacional del Estado miembro, o el 
45% en el caso de un Estado miembro cuya producción sea inferior a 500.000 toneladas. El 
"Paquete" permite asimismo que los Estados miembros regulen la oferta de quesos con designaciones de origen protegidas (DOP) o indicaciones geográficas protegidas (IGP)." 
31. ¿Qué resultados ha arrojado la  adopción de este paquete? 
EU reply:  Under the "milk package", so far, 11 Member States have opted to make contracts for 
the delivery of raw milk from a farmer to a processor or first buyer compulsory. This part of the 
Regulation applied from April 2012. The provisions on collective negotiations by producer 
organisations only applied from October 2012 an d Member States are required to provide for 
national legislation in order to formally recognise producer organisations. Nevertheless, collective negotiations were reported in one Member State at the end of 2012. Concerning the supply 
regulation of cheeses with protected designations  of origin (PDOs) or protected geographical 
indications (PGIs), which also applied from Octobe r 2012, so far, such rules have been adopted by 
one Member State for one type of cheese.  
4.2 Pesca 
4.2.1 La pesca en la UE 4.2.3 Políticas 
El párrafo 4.47 del Informe de la Secretaría señala que... "La sobrepesca sigue siendo un 
importante problema con el que se enfrenta el sector de la pesca de la UE; la mayor parte de las poblaciones de peces comerciales de las aguas de la UE son motivo de preocupación. En 2007, 29 de las 33 principales especies de peces comerciales de Europa estaban sobreexplotadas, pese a lo 
cual "en las decisiones relativas a los niveles de captura sigue imperando el pensamiento a corto 
plazo, y la capacidad de captura de la flota europea sigue siendo de más del doble de la necesaria para la explotación sostenible de [las] poblaciones de peces [de la UE]." 
32. ¿Nos gustaría saber si el número de especies sobreexplotadas ha aumentado desde 
2007? ¿Se ha hablado de establecer un plan de disminución gradual o congelamiento de los niveles actuales de la capacidad de captura de la flota con el fin de revertir la 
situación de sobreexplotación? De ser negativa la respuesta, nos gustaría saber las 
razones para no contemplarlo? 
EU reply:  The European Commission evaluates the number of overfished stocks (the stocks where 
the latest estimate of fishing mortality rate is higher than the rate corresponding to maximum 
sustainable yield) based on analyses by independent scientists working at the "International WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 169 - 
 
  Council for the Exploration of the Sea", the "Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries", and the scientific committees of various regional fisheries management organisations.  
According to these analyses from 2005 until 2013 the number of overfished stocks subject to 
annual regulations limiting fishing opportunities in EU waters (and nearby waters) in the Northeast 
Atlantic, including the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, fell from 32 to 16 (from 94% to 39% of the 
assessed resources). 
Management of fishing capacity is subject to an  entry/exit system. The fleet capacity for each 
Member State may not exceed certain levels, expressed in Kilowatt (KW) engine power and gross 
tonnage (GT). When a Member State withdraws a vessel using state funds (i.e. decommissioning) the maximum permitted levels are decreased by amounts corresponding to the capacity withdrawn. 
This system has led to gradual reductions in ceilings on fleet capacity. The actual capacities of the 
fleets concerned have also reduced. 
The European Commission expects that, based on the reform of the EU Common Fisheries Policy, 
overcapacity will be further reduced, where needed. The reform foresees some measures in this 
view. However, the final outcome of the reform of  the EU Common Fisheries Policy is not known at 
this juncture as it is subject to adoption under  ordinary legislative procedure foreseen by the 
Treaty on the functioning of the European Union and this procedure has not yet been completed by 
date of writing.  
4.2.3.2 Restricciones del esfuerzo  pesquero y las artes de pesca 
El párrafo 4.54 del informe de la Secretaría indi ca que... "La UE ha reconocido la necesidad de 
reducir la capacidad y el esfuerzo pesquero, y los Estados miembros están obligados a presentar 
informes anuales sobre la capacidad de la flota y las posibilidades de pesca. No obstante, la Comisión ha observado que el valor de esos info rmes es limitado y que es "imposible obtener 
conclusiones con respecto al exceso de capacidad de pesca." Sin embargo, con arreglo a las 
medidas sobre gestión de la capacidad, cada adición de capacidad debe ir acompañada de una retirada equivalente en cuanto a arqueo bruto y potencia, y no podrá sustituirse ninguna retirada 
de capacidad que reciba ayuda pública. Esas medidas han contribuido a la reducción de la 
capacidad total de la flota pesquera (cuadro 4.10)." 
33. ¿Dado el problema de sobrexplotación de sus recursos pesqueros, ¿qué medidas se ha 
pensado adoptar para mejorar la calidad y pertinencia de la reportada por los 
Miembros de forma tal que sirva como base para corregir la situación actual de 
sobrepesca? 
EU reply:  The reform of the EU Common Fisheries Policy, as proposed by the European 
Commission, foresees measures for biological, environmental, technical and socio-economic data 
necessary for fisheries management to be collected, reported and made available. However, the final outcome of the reform of the EU Common Fisherie s Policy is not known at this juncture as it is 
subject to adoption under ordinary legislative proc edure foreseen by the Treaty on the functioning 
of the European Union and this procedure has not yet been completed by date of writing.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 170 - 
 
  RESPUESTAS DE LA UE A LAS PREGUNTAS DE COSTA RICA 
PARTE I: PREGUNTAS EN RELACIÓN CON EL INFORME DE LA SECRETARÍA Página 40 (párrafo 2.53) 
El párrafo indica que se prohíben las restricciones a la "libertad de establecimiento" a las filiales en 
la UE de empresas no pertenecientes a la UE, pero no a sus sucursales o agencias.  
Pregunta: 
1.  ¿Podría la Unión Europea explicar las razones para tratar diferente a las filiales de las 
sucursales y agencias de empresas no pertenecientes a la UE? 
EU reply:  The establishment of subsidiaries in the EU is subject to the same requirements 
according to EU legislation, regardless of the origin of the parent company. Differences apply only 
to branches and this is simply due to the fact that branches are an extension of their parent 
company and have no legal personality. If a credit institution is established in the EU and therefore 
already complies with the EU legislation then it may create subsidiaries in the EU with no additional requirements, benefiting from the EU single passport. 
Página 55 (párrafo 3.50) 
Los tipos del IVA difieren entre los Estados miem bros. El tipo normal aplicado por los Estados 
miembros debe ser al menos del 15% ; pueden aplicar hasta dos tipos reducidos del 5%, como 
mínimo, sobre 21 categorías de bienes y servicios que figuran en el anexo III de la Directiva del 
IVA, en particular los alimentos, el agua, lo s medicamentos, determinado equipo médico, los 
libros, los periódicos, las revistas, ciertos insumos agrícolas, el transporte de pasajeros, la renovación y reparación de viviendas particulares, los servicios sociales que no cumplan las 
condiciones para la exención, y la percepción de derechos de entrada en las manifestaciones 
deportivas. Además, hay múltiples excepciones con respecto a la aplicación de tipos nulos y tipos muy reducidos (inferiores al 5%), lo cual da lugar a la aplicación de diferentes combinaciones de 
tipos en los Estados miembros. Los tipos normales del IVA abarcan alrededor de las dos terceras 
partes del consumo total; el resto está sujeto a otros tipos. El tipo medio del IVA en la UE-27 es actualmente del 21%. 
Pregunta: 
2.  Dado que los IVA difieren entre los Estados, ¿se puede dar el caso de que una mercancía 
importada ingrese por el Estado que tiene tasas de impuestos más bajas? 
EU reply:  The common system of VAT established in th e VAT Directive ensures that the goods are 
effectively taxed in their destination Member State. In case if the goods are imported in one 
Member State (import VAT paid at a national rate) and then transported to another Member State for business purposes, the transfer of goods to another Member State is considered as a taxable 
transaction.  
As a result of this taxable transaction, import VAT may be deducted (if the requirements for VAT 
deduction are fulfilled) in the first Member State whereas in the second Member State that taxable 
person is obliged to calculate so called 'reverse charge' VAT on the intra-EU acquisition of goods at 
the rate applicable in that Member State. This self-calculated VAT may also be deducted if the requirements for VAT deduction are fulfilled. 
Página 135 (párrafo 4.29) 
Se indica que 31 contingentes tenían una taza de utilización inferior al 1%, entre estos últimos, 
19 se administraban mediante de otorgamiento de licencias según el orden de recepción de las solicitudes. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 171 - 
 
  Pregunta: 
3.  ¿Podría la Unión Europea explicar a qué se deben estas tasas de utilización tan bajas de 
estos contingentes?  
EU reply:  Low fill rates for tariff quotas may result from market conditions such as competitive 
domestic production. 
Página 152 (4.69) 
La reforma del sector financiero de la UE ha ido más allá de la mera gestión de la crisis y de las 
hojas de ruta anunciadas en 2009 y 2010. Se consideraron necesarias otras iniciativas para 
abordar los nuevos problemas que seguían apareciendo como secuela en parte de la crisis. En particular, hay que tener presente la especial función desempeñada por la decisión de establecer una verdadera unión bancaria con la finalidad de eliminar las interconexiones negativas entre los 
bancos y la gestión de la deuda pública. 
Preguntas: 
4.  ¿Puede explicar brevemente la Unión Europea cómo se pueden evitar interconexiones 
negativas entre los bancos a través de una mayor unidad bancaria? 
5.  ¿Cuál es el principal instrumento que tiene la Unión Europea para evitar que una mayor 
unión bancaria profundice y haga extensivas ciertas crisis financieras a todos los bancos de 
la UE? 
EU reply to questions 4 and 5:  The objective of the Banking Union project is inter alia to 
provide the EU with comprehensive instruments to deal with significant financial crisis 
that can be applied in a harmonized manner across all Member States, thereby ensuring 
that financial stability is protected. This shou ld help, in particular, that the difficulties of 
a single bank can be quickly addressed and thus avoid that the problems of a single 
entity lead to a systemic crisis. 
Página 165 (4.108) 
En lo que se refiere a la presencia comercial y, en particular, a las filiales, se siguen aplicando los 
reglamentos europeos a todos los operadores financieros, independientemente de su origen. Las 
filiales de propiedad extranjera pueden benefici arse de un "pasaporte europeo" que les permite 
realizar sus actividades en la totalidad del mercado interior europeo. 
Preguntas: 
6. ¿Cuáles son los requisitos para obtener ese "pasaporte europeo"? 
EU reply:  The "European/single passport" is a system which allows financial services operators 
legally established in one EU Member State to establish/provide their services in the other EU 
Member States without further authorisation requ irements. The condition for a financial operator 
to get a "European/single passport" is to be legally established in one EU Member State. 
7. ¿Tiene la UE algún trato preferencial para la s filiales de países con quienes se tiene un 
tratado de libre comercio para obtener dicho "pasaporte"? 
EU reply:  The EU and the foreign financial institutions are treated the same way (FTAs are 
irrelevant in this aspect): once a financial services operator is legally established in one EU 
Member State, it may establish/provide its services in the other EU Member States without further authorisation requirements. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 172 - 
 
  PARTE II: PREGUNTAS EN RELACIÓN CON EL INFORME DEL GOBIERNO 
Página 15 (párrafo 3.23) El párrafo indica que se han establecido salvaguardias para garantizar que los ABI de los Estados 
miembros no entorpezcan la aplicación de la política de la Unión Europea en materia de 
inversiones.  
Pregunta: 
8. ¿Podría la UE explicar más detalladamente cuáles son estas salvaguardias y bajo qué 
criterios las aplicarán con respecto a sus socios comerciales? 
EU reply:  Where BITs with third countries are maintained by Member States, or authorisations 
have been granted to open negotiations or conclu de such agreements, that should not prevent the 
negotiation or conclusion of investment agreements  by the Union. Member States have to take any 
appropriate measures to ensure that their BITs do not constitute a serious obstacle to the 
negotiation or conclusion of BITs by the Union. If there is a problem identified, the Commission and the Member State concerned shall cooperate with  a view to identifying the appropriate actions 
to resolve the matter. 
PARTE III: OTRAS PREGUNTAS  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 173 - 
 
  RESPUESTAS DE LA UE A LAS PREGUNTAS DE LA REPÚBLICA DOMINICANA 
PREGUNTAS  
1. En relación a las Preferencias Recíprocas , paginas 32-24, en sentido general, nos gustaría saber 
si las preferencias otorgadas por la Unión Europea en sus Acuerdos post CARIFORUM-EPA (en particular el TLC-UE-Corea del Sur), son superiores o similares a las otorgadas a CARIFORUM en virtud del Acuerdo de Asociación Económica CARIFORUM-Unión Europea.  
EU reply:  As regards trade in goods, the CARIFORUM Economic Partnership Agreement includes 
provisions granting full duty and quota free acce ss into the EU market for the CARIFORUM States. 
Such concession is unparalleled under the EU- South Korea FTA or in any other subsequent (or preceding) FTA. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 174 - 
 
  RESPUESTAS DE LA UE A LAS PREGUNTAS DEL ECUADOR  
(1° batch) Informe de la Secretaría 1. De conformidad con el Capítulo 1, página 15, párrafo 1.8, ¿Podría la Unión Europea indicarnos 
qué planes de estímulo económico han aplicado, en qué consisten cada uno de ellos y a qué 
sectores estaba dirigido dicho estímulo económico? 
EU reply: As the financial and economic crisis began to intensify after the summer of 2008, the 
European Commission published a Communication in November 2008, outlining a European 
Economic Recovery Plan to combat the economic downturn. This plan was later affirmed by the 
European Council. Given the extent of the crisis, the plan called for an immediate and co-ordinated effort to boost demand, suggesting a fiscal policy response equivalent to 1.5% of EU GDP. This 
figure includes actions at the EU as well as the Member State level. Extensive information about 
the fiscal support packages adopted under the EERP,  their content and impact can be found in the 
first chapter of the Public Finance Report 2009 (pp.13-21): 
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/publication15390_en.pdf .  
2. De conformidad con el Capítulo 1, página 17, párrafo 1.14, ¿Podría la Unión Europea explicarnos 
como el Banco Central Europeo inyectó liquidez en gran escala a través de operaciones de 
financiación a plazo más largo (OFPML) y en qué consisten dichas operaciones? y ¿Cómo las 
operaciones monetarias de compraventa llevadas a cabo por el BCE en el mercado secundario de deuda soberana en la zona del euro han contribuido a evitar turbulencias en los mercados? 
EU reply: Monetary policy in the euro area is the ex clusive competence of the European Central 
Bank (ECB). The European Commission fully respects the ECB's independence, which is enshrined 
in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European  Union. In December 2011, the ECB decided to 
conduct two longer-term refinancing operations (LTROs) with a maturity of three years. These 
operations, which were liquidity-providing reverse transactions from the Eurosystem to eligible 
euro-area monetary and financial institutions, were conducted in December 2011 and February 2012 as fixed rate tender procedures with full allotment. A total amount of €1,018.7 billion was 
allotted in the two LTROs. Taking into account shifts in demand from shorter-term refinancing 
operations to the three-year LTROs, the net increase in liquidity provision by the Eurosystem through the two three-year LTROs amounted to around €500 billion. The significant take-up of liquidity in these two LTROs helped to alleviate the acute funding pressures faced by euro area 
banks at that time and thereby prevented wh at could otherwise have been a disorderly 
deleveraging process. More information on th ese operations and their impact on euro-area 
financial markets can be found in the ECB's 2011 and 2012 annual reports: 
http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/ pdf/annrep/ar2011en.pdf 
http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/ pdf/annrep/ar2012en.pdf 
The Securities Market Programme (SMP) was introduced in May 2010 in order for the Eurosystem 
to support the transmission of monetary policy de cisions in the context of dysfunctioning segments 
of euro-area financial markets, with a view to ensuring price stability for the euro area as a whole. By conducting interventions in the euro area debt securities markets the SMP aimed at ensuring depth and liquidity in those market segments which were dysfunctional. The ECB's Governing 
Council decided to terminate the SMP in September 2012. More information on the SMP can be 
found in the ECB's press release of 10 May 2010, in the ECB's Decision of 14 May 2010 establishing the SMP, and in the weekly financ ial statements of the Eurosystem, all of them 
available in the ECB's website. 
In September 2012, the Governing Council decided a number of technical features regarding the 
possibility for the Eurosystem to carry out outright transactions in secondary sovereign bond 
markets aiming at safeguarding an appropriate mo netary policy transmission and the singleness of 
the monetary policy (known as Outright Monetary Transactions (OMTs)). Information about this WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 175 - 
 
  can be found in the following link: 
http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/dat e/2012/html/pr 120906_1.en.html. 
3. De conformidad con el Capítulo 3, Sección 3.1 "Medidas que afectan directamente a las 
importaciones", página 43, párrafo 3.4. se menciona que "en conformidad con el Código Aduanero 
de la Unión Europea se prevé la armonización de los procedimientos aduaneros así como un nivel 
de vigilancia a nivel de la Unión en materia aduanera", bajo ese criterio y sobre la base de las negociaciones del Acuerdo de Facilitación del Comercio en la OMC, artículo 10, párrafo 8 y 9 que 
tratan sobre procedimientos comunes en frontera para el levante y despacho de las mercancías, 
así como los formularios y requisitos de documentación uniformes, ¿Podría la UE indicar su nivel de cumplimiento actual en relación a dicho acuerdo y si los países Miembros de la Unión han uniformado la documentación y el procedimiento requerido en los procedimientos aduaneros? 
EU reply: TPR is not an exercise intending at assessing prior compliance by WTO members with 
agreements still under negotiation. The customs legislation of the European Union is indeed 
harmonized, in particular through its Customs Code  that the Member States of the European Union 
are in charge of implementing in a uniform way. That harmonization covers the definition of 
customs procedures and of requirements regardin g the customs declaration of goods imported or 
exported, to be applied throughout the European Union. The information to be provided in and 
documents required to support a customs declar ation depend on the customs and non-customs 
legislation to be applied to the goods declared under a given customs procedure. That may include information or documents required by Member Stat es of the European Union in order to implement 
national prohibitions or restrictions. 
4. De conformidad con el Capítulo 3, Sección 3.1 "Medidas que afectan directamente a las 
importaciones", página 44, párrafo 3.8., en el que se señala que los comerciantes o sus representantes, deben presentar declaraciones de importación en la oficina de aduanas del Estado 
miembro de que se trate, ya sea por medios electrónicos o por escrito, ¿podría la UE indicar si sus 
países Miembros, al momento en el que un organismo gubernamental posea el original del documento exigido, aceptarían – únicamente - una copia autenticada por el organismo (de 
cualquiera de sus países miembros), en cuyo poder obre el original en lugar del documento 
original para el proceso de tránsito de la importación? 
EU reply: It is not clear whether the question refers to original and copies of the customs 
declaration itself (lodged either in writing or electronically) or to documents required with that 
declaration. In the first case, whatever the way it is lodged, the customs authorities will accept 
and process the customs declaration only in its orig inal form, as authenticated by the declarant. In 
the second case, required documents shall acco mpany the customs declaration, meaning they 
shall be available at the time it is lodged However, except where documents have to be actually 
produced to customs by virtue of a specific legal requirement, they are in general (and in particular in case an electronic declaration is lodged: see Article 77(2) of the Community Customs 
Code) only kept at the disposal of customs. In case a supporting document is not available at the 
time the declaration is lodged, that declaratio n shall be treated as incomplete and shall be 
completed afterwards by the production of the original document (see Article 76(1)(a) of the 
Community Customs Code). 
5. De conformidad con el Capítulo 3, página 45, párrafo 3.12., en relación a que los Estados 
miembros de la UE pueden otorgar la condició n de operador económico autorizado (OEA) a los 
operadores interesados que realicen actividades ab arcadas en la legislación aduanera y, además, 
sobre las ventajas que pueden otorgarse a favor de estos, como es la menor reducción de los 
controles aduaneros o un mejor acceso a las simplificaciones aduaneras y que el sistema es voluntario y no está abierto a las personas establecidas fuera de la UE. 
EU reply: This is a statement, not a question. 
6. De conformidad con el Capítulo 3, Sección 3.1 "Medidas que afectan directamente a las 
importaciones", página 45, párrafo 3.12., en el que señala que existen criterios comunes dentro de la UE para otorgar la condición de operador económico autorizado (OEA), ¿podría la UE indicar, 
sobre la base de las negociaciones del Acuerdo de Facilitación del Comercio de la OMC, si los 
criterios establecidos están conforme a lo establecido en el artículo 7, párrafo 7 de dicho Acuerdo? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 176 - 
 
  7. De acuerdo al EPC de Japón, página 115, último párrafo del cuadro IV.13, se expresa que "el 
Japón ha concluido Acuerdos de Reconocimiento Mutuo (ARM) de operadores económicos autorizados con la UE (4 de junio de 2010)", entr e otros países. Sobre la base de lo expuesto, 
¿Podría informarnos la UE con qué países también ha suscrito este tipo de acuerdos? En virtud de 
las "ventajas" que un OEA podría obtener mediante un ARM suscrito por su Gobierno con la UE, 
¿Podría explicarnos cómo ese "trato especial" se ajusta a las disposiciones de no discriminación; parecería que este tratamiento podría convertirse en una ventaja para ciertos productos similares 
de determinados países (que cuentan con un ARM con la UE)?  
EU replies to questions 6 and 7: The countries with whom the EU has a Mutual Recognition 
Agreement are Japan, US, Switzerland and Norw ay. The EU AEO Programme and the respective 
Mutual recognition agreements, the EU has concluded with third countries, stem from and are 
based upon the principles embedded in the WCO SAFE Framework of Standards. 
8. De conformidad con el capítulo 3, páginas 54 y 55, párrafos 3.49 y 3.50 respecto a que las 
mercancías se consideran importaciones a efectos del IVA si llegan fuera de la UE y que los tipos 
de IVA difieren entre los Estados miembros, respectivamente. Cómo se asegura la UE que esta 
diferencia de IVA se ajuste al principio de no discriminación (NMF), cuando se trata de mercancías similares importadas de distintos orígenes y consignadas a determinados estados de la UE con 
valores que no son similares; provocando una diferencia en el pago de IVA para la mercadería de 
determinado país dependiendo del destino de las importaciones. Igual situación en el mercado interno europeo, cuando se trata de mercancías importadas, con respecto de las mercancías nacionales, con un IVA elevado de importación pagado por su nacionalización (por los diferentes 
tipos de IVA de acuerdo a cada Estado) que se traduce en una carga interior al momento de la 
comercialización del bien importado en el mercado europeo, que bien podría ser mayor al IVA pagado por los productos similares, sustituibles o directamente competidoras nacionales. 
EU reply: The question relates, in fact, to how VAT actually works. A general overview is available 
on the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/ .  
VAT is essentially a consumption tax and one of its fundamental characteristics is the principle of 
tax neutrality for taxable persons (i.e. VAT-registered businesses). This postulate is implemented 
by allowing them to deduct the VAT due by the am ount of VAT paid on the purchase of goods and 
services related to their business. 
As VAT relies on a staged collection mechanism, in a supply chain, successive taxable persons are 
entitled to deduct input tax on purchases and must account for output tax on sales. In the end, the 
VAT collected by the tax authorities through this supply chain should equal the VAT paid by the final consumer to the last seller. VAT is thus neut ral for undertakings, as the burden of VAT is not 
borne by them but ultimately paid by the final consumer. 
The neutrality of VAT toward international transactions is ensured by the destination principle 
which means that the VAT system in the European Union is made so that the VAT is due in the 
country where the goods are finally consumed. A ccording to this principle, exports from one 
Member State to another are normally exempt from VAT and imports from other Member States are normally subject to VAT. This ensures neutrality in the Member State of import since imported and domestic supplies are taxed on the same basis and at the same VAT rate. When a Member 
State opts for the application of a reduced VAT rate, the same reduced VAT rate shall apply to 
domestic transactions and to imports of the same good (Art. 94 of the VAT Directive). In such a way, the reduced rates do not directly affect imports. 
9. De conformidad con el capítulo 3, página 57,  párrafo 3.55, "de conformidad con la Directiva 
92/83/CEE del Consejo, los Estados miembros pueden aplicar tipos reducidos del impuesto especial de consumo a la cerveza y el alcohol etílico producidos por pequeñas fábricas de cerveza y 
destilerías nacionales". Aunque en la práctica, según Informe de Secretaría, se aplican reducciones 
similares a la cerveza y alcohol etílico provenientes de fuera de la UE de conformidad con los compromisos asumidos en el marco del GATT. Partiendo del criterio que esos tipos reducidos se aplican a pequeñas fábricas de cerveza y destile ría nacionales y que el impuesto especial de 
consumo pagado en frontera (de ser el caso) se traslada al momento de la comercialización 
interna del bien importado, cómo se asegura la  UE que esta prescripción no otorgue un trato WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 177 - 
 
  menos favorable a los productos importados que el concedido a los productos nacionales similares, 
competidores, sustituibles de origen europeo. 
EU reply: As referred to in paragraph 3.55 of WTO Secretariat Report, tax reductions are provided 
in accordance with GATT commitments, usually on condition of a certificate of eligibility issued by 
the relevant national authority where the brewery or  distillery is established. The elements of the 
relevant Directive appear entirely consistent with the EU's obligations under the GATT. 
10. De conformidad con el Capítulo 3, página 111,  párrafo 3.282, en el que se menciona que el 
sistema de registro y protección de las indicaciones geográficas también puede utilizarse para 
productos de terceros países, ¿podría la UE explicar cuál es el procedimiento para dicho efecto? Además, ¿Podría indicar la UE si existe la posibilidad de validar aquellos reconocimientos diferentes a las D.O. pero que persigan tales fines? 
EU reply: EU legislation on protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications 
(Regulations (EU) No 1151/2012, (EC) No 110/2008 and (EC) No 1234/2007) allows non-EU 
countries to apply for registration at EU level of their protected geographical indications under the 
same conditions and procedures that apply for EU applicants. 
11. De conformidad con el Capítulo 3, página 112, párrafo 3.286, respecto a la importancia de las 
indicaciones geográficas para el comercio exterior de la UE y bajo la premisa de que se llegaría a 
un TLC con los Estados Unidos, ¿Cuál sería la figura jurídica de protección para los productos 
originarios del territorio de un Miembro de una región o localidad de ese territorio cuya calidad, reputación u otra característica sea imputable fundamentalmente a su origen geográfico? 
EU reply: The detail of FTA negotiations between the EU and its partners remains a matter for the 
countries concerned. The EU will continue to respect its WTO commitments and in particular will 
continue to ensure that its FTAs full y comply with the relevant WTO rules. 
12. De conformidad con el Capítulo 3, página 121, párrafo 3.306 sobre Observancia de los DPI, 
¿La UE podría explicar con mayor detalle las razones por las cuáles se otorgan ciertas flexibilidades 
a los Estados miembros en el marco de la observancia de los derechos de propiedad intelectual? 
EU replies to questions 10 to 12: There is no general "flexibility" granted to Member States. 
The Directive on the enforcement of intellectual  property rights (2004/48) requires all Member 
States to apply effective, dissuasive and prop ortionate remedies and penalties against those 
engaged in counterfeiting and piracy and so creates a level playing field for right holders in the EU. 
It means that all Member States will have a similar set of measures, procedures and remedies 
available for rightholders to defend their intellectu al property rights (be they copyright or related 
rights, trademarks, patents, designs, etc.) if they are infringed.  
It is only the case with Directive 2000/31 (E-commerce Directive), which establishes minimum 
applicable rules regarding the conditional exemption of liability for internet service providers 
(ISPs). Certain flexibilities are left to member States in that specific area that is E-commerce. For example, in many member States, ISPs cannot store IP addresses for the specific purpose of 
online copyright enforcement; exceptions include France. 
13. De conformidad con el Capítulo 3, página 65, párrafo 3.90, ¿Podría la Unión Europea 
indicarnos por qué no ha notificado ante el Comité de Obstáculos Técnicos al Comercio, el Reglamento (UE) No 995/2010 del Parlamento Europe o y del Consejo de la Unión Europea, de 20 
de octubre de 2010, por el que se establecen las obligaciones de los agentes que comercializan 
madera y productos de la madera y el Reglamento de Ejecución (UE) No 607/2012 de la Comisión Europea, de 6 de julio de 2012, relativo a las normas detalladas en relación con el sistema de 
diligencia debida y con la frecuencia y la naturaleza de los controles sobre las entidades de 
supervisión contempladas en el Reglamento  (UE) No 995/2010? Cuando pese a que las 
obligaciones sobre la comercialización de la madera y los productos de la madera contemplados en 
dichos reglamentos recaerían en el importador europeo también recaerían en el exportador al 
tener que presentar toda la documentación necesari a al importador para demostrar la procedencia 
legal de la madera y los productos de la madera. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 178 - 
 
  EU reply: The EU considers that Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 20 October 2010 laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and 
timber products on the market and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 607/2012 of 6 July 2012 on the detailed rules concerning th e due dilig ence system and the frequency and 
nature of the checks on monitoring organisation s as provided for in Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 
of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market do not contain provisions that would fall under the 
scope of the TBT Agreement. Therefore they did not need to be notified under this Agreement. The 
regulations neither establish additional legal requirements nor they set any conditions concerning product characteristics or their related processes and production methods and do not correspond to the definitions of neither technical regulation nor conformity assessment procedure under the 
TBT Agreement. 
14. De conformidad con el capítulo 3, página 81,  párrafo 3.160. ¿Podría explicarnos la UE en qué 
consisten los marcos de neutralidad competitiva? 
EU reply: The EU applies a competitive neutrality policy in order to identify and eliminate 
competitive advantages which SOEs may have, including with respect to taxation, financing costs 
and regulatory neutrality. 
 According to the EU legal framework, State Owned enterprises are subject to the same 
competition rules as privately owned companies. For example, when assessing 
concentrations falling within its jurisdiction, the Commission applies EU merger control rules 
regardless of whether the parties to the transaction belong to the private or public sector (recital 22 of the EU Merger Regulation). The EDF/Segebel merger case is an illustration of 
this.  
 Article 295 of the Treaty provides that the Trea ty is in no way to prejudice the rules in 
Member States governing the system of property  ownership. Member States are thus free to 
have SOEs, but they have to comply with the same rules as other companies. In particular, they are subject to the same rules on compet ition, including State aid rules, and cannot 
benefit from any advantages due to their ownership. In addition Member States may not 
adopt measures which deprive the competition rules form their effectiveness, nor could they adopt measure in relation to public or privileged undertakings which would induce them to 
restrict competition.  
 However, Article 106(2) of the EU Treaty provides for a limited derogation from the 
competition rules, only where this is necessar y to ensure the performance of services of 
general economic interest (SGEI) by undertakings entrusted with such a task. The objective is to ensure a provision of services of general economic interest in economically acceptable 
conditions and in a way that is least restrictive for the EU internal market and for 
competition. Furthermore, it should be noted that companies entrusted with SGEI, or with 
special or exclusive rights, can be SOE or private companies, so that, in any event, there is no difference in treatment. 
 Moreover, Commission Directive 2006/111/EC of 16 November 2006 provides mechanisms 
to ensure the transparency of financial re lations between Member States and public 
undertakings as well as on financial transparency  within certain undertakings so as to enable 
a clear distinction to be made between the role of the State as public authority and its role as proprietor. Separation of accounts is also necessary in order to ensure that compensation 
granted for the provision of a service of general economic interest is not used to cross-
subsidize commercial activities. 
15. De conformidad con el capítulo 3, página 84, párrafo 3.184., ¿Podría indicarnos la UE a qué 
objetivos no horizontales Malta y Portugal destinaron su ayuda estatal y cómo estos se ajustan a 
los compromisos de la UE en materia de subvenciones conforme la normativa multilateral? 
EU reply: State aid to industry and services that was not granted by Portugal for horizontal 
objectives (e.g. regional development, research , and environmental protection) was mostly spent 
on bank recapitalisations and guarantees for financ ial stability reasons. Portugal also supports the 
public broadcasting sector with an annual grant. Over the reporting period, Malta's sectorial State WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 179 - 
 
  aid was mainly dedicated to the rescue and restructuring of Air Malta airlines which are vital to 
Malta's economy. These aids to the service sector are by definition not subjected to WTO rules on 
subsides, expressed in the SCM Agreement. However,  they are subjected to EU stringent rules on 
state aid ( http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/competition/state_aid ). 
16. De conformidad con el capítulo 4, páginas 129 y 130, párrafos 4.9. y Cuadro 4.5 Pagos 
directos a los productores agrícolas en la UE, 200/2006 – 2009 / 2010, respecto de los pagos disociados, régimen de pago único; "Otros Estados miembros aplican el Régimen de Pago Único 
por Superficie, con arreglo al cual cada hectárea de tierra que reúna las condiciones requeridas 
tiene derecho al pago directo". De acuerdo a la notificación de la UE, G/AG/N/EU/10 de 19 de noviembre de 2012, para el período 2009/2010, este Régimen de Pago Único se justificaría bajo las disposiciones del Anexo 2 del Acuerdo sobre Agricultura, párrafo 6. ¿Podría indicarnos la UE a 
qué condiciones requeridas se refieren para otorgar el pago y bajo qué criterios esta medida se 
considera una ayuda a los ingresos desconectada si se habla de condiciones para cada hectárea de tierra y de "pago aparte por el azúcar, pago aparte por las frutas y hortalizas"? 
EU reply: The schemes referred to in the question are explained in the following DS:2 notifications 
presented by the EU: 
 G/AG/N/EU/11 of 20 November 2012 and G/AG/N/EEC/58 of 24 February 2009 for the 
Single Payment Scheme and the Single Area Payment Scheme, 
 G/AG/N/EEC/69 of 24 January 2011 for the Separate Fruit and Vegetable Payment, 
 G/AG/N/EEC/65 of 4 February 2010 for the Separate Sugar Payment. 
17. De conformidad con el capítulo 4, página 133, párrafo 4.22.; "Siguen aplicándose cuotas de 
producción al sector del azúcar, con una cuota total para la UE de 13,3 millones de toneladas de 
azúcar, dividida entre 19 Estados miembros. No obstante, a diferencia del caso de la producción de 
leche, la cuota puede sobrepasarse sin incurrir en sanciones, siempre que el exceso se exporte, se 
venda para usos no alimentarios (por ejemplo, biocombustibles) o se compute con cargo a la cuota 
del año siguiente." ¿Podría explicarnos la UE los criterios técnicos y normativos para permitir que 
"la cuota puede sobrepasarse sin incurrir en sanciones, siempre que el exceso se exporte " y, si 
de haberse presentado este caso, dónde se contabiliza esta "ayuda" conforme la normativa OMC, podría otorgarnos un ejemplo sobre este tema? 
EU reply: Article 61, point (d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and annual Commission 
implementing regulations require that the EU's  annual export subsidy quantity commitment of 
1,374,400 tonnes for sugar is respected. 
18. De conformidad con el Capítulo 4, página 146, párrafo 4.53, ¿podría la Unión Europea 
indicarnos como en virtud del Reglamento (U E) Nº 1026/2012, la Comisión Europea podría 
determinar que un tercer país permite una pesca no sostenible de poblaciones de peces y bajo qué 
criterios y que éste no represente un obstáculo innecesario al comercio de este producto? 
EU reply: The criteria for assessing whether third countries can be identified as countries allow 
non-sustainable fishing are set out in Arti cle 3 of Regulation (EU) No. 1026/2012.  
In assessing whether third countries cooperate "in full compliance with international law,, the 
European Commission will consider (i) international treaty law, including UNCLOS, UNFSA, 
international treaties setting up RFMOs and internationally binding measures established thereunder and/or international fisheries agreements, and (ii) international customary law. 
Relevant international practice, as, inter alia, reflected in the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible 
Fisheries and/or the FAO International Plans of Action including the one for the management of 
fishing capacity and/or the one to prevent, dete r and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated 
fishing, will be also taken into account. 
In assessing whether, as a consequence of the me asures taken by third countries, or due to the 
non-adoption of adequate measures, the stock is led to an unsustainable state, the European WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 180 - 
 
  Commission shall base itself on the best available scientific advice, as set out in Article 2 of the 
Regulation. 
As regards to whether the implementation of the Regulation might constitute an unnecessary 
obstacle to trade, it should be borne in mind that the Regulation is fully in line with international 
agreements to which the EU is a party, including the WTO agreement. The Regulation responds to 
the legitimate objective of guaranteeing the sustainability of fish stocks and any action thereunder, including possible trade restrictions, will not create unnecessary obstacles to trade. 
19. De conformidad con el Capítulo 4, Sección 3) "Servicios", página 152, párrafo 4.69., la reforma 
del sector financiero de la Unión Europea (UE)  demanda la necesidad de una verdadera unión 
bancaria para eliminar las interconexiones negativas entre los bancos y la gestión de la deuda pública. En la página 155, párrafo 4.73 se menciona que uno de los cuatro elementos de este 
proyecto es la creación de un Mecanismo Único de Supervisión (MUS) y en el párrafo 4.80., se 
menciona el establecimiento de una Junta Europea de Riesgo Sistémico para vigilar las amenazas a la estabilidad del sistema financiero en su conjunto. La Unión Europea, podría explicarnos ¿cómo 
estas medidas se ajustan a la normativa del Acuerdo General del Comercio de Servicios y cómo 
aplicarían la excepción cautelar del Anexo sobre servicios financieros si dichas medidas pudieran afectar la competencia en el sector? 
EU reply: Under the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) the ECB will exercise key supervisory 
tasks and powers over all the credit institutions  established within the euro area. The SSM does 
not discriminate between foreign and EU banks and does not introduce new market access limitations for foreign banks. It is therefore fully compliant with the EU's GATS commitments. The 
European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) monitors potential risks for financial stability and may issue 
(non-binding) warnings and recommendations. It does not take supervisory measures vis-à-vis financial institutions. 
20. De conformidad con el Capítulo 4, Sección 3) "Servicios", página 156, párrafo 4.85., se 
propuso un nuevo marco global para la gestión de la crisis en la UE con mecanismos más amplios y eficaces para ocuparse de bancos en graves dificultades, promoviendo el rescate de sus 
funciones esenciales y que los costos recaigan en los propietarios del banco y los acreedores, no 
en los contribuyentes, a través de nuevos mecanismos de cooperación transfronteriza. La Unión Europea, podría explicarnos ¿qué tipo de mecanismos se emplearían? 
EU reply: The Commission's proposal for a Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive is currently 
discussed by the Council and the Parliament. The cross-border cooperation mechanisms comprised 
in the Commission's proposal aim at developing arrangements to tackle cross-border banking failures. The draft Directive would indeed rely on a network of national authorities and resolution 
funds to resolve banks. 
Note also that, in complement, the Commission has proposed a regulation creating a Single 
Resolution Mechanism (SRM) built around a Single Resolution body, which will involve all relevant 
actors and a single resolution fund. The SRM should mirror the SSM and cover all banks in the 
Euro area. 
21. De conformidad con el Capítulo 4, Sección 3) "Servicios", página 162, párrafo 4.105., con 
respecto al suministro transfronterizo de servicios, se menciona que la mayor parte de la 
legislación recientemente adoptada por la UE incluye regímenes aplicables a terceros países con 
arreglo a los cuales los operadores establecidos en el extranjero pueden proseguir sus actividades vinculadas a mercados financieros europeos siempre que se cumplan determinados requisitos 
prudenciales, en particular que el sistema norm ativo en cuyo marco operen en su país se 
consideren de calidad equivalente al de la UE. La Unión Europea podría explicarnos ¿Cómo estas medidas se ajustan a la normativa de la OMC? 
EU reply: The equivalence regimes included in recent EU legislation allow financial firms to 
provide cross border services to the EU without having to meet all regulatory requirements of the 
EU regulatory framework (under the condition that  the regulatory regime of the third country can 
be considered equivalent to the EU regulatory regime and the existence of a cooperation 
agreement between the supervisory authorities of the third country and the EU. This is compliant WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 181 - 
 
  with the EU's GATS commitments. Foreign financial operators legally established in the EU have to 
comply with the EU's regulatory framework and be nefit from the same rights as EU operators. 
22 ¿Podría la UE informar el estado de situació n de la modificación de su Regulación (EC) 
No 1881/2006? 
EU reply:  Amendments to Regulation 1881/2006 are likely to be made with respect to additional 
MLs for cadmium in chocolate and cocoa products as sold to the consumer; additional MLs for 
infant formulae and minor adjustments of existing MLs.  
A draft proposal is currently under consideration. Once it enters into the ordinary legislative 
procedure, it will be submitted to trading partne rs for their comments and observations under the 
transparency provisions of the WTO SPS Agreement. 
23 ¿Podría la UE indicar si actualmente aplica, (y de ser el caso cómo lo hace) el artículo 11, 
párrafo 9 del proyecto de texto en negociación sobre el Acuerdo de Facilitación del Comercio de la 
OMC en el que se indica que, "Una vez que las mercancías hayan sido objeto de un procedimiento en tránsito y que hayan sido autorizadas para continuar desde el punto de partida en el territorio 
de un Miembro, no estarán sujetas a nuevas cargas aduaneras, formalidades [o inspecciones 
aduaneras] hasta que concluyan su tránsito en el punto de destino dentro del territorio del Miembro"? 
EU reply: TPR is not an exercise intending at assessing prior compliance by WTO members with 
agreements still under negotiation. Goods placed under a transit procedure in the European Union 
are not subject to customs duties, other charges or commercial policy measures. They remain however under customs supervision, which means that they may be subject to any appropriate 
action by customs (including controls en route, namely of the means of transport) aiming at 
ensuring that the holder of the procedure complies with transit-related rules and obligations and that the provisions applicable to those goods are observed. In addition, placing goods under a 
transit procedure is without prejudice of the application of specific measures like prohibitions or 
restrictions, in particular for safety and security reasons. 
Batch 2 
Informe de Secretaría:  
1.- En el Párrafo 3.92., de la Sección 3.1.8. "Reglamentos Técnicos y Normas", del Capítulo 3. 
"Políticas y Prácticas Comerciales, por Medidas", y respectivo Cuadro 3.7 se menciona las preocupaciones planteadas por los Miembros respecto a medidas propuestas y adoptadas por la UE 
o por sus Estados Miembros en el marco del Acuerdo OTC de la OMC.  
1.1. Respecto al Reglamento relativo al registro, la evaluación, la autorización y 
restricción de sustancias y preparados químicos (REACH), el Ecuador ha señalado sobre 
este tema en el Comité de OTC que el REACH constituye un obstáculo al comercio, por la 
complejidad de sus disposiciones y por los costos que entraña, considerando especialmente que el 
registro afectará negativamente a los países en desarrollo exportadores de sustancias químicas, y 
en particular a las PYMEs. En razón de ello, el Ecuador desearía conocer si el Reglamento se 
encuentra de conformidad al 2.2 del Acuerdo OTC y qué medidas ha tomado la UE para evitar que 
este Reglamento restrinja el comercio más de lo necesario.  
EU reply: The EU would like to recall that Article 2. 2 sentence 2 of the TBT Agreement provides 
that, in order not to create unnecessary barriers to international trade, technical regulations shall 
not be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective. The legitimate objective of REACH is ensuring the functioning of  the EU internal market and a high level of 
protection of human health and the environment. The obligation not to create unnecessary 
obstacles to trade does not mean that industry (from the EU and third countries) has not to make any efforts to achieve the level of protection the EU is aiming at, as long as the requirements do 
not create unnecessary or disproportionate burden. In order to ensure that the high level of 
protection the EU is aiming at does not create unnecessary and disproportionate burden to industry, the EU has carried out extensive stakeholder consultation, including stakeholders from third countries, detailed impact assessment and has also notified the draft text of REACH under WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 182 - 
 
  the TBT Agreement. All information collected, as well as discussions in the legislative procedure 
have been carefully considered and have  led to the final text of REACH.  
The EU would also like to point out that REACH is equally applicable to domestic and imported 
products as well as to domestic and foreign suppliers. In the development of REACH provisions, 
special attention has been paid to the consequences to international trade and to the needs of 
SMEs and a specific "SME test" is integral part of the impact assessments carried out at EU level. 
1.2. Con relación al Registro de medicamentos tradicionales a base de plantas , el Ecuador 
país exporta productos medicinales a base de plan tas, y el cumplimiento de las prescripciones 
estipuladas en esas Directivas para la autorización de las importaciones y el registro para el mercado de la UE sería excesivamente costoso y difícil (principalmente pruebas químicas, microbiológicas y farmacológicas, así como los pormenores y datos sobre la calidad y seguridad), 
sobre todo para las empresas pequeñas y medianas de los países en desarrollo, siendo así, el 
Ecuador solicita a la UE que se aclare cómo la Directiva europea cumple con las disposiciones del Acuerdo OTC, en particular aquellas relacionadas con el art 2.2.  
EU reply: Traditional herbal medicinal products are medicinal products and as a consequence, EU 
legislation on pharmaceutical products for human use applies. A simplified registration procedure is 
in place for herbal medicinal products which have been in use with a long tradition and which do 
not fulfil the requirements for a full marketing authorisation. This allows the registration of herbal 
medicinal products without requiring particulars an d documents on tests and trials on safety and 
efficacy, provided that there is sufficient evidence  of the medicinal use of the product throughout a 
period of at least 30 years, including at least 15 years in the EU. This is particularly useful when an 
applicant can demonstrate fulfilment of the relevant requirements through detailed references to 
published scientific literature demonstrating that the constituent(s) of the medicinal products are well-established in medicinal use, have recognised efficacy and a level of safety. In addition, In 
view of the particularities of herbal medicinal products, a Committee for Herbal Medicinal Products 
(HMPC) has been established. A major task for the HMPC is to establish EU monographs for traditional herbal medicinal products, and, prepare a draft list of herbal substances which have 
been in medicinal use for a sufficiently long time, and hence are considered not to be harmful 
under normal conditions of use. The idea here is to facilitate registration in the field of traditional herbal medicinal products. 
More detailed information can be found on the following website 
(http://ec.europa.eu/health/human-use/h erbal-medicines/index_en.htm#geninf ) 
2.- En el Párrafo 3.107., de la Sección 3.1.9. "Normas Sanitarias y fitosanitarias", del Capítulo 3. 
"Políticas y Prácticas Comerciales, por Medidas", y respectivo Cuadro 3.8. se indica las 
preocupaciones planteadas por los Miembros respecto a medidas propuestas y adoptadas por la UE 
o por sus Estados Miembros en el marco del Acuerdo MSF de la OMC:  
2.1. Con relación a la aplicación y modificación del Reglamento sobre nuevos alimentos, ya el 
Ecuador y otros países de la región presentaron su preocupación desde el 2006 y en la reunión del 
Comité MSF de 2012 el Ecuador compartió la preocu pación de Perú al afirmar que el Reglamento 
Nº 238/97 constituía un obstáculo innecesario al comercio porque se aplicaba a productos que no se habían comercializado ampliamente en el mercado de la UE antes de 1997, sin tener en cuenta 
que se habían consumido en otros países sin causar problemas de toxicidad. En dicha reunión se 
señaló que el Reglamento y su aplicación eran contrarias al artículo 5 del Acuerdo MSF porque no se había basado en una evaluación adecuada de riesgos con pruebas científicas, al respecto, el 
Ecuador apreciaría conocer el estado de situación de esta normativa y las fechas tentativas de su 
eventual modificación, en caso de que ésta se encuentre prevista.  
EU reply: The European Commission is currently working on a new legislative proposal to revise 
the current Novel Food Regulation. Its adoption by  the Commission is foreseen by the end of 2013. 
3.- En el párrafo 3.303., de la Sección 3.3.5.4.3 "Observancia de los DPI en la frontera exterior de 
la UE". del Capítulo 3. "Políticas y Prácticas Comerciales, por Medidas", se detalla el problema suscitado en el 2010 cuando Brasil y la India soli citaron consultas con la UE y los Países Bajos 
respecto al trato aduanero de medicamentos producidos en la India. Se señala que el Reglamento 
No. 1383/2003 del Consejo que permitió a la UE este procedimiento está siendo modificado. En WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 183 - 
 
  ambos procesos se aceptó la asociación del Ecuador a las consultas, donde se señaló que "El 
Ecuador tiene un interés comercial sustancial en estas consultas, dado que se han confiscado envíos de medicamentos genéricos destinados al Ecuador en tránsito en el territorio de la Unión Europea en 2008 y 2009. Preocupa también al Ecuador que estas medidas puedan afectar 
desfavorablemente al envío de medicamentos destinados al Ecuador en el futuro". En tal sentido, 
mucho se agradecerá que la UE señale cómo es compatible el Reglamento y su nuevo Proyecto con los artículos V y X del GATT de 1994 y de varias disposiciones del Acuerdo sobre los ADPIC, entre 
ellos el artículo 28 leído conjuntamente con el artículo 2, los artículos 41 y 42, 51 y 52 y el artículo 
31 leído conjuntamente con las disposiciones de la Decisión. 
EU reply: The new Regulation (EU) 608/2013 concerning customs enforcement of intellectual 
property rights complies with the internationa l commitments of the WTO members regulated by 
TRIPS and GATT. 
The new Regulation (EU) 608/2013, like Regulati on 1383/2003, is of a procedural nature and 
therefore does not contain any substantive rules defining the conditions in which goods in transit 
infringe IPR other than by reference to the relevant substantive IP laws. Moreover the Guidelines 
of the European Commission concerning the enforc ement by EU customs' authorities of IPR with 
regard to goods, in particular medicines, in transit through the EU aim to address the specific 
concerns raised by India and Brazil with regard to medicines in genuine transit through the EU 
which are covered by a patent right in the EU. 
Batch 3  Informe de la Secretaría 
Párrafo 2.13. Página 32. En el marco de los objetivos de política comercial propuestos por la 
Comisión Europea, cuál sería el alcance del mejoramiento de las disposiciones en materia de inversiones dirigidos a los países de menor desarrollo? Asimismo, ¿Cuál sería el alcance de los 
capítulos relativos a inversiones en los ALC suscritos por la Unión Europea? 
EU reply: EU investment policy aims to include investment liberalization and investment 
protection in its trade agreements with third countries, including in agreements with developing 
countries. This will provide for an open, stable an d secure investment regime for investors of both 
parties, capable of attracting long term and sustainable investments in both the EU and the third country in question.  
As mentioned above, the investment chapters of EU FTAs will cover both investment liberalization 
and investment protection. 
Párrafo 2.15. Página 32. Con respecto a las negociaciones comerciales que lleva a cabo la Unión 
Europea, podría ampliarse la información acerca de las evaluaciones de impacto del comercio en la 
sostenibilidad? ¿Cuál ha sido el resultado de las evaluaciones con sus interlocutores comerciales en 
términos ambientales y sociales? ¿Producto de esta s evaluaciones, se podría dar una aproximación 
sobre un impacto positivo en estos aspectos, derivado de la suscripción de acuerdos comerciales? 
EU reply: Trade SIAs are independent studies, carried out during the negotiations, on the basis of 
which the Commission sets out its own views on the identified impacts, and on the policy 
measures proposed to address them. Trade SIAs consist of two complementary elements of equal 
importance: a robust analysis of the potential economic, social, environmental and human rights 
impacts of a proposed trade agreement, both in the EU and in the partner countries; and a 
transparent and very wide consultation process wh ich ensures a high degree of transparency, aims 
to engage stakeholders, and allows to take account of concerns of relevant interest groups. Trade 
SIAs help to integrate sustainability into trade policy by informing negotiators of the possible 
economic, social, environmental and human ri ghts consequences of a trade agreement. 
Párrafo 2.24. Página 34. ¿Ante la pérdida del SGP, tiene prevista la Unión Europea alguna 
estrategia para los 20 países que han pasado a ser de ingreso mediano alto o alto por la 
clasificación del Banco Mundial, a fin de que sus productos puedan continuar ingresando a la UE con preferencia? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 184 - 
 
  EU reply: The thorough impact assessment that accompanied the Commission's proposal for the 
revised GSP and based, i.a., on extensive independent studies, demonstrated that economic 
impacts of deferring the GSP preferences will be marginal in case of all the countries concerned. This can be explained by the fact that: a) for those countries, exports under the EU GSP do not 
account for a significant portion of their total exports to the EU; b) EU MFN tariff duties are in any 
case already reasonably low. Therefore, a strate gy for upper-middle or high income countries was 
not warranted by the facts. 
Párrafo 3.31. Página 49. En cuanto a una ampliaci ón general de las normas del SGP, la UE ha 
indicado que se tomarían en cuenta algunos aspectos de las disposiciones generales. Sin embargo si un país no cuenta con una acuerdo comercial que pueda sustituir a las preferencias otorgadas en virtud del SGP, cuál sería el tratamiento que la UE contemplaría, adicional a los aspectos de las 
disposiciones generales? 
EU reply: In the Report, it was meant that some aspects of GSP Rules of Origin (like general 
provisions and list rules) may be considered when negotiating Rules of Origin in the framework of 
new trade agreement. Therefore, in practice, there is no special treatment foreseen for countries 
which do not have a trade agreement with the EU yet and are not beneficiaries of GSP preferences. 
Párrafo 3.62. Página 58. ¿Podría la Unión Europea ampliar la información sobre las medidas 
ambientales que actualmente aplica por fuera de los acuerdos comerciales? ¿De qué manera éstas han incidido en un menor impacto ambiental dentro del espacio europeo? 
EU reply:  The EU and/or its Member States are pa rty to many international environmental 
agreements at global, regional and sub-regional levels. The range of matters addressed by these 
agreements is very wide and includes inter alia the following areas: biodiversity, wildlife and nature protection, climate change, desertification, management of chemicals and waste, trans-
boundary water and air pollution, environmental go vernance, industrial accidents, and maritime 
and river protection.  
The EU implements at the EU level the international obligations stemming from these agreements 
through the legal instruments at its disposal like regulations. The impact of the environmental 
measures contained in these regulations is generally assessed on a regular basis in the context of the reporting and review mechanisms which are set up in these regulations. 
 Párrafo 3.104. Página 70. En el informe de la Secretaría se detalla la vigilancia del cumplimiento 
de reglamentos y normas para los productos ingresados al mercado europeo; sin embargo, 
reconociendo que las normas y estándares aplicables al comercio se reducen, al menos nominalmente, a los principios de seguridad del co nsumidor y mejora de la calidad ¿Qué relación 
guarda la normativa exigible para sus importaciones con la normativa exigible para sus 
exportaciones? 
EU reply: The EU does not see any direct connection between requirements for import and export, 
and not, in the context of the paragraph Ecuador refers to. 
Párrafos 3.159- 3.160. Página 81. ¿Podría la Unión Europea confirmar la información acerca del 
número y sectores de las empresas comerciales del Estado?, ¿Es posible, además, determinar su participación en el comercio del bloque con el resto del mundo?  
EU reply: There is no mutually agreed definition at the multilateral level what constitutes a state 
owned enterprise (SOE). Within the EU Member St ates, the definition of a SOE varies from one 
Member State to another. Therefore it is not possible to give a precise number of SOEs in the EU. 
¿Se podría precisar cuál es el papel de las empresas comerciales del Estado en los compromisos de 
contratación pública? 
EU reply:  Public undertakings are subject to the rule s of the EU public procurement Directive 
2004/17/EC, when they pursue one of the utilities ac tivities referred to in Articles 3 to 7 of that 
Directive. These entities are offered under the EU Annex III to the GPA and the EU preferential 
trade agreements, subject to the terms of the EU 's Annex III and notes attached to it. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 185 - 
 
  RESPUESTAS DE LA UE A LAS PREGUNTAS DE EL SALVADOR  
INFORME DE LA UNIÓN EUROPEA  
2.3 Evolución del mercado interior v de los elementos principales de 
política general Derechos de propiedad intelectual (DPI)  
En el párrafo 2.31, se indica que en el mes de  diciembre de 2012, el Parlamento Europeo y el 
Consejo acordaron el "paquete de la patente unitaria", el cual comprende dos reglamentos y un acuerdo internacional y sienta las bases para la creación de una protección unitaria mediante 
patente en la Unión Europea. Tras la adopción de los dos reglamentos (Reglamento (UE) № 
1257/2012 y Reglamento (UE) № 1260/2012, ambos de 17 de diciembre de 2012), 25 Estados 
miembros firmaron el Acuerdo sobre el Tribunal Unificado de Patentes, en virtud del cual, tras su ratificación, se establecerá una jurisdicción única v especializada en materia de patentes para los 
Estados miembros participantes. 
En dicho sentido, mucho se agradecerá que la Unión Europea pueda ampliar la información sobre 
la "patente unitaria" indicándonos: 
A. Información sobre la protección de la patente en el sistema unitario;  
EU reply:  Detailed information can be found on the dedicated website of the Euroepan 
Commission's Directorate General of Internal Market and Services at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/patent/index_en.htm . 
Ámbito territorial de la Protección Unitaria; 
EU reply: A European patent with unitary effect will in principle provide patent protection for the 
territory of the participating Member States (on 30 June, 25 MS, i.e. all Member States but Italy 
and Spain ). During a transitional phase until all participating Member States have ratified the 
agreement on the Unified Patent Court, the unitary effect will only extend to those participating Member States which have ratified the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court. Further information 
available at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/in dprop/patent/ratification/index_en.htm .  
B. Autoridad responsable de conceder la protección  de la patente a nivel unitario (incluyendo 
aspectos administrativos y legales tales como idioma de trabajo, presentación de solicitudes vía 
electrónica; tasas; relación en la administración con tratados internacionales en materia de 
Patentes de la Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual, OMPI; competencias en materia judicial, entre otros); 
EU reply:  The European patent will be granted by the European Patent Office and, upon request, 
the unitary effect will be regist ered in the register for unitary patent protection by the EPO.  
C. Beneficios derivados de la adopción de un sistema unitario 
EU reply:  Benefits can be found in terms of cost savings, less administrative burden, higher legal 
certainty and uniformity within the Single Market  
D. Vinculación del sistema unitario con su política de innovación y apoyo a las PYMES.  
EU reply:  The benefits indicated in the answer above are of especial interest for SMEs, benefits 
consist in creating create a better innovation space in the European Union (See commitment 14 of 
the Innovation Union, key strategy for innovation in the EU, at http://i3s.ec.europa.eu/commitment/19.html ). 
  
  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1  
 
- 186 - RESPUESTAS DE LA UE A PREGUNTAS DE GUATEMALA  
Are to be found at the end of the document. It was easier to gr oup all the replies at the end of the document rather than insid e the tables. 
No TEMA SUB-TEMA PARRAFO PREGUNTA 
1 1. ENTORNO 
ECONÓMICO 1.1.2 Medidas de 
política 1.15. Como parte de las decisiones de política 
encaminadas a mejorar la gobernanza económica de la 
UE, en septiembre de 20 11 la Comisión Europea 
presentó seis propuestas legislativas para reforzar la supervisión macroeconómica y fiscal. El 13 de diciembre de 2011, esas seis propuestas (conocidas 
como el "six-pack") entraron en vigor en forma de 
cinco reglamentos y una directiva. Dos de los reglamentos establecen el procedimiento de 
desequilibrio macroeconómico (RDM), que introduce 
un nuevo mecanismo de supervisión para la prevención y corrección de los desequilibrios 
macroeconómicos a nivel europeo. ¿Qué implicaciones tiene el "six- pack" respecto a 
los compromisos de la Unión Europea frente a 
Centroamérica en el marco del Acuerdo de 
Asociación que se firmado? 
2 2. REGIMEN DE 
COMERCIO E 
INVERSIONES 2.1 Marco Jurídico e 
Institucional El párrafo 2.3, indica que la UE tiene competencia 
exclusiva de las políticas de comercio e inversiones, 
entre otras, y los Estados miembros pueden elaborar 
actos jurídicos en esas esferas sólo cuando están 
autorizados por la UE. ¿Cuál sería el proceso, en caso, un EM desee 
negociar un acuerdo bilateral en materia 
comercial o inversión? 
3   En el mismo párrafo, se indica que de acuerdo al 
Tratado de Lisboa, los Estados miembros conservan un 
grado distinto de capacidad normativa independiente, lo que puede dar lugar a la adopción de medidas 
nacionales que afecten al comercio dentro de la UE y 
con países no pertenecientes a ella.  ¿En qué casos pueden los países miembros de la 
UE establecer medidas unilaterales que puedan 
afectar al comercio interno y con terceros? ¿Qué tipo de normativa conservan los EM? ¿Desde 
2009, algún EM de la UE ha aplicado alguna 
normativa que afecte al comercio interno y externo? 
4  2.2 Objetivos de la 
política comercial y 
consultas Entre las propuestas presentadas por la Comisión 
Europea en materia de comercio e inversión, para la 
próxima década, se menciona como una de ellas: el 
uso de nuevas normas de origen para la 
complementariedad entre el comercio y el desarrollo. ¿En qué sentido estarían redefiniendo las normas 
de origen para contar con esa relación en materia 
de normas de origen y el desarrollo? 
5 3. POLÍTICAS Y 
PRÁCTICAS 
COMERCIALES, POR 
MEDIDAS 3.1.1 
Procedimientos En el párrafo 3.11 ¿Qué sucede si la presentación de la ENS se 
realiza fuera de los plazos indicados por el CAM? 
¿Es el exportador o el transportista el 
responsable de llenar la ENS?  
  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1  
 
- 187 - No TEMA SUB-TEMA PARRAFO PREGUNTA 
6  3.1.3.1 Panorama 
general En los párrafos 3.17 y 3.18 se establece la utilización 
de las normas de origen preferencia les y no 
preferencia les aplicadas a la Contratación Pública de 
los miembros. En ese sentido ¿Existen directivas o 
procedimientos comunitarios que establezcan el 
tratamiento que deba darse en una contratación 
pública para mercancías bajo normas 
preferenciales y no preferenciales? ¿Existen 
criterios de calificación en mayor o menor 
porcentaje para estas mercancías? ¿Qué 
requisitos solicitan los miembros en sus 
contrataciones para verificar el origen de una 
mercancía ofertada? ¿Qué tratamiento se otorga 
a una mercancía no originaria presentada en una 
contratación pública por parte de un país con el 
que se tenga un ACR? 
7  3.1.4.1 Aranceles 
NMF 3.37. El arancel de 2013 comprende 9.376 líneas a 
nivel de 8 dígitos: alrededor de una cuarta parte de todas las líneas arancelarias están libres de derechos; y se aplican tipos "de puro estorbo" al 9% 
aproximadamente de las líneas (cuadro 3.2)... ¿A que le llaman aranceles alternativos? 
8   3.3.5.1 Agotamiento de los derechos... ¿Cómo manejan importaciones paralelas 
procedentes de terceros países? 
9  3.23 Decisiones IVO 
en materia de normas de origen.  ¿Qué criterios utilizan las Aduanas de la UE para 
emitir las decisiones IVO en materia de reglas de origen cuando el importador tiene duda en el 
origen de la mercancía importada? ¿Este 
procedimiento es el mismo para todas las aduanas europeas? ¿Estas decisiones aplican para todos los acuerdos comerciales que tiene la 
UE? 
10  3.3 Medidas que 
afectan a la 
producción y al 
comercio. 3.3.1 
Empresas 
comerciales del 
estado y empresas 
estatales. 3.163. La tercera Directiva sobre los servicios postales, 
adoptada el 20 de febrero de 2008, prevé la supresión 
para el final de 2012 de todos los monopolios postales 
aún existentes. Por favor indique si se han suprimido los 
monopolios postales que existían en el 2012.  
  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1  
 
- 188 - No TEMA SUB-TEMA PARRAFO PREGUNTA 
11  3.3.3.1 Marco 
juridico En el párrafo 3.209 se indica que "...el proyecto de 
Directiva sobre concesiones exige una publicación obligatoria de las licitaciones en el Diario Oficial de la 
UE". En ese sentido, se indica la obligación de 
publicación, pero no se indica si los procedimientos de licitaciones de concesiones está sujeto a los mismos plazos y requisitos generales como la "Directiva sobre 
contratación pública" en donde se desarrollan por 
ejemplo que documentos de contratación debe presentar los oferentes. ¿Qué elementos o requisitos se deben presentar 
para participaren una licitación sobre Concesiones? 
12   En el párrafo 3.222 se lee que las Directivas de la UE 
no contienen disposiciones que excluyan la 
participación de proveedores de terceros países salvo 2 
casos concretos. Por debajo de los umbrales aplicables 
de las Directivas (Legislación nacional de cada 
miembro) ¿Existe restricción o prohibición de no aceptar la 
participación de oferentes extranjeros en algún 
caso? 
13 Obstáculos Técnicos 
al Comercio Acreditación Párrafo 3.102 COMENTARIO ¿Qué medida pueden ser aceptados los 
resultados de laboratorios acreditados en 
Guatemala por el organismo de acreditación con reconocimiento internacional? 
14  Acreditación Párrafo 3.103 COMENTARIO ¿Cómo puede interpretarse esta acción de la UE 
de invalidar los reconocimientos que otorgan 
organismos de acreditación reconocidos por IAF e 
ILAC "Los estados pueden negarse a aceptar los 
certificados de la conformidad emitidos en virtud 
de una acreditación por organismos de 
acreditación no pertenecientes a países de la UE 
que no cumplan las nuevas prescripciones 
europeas, aun cuando sean signatarios del 
Acuerdo Multilateral de Reconocimiento del IAF y 
del Acuerdo de Reconocimiento Mutuo de la 
ILAC? 
15   4.12. A efectos de la presente sección, se entiende por 
"medidas de sostenimiento del mercado interno" 
aquellas que se aplican dentro del territorio aduanero de la UE para aumentar los precios mediante la reducción de la producción y el control de la oferta… ¿Qué instrumentos utilizan para reducir la 
producción y control de la oferta? En contraste 
¿Existen medidas similares para hacer frente a la pérdida de competitividad en la producción en algún sector específico? 
  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 189 - 
 
  EU reply to question 1: The "Six-Pack" represents a major step towards economic stability, 
restoring confidence and preventing future crises in the euro area and the EU. This helps Member 
States to deliver on their budgetary and reform commitments while making the Economic and Monetary Union as a whole more robust. Benefiting from a preferential access to the EU market in 
application of the Trade pillar of the EU-Central  America Association Agreement, Central America 
could indirectly benefit from a potentially improved macroeconomic situation in the EU. 
EU member states are committed by the EU legislation referred to as the Stability and Growth Pact 
(SGP), to implement a fiscal policy aiming for the country to stay within the limits on government 
deficit and debt. The "six-pack" reform implie d an overhaul of the European framework of 
economic and budgetary surveillance designed  to address the weaknesses revealed by the 
economic and financial crisis. The new integrated system ensures that there are clearer rules, 
better coordination of national policies throughout the year, regular follow-up and swifter sanctions 
for breaching the rules.  
The legislative package drastically reinforced th e preventive arm of the SGP by introducing an 
expenditure rule anchoring expenditure growth to the medium-term growth rate of potential GDP. 
The legislation also introduced the possibility of sanctions early in the process. Countries will now 
face lodging an interest-bearing deposit of 0.2% of GDP if their underlying budgetary position is 
not strong enough. The new legislation also provides for stronger action to correct gross policy 
errors within the corrective arm of the SGP and a new quantified rule requiring those Member States that exceed the debt threshold of the M aastricht Treaty to reduce the excess rapidly. 
The launch of an Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP) can now result from unfavourable government 
debt developments as well as from high govern ment deficits. The introduction of the reverse 
qualified majority rule significantly strengthens the Commission's hand in decisions relating to sanctions on euro area Member States. Whereas in the past, such decisions required the support 
of a qualified majority in the Council, in future, a qualified majority would be required to halt the 
sanction proposed by the Commission. The six-pack also included the adoption of a Directive to be implemented by the Member States defining minimum requirements for national budgetary 
frameworks to ensure that Member States' fiscal frameworks are fit to respect the EU rules. 
A major weakness of the pre-crisis surveillance arrangements was the lack of systematic 
surveillance of macroeconomic imbalances and competitiveness developments. The six-pack introduced a new Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure (MIP) to close this gap: a new surveillance 
mechanism aiming to prevent macroeconomic imbalances and to identify and allow the timely 
correction of any emerging competitiveness divergences. It is based on an alert system that uses a scoreboard of indicators and in-depth country studies to identify imbalances and launch a new 
Excessive Imbalance Procedure (EIP) where necessary. The new procedure is backed up by 
enforcement provisions in the form of financial sanctions for euro area Member States which do not comply with the EIP. 
EU reply to question 2: In areas of Union exclusive competence, such as the common 
commercial policy, Member States cannot negotiate or conclude bilateral agreements unless 
authorised to do so by the Union. For instan ce, Regulation 1219/2012 establishing transitional 
arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between Member States and third countries 
sets out the procedure for the authorisation of negotiations between a Member State and a third 
country for a bilateral investment agreement. Where a Member State intends to enter into negotiations with a third country in order to conclude a bilateral investment agreement, it shall 
notify the Commission of its intentions in writing pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation 1219/2012 
establishing transitional arrangements for b ilateral investment agreements between Member 
States and third countries. The opening of such negotiations can be authorised unless the 
Commission concludes that the opening of such negotiations would: 
a. be in conflict with Union law; 
b. be superfluous, because the Commission has submitted or has decided to submit a 
recommendation to open negotiations with the third country concerned; 
c. be inconsistent with the Union's principles and objectives for external action; or WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 190 - 
 
  d. constitute a serious obstacle to the negotiation or conclusion of bilateral investment 
agreements with third countries by the Union. 
EU reply to question 3: The EU refers the reader to table 2.1 of the WTO Secretariat report 
(document S 284) that lists the competences of th e EU under the Lisbon Treaty. As explained in 
that table, the EU has an exclusive competence in certain fields (such as for example common 
commercial policy) but in other fields the competence may be shared with EU Member States, or the EU may have a supporting or coordination competence (please see the list in table 2.1). 
Consequently, depending on the field, and as indicated in point 2.3, Member States retain varying 
degrees of independent regulatory authority. Th e overarching principle is that competences not 
conferred upon the Union in the EU Treaties remain with the Member States. 
National measures adopted by Member States may have implications for trade within the EU and 
with non-EU countries without, at the same time, falling necessarily within the common 
commercial policy (exclusive competence of the EU). One such example may be internal taxation decided, to certain extent, at Member States' level. However, whether an act relates to the 
competence of the EU or to that of its Member States requires a case by case assessment." 
EU reply to question 4: In 2011 the Commission simplified and re laxed the rules of origin to be 
applied to imports of products originating in de veloping countries under the EU GSP system. They 
included also increased sourcing options by crea ting new areas and possibilities of cumulation. 
These rules also took into account the special situation of LDCs and provided for additional 
relaxation for exports from those countries. The ru les of origin applied under the EU GSP system 
are also being taken as a reference in the on-going FTA negotiations and in the revision of the 
rules of origin of the Pan Euro Med Convention. Th e new set of rules also aims at simplifying the 
provisions related to procedures and to certifying of origin thus potentially facilitating trade and stimulating investment and development. 
EU reply to question 5: Where it is found that goods presented to customs requiring the lodging 
of an entry summary declaration are not covered by such a declaration, the person who brought 
the goods, or who assumed responsibility for the ca rriage of the goods, into the customs territory 
of the Community shall lodge an entry summary declaration immediately.  
EU reply to question 6: Where the origin of goods needs to be determined in the framework of 
public procurement, the EU uses its non-preferen tial rules of origin. These are the same as for 
other non-preferential purposes and are laid down in the Articles 22 – 26 of the Community 
Customs Code (Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 and in its Implementing Provisions (Regulation (EEC) 
No 2454/93). 
EU reply to question 7: According to the WTO Secretariat report for EU TPR in 2009 
(WT/TPR/S/214/Rev.1) "alternate (mixed) duties" are the ones "with a minimum and a 
maximum". We suppose the WTO Secretariat has kept the same definition when preparing Table 3.2 of this report. 
EU reply to question 8: The EU has a regime of regional exhaustion, under which parallel 
imports from third countries are not allowed without authorization by the right holder, while 
parallel imports within the EU are permitted. The prin ciple of regional exhaustion will also apply to 
European patents with unitary effect. In reference, see Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No. 1257/2012 
on Implementing Enhanced Co-operation in the Area  of the Creation of Unitary Patent Protection 
(OJEU L 361/1, 31 December 2012). 
EU reply to question 9: An applicant for a Binding Origin Information decision needs to provide, 
among other, the following elements to enable th e customs authority to determine the origin: i) a 
detailed description of the goods and their tariff cl assification; ii) the composition of the goods and 
any methods of examination used to determine this  and their ex-works price, as necessary; iii) the 
conditions enabling origin to be determined, the materials used and their origin, tariff 
classification, corresponding values and a description of the circumstances (rules on change of tariff heading, value added, description of the op eration or process, or any other specific rule) 
enabling the conditions in question to be met; in particular the exact rule of origin applied and the 
origin envisaged for the goods shall be mentioned; iv) any samples, photographs, plans, 
catalogues or other documents available on the composition of the goods and their component WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 191 - 
 
  materials and which may assist in describing the manufacturing process or the processing 
undergone by the materials; 
The customs authority makes an assessment on whether the rule of origin for that particular good 
in the context of that particular (requested) Agr eement is met based on the evidence provided by 
the applicant and issues a Binding Origin Information decision. 
It is highlighted that in the context of preferential rules of origin, in order to benefit from 
preferential tariff treatment the necessary proof of origin (for example FORM A or EUR.1), as 
stipulated in the Agreement or Arrangement, needs to be provided at import. 
The fact that an importer holds a Binding Origin Information decision does not exempt him from 
providing the necessary proof of origin. Therefore, in practice, it is more common for an exporter to apply for a Binding Origin Information decision for preferential purposes. 
Does this procedure is the same for all European customs? 
Yes, the legal basis is art 12 of the Community Customs Code (Regulation 2913/1992) and Articles 
5 to 14 of the Community Customs Code Implementing Provisions (Regulation 2454/1993).  
Do these decisions apply to all trade agreements is the EU? 
A Binding Origin Information decision applies only to the trade agreement for which it was 
delivered as the rules of origin might be different from one Free Trade Agreement to another.  
EU reply to question 10: As of 1 January 2013 postal markets in European Union are fully 
liberalized. From this date and according to Article 7(1) of the Postal Services Directive (Directive 
97/67/EC as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC an d by Directive 2008/6/EC) Member States shall 
not grant or maintain in force any exclusive or special right for the establishment and provision of 
postal services. This means that in practice as of 1 January 2013 none of the 28 EU Member States 
has a statutory (legal) monopoly in the area of postal services. 
In this context we would also like to clarify that the statutory monopoly even before the full 
market opening never covered express services, whic h were traditionally open to competition, and 
only covered very limited scope of items of co rrespondence, which was gradually reduced in the 
period from 1997 (Directive 97/67/EC) until 2013 (Directive 2008/6/EC), when it was completely 
abolished. 
EU reply to question 11: The revision of the directive on concessions is still discussed by the 
Council and the Parliament.  
EU reply to question 12: With respect to contracts that are below the thresholds of the GPA or of 
any other international agreement on access to PP  markets to which the EU is a Party, bidders 
from third-countries that are not Parties to those international agreements have no guaranteed access to those contracts. 
EU reply to question 13:  In those areas where EU legislation permits self-declaration of 
conformity (SDoC), the manufacturer is free to have his products tested either in-house or in a 
laboratory of his choice regardless of its location . Therefore, when SDoC applies, a manufacturer 
can use non-EU CABs to assist him in complying with the applicable conformity assessment 
procedure. In those limited areas where the EU requires mandatory third party conformity assessment, the EU system provides significant flexibilities for the acceptance of foreign conformity assessment results. Apart from the actual issuance of certificates, all other stages of 
conformity assessment (including full testing and factory inspections for quality assurance 
purposes) can, in principle, be subcontracted by EU Notified Bodies (NBs) to their non-EU subsidiaries or other non-EU conformity assessment bodies (CABs).  
Non-EU CABs holding accreditation certificates issued by an accreditation body signatory to the IAF 
MLA or the ILAC MRA will generally be presumed to  fulfil the technical competence requirements to 
qualify as an eligible subcontractor to a Notified Body. In addition, they will be able to participate WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 192 - 
 
  in relevant international voluntary cooperation arrangements between CABs to which EU Notified 
Bodies also take part. 
EU reply to question 14: For products subject to mandatory third-party conformity assessment 
in the non-harmonized area it is for each Member State to determine, in relation to its specific 
regulatory needs, the eligibility criteria for conf ormity assessment bodies. In the harmonised area, 
where EU legislation applies the principles explained in question 13 apply. 
EU reply to question 15:  Under the current CAP these instruments are milk production quotas, 
sugar production quotas and vine planting rights. These instruments are set to be abolished in the 
future as confirmed by the recent political agr eement on the reform of the CAP for the period 
2014-2020 (a new system of vine planting authoris ation will be introduced). These decisions are 
aimed at further enhancing the competitiveness of EU agriculture through a continued focus 
towards market orientation. Some other elements of the reform which are aimed at the 
competitiveness of EU agriculture are: increased financing for research and innovation which should support productivity growth of EU agriculture in a sustainable manner, enhancing measures 
that could facilitate cooperation between produc ers and along the supply chain, as well as 
strengthening the focus towards longer-term economic and environmental sustainability of EU agriculture through a better targeting of direct payments.  
The formal adoption of the reform package on th e basis of the political compromise is expected 
later in 2013 with a view to having the new CAP in place as from 1 January 2014. Detailed information about the CAP post 2013 reform can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-
post-2013/index_en.htm . WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 193 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO WRITTEN QUESTI ONS FROM HONG KONG, CHINA 
PART I: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
Pages 44 – 48 (Paras. 3.33 - 3.43, Table 3.2) 
Tariffs We note that "nuisance" tariff rates (i.e. those which do not exceed 2%) still apply to 7% of the 
EU's tariff lines in 2013. 
Question: 
1. We wish to know whether the EU has any plan to further reduce or eliminate such nuisance 
tariff rates to facilitate international trade. 
EU reply:  The EU does not consider lowering its tariffs, including so-called nuisance tariffs, 
unilaterally and without similar concessions from other parties. The EU is prepared to negotiate the 
level of all its tariffs in multilateral and/or bilateral negotiations. 
4. DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTED SECTORS 
Page 137 (Para. 4.75) 
Financial Services It is noted that, under the Banking Union projec t, the European Central Bank (ECB) will be 
empowered to supervise the credit institutions established within the euro area. The ECB will 
supervise banks having assets of more than EUR 30 billion or constituting at least 20% of their 
home country's GDP or which have requested or received direct public financial assistance from the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) or the European Stability Mechanism. ECB may at 
any time decide to supervise credit institution(s) directly.  
Question: 
2. What factors will be taken into account by the ECB when deciding to supervise any additional 
credit institution(s) directly?  
EU reply: The Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) covers all banks in the euro area and in 
Member States outside the euro area which have opted in. It is built on cooperation between the 
ECB and national supervisors who jointly contribute to ensuring effective and efficient supervision. 
The European Central Bank (ECB) is ultimately responsible for the functioning of the SSM and can take over supervision of any bank at any time. 
The proposed SSM Regulation stipulates the thresholds and criteria that will determine the 
significant banks that will fall under the direct ECB supervision. In addition, the ECB may on its 
own initiative or upon request by a national competent authority consider an institution to be of significant relevance and thus decide to exercise direct supervision. The ECB is required to develop 
and lay down the arrangements for the implementation of those powers in a framework which has 
to be published six months after the entry into force of the SSM Regulation. 
Pages 139 - 140 (Para. 4.89) 
Financial Services  
In October 2011, for the sake of investor protection, financial stability and the orderly functioning 
of securities markets, the European Commission presented legislative proposals to revise the rules WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 194 - 
 
  on markets in financial instruments. The new rules will allow the supervisors to ban specific 
products, services or practices.  
Question: 
3. In determining whether to ban specific products, services or practices, are there any objective 
criteria or measurement in the assessment? Will  there be any implementation guidelines to 
supervisors so as to ensure similar standards or criteria are used? Is there any mechanism for the securities companies to lodge an appeal against the decision made by the supervisors?  
EU reply: The legislative process for the review of the market in financial instruments directive 
(MiFID) is on-going. The legislative proposals reco gnise powers to ESMA and national supervisors 
in the area of intervention on products, services or practices raising investor protection concerns or threatening the orderly functioning and integrity of financial markets or the stability of whole or 
part of the financial system in the Union. These cr iteria will be further specified by implementing 
measures to be adopted by the European Commission. Decisions taken by ESMA and by national 
supervisors are subject to the right of appeal in  accordance with, respectively, the regulation 
establishing ESMA and the legislation transposing MiFID in Member States. 
Pages 139 - 140 (Para. 4.89) 
Financial Services 
In October 2011, for the sake of investor protection, financial stability and the orderly functioning 
of securities markets, the European Commission presented legislative proposals to revise the rules on markets in financial instruments. The new rules will allow the supervisors to ban specific products, services or practices.  
Pages 149 - 151 (Table 4.28) 
Environmental Services 
It is noted from the Secretariat Report that the award of service concessions12 is not subject to 
clear and unambiguous provisions, being guided only  by the general principles of transparency and 
equal treatment of the Treaty on the Function ing of the EU. The European Commission has, 
therefore, proposed on 20 December 2011 a directive on the award of concessions contracts. 
Question: 
4. Do foreign companies receive national treatment under the proposed directive on the award of 
concessions contracts? What is the progress of the legislative process? What is the implementation plan after the directive is adopted? 
EU reply: The proposed Directive on concessions covers both works and services concessions. 
However, it should be noted that under the revised GPA the EU coverage comprises only works 
concessions subject to the limitations stipulated in  the notes to the EU Annexes. Currently the EU 
co-legislators are debating the Commission proposal for a Concessions Directive. The 
implementation plan depends on the outcome of these discussions. 
Pages 154 - 157 (Table 4.31) 
Air Transport Services The European Commission has adopted a comprehensive package, which contains three sets of 
proposals: on ground handling, on slots and on noise. This package is still under discussion. Major changes proposed include: to allow airlines to trade slots with each other at airports anywhere in 
the EU in a transparent way, to reform the rules designed to help new entrants access the market 
                                               
12 Concessions are partnerships be tween the public sector and private companies, where the latter 
exclusively operate, maintain and carry out the developm ent of infrastructure or pr ovide services of general 
economic interest. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 195 - 
 
  at congested airports, to introduce full openin g of the self-handling market for airlines and 
increase the minimum number of service providers at large airports, etc.  
Question: 
5. Can airlines with foreign capital or airlines from non-EU areas enjoy the same benefits in the 
package?  
EU reply: The slots proposal makes no distinction between EU carriers and carriers from third 
countries in so far as access to slots at congested airports is concerned. However, the slots 
proposal would not affect restrictions resulting from agreements between the EU or its Member 
States and third countries governing traffic rights for the operation of air services between the EU and third countries or the possibility for non-EU ca rriers to operate services between points within 
the EU. Regarding the groundhandling proposal, non- EU airlines would benefit from its provisions 
on the same footing as EU airlines, in particular, the right to self-handle at EU airports. This is on 
the basis of EU carriers receiving equivalent treatment in third countries. On noise, the proposal aims to harmonize the method to introduce noise-related operating restrictions, without making 
distinction between EU carriers and carriers from third countries. 
What factors have been considered in the discussion of the package? EU reply: Commission's proposals on slots, ground handling services and noise restrictions at EU 
airports were designed to contribute to the completion of the Single European Transport Area and 
the move towards a smart, resource-efficient and competitive transport system. They were tabled following continuous monitoring of the functioning of the existing legal framework and consultation of the interested parties. Also, an in-depth analysis was conducted on the challenges that lie 
ahead. Two key challenges were identified, capaci ty and quality, and conclusion was that if the 
objective is to address these two fundamental ch allenges, EU rules governing the use of airport 
infrastructure and provision of ground handling se rvices need to be revised. A modern, European 
network of competitive and attractive airports wi ll contribute to the successful delivery of the 
Single European Sky project.  
What is the target date of the adopti on and implementation of the package?  
EU reply: As indicated in the Report by the Secretariat [Table 4.31 Regulatory framework for EU 
aviation services], the "airport package" was proposed by the Commission on 1 December 2011. 
Examination by the co-legislators – the Council and the European Parliament – through the ordinary legislative procedure is under way. The Commission's objective is to reach rapidly an 
agreement (mid-2014). 
PART II: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT REPORT 
 Nil from Hong Kong, China WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 196 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM INDIA 
Part I : QUESTIONS REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT REPORT Page 14 (Para 3.3.3) 
In its recent efforts to boost growth through th e proposed 'twelve levers to boost growth and 
strengthen confidence' included in the Single Market Act I and in the 2010 'Trade, Growth and 
World Affairs' the European Commission highlighted fair competition and access to public procurement markets as one of the key tools for economic growth and job creation, in particular in 
the context of the recent economic crisis. 
Question 1  
In respect of government procurement contracts for the past three years, could the EC provide 
details of the percentage of government proc urement by value that was awarded to non-EC 
suppliers? 
EU reply:  The Commission has not collected the data for the past three years yet. Information 
based on the data from years 2007-2009 is however available in a document called "Final report 
on cross-border procurement above EU threshol d". The document is published on the Europa 
website. (http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocur ement/modernising_rules/international_access/i
ndex_en.htm ) 
Page 15 (Para 3.33) 
In setting out the European Union's development priorities for the next decade, the 
Communication proposes, among others, to differentiate more among developing countries to 
focus on the poorest ... . 
Question 2  
In implementing its GSP scheme in the next decade, how would the EC reconcile the proposal to 
differentiate among developing countries with the explicit requirement in the Enabling Clause that 
GSP programs must be 'generalized, non-reciprocal and non discriminatory'? 
EU reply:  The revised scheme complies with this requirement since it does not exclude any 
developing country from the GSP. Developing countries  will be either beneficiary or eligible to be a 
beneficiary. The revision is fully in line with the letter and spirit of the Enabling Clause since it adapts the EU's GSP to the changes that have occurred in the global landscape in order to address better and more efficiently the trade, financial an d development needs of developing countries. In 
particular, GSP shall respond to the needs of developing countries, to enhance exports and, as a 
result, economic growth—which is typically measured by income. Different levels of income signal different needs by partners and elicit a differentiated response by GSP. The income criterion used 
by the EU's revised GSP is based on the World Bank's GNI per capita, Atlas method. In line with 
the principles of the Enabling Clause, this is an objective, internationally accepted and widely used indicator which every year defines categories of countries and reflects different needs to which 
GSP responds. 
Part II: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT Page 57 (Para 3.84) 
A significant disparity between non-harmonized requirements across member States that impedes 
free movement or the need to regulate new policy areas or emerging risks where little or no 
national legislation exists are the most common reasons for adopting harmonization legislation at EU level. The Commission does not have accurate numbers of products that are not subject to 
non-harmonized rules. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 197 - 
 
  Question 3  
(i) The European Union is requested to provide justification as to what are the reasons for not 
having an understanding on number of products that are not subject to non-harmonized rules.  
(ii) This can lead to major obstacles for any trade agreement with a third country. The EU is 
requested to provide a clear timeline on the harmonization of the non-harmonized 
requirements? 
EU reply:  
(i) Technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures adopted at national and EU levels 
apply to different products or their different aspects, thus it is not always possible to determine whether the product squarely falls into the EU harmonized or non-harmonized area, as certain aspects of a product may still be left for Member States to regulate if necessary. 
However, only products / aspects that are no t covered by the EU's "fully harmonizing" 
legislation may be subject to national technical regulations or conformity assessment procedures. In case EU legislation fully harmoniz es requirements for specific products, Member 
States are not allowed to maintain or to adopt additional national legislation for the same 
requirements.  
Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 requires the Commission to publish a non-exhaustive list of 
products which are not subject to EU harmonisation legislation. The database containing the 
non-exhaustive list of products which are not subject to EU harmonisation legislation is available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/intsub/a12/ . 
(ii) It is not always possible or even necessary to adopt harmonized EU legislation for all goods. In 
the non-harmonized area, the free movement of goods is guaranteed by the application of the 
general Treaty provisions and the operation of the mutual recognition principle as defined in 
the case-law of the Court of Justice of the Eu ropean Union. When differences in justified 
requirements of Member States impede the func tioning of the internal market, the EU would 
assess if the requirements would need to be ha rmonized and if EU legislation needs to be 
adopted. 
Page 57 (Para 3.84) 
Technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures are adopted at EU level and at the 
level of its member States, i.e. national level. A large amount of legislation on technical requirements and conformity assessment has been  harmonized at EU level. According to the 
Commission, the harmonization legislation assures the free movement of goods and a high level of 
health, safety, environmental and consumer protection within the single market.  
Question 4  
The European Union is requested to clarify as to why there is a need for individual members of the 
EU to notify separately to the WTO Secretariat? EU individual Members submissions directly to the 
WTO undermines the very premise of free movement  of good, thereby creating additional trade 
barriers for third countries. The EU is requested to indicate the timelines and provide the road 
map, if any, for streamlining the whole process of TBT Notification submission to the WTO's 
Secretariat? 
Table 1 TBT Notifications of EU (Mem bership) to the WTO: 1995 to Feb 2013  
  International 
harmonized Regional/ 
national 
standards Withdrawal of 
notification Total EU's TBT 
notifications 
(1995 to Feb. 
2013) 
European Union 11 956   967 
Memberships of EU      
Austria   4   4 
Belgium   208   208 WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 198 - 
 
    International 
harmonized Regional/ 
national 
standards Withdrawal of 
notification Total EU's TBT 
notifications 
(1995 to Feb. 
2013) 
Cyprus   1   1 
Czech Republic   302   302 
Denmark 25 220   245 
Estonia 1 7   8 
Finland 1 72   73 
France   205   205 
Germany   22   22 
Hungary   27   27 
Italy   26   26 
Latvia   30   30 
Lithuania 1 20   21 
Netherlands   630   630 
Poland 1 6   7 
Portugal   1   1 
Romania 78 16   94 
Slovak Republic   49   49 
Slovenia 100 3 1 104 
Spain   72   72 
Sweden 1 224   225 
United Kingdom   43   43 
Total TBT 
Notifications 219 3,144 1 3,364 
Source: Centre for WTO Studies, We b Portal on TBT and SPS database. 
EU reply:  Both European Union and its Member States are responsible for notifications of their 
draft technical regulations and conformity assessm ent procedures under the TBT Agreement. This 
stems from the division of competences within th e European Union. The European Union notifies 
the draft measures adopted by the European Co mmission or the European Parliament and the 
Council of the European Union in the harmonized area. The Member States of the European Union 
are competent to adopt measures outside the harmonised area and consequently they are 
responsible for their notification in the draft st age under the TBT Agreement. In accordance with 
the TBT Agreement, the notifications are made at  an early appropriate stage, when amendments 
can still be introduced and comments taken into account. 
Directive 98/34/EC provides for a notification proced ure at the EU level similar to the notifications 
under the TBT Agreement. Under this procedure, EU Member States are obliged to notify their draft technical regulations to the European Commission and other EU Member States. The 
notifications of the EU Member States' draft technical regulations or conformity assessment 
procedures under the TBT Agreement either follow the notification under Directive 98/34/EC or are 
done in parallel if the timing does not permit one notification after another. Ideally, the draft 
technical regulation is notified first under Directive 98/34/EC in order to solve potential problems 
concerning EU law and once compliance with EU la w is ensured the draft is notified under the TBT 
Agreement. 
Page 49 (Para 3.49) 
For imported goods, VAT is assessed on the customs values plus duties, other charges, and 
incidental expenses. 
Question 5  
While assessing VAT on imported goods, could the EC  indicate what elements of cost are included 
under "incidental expenses"? Further, could the EC indicate whether the basis for assessing VAT for goods produced in its member States also includes "incidental expenses"? If not, how does the 
EC reconcile its practise with national treatment obligations under Article III of GATT 1994? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 199 - 
 
  EU reply:  Incidental expenses are included in the taxable amount when calculating both the value 
of the imported goods and the value of the goods supplied within the EU. 
For import VAT purposes, the incidental expenses are understood as expenses such as 
commission, packing, transport and insurance costs,  incurred in relation with the imported goods 
up to the first place of destination within the territory of the Member State of importation as well 
as those resulting from transport to another place of destination within the EU, if that other place is known when the chargeable event occurs (Article 86 of the VAT Directive). 
In respect of the supply of goods within the EU, the incidental expenses are understood as 
expenses, such as commission, packing, transport and insurance costs, charged by the supplier to 
the customer (Article 78 of the VAT Directive). 
Page 114 (Para 4.9) 
The main support to agricultural producers continues to be provided through direct payments 
decoupled from production and prices (Table 4.5) . For the EU-15 member States along with Malta 
and Slovenia, the Single Payment Scheme applie s, under which each member State can provide 
decoupled direct payments to farmers based on a reference period (generally payments received 
during the 2000-02 reference period ). 
Question 6  
In respect of various schemes covered under De coupled Income Support, could the EC state the 
criteria and the fixed base period for determining eligibility for the support? 
EU reply:  The EU's notification G/AG/N/EEC/58 of 24 February 2009 presents the 2003 reform of 
the CAP which introduced the Single Payment Scheme. 
Page 114 (Para 4.9) 
(Additional information: Article 33 of the Council  Regulation Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 
specifies 3 separate criteria for farmers to have eligibility to Single Payment Scheme. One of the 
criteria specified is that "they have received a payment entitlement from the national reserve or by 
transfer". Further, Article 42.3 of the Regulation gi ves flexibility to Member States to use national 
reserve to grant "reference amount to farmer s who commence their agriculture activity after 
31 December 2002"). 
Question 7  
(i) Could the EC clarify whether the provisions of Articles 33 and 42.3 of Council Regulation 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 have not been modified by any subsequent EC 
regulation, including Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009? If these provisions have been 
modified, could the EC specify the changes introduced through Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009? 
EU reply:  The provisions of Articles 33 and 42(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 have 
been largely maintained in Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 in Articles 33 and 41(2). 
(ii) How does the EU justify classifying payments und er Single Payment Scheme in Annex 2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, as the eligibility criteria for receiving payment pursuant to 
Article 42.3 appears to be dependent upon agriculture activity after the defined and fixed base period of 2000- 2002? 
EU reply:  Article 42(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 does not require farmers to 
produce in order to receive a payment under th e Single Payment Scheme. The Single Payment 
Scheme complies with the criteria of paragraph 6 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 200 - 
 
  Page 114 (Para 4.9) 
(Additional information: Article 46 of the Counc il Regulation permits transfer of payment 
entitlement from one farmer to another farmer). 
Question 8  
(i) Could the EC clarify whether the provisions of Articles 33 and 46 of Council Regulation Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 have not been modified by any subsequent EC regulation, 
including Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009? If these provisions have been modified, could 
the EC specify the changes introduced through Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009?  
EU reply:  The provisions of Articles 33 and 46 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 have 
been largely maintained in Council Regulati on (EC) No 73/2009 in Articles 33 and 43. 
(ii) Could the EC clarify whether the farmer to wh om the payment entitlement is transferred is 
required to fulfill the eligibility criteria under the Single Payment Scheme as specified in Article 
33 thereof? Further, can the EU clarify whether payment entitlements can be transferred to a 
farmer who did not meet the eligibility criteria under Article 33? 
EU reply:  Payment entitlements were generally estab lished based on reference amounts of direct 
payments each farmer received in the period 2000-2002 (see EU's notification G/AG/N/EEC/58). 
According to Article 33 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, payment entitlements may be 
transferred to other farmers. Farmers receiving such payment entitlements are not required to 
produce in order to be eligible for payment under the Single Payment Scheme. 
Page 114 (Para 4.9) 
Question 9  
(i) Could the EC clarify whether the provisions of Article 60.3 of Council Regulation Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 have not been modified by any subsequent EC regulation, including Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009? If  these provisions have been modified, could 
the EC specify the changes introduced through Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009?  
EU reply:  Article 60 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 was repealed by Council Regulation 
(EC) No 73/2009. 
(ii) Article 60.3 (a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 allows farmers to make use of 
options by way of derogation from land use obligations. Instead of using production in the defined and fixed base period, under the derogation, a farmer's entitlement depends on the land used for production in 2003. Can the EC clarify whether such payments have been 
classified under "Green Box" support or "Amber Box" support? In case these have been 
classified by the EU as "Green Box" support, how does the EU justify inclusion of such payments under Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, as these payments are based on 
the number of hectares used for production in a period beyond the defined and fixed base 
period? 
EU reply:  These payments were notified under the Green Box as they meet the criteria for 
decoupled income support in paragraph 6 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
Page 114 (Para 4.9) 
Question 10  
(i) Could the EC clarify whether the provisions of Article 80 of Council Regulation Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 have not been modified by any subsequent EC regulation, 
including Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009? If these provisions have been modified, could the EC specify the changes introduced through Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 201 - 
 
  EU reply:  Article 80 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 is maintained in Article 74 of Regulation 
(EC) No 73/2009 and there are no substantial changes to the eligibility conditions.  
(ii) Article 80 of the Council Regulation specifies the amount and eligibility for crop specific 
payment for rice. In Article 80.1 it has been stated that aid shall be granted per hectare of 
land sown under rice and where the crop is maintained until at least the beginning of flowering 
under normal growth conditions. Could the EC clarify whether the land sown is determined with respect to the fixed base period of 2000 – 2002, or it can be on the basis of land sown in 
a specific year after the base period of 2000-2002?  
EU reply:  The crop specific payment for rice complies with the criteria of Article 6.5 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture (as explained in the EU's notification G/AG/N/EEC/58 of 
24 February 2009). This payment was abolished as  a result of the 2008 Health Check reform of 
the CAP. 
Page 117 (Para 4.19) The European School Milk Scheme remains in op eration. Under the Scheme, member States are 
free to choose from a variety of dairy products the ones they wish to provide to schoolchildren. In 
the school year 2010/11, €64 million was provided by the EU for the Scheme with no obligation for member States to contribute. Since the school year 2009/10, a similar scheme has operated for 
fruits and vegetables: the School Fruit Scheme. In 2011, €57 million was provided by the EU for 
the latter; the scheme was also partly financed by each member State at rates that varied from 50% to 25%. In addition, support is available fo r free distribution of fruit and vegetables to 
schools, hospitals, and charities. 
Question 11  
H o w  t h e  E u r o p e a n  S c h o o l  M i l k  S c h e m e  a n d  f r e e  distribution of fruits is treated under WTO 
notification related to Domestic support? Is European Union is giving any domestic food aid under 
green box? 
EU reply:  The schemes are included in the EU's annual domestic support notifications. The most 
recent notification is G/AG/N/EU/10 where Sch ool Fruit Scheme and School Milk Scheme are 
included under domestic food aid (paragraph 4 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture), as 
noted in the description in column 2 of the notification. 
Page 138 (Para 4.83) 
The Capital Requirements Directive and Regula tion for banks and investment firms which 
implements the Basel III framework into EU law, is of utmost importance for the strength and 
stability of the European banking sector and the creation of a single rule book. The European Commission, Council and Parliament announced on 28 February 2013 that provisional agreement 
had been reached on this proposal. 
Question 12 
The EU is requested to inform about the main el ements of the provisional agreement and when is 
this agreement expected to be in force? 
EU reply:  CRD IV consists of the Directive "on the access to the activity of credit institutions and 
the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms" and the Regulation "on 
prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms". The legislation was adopted 
by the Parliament on 16 April 2013, following the conclusion of negotiations between the Council, 
the Parliament and the European Commission in March. The final text remains subject to a detailed review of legal drafting and translation into other official EU languages, and formal adoption by 
ministers.  
The implementation of CRD IV will be as of 1 January 2014.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 202 - 
 
  Page 139 (Para 4.85) 
In June 2012, the Commission proposed a new co mprehensive EU crisis management framework 
which would provide more comprehensive and effect ive arrangements to deal with failing banks. 
Under the draft Bank Resolution Dire ctive, public authorities will be in a position to act in a more 
coordinated way should banks be in difficulty. Th e framework provides public authorities with a 
wide-ranging toolbox of powers, including early intervention to reorganise a bank in difficulty and, if the financial situation of a bank deteriorates beyond repair, the power to ensure that its critical 
functions can be rescued, with the costs falling up on the bank's owners and creditors, and not on 
taxpayers. Cross-border cooperation mechanisms would be established, as these were clearly inadequate, as shown in recent years. 
Question 13  
The EU is requested to elaborate how does it plan to establish cross-border co-operation 
mechanisms? 
EU reply:  When EU legal entities are concerned by the resolution of international groups, national 
resolution authorities will work within the crossborder crisis management groups provided for at 
FSB level. For the recognition of third country proceeding on assets located in the EU, the 
Commission proposal is to entrusting this task to the European Banking Authority. 
Page 139 (Para 4.86) 
The European Parliament and the Council agreed on  this proposal in November 2012 that the CRA 
III Regulation can be formally adopted early-2013. 
Question 14 
The EU is requested to brief on the main provisions of the CRA III Regulation? EU reply:  CRA III Regulation was adopted 21 May 2013. The text of the Regulation is published in 
Official Journal and can be downloaded under the following links: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:146:0001:0033:EN:PDF . 
Page 140 (Para 4.88) 
The objective of the European Market Infrastruc ture Regulation (EMIR) (No. 648/201269), which 
entered into force in August 2012, is to increase transparency in over-the-counter (OTC) trading of 
derivatives. The Regulation provides for detailed information on OTC derivative contracts to be reported to trade repositories that centrally coll ect and maintain the records of OTC derivatives. 
This information will also be made accessible to  supervisory authorities. In addition, certain 
standardised OTC derivative contracts will have to be cleared through central counterparties 
(CCPs), thus reducing the risk that a counterpart  may not pay. The ESAs are now developing the 
technical standards required to support the implementation of this new legislation. 
Question 15 
The EU is requested to provide information about which standardised OTC derivatives will require 
clearance through central counterparties (CCPs)? The EU is also requested to brief on the technical 
standards required to support the implementation of this new legislation? 
EU reply:  The definition of OTC derivatives in EMIR refers to all derivatives contracts which are 
not "executed on a regulated market". As a result all derivatives contracts executed on a venue of 
execution which is not a regulated market (e.g. a Multilateral trading facility), is considered as an 
OTC derivative contract under EMIR.  
On 19 December 2012, the European Commission has adopted nine regulatory and implementing 
technical standards to complement the obligat ions defined under the Regulation on OTC 
derivatives, central counterparties (CCPs) and trade. They were developed by the European 
Supervisory Authorities and have been endorsed by the European Commission without WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 203 - 
 
  modification. More information is available here: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/financial-
markets/derivatives/index_en.htm 
Page 144 (Para 4.105) 
Regarding cross-border supply of services, most of the recent legislation adopted by the EU 
includes third-country regimes under which foreig n-based operators are allowed to pursue their 
activities linked with European financial markets, provided that certain prudential requirements are met, in particular that the regulatory system under which they operate locally is considered of 
equivalent quality with that of the EU. 
Question 16 
(i) Could the EU provide details of prudential requirements other than that of equivalent quality to 
be met in order to allow foreign-based operators to pursue their activities linked with European 
financial markets?  
(ii) What are the criteria to decide equivalence between the third country regime and the EU 
regime? 
EU reply to the above questions:  At the heart of the notion of equivalence always lies the idea 
of shared objectives, principles and outcomes pe rtaining to consumer protection and financial 
stability, as well as mutual trust among different legal orders and cooperation between supervisors 
and regulators. The concrete criteria to decide on equivalence differ across financial services 
sectors to reflect the different nature of the financial services.  
The equivalence assessment looks at the consistency of goals and comparability of outcomes of 
third country's prudential standards, as well as at the cooperative implementation of these 
standards. For the latter, MoU or international agreements are necessary. 
Page 146 (Para 4.108) 
Concerning commercial presence and in particular subsidiaries, European regulations continue to 
apply to all financial operators regardless of their origin. Foreign-owned subsidiaries can benefit 
from a "European passport" allowing them to pursue  their activities in the whole European internal 
market. 
Question 17 
The EU is requested to describe salient features of the "European passport"? 
EU reply:  The "European/single passport" is a system which allows financial services operators 
legally established in one EU Member State to establish/provide their services in the other EU 
Member States without further authorisation requirements. The EU and foreign financial 
institutions are treated the same way: once a financial services operator is legally established in one EU Member State, it may establish/provide its services in the other EU Member States without 
further authorisation requirements. 
Page 146 (Para 4.109) 
Regarding branches, several EU financial regulations give competence to member States to 
authorize and supervise activities of branches in  their territory, provided they respect minimum 
standards in such authorization and supervision. 
Question 18 
(i) Could the EU please inform what the EU financial regulations are that give competence to 
member States to authorize and supervise activities of branches in their territory?  
(ii) What are the minimum standards to be followed for such authorization and supervision?  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 204 - 
 
  EU reply:  Minimum harmonised requirements on branches belonging to insurance or reinsurance 
undertakings with head offices situated outside the EU will be introduced by Solvency II. Member 
States are required to make such branches subjec t to an authorisation, and Solvency II sets out 
the minimum conditions for granting authorisation. 
Apart from that, the Commission proposed in MiFID II harmonised requirements and a passport for 
third country operators providing their services through branches. 
Page 75 (Para 3.181-3.186) 
Question 19  
(i) Could the European Union provide details about its non-crisis aid at member-State level?  
(ii) What are the conditions, if any, imposed by th e EU on the member-States for disbursement of 
the non-crisis aid?  
EU reply:  Details on the state aid provided by EU Member States can be found on the Commission 
website: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid /studies_reports/studies_reports.html .  
The Scoreboard is the Commission's benchmarking instrument for State aid and its aim is to 
provide a transparent and publicly accessible so urce of information on the overall State aid 
situation in each of the EU Member States and on the Commission's current State aid control activities. The latest version has been published in December 2012. 
The EU law (Art. 107 of the Treaty on the Functi oning of the European Union (TFEU)) pronounces 
the general prohibition of State aid. The founders, however, saw of course that in some circumstances, government interventions are necessary for a well-functioning and equitable economy. Therefore, the Treaty leaves room for a number of policy objectives for which State aid 
can be considered compatible such as research and development and environmental objectives. By 
complementing the fundamental rules through a series of legislative acts that provide for a number of exemptions, the European Commission has established a worldwide unique system of 
rules under which State aid is monitored and asse ssed in the European Union. The exemptions are 
only allowed under strict rules or compatibility criteria (the aid has to have an incentive effect, needs to be limited to the minimum necessary etc) . For an overview of the rules, please consult 
the following website: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/legislation.html .  
While new legislation is adopted in close cooperation with the Member States, the application of 
exemptions to the general prohibition of State aid rests exclusively with the European Commission, which possesses strong investigative and decision-making powers. At the heart of these powers 
lies the notification procedure which -except in certain instances- the Member States have to 
follow. It is only after the approval by the Commission that an aid measure can be implemented. Moreover, the Commission has the power to recover incompatible State aid. 
4.Page 31 (Para 2.23)  
Under Regulation (EU) No. 978/2012 of 25 October 2012, the EU adopted a new General Scheme 
of Preferences (GSP) which will apply on 1 Ja nuary 2014 while current preferences provided in 
Regulation (EC) No. 732/2008 apply till 31 December 2013. 
Question 20 
(a) It is requested to state if there are changes with reference to rules of origin especially in the 
matter of regional cumulation requirements? Whether a beneficiary country can continue to 
accumulate with a non- beneficiary country? 
(b) In case of graduation in a sector by a beneficiary country how will regional cumulation be done 
in respect of such sectors by other countries in the regional cumulation group which still 
continue to enjoy GSP in the graduated sector? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 205 - 
 
  EU reply:  EU considers that the GSP system should be  granted to all developing countries sharing 
a common developing need and being in a simila r stage of economic development. Preferences 
should not be extended to countries classified by the World Bank as high-income or upper-middle countries, as they do not share the same development, trade and financial needs as the remaining 
developing countries. Preferences should not be ex tended either to developing countries which are 
benefitting from a preferential market access arrangement with the EU providing at least the same level of tariff preferences. This implies a dynamic approach which is reflected in Regulation 
978/2012 and consequently the rules of origin a pplicable (contained in Commisison Regulation 
2454/1993) need also to be adapted to it. From  this perspective, though the existing four 
cumulation groups are maintained, cumulation will only be applicable provided that all the developing countries involved in cumulation are beneficiary countries at the date of export of the 
final good to the EU and provided that all other conditions (referring to the proofs of origin, rule of 
origin applicable to consider the materials used as originating, etc) are also fulfilled. 
Table 4.41 (page 156) 
Emission trading scheme (ETS) for aviation 
Additional information: The EC on 12 November 2012 proposed suspension of the enforcement of 
its aviation tax on emissions for one year pend ing 2013 ICAO General Assembly which will take 
place in the autumn of 2013. This resulted in  deferment of the requirement for airlines to 
surrender emission allowances for flights into an d out of Europe until after the 2013 International 
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) General Assembly in autumn which should see the formulation of another global plan under ICAO .This 'stopping of the clock', as per the Commission, was on 
account of the global resistance to this EC proposal on a market-based approach to regulating 
greenhouse gas emissions from aviation. 
Thus this 'Stopping the clock' on the implementati on of the international aspects of aviation under 
the EU emissions trading system (EU ETS) meant that: 
(i) the EU would not require allowances to be surrendered in April 2013 for emissions to and from 
the EU during 2012.  
(ii) The monitoring and reporting obligations will also be deferred for such flights.  
(iii) The obligations relating to all operators' activities within the EU will remain intact and 
compliance with the EU law will be enforced in this respect 
The EU Commissioner for Climate Action Ms Connie Hedegaard clearly spelled out that in case 
there was no decision on the Market Based Mechanism (MBM) in ICAO in its meeting by autumn of 
2013; the EU ETS in aviation would 'automatically' be back and apply. 
Question 21 
What is the timeframe within which the EU hopes that a consensus on this evolves at ICAO?  EU reply:  The EU is working actively with internationa l partners in the framework of ICAO to reach 
an agreement at the ICAO Assembly in September/October 2013.  
What is the progress in the discussions in ICAO on the global Market Based Mechanism on GHGs 
and does EU envisage reversal of the 'stop the cloc k' if no progress is seen in ICAO by the autumn 
of 2013? 
EU reply:  On 3 June 2013, IATA adopted a Resolution which called on governments to adopt a 
global MBM for implementation by 2020. The EU ha s welcomed this development, which provides a 
positive contribution to the discussions on a global MBM at ICAO. The Decision on the "stop the clock" relates only to 2012 aviation emissions. This derogation is provided by the Union to 
facilitate an agreement at the 38th session of th e ICAO Assembly on a realistic timetable for the 
development of a global MBM beyond the 38th sess ion of the ICAO Assembly and on a framework 
for facilitating the comprehensive application of national and regional MBMs to international 
aviation, pending the application of the global MBM.  On this basis, with a view to facilitating the WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 206 - 
 
  optimal interaction between any such outcome and the scheme for greenhouse gas emission 
allowances trading within the Union, further steps could be considered. 
Para 4.3.1.2.5 (Page 144) 
The Secretariat's Report on "Third Country Regime" states that the new European legislation on 
financial services does not introduce new market access or National treatment limitations. This 
system guarantees that, for instance, foreign credit rating agencies and foreign auditors can provide to services to Europeans consumers fr om abroad of their national supervisory and 
regulatory authority has been granted equivalence by the European Commission.  
Question 22 
These legislations raise the issue of extra territori ality and could possibly create an onerous burden 
for small service supplier from developing countries as even the parent operations of these service 
suppliers and subjected to the test of equivalenc e to EU legislations. The EU is requested to 
provide its views on the above mentioned issues? 
EU reply:  Subject to equivalence assessment are third country rules and arrangement; not 
financial operators. If the outcome of this assessment is positive, it can allow financial operators 
from certain third country (irrespective of their si ze) to operate both in the EU and in their own 
jurisdictions without being subject to the full set of EU rules. If the outcome is negative, the third 
country operators have to comply with EU requirements. 
Question 23 
IMF's World Economic Outlook for 2013 has stated that even though the financial stress in the 
Euro area has moderated, economic activity re mains weak, and growth projections for 2013 have 
been lowered because weakness has spilled from periphery to the core. The Secretariat's report 
gives a detailed account of various measures taken by EU to contain the crisis. How successful have these measures been so far? Can EU provide a detailed account of the success of the 
measures listed in the Secretariat's Report? 
EU reply:  The total of the measures taken on EU level amount to a strong and successful 
response to the crisis. Last year there were still serious concerns, tail risks, that the euro could 
disintegrate. These have disappeared due to three reasons. First of all, financial stability is now 
firmly anchored. The European Stability Mechanism is operational and with the help of the ECB's announcement of its Outright Monetary Transactions scheme it has helped to stabilise financial and bond markets, e.g. shown by decreases is spre ads. Second, the rebalancing of the European 
economy is underway. Current account imbalances of the euro area have been significantly 
reduced. The EU's policy mix is focused on sustainable growth and job creation. Monetary policy is accommodative. In fiscal policy, consistent consolidation of public finances will continue, though 
with a slower pace in the current economic contex t and following the significant efforts of the past 
two years, while ensuring the medium-term sustainabi lity of public finances. Third, serious steps of 
deeper integration have been taken, from the reinforcement of economic governance to the Single 
Supervisory Mechanism of euro area banks and fu rther steps towards banking union, largely fixing 
EMU's original design flaws.  
Relating this to the current economic situation we can see that Europe is not yet out of troubled 
waters. Stress in financial markets has been significantly reduced, but this has not yet transmitted 
much into the real economy. Europe is only gradually emerging from the crisis, with growth 
expected to slowly pick up in the second half of this year. The protracted recession is, in a number of European countries, a balance sheet recession at the end of a very long credit cycle. Economic 
growth will not fully resume before debt – both public and private debt – has been reduced in the 
overall economy. In turn, the necessary economic rebalancing and structural change is hindered 
by the vulnerabilities in the banking sector and by the deep distortions in the credit channel. 
Tackling these structural problems and the erosion of economic competitiveness is at the core of 
the policy recommendations the Commission proposed  to the member states for the year to come 
on 29 May 2013.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 207 - 
 
  Question 24 
Since 2009, rating agencies have downgraded banks and governments in some euro zone 
countries, with Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain being the most affected. Investor confidence in various products have declined, the Secretariat Report mentions that the EU has 
taken various measures to reassure investor co nfidence. What measures have been taken to 
reassure investor confidence and how successful have these measures been? 
EU reply:  The total of the measures taken on EU level amount to a strong and successful 
response to the crisis. Last year's concerns, tail risks, that the euro could disintegrate have 
disappeared due to three reasons. First of all, financial stability is now firmly anchored. The European Stability Mechanism is operational and with the help of the ECB's announcement of its Outright Monetary Transactions scheme it has he lped to stabilise financial and bond markets, 
e.g. shown by decreases in spreads. Second, the rebalancing of the European economy is 
underway. Current account imbalances of the euro area have been significantly reduced. The EU's 
policy mix is focused on sustainable growth and job creation. Monetary policy is accommodative. 
In fiscal policy, consistent consolidation of public finances will continue, though with a slower pace 
in the current economic context, while ensuring th e medium-term sustainability of public finances. 
Third, serious steps of deeper integration have been taken, from the reinforcement of economic 
governance to the Single Supervisory Mechanism of euro area banks and further steps towards 
banking union, largely fixing EMU's original design flaws. All measures have successfully contributed to reassure investor confidence. Specif ically for Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and 
Spain investor confidence has been stimulated further by decisive action on EU level in the 
provision of emergency assistance by other EU Me mber States combined with implementation of 
ambitious adjustment programmes in the relevant areas of structural reforms, financial market and fiscal consolidation.  
Question 25 
It has been mentioned in the Secretariat's Report that GSP, GSP+ and EBA treatment may be 
temporarily withdrawn in certain circumstances including: serious and systematic violation of 
human rights, exported goods being by prison labour; serious shortcomings in customs controls; 
serious and systematic unfair trading practices, including those affecting supply of raw materials 
that have an adverse effect on the EU industry et c. The EU is requested to provide details of when 
and with country such GSP, GSP+ and EBA treatm ent has been withdrawn along with reason for 
withdrawing the treatment? 
EU reply:  Details on withdrawals of the respective GSP arrangements undertaken so far are 
included in the following table: 
Question 26 
Country Arrangement Reason 
Burma – 1997 GSP (then: EBA) The practice of any form of forced labor as defined in the 
international conventions 
Belarus – 2006 GSP Serious and systematic violations of principles laid down in 
the ILO Conventions No 87 and 96 
Sri Lanka – 2010 GSP+ Non effective implementation of the national legislation 
incorporating international human rights conventions 
The Secretariat's Report states that some member states such as France, Germany and the UK maintain FDI review procedures for national security purposes. Can the EU explain what are these review procedures and how do they impact alre ady established foreign investment in the above 
mentioned countries? 
EU reply:  Review procedures of foreign investments exist in some Member States as described in 
the secretariat report .These procedures may apply to investments made by foreign controlled 
companies irrespective of their territory of es tablishment, but once the investment has been 
authorised (e.g. France) or within the timeframe stipulated in the law (e.g. Germany and UK) it 
will not be subject to further review. Information about free movement of capital from third WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 208 - 
 
  countries can be found here: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/capital/third-
countries/treaty_provisions/index_en.htm .  
Part III: OTHER QUESTIONS 
Proposed amendment of the EU Customs Regulation1383/2003 
Regulation No 1383/2003 sets out the conditions under which customs authorities may intervene 
in cases where goods are suspected of infringing intellectual property rights. It also sets out the steps to be taken by the authorities and the holders of rights who want to lodge a request for 
intervention by customs.  
In 2011, the European Commission issued a proposal for review of the EU's Regulation concerning 
customs enforcement of intellectual property righ ts. This was followed by 'Guidelines concerning 
enforcement of goods in transit' (Commission Guidelines).  
Question 27 
(i) What is the timeframe within which the amendment process is likely to be completed? 
EU reply:  The new Regulation EU 608/2013 concerning  customs enforcement of intellectual 
property rights, adopted by the EU after a vote in  the European Parliament on 12.06.2013, will be 
applicable as from 01.01.2014. (L181 of the 29 June 2013) 
(ii) Does the amended proposal adequately implement the December 2011 case law of the 
European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the scope of  enforcement on goods passing in transit, and 
how will this proposal help in dealing with the risk of illegitimate seizures of generic medicines at the border 
EU reply:  Yes, the new Regulation EU 608/2013 respects the ECJ case law on the scope of 
enforcement on goods passing in transit and it provides further clarity as to measures relating to 
goods in transit. 
Regulatory limits on residue levels 
The European Union (EU) has harmonised its pesticides residue level framework under Regulation 
No. 396/2005 on Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin. A default level of 0.01 mg/kg has been applied on many chemicals because "the 
EC has not made a specific determination that it is safe". It is claimed that the MRLs have been set 
at the Level of Determination. Contemporaneous validation data for the chemicals that set the MRL at the LOD at the time of passing of the legislation is not available. 
Scientific evidence to justify the setting of the MRL at LOD and risk assessments has not been 
provided despite substantially higher levels for the same chemicals prescribed by other countries. 
For certain products within the EU, for the same chemical there are different standards eg. MRLs set for Carbendazim. As per information available,  the EU produces over 114 million tons of Wheat 
and 11 million tons of Oats compared to 2.6 million tons of Rice. The MRL of Carbendazim on 
wheat is 10 times that set for Rice and on Oats it is 200 times that set for Rice. Further, the EU does not follow Codex levels where applicable. For e.g. Codex has a MRL for rice at 2 ppm while 
the EU stipulates a default level of 0.01 mg/kg. 
Question 28 
(i) What is the basis for setting the MRLs for product – chemical combinations at the default level? 
Could the EU provide the scientific justificat ion for the MRLs specified under Regulation 
No. 396/2005. 
(ii) Why is the EU not accepting the Codex level for Carbendazim in Rice?  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 209 - 
 
  (iii) Can the EU provide evidence of the number of  occasions when the MRL was changed for a 
chemical-product combination, based on 3rd count ry request and details of such requests that 
were acted upon by the EU.  
(iv) Why should an exporting country be burdened wi th the onus of compiling scientific data or 
dossiers?  
EU reply to the above: In the EU, maximum residu e levels (MRLs) of pesticide residues, including 
import tolerances, continue to be set under Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. Any expected 
modifications to the current MRLs will continue to be notified to trading partners under the WTO 
SPS Agreement, inviting trading partners to provide comments.  
Setting of pesticide MRLs in the EU is based on a scientific opinion of the European Food Safety 
Authority (EFSA). If there are no authorised uses for a particular pesticide in the European Union, 
then the MRLs are fixed at a low level taking into account the routine analytical methods available. 
This is done as a trade facilitating measure to give traders a form of legal certainty.  
If exporting countries use a particular pesticide in a particular food commodity for which the 
exporting country would like to have an MRL different from the MRL set under EU legislation, the 
exporting country can provide the necessary information and follow the procedure for setting an 'import tolerance'. This approval procedure is laid  down in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. Also in 
this case, evaluations are carried out by EFSA based on the data provided. An import tolerance 
may be granted by the EU under the condition that there is no health risk for consumers and that the requested MRL is not higher than the one established in the third country. As regards 
carbendazim in rice, in April 2012 the Federation of European Rice Millers (FERM) submitted an 
application for an import tolerance. A full review of all MRLs for carbendazim is currently being 
carried out under Art. 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. In this context, relevant Codex MRLs will also be considered. 
On the webpage of the European Commission– Directorate General for Health and Consumers - all 
relevant recent legislation, including the granting of import tolerances is accessible to the public: http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/legislation/max_residue_levels_en.htm . 
All scientific information related to the setting of maximum residue levels by substance is available 
on the webpage of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA): http://www.efsa.europa.eu/e n/pesticides/mrls.htm .  
Arsenic levels in fishery products 
Exporters of fishery products to the EU continue to face problems in adhering to differing 
standards in the Member States. 
 For example, the EC raised the Alert Notification No. 2012.1130 dated 6th August 2012, 
concerning presence of Arsenic in frozen octopus. The consignment was first cleared in Greece. 
The Greek importer had sent a part of it to Cyprus where arsenic was detected and was rejected. The alert notification was raised on this basis. It was mentioned in the notification that Cypriot 
authorities had, based on National Legislatio n No. 303/83, detected presence of arsenic at 
16,7±1.8 mg/kg in the product.  
It was learnt that the permitted level of arsenic was 1 mg/kg for Cyprus. Subsequently, the EC has 
confirmed that for arsenic in fishery products, no  maximum level has been established at an EU 
level and therefore, Member States may maintain  their own national maximum level. The EC has 
further stated in an official communication that they do not maintain a comprehensive list of these national standards. 
Question 29 
(i) Why are these levels different in different Member States? 
EU reply:  Currently, there are no maximum levels for arsenic in food in EU legislation. For 
substances and/or commodities for which no maximum levels exist at EU level, Member States can WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 210 - 
 
  establish maximum levels at national level. As food consumption patterns vary between Member 
States and have an important influence on total exposure, the resulting maximum levels can differ between Member States. 
(ii) Will the EU provide an exhaustive list of th e substances where the MRL is not harmonized. 
EU reply:  All substances listed in Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 have a harmonized maximum 
level for the commodities listed. Maximum levels for commodities other than those listed or for 
other substances can differ. 
(iii) How will the EU address this NTB as this puts ex porters into additional burden (as well as cost) 
of complying with differing standards in each  Member State and prevents intra-EU trade? 
EU reply:  In few cases where the maximum levels of contaminants are not harmonised yet in the 
EU. The EU may consider to further harmonise these areas. 
EC Regulation on Chemicals – REACH 
The EC Regulation for the Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals manufactured or 
imported into EU makes it mandatory for all imports in quantities above one ton to be subject to 
registration, testing and certification, which leads to additional cost for the exporters. The high 
cost of registration makes it unaffordable for SMEs to  register for chemicals. 
The Commission adopted the General Report "Review of REACH" on 5 February 2013. The key 
findings of the review are as under:  
 recommendations to improve REACH implementation- include improving the quality of 
registration dossiers, encouraging companies to enhance the use of safety data sheets as a 
central risk management tool, and addressing issues related to the transparency of cost sharing within the Substance Information Exchange Forums (SIEFs).  
 The report recommends reducing the financial and administrative burden on SMEs in order to 
ensure the proportionality of legislation and to a ssist them to fulfil all their REACH obligations. 
The Commission will look into greater fee reductions to SMEs.  
 
 Considerable efforts to develop alternative methods to animal testing have been made and will 
continue. 
Question 30 
(i) How does EC propose to implement the recommendations of the REACH review to improve its 
implementation? 
(ii) What steps are being taken to reduce the financial and administrative burden on SMEs in order 
to assist them to fulfill all their REACH obligations. 
(iii) Whether the Commission proposes to re duce fees in respect of SMEs.  
EU reply:   
1. The recommendations made in the REACH Review  are addressed to numerous stakeholders – 
to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), industry, Member States, and the Commission 
itself. It shall be stressed that the Commission is fully committed to pursue the recommendations that fall within its merit. In addition, in its dialogue with relevant 
stakeholders, the Commission was asked to be active in the coordination and monitoring of the 
implementation of recommendations by all parties involved. To respond to this call, the Commission is currently working together with ECHA on an implementation working plan.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 211 - 
 
  (ii) The REACH Review has recognised the need to properly support SMEs. However, the 
conclusions of the Review underlined also the need  to maintain their ability to fulfill all REACH 
obligations. As an immediate action, the Commission revised the ECHA fees, where the reductions for SMEs were further increased. In addition, the Commission has asked ECHA to 
nominate an SME Ambassador, whose role will be to initiate and coordinate ECHA activities 
with specific focus on SMEs. The Commission is considering the need for ECHA to revise the Guidance documents and, together with industry, to produce new ones with regard to SIEF' 
operation and data sharing. The Commission is also launching a technical assistance study to 
advise Member States on how to assess the impacts of proposed restrictions on SMEs. All activities with regard to SMEs will be pres ented in the working program mentioned in the 
previous point. 
(iii) Commission Implementing Regulation (E U) No 254/2013 of 20 March 2013 amending 
Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 on the fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals 
Agency pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/ 2006 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals has further 
reduced the fees applicable to SMEs. 
Question 31 
The EU is requested to provide country wise deta iled classification of services imports and how 
have these imports grown (rate of growth) over the last five years? 
EU reply:  Imports into the EU of Commercial services from India amounted to an estimated 11 bn 
euros in 2012 compared to just 7.2 bn euros in 2007 i.e. an average annual growth rate of 9%.  
More detailed information can be found at: 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/balance_of_payments/data/database  most 
specifically in tables: bop_its_det, bop_its_deth, bop_its_str and bop_its_ybk. 
Question 32 
The EU is requested to provide an industry wise/s ector wise breakup of its outbound FDI over the 
last five years with the top 5 investor destinations. 
EU reply:  Total amount of EU27 FDI outflows for 2011 is estimated by Eurostat at around 365.1 
bn euro. The five most important destinations of EU27 FDI outflows were United States, 
Switzerland, Canada, Brazil and China. Please note that data are not necessarily available for 2011-2012. All information available on Eurostat web portal in the table: bop_fdi_main. 
Question 33 
It has been learnt that EU is in the process of developing and implementing a comprehensive 
investment policy. How does the new policy seek  to address the non-uniform treatment of EU 
investors and foreign investors in Europe resulting from the network of existing BITs? 
EU reply:  EU-wide investment agreements will gradually replace Member States' investment 
agreements, ultimately putting an end to the existing network of Member States bilateral 
investment treaties with third countries. Therefore, once an investment agreement is concluded 
with the EU, foreign investors of a particular country will enjoy the same treatment in all Member States of the EU and all EU investors will enjoy exactly the same treatment in the third country in 
question. 
Question 34 
Under the financial services a major point on the Commission's regulatory agenda is the Banking 
Union Project. As is understood the Banking Union entails four major elements, a single rule book, 
a single supervisory mechanism, a European deposit guarantee programme and a European 
resolution framework for banks. How will the Banking Union Project especially the single 
supervisory mechanism affect the already existing foreign bank/subsidiaries in the EU? Does the 
project entail difference in treatment for foreign banks and subsidiaries? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 212 - 
 
  EU reply:  The SSM covers all banks in the euro area and doesn't discriminate between foreign and 
EU banks. 
Question 35 
A key element of the ongoing and future financial sector reforms is related to increase in capital 
requirements for banks, investment firms and insurance companies. What are these likely 
increases in the capital requirement or banks, in vestment firms and insurance companies? What is 
the difference in these requirements for branches and subsidiary form of legal presence? 
EU reply:  All information regarding regulatory capital requirements, including legislation in force 
and Commission's proposal "CRD IV" (published in the Official Journal on 27 June 2013) can be 
found here: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/bank/regcapital/index_en.htm .  
Question 36 
It has been learnt that the Solvency II Directive (2009/138/EC), which is the new proposed regime 
for prudential supervision of insurance and reinsurance companies, will allow the European Commission to decide about third country solvency and prudential regime. These new solvency 
requirements are far reaching in respect of their extra-territorial impact. India is concerned that 
new solvency II regulations would be applicable ev en to the parent bodies of the branches which 
are located within the EC jurisdiction. Thus, not on ly the said Directive raises the issue of extra-
territoriality the new regulations are also disproportionally onerous if made applicable to the small 
operations of insurance companies from developing countries who earn only an insignificant proportions of their premium from EU. The EU is  requested to explain its views on the above 
mentioned issues? 
EU reply:  The new Solvency 2 regulatory framework for insurance and reinsurance in the EU does 
not contain extraterritorial application. 
The aim of the Solvency II framework is to ensure that insurance and reinsurance undertakings 
are financially sound and can withstand adverse events in order to protect policy holders and the 
stability of the financial system as a whole.  
In order to reduce the regulatory burden for companies and groups operating cross border, the 
new framework Solvency II introduces the concep t of equivalence. The Solvency II framework 
foresees a number of benefits for insurers and reinsurers operating in equivalent third countries. Where a third country exercises group supervision th at is equivalent to that exercised in the EU, 
European supervisory authorities would not be able  to impose additional group supervision for the 
European part of the group. In the case of re insurance, an equivalence finding would require 
reinsurance arrangements entered into with third country companies to be treated in the same manner as those entered into with EU companies that  are subject to Solvency II. Such benefits will 
not be accessible for third country regimes not determined to be equivalent, but this does not 
prevent insurers and reinsurers from those regimes from continuing to operate in the EU. 
The benefits that flow from posi tive equivalence findings on group solvency and group supervision 
are not applicable to branches, since a branch has no separate legal identity and is considered to 
be an integral part of the parent company. 
Where third country insurance and reinsurance companies operate in the EU via branches, 
Solvency II imposes requirements relating to the regulation and supervision of the branch. These 
rules exist to ensure that EU policyholders are adequately protected and are not worse off as a 
result of having contracted with a branch of a third country company.  
As a general rule, the supervisory authorities should apply rules to branches of foreign companies 
established in the EU in a proportionate manner and only to the operations effected by the branch. 
Therefore, we consider that Solvency II will not ha ve extra-territorial application. We also consider 
that it will not lead to disproportionate requirements being imposed on third country insurance or 
reinsurance companies operating within the EU. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 213 - 
 
  Question 37 
The EU is requested to provide details of the likely time line by which the ICT Directive is likely to 
get named along with a brief on the various components of secondary mobility that have been included in the Directive. 
EU reply:  The EU has indeed been making efforts to improve intra-corporate transfers between 
the establishments from in and outside of the EU. Mid-2010 the Commission proposed a Directive 
on Intra-Corporate Transferees. The aim of this proposal is to create an attractive EU scheme 
harmonising the conditions for entry, stay and intra-EU mobility of third-country national workers 
being posted by a group of undertakings based ou tside the EU to an entity of the same group 
based on the EU territory. The proposal also defi nes remuneration and working conditions of the 
ICTs and sets out the rights where ICTs shall bene fit from equal treatment with own nationals. The 
proposal contains entry and residence conditions as  well as rights for ICTs' family members. The 
adoption process is still on-going, while legislators are making efforts to finalise the negotiations, including finding a compromise on intra-EU mobility components. 
Question 38 
The EU is requested to provide details of the visa  category and work permit details for EU member 
states in case of categories of natural persons (Business Visitors, Intra Corporate Transferees, 
Contractual Service Suppliers and Independent Professionals) wherein EU has offered 
commitments under the ongoing Doha Round? 
EU reply:  The requirements and procedures for visas and stay of various categories of natural 
persons are determined by the EU legislation (for short stay up to 3 months in Schengen 
countries) or separately at the EU Member State level, where pertaining to areas of Member State 
competence (such as long stay visa and residence permits for stays beyond 3 months and work permits). 
Details on the procedures and conditions for issuing so-called "Schengen visas" for transit through 
or intended stays in the territory of the Schengen Member States not exceeding three months in any six-month period are laid down in the Visa Code: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:243:0001:0058:EN:PDF .  
Information on visa and/or necessary work permits can be obtained at the consulates responsible 
for processing the application as well as on the EU Immigration Portal: http://ec.europa.eu/immigration/tabHome.do;j sessionid=cylVRGVY12JnJnhgGT75l2GtQflLRcQrVFG
HTFHBscGhQ1bZ81Tp!2016941491!1371805144898 portal . 
Question 39 
India would request 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:  The required information is available for the years 2007-2011 on the Europa website in 
a document called "Public Procurement Indicators2011". 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocur ement/modernising_rules/evaluation/index_en.ht
m.  
Question 40 
European public procurement regime does not cove r service concessions, the only concession not 
yet governed by secondary legislation. At present what is the regime of their procurement. There 
is a move by EU to cover it under the Procurement Directives. Can the European Union inform as to what is the status of the proposed amendment. 
EU reply:  Service concessions are currently covered by the TFEU principles, such as transparency 
and non-discrimination. The proposal for a new directive on concessions is currently discussed by 
the legislators, the Council and the European Parliament. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 214 - 
 
  Question 41 
Reference to Reciprocity has been made in EU Directives on Government procurement. How does 
EU ensure reciprocity, whether in terms of se ctor by sector or cross sector reference? 
EU reply:  India is referring to a Commission proposal  which may be modified during the EU's 
legislative process. The proposal is currently on the table of the EU co-legislators– - the European 
Parliament and the Council. In the Council, the Me mber States have worked through a first reading 
of the proposal at technical level. The European Parliament is likely to express its views in a first 
reading vote on the proposal in autumn. 
Question 42 
What are the yardsticks to examine "economically most advantageous offer" under the EU 
Government Procurement directives. Can EU explain if there is any standard weightage criterion 
applied for such determination? 
EU reply:  When contracts are awarded on the basis of the economically most advantageous offer, 
several award criteria such as price, quality, technical merits etc. may be applied. The relative 
weight of the criteria or at least their order of importance must be indicated in the tender 
documents 
Question 43 
62. EU Government Procurement Directives refer to the procurement of utilities like water, 
electricity, urban transport, port and airport sectors. Can EU explain when such utilities are not covered under the purview of the procurement Directiv e and if so, does it mean that such utilities 
operate as a private operator and are not covered under the carve out of Article III:8(a) of the 
GATT, 1994. 
EU reply:  The directive 2004/17 applies to public authorities exercising activities falling under the 
scope of application of the directive. It applies al so to private entities operating on the sphere of 
application of the directive on the basis of a sp ecial or exclusive right granted by a competent 
authority of a Member State. 
Question 44 
The EU may kindly inform if there is any working manual for the anti-dumping investigation. If so, 
kindly provide the weblink for the same. 
EU reply:  There is no working manual for the anti-dumping investigation on the EC website. 
However, all information on the procedures as well as relevant regulations can be found at 
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/accessing-markets/trade-defence/actions-against-imports-into-
the-eu/anti-dumping/ . 
All internal procedures as regards anti-dumping investigations are based on Basic anti-dumping 
regulation of the EU. 
Question 45 
While taking an anti-dumping measure, how does  the EU determine the Non Injurious Price (NIP) 
or Fair Selling Price. How does the EU apply it in the context of lesser duty rule? 
EU reply:  The level of injury, and thus of non-injurious prices, is determined following a detailed 
investigation as stipulated in Article 3 of the Basic Regulation 1225/2009. Among the factors taken 
into account during the investigations are the volume of dumped imports, their effect on prices in 
the Community market for like products, and subsequently the impact of those imports on the 
Community industry. The lesser duty rule, cont ained in Article 9(4) of above-mentioned 
Regulation, stipulates that 'the amount of the anti-dumping duty shall not exceed the margin of 
dumping established but it should be less than the margin if such lesser duty would be adequate to 
remove the injury to the Community industry'. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 215 - 
 
  Question 46 
Please explain as to how EU carries out the test for negligible volume with respect to non subject 
countries while initiating an anti-dumping investigation.  
EU reply:  The Basic Regulation 1225/2009 is clear with respect to negligible volumes. According 
to Article 5(7), anti-dumping proceedings will 'not be initiated against countries whose imports 
represent a market share of below 1%, unless such countries collectively account for 3% or more of Community consumption'. 
Question 47 
It is understood that some of the member states of EU maintain certain measures including the 
domestic content requirement that affect the rene wable energy generation sector relating to the 
feed in-tariff programs of EU member States. These measures seem to have been promulgated 
under the powers delegated to EU Member States by, inter alia, Directive 2009/28/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council "on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources". Can EU inform if the measures still exist or have been amended. If so, please provide 
the details of such programs.  
EU reply:  The Directive 2009/28/EC lays down a 20% overall target for the share of renewable 
energy by 2020, as well as a 10% target for each  Member State for the share of renewable energy 
in transport by 2020. The implementation of the Directive, including the design of the support 
schemes promoting the development of renewable energy, is the responsibility of the Member 
States. The question thus misrepresents the factual and legal situation in the EU. This notwithstanding, the EU understands the question as referring to matters that have been raised in 
the context of dispute WT/DS452. Such matters are the object of consultations between the EU 
and China, with Japan as a third party (India did not claim to have a substantial trade interest in the matter). WTO members will be duly informed of  any relevant steps within the DSB framework. 
ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM INDIA FOR TRP OF EU 
Lead in Jewellery (Amendments to  REACH regulation Annx- XVII): 
EC has published regulation 836/2012 amending A nnex XVII of the Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 
of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and 
Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). These regulation s cover restrictions in respect of use of Lead 
compounds in products being exported to the EU . The regulation prohibits the placing on the 
market and the use of lead in jewellery articles at a concentration level of 0.05% or above on 
recommendation of Committee for Socio-Economic Analysis. This regulation has come into force 
from 08 October 2012. The basis of restrictions is not any scientific study but mouthing behavior of children. The regulation While places restrict ions on Jewellery for lead contents, it exempts 
crystal glass and vitreous enamels which has higher level of lead contents. 
Question 48 
(i) It is requested to provide the scientific justification for putting restrictions on jewellery items 
and exempting Crystal glasses and vitreous enamels for lead content when it is well known 
that probability of mouthing of Crystal glasses and Vitreous enamels are much higher than mouthing jewellery items by children considering the frequency and/accessibility of these products to children. 
(ii) ii. Has EU, since October 2012, attempted to obtain information regarding release of Lead from 
Crystal glass and Vitreous Enamels which is use for coating cooking ware table tops etc. 
EU reply:  The limit set in Regulation (EU) No 836/2012 for lead in jewellery, 0.05%, is based on 
the opinion delivered by the Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) of ECHA, following an in-depth 
assessment of the restriction dossier proposed by France and containing a risk assessment of the 
use of lead in jewellery articles. The RAC judged that this value of 0.05% was sufficiently low to WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 216 - 
 
  ensure no appreciable risk. We encourage India to consult the committee opinion which further 
details the reasoning when establishing the limit value (see link below). 
Concerning crystal glasses and enamels, a derogation was given by the socio-economic committee 
(SEAC). The SEAC considered that, although the restriction was justified for metallic parts, 
alternatives to crystal and enamels were not yet technically and economically available to replace 
the full range of those mixtures. Furthermore, it considered that as compared to metallic jewellery, evidence of a significant health impact of lead exposure from mouthing or ingestion of crystals and 
vitreous enamels had not been presented and that a derogation was justified. We also encourage 
India to consult the committee opinion. 
Both committees opinions are available in one single compiled document, at 
http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/aae1d985-ae57-44f9-8556-c952a6e6d09b .  
Furthermore, both committees discussed the availabi lity of analytical methods and concluded that 
the restriction was enforceable. They indicated in their opinion that testing of the content of lead in jewellery can be measured by an XRF (X Ray Fluorescence) test method. SEAC added that in order 
to verify a non-compliant content value, an ICP (Inductively coupled Plasma) spectrometer 'wet 
test' can be performed. More detailed information can also be found in the background document that can be found on the ECHA webpage: http://echa.europa.eu/previous-consultations-on-
restriction-proposals/-/substance/699/search/+/term .  
 WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 217 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM INDONESIA 
GOVERNMENT REPORT 
1 INTRODUCTION Page 3 Para. 1.4 
Now in place for 20 years, the single market has played a key role in delivering growth and 
employment and promoting competitiveness. The European Union has pursued policies for developing the right domestic policy framework to support competitiveness, to open up trade in 
services, to strengthen the industrial basis in Europe and to enhance Europe's place in global value 
chains. 
Question:  1. Please provide details on what kind of policy that EU pursues to open up trade in services?  
2. Is there any specific sector that EU focuses on?  
EU reply to questions 1 and 2: Trade in services is the backbone of the European economy, 
representing roughly 70% of EU GDP and creating the majority of new jobs. Also, the EU is the 
biggest exporter of trade in services accounting for roughly one fourth of cross-border trade in 
services worldwide.  
Therefore, the further liberalization of trade in se rvices and ensuring a level playing field for EU 
services suppliers in third countries is one of the core objectives of the EU with a view to create 
jobs and growth. The EU pursues these objectives by further negotiating trade agreements with third countries as well as by working bilaterally on individual market access barriers in third countries. The EU has a general holistic approach to trade in services, aiming at achieving 
meaningful economic commitments in sectors that are important to European services suppliers 
and consumers alike, flanked by stronger rules e.g. on domestic regulation that ensure a level playing field for EU and third country services supp liers. . In this regard, the EU regrets that there 
are no market access negotiations at multilateral level and that DDA negotiations stalled as we 
would prefer to continue trade liberalisation at multilateral level. 
3. What kind of strategy that EU applies to increase the competitiveness in its services sector?  
EU reply: The main elements of EU legislative actions regarding services sector and its 
competitiveness can be found here: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/services/services-
dir/index_en.htm .  
Page 3 Para. 1.5 
Trade has played an important role as growth driver so far and it is expected to remain the main 
contributor to growth of the EU economy in 2013.  The European Union has put a lot of emphasis 
on its trade agenda and the Communication 'Trade , Growth and World Affairs, Trade policy as a 
core component of the EU's 2020 strategy – an integral part of the Europe 2020 strategy – 
continued to be the mainstay of the European Un ion's trade and investment policy. The European 
Council held on 7 and 8 February 2013 reiterated the EU's determination to promote free, fair and 
open trade whilst asserting its interests, in a spirit of reciprocity and mutual benefit. 
Question:  4. Is there any strategy in this agenda to enhance trade in services?  
5. What is the main focus of this agenda?  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 218 - 
 
  EU reply to questions 4 and 5: The Europe 2020 strategy is about delivering growth that is: 
smart, through more effective investments in education, research and innovation; sustainable, 
thanks to a decisive move towards a low-carbon economy; and inclusive, with a strong emphasis on job creation and poverty reduction. The strategy  is focused on five ambitious goals in the areas 
of employment, innovation, education, poverty reduction and climate/energy.  
2 THE EUROPEAN UNION IN A CHANGING WORLD 
2.1 Economic Performance and Challenges Ahead 
Page 4 Para. 2.9 
"The European Union's industrial base remains strong: it has a manufacturing trade surplus of 
almost €300 billion, a figure that has increased fivefold since 2000. Its surplus in services has multiplied by more than 20 times in ten ye ars to over €100 billion. The European Union 
agricultural trade balance has shifted from a deficit to a surplus since 2010. While the European 
Union's overall trade balance for goods and services is slightly negative (€74 billion), this is due to import of energy related products and the size of th is deficit is small when compared to total trade. 
Question:  
6. Please provide information on what the most significant sectors/sub sectors dominantly affect 
the surplus trade in services are.  
EU reply: According to most recent Balance of Payments data from Eurostat, the EU's total 
services trade surplus in 2011 amounted to slightly more than 121 billion €. The strongest sub-
sectors were Merchanting with 35 billion €, Freight transport on sea with 34 billion €, Financial services with 29 billion € and Computer services wi th 19 billion €. Please note that these figures 
may add up to more than the total of 121 billion € as the latter is a balance of positive and 
negative items. 
2 THE EUROPEAN UNION IN A CHANGING WORLD 
2.3 Developments in the Internal Market and Central Policy Areas 
Digital agenda for Europe and e-commerce  
Page 10 Para. 2.47 
Online trade and services already account for more than 20% of growth and net job creation in 
some Member States and the actions announced seek to boost that potential even further, especially through establishing the trust in online services. Moreover, the development of 
electronic commerce and online services offers enormous potential for beneficial economic, social 
and societal change. For example, recent study sh ows that the internet economy creates 2.6 jobs 
for every 'offline' job lost, and often offers a bette r choice to consumers, including those in rural 
and isolated areas. 
Question:  
7. Please kindly explain the best practice and also specific jobs which are created due to the 
expansion of electronic commerce and online services.  
EU reply: EU-wide 14% of enterprises are selling onlin e, while in the best performing member 
states Sweden Denmark this figure reaches 27%. Conversely, 45% of adults in the EU purchase 
online, but 74% of Swedish and Danish adults do. These data indicate that in Denmark and in Sweden even citizens in rural and isolated areas have a large choice of electronic shopping, and 
that SMEs located in these areas nevertheless are able to sell to a large customer base. 
This development of electronic commerce is at the base for the expanding demand for ICT 
professionals across the European Union. Despite the recession and the overall rising 
unemployment, the number for ICT professionals grew in 2012 by 7%. Among the categories 
growing above average one can find in particular Web Technicians (+ 67%), Web and Multimedia WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 219 - 
 
  Developers (+ 12%) and Applications Programmers (+ 10%). Of course, eCommerce also provides 
non-ICT jobs, such as employment in warehousing and delivery departments. 
2 THE EUROPEAN UNION IN A CHANGING WORLD 
2.3 Developments in the Internal Market and Central Policy Areas 
Promoting and supporting SMEs' economic activities outside the EU  
Page 10 Para. 2.48 
"On 9 November 2011, the European Commission adopted the Communication on 'Small Business, 
Big World — a new partnership to help SMEs seize global opportunities'. This Communication aims 
to establish a more coherent and effective European Union strategy for supporting SMEs in international markets and to make better use of existing resources. To reach these objectives, the new strategy sets out 6 fields of action: strengthening and mapping the existing supply of support 
services; creating a single virtual gateway to information for SMEs; making support schemes at EU 
level more consistent; promoting clusters and networks for SME internationalisation; rationalising new activities in priority markets; leveraging existing EU external policies."  
Question:  
8. Could you please explore more on these fields of action, particularly on the method to 
implement this strategy?  
EU reply: The main objective of the Commission Communication "Small Business Big World…" is 
aimed at facilitating EU SMEs access to third country markets by supporting a number of tools, 
investing in structures, facilitating easier access to information, as well as creating a better synergy between the assistance offered at EU and Member States level to European SMEs.  
Several measures are in place helping European companies to internationalise. The Enterprise 
Europe Network is a unique network put at the disposal of SMEs in and outside Europe. With 600 partners, it currently covers 53 countries, all over the world. Various cluster initiatives are being 
developed aimed at strengthening the EU based cluster organisations and encouraging them to 
maintain contacts with their third country counterparts.  
The European Commission supports also a number of structures in Asia for instance the EU-SME 
Centre in China, the European-ASEAN Business Centre in Thailand, the European Business and 
Technological Centre in India, as well as the IP R Helpdesks in China and in ASEAN countries. These 
structures provide valuable services to European companies helping them to establish commercial 
activities with third country partners.  
The European Commission has also recently completed a study that listed the existing support 
services available for EU SMEs willing to intern ationalise in chosen third country markets. The 
results of this study will form the basis of a new web-portal on SMEs internationalisation, with the main objective to help EU companies to obtain information about available programs at EU and 
national level that support internationalisation.  
3 KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN EU TRADE POLICY (2011-2012) 
3.4 Trade and Sustainable Development 
Page 15 Para. 3.28 
"Over the last years, climate change has emerge d as a crucial sustainable development challenge 
facing policy makers, requiring also a careful consideration of the interaction between climate and trade policies with a view to ensuring that they reinforce each other. The European Union has been 
in the frontline in the fight against climate change both at the domestic level and on the 
international stage, and pursues complementary trade policies that can directly contribute to climate policy goals, such as the liberalisation of trade in environmental goods and services." WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 220 - 
 
  Question:  
9. Please provide information on the market potential in EU for environmental services in relation 
to current domestic regulation in this sector?  
EU reply: Estimating the market potential of environmental services is a complex exercise and it 
should be noted that often a service is provided  jointly with the supply of goods and/or direct 
investments, for instance in the area of renewable services and energy efficiency.  
According to Eurostat data the size of the EU market for environmental services is around 1.3% of 
EU GDP, up from 1.1% in 2005. This figure in cludes water collection, treatment and supply, 
sewerage, waste management and remediation industry, protection of ambient air and climate and other environmental services. 
In the case of energy efficiency, it is estimated that to realise the cost-effective potential across 
final energy use sectors in the 27 EU Member States an investment of around 85 to 100 billion € 
per year until 2020 is required. The building sector takes the lion's share of around 60 billion € per year. Some of these investments will come from market forces and some will be promoted with 
regulatory and financial framework at EU, national and local level and will lead to the further 
establishment of energy efficiency and energy serv ices markets. In particular as regards energy 
services market and the role of Energy Service Companies, reports of Commission's Joint Research 
Centre of 2007 and 2010 estimates that in 2010 it represented a market volume of EUR 5-10 
billion with potential market size estimated at EUR 25 billion in 2020. 
SECRETARIAT REPORT 
SUMMARY 
Page 9 Para. 5 
"There have not been any major changes to tariffs  or market access generally in the EU. Although 
there are a large number of duty-free tariff lines and the average MFN tariff is 6.5%, some 
sectors, particularly agriculture, remain relative ly well protected, sometimes by complex 
or seasonal tariffs.  However, relatively few countries trade with the EU on an MFN basis as the 
EU has a considerable number of trade agreements with other countries as well as a GSP and 
GSP+, and EBA schemes." 
Question:  10. Indonesia seeks explanation on the rationale behind this complex tariff system on agriculture?  
11. Does EU have any plan to reduce the complexity of tariff system on agriculture in the near 
future?  
EU reply to questions 10-11: The EU's agricultural tariff system is contained in its WTO 
schedule, resulting from the Uruguay Round Agre ement. The EU has no plans to autonomously 
change its tariff structure for agricultural products. Any change will result from a successful 
conclusion to the DDA. In the meantime, the EU  will continue to respect its WTO commitments.  
Page 9 Para. 6 
"Different member States charge  different rates of value added tax and excise duties while 
corporate and personal taxation systems and rates of tax vary widely from one member State to another. The complexity of the taxation system, including collection and payment, for example for 
VAT, can result in additional compliance costs for economic operators while the application of 
reduced VAT rates for some products results in si gnificant revenue transfers to some sectors that 
are typically not traded. If all reduced rates were  removed, the standard rate of VAT could in 
certain member States theoretically be dropped by up to 7.5% without any impact on overall 
revenue." WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 221 - 
 
  Question:  
12. The complexities of domestic tax system may effectively double the actual cost of imported 
products in EU. Indonesia seeks explanation of the rationale behind this complex tax system?  
EU reply: VAT is a national tax contributing to about 22%  of Member States' tax receipts. It is set 
by common rules at EU level (The VAT Directive). VAT Directive ensures that Member States have 
sufficient flexibility to determine their fiscal policy,  and –subject to certain imperatives- decide on 
the most efficient tools to serve policy goals set.  
13. Does EU have any plan to reduce the comple xity of its tax system in the near future?  
EU reply: On 6 December 2011, the Commission adopted a Communication on the future of VAT. 
It aims to create a simpler, more efficient and more robust VAT system in the EU and thus will 
facilitate businesses trading within the EU.  
First, VAT must be made more workable for busi nesses. A simpler, more transparent VAT system 
would relieve businesses of considerable administrative burdens and encourage greater cross-border trade. Among the measures envisaged for a more business-friendly VAT are expanding the 
one-stop-shop approach for cross border transactions; standardizing VAT declarations; and 
providing clear and easy access to the details of all national VAT regimes through a central web-portal. The Commission started the work on those issues already. 
Second, VAT must be made more efficient in suppo rting Member States' fiscal consolidation efforts 
and sustainable economic growth. Broadening ta x bases and limiting the use of reduced rates 
could generate new revenue for Member States without the need for rate increases. The standard VAT rate could even be reduced in some Memb er States, without any impact on revenue, if 
exemptions and reductions were removed. The Comm unication sets out the principles that should 
guide the review of exemptions and reduced rates.  The Commission will also be analysing Member 
States' use of reduced rates and exemptions when reviewing their fiscal policies in the context of 
the European Semester. 
Third, the huge revenue losses that occur today due to uncollected VAT and fraud need to be 
stopped. It is estimated that around 12% of the total VAT which should be collected, is not (so-
called VAT Gap). In that regard the Commission proposed (and the Council recently reached a 
political agreement on) a quick reaction mechanism to ensure Member States can respond better to suspected fraud schemes. Furthermore, the Commission will see whether current anti-fraud mechanisms, such as Eurofisc, need to be strengthened. 
Finally, the Commission has concluded that the long-standing question of changing to a VAT 
s y s t e m  b a s e d  o n  t a x a t i o n  a t  o r i g i n  i s  n o  l o n g e r  r e l e v a n t .  T h e r e f o r e ,  V A T  w i l l  c o n t i n u e  t o  b e  collected in the country of destination, and the Commission will work on creating a modern EU VAT 
system based on this principle. 
Page 10 Para. 12 
"Overfishing remains a serious problem for the EU as total allowable catches have regularly 
exceeded sustainable limits. However, for some  time now the EU has been increasing the 
emphasis on long-term planning and more reform of the Common Fisheries Policy should take place this year." 
Question:  
14. Could EU please provide detailed information on  EU's program plans to overcome overfishing 
problem?  
EU reply: The European Commission expects that, based on the reform of the EU Common 
Fisheries Policy, EU Member States would assess whether their fleets are in a situation of 
overcapacity and, if so, will have to propose an action plan to remedy to the problem. Each year, the Member States will have to prepare a report concerning the balance of fishing opportunities 
and fishing capacity. In the event that an imbala nce is assessed, Member States will prepare and WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 222 - 
 
  implement an action plan to achieve a balance. A failure either to report adequately or to 
implement an action plan, whenever necessary, may re sult in the suspension of financial aid to the 
fleet segment(s) concerned. The outcome of the reform of the EU Common Fisheries Policy is not 
known at this juncture as subject to adoption und er ordinary legislative procedure foreseen by the 
Treaty on the functioning of the European Union.  
Page 10 Para. 11 
"During the review period there was no major change  in agricultural policy as implementation of 
the last set of reforms continued. More reform is expected to be decided in 2013 for 
implementation in 2014. As a result of past reforms and higher international prices for agricultural commodities, the total level of support to the agriculture sector has declined over the past few years and for most products there is now little difference between EU and international prices. 
However, the EU's reforms have not affected market access conditions and tariffs remain higher 
than on non-agricultural products and in some cases these tariffs are complex and/or seasonal." 
Question:  
15. Could EU please provide detailed information on EU program plans to reform agriculture policy 
that will be decided in 2013?  
EU reply:  The CAP reform for the period 2014-2020 will continue along the path towards greater 
market orientation, whilst responding to demand s for a better distribution of support among and 
within Member States, as well as calls for a better targeting of measures aimed at addressing environmental challenges and better addressing  increased market volatility. The three broad 
objectives of the future CAP are "Viable food pr oduction", "Sustainable management of natural 
resources" and "Balanced territorial development", which respond directly to the economic, 
environmental and territorial balance challenges identified in the European Commission's Communication published in 2010, and which guide the proposed changes to the CAP. The reform 
of the CAP for the period 2014-2020 is based on 4 main regulations which concern: 
 rules for direct payments, 
 the Single Common Market Organisation, 
 support for rural development programmes, 
 horizontal matters related to financing, management and monitoring of the CAP. 
The European Commission presented legislative proposals for these four regulations in 
October 2011. The proposals have been subject to  a process of inter-institutional negotiations 
between the European Commission, the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament which led to a political agreement on  the reform of the CAP reached on 26 June 2013. 
The formal adoption of the reform is expected later in 2013 with a view to having the new CAP in 
place as from 1 January 2014. 
Detailed information about the CAP post 2013 reform process can be found on the following site: 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/index_en.htm .  
2 TRADES AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.1 Legal and Instit utional Framework 
Page 27 Para. 2.3 
"Under the Lisbon Treaty, the EU has exclusive competence, inter alia, for trade and investment 
policies and member States may develop legal acts in these areas only when authorized by the EU. The scope of common commercial policy covers trade in goods, trade in services, trade aspects of intellectual property rights, foreign direct invest ment, and trade defence measures. In addition to 
the areas of exclusive competences, the EU may acquire exclusive external competence to the 
extent that it has exercised internally shared comp etences (for example, in the field of transport). WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 223 - 
 
  Member States retain varying degrees of independent regulatory authority, which may result in 
the adoption of national measures that affect trade within the EU, and with non-EU countries." 
Question:  16. What steps does EU intend to take, in order to ensure the regulations that have been made 
are consistent with overall trade and investment policies for EU members and adopt their 
interest? 
EU reply:  EU policy and legislation is decided by the Council, which is made up of representatives 
of Member States, and the European Parliament. Therefore, any policy or legislation adopted at 
Union level reflects the interests of the Union and the Member States as a whole. In addition, the Commission's legislative proposals are prepared on the basis of thorough consultations and of an assessment of expected impacts, thus ensuring th at they adequately address the objectives and 
concerns of all relevant stakeholders.  
2 TRADES AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.4 Preferential Trade Agreements and Arrangements 
2.4.1 Unilateral preferences 
Page 30 Para 2.22 
The EU's GSP consists of three arrangements: 
 Standard GSP, which provides tariff preferences to eligible developing countries; 
 GSP+, which offers additional tariff reductions to "vulnerable" countries that implement 
international conventions in the fields of human rights, core labour standards, sustainable development, and good governance; and 
 Everything But Arms (EBA), which offers duty -free and quota-free access for all products 
except arms and ammunitions from least-developed countries (LDCs). 
Question:  
17. If any, how much standard GSP tariff pref erences that EU provides for Indonesia?  
EU reply: Indonesia is benefitting from 'Standard GSP'. The total of preferential export for year 
2011 (last available data) is € 4.89 billion. 
Page 31 Para 2.25 
"Under the graduation system in the GSP regula tions, imports of a particular product from a 
developing country no longer have preferential a ccess when they exceed a certain level, defined as 
a percentage of total imports of that product from all GSP beneficiaries. Under Regulation (EU) No. 
978/2012, the thresholds for graduation will increase to 17.5% (from 15% previously) in 2014 and 
for textiles 14.5% (up from 12.5%). Production sections used for graduation increase from 21 to 32. The Commission noted that this finer product classification avoids graduation "overshoots". 
Other changes to the graduation system also mean  that the GSP+ arrangement will be exempted 
from graduation.26 A list of graduated sectors for 2014-16 is available on the Commission website." 
Question:  
18. What are the particular products from a developing country that no longer have preferential 
access when they exceed a certain level? Is it defined as a percentage of total imports of that product from all GSP beneficiaries?  
EU reply: The graduation system applies to the entirety  of the products that are covered by GSP.   WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 224 - 
 
  The level to be exceeded for a product section to be graduated is 17.5%. This value refers to the 
average value of Union imports of such products  over three consecutive years from that GSP 
beneficiary country, calculated as a percentage of the total value of Union imports of the same product section from all GSP beneficiary countries (see Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No. 978/2012). 
19. Please, elaborate the meaning of production sections used for graduation increase from 21 
to 32?  
EU reply:  The increase of the number of product sections ensures that graduation is calculated at 
a more refined level: more product sections mean s that those sections are more homogeneous in 
terms of products that are included therein.  
For example, the current Section 7 will be split in to two Sections: 7a (Plastics) and 7b (Rubber). 
Therefore, in case of those two categories of products, calculations of the beneficiary country's 
competitiveness will no longer aggregate data from two categories, but be based on data for the 
individual categories, thus granting a more precise assessment. 
Page 31 Para 2.28 
"The new regulation provides that EU producers may request initiation of a safeguard investigation 
if the GSP imports in volumes and/or at prices cause or threaten to cause serious deterioration in the economic and/or financial situation of the EU producers; the last regulation did not offer this 
provision to EU producers, although the same substantive conditions applied. Special safeguards 
for clothing are extended to plain textiles and to ethanol. The EU has not removed any GSP preferences under the safeguard clause. Procedures regarding safeguard measures." 
Question:  
20. The last regulation did not offer this provision to EU producers, what rules that are used by 
the EU to apply safeguard measures for imported products covered by GSP scheme?  
EU reply: Rules to apply safeguard measures under the current GSP are specified in Articles 20, 
21 and 22 of Regulation (EC) No 732/2008. Under Regulation (EU) No 978/2012, which provides 
for the revised scheme and repeals Regulation (EC) No 732/2008, the relevant provisions are Section I and II of Chapter VI as well as Article 39 for the detailed procedural aspects. 
21. What is the benefit of GSP if imported products  covered by GSP are still imposed by safeguard 
measures?  
EU reply:  If the safeguards investigation reveals that products originating in a GSP beneficiary 
country are imported in volumes and/or at prices which cause, or threaten to cause, serious 
difficulties to Union producers of like or directly competing products, normal Common Customs 
Tariff duties are reintroduced. The reintroduction of those duties means that GSP preferences will not apply on those specific products from that specific beneficiary country. This situation will last 
as long as necessary to counteract the deterioration in the economic and/or financial situation of 
Union producers, or as long as the threat of such deterioration persists. The period of reintroduction shall not exceed three years, unless it is extended in duly justified circumstances. 
22. Could EU please provide information on its rationale behind the application of special 
safeguards to plain textiles and to ethanol?  
EU reply:  Special safeguards are applied to those product categories because, together with 
textiles, they are particularly sensitive product categories in the European Union, where sudden 
variations in the trade flows can have very important consequences. Nevertheless, it should be 
recalled that safeguards have never been used in the GSP framework so far.  
23. Is there minimum time frame for the GSP import to take place before the request is 
submitted?  
EU reply: Upon initiation of a safeguards investigation, the EU shall publish a notice of initiation 
which specify, among other details, the period of investigation and the time period which the WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 225 - 
 
  investigation will cover. The rules of procedure that will be published by the end of 2013 will 
specify the requirements concerning the period covered by the investigation.  
24. Please provide information on the steps for a request to be granted?  
EU reply:  The procedure for the initiation of an investigation and the investigation itself is set by 
Articles 24 to 27 of Regulation (EU) 978/2012. For the possible steps of the decision making 
please refer to Article 39. According to Article 22.4 of the same Regulation, the Commission will adopt a Regulation establishing the rules of procedure for adopting safeguards, in particular with 
respect to deadlines, rights of parties, confidentiality, disclosure, verification, visits and review. 
The corresponding rules of procedure will be published by the end of 2013.  
25. When will exactly safeguard measures under the GSP be published in 2013?  
EU reply: Currently, there are no safeguards measures under GSP. The rules of procedures for 
safeguard investigations will be published during the second half of 2013. 
2 TRADES AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.5 Foreign Investment 
2.5.1 Foreign investment regime 
Page 36 Para. 2.47 
"In addition, the EU has concluded several international agreements with third countries with 
provisions on market access for foreign investment, and post establishment national treatmentand 
most-favoured-nation treatment for sectors liberali zed by the parties. According to the European 
Commission, the EU has started filling the gap of "entry" or "admission" through both multilateral and bilateral agreements at EU level covering investment market access and investment 
liberalization." 
Question:  26. Please provide details on the liberalized sectors in EU?  
27. What about agriculture sector?  
EU replies to question 26 and 27: In its bilateral agreements, apart of the services sectors (the 
EU commit almost all sectors as indicated in the W120 list) the EU liberalise as well the 
"non-services", notably agriculture, hunting and forestry (ISIS 011, 012, 013, 014), mining and 
quarrying (ISIC 10, 1110, 13, 14) as well as manufacturing (ISIC 15-37).  
Page 36 Para. 2.51  
"Article 63 of the Lisbon Treaty prohibits restrictions on capital movements among EU member 
States, and between EU and non-EU members. Restrictions on direct investment from non-EU 
members that were in place before December 1993 (December 1999 for Bulgaria, Estonia, and Hungary) are exempt from this prohibition. Exemptions are also granted to restrictions that are 
"justified on grounds of public policy or public security", and those taken "to prevent infringement 
of national law and regulations, in particular in the field of taxation and the prudential supervision 
of financial institutions, or to lay down procedures for the declaration of capital movements for 
purposes of administrative or statistical information". 
Question:  28. Why branches or agencies of non-EU companies established in EU members are not free to 
move capital to the territory of other EU member states?  
EU reply:  All firms already established in a EU Member State benefit from the freedom of capital 
movements within the EU Internal Market, regardless of whether they are domestic or foreign-
owned (including owned by non-EU investors). WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 226 - 
 
  3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 3.1.3 Rules of origin 3.1.3.2 GSP rules of origin 
Page 44 Para. 3.28  
"Upon request from the beneficiary country, cumulation may be possible among countries in 
Groups I and III, subject to conditions. Under regional cumulation, exporters must be careful of 
whether the input materials from other countries in the region are "graduated" or "excluded" from 
the GSP." 
Question:  29. Please provide details of the conditions?  
EU reply: New GSP Regulation 978/2012 introduces a dynamic approach which is reflected in the 
rules of origin applicable (contained in Commi ssion Regulation 2454/1993). Though the existing 
four cumulation groups are maintained, cumulation will only be applicable provided that all the 
developing countries involved in cumulation are beneficiary countries at the date of export of the 
final good to the EU and provided that all other conditions (referring to the proofs of origin, rule of origin applicable to consider the materials used as originating, etc) are also fulfilled.  
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 3.1.4 Tariffs 3.1.4.2 WTO bound tariffs 
Page 48 Para. 3.42  
"The WTO certified Schedule of Concessions reflecting the EU's enlargement from 12 to 15 
member States became effective in October 2012.44 The EU's commitments with respect to 
agricultural market access, domestic support, and export subsidies to reflect the enlargement from 
15 to 27 member States have not yet been formally agreed in the WTO and consolidated in the EU's Schedule (section 2.3)." 
Question:  
30. Could EU please explain the rationale for such policy, particularly in respect of its 
commitments to the WTO? 
EU reply: Negotiations following the EU enlargement from 15 to 25 Members are finalised. The EU 
will soon submit the consolidated schedule for the EU25 for certification. Negotiations following the 
enlargement from 25 to 27 are not yet finalised. All applicable WTO rules have been fully respected. 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 3.1.5 Domestic taxes collected at the border 
Page 50 Para. 3.53 
"In December 2011, the Commission adopted a Communication on the future of VAT, which called 
for "a more efficient VAT system", through reviewin g the rate structure and more restriction on the 
application of reduced rates. If all reduced rates were removed, the standard rate could in certain 
member States theoretically be reduced by up to  7.5%, without any impact on overall revenue." 
Question:  31. Can the European Union provide more elaboration on the indicative programs and activities 
mentioned in "a more efficient VAT system"?  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 227 - 
 
  EU reply:  See reply to question 13 where this system is explained. 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 3.1.8 Technical regulations and standards  
Page 57 Para. 3.84 
"Technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures are adopted at EU level and at the 
level of its member States, i.e. national level. A large amount of legislation on technical 
requirements and conformity assessment has been  harmonized at EU level. According to the 
Commission, the harmonization legislation assures the free movement of goods and a high level of health, safety, environmental and consumer protec tion within the single market. A significant 
disparity between non-harmonized requirements across member States that impedes free 
movement or the need to regulate new policy areas or emerging risks where little or no national 
legislation exists are the most common reasons for adopting harmonization legislation at EU level. 
The Commission does not have accurate numbers of products that are not subject to 
nonharmonized rules." 
Question:  32. Please explain, what are the requirements for the free movement of goods and a high level of 
health, safety, environmental and consumer prot ection as determined by the harmonization 
legislation at EU level?  
EU reply: On the basis of Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 
(TFEU), and in order to ensure the proper function ing of the single market for products, the EU has 
the right to act by adopting measures for the appr oximation of the provisions laid down by law, 
regulation or administrative action in Member States. 
As mentioned in the Report by the Secretariat, the most common reasons for adopting 
harmonisation legislation at EU level are: (i) a significant disparity between non-harmonized 
requirements across Member States that impedes free movement for goods, as in those cases free movement cannot be effectively guaranteed by the mutual recognition principle; and (ii) the need 
to regulate new policy areas or emerging risks where little or no national legislation exists. 
The harmonisation at EU level brings uniform rules across the EU, ensures free movement of 
goods, a level-playing field and legal certainty and predictability while at the same time providing a high level of protection of public interests. 
Art. 11 Par. 3 of the TFEU requires the EU, when enacting legislation at EU level, with regard to 
health, safety, environmental protection and consumer protection, to take as a base a high level of protection, taking account in particular of any new development based on scientific facts. In order 
to ensure a high level of protection and coherence, measures should be based on risk assessment, 
taking into account all relevant risk factors, including technological aspects and the best available scientific evidence. 
33. Inaccurate numbers of products that are not subject to harmonized rules indicates that there 
is no certainty on the implementation of this policy leading to the infringement of national treatment. As the EU has advance experience of the administration of technical regulation that is supported by well-equipped tool, when will  the EU have accurate data of products that 
are not subject to non-harmonized rules? 
34. Will EU show the data on the website that is easily understood by other members? 
EU reply to question 33 and 34:  Technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures 
adopted at national and EU levels apply to different  products or their different aspects, thus it is 
not always possible to determine whether a product squarely falls into the EU harmonized or non-harmonized area, as certain aspects of a product may still be left for Member States to 
regulate if necessary. However, only products / aspects that are not covered by the EU's "fully 
harmonizing" legislation may be subject to national technical regulations or conformity assessment WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 228 - 
 
  procedures. In case EU legislation fully harmonizes requirements for specific products, Member 
States are not allowed to maintain or to adopt additional national legislation for the same requirements.  
As explained in the reply to Q32, it is not always possible or even necessary to adopt harmonized 
EU legislation for all goods and all of their aspects. In the non-harmonized area, the free 
movement of goods is guaranteed to all products, regardless of their origin, by the application of 
the general TFEU provisions and the operation of th e mutual recognition principle as defined in the 
case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ). 
In principle, in accordance with the provisions on free movement of goods laid down in Article 34 
TFEU and the principle of mutual recognition of national requirements (established by the ECJ) 
goods that are not covered by EU harmonized legi slation and have been lawfully placed on the 
market of a Member State can be marketed in any other Member State. Derogations from Article 
34 can only exist on the basis of Article 36 TFEU or , as established by the case-law of the ECJ, on 
the basis of other overriding reasons of public interest and which are proportionate to the aim 
pursued. For instance, under Article 36 TFEU the Member States may, referring to grounds of 
public interest, e.g. public order, public securi ty and the protection of health and life of humans 
and animals, introduce stricter national rules than those applied in other Member States, even 
where these rules may limit the free movement of products lawfully marketed in another Member 
State. 
When applying these restrictions Member States must follow a detailed procedure prescribed by 
Regulation (EC) No 764/2008, whose aim is to im prove the free movement of goods within the EU 
internal market.  
Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 requires the Commission to draw up, publish and regularly update 
an indicative and non-exhaustive list of products which are not subject to EU harmonization 
legislation. This list is accessible through the website: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/intsub/a12/ .  
Page 57 Para. 3.86 
" In principle, EU-produced and imported goods th at are not covered by EU harmonizing legislation 
and have been lawfully placed on the market of a member State can be marketed in another 
member State, even if they do not comply with the technical regulations of the member State of 
destination ("mutual recognition" principle, as established in the Regulation (EC) No. 764/2008). 
The only exceptions to this principle are restrictions introduced for reasons specified in Article 36 
of the TFEU, or for overriding reasons of public interest that are proportionate to the aim pursued. 
According to the Commission, the most common justification for restrictions on the free movement of goods is related to the protection of heal th and life of humans, animals and plants. As 
recognized by the Commission, "technical obstacles to the free movement of goods within the EU 
are still widespread," and "those rules apply without distinction to all products, foreign and domestic alike". A number of procedures exist to  support the Commission's monitoring of member 
States' compliance with their obligations under the TFEU and EU legislation. These procedures, 
which may eventually culminate in formal infringement proceedings and actions against the member States concerned before the Court of Justice of the European Union, aim to ensure the correct application of EU law and to eliminate unjustified restrictions to the free movement of 
goods." 
Question:  35. Could EU provide further explanation regarding this policy?  
EU reply: Please see the reply to QQ 33-34 as regards the functioning of the mutual recognition 
principle and the conditions under which Member States may take measures that restrict free 
movement of products lawfully ma rketed in another Member State. 
With respect to existing procedures to support the Commission's monitoring of Member States' 
compliance with their obligations under the TFEU and EU legislation, an effective means of preventing intra-EU barriers to trade arising from Member States technical regulations is 
Directive 98/34/EC, which imposes an obligation upon the Member States to notify to the WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 229 - 
 
  Commission and to each other national draft technical regulations before they are adopted in 
national law. This procedure aims at providing transparency and control in relation to Member States' obligations under EU law. 
In addition, as mentioned in the Secretariat Report, where a Member State fails to comply with EU 
law, including its obligations under Artt.34-36 of the TFEU, the Commission has powers of its own 
to try to bring the infringement to an end and, where necessary, may refer the case to the European Court of Justice. The first pre-litigation administrative phase is called "Infringement 
proceedings", whose purpose is to enable the Member State to conform voluntarily to the 
requirements of the TFEU. Please see more at: http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/infri ngements/infringements_en.htm .  
36. Is this provision also applied for non-members? 
EU reply: As stated in Article 29 TFEU products coming from a third country shall be considered to 
be in free circulation in a Member State if the import formalities have been complied with and any 
customs duties or charges having equivalent effe ct which are payable have been levied in that 
Member State, and if they have not benefited from  a total or partial drawback of such duties or 
charges. 
There is no distinction between imported and EU made products once both of them have already 
been lawfully placed on the market of a Member State. Hence, if a product manufactured in 
Indonesia is lawfully placed on the market of a Member State, this product is accorded the same 
treatment as any other EU made product which is lawfully placed on the EU territory. Therefore, the Indonesian and EU products benefit from th e free movement across the borders of the Member 
States under the same conditions, in accordance with the principle of mutual recognition. 
Page 59 Table. 3.7 
Issue EU Refference Doc Member(s) concerned First raised 
Renewable Energy Directive G/TBT/M/54  Argentina, Indonesia, United States  15/06/2011  
Question:  
37. Could EU please provide information on the calculation method used in determining 
sustainability criteria under Article 17 of  the amendment of Directive 2009/28/EC?  
EU reply: The calculation methodology for Life Cycle GHG emissions and emission savings from 
biofuel production compared to fossil fuels, including emissions from cultivation of feedstock, 
processing and transportation, is outlined in Annex V of Directive 2009/28/EC. This calculation 
method is used for verification purposes to demonstrate the compliance of biofuels and bioliquids with the EU sustainability criteria related to minimum GHG emission saving requirement in 
accordance with the EU Climate Change mitigation objective.  
No calculation method is applicable for demonstration of compliance with other sustainability 
criteria that relate to the land use to prevent direct land use change of land of high biodiversity value and with high carbon stocks. 
38. Could EU also provide in detail about environm ent protection for the Article 17.2 due to the 
comment that Green House Gas (GHG) saving is not under TBT concern? 
EU reply: GHG emission savings are a policy objective linked to the EU integrated climate change 
and energy policy.  
Minimum greenhouse gas emission saving requirement compared with fossil fuels aim to ensure 
that those biofuels that are used for complying with the EU renewable energy and climate change 
mitigation policy objectives and targets are produced in a sustainable manner and contribute to 
reaching the climate change mitigation objectives in transport sector. 
39. Regarding the amendment that EU has notified  under TBT Agreement, please provide which 
article covers technical regulation? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 230 - 
 
  EU reply: The European Union's notification under th e TBT Agreement of the initial legislative 
proposal on the promotion of the use of renewabl e energy concerned specifically Articles 18 (2) 
and 18 (3) in combination with Annexes V and VI (G/TBT/N/EEC/200). Those provisions dealt with diesel/biodiesel blending properties and they were not retained in the final directive. The 
notification did not concern the sustainability criteria laid down in Article 17. 
40. Current development has shown the continuing pressure by certain European industries 
against palm oil products including biofuel feedstock. As campaign agaist palm oil products 
are increasing, Indonesia seeks EU's assurances and explanation that EU's policy on the trade 
of palm oil products is consistent with the WTO principles and not a more part of black 
campaign against palm oil which has proven to be more productive than rapeseed. 
EU reply:  EU policy and legislation is consistent with WTO principles.  
Page 63 Para. 3.104 
"In addition to a common accreditation framework, Regulation (EC) No. 765/2008 sets out 
common principles for market surveillance. In February 2013, the Commission submitted 
proposals for revision of the regulatory framework for market surveillance, with the aim of 
streamlining and simplifying surveillance operations whilst maintaining a high level of protection of the health and safety of consumers. Market survei llance activities are organized at the level of 
member States who must notify the Commission, through the rapid information system "RAPEX", 
of any restrictive measures taken against products presenting a serious risk. In 2012, 2,278 measures (1,938 of them concerning products presenting a serious risk) were notified to the Commission, compared with 2011 when 1,803 measures were notified (1,556 concerning a serious 
risk). As regards measures against dangerous professional products, the number of notified 
measures to the Commission has shown a pattern of increase since the entry of force of Regulation (EC) No. 765/2008: in 2012, 37 notifications submitted to the Commission with 31 presenting 
serious risks, up from 25 notifications (17 as serious risks) in 2011; and 20 with 7 as serious risks 
in 2010. The Commission expects that the notification figures will go up over time as member States become more proactive in the area of prof essional products and fully adjust their practices 
to the broader scope of RAPEX. Regarding imports, the Regulation requires that customs 
authorities must carry out "appropriate checks on the characteristics of products on an adequatescale" before those products can be marketed in the EU." 
UE WTO Reference 
Question:  
41. Could EU please provide information on the methodology of market surveillance and what 
products are being supervised?  
EU reply:  Market surveillance is the competence of the EU Member States (MS). EU legislation 
requires MS authorities to carry out market surveillance. However, it is up to each individual MS to 
organise its national market surveillance system. MSs also cooperate in their market surveillance 
activities and carry out for example joint enforc ement activities, such as the Joint Actions, 
organised with the support of the European Commi ssion. More information on this can be found: 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/safety/projects/market_surveillance_enforcement_en.htm .  
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/single-mar ket-goods/internal-market-for-products/market-
surveillance/index_en.htm#h2-2. 
Additional information can also be found on the website of PROSAFE (the Product Safety 
Enforcement Forum of Europe). PROSAFE is an organi sation that brings together a high number of 
market surveillance experts from around the EU http://www.prosafe.org/ .  
The main activity of PROSAFE is to assist MSs in their enforcement cooperation. As regards the 
products that are supervised, it is the competence of MSs to decide which the enforcement 
priorities are. These decisions are based on a numb er of factors, such as previous injuries and 
accidents, the risks posed by different product ca tegories, the coverage of the products on their 
markets, etc. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 231 - 
 
  According to Art.18 of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 Member States have to establish, implement 
and periodically update their market surveillance programmes with regard to harmonised products, communicate those programmes to the other Member States and the Commission and make them available to the public, by way of electronic communication and where appropriate, by other 
means. 
More information on this can be found on the following website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/single-mar ket-goods/internal-market-for-products/market-
surveillance/index_en.htm .  
42. Are the same criteria applied among member states? 
EU reply:  Please see above reply 41. 
43. Which the government institution is involved? 
EU reply: It depends on the arrangement of the particular MS which organisations are involved in 
the market surveillance activities. 
Directive 2001/95/EC on general product safety indicates that "Member States shall establish or 
nominate authorities competent to monitor the compliance of products with the general safety 
requirements and arrange for such authorities to have and use the necessary powers to take the appropriate measures incumbent upon them under this Directive". 
In addition to this, Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and 
market surveillance relating to the marketing of products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 
339/93 requires in its Article 17 that MSs info rm the European Commission of their market 
surveillance authorities and their area of competen ce. Also, MSs need to ensure that the public is 
aware of the existence, responsibilities and identity  of national market surv eillance authorities. For 
harmonised products therefore information can be found on competent market surveillance 
authorities on the following website: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/single-market-
goods/internal-market-for-products/market-surveillance/index_en.htm .  
44. What are the functions of RAPEX? 
EU reply: RAPEX is established as the EU rapid alert sy stem that facilitates the rapid exchange of 
information between Member States and the European Commission on measures taken to prevent 
or restrict the marketing or use of products posing a risk to the health and safety of consumers with the exception of food, pharmaceutical an d medical devices, which are covered by other 
mechanisms. 
As of 2010, the system also facilitates the rapid ex change of information on products subject to EU 
harmonisation regulation and posing a risk to the he alth and safety of professional users as well as 
on those posing a risk to other public interests protected by the relevant EU legislation (e.g. 
environment and security). Both measures ordered by national authorities and measures taken 'voluntarily' by producers and distributors are reported by RAPEX. 
In addition to this every Friday, the Commissio n publishes a weekly overview of the products 
posing a serious risk as reported by the national authorities (the RAPEX notifications). This weekly 
overview gives information on the product, the iden tified risk and the measures that were taken in 
the notifying country. 
NTSA 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
3.1.9 Sanitary and phytosanitary standards (SPS) 
Page 68 Para. 3.127 
"Under certain circumstances, member States are allowed to temporarily restrict or prohibit the 
use and/or sale the GM products that are auth orized at EU level on their own territory. Six WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 232 - 
 
  member States currently apply restrictions on use (including sale) of certain GMOs: Austria, 
France, Greece, Hungary, Germany, and Luxemb ourg. In a proposed regulation to amend 
Directive 2001/18/EC, the Commission in July 2010 prop osed to allow member States to restrict or 
prohibit the cultivation in all or part of their territories of GMOs authorized at EU level.148 Under 
the proposed regulation, member States may adop t measures with respect to the cultivation of 
GMOs in their territories, but not with respect to the import into the EU of authorized GM seeds and plant-propagating material, and the products of their harvest." 
Question:  
45. What are the rationales behind the restriction or even prohibition of the use or the sale the 
GM products? 
46. If the restriction or the prohibition is temporary, does it mean that GM products are safe to be 
sold or consumed? 
EU reply to questions 45 and 46: In certain circumstances, EU Member States can ban GMOs 
that are authorised at EU level. Some have alre ady invoked the so-called 'safeguard clause' (Art. 
23 Dir. 2001/18/EC) where they temporarily restrict  or prohibit the use and/or sale of the GM 
product on their territory. Most of the Member States of the EU which have safeguard measures in place against GMOs raise justifications related to risks to health or to the environment. WTO law 
and in particular the SPS Agreement recognises th e possibility for the parties to use such grounds 
to justify trade restrictions. The EU will use appropriate measures at its disposal, including infringement procedures where relevant, to repeal  measures which are not considered justified. 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE  
3.2 Measures Directly Affecting Exports 
3.2.5 Finance, insurance guarantees, and promotion 
Member(s) concerned First 
Page 72 Para. 3.152 
"The EU provides assistance to promote its agricultural products and food outside the EU. Export 
promotion schemes are in place at the national or sub-national levels. In November 2011, the 
European Commission adopted a Communication whic h aims at creating conditions for European 
SMEs to seize new business opportunities outside the EU.157 The fields of action defined include the reinforcement of existing support services, the creation of a single virtual gateway to disseminate information to SMEs, and promoting networks." 
Question:  
47. Could EU please provide explaination on the assistance to promote agricultural products and 
food outside the EU and the export promotion schemes for EU agriculture SMEs?  
EU reply: The communication to which the report is referring is the Commission Communication 
"Small Business, Big World a new partnership to help SMEs seize global opportunities" of 
November 2011, which is aimed at facilitating EU SMEs access to third country markets by 
supporting a number of tools, investing in structures as well as creating a better synergy between 
the assistance offered at EU and Member States level to European SMEs. This Communication does 
not make any distinction between various sectors and no particular measures related to the agriculture sector are taken in this framework. 
Under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), a regime  in favour of agricultural products has been 
in place without major changes since 2000, offering  EU co-financing for promotional campaigns on 
the EU and other markets to producer organisations, such as those covering specific agricultural 
products. 
48. What are the criteria of SMEs in EU? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 233 - 
 
  EU reply: The exact definition for small and medium-sized  enterprises (SMEs) in the EU is defined 
in the Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and 
medium-sized enterprises: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:124:0036:0041:EN:PDF . 
The main factors determining whether a company is an SME are: 
(i) number of employees  and  
(ii) either turnover  or balance sheet total .  
Company category  Employees 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.  
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade 3.3.5 Intellectual property rights 
3.3.5.3 Industrial property 
3.3.5.3.1 Patents  
Page 94 Para. 3.258 
" The European patent system under the EPO is considered as incomplete, fragmented, and costly. 
For a European patent to take effect in member States, the patent owner must request validation 
at national level. This involves translation, local representation, and administration requirements. A European patent validated for example in all 27 member States costs around €36,000, of which 
more than €23,000 is for translation. This is almost  20 times the cost of obtaining a patent in the 
United States (on average €1,850). Because of the cost, most inventors seek patent protection in a limitednumber of member States. Low validati on entails a fragmented system for patent 
protection in the EU, with negative effects on the commercial value of patented inventions. 
Problems associated with the fragmentation of the system include high translation and publication costs, diverging rules regarding renewal fees (for  example, cumulated fees until the 20th year of 
protection range from €2,400 in Malta to €13,170 in Germany) and complex national provisions 
with respect to registration of transfers and licences. In addition, in legal disputes, innovators are exposed to high costs and legal uncertainty as they may have to litigate in several countries in parallel to enforce their rights, taking the risk of diverging court decisions." 
Member(s) concerned First 
Question:  
49. Does EU have any plan to centralize the registration of patent validation in the near future?  
EU reply: As mentioned in paragraphs 3.259 to 3.265 of the secretariat's report, on the basis of 
the new system, validation in individual Member States will no longer be necessary. In fact, a 
European patent with unitary effect will in principle be automatically valid in the Member States 
participating in the enhanced cooperation.  
50. EU reduce the cost of patent validation in its member States?  
EU reply: As mentioned in paragraphs 3.259 to 3.265 of the secretariat's report, on the basis of 
the new system, validation in individual Member States will no longer be necessary. In fact, a 
European patent with unitary effect will in principle be automatically valid in the Member States 
participating in the enhanced cooperation. The administrative costs for obtaining patent protection will be considerably reduced. In fact, the estima ted cost for the grant of a European patent with WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 234 - 
 
  unitary patent will, after the transition period, amount to approximately €5,000 and is thus much 
lower than the costs currently occurring for the grant of a European patent. 
4 DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTED SECTORS 
4.1 Agriculture 
4.1.3 Agriculture policies 
4.1.3.1 Domestic support 4.1.3.1.2 Internal market support measure 
Question:  
51. What products and how many products that are intervened by the EU?  
EU reply: Table 4.6 of the WTO Secretariat's report for this TPR contains information on 
public intervention purchases which ha ve taken place in the last 5 years. 
52. Are intervention price, purchases and sales, as well as private storage aids categorized as 
subsidy?  
53. Can this policy be classifi ed as market distortion?  
EU reply to both questions 52 and 53: The EU's annual notifications of domestic support set 
out the measures in question in supporting tables DS:5 and DS:8. They are reflected as relevant in 
the EU's current total AMS notified annually in line with relevant paragraphs of Annexes 3 and 4 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture. 
54. What is the rationale of this policy?  
EU reply:  Reforms of the CAP since the early 1990s have changed public intervention policy 
decreasing both the administered prices and buyi ng in quantities, or completely eliminating the 
system for some products. This was one of the elements of the reforms targeted at market 
orientation of the CAP. Most CAP support to farmers is now granted in the form of decoupled income support with no obligation to produce which allows farmers to produce to market needs. 
However, the CAP also provides for safety nets mechanisms in order to respond to economic, 
health- or weather-related crises. These mechanisms include public intervention and private storage aid. 
4 DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTED SECTORS 
4.1 Agriculture 4.1.3 Agriculture policies 4.1.3.2 Export subsidies 
Page 119 Para. 4.23 
"The use of export subsidies in the EU continued to decline although they were still being used in 
2011 for some products such as poultry meat, eggs, beef and veal, processed pig meat products 
and some Non-Annex I products (prepared foods cont aining eggs). In the absence of notifications 
to the WTO for marketing years 2010/11 or 2011/12 , Table 4.7 shows the payments from the EU 
budget on export subsidies by budget year." 
55. What is the rationale of this policy?  
EU reply: This policy is fully in line with EU WTO committments.  
56. Importing countries of these products (cereals to poultry meat) from the EU would have to 
prepare for higher prices when EU eliminates th e said subsidies. When does the EU intend to 
eliminate these subsidies totally?  
EU reply: On export competition, the EU is committed to the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, 
and in particular its paragraph 6, in its entirety. This states: "the date … for the elimination of all WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 235 - 
 
  forms of export subsidies, together with the agr eed progressivity and parallelism, will be confirmed 
only upon the completion of the modalities".  
4 DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTED SECTORS 
4.2 Fisheries 
4.2.3 Policies 
4.2.3.6 Support to fisheries 
Page 130 Para. 4.59 
"On 1 January 2007, the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) replaced the Financial Instrument for 
Fisheries Guidance (FIFG). The EFF has a total budget of €4,305 million for the seven years 2007-13 and covers all sectors of the industry, including: sea and freshwater fishing; aquaculture; processing; and marketing. Funding to each member  State is based on its national strategic plan 
and operational programme." 
Question:  
57. Is this policy intended to heal the loss caused by Total Allowable Catch (TAC) or part of the 
policy of a welfare state?  
EU reply:  Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27.07.2006 on the European Fisheries Fund 
specifies that "assistance under the EFF shall aim to: 
(a) support the common fisheries policy so as to ensure exploitation of living aquatic resources 
and support aquaculture in order to provide sustainability in economic, environmental and 
social terms; 
(b) promote a sustainable balance between resources and the fishing capacity of the Community 
fishing fleet; 
(c) promote a sustainable development of inland fishing; 
(d) strengthen the competitiveness of the oper ating structures and the development of 
economically viable enterprises in the fisheries sector; 
(e) foster the protection and the enhancement of  the environment and natural resources where 
related to the fisheries sector; 
(f) encourage sustainable development and the improv ement of the quality of life in areas with 
activities in the fisheries sector; 
(g) promote equality between men and women in th e development of the fisheries sector and 
fisheries areas." 
58. Will the EU totally eliminate direct payments and transfer to EU's fishermen?  
EU reply: In the framework of the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, the proposal is to 
remove all form of subsidies to the EU fleet which could contribute to overfishing and/or 
overcapacity. However, the outcome of the relevant ordinary legislative procedure, as foreseen by 
the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, is not known at this juncture.  
OTHER QUESTIONS On Tobac0co Products Directive (TPD) 
59. The Commission proposes a draft directive that re quires 75% of the packet to be covered by 
health warning and states that there are no less restrictive alternatives available. However, RAND Europe as its own consultant, previously discovered that there is no quantitative 
difference between 50% and 75% health warning. Why did the Commission not consider 50% 
health warning as a less restrictive alternative? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 236 - 
 
  EU reply: With regard to the packaging and labelling, the proposal foresees a mandatory 
combined health warning (picture + text message) on 75% of the two main surfaces of cigarettes 
and roll-your-own products, as well as a ban on promotional and misleading elements. These requirements are proportionate and non-discriminator y. The proposed size of the health warnings 
balances the legitimate objective of informing consumers and discouraging smoking initiation (in 
particular in young people) with the economic interests at stake. Scientific evidence suggests that big warnings work better than small warnings and that picture warnings are more effective than 
text warnings only. It should also be recalled that the guidelines for implementing Article 11 of the 
WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCT C) conclude that the effectiveness of health 
warnings increases with their size and recommend FCTC parties to cover as much of the principal 
display areas as possible with the warnings. 
RAND Europe was one of several external studies used in the impact assessment work preceding 
the proposal. Although the views expressed in this  external study does not necessarily represent 
the point of view of the European Commission, it should be clarified that RAND Europe concludes that evidence has shown that the larger warnings the more impact they produce on consumer 
behaviour, although the consultant was not able to quantify these effects on prevalence. For this 
purpose other sources, including experience from other jurisdictions and scientific studies have been used by the Commission. It should also be noted that the Commission included as an option 
in its impact assessment, the maintaining of the st atus quo, but come to the conclusion that this 
was not an appropriate option to reach the objectives of the proposed revision. 
60. Indonesia would like to seek further explanation from EU whether very large Graphics Health 
Warnings (GHW) is consistent with with article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. We regard that they 
are more trade restrictive than necessary to pr otect against negative health effects, reduce 
youth initiation and increase consumer information.  
EU reply: As concluded under question 59, the European Commission has carried out a careful 
analysis balancing the legitimate objective of informing consumers and discouraging smoking 
initiation (in particular in young people) with the economic interests at stake and come to a conclusion that the proposal is proportionate and non-discriminatory. 
61. Oversized GHWs are also inconsistent with article 20 of the TRIPs Agreement since they 
unjustifiably encumber the use of trademarks by requiring a special form and in a manner 
detrimental to their capability to distinguish the goods (as a result of the confinement of 
trademarks to a very limited and predetermined surface at the bottom of each face to the packs). Indonesia request EU's clarification on these matters.  
EU reply: The proposal leaves a certain space - around 30%- of the packet surface to 
manufacturers to display their brand name and trade mark, provided that Member States do not 
decide to regulate this surface. This will allow economic operators to distinguish the goods. 
Consumers will also be able to differentiate betw een different brands. The restrictions on the use 
of the trade mark caused by the increased health warnings correspond to an objective of general 
interest, i.e. protection of health, and do not constitute a disproportionate interference impairing the intellectual property rights.  
62. The TPD Proposal prohibits the use of deceptive elements in the packaging. This may include 
texts, symbols, names, trademarks, figuratives or signs, misleading colors, inserts or other 
additional materials such as adhesive labels, stickers, onserts, scratch-offs and sleeves or relate to the shape of the tobacco product itself. This provision can be classified as trade 
restrictive alternative measures , Indonesia requests EU's clarification on this issue. 
EU reply: The proposal does not include a general ban of texts, symbols, names trademarks 
etc., but a targeted prohibition of misleading elements or features, i.e. those giving the 
perception that a tobacco product is less harmful than others. The requirements in the current 
Tobacco Products Directive (2001/37/EC) already restrict the use of trademarks as it bans 
misleading descriptors, including misleading trademarks. These restrictions were confirmed as legal and proportionate by the Court of Justice of  the EU. They were not challenged before the 
WTO. The prohibition of certain elements and feat ures (as set out in Article 12 of the proposal) 
includes a justified limitation of the use of intellectual property rights as it balances the 
positive health effects following from increased information to consumers and removal of misleading elements from the packets with economic interests.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 237 - 
 
  On Bilateral Cooperation in Fighting Illegal Logging 
63. Trade relations between Indonesia and the EU are expanding to unprecedented areas of 
cooperation. In the efforst of fighting illegal logging and deforestation globally, Indonesia and 
the EU have worked together an ambitious agreement on sustainable timber trade titled the 
Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trad e – Voluntary Partnership Agreement (FLEGT – 
VPA). The Agreement, so far the only one in Asia , will be signed in the coming weeks by both 
Parties. Indonesia fervently believes that FLEGT-VPA is an important tool to fight illegal logging 
comprehensively, thus any attempt to exclude certain area in a FLEGT-VPA agreement is to be 
rejected. Indonesia seeks the assurances of the EU that agreement on trade and sustainability 
such as FLEGT VPA will be comprehens ive and reject territorial exclusion. 
EU reply: The EU agrees with Indonesia that the FL EGT VPA that has been negotiated between 
the EU and Indonesia and that will soon be signed is an excellent example of how trade 
agreements can serve to promote sustainable development objectives. Indonesia participatory approach has built broad support for the VPA am ongst Indonesian stakeholders. The EU looks 
forward to ratification and full implementation of  the VPA. The EU agrees that such agreements 
should cover the entire territory of a partner country.  
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM INDONESIA 
SECRETARIAT REPORT 
1 ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 
1.4 Services trade 
Page 21 Para. 1.33 
" Both services imports and exports increased in 2010 and 2011 while the surplus in services trade 
also increased, from €83 billion in 2009 to €121 billion in 2011. "Other business services" is the 
largest category of export services with 30%, follo wed by transportation (22%), travel (14%), and 
financial services (8%) (Table 1.2). Exports of transportation services increased by nearly 1 
percentage point, whereas other business, gove rnment, insurance, services exports declined. 
Imports of transportation services showed the bi ggest increase in absolute terms, by nearly 3 
percentage points and second biggest in relative terms (after financial services, which increased by 20%)." 
Question:  
1. P l e a s e  p r o v i d e  d e t a i l s  o n  w h a t  k i n d  o f  p o l i c i e s  t h a t  t h e  E U  p u r s u e s  t o  o p e n  u p  t r a d e  i n  
services?  
2. Further, please provide background on what se ctors contribute to the growth of the largest 
category of services export? 
3. Is there any specific services sector that EU provides support to? 
4. What strategies did the EU apply to increase the competitiveness of its services sectors? 
EU reply to the above questions 1 to 4: The EU has already provided replies to the above 
questions in its written answers to similar questions (questions 1 to 5 raised by Indonesia prior to 
the TPR meeting by the deadline of 18 June 2013).  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 238 - 
 
  3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 3.1.8 Technical regulations and standards  
Page 58 Para. 3.92 
"In the context of the last TPR of the EU, some WTO Members were concerned that the EU's 
technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures would create unnecessary obstacles 
to trade such as the compliance overburdens on foreign small and-medium-sized enterprises. In 
response, the EU indicated that its regulations, most of which are subject to an impact assessment, are developed according to a transparent process allowing ample opportunity for 
interested parties from other WTO Members to participate and make their views known, and are 
largely based on relevant international standa rds. Moreover, regulatory impact assessments 
contain a specific "SME test" that analyses in detail the effects of the legislative proposals on SMEs. The Commission pointed out that several measures were taken to mitigate the compliance 
burdens on SMEs (e.g. reduced registration or conformity assessment fees, simplified 
administrative requirements, etc.). The EU also pr ovides technical assistance to assist developing 
countries meet regulatory requirements on bilateral and multilateral bases. Between January 2011 
and February 2013, WTO Members raised concerns in the TBT Committee over several measures 
proposed or adopted by the EU or its individual member States (Table 3.7)." 
Question:  
5. Indonesia would like to request the EU to provide further explanation in the wording of 
"several measure " were taken to mitigate the compliance burden on SMEs?  
6. Indonesia would like to seek experience fr om the EU on the RIA conducted by the EU, 
preferably with the documents on gu ide of RIA's implemented by the EU? 
7. Can EU provide detailed information on procedure to obtain technical assistance, preferably 
the contact point who is responsible in accepting proposal for request technical assistance? 
EU reply to questions 5 to 7: The EU is currently providing Technical Assistance to Indonesia to 
further enhance its integration into the international trading system. Under the second phase of 
the "EU-Indonesia Trade Support Programme", spec ific activities aim at providing a better 
understanding and knowledge about international standards and quality requirements by 
Indonesian SMEs as well as improving their export capabilities. Workshops and seminars are 
organised to increase access of Indonesian SMEs to up-to-date technical conformity assessment and recognised testing and certification bodies, th rough dissemination and marketing activities. In 
addition, under the "EU-Indonesia Trade Cooperation Facility", assistance is provided, among 
others, to strengthen Indonesia's response capa city to trade-related issues arising out of 
environmental regulations in exports markets, in pa rticular the EU. Specific capacity building and 
awareness activities to be financed under the two programmes are agreed on a regular basis by 
the GoI (notably the National Development Planning  Agency and the Ministry  of Trade) and the EU 
Delegation in Jakarta. The above mentioned programmes will run until 2015. The best contact point is the EU Delegation in Jakarta: 
http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/indonesia/about_us/contacts/index_en.htm . 
Page 59 Table. 3.7 
Issue EU Refference Doc Member(s) Concerned First Raised 
Renewable Energy 
Directive G/TBT/M/54  Argentina, Indonesia, 
United States  15/06/2011  
In the last TBT Committe meeting (June 2013) Indonesia raised some concerns regarding EU-RED. 
In that meeting the EU informed that the issues regarding technical regulation was withdrawn from 
the amendment directive, and the EU will provide information regarding the calculation method of 
sustainability criteria. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 239 - 
 
  Question:  
8. Indonesia requests EU to provide official letter in responding that issues to Indonesia. 
EU reply: It is not the practice to reply within the framework of TPRs by means of official letters. 
In addition and as stated in the TBT Committee meeting the European Union's notification under 
the TBT Agreement of the legislative proposal on  the promotion of the use of renewable energy 
concerned specifically Articles 18 (2) and 18 (3) in combination with Annexes V and VI (G/TBT/N/EEC/200). Those provisions dealt with di esel/biodiesel blending properties and they 
were not retained in the final directive. The notification did not concern the sustainability criteria 
laid down in Article 17. 
The EU is currently preparing an update of the default greenhouse gas saving values established in 
Annex V of Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. 
The new and updated default values will be base d on the latest and best available data, as 
summarized and compiled in an objective and scientific manner by independent experts. Furthermore, international stakeholders have had the opportunity to provide input to this process 
and to participate in different meetings. The update is likely to be finalized in the following months. 
The EU remains open to further bilateral exchanges. 
Page 61 Para. 3.96 
"Technical solutions to meet essential requiremen ts under the "new approach" regulations are set 
out for most products in harmonized European standards developed by the European 
Standardization Organizations based on a request from the Commission.108 Compliance with 
"harmonized European standards", which according to the Commission are meant to express the state-of-the-art in relation to a specific produc t/risk, confers presumption of conformity with the 
essential requirements covered by the standards. Hence, manufacturers who have followed 
harmonized standards do not have to provide detailed justification as to the adequacy of the 
applied technical solutions. However, manufacturers remain free to use other technical means to demonstrate compliance with those essential requirements. Harmonized standards, which remain 
voluntary, can therefore also be regarded as  a benchmark against which manufacturers can 
develop innovative solutions." 
Question:  
9. Could EU please provide more explanation on the meaning of the wording "other technical 
means" to demonstrate compliance with essential requirements? 
EU reply: While the use of harmonized European standa rds provides presumption of conformity to 
specific essential requirements, there are also other means of proving conformity to essential 
requirements. It is up to the manufacturer to choose by which other technical means (different to 
those of the European harmonized standard) he wi shes to prove the compliance with the essential 
requirements laid down in the EU legislation (if he does not want to use the technical means 
provided for in the European harmonized standa rd). In short "other technical means" are any 
technical mean with which he can prove the compliance with the essential requirements.  
Page 63 Para. 3.103 
"For products subject to mandatory third-party conformity assessment in a non-harmonized area 
pursuant to member State legislation, member States' national authorities may refuse to accept conformity attestations issued under accreditation by non-European accreditation bodies that do 
not comply with the new European requirements even if they are signatories to the ILAC/IAF 
MRA/MLA. Where mandatory third-party conformity assessment is provided for in the harmonised 
area, the relevant EU legislation specifies the applicable procedures, the qualifications that 
conformity assessment bodies must fulfil (e.g. in the case of notified bodies), including, where 
applicable, the conditions of acceptance of tests and certificates from conformity assessment bodies not established in the EU. In addition, ther e exist a number of bilateral mutual-recognition 
agreements relating to conformity assessment, ac cording to which member State authorities must 
accept certificates issued by foreign bodies in accordance with the agreement. Currently the EU has such agreements in place with: Australia; Canada; Israel; Japan; New Zealand; Switzerland; WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 240 - 
 
  and the United States. The Commission also noted that recently concluded/signed FTAs also 
include certain TBT provisions and, in some cases, contain general or sector-specific arrangements aimed at facilitating acceptance of conformity assessment results." 
Question:  
10. Indonesia would like to request to the EU to provide the list of relevant legislation that must be 
fulfilled by assessments bodies? 
EU reply: With regard to requirements for notified bodies, Decision (EU) No 768/2008 lays down 
common principles and reference provisions intended to apply across sectoral legislation. These 
provisions are incorporated in sectoral legislation which might also prescribe specific requirements for notified bodies that provide conformity a ssessments in the concerned sector. The list of 
relevant legislation with links to the legislative acts can be found on at:  
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/internal_market/single_market_for_goods/technical_harm
onisation/index_en.htm . 
11. Could EU accept the foreign Conformity Assessm ents Bodies (CAB) and how is the procedure 
for designation to foreign CAB? 
EU reply:  The EU has concluded a number of multi-sector Mutual Recognition Agreements with 
third countries within the meaning of Article 6. 3 of the WTO TBT Agreement, according to which 
CABs established in the MRA partner are authorized to issue certificates carrying the same validity 
as those issued by  notified bodies. 
In addition to such formal agreements, in thos e limited areas where the EU requires mandatory 
third party conformity assessment, the EU syst em provides significant flexibilities for the 
acceptance of foreign conformity assessment results by permitting notified bodies to enter into 
subcontracting arrangements with third country CABs and to participate in international voluntary cooperation arrangements with other CABs for the mutual recognition of test reports and 
certificates. 
12. Please provide detailed information and relevant legislations which are applicable in EU? 
EU reply:  See above reply to Q10 
Page 63 Para. 3.104 
"In addition to a common accreditation framework, Regulation (EC) No. 765/2008 sets out 
common principles for market surveillance. In February 2013, the Commission submitted 
proposals for revision of the regulatory framework for market surveillance, with the aim of streamlining and simplifying surveillance operations whilst maintaining a high level of protection of the health and safety of consumers. Market survei llance activities are organized at the level of 
member States who must notify the Commission, through the rapid information system "RAPEX", 
of any restrictive measures taken against products presenting a serious risk. In 2012, 2,278 measures (1,938 of them concerning products presenting a serious risk) were notified to the 
Commission, compared with 2011 when 1,803 measures were notified (1,556 concerning a serious 
risk). As regards measures against dangerous professional products, the number of notified 
measures to the Commission has shown a pattern of increase since the entry of force of Regulation 
(EC) No. 765/2008: in 2012, 37 notifications submitted to the Commission with 31 presenting 
serious risks, up from 25 notifications (17 as serious risks) in 2011; and 20 with 7 as serious risks in 2010.122 The Commission expects that the notification figures will go up over time as member States become more proactive in the area of prof essional products and fully adjust their practices 
to the broader scope of RAPEX. Regarding imports, the Regulation requires that customs 
authorities must carry out "appropriate checks on the characteristics of products on an adequate scale" before those products can be marketed in the EU." 
Question:  
13. Does the Regulation (EC) No. 765/2008 sets out market surveillance for marking particularly 
for products that using "CE Mark"? And how about the products which circulated outside EU 
Countries? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 241 - 
 
  EU reply: Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 provides for th e establishment of a market surveillance 
framework for all Union harmonised products in the single market including, but not limited to, 
products bearing CE marking. It establishes specific requirements for the organisation of market surveillance by Member States. 
In addition, Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 sets ou t a regulatory framework for external border 
controls in order to ensure that Member States have appropriate control mechanisms in place in order to verify that products originating from third countries and entering the EU market comply 
with the requirements set out in Union legislation. To this end the Regulation establishes basic 
principles on the operation of external border co ntrols, on the authorisation of the release of the 
goods for free circulation and on the cooperation of all authorities involved in relation to both tasks. 
The Regulation applies only to products placed on the EU market or those entering the Union 
market before they are released for free circulation, and it does not affect products that are placed on the market outside the EU. 
4 DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTED SECTORS 
4.3 Services 4.3.1 Financial services 
4.3.1.2 Recent and planne d regulatory evolutions 
4.3.1.2.6 Planned next steps of  financial services reform 
Page 147 Para. 4.112 
"The planned next steps of the refo rm touch on five different points: 
 Completing the banking union : alongside the proposal on Single Supervisory Mechanism, 
the Commission will launch initiatives to create a complete banking union, including a single 
EU deposit guarantee scheme and a centralized EU approach to deal with bank failure and 
resolution. 
 Structural reform in the banking sector : the Commission is looking at the 
recommendations of the high-level group led by  Erkki Liikanen and will decide on how best 
to follow them up. The Liikanen group was mandated to assess whether further reforms directly targeted at the structure of individual banks themselves and at the banking system 
as a whole may further enhance the stability and efficiency of the banking sector and its 
ability to serve and protect the needs of citi zens and better support the EU economy and the 
single market. 
 Shadow banking : in early 2013, the Commission will present a roadmap on shadow 
banking in the EU focusing on three priorities : first, the strengthening of transparency and 
data collection and monitoring; second, money market funds, and, third, strengthening 
policies in the field of repo and securities lending transactions. The Commission also plans to bring forward draft legislation on securities law with a view to clarifying who owns what. This will help further to improve transparency, safe ty and investor rights in the single market. 
 A crisis management framework for ot her important financial institutions : together 
with its international partners, the Commission services are reflecting on what arrangements 
might be needed to prevent the failure of systemically important financial institutions, apart from banks, from compromising financial stability. 
 Payments : the Commission plans an integrated European market for innovative payment 
methods. A Green Paper on card, internet and mobile payments, the fastest-growing retail payment methods in Europe, was published in January 2012.82 The Commission plans to 
adopt legislative proposals addressing the obstacles for market integration in these areas in the first half of 2013. The Commission is also looking at issues such as the right of access to a basic payment account for all EU citizens and residents, and measures to improve the 
transparency and comparison of bank fees and to facilitate bank account switching within 
the EU." WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 242 - 
 
  Question:  
14. What policies does the EU take to ensure that the banking sector has the ability to serve and 
protect the needs of citizens and better support the EU economy and the single market?  
EU reply: During the last five years Europe has played a key role in shaping a global response to 
the financial crisis and to improve the stability and efficiency of the Single Market in financial 
services. Key policies included the establishment of a European System of Financial Supervision 
(thereby creating the European Supervisory Author ities and the European Systemic Risk Board) to 
improve cross-border cooperation, consistent en forcement of rules and systemic oversight. The 
Commission has also proposed legislation to establish a single rulebook (in particular CRDIV/CRR in the banking sector) for all financial firms and markets to apply appropriate regulatory standards 
and support a level playing field across the Single Market. A lot of initiatives have been taken in 
view of making the financial system more responsible, more consumer friendly and growth 
enhancing. These include, for instance the propos als on the bank account package, on improved 
investor information for complex financial products (PRIPS), on responsible lending (mortgage 
credit), on the creation of European Venture Capital Funds and European Social Entrepreneurship 
Funds, safer rules for retails investment funds (UCITS) or the creation of European long-term investment funds. 
In addition Europe engaged in creating a Banking Union, i.e. a single supervisory mechanism and a 
single resolution mechanism, in order to break the harmful link between sovereign debt markets and banks. It will foster deeper integration, is an open system, which is mandatory for Member States of the euro area but open to all Member St ates, and will build on the single rule book of 
prudential requirements, crisis prevention, manage ment and resolution and deposit guarantees for 
all banks in the EU. 
15. With respect to the strengthening the transparency  of data collection and monitoring, will this 
put an impact upon Mode 1 supply of services? 
EU reply: The new European legislation on financial services does not introduce new market 
access or national-treatment limitations. It establishes a new and comprehensive regulatory 
framework and extends regulation over new mark ets, entities, and activities. Regarding cross-
border supply of services, most of the recent le gislation adopted by the EU includes third-country 
regimes under which foreign-based operators are allowed to pursue their activities linked with European financial markets, provided that certain prudential requirements are met, in particular 
that the regulatory system under which they oper ate locally is considered of equivalent quality 
with that of the EU. More specifically on shadow  banking, strengthening of transparency and data 
collection with regard to shadow banks (entities that operate outside the regulated banking system 
but provide similar functions as banks ) is in line with the G20 and FSB recommendations in this 
area. 
16. How feasible is the plan for innovative payment methods in EU?  
17. If it is feasible, is this an area in which the EU could provide support to other countries to 
develop similar systems?  
EU reply to questions 16 and 17: The EU will be pleased to start discussing the issue in an 
upcoming bilateral working group on services (pre ferably when the experts meeting takes place in 
Brussels). 
4 DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTED SECTORS 
4.3 Services 
4.3.2 Environmental services 
Page 147 Para. 4.113 
"Environmental services constitute an important economic sector for the EU as their two main 
susbsectors (water collection treatment and supply on the one hand, and sewerage, waste management, and remediation on the other hand) employed 1,037,000 persons in 2007 and WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 243 - 
 
  accounted for a gross value added of €100.5 billion  (€29.6 billion for water, €69.8 billion for the 
remainder), i.e. an approximate turnover of €250 billion. 
Question:  
18. As an important subsector in EU, is this an area in which it is willing to share expertise?  
EU reply:  Under the terms of the recently concluded EU – Indonesia Partnership and Cooperation 
Agreement, both parties have already committed themselves to cooperate in promoting 
environmental services (article 27 pt.3d). Once the Agreement has come into force, the European 
Commission will be pleased to contribute to its implementation. 
4 DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTED SECTORS 
4.3 Services 4.3.3 Transport services 
4.3.3.4 Road transport services  
Page 167 Para. 4.113 
The regime of air transport services appears quite liberal. Regarding the three services explicitly 
covered by the GATS air transport annex (maintenance and repair of aircraft, selling and marketing of air transport services and computer reservation services) the FTA commitments 
slightly improve the already liberal GATS commitments by for instance binding EU-CARIFORUM's 
and EU-Korea's commercial presence without restrictions for all member States for maintenance and repair, while this sector remains uncommitted or subject to restrictions in a few member 
States under GATS. The EU-Korea FTA contains an MFN exemption of maintenance and repair that 
has no equivalent under the GATS. FTA commitments on selling and marketing and computer reservation services largely echo those undertaken under GATS. For rental of aircraft with crew, 
FTA commitments cover all member  States, while GATS' ones only cover one member State and 
reflect existing EU regulation on wet leasing." 
Question:  
19. As an important subsector in EU, is this an area in which it is willing to share expertise?  
EU reply: Such issues may be discussed in the next EU-Indonesia Working Group on Trade and 
investment to be held  in the near future. 
4 DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTED SECTORS 
4.3 Services 
4.3.4 Pipeline services 
Page 171  
"EU commitments regarding pipeline transport services appear limited both under GATS and in 
FTAs Under GATS, the key modes for the provision of these services' mode 1 and mode 3 are unbound for all members States both for transport of  fuels and transport of goods other than fuels, 
except in Lithuania where there are no restrictions for mode 3, and in Hungary where mode 3 
provision is subject to a concession contract." 
Question:  
20. Why are the key modes for the provision of pipe line services (mode 1 and mode 3) unbound 
for all members States both for transport of fuels and transport of goods other than fuels? 
EU reply:  Pipeline transport services are an area where several WTO members (including 
Indonesia) have relatively limited commitments and/or maintain a certain policy space. It is to be 
noted that the EU has improved its commitments in pipeline transport of goods other than fuel in 
its FTAs EU-Cariforum and EU-Korea. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 244 - 
 
  European Union-Amendment of Directive 2001/37/EC concerning the manufacture, presentation 
and sale of tobacco products (Tobacco Products Directive/TPD) 
Since the TBT Committee meeting in March 2013, Indonesia requested clarification from EU on 
"the proposal exempts tobacco products other than cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco and 
smokeless tobacco products, i.e. cigars, cigarillos and pipe tobacco from some provisions such as 
the prohibition of products with characterising flavours. The exemption shall be removed if there is a substantial change of circumstances (in terms of sales volume or prevalence level among young 
people)".  
Question:  
21. Indonesia requests EU to provide official letter in responding that issues to Indonesia.  
EU reply: The EU would like to recall that it has notified the proposal for a revision of the Tobacco 
Products Directive under the WTO TBT Agreement on 18 January 2013 (G/TBT/N/EU/88). Members 
were provided 90 days to comment on the draft. Two Members submitted written comments under the TBT notification procedure. Indonesia has not commented in writing on this notification. The 
EU replies to the written comments made by the two Members above mentioned are publicly 
available on the EU's dedicated TBT database (under the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/tbt/index.cfm?f useaction=Search.viewDetail&Country_ID=EU&num
=88&dspLang=EN&nextpage=1&basdatedeb=&basd atefin=&baspays=eu&baspays2=&basnotifnu
m=88&basnotifnum2=&bastypepays=ANY&baskeywords=&fromform=viewBasic ).  
In addition, the EU has also provided extensive explanations and clarifications to questions and 
comments raised by other Members, including Indonesia, in the March and June 2013 TBT 
Committee Meetings.  
The EU would like to highlight that one of the main objectives of the draft legislation is to 
discourage young people from starting using tobacco. The measures proposed are proportionate to 
address this objective taking into account existing scientific studies and market data which show 
different patterns of use within the EU of various categories of tobacco products. Exemption for certain categories of tobacco products shall be removed in case of "substantial change of 
circumstances" as laid down in Article 2 (30) of the proposed revision of the Tobacco Products 
Directive. Finally, the EU would like to note that the proposal is currently going through the EU's legislative process, in which both the European Co uncil and the Parliament will have to give their 
approval in order for the proposal to be adopted. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 245 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM JAPAN 
Report by the European Union (WT/TPR/G/284) 2 THE EUROPEAN UNION IN A CHANGING WORLD 
2.3 Developments in the Internal Market and Central Policy areas 
(Question1: Page 8, Paragraph 2.36) 
What is the objective evidence that the EU's public procurement market is kept largely open to 
international competition? 
EU reply: The EU has already made extensive commitments via GPA and FTAs covering large 
parts of its procurement market. In addition evid ence shows clearly that there are many examples 
of contracts awarded to non-EU firms in the EU. 
Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/284) 
SUMMARY 
(Question2: Page 11, Paragraph 17) Japan would like to know if the EU, since the last TPR, has made efforts or actually improved mode 
4 of trade in services, for example, intra-corpor ate transfer between the establishments from in 
and outside of the EU. We would like the EU or its Member States to give examples and 
explanation that show the improvements. 
EU reply: The EU has indeed been making efforts to improve intra-corporate transfers between 
the establishments from in and outside of the EU. Mid-2010 the Commission proposed a Directive 
on Intra-Corporate Transferees. The aim of this proposal is to create an attractive EU scheme harmonizing the conditions for entry, stay and intra-EU mobility of third-country national workers 
being posted by a group of undertakings based ou tside the EU to an entity of the same group 
based on the EU territory. The proposal also defi nes remuneration and working conditions of the 
ICTs and sets out the rights where ICTs shall bene fit from equal treatment with own nationals. The 
proposal contains entry and residence conditions as  well as rights for ICTs' family members. The 
adoption process is still on-going, while legislators are making efforts to finalize the negotiations, including finding a compromise on intra-EU mobility components. 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 3.1.8 Technical regulations and standards 
(Question3: Pages 57, Paragraph 3.18) 
Technical regulations and conformity assessment have been largely harmonized among the EU 
member states. However, non-harmonized regulati ons and administrative procedures are found in 
pharmaceutical regulations, such as the following areas. 
(1)  Benefit assessment using HTA methodolog y for listing product for reimbursement and 
 reimbursement price determination 
Q1 Will assessment outcome, process and methodology be harmonized?  
Q2 How is the EUnetHTA going to address the ha rmonization of assessment outcome, process and 
methodology in the government initiative?  
(2)  Benefit/Risk assessment of pharmaceuticals 
The Benefit/Risk Technology projects are on-going WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 246 - 
 
  Q3 When will the methodology for the assessment be harmonized? 
EU reply to the above questions (1) and (2) and (3): To some extent, HTA methodologies 
can be harmonised at EU level: 
(1) Harmonisation of methodologies does not mean harmonisation of decisions on pricing and 
reimbursement. Decisions are finally ma de at the relevant national level. 
(2) Harmonisation of methodologies concerns the clinical domains of the HTA overall spectrum, 
not the domains which are very context specific such as costs and societal perspectives. 
(3) In the same vein, harmonisation of methodologies is easier for single technologies than for 
multiple/ complex technologies. For single technologies, progress can be made more easily in pharmaceutical products than in medical devices which are more context specific. 
Q4 Is it possible that the assessment technology w ill be harmonized in the future between the EU, 
the US and Japan?  
EU reply: Yes, this is a possibility. However, the inte rest of the three parties to harmonise their 
methodologies for benefit/risk assessment would need to be confirmed before engaging in such a 
process. (under review E1 and C1) 
(3) Package Insert/Professional information sheet in Rx pharmaceuticals 
Q5 Is it possible that the Package Insert/Professional Information Sheet will be harmonized in the 
EU? 
EU reply: European marketing authorisation of medici nal products (by the European Commission 
or by the Member States) provides for harmonised  labelling, package information and summary of 
products characterisations. 
3.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade 
3.3.2 Subsidies and other government assistance 3.3.2.1 General legal and institutional framework 
(Question4: Page 73, Paragraph 3.165) 
What are the standards and/or criteria applicable  in determining whether "state aid is deemed 
incompatible with the internal market of the EU if it distorts competition by favouring certain 
undertakings or the production of certain goods"? 
EU reply:  The criteria to determine the compatibility of State aid with the internal market are set 
out in detail in the General Block Exemption Regulation13 and the guidelines applicable to different 
types of aid (e.g. Regional Aid Guidelines, Environmental Aid Guidelines, Risk Capital Guidelines14). 
The Commission will consider an aid measure compatib le with the Treaty only if the positive effects 
in terms of contribution to a well-defined objective of common interest overweigh the negative effects in terms of competition distortions. This is reflected in particular by the requirements that 
the aid is necessary and appropriate for the achiev ement of the objective; has an incentive effect 
(the aid must change the behaviour of the undertaking(s) concerned in such a way that it engages in additional activity which it would not carry out without the aid or it would carry out in a 
restricted or different manner or location); and is proportionate (the aid amount must be limited to 
the minimum needed to induce the additional investment or activity).  
Depending on the type of aid, those general principles are specified in more detailed conditions 
that have to be complied with. 
                                               
13 Commission Regulation No 800/2008 (OJ 2008 L 214/3). 
14 http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/legislation.html . WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 247 - 
 
  (Question5: Page 74, Paragraph 3.169) 
EU reply:  Please provide a list of "all state aid regulations", as referred to in paragraph 3.169, 
which are to be updated at the end of 2013. 
The following legal texts are planned to be revised by the end of 2013 or mid-2014: 
Regulations:  
 General Block Exemption Regulation15 
 Enabling Regulation16 
 de minimis  Regulation17 
 Procedural Regulation18 
Commission Guidelines:  Regional Aid
19, already adopted on June 2013 
 Research & Development & Innovation20 
 Environmental aid21 
 Risk Capital22 
 Broadband23 already adopted in December 2012 
(Question6: Page 74, Paragraph 3.171) Please provide an overall timeframe as to when the details of the reform package as referred to in 
paragraph 3.171 may be made available, including changes to be made in the relevant guidelines 
and regulations, as well as new legislation that may be introduced as integral parts of the reform package. 
EU reply: The details of the reform process are provided on DG Competition's dedicated 
webpage24, which is regularly updated and contains the most recent texts and consultation 
documents. The timing for the adoption of each elements of the initiative (see above question) 
cannot be precisely foreseen. However, it is expected that the main elements of the package will 
be in place as fromend-2013 beginning-2014.25 
                                               
15 Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid 
compatible with the common market in application of  Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General block 
exemption Regulation), OJ L 214, 9.8.2008. 
16 Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 of 7 May 1998 on the application of Articles 92 and 93 (now 87 
and 88 respectively) of the Treaty establishing the Euro pean Community to certain categories of horizontal 
State aid, Official Journal L 142, 14.05.1998. 
17 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 
and 88 of the Treaty to de minimis aid, OJ L 379, 28.12.2006, p. 5–10 
18 Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of 
Article 93 (now Art.88) of the EC Treaty, Official Journal L 83/1, 27.03.1999, p. 1-9. 
19 Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013, OJ C 54, 4.3.2006, p. 13–44. 
20 Community framework for state aid for research and development and innovation, OJ C 323, 
30.12.2006, p. 1–26. 
21 Community guidelines on state aid for environmental protection, Official Journal C 82 ,01.04.2008, 
p.1-33. 
22 Community guidelines on state aid to promote risk capital investments in small and medium-sized 
enterprises, OJ C 194, 18.8.2006, p. 2–21. 
23 Community Guidelines for the application of State aid rules in relation to rapid deployment of 
broadband networks, Official Journal C 235, 30.9.2009, p.7. 
24 http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/modernisation/index_en.html . 
25 Two guidelines are already adopted: the Region al aid guidelines (June 2013) and the Broadband 
guidelines (December 2012). WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 248 - 
 
  3.3.3 Government procurement 
3.3.3.1 Legislative framework 
(Question7: Page 80-81, Table 3.13) 
1. Please explain what qualifies "contracts subsidized at more than 50% by the contract 
authority", including how the contract authority may subsidize such contracts. Please 
provide rationales for not making thresholds available for supplies. 
EU reply:  There is no definition of subsidized contracts in the Directive 2004/18/EC. Article 8 
covers contracts that are subsidized directly by contracting authorities. It has been a choice of the 
legislator to make sure that award of subsidized contracts are covered only in relation to works and services and not for supplies. 
2. Please provide definitions for service designs contests and rationales for not making 
thresholds available for supplies and works. 
EU reply:  Design contests are those procedures which enable the contracting authority to acquire, 
mainly in the fields of town and country planning , architecture and engineering or data processing, 
a plan or design selected by a jury after being pu t out to competition with or without the award of 
prizes. For this reason the table in page 80 of the Report refers only to thresholds for services and not for supplies and works. 
(Question8: Page 81, Paragraph 3.207) 
Please provide coherent and uniform standards or definitions, if any, applicable for the 
terminology- a special or exclusive right, among EU member states. 
EU reply: The notion of "undertakings with exclusive and special rights" is outlined in Directive 
2004/17/EC, article 2, paragraphs 2 (b) and 3. An undertaking is qualified as an undertaking with 
exclusive rights when it has been granted ri ghts by a competent authority by way of any 
legislative, regulatory or administrative provision the effect of which is to limit the exercise of 
activities in the sectors listed in this Directive to one or more entities, and which substantially 
affects the ability of other entities to carry out such activity .  
(Question9: Page 81, Paragraph 3.207) 
According to this paragraph, "Private contracting entities in the utilities sector may also be covered 
by the Utilities Directive if they have a special or exclusive right granted by member states." Are these private contracting entities covered by the current GPA and the revised GPA? If not, please give us an explanation. 
EU reply: As explained under the EU's Annex 3 of Appendix  I of the EU to the GPA, entities offered 
by the EU with respect to Annex III are (1) cont racting authorities (covered under Annex 1 and 
Annex 2 and (2) public undertakings which operate in one of the activities listed in Annex 3 for the 
procurement for the pursuit of such activity and subject to the notes attached to it.  
(Question10: Page 81, Pa ragraphs 3.207-3.208) 
Where the European Commission decides an entity can be exempted from the Utilities Directive, 
(1) is that entity also exempted from the GPA?  
(2) how does the EU ensure the transparency of the withdrawal of the entity with regard to other 
GPA Parties? 
(3) how does the EU make compensatory adjustments to maintain a balance of rights and 
obligations and a comparable level of mutually agreed coverage provided in the Agreement? 
(4) how could another Party make an objection to the decision? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 249 - 
 
  EU reply: Note to Annex 3 of the EU Appendix I to the revised GPA clarifies that procurement for 
an activity listed in Annex 3 when exposed to competitive forces in the market concerned is not 
covered by the Agreement. This Note as any othe r notes attached to a GPA Party's schedule, has 
been signed up to by all GPA Parties. If procur ement for an activity exposed to competition is 
exempted on the basis of an EU reservation, the other Parties have no right to a compensatory 
adjustment.  
(Question11: Page 81, Paragraph 3.208) 
For what other sectors in particular member states is the Commission considering granting 
exemptions in the near future? 
EU reply: The Commission may not provide information which would prejudice its future 
decisions.  
(Question12: Page 81, Paragraph 3.208) 
What is the criteria for the European Commission to consider that "the existing competitive 
conditions ensure that contracting entities, state-owned or private, buy commercially without 
favouring their national industry"? 
EU reply: In its decision pursuant to Directive 2004/17/EC, the Commission will assess whether 
the activity is directly exposed to competition on markets to which access is not restricted. The 
question of whether an activity is  directly exposed to competition is decided on the basis of criteria 
that are in conformity with the Treaty provisions on competition, such as the characteristics of the 
goods or services concerned, the existence of al ternative goods or services, the prices and the 
actual or potential presence of more than one supplier of the goods or services in question. 
(Question13: Page 82, Paragraph 3.209) 
How specifically would the Directives 2004/17/EC  and 2004/18/EC be amended with the proposed 
new directives? 
And how would this affect the coverage of the EU provided for in the current and the revised GPA. 
EU reply: The proposal for the reform is currently being debated by the co-legislators.  
(Question14: Page 84, Paragraph 3.216) 
What are other member states, besides Bulgaria and Malta, which similarly apply different 
procedural requirements, time limits and different rules? 
EU reply: Below thresholds of the EU Directives, Member States apply set of rules of their choice 
provided those rules comply with the principle of the EU Treaty. The fact th at they apply different 
rules is not relevant in this context. 
3.3.3.2 GPA and international procurement (Question15: Page 85, Paragraph 3.223) 
Article 6.1 of the EU's proposal (i.e. the International Procurement Initiative) stipulates, as a 
requirement for measures restricting the access to the EU's public procurement market, that "the 
value of the non-covered goods or services exceeds 50% of the total value of the goods or 
services constituting the tender". Does this mean that a tender would be subject to restrictive 
measures, even when the value of non-covered go ods or services exceeds 50% of the total value 
of the goods or services constituting the tender and covered goods or services compose the rest of 
the tender? If so, please explain its consistency with the non-discrimination obligations under the 
GPA. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 250 - 
 
  (Question16: Page 85, Paragraph 3.223) 
Pursuant to Article 6.4(a) of the International Pr ocurement Initiative, if an international agreement 
concerning market access in the field of public  procurement exists between the EU and the third 
country from which the goods or services constituting the tender originate, the Commission's 
approval of the proposed exclusion of the tend er depends on whether that agreement includes 
explicit market access reservations for the EU. On the other hand, if such agreement does not exist, it would be necessary pursuant to Article 6.4(b) that the third country maintain restrictive 
procurement measures leading to a lack of substantial reciprocity in market opening between the 
EU and the third country. Does this mean that th e EU imposes a further requirement with respect 
to the latter in addition to the non-existence of the international agreement concerning public procurement and the EU accords less favorable treatment to GPA countries than non-GPA 
countries? 
(Question17: Page 85, Paragraph 3.223) Please explain the consistency of the restrictive measures pursuant to Articles 6 and 10 of the 
International Procurement Initiative with the WT O Agreements. In particular, if these measures 
apply to procurements by entities with special or exclusive rights, would the measures be inconsistent with Article 3.4 of the GATT, becaus e the requirements of Article 3.8(a) of the GATT 
do not exist in such a case? 
EU reply to questions 15 to 17: Below thresholds of the EU Directives, Member States apply set 
of rules of their choice provided those rules comp ly with the principle of the EU Treaty. The fact 
that they apply different rules is not relevant in this context. 
3.3.4 Competition policy and regulatory issues 
3.3.4.2 Anti-trust 
(Question18: Page 87, Paragraph 3.229) 
Please provide a full list of the anti-trust regu lations and guidelines, including block exemption 
regulations. 
EU reply:  For a comprehensive overview of the Commission's rules and regulations on competition 
reference is made to the attached link of DG COMP's website which contains all relevant 
information: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/index_en.html 
(Question19: Page 87, Paragraph 3.233) Please explain measures being undertaken as to how the Commission ensures that its request for 
information would not be excessive and overreaching for undertakings that are subject to the 
Commission's inquiry. 
EU reply: In organising its investigations the Commission aims to strike an adequate balance 
between the need to take robust and well inform ed decisions on the one hand and the need to 
limit the burden which it imposes on undertakings by sending requests for information on the other hand. It goes without saying that in complex highly contested investigations the need for 
information from the undertakings involved and fr om their competitors and customers is greater 
than in simpler cases. It is Commission policy to adapt the scope and quantity of information asked for accordingly.  
(Question20: Page 88, Paragraph 3.234) 
According to the report, the EU government monitors whether anti-competitive contents are 
included in the settlement agreement between an original pharmaceutical company and a generic 
pharmaceutical company, and when necessary, the government asks them for an improvement. 
And in the example where an improvement wa s actually requested in July 2012, the EU 
government asked for the improvement of some se ttlement agreements that hindered the entry of 
generic alternatives into markets in the EEA and maintained unnecessarily high prices. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 251 - 
 
  On the other hand, the 1st clause of the 28th arti cle of Agreement on TRIPS contains the following 
statements. 
Article 28 Rights Conferred  
1. A patent shall confer on its owner the following  exclusive rights: (a) where the subject matter of 
a patent is a product, to prevent third parties not having the owner's consent from the acts of: 
making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing (Abbreviation)  
According to this article, it is considered to be a legitimate right to assert patent rights and carry 
out a settlement agreement in order to exclude patent infringement based on patent rights. 
Please clarify the following points. 
 How does the EU government consider the standard of asking for an improvement with regard 
to the delay of the entry of generic drugs? (At which level are the delays regarded as 
unjustifiable?) 
 How does the EU government consider compatibility between those measures and the 
28th article of TRIPS? 
(Question21: Page 88, Paragraph 3.234) 
Article 40.2 of the TRIPS Agreement states that Members can specify licensing practices or 
conditions that may constitute an abuse of intellectual property rights and therefore might have an 
adverse effect on competition in the relevant market. In response to this, Members can adopt 
appropriate measures to prevent or control such pr actices as long as they are consistent with the 
TRIPS Agreement. In connection with the report prepared by the Secretariat, what actions or 
conditions would be considered as having an adverse effect on competition in the relevant market 
and require that improvement to be made? (Is there any criterion on which demands for improvement are based? For instance, is there a time  limit for "delaying" entry of generics into the 
market before improvement is demanded, etc.?) 
EU reply to Q20 and Q21:  The measures referred to are not demands for "improvements" but 
consist of scrutiny by the European Commission of the practices of pharmaceutical companies 
under European Union competition law. There is no incompatibility with Article 28 of TRIPS. While 
it is legitimate to assert patent rights, patent settlement agreements are not exempt from scrutiny 
under antitrust law. The Commission is conducting antitrust investigations on a case-by-case basis. It recently adopted a Decision agains t Danish pharmaceutical company Lundbeck and 
several producers of generic medicines, fining them for concluding anticompetitive agreements 
containing a value transfer from the originator to generic companies and with the aim of delaying entry of generic medicine. The Commission is also monitoring more broadly patent settlements between originator and generic companies in the pharmaceutical sector with relevance for the 
European Economic Area (EEA). The latest report published in July 2012 shows that the vast 
majority of patent settlements are unproblematic from  the point of view of antitrust rules. Finally, 
such patent settlements are similarly also not exempt from antitrust scrutiny in the United States. 
3.3.4.4 International cooperation 
(Question22: Page 89, Paragraph 3.239) According to Paragraph 3.239, the agreement with Switzerland includes provisions which would 
allow the competition authorities to exchange confidential information even without the consent of 
the companies involved. What kind of effects do you expect that these provisions have on law enforcement? What kinds of limitations are there when the competition authorities exchange confidential information? Doesn't the European Commission have any concerns, such as companies 
becoming uncooperative with the investigations of the European Commission? Does the European 
Commission have the future plan to conclude an agreement with other countries which includes similar provisions? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 252 - 
 
  Can you provide confidential information without the consent of the companies involved, when the 
European Commission has no agreement  such as the agreement with Switzerland with other 
countries? If you can't, do laws prohibit the European Commission from providing confidential information or does the European Commission or DG comp have a policy of refraining from 
providing confidential information? 
EU reply:  The European Union has concluded several bilateral cooperation agreements in order to 
structure and facilitate the cooperation between the Commission and foreign competition 
authorities. There are four such agreements, with the USA (1991), Canada (1999), Japan (2003) 
and South Korea (2009). All these agreements are so-called "first generation" agreements; they contain various instruments of cooperation in the area of competition policy but exclude the competition authorities to exchange of information and documents obtained in the course of their 
investigations. Under the EU procedural rules, information obtained with the formal investigative 
tools cannot be divulged to a third country authority without the consent from the company which provided it. This limitation is a strong impediment to cooperation between competition agencies. 
The agreement with Switzerland will be the first one to remove this obstacle. The agreement will 
enter into force once it has been approved by th e European Parliament and the Swiss Parliament.  
The exchange of evidence is subject to strict cond itions protecting the rights of defense, business 
secrets and personal data. Both authorities can only exchange information when they investigate 
the same or related conduct or transaction. Th e agreement provides that they cannot discuss or 
transmit information which was received under thei r respective leniency or settlement procedures, 
without the prior express agreement of the source. Nor can they exchange information if using 
such information would be prohibited under the pr ocedural rights and privileges guaranteed under 
their respective laws. 
Many anticompetitive practices have cross border effects on the EU and the Swiss markets and 
better cooperation between the two competition authorities will make competition law enforcement 
more efficient and more effective. 
3.3.5 Intellectual property rights 
3.3.5.2 Copyright and related rights 
(Question23: Pages 91-92, Paragraph 3.249) With regard to a set of recommendations for levy systems in January 2013, Japan understands 
that Commissioner Barnier expressed his intention to ask Member States for their opinions and to 
request the Presidency to put the issue on the ag enda of the Competitive Council. Please provide 
the current status of the collecting of opinions from Member States and the details of the discussion at the Competitive Council if it has already been discussed. 
EU reply:  During the Competitiveness Council of 29 June 2013 an exchange of views has taken 
place regarding the recommendations issued by in dependent mediator Mr Vitorino. Member States' 
reactions to these recommendations were diverse. The Commission has taken stock of these 
reactions. 
In parallel, the recommendations are being carefully analysed by the Commission. They constitute 
an important element feeding into the ongoing 'fit ness check' of the copyright system as initiated 
by the Commission on 18 December 2012 with the adoption of the Communication on Content in 
the Digital Single Market. 
3.3.5.3 Industrial property 
3.3.5.3.6 Industrial designs 
(Question24: Page 102, Paragraph 3.292) 
With regard to Directive 98/71/EC, the proposal for amending article 14 of the Directive with a 
view to ending design protection for spare parts (COM(2004)582final) has been under 
consideration since 2004. Could the EU explain the cu rrent status and future direction of the issue? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 253 - 
 
  EU reply: In 2004, the Commission proposed to amend the Directive 98/71/EC to liberalize the 
aftermarket for spare parts. The proposed "repairs clause" provides that design protection shall 
not extend to spare parts used for the purpose of restoring the original appearance of complex products such as motor vehicles. The European Parliament gave a favourable opinion to this 
proposal of the Commission at first reading in December 2007. Discussions continue in the Council. 
3.3.5.3.7 Undisclosed information (Question25: Page 102, Paragraph 3.294) 
According to the Secretariat's report (Paragraph 3.294), the European Commission has been 
studying the protection of trade secrets. Japan also understands that public consultation on this issue took place from December 2012 to March 201 3. Could the EU provide any information on the 
progress of this issue? 
EU reply:  The results of the public consultation and of an external study will be published in 
July 2013. The Commission will decide about this initiative in the autumn. 
4 DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTED SECTORS 
4.3 Services 
4.3.2 Environmental services 
(Question26: Pages 150-151, Pa ragraph 4.117, Table 4.28) 
(Section on Ongoing EU level regulatory developments) 
1. Please provide the overall timeline as to when  the EU will finalise the provisions of the 
concession proposals. 
2. How does the Commission plan to implement measures to ensure coherent and uniform 
application and implementation of rules relating to concession among Member States? 
EU reply: The revision of the directive on concessi ons is still discussed by the Council and the 
Parliament.   
4.3.3 Transport services 
4.3.3.2 Rail transport services 
(Question27: Page 159, Paragraphs 4.129) 
The report says that there are various types of  institutional settings among the member states, 
and that the European Commission (EC) is willing to strengthen the independence criteria for infrastructure manager in the fourth railway package. Does the EU/the EC aim to integrate the current various types of institutional settings and introduce a single institutional structure among 
all the member states and how does the EU/the EC aim to achieve it, if so? 
EU reply:  The EU does not aim to introduce a single institutional structure among all Member 
States. As indicated in 4.130, the Commission's objective consists in ensuring the optimal 
infrastructure management for an efficient functioning of railway markets. To this aim, the 
4th railway package proposals would entrust infrastructure managers with a coherent set of 
functions. Experience in the Member States also shows that fully separated structures are the 
simplest and most efficient. To preserve some flexibility, the Commission proposal however leaves 
the possibility to Member States to maintain vertically integrated structures. This implies nevertheless that solid internal separation requirements are introduced to guarantee the independence of the infrastructure manager in th e context of a holding structure, and ultimately 
ensure fair and non-discriminatory access of all railway undertakings to the network. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 254 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO ADVANCE WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA 
PART I: Questions Regarding the Secretariat Report 
Page 28 (Para 10) 
The European Parliament ratifies trade agreements  by simple majority, while the Council generally 
needs a qualified majority to give consent. Unanimity by the Council is required for agreements on 
trade in services, trade-related intellectual prop erty rights, and foreign direct investment that 
include "provisions for which unanimity is required fo r the adoption of internal rules", as well as for 
agreements on trade in cultural and audiovisual services that "risk prejudicing the Union's 
linguistic and cultural diversity", and for agreemen ts in the field of social, education, and health 
services that "risk seriously disturbing the national organization of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of a member State to deliver them".  
Question  
Unanimity by the Council requirement concerning the ratification of certain trade agreements 
means that a member state which is opposed to a certain provision in the agreement is capable of 
blocking the entire ratification process. With regards to the EU-US Trade and Investment 
Partnership(TTIP) negotiation, is it possible that a single member state could veto the agreement invoking such provision, maintaining that the agreement would risk the entire Union's linguistic 
and cultural diversity? 
EU reply: The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for certain treaties to be 
concluded by unanimity. This means that any Member State could oppose the conclusion by the 
Union of any such agreement. With regard to TTIP, negotiations are at a very early stage and it 
would not be appropriate to speculate on its content and on the procedure applicable to its 
ratification.  
Page 35 (Para 44) 
On 29 November 2012, the Commission was mandated to open free-trade negotiations with Japan. Question  
The EU has recently initiated negotiations to conclude FTAs with large economies such as the USA 
and Japan. Considering the weight of the EU and its FTA partners in world trade, it is alleged that 
the FTAs might pose a significant challenge to the WTO multilateral trading system. In order to prevent such a negative impact, it is very important for the EU to ensure the participation of stake-holders from third parties in the discussions, in particular with regard to rule-related areas. 
Within this context, how does the EU envisage tackling this issue? 
EU reply: The EU's priority is to preserve and strengthen the multilateral trading system. FTAs, if 
approached with care, can build on WTO rules by going further and faster in promoting openness, 
by tackling issues which are not ready for multilat eral discussion and by preparing the ground for 
the next level of multilateral liberalisation. Ambitious agreements, especially with large economies such as the USA and Japan, can have a systemic reach. They provide a laboratory for filling the 
gaps in the multilateral rulebook and develop regulatory solutions that can be a basis for 
subsequent work at multilateral level. These agre ements are negotiated on a bilateral basis but the 
EU will factor in their potential contribution to the multilateral trading system in the negotiations. It goes without saying that the EU will ensure that the future agreements are in full compliance 
with the relevant WTO rules. TTIP negotiations are a bilateral matter, it is not possible to associate 
third countries to such negotiations.  
Page 37 (Para 56) 
On 12 December 2012, the European Parliament and the Council adopted the Regulation 
establishing transitional arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between member States and third countries. This Regulation provides legal certainty in EU law for bilateral WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 255 - 
 
  investment agreements which were signed by EU member States before the entry into force of the 
Lisbon Treaty. The regulation confirms that member States may maintain in force these 
agreements notwithstanding the EU's competences re lating to investment, until they are replaced 
by investment agreements concluded by the EU. Member States must notify the Commission 
which agreements they want to maintain. The regulation also provides for a mechanism 
authorizing member States, under certain conditions, to negotiate bilateral investment agreements with third countries not immediately scheduled for EU-wide investment negotiations, or to 
re-negotiate existing agreements.  
Question  
Even though it is a transitional arrangement,  the current framework for the EU's investment 
policies appears to be dualistic in nature, as it is composed of EU level investment treaties and 
BITs of member states, which can make the syst em more complicated. How does the EU wish to 
ensure consistency in applying investment rules between the EU level and Member State level treaties?  
Also, please explain how the EU could resolve the issue of any discrepancy which would arise 
between the EU and a member state with regard to  an investment agreement with a third country. 
EU reply:  The EU investment policy cannot be considered dualistic, as there will be no overlap 
between EU investment agreements and BITs of  Member States. The Regulation 1219/12 clearly 
provides that Member States may maintain their bilateral investment agreements with third countries only until a bilateral investment agreement between the Union and the same third country enters into force. Therefore, future EU investment agreements will include clauses 
specifying that an EU agreement with a given th ird country replaces all agreements between EU 
M e m b e r  S t a t e s  w i t h  t h e  s a m e  c o u n t r y ,  a n d  c o n f i r m i n g  t h a t  p r o v i s i o n s  o f  M e m b e r  S t a t e s '  agreements will cease to apply from the date  of entry into force of the EU agreement. 
Page 52 (Para 63) 
Contingency measures, which are called "trade defence instruments" by the Commission and are 
part of the Common Commerce Policy (CCP), are th e exclusive competence of the EU. Industries 
within the EU may lodge a complaint with the Commission which may then initiate an 
investigation. If the investigation determines there is dumping or subsidies in production and/or export of the products concerned, causality betwee n the imports and injury of the EU's industries, 
and that the imposition of contingency measures is not against the EU's interests, the Commission 
may propose contingency measures to the Council. The adoption of contingency measures is 
subject to the comitology rules that entered into  force in March 2011 (section 2.1), and requires a 
positive opinion voted by qualified majority of a committee composed of member State 
representatives.  
Question  
With the entry into force of the comitology ru les in March 2011, the adoption of contingency 
measures requires a qualified majority vote  of a committee composed of member state 
representatives. However, the memo (13-497) released by the Commission on June 4, 2013 with 
regard to a provisional imposition of anti-dumping duties on Chinese solar panels specifies that "By 5 December 2013, the European Commission may prop ose to the Council (a) to terminate the case 
without measures or (b) to impose definitive anti -dumping measures for a duration of five years. 
According to the current rules, the Council can reject the Commission's proposal by simple 
majority .  
What is the reason for the different decision making procedures relating to the implementation of 
the same measures? 
EU reply: Article 291 of the Treaty on the Functionin g of the EU (TFEU) confers powers to 
implement the basic anti-dumping regulation on  the Commission. The Regulation (EU) 182/2011 
(Comitology regulation) implements Article 291 TFEU  and provides thus for the rules and general 
principles concerning the Commission's exercise of implementing powers and the mechanisms for control of this exercise by Member States. However, as the basic anti-dumping regulation still WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 256 - 
 
  reflects the legal situation before the TFEU entered into force, it is necessary to amend it in order 
to ensure its consistency with Article 291 TFEU and the Comitology regulation. Only after the appropriate amendment to the basic anti-dumping  regulation enters into force will the new 
comitology rules apply to anti-dumping investigations. The Commission does not expect this 
amendment to enter into force before 2014. 
Page 56 (Para 82) 
The Commission is in charge of conducting safeguard investigations in cooperation with member 
States. The adoption of definitive safeguard measur es is not subject to the standard regime under 
the new "comitology" rules; the adoption of definitive safeguard measures requires a positive opinion voted by qualified majority of a committee composed of member State representatives, as 
opposed to general "comitology" rules which require a qualified majority to reverse a Commission 
proposal to adopt AD/CV measures. Under the EU safeguard legislation, the Commission may 
decide to impose surveillance if the "trend in imports of a product originating in a third country threatens to cause injury to EU producers". Sinc e the last TPR of the EU, there was one import 
surveillance measure in force, on steel products, which expired on 31 December 2012 (section 
3.1.6). 
Question  
The EU introduced a "prior surveillance mechanism" under its safeguard legislation. What is the 
legal basis for introducing such mechanism? Plea se explain whether the possible burden on the 
importers is consistent with the WTO rules. 
EU reply:  The legal basis for prior surveillance mechanism are the basic Safeguard regulations: 
Council Regulation (EC) No 260/2009 (OJ L 84 of 31.3.2009) for WTO members and Council 
Regulation (EC) No 625/2009 (OJ L 185 of 17.7.2009)  for non- WTO members. Surveillance is an 
administrative procedure; it does not restrict the imports. Furthermore, the additional 
administrative requirements for imports subject to  surveillance are rather limited: the surveillance 
document has to be issued free of charge by the relevant authorities of the EU Member States, for any quantity requested, within a maximum of 5 wo rking days and is valid throughout the European 
Union. Therefore surveillance is consistent with the WTO rules.  
Page 65 (Para 114) 
Imported food must comply with relevant EU requirements or those recognized by the EU to be at 
least equivalent to the ones established in the EU food law and animal and plant health rules. The 
EU has concluded agreements in the veterinary or, more generally, in the SPS field with Andorra, 
Canada, Chile, EFTA, Faroe Islands, Liechtenstein,  Mexico, New Zealand, San Marino, Switzerland, 
the United States and Korea. The EU has also concluded agreements with Singapore, Peru and 
Colombia, and with Central America that contain specific provisions to facilitate trade once the 
respective SPS import requirements are met. 
Question  
Korea is mentioned in this paragraph as a country which has concluded an agreement with the EU 
in the SPS field. Please confirm whether this agreement refers to the SPS chapter of the Korea-EU FTA. 
EU reply:  The EU would like to confirm that paragraph 3.114 of the TPR Report referring to 
veterinary/SPS agreements between the EU and othe r countries refers in case of Korea to the EU-
Korea Free Trade Agreement that contains a chapter on SPS matters (para 2.35 and following of the Secretariat report).  
Page 68 (Para 126) 
Within the EU, GMOs need different authorizations to be used in food and feed, or for cultivation. 
The EFSA is responsible for carrying out the risk assessment on each application for authorization 
in collaboration with member States. The risk management and the authorization process are 
carried out by the Commission with member States, and the authorization decision is applied to all WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 257 - 
 
  EU member States. The Commission in March 2013 adopted the Implementing Regulation on 
requirements to be fulfilled by companies when su bmitting applications for the authorization of 
new GMOs for food/feed uses. The Commission stated that the key objectives of this Implementing 
Regulation are: to reinforce and improve the author ization process of GM f ood and feed; to clarify 
the requirements for submitting a request; and to  have these requirements formally endorsed by 
EU member States. The authorization of GMOs is subject to "comitology" procedures. 
Question  
In March 2013, the Commission adopted the Implem enting Regulation to reinforce and improve 
the authorization process of GM foods and feeds.  Please provide further details regarding this 
Implementing Regulation.  
EU reply: The adoption of the Regulation (EU) No 503/2013 on applications for authorisation of 
GM food and feed will not change the EU approach on risk assessment of GMOs which will continue 
to be science based and transparent. 
The Regulation will minimise the impact of asynchronous authorisation by further simplifying the 
authorisation process. It will improve the scientifi c certainty for applicants as it will clarify the 
requirements to be fulfilled for the submission of  an application and the protocols to be followed 
for conducting trials/studies. It should also therefore minimise the need for EFSA to request 
additional studies/data and reduce the time need ed for the risk assessment phase. The Regulation 
foresees a transitional period of 6 months during which companies have the choice to submit applications either in line with this Regulation or with the previous rules (Regulation No 641/2204 and 2011 EFSA guidelines). 
The Regulation can be adapted based on new scientific developments when needed. 
Page 68 (Para 127) 
Under certain circumstances, member States are allowed to temporarily restrict or prohibit the use 
and/or sale the GM products that are authorized at EU level on their own territory. Six member 
States currently apply restrictions on use (including sale) of certain GMOs: Austria, France, Greece, Hungary, Germany, and Luxembourg. In a proposed regulation to amend Directive 
2001/18/EC, the Commission in July 2010 proposed to allow member States to restrict or prohibit 
the cultivation in all or part of their territories of GMOs authorized at EU level. Under the proposed regulation, member States may adopt measures with respect to the cultivation of GMOs in their territories, but not with respect to the import into the EU of authorized GM seeds and 
plant-propagating material, and the products of their harvest. 
Question  
Under certain circumstances, member States are allowed to temporarily restrict or prohibit the use 
and sale the GM products. Six member States current ly apply restrictions on use (including sale) of 
certain GMOs: Austria, France, Greece, Hungar y, Germany, and Luxembourg. What are the 
"certain circumstances" under which restrictions are allowed and what are the certain GMOs 
restricted in six member States? 
EU reply: The specific circumstances are outlined in Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 
on genetically modified food and feed. "Where it is evident that products authorised by or in 
accordance with this Regulation are likely to constitute a serious risk to human health, animal 
health or the environment, or where, in the light of an opinion of the Authority issued under Article 
10 or Article 22, the need to suspend or modify urgently an authorisation arises, measures shall be taken under the procedures provided for in Articles 53 and 54 of Regulation (EC) 
No 178/2002."The GMOs which are currently restricted in Member States include: MON 810 maize, 
T25 maize, oilseed rape GT 73, oilseed rape Ms 8, Rf3, and Ms8xRf3, MON 863 maize and potato 
Amflora.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 258 - 
 
  Page 91 (Para 248) 
To achieve this objective, the Commission has proposed a number of legislative and other actions. 
The development of online copyright licensing services figures among the key features. As a follow-up, the Commission has submitted a proposal for a Directive on "Collective Management of 
Copyright and Related Rights and Multi-Territorial Licensing of Rights in Musical Works for Online 
Uses in the Internal Market" in July 2012. The main objectives of the proposed Directive are twofold: first, to enhance the transparency and governance of collecting societies to ensure, 
inter alia , that right holders can freely choose the collecting society and are remunerated more 
quickly; and second, to facilitate cross-border licensing of musical works for online use to allow their distribution across the EU while collecting the revenues due to the authors, thus benefiting authors, service providers and consumers. The economic relevance of establishing EU-wide 
minimum standards in this field is highlighted by the fact that more than 250 collecting societies 
collect about €6 billion in royalties every year and that about 80% of the total revenue collected by collecting societies stems from licensing of musi cal works. The reported target date for the 
adoption of the proposed Directive is March 2014. 
Question  
The Government of Korea understands that the re ported target date for the adoption of the 
proposed Directive on "Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights and 
Multi-Territorial Licensing of Rights in Musical Works for Online Uses in the Internal Market" is March of 2014. Please explain what effect the Di rective may have on the reciprocal management 
agreement with the foreign copyright management society when it is approved. 
EU reply:  The Directive as proposed by the Commission only covers collecting societies 
established in the EU, so that foreign collecting societies are not covered by the provisions. The 
Council has so far followed this line and only clarified in a recital that Member States are not 
precluded from applying the provisions of the Dire ctive to collecting societies established outside 
the EU if they operate within their territories.  There are proposals being made in the European 
Parliament to extend the scope of the provisions to collecting societies established outside the EU, 
but negotiations with the European Parliament and the Council are on-going and it remains to be 
seen whether such suggestions will be taken over.  
Page 103 (Para298) 
Enforcement of IPRs in the EU is based on Directive 2004/48/EC on the Enforcement of IPRs 
(IPRED) and Directive 2001/29/EC on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and 
Related Rights in the Information Society. Enforc ement at the EU borders is covered by Council 
Regulation (EC) No. 1383/2003 and implementing Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1891/2004.  
Question  
The Government of Korea recognizes that enforcement of IPRs in the EU is based on many 
Directives and Regulations, and that the EU member  states are obliged to transpose the Directives 
into national law. Please explain, if possibl e, how each EU member state implements these 
Directives on IPR enforcement and whether non- implementation of the Directives entails any 
sanctions. 
EU reply:  EU Member States have to adjust their national legislation in order to comply with EU 
law including the IPR Enforcement directive. Member States may decide to amend relevant 
existing laws or adopt new laws, regulations or administrative provisions. The Commission may launch infringement procedures against a Member State if it appears that its national legislation is 
in breach of the EU law. 
Page 117 (Para 20) 
Support in the fruit and vegetables sector is structured through Producer Organizations, which 
may set up a fund to finance operational programmes approved by member States. The member 
States are required to establish national strategies, which define the objectives of the programmes (based on a list of objectives defined by the EU regime for fruit and vegetables) and the nature of WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 259 - 
 
  the actions that are eligible for support under these programmes. Recognition of a producer 
organization is based on a number of factors including: that membership is voluntary; that the organization contributes towards the aims of the EU regime for fruit and vegetables; and based on evidence of its ability to provide services to its members. Among the eligible actions that producer 
organizations may choose to implement under operational programmes are: crisis prevention and 
management measures such as market withdraw al (where products are withdrawn from the 
market); non-harvesting (where no commercial produce is taken); and green harvesting (total 
harvesting of non-marketable products before normal harvesting). Crisis prevention and 
management also include promotion and communication, training, harvest insurance, and support for the administrative cost of setting up mutual funds. In addition, they may also implement measures related to planning of production, im provement and maintenance of product quality, 
marketing and promotion, training and environmenta l actions. Producer organizations' operational 
funds are 50% financed from the EU budget (in some cases 60%). In 2011, the EU provided a 
total of over €1 billion in support of the fruit and vegetables sector, including €786 million for 
operational funds for producer organizations and €195 million for assistance to producer groups for 
preliminary recognition as producer organizations. 
Question  
Producer organizations may set up a fund to finance operational programs(approved by member 
states). For these operational programs, are there any common guidelines or triggering points which are provided by the European Union or Member States? Or may each producer set its own triggering point? 
EU reply:  There are common EU rules on the operatio nal fund, the operational programme and EU 
support to the operational fund as well as specific national rules. 
Common EU rules are defined by: 
The Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, establishing a common organisation of agricultural 
markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation). Among other things, regarding the fruit and vegetables sector, it sets out rules regarding: 
 The operation funds (Articles 103b); 
 The operational programmes (Articles 103c and 103g); 
 The EU financial support to operational funds (Article 103d); 
 The national strategies of Member States (Article 103f); 
 The recognition of producer organisations in the fruit and vegetables sector (Article 125b).  
 A consolidated version of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 can be found on: 
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriS erv.do?uri=CONSLEG:2007R1234:20130126:EN:P
DF.  
Specific national rules are set out in each national strategy. Together with the objectives pursued, 
the national strategy also defines: 
 the nature of the actions that are eligible for support under the operational programmes of the 
producer organisations; 
 the monitoring and evaluation requirements and procedures in relation to operational 
programmes, including the reporting obligations for producer organisations. 
EU Member States' national strategies can be found on the webpages dedicated to the fruit and 
vegetables sector on the European Commission website: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fruit-and-
vegetables/country-files/index_en.htm ). WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 260 - 
 
  Page 128, 129 (Para 53, 56) 
Under Regulation (EU) No. 1026/2012 the Commission can adopt measures against a third country 
which it has identified as allowing non-sustainable fishing of a fishing it shares with the EU. Allowing non-sustainable fishing is defined as failure to cooperate in management of the shared 
stock "in full compliance" with international law, and failing to adopt fishery-management 
measures or adopting such measures without due regard for other countries and the EU. The 
measures that may be taken include: imposing quantitative restrictions on imports of fish from the 
stock, on imports of species associated with th e stock, on imports of products made of or 
containing the stock or species associated with it; and other restrictions. Before taking such measures, the third country would be notified and it then has one month to respond and "remedy the situation 
The EU has increased the legal and regulatory framework to address illegal, unreported, and 
unregulated (IUU) fishing. Under Council Regulation (EC) No. 1005/2008 and the implementing regulations issued in 2010 and 2011, only marine fishery products validated as legal by the flag 
State or exporting State can be imported into, or exported from the EU while EU operators found 
to have fished illegally (regardless of location or flag) may be penalised. The Commission has also established a list of vessels that have engaged in IUU fishing and notified several third countries 
that the Commission considers them as possible candidates for identification as non-cooperating 
third countries pursuant to the IUU regulation. 
Question  
Please specify the reasons why the measures against a third country related to non-sustainable 
and IUU fishing are different? 
EU reply: The aim of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1005/2008 is to deter illegal, unreported and 
unregulated (IUU) fishing by not accepting IUU product on the EU market. The regulation seeks to 
ensure that legally sourced fisheries products exported to the EU market are caught in compliance 
with national and international established conservation and management measures. Flag countries concerned must also discharge their duties under international law as flag, port, coastal 
or market State and take actions to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing. On the other hand, 
Regulation (EU) No. 1026/2012 of the European Parl iament and of the Council foresees measures 
designed to address cases where failure to discharge those international obligations has adverse effects on the conservation of fish stocks and their sustainable use. It emphasises the international 
conservation and cooperation obligations under international law.  
Page 129 (Para 56) 
The EU has increased the legal and regulatory framework to address illegal, unreported, and 
unregulated (IUU) fishing. Under Council Regulation (EC) No. 1005/2008 and the implementing 
regulations issued in 2010 and 2011, only marine fishery products validated as legal by the flag State or exporting State can be imported into, or exported from the EU while EU operators found 
to have fished illegally (regardless of location or flag) may be penalised. The Commission has also 
established a list of vessels that have engaged in IUU fishing and notified several third countries that the Commission considers them as possible candidates for identification as non-cooperating third countries pursuant to the IUU regulation. 
Question  
According to the report, EU operators found to have fished illegally may be penalized. Is there a 
specific case in which EU operators were found to have fished illegally, and what was the penalty 
that they were subject to? 
Please also explain the IUU regulation in light of Article 20 of GATT. EU reply: The EU has put in place a comprehensive system of rules dealing with the control of 
fishing activities and the combat of illegal fishing as set out in the Control and IUU Regulations. 
This system ensures equal treatment between operators as to enforcement, sanctions and 
accompanying sanctions or measures. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 261 - 
 
  EU Member States are responsible for taking sanctions and accompanying sanctions or measures 
such as confiscation of illegally caught fish, in conformity with their national law, against natural persons having committed or legal persons held liable for a serious infringement. The overall level of such sanctions and accompanying sanctions or measures shall effectively deprive those 
responsible of the economic benefits derived from their serious infringements, in accordance with 
the Control and IUU Regulations. Such proceedings are not on public domain thus we are not in a position to provide concrete examples as this ma y be considered as a breach of the EU personal 
data protection rules. 
With the Control Regulation the EU has established, inter alia, a list of serious infringements of the 
rules of the common fisheries policy, including for the fight against IUU fishing. In addition, a point system for serious infringements was introduced. Under the scheme, national authorities will: 
assess alleged infringements involving vessels registered under its flag, using standard EU 
definitions impose a pre-set number of penalty points on vessels involved in serious infringements (points are recorded in the national registry of fisheries offences); suspend the vessel's license for 
2, 4, 8 or 12 months when a pre-set number of points have been accumulated in a 3-year period. 
Points are attributed to the fishing license that is  l inke d  to a ve s s e l, s o the y wi l l s tay w ith the  
vessel even when it is sold on to a new owner. Furthermore, with the IUU Regulation the EU 
provides for immediate enforcement measures once an investigation on presumed IUU fishing 
activities is started, as well as sanctions and accompanying sanctions in case of proven IUU fishing activities. 
The EU IUU regulation applies both to domestic and foreign operators without discrimination. It 
applies to all exports to the European Union of maritime fishery products, processed or not, caught 
by third country fishing vessels, and to catches made by EU fishing vessels to be exported to third countries if the third country so requires or if the products are to be re-exported to the 
European Union. 
The EU IUU Regulation pursues the environmental objective of protecting fish stocks, on the basis 
of existing national and/or international instruments. It is based on internationally recognized and 
objective criteria (applicable national and/or international conservation and management 
measures) and it does not introduce any new conservation or management measure. The instruments foreseen in the IUU Regulation already exist in international fora such as Regional Fisheries Management Organisations.  
Page 144 (Para 107) 
Table 4.24 gives an overview of the equivalence de cisions adopted under the EU financial services 
legislations. 
Question  
Under EMIR (Art.25), a clearing house established in a non-EU country must be recognized by the 
European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) before it can provide clearing services to 
clearing members established in the EU (including the non-EU branches of EU-established clearing 
members). In addition, as a precondition to the adoption of a positive recognition by ESMA, the 
European Commission is required to adopt a posi tive equivalence decision with regard to the 
regulatory framework applicable to central counterparties(CCPs) in the CCP's home country. 
In fact, the conditions associated with the recognition of clearing houses outside the EU by ESMA 
and those with 'equivalence' (as deemed by the European Commission) of these jurisdictions are 
extensive and prescriptive, giving rise to the concern that such clearing houses may not be able to 
offer services to European firms. This is not only a concern for Korea but also for EU financial 
institutions. 
Please provide more concrete criteria with regard to what the Commission uses to determine 
whether the regulatory framework applicable to CCPs in a third-country jurisdiction is equivalent to 
that of the EU. Please also provide, if possible, the technical advice which the Commission asked ESMA to provide by 15
th September 2013. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 262 - 
 
  EU reply: Regulation No 648/ 2012 of 4 July 2012 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and 
trade repositories ('EMIR') introduces a new recognition procedure for central counterparties 
(CCPs) that are established outside the European Union (EU) but wish to provide services to market participants and trading venues that are established in the Union. 
This procedure is based on financial stability grounds. Its objective is to ensure that EU financial 
markets players are not exposed to additional ri sks when they use CCPs established abroad, and 
hence avoid that such CCPs have contagion effects on EU financial institutions. 
The European securities markets authorities may recognize a foreign CCP provided the European 
Commission has adopted a decision establishing that the legally binding requirements applied for the supervision of CCPs in the country where the CCP is established are equivalent to the prudential requirements applicable to CCPs established in the Union. 
Non-EU CCPs recognised in the EU will be able to continue providing services to EU clearing 
members and trading venues whilst remaining excl usively subject to their domestic legal and 
supervisory framework. Recognition in the EU does not imply the application of any additional 
obligation under EU law. Under this approach, the EU fully relies on the application of domestic 
rules considered as equivalent to EU rules and their enforcement by domestic authorities. In order to guarantee a continuous access to information on the supervision of the CCP, cooperative 
arrangements ('MoUs') need to be established with domestic authorities. 
The purpose of equivalence decisions is to verify that the supervisory framework applicable to 
CCPs in a third-country jurisdiction delivers equivalent results in terms of the soundness and efficiency of the supervision of CCPs. This assessm ent is not aimed at checking that rules identical 
to EU rules applicable to CCPs are in place in the third-country. The assessment is 
'outcome-focused' and takes as much as possible account of the specificities of the regulatory 
context in the third-country. 
For the preparation of equivalence decisions, the European Commission has asked ESMA to 
provide technical advice on the supervisory framework applicable in third-countries. The technical advice for Korea is due by October 1
st 
(http://www.esma.europa.eu/system/fi les/2013_14_june_2013_ letter_esma.pdf ), and cannot be 
communicated at this stage.  
Page 149 (Para 117) 
Tables 4.28 to 4.30 below detail the main econom ic indicators and the existing and planned 
regulatory regimes of the various environmental services.  
Question  
Article 9 of the Water Framework Directive requir es cost-recovery (including environmental and 
resource costs) for water services, taking into account the polluter pays principle. It also requires 
the implementation of pricing policies that provid e an incentive to use water efficiently. These 
requirements were also reiterated in the Blueprint to safeguard Europe's water resources released 
in November 2012. 
Is there detailed data on the cost –recovery ratio of water services with relevant time-series price 
trend and water usage, as well as the best practi ces that promoted water efficiency through water-
pricing and cost-recovery? 
EU reply: In 2012 the European Commission assessed the River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) 
reported by Member States (MS), which were expe cted to contain information on cost recovery 
rates. However the reported data on cost recove ry is not homogenous and difficult to compare. 
This is due to the fact that in some MS cost recovery information is aggregated at national level 
while in other MS cost recovery rates are calculated at the River Basin District (RBD) or regional level. In addition, the scope of cost recovery calculations is different in different MS as some of 
them consider only water supply and waste water treatment as water services, while other MS 
include other water services such as impoundment, storage, self-abstraction, etc. Moreover, WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 263 - 
 
  financial costs are calculated differently as they may include (or not) investment or administrative 
costs; and methodologies for the calculation of environmental and resource costs also differ. 
Against this background, only the general trends can be identified: financial cost recovery rates for 
water services in the domestic and industrial sectors are usually quite high, most often between 
80%-100%. In the case of the agriculture sector (irrigation), cost recovery rates range from 20% 
to 80% mainly due to subsidies for investment's costs for water infrastructure.  
To help address the above mentioned information gaps, the European Environment Agency (EEA) 
is preparing an "Assessment of cost recovery throug h water pricing". The report will look in depth 
into cost recovery implementation in the EU through different pricing policies also to highlight good practices. The report is due later this year. With a view to promote the take of a more common EU wide approach to cost recovery and water pricing, the European Commission is working with MS 
and stakeholders to update by 2014 a Guidance document on economic aspects of water 
management (for the old Guidance see Doc. No 1 on http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/facts_figures/guidance_docs_en.htm ). 
PART II: Questions Regarding the Government Report 
Page 8 (Para34) 
Customs contributes significantly to achieving the objectives of the European Union's trade policy 
because it is instrumental in facilitating and securing trade and in countering unfair trade. On 
20 February 2012 the European Commission proposed to the European Parliament and the Council a Regulation laying down the Union Customs Code, a recast of Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 (the Modernised Customs Code). That proposal mainly aims at rescheduling the application of the new 
Code to take into account the challenge of the im plementation of new, electronic-based processes 
and aligning it with the requirem ents of the Treaty of Lisbon. 
Question  
Please explain the major changes of the UCC and it s impacts on exporters, especially SMEs in non 
EU countries.  
EU reply: The proposal for a Union Customs Code (UCC), as a recast of the Modernised Customs 
Code (MCC: Regulation (EC) No 450/2008), was tabled by the Commission on 20 February 2012 
and the ordinary legislative procedure (formerly, the 'co-decision' procedure) was then launched in European Parliament and Council. The process is not finished. The purpose of the proposal was three-fold: 
(1) postponing the application of the MCC beyond th e ultimate deadline fixed by the MCC, to offer 
sufficient time to define related more detailed rules and develop the supporting IT systems; 
(2) aligning the MCC on the requirements of Articles  290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union (Treaty of Lisbon), conc erning the empowerments to be given to the 
Commission to adopt UCC-related delegated or implementing acts; 
(3) adjusting those provisions of the MCC that revealed  no longer in line with the evolution of their 
legal environment since 2008, or unclear or diff icult to implement, however without putting 
into question the initial objectives of the MCC. 
The proposed regulation, if adopted, would apply the first day of the first month after 30 months 
following its entry into force, that is to say on 1 May 2016. 
Insofar as parts of the proposed new legislation depending on IT systems are concerned, 
transitional measures are to be adopted by th e Commission until those systems are operational. 
However such transitional measures could not apply beyond 31 December 2020. 
On substance, the proposed UCC is only a recast of the MCC (Regulation No 450/2008), following 
the same policy objectives while often with a legislative content providing more clarity and certainty about the way to meet them: WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 264 - 
 
   use of electronic data processing-techniques as a principle; 
 streamlining, harmonisation and simplification of rules and procedures; 
 clarification and harmonisation of the respective rights and obligations of customs and trade; 
 protection of the financial interests of the EU an d its MS and of the security of the international 
supply chain. 
The UCC will nevertheless offer some enhanced benefits to economic operators and in particular a 
further valorisation of the AEO status. As such, the proposal will not impact on exporters from 
third countries. 
Page15(Para32) 
On 27 January 2012, the Commission adopted a Communication on 'Trade, growth and 
development: Tailoring trade and investment policy for those countries most in need' that was 
endorsed by the European Council in March 2012. This Communication sets out a clear picture on how the European Union can best support developing countries in greatest need in order to better harness the opportunities in favour of inclusive growth and poverty reduction, in a global scenario 
which has considerably changed.  
Question  
The European Union seeks to respond to the ne eds of developing countries, to support their 
sustainable development and their integration into the global trading system. Please explain the 
specific programs that the EU is currently planning or carrying out. 
EU reply: The EU and its Member States provide assistance to developing countries concerning 
trade policies and practices through a wide range of EU and national instruments, at country, 
regional and, in the case of Africa, continental level.  
These actions are outlined in the EU annual Aid for Trade report, of which the latest version can be 
found at the following internet address: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-
policies/financing_for_development/documents/swp-199-annexa4-aid-for-trade-report.pdf .  
The 2013 Aid for Trade Monitoring Report will be published in July 2013.  
M o r e  i n  d e t a i l ,  e x a m p l e s  o f  E U  s u p p o r t  t o  A i d  f o r  T r a d e  c a n  b e  f o u n d  a t :  
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/docu ments/2012/ec_aid-for-trade_en.pdf .  
Finally, all EU development programs and projects are available from the OECD Creditor Reporting 
System: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?QueryId=33364 .  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 265 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM MALAYSIA 
GOVERNMENT REPORT 
3.2 WTO and the Multilateral Agenda  
3.8 Looking forward and beyond the successful  MC9, the European Union remains fully 
committed to furthering negotiations on the remaining elements of the DDA with a view to 
concluding the entire round. 
Question 
How does the EU foresee Members furthering negotiations on the remaining areas of the 
DDA negotiations post-Bali. Does the EU perc eive an agreed roadma p attainable at MC9? 
EU reply:  The EU is of the view that a successful MC9, which sees an agreement among Members 
on a limited set of DDA issues including on Trade Facilitation, is a prerequisite for further work on 
the DDA in the immediate future. The precise modaliti es of this work will need to be defined by 
WTO Members. 
Negotiations for a Plurilateral Agreement on Trade in Services 
3.10. Following the political guidance of the 8t h WTO Ministerial Conference, the European Union 
has been in discussions with other WTO members with a view to making progress on services 
liberalisation. In participating in plurilateral negotiations on trade in services, the European Union 
is ready to contribute to an ambitious agreement that would attract broad participation and which 
could be multilateralised in the future. 
3.11. In this context, the European Union advo cates that a plurilateral agreement should be 
perfectly compatible with the GATS so that it could be multilateralised and thereby support the 
multilateral trading system. 
Question 
What is the EU's view on the likelihood of  achieving an ambitious outcome from this 
plurilateral agreement given that as more count ries are involved in the negotiations; the 
more difficult it would be to reach this goal. As the EU's top priority is to preserve and 
strengthen the multilateral trading system, can the EU elaborate on the architecture that 
is being deliberated and how this new agr eement would be compatible with the GATS 
and mutilateralised in the future.  
EU reply: The EU believes that the participants involved in the plurilateral negotiations share the 
same objective to negotiate an ambitious agr eement that is built wi th GATS and can be 
multilateralised in the future. This common objective is demonstrated by the fact that during the 
last round of negotiations, participants tabled negotiation proposals on a wide range of sectors, including ICT and e-commerce, maritime transpor t, Mode 4, professional services, domestic 
regulation and financial services. More text prop osals were announced for the coming weeks. The 
EU has to respect the negotiating etiquette and cannot disclose specific elements of the architecture. We can however say that the WTO system and the GATS have proven to be a 
versatile system that caters for asymmetric commitments and asymmetric sets of rules (Telecoms 
Reference Paper or Understanding on scheduling of Financial Services not being adhered to by all the participants). 
IPR enforcement 
2.32. In May 2011, companies, trade associations and internet platforms signed a Memorandum of 
Understanding (MoU) on the sale of counterfeit goods over the internet, which aims at developing good practices in order to tackle online counterfe iting. An evaluation report was adopted by the 
European Commission in April 2013. Furthermore, signatories agreed in the last quarter of 2012 to WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 266 - 
 
  extend the MoU to companies from other sectors of industry as well as to broaden the scope of 
application of the agreement. 
2.33. The European Commission set up in 2009 the European Observatory on Counterfeiting and 
Piracy, which was moved to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)9 in 2012 
and renamed the 'European Observatory on Infrin gements of Intellectual Property Rights'. It 
covers all IP rights and functions as a central resource for gathering, monitoring and reporting crucial information that will improve the knowledge about the phenomenon of counterfeiting and 
piracy, and allow the European Union to target en forcement resources. It also encourages greater 
collaboration between the public and private se ctor in IPR enforcement. In July 2012, the 
European Parliament voted against ACTA, the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, and hence the EU will not be a party to it. 
Question 
How does the EU monitor and identify the sale of counterfeit goods over the internet?  
EU reply: Following the signature of the Memorandum of  Understanding on the sale of Counterfeit 
Goods over the Internet 
(http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/iprenforcement/docs/memorandum_04052011_en.pdf ) the 
EU has set up a Dialogue that brings together a representative group of leading right holders and 
internet platforms in a joint effort to reduce the sale of counterfeits via e-commerce platforms. 
All relevant information can be found here: 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/iprenforceme nt/stakeholders/index_en.htm#maincontentSec
2.  
SECRETARIAT REPORT 
Chapter 2.4.1 Unilateral Preferences regarding to General Scheme of Preferences (GSP) 
2.27 GSP, GSP+ and EBA treatment may be temp orarily withdrawn in certain circumstances, 
including: serious and systematic violation of human and labour rights; exported goods being 
made by prison labour; serious shortcomings in customs control ……. Temporary withdrawal is preceded by an investigation. 
Question 
1. Could the EU share on the investigation mechanism for the temporary withdrawal? 
EU reply: The investigation mechanism for temporary withdrawal of preferences is detailed in the 
Regulation 978/2012 under:  
 Articles 19 to 21 for the withdrawal mechanism which is common to all arrangements 
(Standard GSP, GSP+ and Everything-but-Arms). 
 Articles 15 and 16 for the withdrawal mechanism which is applicable to GSP+. 
On the basis of Articles 15.12 and 19.14 of the re gulation, the EU is now working on adopting legal 
acts to establish detailed rules related to those procedures, in particular with respect to deadlines, rights of parties, confidentiality and review. Th ese rules will be published by the end of 2013. 
2. Can temporary withdrawal of GSP, GSP+  and EBA be based on reports from 
Agencies and news articles? 
EU reply: Article 19.6 of the Regulation 978/2012 prov ides that the Commission shall seek all 
information it considers necessary and relevant for the investigation. The assessments, comments, 
decisions, recommendations and conclusions of the relevant monitoring bodies are essential, but other sources of information, when adequate and accurate, can also be taken into consideration. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 267 - 
 
  In any case, preferences will be  withdrawn only if the EU considers that the findings of the 
investigation justify this decision.  
3. Although Malaysia is currently negoti ating a Free Trade agreement with the 
European Union, the country is still en joying trade preferences under the EU 
Generalised Scheme of Preferences. Yet this arrangement is due to lapse at the 
end of this year with the introduction of the EU's new Gene ralised Scheme of 
Preferences' system which excludes up per middle economies like Malaysia. Given 
that the EU-Malaysia Free Trade Agreem ent will more than probably not be 
concluded by then, this clearly induces a certain degree of legal uncertainty in the 
mind of both the government and European and Malaysian businesses. Therefore, can the Commission explain which initiative s have been taken so far or which one 
will be in the near future to remedy this situation? 
EU reply: The EU adopted the reformed GSP Regulation in October 2012, which is 14 months prior 
to the entry into force of the revised preferen ces. The publication of the new Regulation was 
accompanied by a comprehensive information packag e explaining the changes and implications to 
all affected beneficiaries (see http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-
regions/development/generalised-sch eme-of-preferences/index_en.htm ).  
In addition, the EU has during the decision -making process on the GSP reform clearly 
communicated the objectives behind the reform with its focus on countries most in need. See for example, Malaysia was clearly indicated as an upper-middle income country in the Impact Assessment of 2011 
(http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/ia_c arried_out/docs/ia_2011/sec_2011_0536_en.pdf ).  
Thus, the EU considers that the Government of Malaysia and businesses both in the EU and 
Malaysia have been given the legal certainty necessary to adapt to the new applicable regime as of 
1 January 2014. 
3.241. Since its previous Trade Policy Review in 2011, the EU has continued to review and develop 
its legislative framework for the protection and enfo rcement of intellectual property rights (IPRs) in 
response to a rapidly changing economic and technological environment. In particular, in its May 
2011 "blueprint" for IPRs to boost creativity and innovation, the European Commission recognized the need to adapt and modernize the existing body of IPR legislation in order to reduce its current fragmentation. The objective is to establish a coherent and holistic framework that contributes to 
enhanced economic growth, job creation and co mpetitiveness the EU's single market, while 
ensuring a high level of protection of IPRs, and taking into account cultural diversity. For this purpose, the Commission proposed a comprehensive st rategy, which includes a series of actions in 
key areas. Among others, those are the introduction of a unitary patent and specialized patent 
court, the modernisation of the trademark system , the streamlining of copyright licensing and 
revenue distribution, and the strengthening of IPR enforcement both within the EU and at its 
borders. They will be discussed in detail in the relevant sections below. At the same time, the 
Commission recognized the need to opt for a balanced approach that provides the right incentives to promote creative and innovative activity and to preserve cultural diversity, and ensures the 
widest possible access to IPR-protected creations and innovations.  
Question 
Can the EU elaborate on the nature of the ri ght incentives that ar e provided to promote 
creative and innovative activity on IP R among Member States and the intended 
timeframe of the IPR blueprint?  
EU reply: The initiatives mentioned in the 2011 blueprint are developed in the following 
paragraphs of the secretariat report: paragraphs 3.242 to 3.316. 
As stated in the Secretariat report paragraph 3.24 4, 3.24. the IPR regime in the EU is governed 
both by EU legislation and legislation in member States, the latter being competent to set up 
incentives for innovation relating for example to tax laws or subsidies, with the strict limitation of 
respecting EU competition policy and EU legislation relating to intellectual property. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 268 - 
 
  Supplementary protection certificates 
3.268. Although closely related to, and conferring the same rights as the basic patent, 
supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) have been described by the Commission as a sui 
generis IP category that only applies after expiry of the basic patent.292 Making SPCs available 
aims to restore effective patent protection for certain regulated products; they are designed to 
compensate the right holder for the time it takes from the filing of a patent application to the marketing authorization, and the potentially negative impact resulting from the reduction of the 
effective period of market exclusivity to recove r R&D investment. SPCs are available for medicinal 
products (Regulation (EC) No. 469/2009293) and plant-protection products (Regulation (EC) No. 1610/96294). Both regulations are motivated by the desire to incentivize further research into medicinal and plant protection products and to en sure that those products are developed in the 
EU. For this purpose, SPCs confer an additional period of market exclusivity of no more than five 
years to the right holder, provided that an ov erall maximum of 15 years of exclusivity on the 
market from the time of first marketing of the product concerned is not exceeded. Protection 
under an SPC is strictly confined to the product which obtained marketing authorization as a 
medicinal product in the first place. Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No. 1901/2006 provides for an 
additional six-month extension for compliance with new pediatric-related requirements. 
Question: 
Could EU share what are the selection criteria to be used in determining a product to be 
fit as marketing authorization as a medicinal product? 
EU reply: To guarantee the highest possible level of public  health and to secure the availability of 
medicinal products to citizens across the European Union, all medicinal products for human use 
have to be authorised either at Member State or Union level before they can be placed on the EU market. Special rules exist for the authorisation of medicinal products for paediatric use, orphan 
medicines, traditional herbal medicines, vaccines and clinical trials. 
Further information on authorization procedures can be found on the website of the European 
Medicines Agency ( http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/ ) and relevant national agencies (a list of 
which to be found here: 
http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=p ages/medicines/general/general_content_00015
5.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac0580036d63 . 
3.3.5.3.5 Geographical Indications 
3.280. Applications for registration of GIs of products originating in a geographic area in the EU 
are sent to the relevant member State which scrutinizes the application and initiates a national opposition procedure. If the member State consid ers that the application meets the requirements 
for registration at EU level and no valid oppositi on has been received, it  may take a favourable 
decision and transmit the application to the European Commission. Member States may charge a fee to cover their costs. The Commission scrutinizes applications in order to check that they are 
justified and meet the conditions of the respective scheme. 
Question 
Could EU share what are the requirements that member St ate considers for application 
to meet the requirements for registration? 
EU reply: The requirements are those set out in Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 for agricultural 
products and foodstuffs GIs, Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 for wine GIs and Regulation (EC) 
No 110/2008 for spirits GIs.  
3.37. The 2013 tariff comprises 9,376 lines at the eight-digit level: around one-quarter of all tariff 
lines are duty free; and approximately 9% of lines are "nuisance" rates (Table 3.2). WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 269 - 
 
  Question 
What constitutes these nuisance tariff lines and does the EU consider removing these 
tariffs in the future?  
EU reply: The nuisance tariffs referred to by the WTO Secretariat are those greater than zero, but 
less than or equal to 2%, which are bound in the EU's WTO Schedule. Any change will result from 
a successful conclusion to the DDA. In the meanti me, the EU will continue to respect its WTO 
commitments. 
3.3.5.4.4 Measuring the impact of counterfeiting and piracy 
3.309. To address the steady increase in counter feiting and piracy, the Commission launched the 
European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy in April 2009. Its objectives are to gather and monitor information regarding counterfeiting and piracy on the EU's internal market, to exchange 
experiences and share best practices in combatin g counterfeiting and piracy, and to raise public 
awareness. Acknowledging that IPR enforcement requires close coordination between public 
administrations and businesses, the Observatory' s membership is composed of representatives 
from the public and private sectors, including European and national associations actively engaged 
in combating counterfeiting and piracy. 
3.310. As a contribution to developing evidence-based IP policies, the Commission is also 
considering the development of a methodology to better quantify the scope, scale and impact of 
IPR infringements on the EU's economy. A study, commissioned by the Directorate General for the Internal Market, found that there is currently no reliable or accepted methodology to estimate the 
extent of counterfeiting and piracy. It sugg ested possible objective and evidence-based 
approaches on how to define such a methodology so that the impact of infringements on sales can 
be more accurately measured. 
Question 
There already exists a number of legal inst ruments in place, however, what are the 
approaches taken by the EU that make them more effective in combating fake goods?  
EU reply: The Commission played an instrumental role in setting up a dialogue between major 
private sector stakeholders, including companies and associations, which led to the signing of a 
Memorandum of Understanding, on 4 May 2011, on the sale of counterfeit goods over the internet. The MoU establishes a code of practice designed to effectively combat the sale of such goods, including through notice and take-down procedures, and to strengthen collaboration between the 
signatories. A report on the functioning of the MoU which aims at developing good practices in 
order to tackle online counterfeiting will be adopted in April 2013. Signatories are considering 
extending the MoU to companies from other industry sectors, as well as broadening its scope of 
application.  
The European Observatory on infringements of IPR serves as a platform to join forces, to 
exchange experiences and information and to  share best practices on enforcement.  
All relevant information on the issue of enforcement of intellectual property right by the European 
Union can be found here: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/iprenforcement/index_en.htm .  
4.3.1.2.5 Third-country regime 
4.104. The new European legislation on financial services does not introduce new market access or 
national-treatment limitations. It establishes a new and comprehensive regulatory framework and 
extends regulation over new markets, entities, and activities. 
EU reply: The EU legislation on financial services includes prudential legislation in line with 
international standards agreed in G20, Basel Committee and others. The EU strives for 
strengthening of financial markets while avoiding barriers to cross-border trade. Therefore, the EU foresees in its legislation the possibility to oper ate under a third country regime, provided that the 
prudential standards are equivalent to those applied in the EU to EU operators. In addition, a WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 270 - 
 
  cooperation agreement between the supervisory au thority in the home country of the financial 
services provider and the competent authority in the EU may be required. In turn, we would not 
consider more stringent prudential requirements adopted by a third-country to be an unjustified barrier to trade in financial services as long as those requirements are proportionate and can be 
justified for prudential reasons. 
4.105. Regarding cross-border supply of services, mo st of the recent legislation adopted by the EU 
includes third-country regimes under which foreig n-based operators are allowed to pursue their 
activities linked with European financial markets, provided that certain prudential requirements are 
met, in particular that the regulatory system under which they operate locally is considered of equivalent quality with that of the EU. 
4.106. This system thus guarantees that, for instance, foreign credit-rating agencies and foreign 
auditors can provide their services to European consumers from abroad if their national 
supervisory and regulatory systems have been granted equivalence by the European Commission 
on the basis of recommendations by European independent supervisory agencies. 
Question 
1. Under paragraph 4.104 it states that the new European legislation does not 
introduce new market access or national  treatment limitations, whereas with 
reference to paragraph 4.105 it states that "  most f the recent legislation adopted 
by the EU includes third country regime s under which foreign-based operators are 
allowed to pursue their activities linked with European financial markets, provided 
that certain prudential requir ements are, in particular that the regulatory system 
under which they operate locally is consider ed of equivalent quality with that of 
the EU. " Thus under this paragraph 4.105, the prudential requirements imposed 
remain unchanged too? 
2. Since there is no new market access being introduced, how does EU make sure 
that the establishment of this new and co mprehensive legislation will not put more 
restrictions that could affect market a ccess for foreign operators? How does EU 
ensure that the equivalence assessment is  carried out in a transparent and fair 
manner, and no discrimination to foreign- operators from the developing countries? 
EU reply: Under the EU financial regulatory framework, foreign financial operators legally 
established in the EU will benefit from the same rights as EU operators. No supplementary 
restriction will be imposed on them. 
The declaration of equivalence is a decision taken by the European Commission in full 
independence, on the basis of a technical assessment produced by one of the three European 
financial supervisory agencies whose statutes guarantee absolute independence. 
Table 4.24 State of play of equivalence decisions 
Legal Instruments  Detailed status 
Proposed legal 
instruments  The Commission's proposals on a Directive on markets in financial 
instruments (MiFID II), a Regulation on markets in financial instruments 
(MiFIR), and a Regulation on improving securities settlement in the 
European Union and on central securities depositories (CSDs Regulation) contain equivalence provisions. The proposals are currently under negotiation in the European Parliament and the Council  
Question  
Can the EU inform when is the Commission proposals on a Directive on markets in 
financial instruments (MiFID II) expect ed to be completed and implemented? 
EU reply: The proposal to revise the directive on markets in financial instruments is currently 
discussed by the European Parliament an d the Council of the European Union.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 271 - 
 
  4.108. Concerning commercial presence and in particular subsidiaries, European regulations 
continue to apply to all financial operators regardless of their origin. Foreign-owned subsidiaries can benefit from a "European passport" allowing them to pursue their activities in the whole 
European internal market. 
4.109. Regarding branches, several EU financial regulations give competence to member States to 
authorize and supervise activities of branches in  their territory, provided they respect minimum 
standards in such authorization and supervision. The activity of the branch is limited to the 
territory of the member State which authorises the third-country company to establish a branch. 
For example, the capital requirement directives and the regulation setting up a Single Supervisory Mechanism give member States (and national supe rvisors) competence to authorize and supervise 
branches of foreign banks wanting to establish themselves in their territory. 
Question  
1. Could EU share what this "European Passport" is about and how does this relate to 
MiFID II. 
EU reply: The "European/single passport" is a system which allows financial services operators 
legally established in one EU Member State to establish/provide their services in the other EU Member States without further authorisation requirements. The proposal of the Commission to 
revise the directive on Markets in Financial Instruments (MiFID), which is still being discussed by 
the European Parliament and the Council, includes new provisions on "passport" which would allow a third country financial operator's branch established in an EU Member State to provide services in all other EU Member States.  
2. How can foreign-owned subsidiaries benefit from the "European Passport" when 
the power to authorize and supervise branches of foreign banks wanting to establish themselves in those territory has been delegated to each EU member 
states? How does EU make sure that its member states respect the minimum 
standards? 
EU reply: The EU and foreign financial institutions are treated the same way: once a financial 
services operator is legally established in one EU Member State, it may establish/provide its 
services in the other EU Member States without further authorisation requirements.  
4.8. It is expected that further reforms of the CAP will be decided in 2013 for implementation in 
2014. 
Question  
Can the EU please explain what these furthe r reforms of the CAP would entail and could 
the EU share the outcome of the inter-in stitutional process with the European 
Parliament and the Council.  
EU reply: The three broad objectives of the future CAP are 'viable food production', 'sustainable 
management of natural resources' and 'balanced territorial development', which respond directly 
to the economic, environmental and territorial ba lance challenges identified in the European 
Commission's Communication 'The CAP towards 2020: Meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future' published in 2010, and which guide the proposed legislative changes to the CAP. The reform of the CAP for the period 2014-2020 is based on 4 main 
regulations which concern:  
 rules for direct payments, 
 the Single Common Market Organisation, 
 support for rural development programmes, 
 horizontal matters related to financing, management and monitoring of the CAP. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 272 - 
 
  The European Commission presented legislative proposals for these four regulations in October 
2011. The proposals have been subject to a process of inter-institutional negotiations between the European Commission, the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament which led to a political agreement on the reform of the CAP reached on 26 June 2013. The formal adoption 
of the reform is expected later in 2013 with a view to having the new CAP in place as from 
1 January 2014. Detailed information about the CAP post-2013 reform can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/index_en.htm .  
4.30. In its Uruguay Round commitments, the EU rese rved the right to use the Special Agricultural 
Safeguard (SSG) on 539 tariff lines. However, actual use of the SSG has been on a limited range of products. The price-based SSG has been made operational for chicken, turkey, and sugar products almost continuously, with some egg products added since marketing year 2007/08. The 
EU has calculated trigger volumes for fruit and vegetables on a regular basis but the volume-based 
SSG has never been implemented. 
Question 
Can the EU inform the number of times she has utilised the SSG since the last TPR and 
what were the reasons for continuous price- based SSG on chicken, turkey and sugar.  
EU reply: As mentioned in paragraph 4.30 the price-based SSG has been applied for chicken, 
turkey, and sugar products almost continuously. The application of safeguard measures depends 
on international prices in comparison with EU prices.  
4.32. For measures notified under the Green Box, decoupled income support remains the main 
element, under the Blue Box most support goes to cereal planting and beef cattle, while most 
support under the Amber Box is for cereals, beef and sugar (Charts 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5). 
Question 
Referring to Chart 4.3, can the EU explain th e reasons on the consistent high-level of 
decoupled income support for the period from 2006/2007-2009/2010 and what 
agriculture products receive such support? 
EU reply: The EU's domestic support notification G/AG/N/EEC/58 of 24 February 2009 presents 
the 2003 reform of the CAP which introduced the Single Payment Scheme. The Single Payment 
Scheme complies with the criteria for decoupled income support under paragraph 6 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Support under th e Single Payment Scheme is not granted for 
specific products.  
SECRETARIAT REPORT 
3.1.8 TECHNICAL REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS 
3.92. In the context of the last TPR of the EU, some WTO Members were concerned that the EU's 
technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures would create unnecessary obstacles 
to trade such as the compliance overburdens on foreign small-and-medium-sized enterprises. In response, the EU indicated that its regulations, most of which are subject to an impact 
assessment, are developed according to a transparent process allowing ample opportunity for 
interested parties from other WTO Members to participate and make their views known, and are largely based on relevant international standa rds. Moreover, regulatory impact assessments 
contain a specific "SME test" that analyses in detail the effects of the legislative proposals on 
SMEs. The Commission pointed out that several measures were taken to mitigate the compliance 
burdens on SMEs (e.g. reduced registration or conformity assessment fees, simplified administrative requirements, etc.). The EU also pr ovides technical assistance to assist developing 
countries meet regulatory requirements on bilateral and multilateral bases. Between January 2011 
and February 2013, WTO Members raised concerns in the TBT Committee over several measures proposed or adopted by the EU or its individual member States (Table 3.7). (Pg.58) WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 273 - 
 
  Question 
Could the EU clarify whether the regulation on Renewable Energy Directive notified to 
the TBT Committee under G/TBT/M/54 was subject to impact assessment? If 
affirmative, could the EU share th e findings of such assessment? 
EU reply:  The EU draft measures falling under the scope of the TBT Agreement are notified to the 
other WTO Members in accordance with the TBT Agreement and the recommendations of the TBT Committee of 1995 when a draft with a complete text of a proposed measure is available and 
when comments can be considered and taken into account and amendments be introduced. 
Legislative proposals are notified as soon as they are adopted by the European Commission and 
submitted to the co-legislators of the European Un ion (the European Parliament and the Council of 
the EU). Drafts to be adopted by the European Commission on the basis of a legislative act are 
notified in parallel to the discussions with EU Member States. Comments from WTO Members can 
be taken into account in the discussions with co-legislators and Member States. The EU always carefully considers other WTO Members' comments and provides written and oral responses to all 
comments received within the deadline of usually 60 to 90 days. In cases where this would not risk 
the non-fulfilment of the legitimate objectives purs ued, the draft may be modified on the basis of 
the comments of other WTO Members. For more in formation, other WTO Member can consult the 
EU TBT database where all the comments and EU  replies to them, which also explain how the 
notified text has been modified or why it has not been modified following comments from a WTO Member, are publicly available (http://ec.euro pa.eu/enterprise/tbt/). Examples where WTO 
Members' comments have led to modifications of the originally proposed texts are notifications 
G/TBT/N/EEC/15, G/TBT/N/EEC/264 (wine), G/TB T/N/EU/75, G/TBT/N/EU/79, G/TBT/N/EU/80 
(ecodesign). 
In this context, it is also worth noting that the EU's legislative process is highly transparent. The 
Commission publishes its work programme, including the drafting of new legislation, every year. 
Any legislative proposal is preceded by an extensive stakeholder consultation, which is open to third countries' stakeholders and governments (all consultations are published on the Europa 
website at the Your Voice in Europe page: http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/index_en.htm ) and is 
also based on an extensive impact assessment evaluating the economic, environmental and social 
consequences of the available policy options, including their compatibility with the international trade obligations of the EU. In addition, substantive amendments to the original European 
Commission's legislative proposal introduced by the EU Council or the European Parliament are 
also subject to an impact assessment. The outcome,  in the EU's view, is that the finally adopted 
text is not more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil the legitimate objectives being pursued, 
and therefore does not create unnecessary obstacles to trade. 
3.85. The Regulation (EC) No. 764/2008 provides procedures relating to the application of member 
States' technical requirements, and requires the Commission to publish "a non-exhaustive list of 
products which are not subject to Community harmonization legislation". Directive 98/34/EC 
obliges member States to notify the Commission and other member States of any draft technical regulation concerning any product together with a statement of the grounds which make the enactment of that regulation necessary. If the proposed technical rule is considered justified, the 
Commission requests member States to include in the notified text a "mutual recognition clause" 
in the interests of transparency and legal certainty for national administrations and economic operators. This notification procedure has existed since the early 1980s. (Pg.57) 
Question 
Malaysia is of the view that the EU draft regulations are notified to the WTO at a stage 
when deliberations among EU member Stat es have progressed too far to allow 
meaningful consideration of WTO Members. Co uld the EU provide data on the number of 
draft regulations that are modified after bein g notified to the WTO, in response to WTO 
Members' comments? 
EU reply: The EU draft measures falling under the scope of the TBT Agreement are notified to the 
other WTO Members in accordance with the TBT Agreement and the recommendations of the TBT 
Committee of 1995 when a draft with a complete text of a proposed measure is available and when comments can be considered and taken into account and amendments be introduced. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 274 - 
 
  Legislative proposals are notified as soon as they are adopted by the European Commission and 
submitted to the co-legislators of the European Un ion (the European Parliament and the Council of 
the EU). Drafts to be adopted by the European Commission on the basis of a legislative act are notified in parallel to the discussions with EU Member States. Comments from WTO Members can 
be taken into account in the discussions with co-legislators and Member States. The EU always 
carefully considers other WTO Members' comments and provides written and oral responses to all comments received within the deadline of usually 60 to 90 days. In cases where this would not risk 
the non-fulfilment of the legitimate objectives purs ued, the draft may be modified on the basis of 
the comments of other WTO Members. For more in formation, other WTO Member can consult the 
EU TBT database where all the comments and EU  replies to them, which also explain how the 
notified text has been modified or why it has not been modified following comments from a WTO 
Member, are publicly available (http://ec.euro pa.eu/enterprise/tbt/). Examples where WTO 
Members' comments have led to modifications of the originally proposed texts are notifications G/TBT/N/EEC/15, G/TBT/N/EEC/264 (wine), G/TB T/N/EU/75, G/TBT/N/EU/79, G/TBT/N/EU/80 
(ecodesign).  
In this context, it is also worth noting that the EU's legislative process is highly transparent. The 
Commission publishes its work programme, including the drafting of new legislation, every year. 
Any legislative proposal is preceded by an extensive stakeholder consultation, which is open to 
third countries' stakeholders and governments (all consultations are published on the Europa website at the Your Voice in Europe page: http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/index_en.htm ) and is 
also based on an extensive impact assessment evaluating the economic, environmental and social 
consequences of the available policy options, including their compatibility with the international 
trade obligations of the EU. In addition, substantive amendments to the original European Commission's legislative proposal introduced by the EU Council or the European Parliament are 
also subject to an impact assessment. The outcome,  in the EU's view, is that the finally adopted 
text is not more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil the legitimate objectives being pursued, and therefore does not create unnecessary obstacles to trade. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 275 - 
 
  RESPUESTAS DE LA UE A LAS PREGUNTAS DE MÉXICO  
Informe de la Unión Europea. WT/TPR/G/284.  2.1 Resultados económicos y retos futuros. 2.6.  Las últimas lecturas de los indicadores de 
algunos estudios sugieren que la economía de la UE y la zona del euro deberían empezar a 
mejorar a principios de 2013. Según las previsiones de invierno 2013 de los servicios de la 
Comisión, que parten del supuesto de que la cohe rente aplicación de las decisiones de política a 
nivel tanto de la UE como de los Estados miembros seguirá reduciendo la incertidumbre y 
aumentando la confianza, se pronostica una estabilización de la producción en la UE y la zona del 
euro en el primer semestre de 2013.3 En 2012, la  economía de la UE y de la zona del euro 
experimentaron una contracción del 0,3% y el 0,6%, respectivamente. Dados los considerables problemas estructurales existentes en algunos Estados miembros de la zona del euro, sigue siendo 
probable que esta experimente una contracción del 0,25% en 2013, en tanto que, según las previsiones, el PIB de la UE apenas variará. Para 2014 se prevé que el crecimiento en ambas zonas sea de alrededor del 1,5%. 
1.  Pregunta MX: Podría explicar la Unión Europea en lo posible, ¿cuáles son los principales 
problemas estructurales más importantes que aún persisten en algunos Estados miembros de la zona del euro y cuáles son las perspectivas actualmente en cada caso? 
EU reply:  The main structural problems of the EU Me mber States (rather than of the EU proper) 
concern high unemployment, slow growth and co mpetitiveness issues in a number of Member 
States as a result of rigidities in the labour  market and product and service markets. Some 
Member States also have relevant problems of fiscal sustainability related to high fiscal deficits and 
debt, and the demographic ageing. 
During recent years, there has been a heightened reform dynamism in all these area, as a result 
to market pressure and a progressively more demanding EU (and in particular euro area-related) 
economic governance. Very often, the crisis hide s some of the progress that has taken place to 
overcome these structural problems. 
Since the structural impediments to growth and other structural issues are fundamentally of 
domestic nature, i.e. they differ among Member States, it is not possible to give a response that 
covers all of them. However, a number of recently published papers provide a good country-by-country description of the issues. The reader is referred for example to the series of papers on macroeconomic imbalances published for 13 of the EU Member States in April 2013 (see at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/index_en.htm ), as well as a 
specific report on the fiscal sustainability issues, which was published at end-2012 (see: 
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2012/fiscal-sustainability-
report_en.htm ).  
Informe de la Unión Europea. WT/TPR/G/284.  
2.3 Evolución del mercado interior y de los elementos principales de política general. 
Mercado único. 2.28 . El mercado único sigue siendo el principal vehículo de crecimiento y 
creación de empleo de la Unión Europea. La modernización y profundización del mercado único es un ejercicio continuo, ya que el mercado único debe responder a un mundo en constante evolución en el que los desafíos sociales y demográficos, y las nuevas tecnologías y nuevos imperativos, 
como el cambio climático, deben incorporarse al pensamiento político.  
2.  Pregunta MX: ¿Podría explicarnos la Unión Europea cuáles son los principales imperativos, 
incluido el cambio climático, que está incorporando la Unión Europea dentro del 
pensamiento político y las políticas en general, así como en la política comercial en 
particular? 
EU reply:  Global economic integration is quickening, driven by growing trade and capital flows, 
deepening financial markets, falling transportation costs, and the revolution in information and 
communications technology. This is creating unprecedented opportunities for growth and WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 276 - 
 
  development. But it is also putting new pressures on natural resources, in particular our climate, 
and on traditional industries and livelihoods. It has eroded old certainties and aroused new fears. 
More countries than ever before are seizing the oppo rtunities of globalisation. In the second half of 
the twentieth century, the United States, Europe and Japan drove the global economy. Today they 
are being joined by increasingly open and expanding economies, in particular China and India, but 
also Brazil, Russia and others. The EU is already very open to exports from these emerging and other developing countries and is ready to go further. But most emerging countries combine high 
growth with unnecessarily high barriers to EU expo rts. As their role and the benefits they draw 
from the global trading system grow, so too do their responsibilities to play a full part in 
maintaining a global regime that favours openness. 
The rapid development of regional and global value chains has been a step change for trade 
policymaking. Today, products are no longer made in one place from start to finish. Instead, they 
a r e  p u t  t o g e t h e r  i n  a  l o n g  s e r i e s  o f  s t e p s ,  o f t e n  i n  d i f f e r e n t  p a r t s  o f  t h e  w o r l d .  T h i s  n e w  organisation of production blurs economic fronti ers and transforms trade relations. This means 
that national exports and imports can no longer be approached from a narrow, mercantilist angle. 
The core objective of the EU's trade policy must  be to maintain, and where necessary, re-invent, 
Europe's place in global supply chains. In a knowledge society, intangible assets are a crucial 
component of many goods and services. Europe needs innovation to secure comparative 
advantage against competitors with lower labour, energy and raw materials costs. EU investments in creativity, research, design and quality are a unique asset of the European economy, but are 
also particularly vulnerable to poor enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR) in other 
jurisdictions. Effective protection of IPR is ther efore essential to fully harness the potential of 
European added value.The "World, Trade, and Growth Affairs" communication, available at 
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/d ocs/2010/november/tradoc_146955.pdf , provides for a 
comprehensive overview of the key elements and objectives of the EU trade policy, including with 
regard to green growth. 
Informe de la Unión Europea. WT/TPR/G/284.  
Párrafo 2.47. El comercio y los servicios en línea representan ya más del 20% del crecimiento y de 
la creación neta de empleo en determinados Estados miembros, y con las medidas anunciadas se pretende fomentar aún más ese potencial, especialmente infundiendo confianza en los servicios en línea. Además, el desarrollo del comercio electrónico y de los servicios en línea representa un 
potencial considerable con efectos económicos y sociales beneficiosos. Por ejemplo, un estudio 
reciente muestra que la economía de Internet crea  2,6 puestos de trabajo por cada empleo "no en 
línea" destruido y ofrece a menudo una mayor capacidad de elección para los consumidores, 
inclusive en las zonas rurales y aisladas. Promoción y apoyo de las actividades económicas de las 
PYME fuera de la UE 2.48. El 9 de noviembre de 2011, la Comisión Europea adoptó la Comunicación "Pequeñas empresas en un mundo grande: una nueva asociación que ayude a las 
PYME a aprovechar oportunidades globales".17 Esta Comunicación pretende establecer una 
estrategia de la Unión Europea más coherente y eficaz para apoyar a las PYME en los mercados internacionales y aprovechar mejor los recursos exis tentes. Para alcanzar esos objetivos, la nueva 
estrategia establece seis campos de actuación: fortalecer el suministro de servicios de apoyo 
existente y hacer un inventario del mismo; crear un portal de información virtual único para las 
PYME; hacer que los sistemas de apoyo a nivel de la UE sean más coherentes; promover agrupaciones y redes para la internacionalización de las PYME; racionalizar nuevas actividades en 
los mercados prioritarios; y potenciar las políticas exteriores de la UE vigentes.  
3.  Pregunta MX: Respecto a la nueva estrategia que va a establecer la Unión Europea para 
apoyo a la PYME, ¿Podría ofrecer detalles sobre la calendarización de acciones específicas 
en esos seis campos de actuación? En particular, se agradecería contar con información 
más específica sobre cómo se llevará a cabo tanto la promoción de agrupaciones y redes para la internacionalización de las PYME como la racionalización de nuevas acciones en mercados prioritarios.  
EU reply:  The main objective of the Commission Communication "Small Business Big World…" is 
aimed at facilitating EU SMEs access to third country markets by supporting a number of tools, 
investing in structures, facilitating easier access to information, as well as creating a better 
synergy between the assistance offered at EU and Member States level to European SMEs.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 277 - 
 
  Several measures are in place that helps European companies to internationalise. The Enterprise 
Europe Network is a unique network put at the disposal of SMEs in and outside Europe. With 600 partners, it currently covers 53 countries, all over the world. Various cluster initiatives are being developed aimed at strengthening the EU based cluster organisations and encouraging them to 
maintain contacts with their third country counterparts. The European Commission supports also a 
number of structures in Asia for instance the EU-SME Centre in China, the European-ASEAN Business Centre in Thailand, the European Business and Technological Centre in India, as well as 
the IPR Helpdesks in China and in ASEAN countries. These structures provide valuable services to 
European companies helping them to establish commercial activities with third country partners.  
The European Commission has also recently completed a study that listed the existing support 
services available for EU SMEs willing to intern ationalise in chosen third country markets. The 
results of this study will form basis of a new web-portal on SMEs internationalisation, with the 
main objective to help EU companies to obtain information about available programs at EU and national level that supports internationalisation.  
Informe de la Unión Europea. WT/TPR/G/284.  
3.3 El programa comercial bilateral. 3.3. 1 Acuerdos bilaterales/regionales amplios y 
modulados  
Párrafo 3.20.  La Unión Europea está resuelta a lograr que los acuerdos que se han firmado o 
negociado preparen el terreno para el siguiente ni vel de liberalización y actividad normativa en el 
plano multilateral. Con un planteamiento adecuado, los acuerdos de libre comercio pueden 
favorecer, sobre la base de las normas de la OMC y otras normas internacionales, una apertura 
mayor y más rápida, al abordar cuestiones que no  están listas para el debate multilateral y 
preparar el terreno para el siguiente nivel de lib eralización multilateral. Pueden abordarse muchos 
temas clave a través de los acuerdos de libre comercio, incluidas la inversión, la contratación 
pública, la competencia y cuestiones reglamentarias, que ahora están en general al margen de la 
OMC. Por ejemplo, los acuerdos concluidos en los dos últimos años con Corea de Sur, Centroamérica, el Perú, Colombia, Ucrania y Singapur contienen un capítulo sobre propiedad 
intelectual adaptado al nivel de desarrollo de los países en cuestión. Los acuerdos concertados con 
el CARIFORUM, Centroamérica, Chile, Colombia, México, el Perú, Corea del Sur, Ucrania, Singapur y Suiza contienen capítulos sobre contratación pública.  
4.  Pregunta MX: ¿Podría ahondar la Unión Europea en lo referente a "lograr que los acuerdos 
que se han firmado o negociado preparen el terre no para el siguiente nivel de liberalización 
y actividad normativa en el plano multilateral" incluyendo disciplinas en materia de inversión, competencia y cuestiones reglamentarias?  
EU reply:  Ambitious agreements, especially with larg e economies such as the USA and Japan, can 
have a systemic reach. They provide a laboratory for filling the gaps in the multilateral rulebook 
and develop regulatory solutions that can be a basis for subsequent work at multilateral level. 
Succeeding in bringing closer regulatory models that are dominant but in part conflicting would 
create a global public good. It would send a powerful signal that it is possible to converge, even from very different starting points and would offer concrete regulatory solutions to do so. It goes without saying that the EU will ensure that the future agreements are in full compliance with the 
relevant WTO rules. 
Informe de la Secretaría. Unión Europea. WT/TPR/S/284.  RESUMEN 
Párrafo 14 pág. 12  
5.  Pregunta MX: ¿En qué consiste la reforma del marco legislativo de las concesiones? 
EU reply: Mexican authorities are kindly requested to consult paragraphs 3.209 and subsequent of 
the secretariat report, where the reform of conc essions is explained thoroughly. Moreover, it 
should be pointed out that the legislative negotiation on the Commission proposal for a Concessions Directive is still on-going. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 278 - 
 
  1 ENTORNO ECONÓMICO 
Párrafo 1.10 pág. 16  
6.  Pregunta MX: ¿Cuáles son los costos financieros públicos que ha traído a la Unión Europea 
los efectos de contar con diferentes marcos institucionales de los mercados de trabajo 
nacionales, esto es, el aumento de desempleo de países como España, Grecia y Portugal? 
EU reply: There is no direct financial cost to the EU resulting from the increase in unemployment 
as paying unemployment benefits is a responsibili ty of the Member States themselves. Partly due 
to the different institutional set-ups unemployment developments within the EU have been quite 
diverse since the onset of the crisis, with the highest increases recorded in Southern European countries. As a consequence, the increase in the unemployment-related financial burden has been highest for these countries. 
Although the EU does not provide funds to pay for unemployment benefits in Member States in 
any direct way, several funds may be used to address unemployment by supporting active labour 
market policies. The expected EU budget for the programming period 2014-2020 will include funds 
f o r  t h e  E u r o p e a n  S o c i a l  F u n d  ( E S F ) .  T h e  r o l e  o f  t h e  E u r o p e a n S o c i a l  F u n d  ( E F S )  i s  t o  i n c r e a s e  
employment opportunities, promote education and lifelong learning, enhance social inclusion, contribute to combating poverty and improve the capacity of public administrations to serve job-
seekers better. Under the ESF-financed Operational Programmes, several countries included 
policies to tackle unemployment as eligible for funding. There will be also a new Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), providing € 6 billion for supporting the participation of young people not in employment, education or training in measures such as traineeships and apprenticeship 
schemes in regions with high youth unemployment (over 25%). Moreover, the European 
Globalisation Adjustment Fund provides limited financial support for the labour market reconversion of redundant workers. 
2 RÉGIMEN DE COMERCIO E INVERSIONES 
2.1 Marco jurídico e institucional 
Párrafo  2.1. No ha habido grandes cambios en el marco jurídico e institucional de las políticas de 
comercio e inversiones de la Unión Europea (UE) después de la entrada en vigor del Tratado de 
Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea (TFUE, también llamado Tratado de Lisboa) en diciembre de 2009. El Tratado de Lisboa aclara el reparto de competencias entre la UE y sus Estados 
miembros y "contiene una lista no exhaustiva de los ámbitos de aplicación de cada uno de [los 
tipos de competencias]" (cuadro 2.1).  
7.  Pregunta MX: ¿Podría indicarnos la Unión Europea cuáles son sus aspiraciones en materia 
de liberalización y protección de la inversión en el ámbito multilateral y con países 
prioritarios?   
EU reply:  Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Commission, in its 
2010 Communication "Towards a comprehensive international investment policy" has proposed to 
integrate investment liberalisation and investment protection as substantive parts of Free Trade 
Agreements. Concretely, the EU seeks to ensure that EU investors abroad enjoy a level playing field, which assures both uniform and optimal conditions for investment through the progressive abolition of restrictions on investment. At th e same time, the EU continues to be an open 
investment destination, welcoming foreign investors and their contribution to the European 
economy at large.  
Párrafo 2.7. Las propuestas omnibus en materia de comercio forman parte de la armonización de 
la legislación con el nuevo régimen relativo a los actos de ejecución y actos delegados introducido 
por el Tratado de Lisboa. La propuesta omnibus I en materia de comercio, adoptada por la Comisión en marzo de 2011, transforma todos lo s procedimientos que no estaban basados en la 
Decisión sobre comitología de 1999 en actos de ejecución o actos delegados. La Comisión ha 
señalado que la propuesta omnibus I abarca 24 actos legislativos, en su mayor parte instrumentos de defensa comercial (el reglamento antidumping, la legislación sobre salvaguardias, etc.). La propuesta omnibus II en materia de comercio, adoptada por la Comisión en junio de 2011, 
transforma los sistemas existentes de adopción de decisiones basados en la Decisión sobre WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 279 - 
 
  comitología de 1999. La Comisión señaló que la propuesta omnibus II afecta a 12 actos 
legislativos.  
8.  Pregunta MX: Respecto a la implementación de la política comercial de la UE tras la 
entrada en vigor del Tratado de Lisboa, ¿Podría la CE informar el estado actual del 
procedimiento de adopción de las nuevas regl as de "comitología" (Omnibus I y II). Se 
puede prever un acuerdo en el corto plazo entre el Consejo y el Parlamento Europeo? 
EU reply:  A political agreement on Omnibus I and II has been reached in June 2013. Work is 
currently ongoing on finalising that agreement, and the accompanying legislation. It is envisaged 
that the Omnibus I and II regulations would be formally adopted and enter into force in late 2013 or early 2014. 
Párrafo 2.37 pág. 37.  
9.  Pregunta MX: Las disposiciones relativas al desarrollo sostenible sobre medio ambiente en 
el ALC con Corea, ¿son de carácter obligatorio? 
EU reply:  The chapter on trade and sustainable development in the EU-Korea FTA, including 
provisions related to environmental issues, is binding. 
Párrafo 2.37  
10. Pregunta MX: ¿Cuál es el alcance de las disposiciones relativas a trabajo y medio ambiente 
que incluye el ALC con Corea? 
EU reply: The EU-Korea FTA includes a comprehensive chapter on Trade and Sustainable 
Development addressing labour and environmental i ssues of specific relevance in a trade context. 
The full text of the chapter is available at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:127:0006:1343:EN:PDF .  
(Articles 13.1 to 13.16; Annex 13) 
2.5 Inversiones extranjeras 
2.5.2 Acuerdos bilaterales de inversión 
Párrafo 2.56. El 12 de diciembre de 2012, el Parlamento Europeo y el Consejo adoptaron el 
Reglamento por el que se establecen disposiciones transitorias sobre los acuerdos bilaterales de 
inversión entre Estados miembros y terceros países.46 Este Reglamento aporta certeza jurídica en 
el Derecho de la UE a los acuerdos bilaterales de inversión firmados por los Estados miembros de la UE antes de la entrada en vigor del Tratado de Lisboa. Confirma que los Estados miembros pueden mantener esos acuerdos en vigor, no obstante las competencias de la Unión en lo relativo 
a la inversión, hasta que sean sustituidos por acuerdos de inversión concluidos por la UE. Los 
Estados miembros deben notificar a la Comisión qué acuerdos desean mantener. El Reglamento también establece un mecanismo que autoriza a los Estados miembros a negociar, en 
determinadas condiciones, acuerdos bilaterales de inversión con terceros países, cuando no esté 
previsto que el conjunto de la UE entable inmediatamente con esos países negociaciones en materia de inversión, o a renegociar los acuerdos en vigor.  
11. Pregunta MX ¿Cuántos y cuáles Estados Miembros han notificado a la Comisión Europea su 
petición para mantener vigente alguno de los acuerdos en materia de protección a las inversiones? 
EU reply:  All the Member States that have Bilateral Investment Treaties signed before the entry 
into force of the Lisbon Treaty have notified to the Commission the Treaties that they would like to 
maintain in force under EU law. In addition, sinc e the entry into force of the Regulation, Member 
States submitted 202 notifications pursuant to the Regulation, to obtain authorisation to launch or 
conclude negotiations on Bilateral Investment Treaties. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 280 - 
 
  12. Pregunta MX ¿Existe alguna autorización por parte de la Comisión Europea para que un 
Estado Miembro negocie o renegocie un acuerdo en materia de protección a las inversiones? 
EU reply:  Yes, the Commission has issued a number of authorisation decisions. These have been 
addressed to the Member States concerned. 
3 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS 
3.1 Medidas que afectan directamente a las importaciones 
3.1.1 Procedimientos 
Con respecto al despacho de las mercancías en aduanas y tomando en cuenta que en materia de 
procedimientos aduaneros existe una armonización entre todos los Estados Miembros de la UE. El Código Aduanero de la UE establece que "las autoridades aduaneras podrán exigir a la persona 
que esté en posesión de las mercancías la constitu ción de una garantía a fin de asegurar el pago 
de cualquier deuda aduanera que pudiera nacer en virtud de lo dispuesto en los artículos 203 o 204".  
13. Pregunta MX 9) ¿Cuál es el tiempo máximo para que una autoridad aduanera investigue un 
caso sujeto a garantía y, en consecuencia devuelva dicha la garantía al importador, en el supuesto que el caso haya sido favorable para este último? 
EU reply:  On the assumption that by "the investigations" mentioned in your questions you mean 
administrative proceedings carried out by the customs authority in order to establish whether or 
not the customs debt has been incurred and, in case  of its incurrence, to determine an amount of 
duties payable (if you mean something different by "investigations", please explain), please find 
below the following explanation.  
The Community Customs Code lays down the maxi mum time limit for the communication of the 
amount of customs duties to the debtor, which in case of the incurrence of the debt under Articles 
203 or 204 of the CCC means in practice a time limit  for finalisation of the customs proceedings by 
the delivery to the debtor of a decision determinin g the amount of customs duties which are to be 
paid. According to Article 221 par. 3 of the CCC, communication to the debtor shall not take place 
after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which the customs debt was incurred. 
This period shall be suspended from the time an appeal is lodged, for the duration of the appeal 
proceedings. In addition, as it is laid down in  Article 221 par. 4, where the customs debt is the 
result of an act which, at the time it was committed, was liable to give rise to criminal court 
proceedings, the amount may, under the conditions set out in the provisions in force, be 
communicated to the debtor after the expiry of the three-year period. 
In case the security has been provided in order to  ensure payment of a customs debt, it shall not, 
in accordance with Article 199 pa r. 1 of the CCC, be released unti l such time as the customs debt 
in respect of which it was given is extinguished or can no longer arise.  
14. Pregunta MX 10) ¿los tiempos de investigación y la legislación en materia de garantías, 
está armonizado en todos los Estados Miembros de la UE? 
EU reply:  At the current stage, only the basic three-year time limit for the communication as 
referred to in Article 221 par. 3 (first subparagraph) of the CCC is uniform in all Member States. 
The exact periods of suspension of this time limi t, provided for in Article 221 par 3 subpar. 2 and 
par. 4 of the CCC, are not codified in the Union legislation. Those deadlines are determined by 
each Member State in their national provisions. The basic rules concerning the collection and release of the security are adopted at th e Union level (Articles 189 – 200 of the CCC). 
3.1.3 Normas de origen 
3.1.3.2 Normas de origen del SGP 
Párrafo 3.29. Al igual que ocurre en el caso de la acumulación bilateral, los países beneficiarios del 
SGP pueden acumular el origen de las mercancías comprendidas en los capítulos 25 a 97 del SA 
procedentes de Noruega, Suiza, Liechtenstein y Turquía. Además, los países beneficiarios del SGP pueden solicitar a la Comisión una ampliación de la acumulación para incluir a países que tengan WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 281 - 
 
  acuerdos de libre comercio con la UE. La Comisión podrá aprobar, con condiciones, la ampliación 
de la acumulación. Los productos comprendidos en  los capítulos 1 a 24 del SA puedan excluidos de 
la ampliación de la acumulación.  
15. Pregunta MX 11) ¿Existen datos sobre el aprovechamiento de este mecanismo y de los 
sectores más beneficiados? 
EU reply: The possibility of extended cumulation with countries with which the EU has an FTA was 
introduced on 1 January 2011. This cumulation  may operate only under request of a GSP 
beneficiary country's authorities addressed to the European Commission. Up to now the European 
Commission has not received any request in this sense. 
3.1.4 Aranceles 
3.1.4.1 Aranceles NMF 
Párrafo 3.36. Según la Comisión, no se han producido cambios en los tipos arancelarios aplicados 
de la UE; las variaciones de los tipos medios sólo reflejan los cambios de nomenclatura y de los precios mundiales de determinados productos sujetos a tipos no ad valorem. 
16. Pregunta MX 12) El 2 de junio de 2012, se publicó en el Diario Oficial de la UE una 
modificación a las notas explicativas de la Nomenclatura Combinada de la UE, específicamente afectando la partida del SA 2007. ¿Podría la UE explicar la naturaleza y los 
efectos de dicho cambio? 
EU reply: Note 5 to Chapter 20 of the Combined Nome nclature of the EU (CN) determines that 
"for the purposes of heading 2007, the expression  'obtained by cooking' means obtained by heat 
treatment at atmospheric pressure or under reduced pressure to increase the viscosity of a 
product through reduction of water content or other means". 
This Note was introduced by the Harmonized System Committee of the World Customs 
Organization in November 1997, in order to clarify the distinction between products of heading 
2007 versus those of heading 2008. The Note was introduced in the Combined Nomenclature as of 
1st January 2002. 
The explanatory note to the Combined Nomenclature (which is a non-binding instrument) on 
classification of fruit purees obtained by heat treatment was deleted in order to lift any possible 
contradiction with Note 5 to Chapter 20 of the Combined Nomenclature (which is legally binding) which defines clearly under which heading fruit purees should be classified. The EU is of the opinion that classification of goods must be done in accordance with the general rules for the 
interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature and notably in accordance with the terms of the 
headings and any relative section or chapter notes (see general rule 1). In order to replicate the structure and the tariff treatment which were applied to these goods until the publication of the 
amendment and in application of the Explanatory No tes, a retroactive modification of the structure 
of heading 2007 was needed. It relates to the positions 2007 99 39, 2007 99 50 and 2007 99 97. 
En el párrafo 3.39. de esta sección se menciona que: La UE utiliza el "cuadro Meursing" para 
determinar los aranceles aduaneros de los productos agrícolas elaborados sobre la base de su 
composición. Estos productos comprenden los artículos de confitería y los productos de pastelería y galletería. Sus aranceles se definen en función del nivel de grasas y proteínas lácteas, azúcar y almidón que contienen. El cuadro permite miles de posibles combinaciones de aranceles. 
17. Pregunta MX Hemos notado que para determinar el arancel de importación de la UE para 
cierto tipo de productos resulta un poco complejo y complicado. ¿Existe alguna metodología o fuente para determinar con mayor precisión los aranceles de importación de 
productos como el jarabe de agave SA 170260 y otros con contenido de azúcar?  
EU reply:  The duty applicable to agave syrup (fallin g under CN 1702 60 95) is set out in Annex I 
to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the ta riff and statistical nomenclature and on the 
Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 282 - 
 
  The complementary note n°4 to Chapter 17 of Part Two (Schedule of Customs Duties) of Annex I 
to the Combined Nomenclature states: 
"4. For the purposes of establishing the duty a pplicable to products of subheadings 1702 20 10, 
1702 60 80, 1702 60 95, 1702 90 71, 1702 90 80 and 1702 90 95, the sucrose content, including 
other sugars expressed as sucrose, is determined by the methods laid down in Article 42(2) and 
(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries 
in the sugar sector." 
18. Pregunta MX : ¿el arancel de importación para este tipo de productos es el mismo en todos 
los Estados Miembros o puede variar? 
EU reply:  The duty to be paid is the same in all EU Member States. 
3.1.8 Reglamentos técnicos y normas 
CUADRO 3.8 Nota 122 página 71.  
19. Pregunta MX: ¿Podría dar ejemplos de notificaciones RAPEX con respecto a productos que 
dañen el medio ambiente? 
EU reply:  Extracts of notifications exchanged throug h RAPEX are published on the RAPEX website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/safety/rapex/alert s/main/index.cfm?event=main.listNotifications&
CFID.  
Párrafo 3.84, pág. 63.  
20. Pregunta MX: Se establece que se han armonizado gran cantidad de legislaciones sobre 
prescripciones técnicas procedimientos de evaluación de la conformidad. ¿Podría señalar 
cómo es el procedimiento de armonización y cuál ha sido el resultado de estos procesos?  
EU reply:  The single market for goods is one of the EU's most important and continuing priorities. 
The purpose of harmonized EU legislation for goods is to ensure the free movement of goods 
within the internal market while providing for a high level of protection as regards health, safety, 
environment and consumers. This has been achieved for a majority of products and for the most important product sectors. 
Párrafo 3.84, pág. 63.  
21. Pregunta MX: Podría explicar, en el caso en los que no exista una armonización de 
reglamentos técnicos y evaluaciones de la conformidad y haya conflicto o contradicciones entre ellos, ¿cómo solucionan este problema?  
EU reply:  In accordance with the provisions on free movement of goods laid down in Article 34 of 
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the principle of mutual 
recognition of national requirements (established by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) goods 
that are not covered by EU harmonized legislation and have been lawfully placed on the market of 
a Member State can, in principle, be marketed in any other Member State. Derogations from Article 34 can only exist on the basis of Article 36 TFEU or, as established by the case-law of the 
ECJ, on the basis of other overriding reasons of pu blic interest which have to be proportionate to 
the aim pursued. For instance, under Article 36 TFEU the Member States may, referring to grounds of public interest, e.g. public order, public securi ty and the protection of health and life of humans 
and animals, introduce stricter national rules than those applied in other Member States, even 
where these rules may limit the free movement of products lawfully marketed in another Member 
State. 
Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 lays down the rules and procedures to be followed by the competent 
authorities of a Member State when taking or intending to take administrative decision on the 
basis of technical regulations which would hinder the free movement of a product lawfully marketed in another Member State. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 283 - 
 
  Directive 98/34/EC imposes an obligation upon the Member States to notify to the Commission 
and to each other national draft technical regulation s before they are adopted in national law. This 
procedure aims at providing transparency and cont rol in relation to Member States' obligations 
under EU law. 
Párrafo 3.85, pág. 64.  
22. Pregunta MX: ¿Podría explicar bajo qué parámetros la Comisión determina si una 
propuesta de reglamento técnico es justificada? 
EU reply:  Art. 11 Par. 3 of the TFEU requires the EU, when enacting legislation at EU level, with 
regard to health, safety, environmental protection and consumer protection, to take as a base a 
high level of protection, taking account in particular of any new development based on scientific facts. In order to ensure a high level of protection and coherence, measures should be based on 
risk assessment, taking into account all relevant risk factors, including technological aspects and 
the best available scientific evidence. 
Before proposing legislation the Commission takes stock of existing national laws of EU Member 
States and of its main trading partners and conducts an impact assessment to evaluate the 
potential economic, social and environmental consequences of any new initiative with significant impacts. This analysis also evaluates specific impacts on international trade, and on developing 
countries in particular, with a view to identifying options which do not create unnecessary barriers 
to trade and are consistent with the EU's WTO obligations (European Commission – Impact Assessment Guidelines, Doc. SEC (2009) 92 of 15.1.2009, at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/docs/iag_2009_en.pdf ). 
Párrafo 3.86, pág. 64.  
23. Pregunta MX: ¿Podría profundizar cuales son los mecanismos en los que la Comisión se 
apoya para abocar a procedimientos y acciones formales contra Estados que no cumplan 
con el TFUE? 
EU reply: As mentioned in the Secretariat Report, where a Member State fails to comply with EU 
law, including its obligations under Artt.34-36 of the TFEU, the Commission has powers of its own 
to try to bring the infringement to an end and, where necessary, may refer the case to the 
European Court of Justice. The first pre-litigation administrative phase is called "Infringement proceedings", whose purpose is to enable the Member State to conform voluntarily to the requirements of the TFEU. More information can be found at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/infri ngements/infringements_en.htm .  
En el párrafo 3.86. de esta sección se menciona que: En principio, los productos de la UE y los 
productos importados que no están abarcados por la legislación de armonización de la UE y se han 
introducido legalmente en el mercado de un Estado miembro pueden comercializarse en otro 
Estado miembro, aunque no cumplan los reglamentos técnicos del Estado miembro de destino (principio de "reconocimiento mutuo" establecido en el Reglamento (CE) Nº 764/2008. 
24. Pregunta MX : ¿Podría la CE proporcionar el estatus de los avances del "Nuevo Enfoque", 
así como del "Enfoque Global" en cuanto a la armonización de las normas técnicas y de los 
procedimientos de evaluación de la conformidad? 
EU reply: Technical harmonization according to the New Approach has been a success. Decision 
No 768/2008/EC builds on the 20-year experience  of the New Approach and lays down common 
principles and reference provisions for the futu re development of (or amendment of existing) 
harmonizing legislation. It is indeed expected  that, thanks to Decision 768/2008/EC, the New 
Approach technique will be used in in other se ctors, and that existing legislation, where 
appropriate, will be amended to conform with the provisions of Decision 768/2008. However, specificities of sectorial needs may still trigger recourse to other regulatory solutions.  
25. Pregunta MX: ¿La UE tiene entre sus planes unificar al 100% los criterios y la armonización 
total de las normas técnicas y los procedimientos de evaluación de la conformidad hacia el interior del territorio?  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 284 - 
 
  EU reply: It is not always possible or even necessary to adopt harmonized EU legislation for all 
goods. When differences in justified requirements of Member States impede the functioning of the 
internal market, the EU would assess if the requir ements would need to be harmonized and if EU 
legislation needs to be adopted. In the non-harmonized area, the free movement of goods is 
guaranteed by the application of the general Trea ty provisions and the operation of the mutual 
recognition principle as defined in the case-law of  the Court of Justice of the European Union (see 
reply to question 21). 
Párrafo 3.92, pág. 65.  
26. Pregunta MX: ¿Podría explicar cómo funciona la "prueba PYME" en el análisis de impacto 
regulatorio? 
EU reply:  When an initiative is accompanied by an impact assessment, European Commission 
services are required to take SMEs into consideration in each step of the process ('SME test'). This 
requirement is set out in the 2009 Impact Assessment Guidelines which more generally establish the standards and procedures for an impact assessment: 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/commission_guidelines_en.htm. 
Annex 8.4 of the Impact Assessment Guideline provid es specific guidance on the 'SME test' for all 
relevant steps including consultations with SMEs or their representatives. Further operational 
guidance on the specific case of micro-enterprises was provided in 2011: 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/key_docs/docs/meg_guidelines.pdf . 
Impact assessments are carried out for all legislative and non-legislative initiatives expected to 
have significant and identifiable economic, social and/or environmental impacts.  
The quality of impact assessments (including with regard to their consideration of SMEs) is subject 
to the independent scrutiny of the Impact Assessment Board: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/iab/iab_en.htm .  
All impact assessment reports (including those from 2011 onwards) are public along with their 
related Impact Assessment Board opinions: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/ia_carried_out/cia_2013_en.htm .  
Párrafo 3.93, pág. 67.  
27. Pregunta MX: De acuerdo al punto 3.93, los reglamentos técnicos y procedimientos de 
evaluación de conformidad de la UE, se esta blecen mediante actos legislativos adoptados 
por el Parlamento Europeo o por la Comisión. ¿Podría señalar en qué consisten estos actos 
administrativos?  
EU reply:  These legislative acts are EU regulations or directives, which are in principle adopted by 
the European co-legislators: The Council of th e European Union and the European Parliament. 
A regulation is a general measure that is binding in all its parts, it is directly applicable, which 
means that it creates law which takes immediate effect in all the Member States in the same way as a national instrument, without any further action on the part of the national authorities. 
Directives have the purpose to align national le gislation and they are therefore addressed to the 
EU Member States which have the obligation to transpose them into national legislation. 
The legislative act adopted by the European co-legislators may also give the power to the 
European Commission to lay down certain aspects of the legislation. In this case, the acts covering 
these aspects are adopted by the European Commission. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 285 - 
 
  Párrafo 3.93, pág. 67.  
28. Pregunta MX: Se señala que el Registro de Comitologia de la Comisión permite seguir de 
cerca las diferentes fases de adopción de una medida de ejecución, en este sentido, ¿podría explicar cómo funciona dicho Registro y si su papel es únicamente de vigilar el 
desarrollo de las fases de adopción de la medida? 
EU reply:  The comitology register ( http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regcomitology/index.cfm ) 
contains background information and documents relating to the work of committees composed of 
representatives from EU Member States, which assist the Commission in the preparation of 
implementing acts that are to ensure uniform app lication of EU law by the Member States. Article 
10 of the comitology regulation (Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 laying down the rules and general 
principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of 
implementing powers, OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13) lays down which documents the register shall 
contain, in particular draft implementing acts, voting results and information concerning the adoption of the final draft implementing acts by the Commission. Adopted implementing acts are 
published in the Official Journal of the EU ( http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm ). 
In addition to implementing acts, the Treaty of Lisbon provides for the possibility to empower the 
Commission, in an EU legislative act, to adopt delegated acts to amend and supplement non-
essential elements of the legislative act. In preparation of its delegated acts the Commission 
consults expert groups. Information on the work of expert groups is published in the Commission 
register of expert groups ( http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/ ). 
Párrafo 3.95, pág. 68.  
29. Pregunta MX: Se argumenta que ciertos productos se han regulado con el enfoque de 
"requisitos esenciales", sin embargo, el sector de vehículos automotores aún está sujeto al antiguo enfoque. ¿Podría explicar porque?  
EU reply:  The so-called "New Approach" to technical harmonization of product requirements in 
relation to health, safety or any other relevant public interest objective was establish in the EU in 
mid-1980. By that time, a detailed legislation on technical requirements at EU level was already in 
place in the automotive sector. Thus, the New Approach was not applied to this sector, which is 
instead based on the EC Whole Vehicl e Type-Approval system (EC WVTA). 
In addition to the separate EC type-approval di rectives, technical regulations are developed under 
the auspices of the UNECE Revised 1958 Agreement.  There is a very strong correlation between 
EU legislation and UNECE regulations, and UNECE re gulations adhered to by the EU are considered 
to be equivalent to their corresponding, separate directives for the purpose of EC type-approval. In a further step towards international harmonization, the General Safety Regulation provides for the 
replacement of the separate directives by a ma ndatory application of the UNECE Regulations. 
Párrafo 3.95, pág. 68.  
30. Pregunta MX: ¿Podría detallar en qué consisten los otros enfoques para sectores como el 
farmacéutico? 
EU reply:  The specific needs of these sectors either require recourse to a regulatory approach 
different from the New Approach (e.g. pharmaceuticals, chemicals or cosmetic products) or a 
specific adaptation of the common principles and reference provisions of the New Approach as 
consolidated in Decision 768/2008 (e.g. construction products). 
These specific approaches range from prior marketing authorisation for pharmaceuticals to 
registration possibly followed by an authorisation procedure for chemicals of concern (REACH) to 
labelling requirements and notification of information about cosmetics products through and EU 
web-based portal. In the field of construction products, the concepts of Notified Bodies and CE marking are used but a specific approach is adopted to establish harmonised rules on the 
performance requirements for construction products. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 286 - 
 
  31. Pregunta MX: ¿Podría explicar cómo funcionan las organizaciones europeas de 
normalización en la emisión y elaboración de normas, reglamentos técnicos y procedimientos de evaluación de la conformidad, de acuerdo al punto 3.97? 
EU reply:  European standards are developed by one of the three European Standards 
Organisations (ESOs): the European Committee for Standardization (CEN), the European 
Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (C ENELEC) and the European Telecommunications 
Standards Institute (ETSI). In the case of CEN and CENELEC, European standards are developed 
according to the principles of national dele gation, whereby their members – the National 
Standards Bodies (NSBs) of the EU Member States and the EFTA states - are responsible for developing European consensus. Industry is a ke y player - whether as a direct member of the 
process in ETSI or through the national delega tions in CEN and CENELEC.The development of a 
European Standard (EN) is governed by the pr inciples of consensus, openness, transparency, 
national commitment and technical coherence and follows several steps: 
Firstly the proposal is introduced to CEN/CENELEC mainly through the National Standards Bodies, 
but any interested party can introduce a proposal fo r new work. Once a project to develop an EN is 
accepted by the relevant CEN/CENELEC Technica l Board, the national standardization bodies 
members of CEN-CENELEC shall put all national acti vity within the scope of the project on hold. 
This means that they cannot initiate new projects, nor revise existing standards at national level. 
This obligation is called 'standstill' and allows e fforts to be focused on the development of the EN.  
Thereafter, the EN is developed by experts within  a Technical Body. Once the draft of an EN is 
prepared, it is released for public comment. During this public commenting stage, everyone who 
has an interest (e.g. manufacturers, public auth orities, consumers, etc.) may comment on the 
draft, including foreign stakeholders, as the draf t standards are publicly available, in several 
languages, on most of the national standardisation bodies' websites. Taking into account the 
comments, a final version is drafted, which is then submitted to the CEN/CENELEC national 
members for a weighted formal vote.  
After its publication, a European Standard must be given the status of national standard in all CEN 
member countries, which also have the obligation to withdraw any national standards that would 
conflict with it. To ensure that a European Standard is still current, it is reviewed at least within five years from its publication. This review results in the confirmation, modification, revision or withdrawal of the EN. Technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures are enacted by 
responsible EU institutions (Council and European Parliament, and European Commission) and are 
not developed by ESOs. 
En el párrafo 3.96 señalan que: Las soluciones técnicas adoptadas para cumplir los requisitos 
esenciales con arreglo a los reglamentos basados en  el "nuevo enfoque" se establecen, para la 
mayoría de los productos, en las normas europeas armonizadas, elaboradas por las organizaciones europeas de normalización a solicitud de la Comisión. 
32. Pregunta MX: ¿Cuál es el estatus del nuevo "Framework Partnership Agreement" entre la 
Comisión la "European Standardisation Organisations" (ESO)? 
EU reply:  The European Commission issues standardization requests to the ESOs to draw up and 
adopt European standards in support of European po licies and legislation. Such requests are drawn 
up by the Commission services through a process of consultation with a wide group of interested 
parties (social partners, consumers, SMEs, relevant industry associations, etc.) according to Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012. 
Those European Standards developed in response to a mandate are called 'Harmonized 
Standards', and even though they are develope d following an EC request and in support of 
European legislation, they remain voluntary in their use. 
The 'Framework Partnership Agreement' between the EC and the ESOs describe this process, while 
the yearly programming and level of financing is contained in yearly contracts, the 'Operating Grants'.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 287 - 
 
  En el párrafo 3.97 señalan que: "In addition, voluntary European standards for services have also 
been developed" 
33. Pregunta MX: ¿Podrían comentar el estatus sobre los avances de los Mandatos M371y 
M340, así como sobre la estandarización en los servicios? 
EU reply: All standardisation requests are available on the European Commission's website, 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/european-standards/standardisation-
requests/index_en.htm . 
To check the progress of any mandate, please refer to the ESOs own websites and workplans. 
Párrafo 3.100, pág. 69.  
34. Pregunta MX: De acuerdo a lo establecido en el punto 3.100, ¿es posible que un organismo 
de acreditación lleve a cabo acuerdos de reconocimiento mutuo con otros fuera de la UE? 
EU reply:  EA and its national Members are active me mbers of ILAC (International Laboratory 
Accreditation Cooperation) and IAF (International Accreditation Forum) as well as of the 
multilateral recognition arrangements operated by these organisations. 
3.1.9 Sanitary and phytosanitary standards (SPS)   
La Comisión señala que los Procedimientos de Operación para usar el RASFF están actualmente en 
revisión (SOP en inglés) y se harán públicos en 2013.  
35. Pregunta MX : ¿Podría la CE dar más detalles sobre la fecha aproximada de publicación del 
SOP, así como cuáles serán las principales mejoras a su funcionamiento?  
EU reply:  The RASFF Standard Operating Procedures are still under review and no exact date for 
publication is available at the moment. 
En el párrafo 3.111. se menciona que: "SPS legislation is to a very large extent harmonized in the 
EU, hence SPS measures are adopted mostly at EU level; only in very few cases member States 
may also adopt individual SPS measures".  
36. Pregunta MX: ¿Cuáles son las razones principales por esta discrepancia de criterios entre 
los Estados Miembros y la UE? 
EU reply:  The SPS measures remain non-harmonised only in very marginal areas, including 
commodities such as crocodile meat, fishing bates, material for scientific research, certain exotic 
non-ungulate mammals, such as monkeys, and live insects other than bees.  
En el párrafo 3.128. se menciona que: "The European Court of Justice ruled in September 2011 
that pollen from genetically modified (GM) plants contained in honey counts as a food ingredient 
and requires authorization. The implications of this ruling affect both honey imported into the EU and honey produced within the EU. GM pollen in ho ney needs to be authorized in accordance with 
EU GMO legislation and pollen in honey is considered as an ingredient and not a constituent and 
consequently honey needs to be labelled with a list of ingredients and GM labelling is needed when GM pollen exceeds 0.9% of total pollen. The Comm ission adopted a proposal in September 2012 
for an amendment to the Honey Directive explicitly providing that pollen is not an "ingredient" but 
a "constituent" of honey thus aligning EU legislation with the provisions of the Codex Standard on honey. The consequences of this change are that honey will not have to be labelled with a list of 
ingredients, as it is considered to be a primary product and is subject to the 0.9% GM labelling 
threshold if it constitutes GM pollen. The proposal  does not question the conclusion of the Court 
that GM pollen in honey will need to be authorized". 
37. Pregunta MX: ¿Podría la CE explicar el estatus actual de su propuesta para enmendar la 
Directiva sobre la Miel, Específicamente en el sentido de que el polen no es un ingrediente 
sino un componente de la miel? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 288 - 
 
  EU reply: The EU's Ordinary Legislative Procedure applies to the proposal to amend 
Directive 2001/110/EC. The proposal is currently under 1st reading in the EP and Council. No date 
for adoption is available at the moment. 
3.3.2 Subvenciones y otra asistencia gubernamental 
Párrafo 3.168 pág. 82  
38. Pregunta MX: ¿Podría nombrar las directrices horizontales que abarcan ayudas para el 
medio ambiente? 
EU reply: The rules for environmental State aid allow a broad range of aid measures for 
environmental protection, whilst ensuring that any distortions of competition brought about by 
such measures do not go beyond what is necessary and acceptable. Certain State aid measures do not need to be notified to the Commission for assessment and approval; they are deemed to result 
in a limited distortion of competition in view of their: 
 limited aid amount (below EUR 200,000 per benefi ciary over three fiscal years, according to 
the de minimis aid Regulation) 
 or limited aid intensity for investment aid (Section 4 of the General Block Exemption 
Regulation).  
Measures covered by this Regulation include:  
 investment aid to go beyond Community environmental standards,  
 aid for the acquisition of greener vehicles,  
 aid for early adaptation to future Comm unity environmental standards by SMEs,  
 investment aid for energy saving measures, promotion of renewable energy and cogeneration,  
 aid for environmental studies and  
 aid in the form of tax reductions 
Other measures going beyond those thresholds, or which concern other specific aid measures, 
have to be notified to the Commission and can be examined under:  
 the 2008 Guidelines on State aid for Environmental protection, which encourage Member 
States to:  
 support the production of renewable energy and energy efficient cogeneration by allowing 
them to grant operating aid to renewable energy producing companies, covering the full 
difference between production costs and market price;  
 support for a whole range of measures increasing environmental protection, e.g. energy 
saving, district heating, going beyond Community standards, waste management or other 
measures.  
 the 2012 Guidelines on State aid in the contex t of the EU emissions trading scheme: Member 
States may support some heavy electricity users at risk of carbon leakage. 
Párrafo 3.178 pág. 84  
39. Pregunta MX: ¿A cuánto asciende el presupuesto actual del Fondo?  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 289 - 
 
  EU reply: Between 2007 and 2013, the total amount of Structural and Cohesion Funds allocated 
to environmental projects has doubled since the previous programming period 2000-2006 to 
around €100 billion. Half of this investment will be devoted to direct infrastructure investments related to water and waste treatment, renewal of contaminated sites, pollution reduction, and 
support for nature protection and risk prevention . The other half will go to indirect investments 
with an environmental impact on areas such as  transport and energy systems, eco-innovation, 
environmental management for businesses, urban and rural regeneration, and eco-tourism. For 
example, over €9 billion is earmarked to suppo rt energy efficiency and renewable energies. 
40. Pregunta MX: Los proyectos de protección al ambiente financiados por dicho fondo, 
¿cuentan con algún sistema de evaluación o monitoreo? 
EU reply: Each year Member States have to transmit to the Commission annual implementation 
reports in which they describe the progress in deli vering outputs and results. On the basis, the 
Commission recently presented an overview of how the Funds are working in Member States in its 2013 Strategic Report. According to the Commission report, the intervention of the funds in 
2007-2012 has resulted among others in 2.6 million more people which are now served by water 
supply and 5.7 million more people by waste water projects. 
Párrafo 3.184 pág. 84  
41. Pregunta MX:  ¿Cuáles han sido los Estados principales destinatarios de la ayuda estatal 
para medidas de protección al medio ambiente? 
EU reply: State aid for horizontal environmental objectives is governed by the Community 
guidelines on state aid for environmental protection 
(http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/energy/legislation_en.html ).  
Details on the state aid provided by EU Member States can be found on the Commission website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid /studies_reports/studies_reports.html.  
3.3.3 Contratación pública 
3.3.3.1 Marco jurídico 
Párrafo 3.206 pág. 90  
42. Pregunta MX: ¿Podría profundizar sobre la relación que vincula las consideraciones con el 
medio ambiente mencionadas y los procedimientos de contratación pública? 
EU reply:  Guidance and examples relating to which environmental considerations can be taken 
into account in the procurement procedures, including environmental management measures, are 
publically available under the following hyperlink:  
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicproc urement/docs/gpp/buying _green_handbook_en.pdf  
3.3.3.2 GPA and international procurement 
En el párrafo 3.222 de esta sección se menciona que: "…The Commission indicated that 85% of 
procurement in the EU is opened to international competition via the GPA and FTAs concluded by the EU." 
43. Pregunta MX: ¿Existen estadísticas sobre la participación de proveedores de terceros 
países en el sector de Compras Públicas de la UE?  
EU reply: There are no statistics for third countries' suppliers in EU public procurement market. 
Statistics in relation to procurement undertaken by the EU which is covered by the GPA is listed in 
detail in the Annexes to the annual statistical reports to GPA (available at 
http://www.wto.org/english/trat op_e/gproc_e/gpstat_e.htm ).  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 290 - 
 
  44. Pregunta MX: Además de las estadísticas que proporciona la UE vía GPA en materia de 
Compras del Sector Público, ¿La Unión Europea posee estadísticas sobre la participación de proveedores de terceros países en el sector de Compras Públicas en el marco de sus Acuerdos Regionales de Libre Comercio? 
EU reply: The EU is currently developing a methodological approach to collect and proceed such 
data, taking into account the participation of suppliers but also the share of goods and services 
originating in third countries with which the EU has concluded preferential trade agreements  
3.3.5 Intellectual property rights 
3.3.5.3 Industrial property 3.3.5.3.5 Geographical indications 
En el párrafo 3.278 de esta sección se menciona que: "In the EU, there are three approaches for 
protecting geographical indications: as protected designations of origin (PDOs) or protected 
geographical indications (PGIs) for wine, spirits, and agricultural and foodstuff products (Table A3.6); as collective Community trademarks  (Table A3.6); and through national appellation 
systems in EU member States." 
45. Pregunta MX: ¿Cuál de los tres sistemas de protección permite el registro de una misma 
Indicación Geográfica (IG) en distintos países? (i.e. En el TLC UE-Korea del Sur en el 
l i s t a d o  d e  I G  d e  l a  U E  e x i s t e  l a  I G  d e  K o rn/Kornbrand de Bélgica y Korn/Kornbrand de 
Austria). 
EU reply:  The European Union understands the questi on as asking which of the three systems 
allows the registration of the same geographical indication in different countries. On this 
understanding, the answer is that the first two approaches, i.e. protection as protected 
designations of origin (PDOs) or protected geographical indications (PGIs) for wine, spirits, and agricultural and foodstuff products or protection as collective Community trademarks allow such a 
registration, with the effect that the respective PDOs and PGIs are protected throughout the EU in 
all of its Member States. In this context, the European Union wishes to clarify that protection on EU level of PDOs and PGIs under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 concerning agricultural and 
foodstuff products and under Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 concerning wine is exclusive in the 
sense that EU Member States cannot in parallel protect such PDOs and PGIs on the national level. As regards the example "Korn/Kornbrand" mentioned in Mexico's question, the European Union would like to note that this is a case in which the name "Korn/Kornbrand" is common to several EU 
Member States, but protected throughout all 28 EU Member States. 
4.1.3 Agriculture policies 
4.1.3.1.2 Internal market support measures 
Párrafo 4.11 pág. 130  
46. Pregunta MX: Las medidas agroambientales a las cuales se destina parte del gasto 
presupuestario de la UE, ¿Son medidas que provienen de recomendaciones de la UE, o son 
a discreción de cada Estado, o por el contrario, son recomendaciones de un tercero 
(Organizaciones Internacionales, OSC)? 
EU reply:  Agri-environmental measures are a key el ement for the integration of environmental 
concerns into the Common Agricultural Policy. They  are designed to encourage farmers to protect 
and enhance the environment on their farmland by paying them for the provision of environmental 
services. Agri-environmental measur es may be designed at the national, regional, or local level so 
that they can be adapted to particular farming systems and specific environmental conditions, 
which ensure that they are a targeted tool for achieving environmental goals. The legal obligations 
that form the reference level for the agri-environme ntal measures are indicated in Article 39(3) of 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. Below this reference level the "Polluter-Pays-Principle" 
applies. 
En el párrafo 4.17. de esta sección se menciona que: "Under the Health Check decided in 
November 2008, milk quotas were increased by 2% in 2008 and are subject to 1% annual increases from 2009 to 2013 (except for Italy where there was a single 5% increase in 2009). In WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 291 - 
 
  addition, an adjustment in the fat correction factor resulted in a further de facto 1% increase in 
quotas.11 The goal is to achieve a smooth phas ing-out of the milk quota system by 2015. The 
total quota for the EU-27 in marketing year 2011/12 was 151.1 million tonnes. Although production in the EU as a whole has been below quota, five Member states exceeded their quotas 
in 2010/11 and six in 2011/12. Producers that exceed their quotas are required to pay a levy of 
€27.83 per 100kg of production in excess of their quota to the extent they contributed to the 
Member State's overshoot. 
47. Pregunta MX: ¿Cuál es el incentivo otorgado a los productores que se mantienen bajo el 
límite de la cuota establecida? 
EU reply: The incentive for milk producers to stay within quota is that there is a penalty of 
27.83 €/100 kg for milk produced outside quota. 
4.1.3.3 Market access 
En el párrafo 4.30. de esta sección, se menciona que "In its Uruguay Round commitments, the EU 
reserved the right to use the Special Agricultural  Safeguard (SSG) on 539 tariff lines. However, 
actual use of the SSG has been on a limited ra nge of products. The price-based SSG has been 
made operational for chicken, turkey, and sugar products almost continuously, with some egg products added since marketing year 2007/08. The EU has calculated trigger volumes for fruit and 
vegetables on a regular basis but the volume-based SSG has never been implemented. 
48. Pregunta MX: ¿El uso de dicha salvaguardia especial, aplica únicamente a pollo, pavo y 
productos con azúcar, o existen otros productos? 
EU reply:  As mentioned in paragraph 4.30, the list of products for which the EU is entitled to 
apply special safeguard measures is contained in  the EU Schedule. The application of safeguard 
measures depends on international prices in comparison with EU prices. Their future application does not therefore depend on their past application. 
4.3.2 Servicios ambientales 
Párrafo 4.113 pág. 166 El impacto que ha tenido en el sector económico el incremento de los 
servicios ambientales,  
49. Pregunta MX: ¿Ha sido provocado de manera estratégica o ha sido un efecto indirecto?  
Párrafo 4.113 pág. 166  EU reply:  This question is unclear since, contrary to what it implies, paragraph 4.113 does not 
refer to the impact that the increase of environmental services would have had on the European 
economy. The paragraph simply refers to the importan ce that this sector has for the EU in terms of 
employment and added value. 
50. Pregunta MX: ¿La UE cuenta con una definición o lista sobre servicios ambientales? 
EU reply: The European Union submitted to the WTO "Communication from the European 
Communities and their Member States: GATS 2000 environmental Services", S/CSS/W/38 dated 
22 December 2000 as well as "Communication from the European Communities and their Member 
States: Classification issues in the Environmental Sector", S/CSC/W/25 dated 28 September 1999, 
by which presented the proposal for classification fo r environmental services that is used by the EU 
in its bilateral agreements.  
RESPUESTAS DE LA UE A LAS PREGUNTAS DE MÉXICO - BATCH 2 
En la sección 2.5.1 Régimen de inversiones extranjeras, el párrafo 2.45 indica que: "El régimen de 
inversiones extranjeras de la UE apenas ha variad o desde el último examen. El Tratado de Lisboa 
establece que la política de inversiones extranjera s forma parte integrante de la política comercial 
común, que sigue siendo competencia exclusiva de la UE.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 292 - 
 
  Posteriormente en la sección 2.5.2 Acuerdos bilaterales de inversión, el párrafo 2.56 indica lo 
siguiente: "El 12 de diciembre de 2012, el Parlamento Europeo y el Consejo adoptaron el Reglamento por el que se establecen disposiciones transitorias sobre los acuerdos bilaterales de inversión entre Estados miembros y terceros países. Este Reglamento aporta certeza jurídica en el 
Derecho de la UE a los acuerdos bilaterales de inversión firmados por los Estados miembros de la 
UE antes de la entrada en vigor del Tratado de Lisboa. Confirma que los Estados miembros pueden mantener esos acuerdos en vigor, no obstante las competencias de la Unión en lo relativo a la 
inversión, hasta que sean sustituidos por acuerdos de inversión concluidos por la UE. Los Estados 
miembros deben notificar a la Comisión qué acuerdos desean mantener. El Reglamento también establece un mecanismo que autoriza a los Estados miembros a negociar, en determinadas condiciones, acuerdos bilaterales de inversión con terceros países, cuando no esté previsto que el 
conjunto de la UE entable inmediatamente con esos países negociaciones en materia de inversión, 
o a renegociar los acuerdos en vigor."  
Pregunta: ¿Cuáles son específicamente esas condiciones que prevé la regulación para autorizar a 
los Estados Miembros negociar acuerdos bilaterales de inversión con terceros países?  
EU reply: Member States' negotiations with third countries to amend or conclude bilateral 
investment agreements can be authorised unless the Commission concludes that the opening of 
such negotiations would: 
a) be in conflict with Union law; 
b) be superfluous, because the Commission has submitted or has decided to submit a 
recommendation to open negotiations with the third country concerned; 
c) be inconsistent with the Union's principles and objectives for external action; or 
d) constitute a serious obstacle to the negotiation or conclusion of bilateral investment 
agreements with third countries by the Union. 
El párrafo 2.57. indica que "a 15 de junio de 2010, había más de 1.100 convenios bilaterales de 
inversión (CBI) entre los Estados miembros de la UE y terceros países."  
Pregunta: ¿Cuántos convenios bilaterales de inversión tiene la UE al término de 2012? 
EU reply:  By end of 2012, the EU didn't have any b ilateral agreements containing provisions on 
investment protection with third countries. However, the individual Member States of the European 
Union have a network of a cumulative total of 1.300 Bilateral Investment Treaties with third countries. 
En relación con los servicios ambientales el párrafo 4.113. menciona que "los servicios ambientales 
constituyen un sector económico importante para la UE, ya que sus dos principales subsectores (captación, depuración y distribución de agua, por un lado, y actividades de alcantarillado, gestión 
de residuos y descontaminación, por otro83) emplearon en 2007 a 1.037.000 personas84 y 
representaron un valor añadido bruto de 100.500 millones de euros (29.600 millones en el caso del agua y 69.800 millones en el de las restantes actividades),es decir, un volumen de negocios de 
25"Los regímenes comerciales de los servicios ambientales de la UE son, al parecer, muy abiertos. 
En el marco del AGCS, todos los servicios ambientales están sujetos a compromisos, salvo algunas excepciones intrasectoriales de poca importancia que en su mayoría corresponden a nuevos Estados miembros. El modo 3, que es el modo esencial de prestación de esos servicios, está 
totalmente sujeto a compromisos con respecto a todos los servicios -excepto los de reducción del 
ruido- y a todos los miembros, excepto Chipre, Hung ría, Malta, Polonia y Rumania en el caso de 
todos los sectores y Finlandia y Suecia en el de algunos." 
Pregunta: ¿Existe interés por conocer si dentro de los objetivos de inversión de la Unión Europea 
está el de tener un marco jurídico favorable para  acceder a mercados en este sector y expandir 
inversiones en subsectores relacionados con servicios medioambientales? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 293 - 
 
  EU reply:  In terms of scope, the investment liberalisation parts of Free Trade Agreements the EU 
negotiate with third countries covers a broad range of investors and their investments including in 
the environmental sector.   
RESPUESTAS DE LA EU A LAS PREGUNTAS DE MÉXICO - BATCH 3 
Servicios de transporte aéreo y marítimo 
1. México desea saber si el proceso de "Control de idoneidad" de las normas sobre el mercado 
único de la aviación, iniciado por la Comisión Europea en enero de 2011, sigue en curso o ya 
concluyo, particularmente en lo concerniente al  Reglamento Nº 1008/2008 sobre normas comunes 
para la explotación de servicios aéreos en la UE. 
EU reply: The Fitness Check has now been closed. It has concluded that key opportunities for 
improvement laid in the enforcement action and coordination and exchange of best practices 
between EU Member States. The existing rules on market access to air transport services, ticketing 
price transparency, passenger protection in case of airline insolvency, minimum insurance and computerised reservation systems are suitable and well balanced for promoting innovation and fair 
competition between air carriers and to ensure that passengers are adequately informed about air 
ticket prices and receive assistance if their flig ht is cancelled because of airline insolvency. The 
report identifies a series of issues where more detailed guidance would be useful, where 
enforcement should be continued and strengthened, and where further coordination, in particular 
between national enforcement authorities with in and across EU Member States, would be 
beneficial. The detail of the text and attached documents can be found on: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/internal_market/fitness_check_en.htm .  
2. México solicita a la Unión Europea mencionar en qué consisten los "servicios aéreos 
especializados". Para mayor certeza, se le solicita mencionar las operaciones que son ejemplos de los tipos de servicios aéreos especializados. 
EU reply: Specialised operation means an operation where the aircraft is used for specialised 
activities such as agriculture, construction, phot ography, surveying, observation and patrol, aerial 
advertisement. 
3. En relación con el Régimen de Comercio de Derechos de Emisión (RCDE) para la aviación, 
México desea conocer ¿Qué sistema de contabilidad utiliza la Unión Europea para monitorear la eficiencia de su plan de acción, en particular, sobre emisiones de CO2? 
EU reply: The EU has no EU ICAO Action Plan but the EU Member States. In addition, the EU 
Member States prepare national emissions inventories for aviation Co2 emissions to be reported to 
UNFCCC.  
Sobre este mismo tema, el reporte de la Secretaría señala que los vuelos de llegada pueden 
quedar excluidos del RCDE UE si la UE reconoce  que el país de origen está adoptando medidas 
para limitar las emisiones de los vuelos de salida. México desea conocer el criterio que utiliza la UE para determinar que el país de origen está adoptando o no medidas para limitar las emisiones de 
gases de efecto invernadero. 
EU reply: The Commission would welcome to discuss bilaterally with each country the measures 
that they are taking.  
4. Al respecto de los servicios de transporte maríti mo de la UE y el tema  de emisiones de gases 
de efecto invernadero, el informe de la Secretaría menciona que la Comisión está preparando una 
propuesta legislativa sobre el establecimiento de un sistema de vigilancia, notificación y verificación como primer paso para abordar las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero 
procedentes del transporte marítimo. México desea saber cuáles podrían ser algunas de las 
medidas de eficiencia energética que se establecerán con respecto a los buques existentes y si estas medidas serán vinculatorias para los buques extranjeros. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 294 - 
 
  EU reply: The progress of the discussions and decision making process in the IMO concerning the 
implementation of MRV and further efficiency standards will impact on the further process at EU 
level. As highlighted in the Communication's sectio n on international progress, the EU has a strong 
preference for a global approach led by the IMO. It  is therefore too early to make any speculations 
on the types of energy efficiently measures that could be adopted by the EU for existing ships in 
the future.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 295 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO NEW ZEALAND QUESTIONS 
European Union Report (WT/TPR/G/284) 
2.3 Developments in the Internal Market and Central Policy areas Common Agricultural Policy Reform  
WT/TPR/G/248 page 9, para 2.42 and WT/TPR/S/284 page 114, para 4.8  
1 The European Union Report, page 9, para 2.42 outlines on-going reforms of the Common 
Agricultural Policy (CAP) presented in four legal proposals - Direct Payments, Rural Development, 
Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Single CMO Regulation), and 
Financing, Management and Monitoring of the CAP. The Secretariat Report, page 114, para 4.8 states that further reforms will be decided in 2013 for implementation in 2014. In 2011 the European commission publicised a series of proposals for further reforms, these are currently 
under discussion in the European Parliament and Council. New Zealand notes that a major tenet of 
the proposals is the "greening" of direct payments to farmers, making 30% of direct aid contingent 
on performing specified environmentally friendly farming practices (European Commission, 
COM(2011) 625 final/2). 
Question: 
a.  How does the EU ensure that making 30% of direct aid contingent on performing specified 
environmentally friendly farming practices is not prescriptive and does not result in having 
a negative impact on farm administration and productivity?  
EU reply:  In order to receive 30% of the national envelope for direct payments, EU farmers will 
have to respect three basic practices which are beneficial for the environment and climate. These 
practices include the maintenance of permanent grassland, application of crop diversification and 
the establishment of 5% ecological focus areas on arable land. These requirements have been 
chosen in such a way as to bring real environm ental enhancement whilst limiting the additional 
costs and burdens in the operation of the farm. By respecting these greening practices, farmers 
opt for long-term competitiveness and for an economically, environmentally and socially sustainable way of managing their farms. The greening payment is a new element of the EU's 
response to the global challenge of sustainable management of natural resources and climate 
action which is of particular importance to agriculture and forestry. 
WT/TPR/G/248 page 9, para 2.43 2 The European Union Report, page 9, para 2.43  states that future agricultural policy will 
continue the shift towards market orientation and that the decoupled payments will not go beyond 
providing safety-net for farmers in crisis situations. New Zealand recognises and commends the on-going efforts of the EU to reform the CAP and encourages the EU in the direction of greater 
market orientation and reduction of distortions to  international trade. Among the stated aims of 
the Commission's reform proposals are strengthening the competitiveness and sustainability of European agriculture.  
Questions: 
a.  How does the EU see farmers following market incentives when ongoing access to income 
support reduces the need to manage business risks such as price and income volatility? 
EU reply:  Ever since the reforms of the 1990s, the CA P has had a strong focus on improving the 
market orientation of EU agriculture. This has been achieved by shifting from public intervention in 
the markets to providing income support for producers through direct payments. By decoupling direct payments from production, farmers base their production decisions on market incentives. 
Income support alone is not sufficient to shield producers from the detrimental consequences of 
market disturbance. Price and income volatility remains a key issue for EU producers and has been 
identified as one of the challenges for the CAP post 2013. In fact, one new element in future rural WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 296 - 
 
  development policy will be a risk management toolkit to help farmers deal better with market 
uncertainties and income volatility. 
b.  How does the EU see the reform of the CAP developing so as to improve competitiveness 
in the face of growing worldwide demand for food and how will the CAP respond to 
agricultural markets where demand is strengthening, i.e. Asia?  
EU reply:  The CAP post 2013 aims to further enhance competitiveness of EU's agriculture 
through: 
 continued market orientation, notably by ending production limitations, and abolishing certain 
aid schemes, 
 increasing financing for research and innovation that should support productivity growth of EU 
agriculture in a sustainable manner,  
 enhancing measures which could facilitate cooperation amongst producers and along the 
supply chain, 
 strengthening the focus towards longer term econ omic and environmental sustainability of EU 
agriculture through better targeting of the direct payments (e.g. greening payments). 
Secretariat Report (WT/TPR/S/284) 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
3.1.1 Procedures 
WT/TPR/S/284 page 39, para 3.1 3 Section 3.1 of the Secretariat report, page 39,  para 3.1 notes that the Modernised Customs 
Code was adopted in June 2008 but has not yet been applied. It also notes the Commissions 
proposal to recast the code as a Union Customs Code.  
Questions: 
a. Is the EU still on track to implement provisio ns for the Modernized Customs Code (MCC) by 
the June 2013 target date? If not, in broad term s what still needs to be done to ensure the 
implementation of the MCC?  
EU reply: Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
23 April 2008 laying down the Community Customs Code (Modernised Customs Code) aimed at 
the adaptation of customs legislation to fit, but also to govern, the electronic environment for customs and trade.  
This Regulation entered into force on 24 June 2008, but it is not yet applicable.  
On 20 February 2012, the Commission tabled a proposal to recast the Modernised Customs Code 
(MCC), implying its repeal. That proposal had a three-fold purpose: 
(1) postponing the application of the MCC beyond th e ultimate deadline of application of the MCC, 
to offer sufficient time to define related mo re detailed rules and develop the supporting IT 
systems; 
(2) aligning the MCC on the requirements of Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union (Treaty of Lisbon), conc erning the empowerments to be given to the 
Commission to adopt UCC-related delegated or implementing acts; 
(3) adjust those provisions of the MCC that revealed no longer in line with the evolution of their 
legal environment since 2008, or unclear or difficult to implement, however without putting 
into question the initial objectives of the MCC. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 297 - 
 
  This proposed new Regulation is still under the examination of the co legislators therefore not 
adopted. Insofar as parts of the proposal depending on IT systems are concerned, they would allow for transitional periods and measures to be defined by the Commission through a delegated act and applied until the corresponding IT systems are operational, but no later than 
31 December 2020. 
b. Can the EU advise the progress on the implementation of the Trade Single Window 
initiative; a key element of the MCC?  
EU reply:  Given the complexity of creating a full-fledged Single Window in a customs union, the 
implementation of the EU Customs Single Window is split into several projects.  
In the first project, EU Customs Single Window will ensure automated validity checks of the 
veterinary certificates, submitted with customs declarations, which are managed by a stand-alone 
EU-wide IT system.  
The idea is to re-use the solutions developed for the first phase of the EU Single Window for 
automated validation of other licenses and certificates which support customs declarations, 
pending positive results of the first project. 
Please note that besides the EU e fforts of establishing Single Window, individual EU Member States 
might pursue their own national Single Window projects. 
3.3.3 Government procurement 
3.3.3.1 Legislative framework 
WT/TPR/S/284, page 80 - 82, para 3.203, 3.210 4 Section 3.3.3.1 of the Secretariat Report, page 80, para 3.203 states that in 2010, EU 
"public expenditures" totalled [Euros] 2,407 billion, of which 447 billion, according to Commission 
estimates, was procurement subject to EU rules, i.e. contracts valued above the threshold. Table 
3.14 (pg 82 -83) gives 18.6% as the percentage of total public procurement for the EU-27 in 2010 
published in the Official Journal, which is consistent with both the 447 billion and 2407 billion 
figures (447 is 18.6% of 2407). At the same time, it is stated in paragraph 3.210 on page 82 of the Secretariat Report that the estimated [Euros] 447 billion total value of contracts above the 
thresholds for which invitations to tender were issued in 2010 represented 64.1% of total 
procurement in the EU. We note, however, that 64.1% of 2407 billion is 1543 billion, which does not appear to relate to any other figure given. 
Question: 
a. Could the EU please clarify the estimates of  the total value of procurement in 2010 as 
given in the Secretariat's report? 
EU reply: The secretariat report refers (by mistake) to 64.1% instead of 14.6% as in table 3.4.1. 
Total value above thresholds is Euro 447 billion for 2010. 
3.3.3.2 GPA and International Procurement WT/TPR/S/284, page 85, para 3.222 
5 Section 3.3.3.1 of the Secretariat Report, page 85, para 3.222 states that "the Commission 
indicated that 85% of procurement in the EU is opened to international competition via the GPA 
and FTAs concluded by the EU". 
Question: 
a. Could the EU please clarify the value of procurement in this statement? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 298 - 
 
  EU reply: The European Commission indicated that €352 billion of the €420 billion EU public 
procurement is open to bidders from countri es, with whom the EU has entered into an 
international agreement (via GPA or FTas) theref ore nearly 85% of the EU's public procurement 
market is open to international competition.  
4.2 Fisheries 
4.2.3.1 Total Allowable Catch 
WT/TPR/S/284, p 128 para 4.53 
6 Section 4.2.3.1 of the Secretariat report, page 128, para 4.53 notes that under Regulation 
(EU) No.1026/2012 the Commission can adopt measures against a third country which it has identified as allowing non-sustainable fishing of a fishery it shares with the EU. Allowing non-sustainable fishing is defined as failure to cooperate in management of the shared stock "in 
full compliance" with international law, and failing to adopt fishery management measures without 
due regard for other countries and the EU. 
Questions: 
a.  Could the EU please provide further detail on steps it has taken against any third countries 
which it has identified as allowing non-sustainable fishing, and why this action was deemed necessary?  
EU reply: No steps have been taken so far except to a prior notification to Faroe Islands of the 
Commission's intention to identify this country as a country allowing non-sustainable fishing. For 
more information, see: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-441_en.htm .  
b.  What opportunities have third countries identified as allowing non-sustainable fishing been 
given to respond?  
EU reply: The reply is provided in paragraph 4.53 of the WT/TPR/S/28. According to Article 6(3) 
of the mentioned Regulation, prior to adopting an y measures in respect of countries allowing non-
sustainable fishing, the European Commission shall provide the country concerned with a 
reasonable opportunity to respond to the notificati on in writing and to remedy the situation within 
one month of receiving that notification.  
c.  What steps are taken against European Union Member States that are found to be 
engaging in similar activities?  
EU reply: EU Member States are bound to respect and implement EU fisheries legislation, 
including the respect of relevant international measures aimed at managing and conserving fishery 
resources in a sustainable manner. Possible infringements are subject to the relevant EU 
procedures. 
WT/TPR/S/284, p 128 para 4.54 
7 Section 4.2.3.1 of the Secretariat report, page 128, para 4.54 notes that member States are 
required to submit annual reports on fleet capacity and fishing opportunities. However the Commission has noted that these reports are of limited value and it is "impossible to derive 
conclusions regarding fishing overcapacity". Under the Commission's measures on capacity 
management, each addition to capacity must be ma tched by an equivalent withdrawal in terms of 
gross tonnage and power, and any withdrawal of capacity that received public aid cannot be 
replaced. These measures have contributed to the reduction in total capacity of the fishing fleet. 
New Zealand commends the EU on its reduction in total capacity of the fishing fleet. 
Questions 
a. Could the EU outline what steps it intends to take to ensure reporting by member 
States on capacity is more comprehensive and useful in assessing fleet capacity in the 
future? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 299 - 
 
  EU reply: The Commission is currently working on developing guidelines for the assessment of 
capacity in relation to fishing opportunities, to be developed taking into account technical, social 
and economic parameters. Once finalised, these gu idelines should be used by EU Member States 
when assessing the balance of capacity and fishing opportunities.  
b. Could the EU explain what measures are being taken to balance fishing capacity with 
harvesting opportunities? 
EU reply: Overall, capacity must be limited by means of the entry/exit scheme referred to above. 
Beyond this, adjustment of capacity is a re sponsibility of Member States. The European 
Commission expects that, based on the reform of the EU Common Fisheries Policy, overcapacity will be further reduced, where needed. The reform foresees some measures in this view. However, the final outcome of the reform of the EU Common Fisheries Policy is not known at this juncture as 
it is subject to adoption under ordinary legislative procedure foreseen by the Treaty on the 
functioning of the European Union and this proc edure has not yet been completed by date of 
writing.  
4.2.3.6 Support to Fisheries 
WT/TPR/S/284, pg 131, para 4.63 and pg 127, para 4.47 8 Section 4.2.3.6 of the Secretariat Report, page  131, para 4.63 states that according to the 
OECD, total government financial transfers to the marine capture fisheries sector in the EU were 
US$369 million in 2009. These included, amongst others: 
 Price support measures which compensate producer organisations should market prices fall 
below the withdrawal price set for various species 
 Fuel tax exemptions 
 Other exemptions from excise duties and/ or VAT. 
Simultaneously, Section 4.2.3 of the Secretariat report, pg 127, para 4.47 highlights that 
overfishing continues to be a major problem facing EU fishing, with the majority of commercial fish 
stocks in EU waters giving cause for concern. In 2007, 29 out of 33 of Europe's most important 
commercial fish species were over-fished while "decisions on catch levels remain dominated by 
short term thinking, and the catching capacity of the European Fleet remains more than twice 
what is needed to harvest [the EU's] fish stocks sustainably".  
Questions: 
a.  Could the EU explain how it ensures that its subsidies do not contribute to overfishing or 
overcapacity? 
EU reply: On price support measures, these currently account for less than 0,002% of the overall 
value of EU catches.  
Regarding fuel tax exemptions and other types of  tax exemptions, the fisheries and conservation 
management regime in place in the EU aims at minimising potential negative impacts of such 
measures. The OECD report referred to by the WTO Secretariat underlines the fact that "[…] the 
impact of such support will be contingent on the management system constraints faced by and 
alternatives available to the fisher." (see OECD  Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers No. 56 - 
FUEL TAX CONCESSIONS IN THE FISHERIES SECTOR, page 16) 
b.  What plans does the EU have to phase out its subsidies that contribute to overfishing and 
overcapacity, such as for diesel fuel for the fishing industry, consistent with declarations 
made around reforming such subsidies thro ugh the G20 and UN Rio+20 conference on 
sustainable development?  
EU reply: The EU does not provide subsidies for diesel  used by the fishing industry although 
individual Member States can provide fuel tax exemptions within the framework of Council WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 300 - 
 
  Directive 2003/96/EC. Concerning the impact of su ch measures, the OECD report referred to by 
the WTO Secretariat underlines the fact that "[…] the impact of such support will be contingent on the management system constraints faced by an d alternatives available to the fisher."  
See OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers No. 56 - FUEL TAX CONCESSIONS IN THE 
FISHERIES SECTOR, page 16 
As for other forms of subsidies, the European Commission proposal for the reform of the EU 
Common Fisheries Policy includes measures which envisage to remove all form of public support to 
the EU fleet which could contribute to overfishin g and/or overcapacity while contemplates public 
support to the fisheries sector at large and to foster the development and implementation of the 
EU's integrated maritime policy. The proposal places the emphasis on supporting the Common Fisheries Policy objectives with a particular emphasis on environmental sustainability, innovation, 
competitiveness and the sustainable development of fisheries areas. However, the final outcome of 
the reform of the EU Common Fisheries Policy is not known at this juncture as it is subject to adoption under ordinary legislative procedure fore seen by the Treaty on the functioning of the 
European Union and this procedure has not yet been completed by date of writing.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 301 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM NORWAY 
3.1.7 Contingency measures: W e  n o t e  t h a t  E U  i s  i n  t h e  p r o c e s s  o f  a m e n d i n g  i t s  a n t i - d u m p i n g  r e g u l a t i o n s .  A  p r o p o s a l  w a s  
presented in April 2013 to the European Parliament and to the Council in this respect.  
Q: Could the EU please inform us of the current status of the process? 
EU reply:  The proposal adopted by the Commission wa s transmitted to Council and Parliament 
where it undergoes the ordinary legislative pr ocedure which will hopefully be concluded by 
April 2014. 
We have noted that one of the proposals would affect the EUs application of WTO+ anti-dumping 
elements, i.e. concerning "lesser duty rule" and could thus over-compensate the domestic industry 
for the injury caused by dumping imports.  
Q: What is the rationale for such a policy which introduces a possible punitive element in the 
application of anti-dumping measures? 
EU reply: The EU is one of the very few WTO Members to apply the lesser-duty rule in a 
systematic manner. It was considered, however, that this policy would not be appropriate in the 
face of the increased use of distorting subsidies and other structural and long term raw material distortions (e.g.: export restrictions, dual pricing, etc.) which put our industries in a clear and 
unfair competitive disadvantage going beyond what th e lesser-duty rule is able to measure. In line 
with the EU's other initiative regarding access to raw materials, it is proposed not to apply the lesser duty rule in such cases. EU hopes that this might help our trading partners move away from applying such raw material distortions.   
Another proposal we understand is related to "ex-officio" initiation of anti-dumping investigations. 
Q: Has the EU previously had a policy or practice on initiating investigations "ex-officio"? Is it the 
EU's experience that retaliation against companies requesting anti-dumping investigation has been 
a major concern?  
EU reply:  According to Article 5(6) of the Basic Regulation 1225/2009, the Commission can, in 
exceptional circumstances, initiate proceedings on its own initiative ('ex-officio'). This possibility, 
which is also provided for in the WTO agreement, has been used in very few cases so far. This 
possibility is particularly important as it offers a 'shield' when the risk of retaliation against European companies asking for trade defence instruments is high. Any launch of such an investigation must be supported by prima facie evidence of unfair international trade practice and 
the economic difficulties caused by it. Generally, it is difficult to determine exactly to what extent 
companies requesting anti-dumping are subject to retaliation since retaliation can take many different forms. However, there have been increasing claims of retaliation by industries recently. 
By clarifying the rules on ex-officio cases the Commission also wants to signal to our trading 
partners that such threats of retaliation are taken very seriously. 
General questions: 
Q: When the EU invokes anti-dumping investigations, preliminary measures or final measures, 
what is the current decision making process? Can a decision in such cases be taken by the European Commission, or is the European Commission required to follow the view of the majority EU member states? Can the European Commission at present invoke anti-dumping measures 
against the views of the majority of members to avoid possible retaliation against one or several 
member states whose industry would benefit from the trade remedy measure? 
EU reply:  The European Commission may impose provisional measures after having consulted the 
Member States. However, after the Commission imposed the measures, the Council, acting by a 
qualified majority, may decide differently, i.e. it may even annul the relevant Commission Regulation.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 302 - 
 
  Definitive anti-dumping duties shall be imposed by  the Council, acting on a proposal submitted by 
the Commission. The proposal shall be adopted by the Council unless it decides by a simple majority to reject the proposal. As indicated in the report, decision-making rules are currently undergoing a revision. Once adopted, the new rules will transfer the right of imposing definitive 
anti-dumping duties to the Commission but the Member States will still retain power to block the 
Commission's proposal. However, to do so they  will need to achieve a qualified majority. 
EU REPLIES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM NORWAY 
Agriculture 
Paragraph 4.30 in the report of the secretariat In paragraph 4.30 it is stated that " The price-based SSG has been made operational for chicken, 
turkey and sugar products almost continuously, with some egg products added since marketing 
year 2007/2008." 
Does the European Union expect that this situation will continue in the coming years, i.e. that the 
SSG will be used almost continuously for some products? 
EU reply:  The application of safeguard measures depends on international prices in comparison 
with EU prices. Their future application does not therefore depend on their past application. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 303 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM PAKISTAN 
On 12 December 2012, the European Parliament and the Council adopted the Regulation 
establishing transitional arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between member States and third countries. Do the transitional a rrangements for bilateral investment agreements 
cover matters between member States and third countries? 
EU reply:  The Regulation does not cover matters between Member States and third countries. As 
explained in the report, the Regulation solely pr ovides legal grounds empowering Member States 
under EU law to maintain their bilateral investment agreements with third countries, or to 
negotiate and conclude – under certain conditions – such agreements in the future. 
For non-originating materials used in manufacture d goods of GSP countries, 15% of the ex-works 
price is the maximum "tolerance" level, if those materials were not sufficiently processed in the 
beneficiary country; 15% of the product weight for products of HS chapters 2, and 4-24 other than 
processed fishery products of chapter 16, and products under HS chapters 50-63 are subject to specific tolerance rules. What are the specific tolerance rules? 
There are GSP Rules of Origin for four regional groups in the GSP scheme. Could EU explain the 
overall percentage of cumulation taking place in each category/grouping of countries, along with percentages of the top 5 products in each category? 
It is stated that direct transport is no longer required for GSP origin goods upon the condition of 
non-manipulation. What is meant by non-manipulation? 
EU reply: The specific tolerance rules for textile and clothing products are in Annex I, 
"Introductory notes and list of working or processi ng operations which confer originating status", 
Note 6 and 7. They refer to a) the possibility to use basic textiles materials which represent 10% 
or less of the total weight of all the basic materials used; this tolerance applies only to mixed products which have been made from two or more basic materials; and b) the possibility to use 
textile materials for made-up products provided that they are classified in a heading other than 
that of the product and that their value does no t exceed 8% of the ex-work price of the product.  
The European Commission does not have such data on the percentage of cumulation taking place 
in each category/grouping of countries. 
Non-manipulation means the condition that products declared for release for free circulation in the 
European Union should be the same as products exported from the beneficiary country in which 
they are considered to originate. The products sh ould not be altered, transformed in any way or 
subject to operations other than operations to preserve them in good condition, prior to being 
declared for release for free circulation. Storag e of products or consignments may take place 
where carried out under the responsibility of the ex porter or a subsequent holder of the goods and 
the products remain under customs supervision in the country of transit. The non-manipulation 
requirement shall be considered as fulfilled unless the customs authorities have reasons to believe the contrary, in which case they may ask for the importer to provide evidence of compliance 
The General Food Law permits the establishment of "provisional" measures if  "the possibility of 
harmful effects on health is identified but scientific uncertainty persists". Could the EU explain what the "provisional measures" are, and to expl ain what is meant by persistence of scientific 
uncertainty? 
EU reply:  In accordance with Article 3.3 of the WT O Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures (the SPS Agreement), the EU sets its sanitary protection, as regards human, animal and 
plant health, at a level that it considers appropriate. Recourse to provisional measures in light of 
precaution is a central plank of Union policy, and one that is consonant with the SPS Agreement. 
Provisional measures may be adopted in the event of a potential risk, including when this risk 
cannot be fully quantified or its effects determined because of the insufficiency or inconclusive 
nature of the scientific data. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 304 - 
 
  Such measures are only maintained while the scientific uncertainty exists, and for a "reasonable 
period of time" as per the provisions of Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement. The 'reasonable period' 
envisaged in the SPS Agreement includes the ti me needed for completion of the necessary 
scientific work and the time needed for the performa nce of a risk analysis based on the conclusions 
of this scientific work. 
According to the Commission, post-2013 reforms are expected to continue the direction towards 
market orientation of policy while decoupled direct payments will remain the core of CAP spending. 
However, the reform post-2013, like earlier refo rms, will not directly address market access 
conditions into the EU market, and tariffs, tariff quotas and the Special Agricultural Safeguard will 
not be affected. In this scenario, how does the EU  plan to advance its market-oriented reform on 
its Common Agriculture Policy with regard to market access and raising its agricultural 
competitiveness? 
EU reply:  The EU has no plans to autonomously change its tariffs for agricultural products and in 
particular CAP reforms are not intended to do so. Any change will result from a successful 
conclusion to the DDA. In the meantime, the EU  will continue to respect its WTO commitments. 
The Secretariat Report notes that different member States charge different rates of value added 
tax and excise duties, suggesting that if all redu ced rates were removed, the standard rate of VAT 
could in certain member States theoretically be dropped by up to 7.5% without any impact on 
overall revenue. Does EU share the Secretariat's assessment? 
EU reply:  On the basis of the results of an economic study carried out by independent consultants 
for the Commission, the Communication from the Commission of 6 December 2011 on the future 
of VAT (COM(2011) 851 final) stated that "It is worth noting that already the existing application 
of reduced rates translates into significant subsidies. Its magnitude largely differs between Member States, depending on the use made of reduced rates. The economic evaluation calculated 
that, for a sample of 9 Member States (Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, 
Spain and United Kingdom), these subsidies represent between 8.2% and 53.3 % of the VAT revenues of those Member States. Abolishing the reduced rates would theoretically enable the 
standard rate to be reduced by between 1.9 and 7.5 percentage points."  
It should however also be pointed out that from a legal point of view reduced VAT rates are 
optional for Member States. It is therefore up to the Member States to decide, on the basis of their own national political and economic situation, whether they wish to make use of the option to 
apply reduced VAT rates or not. 
Referring to SPS measures, the Secretariat Report states that there remain significant differences 
in some areas among Member states. What steps is EU taking to reduce these significant 
differences? 
EU reply:  Pakistan refers in its question to paragraph 9 of the Summary of the WTO Secretariat 
Report (WT/TPR/S/284). The EU notes that this paragraph is misleading as it gives the impression 
that there remain significant differences among Member States both in SPS measures and in 
technical requirements. However, this applies only to technical requirements. As stated in paragraph 3.111 under Section 3.1.9 of the TPR Report, SPS legislation is to a very large extent harmonized in the EU. 
Overfishing remains a serious problem for the EU as total allowable catches have regularly 
exceeded sustainable limits. What measures is EU ta king to reduce overfishing so as not to exceed 
sustainable limits? 
EU reply: The European Commission evaluates the number of overfished stocks (the stocks where 
the latest estimate of fishing mortality rate is higher than the rate corresponding to maximum 
sustainable yield) based on analyses by independent scientists working at the "International 
Council for the Exploration of the Sea", the "Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries", and the scientific committees of various regional fisheries management organisations.  
According to these analyses from 2005 until 2013 the number of overfished stocks subject to 
annual regulations limiting fishing opportunities in EU waters (and nearby waters) in the Northeast WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 305 - 
 
  Atlantic, including the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, fell from 32 to 16 (from 94% to 39% of the 
assessed resources).  
Management of fishing capacity is subject to an  entry/exit system. The fleet capacity for each 
Member State may not exceed certain levels, expressed in Kilowatt (KW) engine power and gross 
tonnage (GT). When a Member State withdraws a vessel using state funds (i.e. decommissioning) 
the maximum permitted levels are decreased by amounts corresponding to the capacity withdrawn. 
This system has led to gradual reductions in ceilings on fleet capacity. The actual capacities of the 
fleets concerned have also reduced. 
The European Commission expects that, based on the reform of the EU Common Fisheries Policy, 
overcapacity will be further reduced, where needed. The reform foresees some measures in this 
view. However, the final outcome of the reform of  the EU Common Fisheries Policy is not known at 
this juncture as it is subject to adoption under  ordinary legislative procedure foreseen by the 
Treaty on the functioning of the European Union and this procedure has not yet been completed by 
date of writing. 
The Secretariat Report also notes that the weak increase in exports of some member States tends 
to reflect unfavourable competitiveness figures. Ho w does the EU plan to turn around the stated 
competitiveness trends in the Member States in question? 
EU reply: A number of peripheral EU Member States accumulated competitiveness gaps for 
several years (notably Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Slovenia and Cyprus in the euro area, and 
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Bulgaria outside the euro area) and large current account 
deficits. For several countries, the large current account deficits were mainly the result of very 
dynamic domestic demand which propped up imports, and less so of anaemic exports. Anyhow, there has been a substantial improvement in rece nt years. This improvement has been both the 
result of market pressure and an increase in the reform dynamism of many countries. 
Moreover, it is important to stress that neither the EU, nor the euro area as a whole have a 
competitiveness or external accounts problem. The EU and the euro area have had balanced 
external accounts and are now shifting to a moderate surplus. 
Within the EU, there are several processes of poli cy coordination that contribute to the reform 
Member States need. The EU provides annually country specific recommendations to Member States, the implementation of which is continuously monitored. 
The adoption of contingency measures is subject to  the comitology rules that entered into force in 
March 2011, and requires a positive opinion voted by qualified majority of a committee composed of member State representatives. Could EU explain what is meant by qualified majority? 
EU reply:  The procedure for a qualified majority is defined by the Treaty on European Union 
(TEU), Article 16, in conjunction with Article 238(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union. The texts can be seen at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:FULL:EN:PDF.   
The Commission launched an initiative to modern ize trade defence instruments in October 2011 
with the aim of improving the efficiency of the instruments and effectiveness of actual 
anti-dumping and countervailing measures imposed. Could EU explain what is meant by 
"modernization" of trade defence instruments? 
EU reply:  The aim of the modernisation initiative is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of 
the trade defence instruments for all stakeholders without changing the scope of the instruments, 
i.e. neither making them more liberal nor more protectionist. The focus lies on finding practical 
solutions for real problems that our stakeholders encounter in the use of the instruments 
To that effect, the Commission has adopted on 10 April a package consisting of a Communication, 
a legislative proposal, and guidelines.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 306 - 
 
  Regarding procedure, the legislative proposal follows now the ordinary legislative procedure in 
Council and Parliament. The proposals that do not require a legislative chan ge (as explained in the 
Communication and in the Secretariat report) w ill be implemented by the Commission in the 
coming months. The draft guidelines are under public consultation until 31 July and after taking 
into account of the comments received, the final guidelines will be adopted by the Commission in 
due course. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 307 - 
 
  RESPUESTAS DE LA UE A PREGUNTAS DEL PERÚ 
1. Según el punto 3.1 y 3.2, el 20 de febrero de 2012, la Comisión Europea presentó una 
propuesta de refundición del código aduanero co mo código aduanero de la Unión (CAU), que 
sustituirá al código aduanero modernizado (CAM) que tendrá como fecha límite de aplicación el 
31 de diciembre de 2020, con lo que se concede a las autoridades y a los operadores económicos 
nacionales un mayor plazo para desarrollar su capacidad en materia de tecnología de la información, se requiere conocer lo siguiente: 
a) ¿Existe un sistema de Ventanilla Única de comercio  exterior a través del cual se obtienen las 
licencias de importación? 
EU reply:  There is no such unique single desk. However, the EU has established common rules for 
imports from certain third countries on the basis of Council Regulation (EC) No 625/2009 of 
7 July 2009 (OJ L 185, 17.07.2009, p.1). These common rules are applied uniformly in all EU 
Member states. The formalities carried out by importers are simplified and identical regardless of the place of the customs clearance. Surveillance documents issued are valid throughout the EU 
irrespective of the Member State of issue.  
Concerning agricultural products, information is readily available for persons wishing to obtain 
import licenses. 
Operators are informed about all binding provisions by the Official Journal of the EU published on 
the EUR-Lex website: http://eurlex.europa.eu/en/index.htm .  
A list of agencies responsible for issuing import and export licenses is published under Article 29 of 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application 
of the system of import and export licenses and advance fixing certificates for agricultural 
products. The following official publication (2012/C 255/03). 
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriS erv.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:255:0009:0021:EN:PDF  gives 
the list of these agencies as of date of 24 August 2012. 
The following link on the EU Export Helpdesk for Business is also a useful source of information: 
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib /docs/2013/may/tradoc_151262.pdf . 
b) ¿Los procedimientos aduaneros existentes en el  CAU, y una vez que obtengan "un solo tipo 
de declaración simplificada", se enlazarán por medios electrónicos con alguna base de datos donde se consignen el detalle de los certificados de conformidad o al sistema de restricciones en la importación a que se refiere el punto 3.62 del Informe? 
EU reply:  Products that are covered by technical regulations are not, in principle, restricted 
products. Technical regulations are laws regulations and administrative provisions establishing 
mandatory requirements for the marketing of prod ucts. They are introduced with a legitimate 
public policy objective in mind – for example, protecting human health and safety, animal and 
plant life and health or the environment, or sa feguarding consumers from deceptive practices. 
2. ¿Cuál es el sistema de licencias de importación aún vigente en la UE? Detallar cuáles son las 
mercancías sujetas a estas licencias y cual será la fecha de vigencia para cada tipo de mercancía 
bajo este sistema. 
EU reply: The Delegation of Peru will find a detailed answer to its question on Import Licensing in 
the EU Communication of 22 September 2012 (WTO document G/LIC/N/3/EU/1 of 
25 September 2012). 
3. En el punto 3.3 se menciona que la Comisión Europea mantiene un sitio Web con la 
legislación aduanera y la jurisprudencia conexa, mientras que existe el Grupo de Contacto sobre 
Comercio como principal marco para las consultas regulares entre la Comisión Europea y los 
operadores económicos sobre asuntos aduaneros de la UE, se consulta: WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 308 - 
 
  a) ¿Las Opiniones de este Grupo de Contacto so n determinantes en el despacho aduanero o 
son solo referencias para la Comisión Europea y los operadores económicos sobre asuntos aduaneros de la UE? 
b) Este Grupo de Contacto, ¿tiene capacidad de absolver solo sobre los alcances del CAU o 
también sobre las restricciones de mercancías para importación de la UE? 
EU reply: Trade Contact Group (TCG) is a platform for customs and trade consultations at EU level 
and provides the main forum for mutual exchange  of views between economic operators and the 
European Commission's services on the develo pment and implementation of customs related 
issues and developments on customs policy. 
The Trade information and consultation processes set out the main lines towards a successful 
incorporation of the European traders' requirem ents and making best use of existing trade 
expertise throughout the realisation of EU customs initiatives. 
This platform gathers consequently representati ves of European and world wide associations, 
whose members are involved in customs related activities at the European level, like customs 
service providers, logistics an d industry representatives.  
Applications for membership to TCG are accepted according to criteria established in the TCG 
Terms of reference and they are constantly reviewed. 
The meetings of the TCG, at least four times a year, are hosted by the European Commission's 
Taxation and Customs Union Directorate General and are chaired by its Customs Policy Director. 
Information on the consultation process as well as on the role, mandate and terms of reference 
are published on Europa under the link: 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/policy_issues/customs_trade_consultations/index_
en.htm .  
4. Según el punto 3.62, la UE mantiene re stricciones a la importación por razones de 
seguridad, técnicas, sanitarias, fitosanitarias y ambientales, entre otras. Algunos de esos 
controles/restricciones se aplican en virtud de tratados y convenios internacionales en los que es parte la UE y/o sus Estados miembros, como la Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de 
Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres. Se pregunta: 
a) ¿Tienen alguna publicación legal o por la Web en donde se puede consultar las mercancías 
restringidas a la importación en la UE, con los requisitos exigibles para cada una de éstas? 
EU reply: All restrictions of the importation of goods that apply in the entire EU are based on 
Legal Acts of the European Union. These Legal Acts are consulted in the Official Journal of the 
European Union which is accessible on the internet ( http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/JOIndex.do?ihmlang=en ). The totality all Legal Acts in force in the European Union 
can be consulted online via the EurLex database ( http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm ). 
Restrictive measures for all products are integrated in the TARIC database which is also available 
on the internet for online consultation 
(http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds2/taric/taric_consultation.jsp?Lang=en ).  
b) ¿Las mercancías que están bajo los reglamentos técnicos lo consideran mercancías 
restringidas, o solo son prescripciones técnicas? 
EU reply:  Products that are covered by technical regulations are not, in principle, restricted 
products. Technical regulations are laws regulations and administrative provisions establishing 
mandatory requirements for the marketing of prod ucts. They are introduced with a legitimate 
public policy objective in mind – for example, protecting human health and safety, animal and 
plant life and health or the environment, or sa feguarding consumers from deceptive practices. 
5. En el punto 3.86 se señala que los productos de la UE y los productos importados que no 
están abarcados por la legislación de armonización de la UE y se han introducido legalmente en el WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 309 - 
 
  mercado de un Estado miembro pueden comercializarse en otro Estado miembro, aunque no 
cumplan los reglamentos técnicos del Estado miembro de destino (principio de "reconocimiento mutuo" establecido en el Reglamento (CE) Nº 764/2008). Se consulta: 
a) ¿El reconocimiento mutuo de los certificados de conformidad contemplados en los 
reglamentos técnicos, solo es aplicable dentro de los estados miembros de la UE o es extensivo 
para los reglamentos técnicos que se originan por otros organismos de normalización ubicados fuera de la UE? 
EU reply:  The mutual recognition principle in Regulation (EU) No 764/2008 and referred to in par. 
3.86 of the Secretariat's Report derives from the ca se-law of the Court of Justice of the European 
Union and applies to products which are not subject to EU harmonisation legislation, or to specific aspects of products falling outside the scope of such legislation.  
According to this principle an EU Member State may not prohibit the sale on its territory of 
products which are lawfully marketed in another EU Member State, even when those products were manufactured in accordance with technical rules different from those applied in the EU 
Member state of destination. Art. 36 of the Tr eaty on the Functioning of the European Union 
(TFEU) establishes certain exceptions. 
This principle, thus, ensures the free movement of goods within the internal market and it applies 
equally to EU and imported products. Therefore, on ce a Peruvian product has been lawfully placed 
on the market of an EU Member State, it will benefit from the free movement within the European 
Union under the same conditions as an EU product in accordance with the principle of mutual recognition. 
b) ¿Las mercancías restringidas abarcadas por reglamentos técnicos basados en el "nuevo 
enfoque de la UE" que ingresan a su territorio, pueden ser aceptados bajo los procedimientos de evaluación de la conformidad de los proveedores de países que no tienen acuerdo bilateral? 
EU reply: With regard to mutual recognition of conformity assessment certificates, the EU has 
concluded a number of multi-sector Mutual Recognition Agreements with third countries (Australia, 
Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Switzerland, USA) wi thin the meaning of Article 6.3 of the WTO TBT 
Agreement according to which CABs established in the MRA partner are authorized to issue 
certificates carrying the same validity as those issued by EU based notified bodies. 
In addition to such formal agreements, in thos e limited areas where the EU requires mandatory 
third party conformity assessment the EU system  provides significant flexibilities for the 
acceptance of foreign conformity assessment results by permitting notified bodies to enter into 
subcontracting arrangements with third country CABs and to participate in international voluntary cooperation arrangements with other CABs for the mutual recognition of test reports and 
certificates such as the IECEE CB scheme or the IECEx system. 
6. ¿La UE utiliza un procedimiento especial para determinar el valor en aduana de los 
productos digitales (ejemplo: software, CD con música, DVD con película)? 
EU reply: The EU does not consider it necessary to develop special procedures to determine the 
customs value of digital products.  
7. ¿Utiliza la UE un mecanismo del control del valor de las mercancías importadas a fin de 
detectar y evitar la presentación de fraudes en valoración, como la subvaluación? 
EU reply: EU customs administrations apply customs controls in the field of customs valuation on 
the basis of risk analysis and risk management. The EU considers that the appropriate use of risk 
management, and customs controls, are an essential part of customs administration of 
international trade. 
8. ¿Utiliza la UE un procedimiento simplificado para determinar el valor en aduana de las 
mercancías ingresadas como envíos postales, menaje de casa o equipaje acompañado? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 310 - 
 
  EU reply: In implementing the WTO Agreement on Customs Valuation, the EU has not found it 
necessary to develop simplified procedures to determine the customs value for goods entered as 
postal, household or accompanied baggage. 
In relation to the import of goods in such circumstances, EU legislation provides for various 
concessions, and exemptions from duty. Such conc essions and duty reliefs are based on the value 
of the goods, without having to apply simplified procedures to determine such value. 
9. ¿Cuál es el tratamiento que le da la UE al valor de las licencias por el uso del software 
destinado para las máquinas de proceso de datos, para efectos de la determinación del valor en 
aduana? 
EU reply: The WTO Agreement on Customs Valuation covers the treatment of royalties and licence 
fees, where such payments are made in respect of the imported goods. These WTO rules are 
incorporated into EU legislation on customs valuation. 
10. Respecto al punto 3.12, consideramos importante que la UE nos pueda informar sobre los 
tipos de certificados que otorgan al Operador Económico Autorizado (OEA) y cuál es la diferencia 
entre ellos. Así mismo, si nos pueden informar  sobre promedio anual de autorizaciones OEA 
otorgados, el tiempo promedio para el otorgami ento de la autorización, y el porcentaje de 
aprobación respecto a las solicitudes presentadas. 
EU reply: The EU AEO program covers economic operators certified for security (AEOS – where 
"S" stands for security), simplification (AEOC Wh ere "C" stands for customs simplification) or a 
combination of security and simplification (AEOF – where "F" stands for full). The main differences are related to the criteria to be met by and to th e benefits provided to the relevant AEO. AEOC is 
envisaged for economic operators who would like to benefit from various customs simplifications 
and they need to meet the following criteria: customs compliance, record keeping and financial solvency. The AEOS needs to meet an additional criteria related to safety and security and is 
envisaged for an economic operator who would like to benefits from facilitations related to customs 
controls concerning safety and security. An AEOF enjoys both kinds of benefits and need to meet both sets of criteria. It is worth to highlight th at the AEOC certificate, being without the security 
component, is not eligible for mutual recognition agreements.  
Based on data as of 31-12-2012, the annual aver age of the AEO authorization is more than 3000 
(3086 to be precise). 
In EU the issuing of an AEO authorisation is subject to a legal deadline of 120 days with the 
possibility in particular cases of an extension of additional 60 days. 
The approval rate is about 90 % (as of 31-12- 2012 – 1510 applications rejected out of 14616 
submitted).   
11. En relación al control de la carga que transita en el territorio de la UE, se consulta si es 
obligatorio el uso de precintos electrónicos por parte de todos los vehículos de carga para el régimen de tránsito, y cuál es el alcance y ventajas obtenidos. 
EU reply: For customs transit movements the EU does not require the use of electronic seals. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 311 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
1. The Report by the Secretariat (document No. WT/TPR/S/284 of 28 May 2013, 
paragraphs 3.67-3.79) describes the legislative framework for anti-dumping measures in the EU. In particular, the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on 
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community 
(hereinafter "the basic Regulation") is mentioned. 
At the same time, nothing in the section indicates that Article 2.3 of the basic Regulation contains 
a definition of the term "particular market situatio n". This situation may be deemed to exist, inter 
alia, when prices are artificially low, when ther e is significant barter trade, or when there are 
non-commercial processing arrangement. Article 2.5 of the basic Regulation further states that if costs associated with the production and sale of the product under investigation are not reasonably 
reflected in the records of the party concerned, they shall be adjusted or established on the basis 
of the costs of the producers or exporters in th e same country or, where such information is not 
available or cannot be used, on any other reasonable basis, including information from other 
representative market. In fact application of these provisions in antidumping investigations on 
imports of certain products from the Russian Federation results that the European Commission (hereinafter "the Commission") investigates the domestic gas pricing and adjusts price for gas 
based on the average price of Russian gas when so ld for export to the EU market. Therefore the 
EU creates artificial and highly unlikely conditions for trade in particular product when the inputs for the production of that product are purchased in  the EU market where the conditions are a priori 
different from the conditions of purchase of in puts existing in Russia and other WTO Members. 
Please explain, does the Commission investigate an d adjust the cost of production in view of 
alleged raw material distortion in light of provis ions of Article 2.3 and Article 2.5 of the basic 
Regulation while investigating imports from other WTO Members, except the Russian Federation. If 
the Commission does so, please provide examples.  
EU reply:  The cost of production is investigated an d, where applicable, adjusted to address raw 
material distortions in line with the practice descr ibed in the answer to the second question below. 
This practice is applied consistently by the EU in each anti-dumping case involving market 
economy countries where it is established that the costs for raw materials are distorted. 
Please, explain how this approach and practice are justified in light of Article 2.2 of the 
Agreement on the implementation of Article VI of the GATT-1994 (hereinafter "the Antidumping 
Agreement") requiring that the construction of normal value shall be made on the basis of "the 
cost of production in the country of origin" and Article 2.2.1.1 of the Antidumping Agreement 
providing that "costs shall normally be calculated on the basis of records kept by the exporter or 
producer under investigation". 
And finally, how in the Commission's view the requirements set by Article 2.4 of the 
Antidumping Agreement in such a procedure can be fulfilled and what are the exact actions 
undertaken by the Commission to that end. 
EU reply:  To reply to the above, it is important to describe the EU practice with regard to the 
determination of the normal value which has been consistently applied in all cases. First the 
investigating authority (the Commission) establishes if there are sufficient domestic sales of the 
product under investigation in the domestic mark et of the country concerned. If the reply is 
positive, the Commission passes to the second test which is to assess whether the domestic sales were made in ordinary course of trade. Accordingly, the Commission compares the domestic 
selling price to the total cost of production. Normally, cost of production is established based on 
the records kept by the parties subject to investig ation. However, in case where the records do not 
reasonably reflect the cost of production, in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not 
members of the European Community ('the basic Regulation') such records cannot serve as a basis for calculating normal value. Consequently, in such case the costs are adjusted or established on the basis of sources of information other than those records. That information may be taken from 
the costs incurred by other producers or exporters or, when that information is not available or 
cannot be used, any other reasonable source of information, including information from other WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 312 - 
 
  representative markets. EU legislation, which is a basis of the methodology described above, has 
been duly notified to the WTO in 2002. It has been consistently applied ever since. 
2. Paragraph 3.123 of the Report by the Se cretariat (document No. WT/TPR/S/284 of 
28 May 2013) deals with plants and plant products. However there is no information about 
phytosanitary certification. How the EU follows the IPPC provisions and ISPM # 12 regarding 
the traceability of shipment of regulated goods from the moment when the phytosanitary certificate is issued till the moment of export of the goods? How such practice is ensuring the 
compliance with Article 3.1 of the WTO SPS Ag reement? We think there is lack of such 
traceability (except in Spain) and the safety of imported goods is not guaranteed. As a result, at the EU border there are regulated goods with different pest status from different EU members. 
EU reply: For exports, information on the phytosanitary status of the plants and plant products 
are provided to the importing country in a phytosanitary certificate or a re-export certificate 
according to ISPM 7 and ISPM 12. The phytos anitary certificate accompanies the commodity 
ensuring the safety and integrity of the commodity until the point of arrival in the country of 
destination. The commodity exported from the EU may originate in: 
 The exporting EU Member State: in this case the phytosanitary certificate is issued by the 
competent authority of that Member State. This is done on the basis of its own inspection 
results at the time of export and, where relevant, based on inspection results related to the 
area/place/site of origin. 
 Another EU Member State: in this case the phytosanitary certificate is issued based on the 
inspection results from its own competent authorities at the time of export and, where 
relevant, on information from the competent authority of the country of origin. This may take the form of either a plant passport ensuring trac eability to the place of production or some 
other exchange of information between the co mpetent authorities e.g. the issuance of a 
standardised information document called the "Intra-EU Phytosanitary Communication Document".  
 In a country, not within the EU: in this case, two scenarios exist. In the first scenario: if a 
phytosanitary certificate is required for import into the EU (depending on the phytosanitary 
risk related to the transit of the commodity) - a re-export certificate is issued. In the second: if 
a phytosanitary certificate is not required for import in the EU - a phytosanitary certificate will be issued on the basis of a phytosanitary insp ection carried out by the competent authority, 
providing the necessary guarantees to the count ry of import and, where relevant, based on 
supplementary information obtained from  the NPPO of the country of origin. 
3. As mentioned above, paragraph 3.123 of th e Report by the Secretariat (document 
No. WT/TPR/S/284 of 28 May 2013) deals with plants and plant products. In this regard we 
would like to receive the following clarification. The EU Council Directive 2000/29 is the main document of the European Union, regulating import requirements for regulated products. This document prohibits imports to the EU of Pinus, Picea, Tsuga plants as well as certain others 
from the non-European countries. Besides, it prohibits import of seed potatoes from the third 
countries, including Russian Federation. How this measure secures the compliance with Articles 3 and 5 of the WTO SPS Agreement? 
EU reply: Import prohibitions for specified plants into the EU - provided for in Part A of Annex III 
of the Union Plant Health Directive 2000/29/EC - ha ve been in place since the beginning of the EU 
plant health regime in 1977.  No new information has been provided to the EU that required the 
review of these import prohibitions. 
The commodities listed in the annex, present a high phytosanitary risk to EU production and the 
natural environment. The pest status of the quarantine pests potentially associated with these commodities, as well as the procedures applied to detect and eradicate them as applied in other 
parts of the world, are new and largely unknown to the EU. 
Derogations from this prohibition for plants from specified countries of origin and under specific 
conditions are however possible. The exporting country simply needs to provide a technical dossier WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 313 - 
 
  to the EU including information on the pest status in the country of export, in order for the EU to 
carry out its own assessment of the risk as st ated in Article 5 of the WTO SPS Agreement. 
Following such a risk assessment, appropriate ri sk management measures can then be taken.  
This approach is in line with WTO/SPS and IPPC  principles and is commonly used throughout the 
world.   
4. The whole Section 3.1.9 "Sanitary and phytosanitary standards (SPS)" of the Report by the 
Secretariat (document No. WT/TPR/S/284 of 28 May 2013) is devoted to SPS regulation in the 
EU. We would appreciate an answer for the follo wing question which was not covered by this 
Section. How the appropriate veterinary control is guaranteed at the external border of the 
EU? Export procedure is still the responsibility  of the EU members. The European Commission 
does not have such competence. However, the appropriate control should be provided. Russian 
veterinary service has several times raised this issue within the dialogue with the EU 
competent authorities. In addition we believe that the same question of guarantees is valid when achieving the appropriate level of control during the certification procedure of products 
for export in the EU establishments by the EU member veterinary services. 
EU reply:  In the case of the EU, all food and food products exported from the EU must comply 
with the safety requirements provided for under EU law unless the import requirements of the 
country of destination specifically provides for other measures.  
In such a case, third country requirements must be drawn up in accordance with relevant 
international provisions, in a transparent manner and in consultation with trading partners. Such requirements may also be subject to export certificates in accordance with international provisions. 
The EU accepts that import controls take place at  the borders of its trading partners. Equally, the 
EU accepts that export certificates may be sign ed by the competent authorities of the exporting 
Member States, under their responsibility, on the basis of information that may brought to the 
attention of the competent authority by different means - including a veterinary certificate from 
another party, or operator own checks. The EU also considers that a Member State may use products coming from another Member State for further export, as long as compliance of the 
products with the import requirements of the receiving trading partner is ensured. 
The EU fully respects the SPS related import requirements of WTO Member trading partners which 
are set in line with the WTO SPS Agreement. 
5. Issues related to the "Third energy package" – the Russian Federation kindly asks to provide 
answers for the following questions on this meas ure, which were not covered by the Report by 
the Secretariat (document No. WT/TPR/S/284 of 28 May 2013, Section 4.3.4 "Pipeline services"): 
5.1. The relevant EU Directives provide for three options for compliance with the unbundling 
requirement (i.e. ownership unbundling, TSO, ISO) . These options are of different degree of 
restrictiveness. How does this measure comply with GATS Article II? 
5.2. The relevant EU Directives provide for discr etion of the regulator to grant exemptions from 
the unbundling requirements to certain types of infrastructure. How does this measure 
comply with GATS Article II? 
5.3. The requirements for certification of the TSOs with foreign capital provide for different 
treatment depending on the country of origin of such capital. How do these certification 
requirements comply with GATS Article II? 
5.4. Taking into account that the EU has undert aken specific commitments as regards Wholesale 
Trade Services (CPC 622) and Storage and Ware house Services (CPC 742) (other than in 
ports) and the relevant EU Directives affect both of these sectors; the fact that the relevant EU Directives are applied differently in different  part of the EU territory; the fact that the 
claimed goal of the liberalization of the energy market could be achieved in a manner less 
onerous for foreign service providers; the high  level of discretion and lack of objective 
criteria for granting exemptions as well as certification of TSOs with foreign capital, how do WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 314 - 
 
  the relevant EU Directives comply with the requ irement of GATS Articles VI:1, VI:4 and, in 
particular, Articles VI:4(a), VI:4(b) and VI:5? 
5.5.  The EU's Specific Commitments do not provide for possibility either to apply restrictions in 
respect of acquisition of real estate, or to impose any additional requirements in respect of 
the suppliers of services through commercial presence such as those provided for in the 
Third Energy Package. How do the relevant EU  Directives comply with the EU's Specific 
Commitments? 
EU reply to questions 5.1-5.5:  This set of questions relates to the implementation of the "Third 
energy package". Getting all the relevant information would take a long time and, since these 
questions were sent late (i.e. after the deadline had elapsed), the EU can only state that it is fully 
confident that the provisions of the relevant Directives are fully compatible with the EU's 
obligations under the GATS. 
6. Paragraph 3.57 of the Report by the Se cretariat (document No. WT/TPR/S/284 of 
28 May 2013) points that "the EU does not mainta in quantitative restrictions on imports from 
WTO Members and countries with bilateral agreements". At the same time, the EU Directive 
98/30/EC of 28 June 1998 provides EU member-states with the right to limit gas import by determining the level of "openness" of their ma rkets through modification of the list of so 
called "eligible customers". From its side th e EU Directive 96/92/EC of 18 December 1996 
establishes the obligation of customers to accord contracts in accordance with articles 17 and 18 of this directive (concerning third party access to the network and conditions of supply) if their consumption is above of certain level. Such provisions establish quantitative restrictions 
as well. How above mentioned provisions comply with requirements of GATT Article XI?  
EU reply:  The legislation referred to has been repealed by subsequent legislation. The legislation 
is thus not in force anymore.     
7. The Russian Federation thanks the Secretariat for providing information about regulatory 
regime of the road transport at the EU level (document No. WT/TPR/S/284 of 28 May 2013, table 4.42). Nevertheless, as mentioned in the paragraph 4.142, "the road transport sector is 
essentially regulated at member-State level… it is therefore impossible to describe… the 
applied regime". In this light the Russian Fede ration would like to point out that the Russian 
road transport freight carriers face quotation of permits for transit carriage through territories of several EU member-states, na mely Hungary, Spain, Italy, Norway, Romania, Slovenia and 
Czech Republic. How does this quotation comply with requirements of GATT Article V:2? How 
does the EU ensure the uniform application of its GATT Article V obligation across its whole territory as provided for by GATT Article X? 
EU reply:  Firstly, the Secretariat's report does not state in paragraph 4.142 that the applied 
regime cannot be described, but rather that it cannot be described "in any detail" most likely given 
the limitations of the report itself. Secondly, with regard to "permits" as referred to in the 
question, the relevant arrangements are negotiat ed bilaterally on a regular basis between the 
parties of bilateral transport agreements or are pr ovided through a multilateral framework such as 
the European Conference of Ministers of Tran sport (ECMT), which applies to 54 participating 
countries including Russia. Thirdly, Norway is not a Member State of the European Union, although 
its inclusion among the countries listed in the question only serves to highlight the widespread 
application of such arrangements. 
Regarding the particular questions raised, in th e view of the EU, arrangements applied under 
bilateral and multilateral road transport agreemen ts are in line with GATT Article V:2, unlike for 
example certain restrictive approaches that are employed by some Members regarding transit via 
fixed infrastructures. Wherever relevant, the EU ensures the uniform application of legislation 
across the EU inter alia by way of legislative actions, monitoring and judicial oversight.  
In general terms, international road transport re lations between the EU Member States and third 
countries are governed by bilateral agreements between EU Member States and third countries 
concerned. However, in certain cases the Union has also concluded agreements with third 
countries in the field of road transport including transit. In the road transport sector this is a usual 
approach, even between WTO Members. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 315 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM SOUTH AFRICA 
REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT (WT/TPR/G/284) 
3.49. In the EU, value-added tax (VAT) is applied to both domestic and imported goods and 
services. For imported goods, VAT is assessed on the customs values plus duties, other charges, 
and incidental expenses. VAT on imports, in ge neral, must be paid at the time of customs 
clearance. Goods are treated as imports for VAT purposes if they arrive from outside the EU (within the meaning of the VAT Directive) or via another EU country without having been released 
for free circulation. Imported goods are in free circulation once the applicable duties have been 
paid and the customs formalities complied with. Ho wever, traders need to cope with different 
import VAT rules depending on the Member State of importation; there is no uniformity between member States with regard to the liability and different payment regimes applied.  
 Can the EU explain how does the difference( s) in the EU Member States' import VAT 
rules managed? 
EU reply:  VAT is a national tax contributing about 22% of Member States' tax receipts. It's set by 
common rules at EU level (VAT Directive). VAT Directive ensures that Member States have 
sufficient flexibility to determine their fiscal policy,  and –subject to certain imperatives- decide on 
the most efficient tools to serve policy goals set.  
As regards import VAT collection, according to Ar ticle 211 of VAT Directive Member States shall lay 
down the detailed rules for import VAT payment. In accordance with the subsidiarity principle, it is up to the Member States to make their choice on this matter according to their budgetary policy. 
Import VAT may be collected: (1) immediately at the EU border; (2) deferred for certain amount 
of days; (3) postponed to the VAT return.  
 What is the VAT payable if the imported g oods enter via customs border of one of the 
EU Member States whose VAT is lower but the goods are destined to another EU 
Member State whose VAT is higher? 
EU reply:  The common system of VAT established in th e VAT Directive ensures that the goods are 
effectively taxed in their destination Member State.  
In case if the goods are imported in one Member State (import VAT paid at a national rate) and 
then transported to another Member State for busi ness purposes, the transfer of goods to another 
Member State is considered as a taxable transaction.  
As a result of this taxable transaction, import VAT may be deducted (if the requirements for VAT 
deduction are fulfilled) in the first Member State whereas in the second Member State that taxable 
person is obliged to calculate so called 'reverse charge' VAT on the intra-EU acquisition of goods at the rate applicable in that Member State. This self-calculated VAT may also be deducted if the 
requirements for VAT deduction are fulfilled. 
3.106. The EU notified 51 regular and 7 emergency SPS measures to the WTO between 1 January 
2011 and 31 January 2013. The EU considers that, of the 41 notified measures for which there was 
a relevant international standard, 29 conformed to that international standard. Apart from 
emergency notifications, almost 85% of notificati ons specified the multilaterally recommended 60-
day period for public comment (up from below 60% in the last TPR); for the rest, the EU considered that a comment period was not applicable, or the period between publication of the 
notification and adoption of the measure was le ss than 60 days. Among the notified measures, the 
EU identified 13 as "trade facilitating". In addi tion, the EU submitted a large number of addenda 
during the period under review, providing additi onal information on previously notified SPS 
measures.  
 Can the EU please explain the 13 " trade facilitating " measures and how are these 
measures " trade facilitative "? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 316 - 
 
  EU reply: During the period since the last EU TPR, the EU indeed issued several notifications on 
measures which were identified as trade facilitatin g. Their trade facilitating nature was decided on 
a case by case basis taking into account the impact of the new measures.  
 Can the EU explain the necessity of introd ucing a bulk of measures (namely 24/41) 
which is not "trade facilitative" especia lly in light of subdued global trade and 
growth respectively? 
EU reply: Measures are based on relevant international standards and/or the EU's own risk 
assessment. They are not more trade restrictive than necessary and are applied in a 
non-discriminatory manner. The EU does not take measures on the basis of trade flows or the prevailing economic climate.  
Financial Services 
Part 4. Trade Policies by Sector: (4.3) Serv ices (4.3.1) Financial services Paragraph 
4.108, Page 152 
The Secretariat's Report notes that foreign-owned subsidiaries can benefit from a 'European 
passport'. 
1. Would the EU elaborate on the criteria for granting an 'EU passport'? 
EU reply: The "European/single passport" is a system which allows financial services operators 
legally established in one EU Member State to establish/provide their services in the other EU 
Member States without further authorisation requirements.  
2. Can the EU provide a list of the country names whose subsidiaries have been granted 
such a passport and or refused such a passport? 
EU reply: The EU and foreign financial institutions are treated the same way: once a financial 
services operator is legally established in one EU Member State, it may establish/provide its 
services in the other EU Member States without further authorisation requirements.  
4.3.3.3 Maritime transport services  
4.136. Table 4.40 describes the regulatory fr amework of maritime transport in the EU 
and its planned evolutions; On-going regulatory developments; Page 166 
According to the Secretariat Note, a new European port policy was announced by the 2011 
transport white paper. In 2012, the Commission carried out an exhaustive stakeholders' consultation exercise for the review of the EU ports' policy. The Commission is said to be actively  
pursuing the provision of infrastr ucture for clean fuels in ports. 
3. Can the EU provide an update with reference to what progress has been made with 
respect to the infrastructure for clean fuels? Furthermore can the EU elaborate how this planned change in infrastructure for clean fuels will affect foreign maritime vessels 
that use EU port infrastructure and what possible costs will this impose on foreign 
maritime vessels?  
EU reply: The EU has recently (Directive 2012/33/EU) transposed stricter IMO requirements on 
sulphur content of marine fuels into EU legislation. The marine vessels have to comply with the 
sulphur requirements either by using low sulphur fuel or emission abatement methods that would 
achieve equivalent emission reductions (e. g. scrubbers or LNG). 
The European Commission has furthermore proposed (COM(2013) 18/2) a Directive on the 
deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure which, once approved by Council and European 
Parliament, would require certain ports to provide LNG refuelling facilities and possibly also shore-side electricity. The Commission has not proposed any obligations for any vessels to use this 
infrastructure.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 317 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS FROM SINGAPORE 
PART I: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT QUESTIONS: Summary 
Page 10 (Para 9) and Page 64 (Section 3.1.9) 
1. We note that the EU has concluded SPS Agreements with Andorra, Canada, Chile, EFTA, 
Faroe Islands, Lichtenstein, Mexico, New Zealand, San Marino, Switzerland, the US and Korea. 
Does this mean that the SPS measures of these countries have been harmonised with the EU's 
acquis  on food safety, veterinary and phytosanitary policy? If so, would products from third 
countries (i.e. non-EU countries) still be subject to additional requirements vis-à-vis  products from 
the EU in the event that they have preferential  trade agreements with the EU? We note that 
Turkey, Iceland and Montenegro are not on this list . Is this because the EU is negotiating SPS with 
them as part of their accession to the EU?  
EU reply: One of the main purposes of SPS Chapters in bilateral agreements, such as Free Trade 
Agreements, and SPS and Veterinary Agreements be tween the EU and third countries is to create 
a structured framework between the parties for cooperation and trade facilitation in the SPS sector. In SPS and Veterinary Agreements and SP S chapters of Free Trade Agreements, there are 
different ways of facilitating trade, namely recognition of regional conditions for animal and plant 
diseases and equivalence of measures or systems, and regulatory approximation. SPS matters with Turkey, Iceland and Montenegro are addresse d in the context of the accession process and 
there is thus no need for SPS bilateral agreements with these countries. Nevertheless, the EU-
Turkey Customs Union contains a specific protocol which covers some SPS matters. 
Trade and Investment Regime 
Page 32 (Para 2.33)  
2. We note that the Customs Unions that the EU maintains with Turkey, Andorra and San 
Marino covers goods. We would appreciate if the EU can provide further details on the precise scope of coverage of its Customs Unions. In particular, we would like to know if the Customs Union 
covers all goods (both agriculture and non-agriculture), and what this coverage entails. For 
example, does the scope of coverage apply only to preferential tariff access, or does it seek to 
establish a common external tariff akin to that of the EU's for all goods? Does it also include regulatory issues related to trade in goods?  
3. In addition, are countries in a Customs Union with the EU obliged to automatically adopt 
the same commitments that the EU has committed to pursuant to the EU's FTAs in the area of trade in Goods, specifically in relation to preferential market access and rules of origin? 
4. We further note that the EU's Customs Union with Turkey, Andorra and San Marino have 
been in place for more than ten years. Does the EU intend to extend the scope of these Customs 
Union arrangements beyond Goods to Services and Investment? If so, can the EU share the 
envisaged timeline? 
EU reply to questions 2 to 4:  The EU has  customs unions with Turkey, Andorra and San 
Marino. A Customs Union with the EU would in principle imply the following aspects: 
 free movement of goods within the customs union  
 alignment on external tariff, including pref erential arrangements, and harmonization of 
commercial policy measures; 
 approximation of customs law and mutual assistance in customs matters; WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 318 - 
 
   approximation of some other laws (intellectual property, competition, taxation, ...)  
Almost all goods are covered by the Customs Unions. Goods covered by the Customs Union 
circulate freely within the Customs Union, if they are: 
 wholly obtained or produced in the Customs Union or  
 have come from a third country but have been released for free circulation in the Customs 
Union (all duties and other charges paid). 
Non covered goods could be covered by an FTA concluded between the partners involved (i.e. coal 
and steel with Turkey).  
2. Turkey 
The EC-Turkey Customs Union has been established by Decision 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association 
Council (OJ L 35, 13.2.1996, p. 1), acting within  the powers conferred to it by the EC-Turkey 
Association Agreement. The Customs Union covers industrial products (including processed 
agricultural products) but excludes agricultural products, which are covered under a separate 
Decision of the EC-Turkey Association Council 
According to Article 26 of the EC-Turkey Associatio n Agreement, products within the province of 
the European Coal and Steel Community are ex cluded from the Association Agreement, and 
consequently they are also excluded from the EC -Turkey Customs Union, but they are covered in a 
separate FTA. 
By a Decision of the EC-Turkey Association Council Turkey undertook to incorporate in its legal 
order EU instruments relating to the removal of technical barriers to trade. 
3. Turkey 
Turkey has to align its commercial policy to the EU policy. To achieve that, in the area of FTAs, 
T u r k e y  s e e k s  t o  c o n c l u d e  F T A s  w i t h  e a c h  E U  F T A  p a r t n e r .  T h e  p r o v i s i o n s  o f  a n  F T A  o f  a  W T O  
Member with Turkey concerning trade in goods will have to be substantially similar to the provisions of the FTA of the same WTO Member with  the EU. The rules of origin of the Turkey-WTO 
Member X FTA have to be identical to the EU - WTO Member X FTA.  
4. Turkey 
Attempts to extend the scope of the Customs Union were made in the early 2000. However, these 
attempts did not materialise. Currently, there are no such plans to extend the coverage of the 
Customs Union, but this issue could be revisited in due time if favourable conditions arise. 
2. Andorra 
The Customs Union Agreement between the EU and Andorra (Agreement in the form of an 
Exchange of Letters between the European Economic  Community and the Principality of Andorra of 
28 June 1990 (OJ L374, 31.12.1990, p. 16); the agreement eentered into force on 1 January 1991) covers products under Chapters 25 to 92 of the harmonised System (HS). 
Products covered by Chapre 1 to 24 of the HS originating in Andorra are exempted from import 
duties when imported into the EU, whereas Andorra is  entitled to levy import duties on imports of 
these products coming from the EU.  
3. Andorra 
Andorra shall apply in respect of third countries the Common Customs Tariff, laws, regulations and 
administrative provisions applicable to customs matters in the Community and necessary for the proper functioning of the customs union and the common commercial policy of the Community.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 319 - 
 
  4. Andorra 
Currently, there are no plans to extend the sc ope of the Customs Union Agreement between the 
EU and Andorra. 
2. San Marino 
The Co-operation and Customs Union Agreement between the EU and San Marino (Agreement on 
Cooperation and Customs Union between the Europe an Economic Community and the Republic of 
San Marino (OJ L84, 28.3.2002, p. 43). This agreement was signed on 16 December 1991, but 
only entered into force on 1 April 2002; it was supplemented in March 2010 by an Omnibus 
Decision adopted by the EC-San Marino Joint Committee, covering customs measures, and veterinary and phytosanitary matters (OJ L156, 23.6.2010, p. 13) covers products under Chapters 1 to 97 of HS.  
3. San Marino 
San Marino shall apply in respect of third countries the Common Customs Tariff, laws, regulations 
and administrative provisions applicable to customs matters in the Community and necessary for 
the proper functioning of the customs union and the common commercial policy of the Community. 
4. San Marino 
Currently, there are no plans to extend the scope of the Co-operation and Customs Union 
Agreement between the EU and San Marino. 
Trade Policies and Practices By Measure 
Page 39 (Para 3.4 and 3.6)  
5. We note from the Secretariat's Report that th e EU has exclusive competence in the field of 
customs policy and legislation. However, specific appeals procedures are set out in the respective 
national legislations and may therefore vary acro ss individual EU Member States. Does the EU 
have any plans to harmonise appeal procedures across its Member States?  
EU reply:  Article 243 of the Customs Code provides for the right of appeal in two stages: it may 
be exercised initially before the customs authorit ies in the Member State where the decision has 
been taken or applied for. Appeal decisions taken by the individual Member State's customs 
authorities could be then appealed before an independent body, usually a judicial or other 
independent authority in that Member State.  
The Code does not interfere with the way the MS implement the right of appeal but just stresses 
the obligation to provide for a two stage appeal. Consequently there is no plan to harmonise 
appeal procedures in the future. 
Page 41 (Para 3.13)  
6. We note that under EU customs legislation, national customs administrations must issue 
advance written rulings on tariff classification and origin matters. We would like to know whether 
the EU intends to implement advance ruling for customs valuation. 
EU reply:  At present, the EU customs legislation does not allow the issue of advance rulings in 
valuation matters. 
Page 44 (Para 3.32)  
7. Could the EU share, broadly, its experience  w i t h  d i a g o n a l  c u m u l a t i o n  i n  t h e  E U ' s  
agreements with EFTA countries, Mediterranean countries and Western Balkan countries?  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 320 - 
 
  EU reply:  The pan-European cumulation system wa s created in 1997 on the basis of the EEA 
agreement (1994) between the EC, the EFTA countries, the CEEC countries and the Baltic States. 
It was then widened to industrial products orig inating in Turkey (1999). As a result, the pan-
European cumulation system started to be oper ated between the Community, the States of the 
European Free Trade Association ( Iceland, Liec htenstein, Norway and Switzerland) and Turkey. 
The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership was launched with a joint declaration of the Foreign Ministers 
from the European Union and Mediterranean Partners  in Barcelona in November 1995 - also called 
the "Barcelona Process". The Partners agreed upon a strategy aiming at creating an area of shared 
prosperity through the progressive establis hment of free trade between the EU and its 
Mediterranean partners and amongst the partners themselves by 2010. The first step towards the 
creation of this free trade area was the conclusion of a full set of Euro-Mediterranean association 
agreements between the EU and its partners in the Mediterranean, granting reciprocal trade 
preferences. Euro-Mediterranean association agreements with Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Israel, 
Jordan, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt entered into force.  
Pages 52 (Para 3.63)  
8. Would the EU be able to share how dumping injury are assessed under its comitology 
rules? Is the assessment done based on whether du mping injury is found in the individual Member 
State or the whole of the EU? 
EU reply:  For the purpose of defining whether dumping exists and causes injury to the 
Community industry, the Union market is, as a rule, considered as a single market, and injury 
determinations are made on a Union-wide basis. Article 4(1) of the Basic Regulation 1225/2009 
stipulates that the territory of the Community may in exceptional circumstances be divided into 
two or more competitive markets. If the conditions listed in Article 4(1)b of above-mentioned regulation are met, 'injury may be found to exist even where a major portion of the total 
Community industry is not injured, provided there is a concentration of dumped imports into such 
an isolated market and provided further that the dumped imports are causing injury to the producers of all or almost all of the production within such a market'. 
The comitology rules allow a committee of EU member  states to familiarise itself with the outcome 
of the investigation and to vote on draft regulations. 
Page 53 (Para 3.65)  
9. We note that the Commission launched an initiative to modernise trade defence 
instruments in October 2011. As part of this modernisation exercise, the EU is planning to release 
a communication, guidelines and a legislative propos al in Spring 2013. We would appreciate if the 
EU could share further details on this initiative, and if there are plans to release publicly all the 
information and details of the modernisation exercise.  
EU reply:  In the framework of the modernisation exercise, the European Commission adopted a 
Communication, a legislative proposal and draft gu idelines on 10 April 2013. These documents are 
publicly available on the website of the European Commission. The legislative proposal was 
transmitted to the European Parliament and th e Council and follows the ordinary legislative 
procedure which will hopefully be concluded by April 2014. The proposals that do not require a legislative change (as explained in the Communica tion) will be implemented by the Commission in 
the coming months. The guidelines are under public  consultation until end of July 2013, and after 
taking into account the comments received, the final guidelines will be adopted by the Commission in due course. The text is available at the following address: 
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/april/tradoc_150837.pdf .  
Page 54 (Para 3.71)  
10. We note that the EU may terminate anti-dumping or countervailing measures before their 
expiry. If these measures have been imposed for more than a year, interim reviews may be 
requested by any exporter, importer, or by EU pr oducers. We would like to find out the detailed 
procedures and basis for which exporters could go about requesting for this interim review, and WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 321 - 
 
  the number of times that exporters are allowed to  request for such interim review(s) within the 
usual 5-year span for which anti-dumping duties are applied?  
EU reply:  It is indeed possible to modify or termin ate a measure before its expiry, through an 
interim review. Such an interim review can be initiated on the initiative of the Commission, or 
upon a request made by a member state or, provided  that a reasonable period of time of at least 
one year has elapsed since the imposition of the de finitive measure, by any importer or exporter 
or by Community producers. The detailed procedures for interim reviews are laid out in Article 11 
of the Basic Regulation 1225/2009. There are no  explicit limits to the number of times that 
exporters can request interim reviews. Any requ est must be based on sufficient prima facie 
evidence on that the duty in force should be varied or repealed. 
For more information, please refer to the following web-page: 
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/accessing-markets/trade-defence/actions-against-imports-into-
the-eu/ .  
Page 57 (Section 3.1.8)  
11. For countries which are engaged in accession negotiations with the EU, and which 
transpose EU Directives into their respective technical regulations (i.e. "harmonised areas") regimes, would products from third countries (i.e. non-EU countries) be subject to additional 
requirements vis-à-vis  products from the EU? If so, in the event that the third country has a 
preferential trade agreement with the EU, would products from the third country be subject to 
additional requirements vis-à-vis  products from the EU? 
EU reply: Countries engaged in accession negotiations with the EU are required to progressively 
transpose the EU Directives, as well as any other acts  of EU law, into their respective legislation. 
In the negotiation process, the EU insists on full  alignment of the acceding country's legislation 
with EU legislation prior to accession so as to ensure that at the time of acceding to the EU the 
same rules apply throughout the EU (including the new EU Member State). 
EU legislation does not differentiate between products that originate in the EU and those that 
originate from third countries in terms of technical requirements that they have to fulfil in order to 
be placed on the market. Hence, as soon as the acceding country has fully aligned its legislation to 
EU legislation in a specific sector the same requirements (corresponding to those laid down in EU legislation) will apply in that country to all products, be they domestic products or coming from the EU or any other third country. In other words, pr oducts from third countries should not be subject 
to any additional requirements compared to domest ic products or products from the EU. The EU is 
not in a position to comment on applicable requirements in acceding country prior to its alignment to EU legislation. 
A preferential agreement between the EU and a third country is an international bilateral 
agreement by whose provisions the EU and the third country concerned are bound. The 
negotiating country will become bound by this agre ement as of the day of its accession to the EU. 
It is possible that special transitional provisions have been negotiated between the acceding 
country and the third country in agreement with the EU, but in any case, with regard to technical regulations and requirements for products, once the negotiating country accedes to the preferential agreement between the EU and a third country, the requirements for products 
originating in the EU or in a third country are th e same i.e. there are no separate or additional 
requirements for the products originating in a third country. 
Page 69 (Para 3.131)  
12. We understand that goods exported out of the EU must go through an export procedure 
and declared at customs. If no simplified procedur e is used, the export declaration is made on the 
Single Administrative Document (SAD) or its electronic equivalent at the customs office of export, 
at the place where the declarant/exporter is estab lished, or where the goods are packed or loaded 
for export. In cases where the goods travel throug h another member State, the customs office of 
export then sends the customs office of exit the export declaration information through the Export 
Control System (ECS). The results of the exit are re ported back electronically to the customs office 
of export, for the issuance of the export notice (exit confirmation) to the declarant or exporter.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 322 - 
 
  13. Would the EU be able to explain how the hard-copy SAD is being transmitted via the ECS 
system, and whether the customs office of export would be required to do data-entry or convert the information in the SAD into electronic form?  
EU reply to questions 12 and 13:  Since 1 July 2009, export declarations (as well as declarations 
for outward processing and re-export after a customs procedure with economic impact) have to be 
lodged in electronic form and must contain additional data elements introduced for safety and security purposes where no other form of declaration (e.g. orally or by crossing the frontier) may 
be, and is, used. In general, this means that the information has to be filled in the ECS system by 
the declarant whereas the use of a hard-copy of the SAD is only foreseen when the fallback procedure under Articles 787(2) and 842b(3) CCIP has to be applied (unavailability of IT systems).  
See also link: http://ec.europa.eu/ecip/documents/pro cedures/annex_1_fallback_rules_en.pdf .  
We would also appreciate if the EU could share on the scenarios with "duly justified good reasons" 
whereby the export declaration may also be accepted by a customs office other than that normally responsible. 
EU reply:  In general: "Duly justified circumstances" exist inter alia where there is a situation 
which could not have been foreseen in which the application of the general rule in Article 161 (5) 
of the Code would require an economically unreasonable effort by the exporter. 
(1) Where goods are sent to a destination in the EU  and there is a change in the contract after 
they leave the place of loading, as a result of  which they have to be exported, the export 
declaration may be accepted by the customs office by which the goods leave the customs 
territory of the Community. 
(2) Under the second and third subparagraph of Article 793a(5) CCIP, the customs office of exit 
may accept a declaration in respect of goods not wrongfully or repeatedly in excess or goods actually presented, provided this does not undermine application of the relevant legislation. 
(3) Where the customs office responsible for su pervising the place where the exporter is 
established is at some distance away and in th e wrong direction, rendering the application of 
Article 161 (5) of the Code uneconomic, the declaration may be accepted by the first customs 
office on the route from the place of establishm ent to point of exit from the customs territory 
of the Community. 
In addition, we would appreciate it if the EU co uld explain on the type of "simplified procedures" 
available for swifter clearance at the time of shipment and when it would be applicable.  
EU reply:  There are three simplified procedures available: 
 Incomplete declaration: the declaration omits certain of the particulars or some documents 
required; 
 Simplified declaration: a comme rcial or administrative document, accompanied by request for 
the goods to be placed under the customs procedure in question; 
 Local clearance procedure: the goods enter in th e procedure in question by means of an entry 
in the records; in this case, the customs authorities may waive the requirement that the 
declarant presents the goods to customs. 
The simplified procedures are applicable upon request. 
Page 76 (Para 3.188)  
14. We note that the Temporary framework to ease access to finance expired in December 
2011. No new aid measure was implemented in 2011 under the framework. However, the 
Commission allowed 23 schemes to be extended. We would appreciate if the EU could share with us:  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 323 - 
 
  (a) Whether these schemes are made available to all EU-based companies (including non-EU 
companies which are based in the EU)?  
(b) How would companies be able to qualify for these schemes?  
(c) The detailed operating mechanisms of these schemes? 
EU reply: 
(a) Yes 
(b)(c) The Commission adopted the Temporary Framework on 17.12.2008. The Framework was 
intended to provide Member States with the possibility to adopt additional State aid measures 
aimed at facilitating companies' access to finance and at the same time encouraging companies to continue investing in the future during these exceptional circumstances. It was applicable until 31.12.2010. 
However, in view of high volatility of financial markets and the uncertainty about the economic 
outlook, the Commission considered justified to prolong certain measures set out in the Temporary Framework until 31 December 2011. This concerned, in particular, those measures targeted at 
facilitating companies' access to finance as well as aid for the production of green products 
considering that firms were still finding it difficult to gain access to finance for the production of more environmentally friendly products due to the financial and economic crisis.  
The prolongation of certain measures was accompanied by the introduction of stricter conditions as 
a way to encourage a gradual return to normal State aid rules, while limiting their impact on competition. In particular, there was a decrease of the advantages allowed, the introduction of stricter conditions for large companies in comparison to those for SMEs and the exclusion of firms 
in difficulty from its scope of application. 
Prolongations of schemes notified to the Commiss ion after 1 January 2011 had to comply with the 
revised conditions of the Temporary Framework in  order to be declared compatible with the 
Treaty. They are in principle open to all EU companies established within the territory of the 
granting authority. Nevertheless, Member States may design more detailed eligibility criteria to define the companies benefiting from a scheme as well as the specific operating mechanisms as 
long as they remain within the established rules.  
In consequence, all the schemes mentioned need to comply with the revised Temporary 
Framework rules but the concrete application conditions of each scheme will be defined by the national legal basis. All the Commission's decisions are public: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/register/ .  
Page 95 (Para 3.260) 
15. We would like to better understand the geographical scope of Regulation (EU) No. 
1257/2012 of 17 December 2012 on " Implementing Enhanced Co-operation in the Area of the 
Creation of Unitary Patent Protection " and Council Regulation (EU) No. 1260/2012 of 17 December 
2012 on " Implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent 
protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements ". We note that as of February 
2013, only 24 EU Member States have signed the Agreement. Acceptance by 13 Member States, including the three member States with the highest number of European patents in force (Germany, France and the United Kingdom) is now required for the Agreement to enter into force. 
Could the EU please share with us:  
(a) Which EU Member States have not signed the agreement?  
EU reply: 25 Member States have signed the agreement (all EU Member States but PL and ES). 
So far, no Member States has ratified the agreement yet. The status of the ratification progress of 
the Agreement on the Unified Court can be followed at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/patent/ratification/index_en.htm .  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 324 - 
 
  (b) Assuming the scenario where the minimum requirements for the agreement to enter 
into force has been met, and the agreement comes into force, would it then mean that if a company were to apply for unified patent protec tion in the EU, it would only be conferred 
patent protection under the 13 Member States who have accepted the agreement, or 
would it be conferred patent protection under the 24 Member States who have signed the 
agreement in February 2013?  
EU reply: The European patent with unitary effect (which will be available once the Agreement on 
the Unified Patent court has entered into force) will in principle provide uniform patent protection 
for all the Member States participating in the enhanced cooperation (25 Member States at the moment – all EU Member States but ES and IT). Yet during a transitional period in which not all Member States have ratified the Agreement on th e Unitary Patent Court (UPC), the unitary effect 
of the European Patent will only extend to those Member States which have ratified the 
Agreement. Yet, in other countries which have not ratified the Agreement, a "classical" European Patent can be obtained (which requires validation in the individual Member States etc.). 
PART II: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT REPORT 
Nil. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 325 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS BY SWITZERLAND 
Report by the Secretariat 2. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME  
2.4 Preferential Trade Agreements and Arrangements 
2.4.1 Unilateral Preferences / 3.1.3.2 GSP rule s of origin / 3.4.2 GSP of EU's report 
Switzerland follows with great interest the developments on the EU's GSP system and has in fact 
endeavored to adapt its own GSP rules of origin up on the EU implementation in 2011 of simplified 
and more flexible rules of origin entailing a differentiation between developing and least developed 
countries. 
Could the EU please elaborate on its expectations with regards to the reasons behind and the 
impact of its decision to exclude, inter alia, Upper Middle Income Economies?  
EU reply: The main goal of the GSP is to respond to  the needs of developing countries and to 
enhance exports and, as a result, economic growth—which is typically measured by income. 
Different levels of income signal different needs by partners and elicit a differentiated response by 
GSP. This is the rationale behind the choice to fo cus preferences on poorer countries. In particular, 
the trade, financial and development needs of hi gh, but also upper middle income economies are 
no longer comparable to those of poorer developing countries. The more advanced developing 
countries no longer need preferences to successful ly trade with the rest of the world—and they 
have the resources to tackle more complex development problems which, by definition, cannot be addressed by GSP.  
Which countries and products will most likely benefit most? 
EU reply: Countries which will continue benefitting from preferences, and in particular Least 
Developed Countries, will see their export possibilities increase since the deferral of preferences for 
some of their richer competitors will open up opportunities for exports and further diversification. 
It is not possible to assess which products will happen to benefit the most from the revised GSP 
scheme, since it will be the outcome of benefi ciaries' ability to take advantage from these 
additional opportunities. 
What were the reasons for targeting these countries? 
EU reply: Preferences will be focused on LDCs and poorer developing countries which enjoy no 
other mechanisms of preferential access to the EU market because this is in line with the main 
scope of the GSP, which is to help economic growth in developing countries via enhanced trade 
opportunities. Poorer economies are affected by competition from the more advanced developing 
countries which often export very similar produc ts and GSP preferences tend to increase the 
competitive advantage of these more advanced economies. In fact, 40% of preferential exports 
under the current GSP rules are absorbed by the more advanced countries.  
Has a calibration exercise been undertaken to assess and measure the trade diversion effects of 
"Focusing on Needs"?  
EU reply: Trade diversion effects have been included in the public impact assessment which has 
been published in 2011, prior to the adoption of the revised scheme: 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2011/sec_2011_0536_en.pdf .  
What are the expected effects on EU consumers? 
EU reply: GSP revision has been done consistently with the rationale of GSP, i.e. by keeping 
exclusively in mind the needs of the developing countries. 
Effects on EU consumers have not been taken into consideration during the revision of the scheme 
but, for information, estimations have been included in the public impact assessment which has 
been published in 2011, prior to the adoption of the revised scheme: WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 326 - 
 
  http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2011/sec_2011_0536_en.pdf .  
On sectorial graduation, we appreciate the use of EU imports from a country relative to total EU 
imports under GSP as the measure for product competitiveness. We are interested to know whether the consequences from excluding a number of countries providing together the majority 
of imports under the GSP have been assessed? 
EU reply: The continued effect of sector graduation and deferral of preferences has been assessed 
in the public impact assessment which has been published in 2011, prior to the adoption of the 
revised scheme: 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2011/sec_2011_0536_en.pdf . 
With regards to the EU's plans to introduce a Re gistered Exporter ("REX") System for the GSP as 
of 1 January 2017, have the consequences been calculated, especially in terms of trade creation 
(thanks to the simplification of procedures on ce exporters are registered) as well as trade 
diversion (due to the difficulty for some to fulfill the registration conditions)?  
EU reply: In the context of international trade liberalisation, the Commission adopted on 18 
December 2003 a Green Paper on 'the future of rule s of origin in preferential trade arrangements' 
(COM(2003)787 final), which, inter alia, provided an  overview of the options available as regards 
the systems for certification, declaration and contro l of the originating status of products and ways 
of refocusing the current system of administrative cooperation. A consultation process was 
launched by the Green Paper the objective of wh ich was to help the Commission to formulate 
guidelines in line with the objectives of the preferential arrangements, taking account of the 
various interests at stake and the contributions received. The findings of the consultation process 
were further formalised in Commission Communication  of 2005 on the future of rules of origin in 
preferential trade arrangements wh ich provided an orientation for the GSP rules of origin reform, 
including the move towards the registered expo rter systems. Both mentioned documents are 
available online on the European Commission's website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_duties/rules_origin/preferential/article_7
77_en.htm .  
It is foreseen that the registration procedure will be simple. An exporter will only be required to fill 
out a short application form in which she or he should only provide basic details, such as the name and address. Indeed, one-off registration will make  it more simple for exporters to deliver proofs 
of origin. 
2.4.2 Reciprocal Preferences 
In paragraph 2.42 it is mentioned that during the period  under review, the EU signed two FTAs, 
one with Central America (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama) 
on 29 June 2012, another one with Peru and Colombia on 26 June 2012. The EU expects 
provisional application of these agreements to enter into force in 2013. To our knowledge, the 
agreement with Peru has been provisionally applied since March 2013. Could the EU indicate what 
is the status regarding the provisional application of its FTAs with Colombia respectively with the 
Central American States ? Is the provisional application effective for all domains covered by the agreements? If not, to which sectors/domains is it limited to?  
EU reply:  Regarding the agreement with Colombia and Peru, the Agreement has been 
provisionally applied between the EU and Peru since 1 March 2013. The Agreement will be applied 
between the EU and Colombia as of the first da y of the month following the month during which 
the notification is received by the depository, in which Colombia will confirm the conclusion of the 
necessary internal procedures. The Colombian Congress has approved the Agreement on 5 June. 
However, it is not yet clear when the notification, and thus the start of the provisional application, would be done. For full ratification by Colombia, the Constitutional Court needs to give its 
approval. However, a Presidential Decree can be i ssued to mandate provisional application before 
that, but it is not clear at this stage whether this option would be used. The provisional application of the Agreement with Colombia and Peru is effe ctive for all domains covered by the Agreement, 
with the exception of articles 2, 202(1), 291 and 292 of the Agreement.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 327 - 
 
  With respect to the EU Association Agreement with Central America (CA), based on the information 
provided by Central America, all Central American countries except Guatemala will be ready by 15 July for a provisional application on 1st Au gust. Guatemala ratified the Agreement and the 
necessary amendments of their trademark law. It  is expected that Guatemala will fulfil the 
conditions for provisional application by Sept ember. Notifications will be exchanged with 
Guatemala (and all CA countries not ready for 15 July) at a later stage, most probably in the course of September for a provisional application on 1
st October. 
As regards the scope of the application, as explic itly laid down in Article 353(4), the provisional 
application of the Agreement will be limited to Part IV which relates to Trade matters. The Agreement as a whole (i.e. integrating also the two other pillars: Political dialogue and cooperation) will enter into force once EU Member States will have finalized their internal legal 
procedures for this purpose. 
2.5.1 Foreign investment regime Paragraph 2.49 
Would investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms which will be included in future EU 
investment agreements be applicable to both provisions on market access for foreign investment and provisions on investment protection?  
EU reply:  The EU has not yet concluded any international investment agreement and thus cannot 
comment on ongoing negotiations. 
Paragraph 2.50 To which international agreements establishing investor-state dispute settlement tribunals does 
the EU refer? 
EU reply:  The proposed regulation is aimed to apply to all investment agreements concluded or to 
be concluded between the Union with third countries . It needs to be stressed that this is only a 
proposed Regulation and has not yet been adopted by the EU. At the moment, the only such 
agreement to which the Union is a party is the Energy Charter Treaty. 
Paragraph 2.54 
Which other EU Member States than the ones mentioned in this paragraph maintain FDI review 
procedures for national security purposes?  
EU reply:  In addition to the Countries mentioned in the report Austria, Bulgaria Denmark, Italy, 
Lithuania, Denmark, Slovenia and Spain maintain FDI review procedures for national security 
purposes.  
Paragraph 2.56 Is there a deadline for EU Member States to proceed to such a notification? What happens with 
respect to the BITs previously concluded on a bilateral basis if a Member State does not proceed to 
this notification? 
EU reply:  The deadline for notifications by Member Stat es of all bilateral investment agreements 
with third countries signed before 1 December 2009 was 8 February 2013. The Commission is not 
aware of any such agreement that has not been no tified pursuant to the Regulation. The list of 
notified agreements was published on 8 May 2013 in  the Official Journal of the EU (OJ C 131/2). WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 328 - 
 
  3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 3.1.3 Rules of origin 3.1.3.1 Overview 
Paragraph 3.21 
With reference to the Pan-European Origin cumulation System used by the EU in the FTAs with 
Pan-Euro-Mediterranean countries, could the EU indicate whether cumulation applies to all 
products, including agricultural products? 
EU reply:  Cumulation applies to all products, provided that all the conditions to apply such 
cumulation are respected and that the produc ts are not expressly excluded from such a 
cumulation. 
3.1.4 Tariffs  
3.1.4.1 MFN tariffs  
In table 3.2 , the MFN average applied and the percenta ge of international tariff peaks have 
increased since the last TPR. Could the EU provid e some explanations as to the reasons of this 
increase? 
EU reply:  paragraph 3.36 at page 45 already answers this question. 
Paragraph 3.39 
The Secretariat's report states that "Entry prices apply on 28 tariff lines at the 8-digit level, 
including tomatoes, cucumbers, courgettes, citrus fruits, grapes, apricots, and plums (…)". Does the EU envisage any changes in the practice of ma intaining entry prices in the course of the CAP 
reform process? Could the EU please explain the motivation for maintaining entry prices? 
EU reply:  CAP reforms are not intended to change the EU 's agricultural tariff structure. The EU will 
continue to respect its WTO commitments, including in respect of the entry price system, which is 
bound in the EU schedule. The EU sees no reason to autonomously change the system. 
3.1.4.3 Tariff suspensions and tariff rate quotas According to para. 3.46, " autonomous tariff suspensions are opened for a period of five years, and 
are automatically prolonged if they are sufficiently used " .  A s  s o m e  o f  t h e  p r o d u c t s  f o r  w h i c h  
autonomous tariff suspension is opened are inte grated in the global value chain has the EU not 
considered rather suspending definitively or eliminating those duties? 
EU reply:  The European Union has already, in the past and on an occasional basis, suspended 
definitively or eliminated  some of those duties and integrated them in its schedule. However, this 
is only done in the framework of the multilateral tariff negotiations. Autonomous tariff suspensions are of temporary nature and can be lifted at any time.  
3.1.5 Domestic taxes collected at the border  
Paragraph 3.53   
In December 2011 the Commission adopted a communication on the future of VAT. Before this 
background, which steps does the EU intend to take in the coming years in view of a simplification 
of its VAT system? 
EU reply:  As mentioned in the Communication on the future of VAT – Towards a simpler, more 
robust and efficient VAT system tailored to the single market (COM(2011) 851), in order to 
simplify the EU VAT system in the coming years, the Commission plans to present a series of 
measures such as the broadening of the One-Stop-Shop concept as regards B2C intra-EU supplies, the standardisations of VAT obligations across th e EU and the overhaul of the VAT treatment of 
B2B cross-border transactions in the EU. As regards transactions with non-EU countries, the WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 329 - 
 
  Commission will initiate and facilitate initiatives for a stronger cooperation between tax and 
customs authorities. 
3.1.6 Import control and restrictions 
Paragraph 3.59 
Existing customs procedures in the EU are harmoniz ed and monitored at the EU level. The national 
administrations are in charge of applying the EU customs legislation. Has the Commission lately examined whether the grant of import licenses to WTO member states is executed the same way 
in all EU member states? How much latitude concerning requirements for license applicants do 
national administrations have?  
EU reply:  The common commercial policy is based on uniform principles. In order to achieve a 
greater uniformity in the rules for imports the EU has established common rules for imports from 
certain third countries on the basis of the Co uncil Regulation (EC) No 625/2009 of 7 July 2009 
(OJ L 185, 17.07.2009, p.1). The regulation sets common rules that have to be uniformly applied in all Member states. It can be mentioned, as an example, that it is established that the formalities 
to be carried out by importers should be simplified and should be identical regardless of the place 
where the goods clear customs. Or, as anothe r example, surveillance documents issued in 
connection with Community surveillance measures has to be valid throughout the Union, 
irrespective of the Member State of issue. In ge neral, it has to be recalled that the European 
Commission monitors the uniform application of the EU law throughout the Union and where a Member State fails to comply with EU law, traders have the possibility to resort to national means 
of redress. 
Then, with reference in particular to the agricultural sector, it can be recalled that the issue of 
import licences for agricultural products is harmonised at EU level by Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 376/2008 of 23 April 2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system 
of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products  and 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the 
administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import 
licences . Sectorial rules exist for some TRQs, but these are also harmonised by specific 
Regulations.  
The system of licence securities is harmonised by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 
282/2012 of 28 March 2012 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system 
of securities for agricultural products .  
The basis for harmonisation is Council Regulation (EC) No  1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 
establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain 
agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) , in particular Articles 130 – 134. 
3.1.7 Contingency measures 
3.1.7.2 Anti-dumping and Countervailing 
In para. 3.74 , the Secretariat's report notes that at the end of 2012, the EU had 112 AD 
measures in force, affecting 20 trading partners. Given the very large number of AD measures maintained by the EU, sometimes for more than  a decade, how can the EU Commission reconcile 
this intensive use of trade defense measures with the needs of global supply chains not least with 
a view to ensuring the maintenance of high valu e added activities and thus of good employment 
opportunities in Europe?  
EU reply:  The purpose of the imposition of trade defenc e measures is to tackle unfair trade. Since 
the EU is a major trading partner to most of the WTO Members, it is more often faced with unfair 
trade issues. Therefore, although in absolute numbers the measures in force might seem numerous, the EU, compared to other WTO members, is a modest user of anti-subsidy and anti-
dumping measures. For example, in 2012 the EU's trade defence measures in force affected only 
around 0.17% of the EU's overall imports. More specifically, the EU initiated only 4 AD cases during the period October 2012 – April 2013 ranking 7th among G-20 members, behind Brazil, India, Argentina, Turkey, Australia and Canada. In all its investigations, the EU takes account of WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 330 - 
 
  the interests of exporters, importers, Union prod ucers, users and where relevant consumers, i.e. 
all economic actors.  
Also, a study recently published by the Swedish National Board of Trade (see Kommerskollegium 
National Board of Trade, Paving the Way for Unfair Competition: The Imposition of EU 
Anti-Dumping Duties on Ceramic Tiles from China, Stockholm, February 2012) concludes that the 
use of anti-dumping measures weakens the effect iveness of competition policy in the EU. Could 
the EU Commission provide its views on this question?  
EU reply:  The article referred to by Switzerland sugge sts that anti-dumping is not an adequate 
instrument to address competition problems. However, currently there is no other tool to address 
unfair trade in the international context.  
It has to be clarified that EU competition law applies only within the EU. In the absence of 
international competition law, the only instruments that exist to tackle unfair trade between the EU 
and countries outside the EU are the instrume nts provided for in the WTO – anti-dumping, 
anti-subsidy and safeguard measures. The aptitude  of the trade defence instruments to address 
international trade distortions has been questioned  in the past but so far the members of the WTO 
have not agreed on any other more appropriate measures to resolve the problem.  
3.3 Measures affecting Production and Trade 
3.3.2 Subsidies and other government assistance 
3.3.2.2 Regional assistance 
Les politiques de l'Union européenne sont organisées dans des programmes de sept ans dont 
l'actuel touche à sa fin à la fin 2013. Quel est l'état actuel du processus de négociation du Cadre 
financier pluriannuel 2014 – 2020 et des modifications des règlements? Quand des résultats 
devraient-ils être disponibles? 
EU reply:  The European Commission made its overall proposals for the 2014-2020 multiannual 
financial framework (MFF) in June 2011, which were then supplemented by the sectoral proposals 
in the relevant policy areas by the end of 2011. The Council and the European Parliament reached political agreement on the MFF on 27 June 2013, which was approved by COREPER on 28 June and 
endorsed by the European Parliament plenary on 3 July. Formal consent from the EP and adoption 
by the Council of the MFF Regulation will happen la ter this year. Negotiations on the accompanying 
sectoral proposals, most of which are to be adopted under the normal legislative procedure by the Council and the EP, are on-going. These should be  formally adopted after the adoption of the 
overall MFF Regulation, so that the relevant programmes and instruments are operational as of 
January 2014." 
3.3.2.3 Non-crisis aid at member–State level 
In para. 3.183 , the Secretariat's report notes that aid for industry and services amounted to 
€52.9 billion (over 82% of total non-crisis state aid). How can the EU Commission avoid economic distortions and ensure a level playing field for all industrial and services actors in its common 
internal market given this large support to some in dustries and services that adds to crisis aid? 
Also, could the EU provide the amounts of non-cr isis state aid provided by member country in 
2011 and 2012? Are Germany and France still the larg est beneficiaries of no n-crisis state aid to 
the manufacturing/industrial sector? 
EU reply:  To avoid undue distortions of competition and to ensure a level playing field for all 
industrial and services actors in its common internal market, the EU has designed a sophisticated 
state aid control system. In principle, no public  support that might distort competition and trade 
by favoring certain undertakings (state aid) is allowed in the common market (article 107(1) of the 
Treaty of the European Union). However, under certain well defined circumstances, also spelled 
out in the EU treaty, the European Commission can find state aid compatible with the common 
market (article 107(2) and 107 (3) of the Treaty  of the European Union). These compatibility 
criteria are then further developed in specific guidelines such as the Research, Development and Innovation guidelines and the Environmental guidel ines. Most of the aid granted to industry and 
services is earmarked for horizontal objectives of common interest (roughly 90 % of total aid 
granted), thus not geared towards a specific industrial or service sector. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 331 - 
 
  A detailed breakdown by Member State with respect to (non-crisis) State aid granted to industry 
a n d  s e r v i c e s  c a n  b e  f o u n d  o n  t h e  w e b s i t e  o f  D G  C o m p e t i t i o n ,  s e e  http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm_comp/table .do?tab=table&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=
comp_ncr_11 . 
This information is also published in the Commission's Staff Working Document accompanying the 
State Aid Scoreboard, see page 54. 
Information on State aid expenditure from 2012 is currently being collected from Member States 
and the 2013 update of the State Aid Scoreboard is envisaged for publication by 
November/December 2013. 
In 2011, Germany and France were among the larges t grantors of non-crisis State aid to industry 
and services. The situation for 2012 is not known before the 2013 update of the State Aid 
Scoreboard. 
3.3.4 Competition policy and regulatory issues 
3.3.4.1 Overview 
What kind of information can the Commission and member States' authorities share with each 
other? Are business secrets protected? Are the in volved undertakings informed about information 
exchange between authorities?  
Could the EU please provide statistics - if existing  - for the last five years on the attribution of 
crossborders cases between Commission and member States' authorities, respectively between member States' authorities? 
EU reply:  The European Commission ("Commission") and the competition authorities of the 
Member States ("NCA's") together form a networ k (the European Competition Network, "ECN") of 
public authorities applying the EU competition rules in close cooperation.  
A key element of the functioning of the network is the power of all the competition authorities to 
exchange and use information (including document s, statements and digital information) which 
has been collected by them for the purpose of applying Article 101 or Article 102 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union ((TFEU"). This power is a precondition for efficient and 
effective allocation and handling of cases. 
The legal basis for the exchange and use of information is Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) 
1/2003 ("Regulation 1/2003"). It states that for the purpose of applying Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty, the Commission and the NCA's will have  the power to provide one another with and 
use in evidence any matter of fact or of law, including confidential information. This means that 
exchanges of information may not only take place between an NCA and the Commission but also between and amongst NCAs.  
Article 12 of Regulation 1/2003 takes precedence over any contrary law of a Member State. The 
question whether information was gathered in a legal manner by the transmitting authority is governed on the basis of the law applicable to this authority. When transmitting information the 
transmitting authority may inform the receiving authority whether the gathering of the information 
was contested or could still be contested. 
The exchange and use of information contains in particular the following safeguards for 
undertakings and individuals.  
First, Article 28 of Regulation 1/2003 states that 'the Commission and the competition authorities 
of the Member States, their officials, servants and other persons working under the supervision of 
these authorities (. . .) shall not disclose information acquired or exchanged by them pursuant to 
Regulation 1/2003 which is 'of the kind covered by the obligation of professional secrecy'. 
However, the legitimate interest of undertakings in the protection of their business secrets may not prejudice the disclosure of information necessary  to prove an infringement of Articles 101 and 
102 of the Treaty. The term 'professional secrecy' used in Article 28 of Regulation 1/2003 is an EU 
law concept and includes in particular business secrets and other confidential information. This WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 332 - 
 
  creates a common minimum level of protection throughout the EU. On this basis, Article 12(1) 
allows competition authorities to exchange information as intelligence, provided that it is for the purpose of applying Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.  
The second safeguard which is given to undertaking s relates to the use of information as evidence 
which has been exchanged within the network.  Under Article 12(2) of Regulation 1/2003, 
information so exchanged can only be used in evid ence subject to the following criteria: (i) for the 
application of Articles 101 and 10 2 of the Treaty and (ii) for the subject matter for which it was 
collected. Article 12(2) thereby assumes a sufficient degree of equivalence of the rights of defence 
of undertakings in the different enforcement systems.  
According to Article 12(2) of Regulation 1/2003, the information exchanged may also be used for 
the purpose of applying national competition law in  parallel in the same case. This is, however, 
only possible if the application of national law does not lead to an outcome as regards the finding 
of an infringement different from that under Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty. 
The third safeguard given by the Council Regulation  relates to the use of exchanged information in 
evidence to impose sanctions on natural persons. 
Regulation 1/2003 only provides for sanctions on undertakings for violations of Articles 101 and 
102. However, some national laws also provide for sanctions on natural persons in connection with 
violations of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty . Natural persons normally enjoy more extensive 
rights of defence (e.g. the right to remain silent  compared to undertakings which may only refuse 
to answer questions which would lead them to admit that they have committed an infringement). Article 12(3) of Regulation 1/2003 ensures that information collected from undertakings cannot be 
used in a way which would circumvent the higher protection of natural persons. This provision 
precludes sanctions being imposed on natural pe rsons on the basis of information exchanged 
pursuant to Regulation 1/2003 if the laws of the transmitting and the receiving authorities do not 
provide for sanctions of a similar kind in respect of  natural persons, unless the rights of the natural 
person concerned as regards the collection of evid ence have been respected by the transmitting 
authority to the same standard as they ar e guaranteed by the receiving authority.  
The qualification of the sanctions by national law ('administrative' or 'criminal') is not relevant for 
the purpose of applying Article 12(3) as these categories are not harmonised among the EU Member States. In addition to making a distinction between sanctions against undertakings from those against natural persons (see above), Regulation 1/2003 further distinguishes within the 
latter group between sanctions which result in custody, on the one hand, and other types of 
sanctions such as fines on natural persons and other personal sanctions, on the other hand. If both the legal systems of the transmitting and of th e receiving authority provide for sanctions of a 
similar kind (e.g. in both Member States, fines can be imposed on a member of the staff of an 
undertaking who has been involved in the vi olation of Article 101 or 102 of the Treaty), 
information exchanged pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation 1/2003 can be used by the receiving 
authority. In that case, procedural safeguards in both systems are considered to be equivalent. If 
on the other hand, both legal systems do not provide for sanctions of a similar kind, the information can only be used if the same level of protection of the rights of the natural persons has been respected in the case at hand (see Article 12(3) of Regulation 1/2003). In any case however, 
custodial sanctions can only be imposed on natural persons where both the transmitting and the 
receiving authority have the power to impose such a sanction. 
Undertakings are informed about exchanges of information between authorities according to the 
respective procedural rules of the respective juri sdiction, for example, through access to the file.  
In terms of the allocation of cases which have an  effect on trade between Member States within 
the Network, cases mostly remain with the competition authority which started the investigation. 
Discussions on the reallocation of cases take place infrequently and the actual re-allocation of 
cases occurs even less. Case-allocation and re-allocation have played a role mainly in cartel cases, particularly multiple leniency applications have been made to several authorities, or in investigations started by a complaint.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 333 - 
 
  4 Developments in selected sectors 
4.1 Agriculture 4.1.3 Agriculture policies 
Paragraph 4.8 
Could the EU please describe which measures wi thin the CAP reform are related to improving 
environmental performance of agricultural production? Is there a specific focus of such improvements of environmental performance on particular products, production processes or 
regions? If so, could the EU please explain th e expected impact of such improvements of 
environmental performance? 
EU reply:  The CAP 2014-2020 will contribute in a complementary and coherent way to the 
objective of a more sustainable use of natural resources as well as climate change mitigation and 
adaptation. The respective instruments for achieving this aim include regulatory tools, mandatory 
measures with compensation as well as incentives. Enhanced cross-compliance creates a direct link between CAP payments and the respect of mi nimum requirements linked to public, animal and 
plant health, environment and animal welfare. The greening of direct payments forms a new 
instrument of the CAP on top of cross compliance. This "green payment" within the first pillar of 
the CAP is granted for implementing three comp ulsory practices whose environmental benefits 
have been proven. On top of these mandatory instruments, agri-environmental policy encourages 
the introduction and/or maintenance of extensive, environmentally friendly farming systems programmed and targeted towards regional needs. These instruments will be accompanied by broad support from the Farm Advisory System and applied research. 
4.1.3.1 Domestic support 
Paragraph 4.10 The secretariat's report states that "each member State may reserve up to 10% of the total 
amount available for direct payments to fund su pport for (…) marketing (…)". Could the EU please 
explain, whether these payments are eligible for specific products? Which share of the marketing-
related funds are spent for specific products? How do es the EU ensure that trade-distorting effects 
related to such payments are excluded or at least limited to the absolute minimum? 
EU reply:  Article 69(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No  73/2009 gives the possibility to EU Member 
States to use up to 10% of their national ceiling for direct payments to grant specific support. The 
support measures which can be implemented are list ed in Article 68(1) of the Regulation. Some of 
these measures are available for specific products, in particular in the case of the measures under 
Article 68(1)(b) of the Regulation which are allowed to the extent necessary to create an incentive 
to maintain the current levels of production. We note that Article 68 of Regulation (EC) No 
73/2009 stipulates that not more than 3.5% of the funds available to a given Member State could 
be used for such coupled support. The measure 'improving the marketing of agricultural products' is not targeted at specific products. The EU would refer to its domestic support notifications where 
spending under specific support is included for the relevant marketing years. In the latest 
notification covering the 2009/2010 marketing ye ar, the payments based on fixed number of 
animals and payments based on fixed areas and yiel ds granted under Article 69 of Regulation (EC) 
No 1782/2003 and Article 68 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 are notified in supporting table DS:3. 
4.1.3.1.1 Rural development  
Paragraph 4.11 The secretariat's report states that "Rural development policy is based on three "thematic axes": 
improving competitiveness (…)" Could the EU please  explain how it ensures that programs related 
to improving competitiveness are not set up in such a way that they act as an incentive to enforce production of specific production activities, in particular such where the EU is comparably 
competitive on international markets? Could the EU  provide data for the share of programs under 
this thematic axe which are related to enforcing a particular production? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 334 - 
 
  EU reply:  The purpose of EU's co-financing of aid under  the axis 'improving the competitiveness of 
the agricultural and forestry sector' is to modernise agricultural holdings, to improve their 
economic performance through better use of the pr oduction factors including the introduction of 
new technologies and innovation, targeting quality, organic products and on/off-farm 
diversification, including non-food sectors, as well as improving the environmental, occupational 
safety, hygiene and animal welfare status of agricultural holdings. No specific production is targeted under these measures. 
4.1.3.1.2 Internal market support measures 
Paragraph 4.19 The secretariat's report states that "Since the school year 2009/10, a similar scheme has operated 
for fruits and vegetables: the School Fruit Scheme. (…)". Does this scheme cover the provision of 
regionally produced fruits only? Could the EU pl ease explain how it ensures that environmental 
impacts of this project (in particular transport-related environmental effects) are kept to the minimum? Which measures did the EU establish in order to improve the environmental 
performance of such programs? 
EU reply:  Member States participating in the EU School Fruit Scheme must notify to the 
Commission their strategies which also include the lis t of products to be distributed. When drawing 
up the list, Member States choose the products on the basis of objective criteria which may include 
seasonality, availability of produce or environm ental concerns. In this context, some Member 
States have decided to focus their distribution on organic products, and recyclable packaging is 
often used. The scheme has nutritional and health objectives, therefore products eligible for aid 
should offer a high level of health protection and promote healthy eating habits. According to 
Article 103ga point 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2 007 there is no restriction on sourcing the fruit 
for this Scheme from imports. 
4.1.3.2 Export subsidies 
Paragraph 4.23 The secretariat's report states that "export subsidies in the EU (…) were still being used in 2011 for 
some products such as poultry meat (…)". Which particular poultry products are covered by the 
measure? Could the EU please list the receiving countries, the quantities as well as the budget used for the respective poultry products exported with such export subsidies? 
EU reply:  At the time of drafting the WTO Secretariat's report the most recent EU notification to 
the WTO on the use of export subsidies covered the 2009/10 marketing year. The notification for 
the 2010/11 marketing year was circulated by the Secretariat on 13 June 2013. As set out in the notification, export subsidy outlays for poultry were EUR 74,6 million and total exports of 
subsidised poultry totaled around 231.000 tons, ba sed on licenses issued. The breakdown of this 
quantity by different categories, based on CN codes and export destination, is as following:  
Category CN codes Destination Subsidised 
exports (tons*) 
1 0105 11 11 9000 
0105 11 19 9000 0105 11 91 9000 0105 11 99 9000 All 54.586** 
 
2 0105 12 00 9000 
0105 19 20 9000 All 2.370** 
3a 0207 12 10 9900 
0207 12 90 9190 0207 12 90 9990 Angola, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, 
Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen 224.328 
3b 0207 12 10 9900 
0207 12 90 9190 
0207 12 90 9990 Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, 
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan , Moldova, Russia, 
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan 4.668 
 
* Live animals are converted into tons by using an adjust ment coefficient. 
** '000 pieces of live animals. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 335 - 
 
  The export refund rates for poultry products during the 2010/11 marketing year were fixed by 
Commission Regulations (EU) Nos 525/2010, 841/2010 and 1207/2010 which are available at EUR-LEX ( http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm ). 
4.3 Services 
4.3.1 Financial services 
4.3.1.2 Recent and planne d regulatory evolutions 
4.3.1.2.5 Third-country regime 
Paragraph 4.109 
With regard to EU regulatory projects, Switze rland is concerned about the structuring of the 
regulation of third country regimes, as it is  currently being discussed in the EU within the 
framework of the revised MiFID (Markets in Financial Instruments Directive). The requirement to 
have a branch in the EU in order to provide all financial services "through the branch", is leading in 
our view to a de facto closure of the EU-Market for cross-border investment services for retail clients. The requirement to have a branch inside the EU is not necessary if 1) there is an effective 
supervision from the third country state, and the supervisors have entered into cooperation 
agreements, and 2) if clients are able to enforce their legal rights within the EU jurisdiction as regards investor protection. 
If our understanding of the proposed 3rd-country-approach is correct, we come to the conclusion 
that investment services can no longer be provided to retail-clients across border. The branch requirement would lead to a de facto impediment for the provision of investment services to retail-clients on a cross-border basis from abroad into the EU. Can the EU confirm our understanding?  
EU reply:  The EU cannot confirm Switzerland understanding. According to the Commission 
proposal, which has not yet been adopted by the European Parliament and the Council and is 
currently discussed between the co legislators, the EU  clients will be able to get services by third 
country entities without a branch at their own ex clusive initiative. The establishment of a branch 
will only be needed if the third country firm intends to market or promote its services into the European Union. Furthermore, the establishment of a branch is not needed for the provision of 
services to professional counterparties. The proposal includes new provisions on "passport" which 
would allow a third country financial operator's branch established in an EU Member State to provide services in all other EU Member States. This will represent a very relevant facilitation compared with the current regime which requires third country firms to comply with 27 different 
national regimes.  
Is it the EU's intention that all services need to be provided by the branch and booked in the 
branch? 
EU reply:  The establishment of a branch will not prevent third country firms from setting 
organisational and operational arrangements that allow support/back office activities to take place 
in their headquarters provided that the MiFID rules are complied with and that this does not 
prevent the ability of the EU competent supervisor  to have timely and complete access to the 
relevant information, when it is not immediately available in the branch.  
If yes, would this then mean in conclusion that retail-clients could no longer be served on a cross-
border basis?  
EU reply:  See reply above. 
Report by the European Union 
2.3 Developments in the Internal Market and Central Policy Areas  
In paragraph 2.43  the European Commission states that its legal proposals for the reform of the 
CAP for the period 2014-2020 aim inter alia to strengthen the competitiveness of European agriculture. Could the EU elaborate in more detail on the proposed measures and how they 
contribute to the objective of strengthening competitiveness? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 336 - 
 
  EU reply:  The CAP post 2013 reform is aimed at fostering competitiveness of EU agriculture 
through continued market orientation, notably by ending production limitations and abolishing 
certain aid schemes that might influence producers' decisions. These steps are accompanied by increased financing for research and innovation in  view of fostering productivity growth of EU 
agriculture, enhanced measures contributing to facilitate cooperation amongst producers and along 
the supply chain and a strengthened focus towards long term economic and environmental sustainability of EU agriculture through better targeting of direct payments (basic and green 
payments, support for young and small farmers and for farms located in areas with natural 
constraints). 
3. Key Developments in EU Trade Policy 2011-2012 
3.3 Bilateral Trade Agenda 
3.3.1 Comprehensive and modulated bilateral/regional agreements 
In paragraph 3.16 it is mentioned that the European Union is going to open negotiations for an 
agreement with the U.S. in a near future. Coul d the EU indicate when the opening of such 
negotiations is foreseen? Could the EU furthermore clarify whether the two sides have set a 
deadline to complete these negotiations and, if so, provide the envisaged period of conclusion? 
What is the EU's position with regard to inviting other interested parties to the TTIP negotiations or 
keeping a door open in the future? If not, is there a chance that third states will be able to join the 
agreement later on? 
EU reply:  On 14 June 2013, the European Council gave the European Commission the green light 
to enter into formal bilateral trade negotiations with the US, leading to a Transatlantic Trade and 
Investment Agreement (TTIP). Similar internal preparatory procedures have been completed on 
the US side, and a first round of negotiations  took place during the week of 8 July. TTIP 
negotiations are a bilateral matter, it is not possible to associate third countries to such 
negotiations.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 337 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM THAILAND AND ASEAN 
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 3.  TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
Page 54 (paragraph 3.70) and page 199 (Table A3. 3 Contingency measures, January 2007-
January 2013a) 
Question 1: The report indicates that the extens ion of AD measure on import of polyethylene 
terephthalate (PET) from Thailand expired in February 2012. As the measure had remained in 
force pending the outcome of the expiry review and finally was decided by Council Implementing 
Decision of 21 May 2013 (published in the Official Journal on 23 May 2013 terminating an expiry review on PET from Thailand). The Decision provid ed that the expiration of measure was effective 
as of February 2012. We would like to know whether importers are entitled to any reimbursement 
of duties paid during the review. 
EU reply:  This Decision entered into force on the day following its publication in the Official 
Journal of the European Union, that is to say the 24th of May 2013. As far as reimbursement of 
duties is concerned, this is regulated in article 11.8 of the AD Regulation. For further guidance, 
please refer to Commission Notice concerning the reimbursement of Anti-Dumping duties (2002/C 127/06). 
Page 72 (paragraphs 3.152-3.153)  
Question 2: In the context of promoting and supp orting SMEs business activities outside the EU, 
would the schemes for this purpose include international joint venture between EU SMEs and local 
manufacturers in developing countries to strengthen production and market competency? 
EU reply:  EU SMEs access to third country markets is facilitated by support to a number of tools, 
investments in advisory services, improving access to information and in general creating a better 
synergy between the assistance offered at EU and Member States level to European companies.  
In this context, no distinction is being made with regard to the target group of "clients" (local 
manufacturers) in third country markets. Programs are aimed at facilitating contacts and market access without pre-defining profiles of local counterparts.   
Several measures are in place that helps European companies to internationalise. The Enterprise 
Europe Network is a unique network put at the disposal of SMEs in and outside Europe. With 600 partners, it currently covers 53 countries, all over the world. Various cluster initiatives are being developed aimed at strengthening the EU ba sed cluster organisations and encouraging them 
to maintain contacts with their third country counterparts.  
The European Commission supports also a number of structures in Asia for instance the EU-SME 
Centre in China, the European-ASEAN Business Centre in Thailand, the European Business and 
Technological Centre in India, as well as the IP R Helpdesks in China and in ASEAN countries. These 
structures provide valuable services to European companies helping them to establish commercial activities with third country partners 
Pages 80-81 (paragraphs 3.204-3.206) 
Question 3: For the purpose of ensuring a level playing field in all WTO Members, do you have a 
plan to lower the threshold for public procurement to allow the majority of SMEs from developing 
countries to compete in the EU procurement market? If you do not have such a plan, please 
explain why. 
EU reply:  There is no current plan to lower the threshold above which the EU legislation applies to 
procurements. EU legislation applies above thresh old procurement, below threshold procurements 
can be regulated at the national level, but must respect the fundamental principles of the 
European Treaties, such as non-discrimination and transparency.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 338 - 
 
  Page 88 (paragraph 3.234) and page 89-90 (paragraph 3.241) 
Question 4: With regard to the recent approach of DG Competition in monitoring and, in certain 
circumstances, objecting patent settlements betw een originator and generic companies, which are 
likely to delay entry into the market of generic drug following patent expiry, it seems clear that the 
EU recognizes that prolonged patent protection leads to unnecessarily high price medicines and in 
return creates a negative impact on EU consumer s and government social welfare systems. Please 
explain whether the May 2011 "blueprint" for IPRs has taken into account this adverse impact it 
may have on the society when it was drafted, and how do you plan to tackle these conflicting 
policies?  
EU reply: The European Commission does not call into question the importance of the patent 
system for innovation and health but it monitors and sanctions illegal behavior such as anti-
competitive actions and potential abuses or infringements of IP rules.  
Page 91 (paragraph 3.248) 
Question 5: How does the collective management operate according to the proposal for a Directive 
on "Collective Management of Copyright and Re lated Rights and Multi-Territorial Licensing 
Frameworks for Online Uses in the Internal Ma rket" submitted by the Commission in July 2012? 
EU reply: The referred directive is under discussion in Parliament and Council. The text of the 
proposal can be found here: 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copy right/docs/management/com-2012-3722_en.pdf .  
Page 92 (paragraph 3.250) 
Question 6: After the issuance of Directive 2012 /28/EU of 25 October 2012 on Certain Permitted 
Uses of Orphan Works, are there any practical pr oblems faced by stakeholders such as libraries 
and cultural institutions, particularly in large-scale digitization? 
EU reply: The Directive on Orphan Works provides Europe's libraries, archives, film heritage 
institutions, public broadcasters and other organisations acting in the public interest with the 
appropriate legal framework to provide on-line cr oss-border access to orphan works contained in 
their collections, solving one of the problems of large-scale digitization.  
Page 97 (paragraph 3.268) 
Question 7: With regard to the supplementary prot ection certificates (SPCs) which, as mentioned 
in the report, aim to restore effective patent protection for certain regulated products, does the 
SPCs scheme provide the same scope of protection as normal patent? If it does, how does this 
correspond to TRIPS Article 27 (1) which provides that "...patents shall be available and patent 
rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention, the field of technology and 
whether products are imported or locally produced"?  
EU reply:  Supplementary protection certificate concern only certain regulated products; they are 
designed to compensate the right holder for the time it takes from the filing of a patent application 
to the marketing authorization, and the potentially negative impact resulting from the reduction of 
the effective period of market exclusivity to recover R&D investment. 
They enter into force once the patent protection is expired and thus cannot be considered as 
having the same scope as patents. 
Page 102 (paragraph 3.294) 
Question 8: Does the European Union plan to re form or harmonize the legal protection for trade 
secrets and protection against parasitic copying among all member States in order to ensure that 
the legal protection of IPRs on these matters conforms to the international norm and is 
standardized throughout the European Union? If you plan to do so, please provide more detail of 
your plan. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 339 - 
 
  EU reply:  The Commission will decide about the initiative on trade secrets in the autumn. There is 
no current plan to harmonize the protection against parasitic copying at the EU level . 
Page 105 (paragraph 3.300) 
Question 9: With regard to the adoption of your revised customs regulations on strengthening the 
enforcement of IPRs at the EU's external border and as Thailand believes that this issue is of 
international nature and will likely have an impact on trade facilitation issues, has the EU consulted members of the World Customs Organization (WCO) as to whether the revised regulations conform 
to the practice of WCO members? Please explain. 
EU reply: The new Regulation concerning customs enforcem ent of intellectual property rights will 
comply with international commitments of the WTO members regulated by TRIPS. As far as the 
WCO is concerned the Counterfeit and Piracy Group (CAP) is the forum to discuss border 
enforcement of counterfeited and pirated goods. However, the mandate of the CAP-group does not 
provide for a consultation process.  
Page 105 (Table  3.15) 
Question 10: According to Table 3.15, the border measures apply, inter alia, to goods infringing a 
patent, a supplementary protection certificate and a national or Community plant variety right. 
Please explain how customs officers can determine this kind of infringement, particularly when 
customs officers exercise ex officio power. 
EU reply: Under the Regulation 1383/2003 customs authorities act upon suspicion of an 
infringement. The final determination of whether there is an infringement belongs to the 
authorities competent to decide on the case. To be able to detect suspected goods customs use 
risk analysis techniques. Cooperation with right-holders is helpful in this respect. Customs officers 
also receive adequate training. 
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM THAILAND 
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SECRETARIAT REPORT 
3.  TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
Page 48 (paragraph 3.40) 
Question 1: Since the average of ad-valorem equivalents (AVEs) of non-ad valorem tariff rates is 
much higher than the ad valorem duties, does the EU have plan to reduce the number of non-ad 
valorem rates/products? 
EU reply: As the EU mentioned during its statements in the TPR meetings, the EU has no plans to 
autonomously change its tariffs for agricultural pr oducts. Any change will result from a successful 
conclusion to the DDA. 
Page 115 (paragraph 4.13)  
Question 2: The paragraph mentions that public intervention purchase can be beyond the ceilings 
if the "market situation and, in particular, the development of market prices, so requires." Could 
the EU provide examples of such situation? 
EU reply: As regards the question on paragraph 4.13, th e EU would recall that as a result of the 
2008 reform of the CAP, the limits of buying in to public intervention were set at zero for durum 
wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and paddy rice (Article 13(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) 1234/2007). As a result, public intervention is no t automatically available for these products. No 
buying in to public intervention has since taken place for cereals (see table 4.6 on page 116 of the 
WTO Secretariat's report for this TPR which provides detailed information). WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 340 - 
 
  Page 118 (paragraph 4.23) 
Question 3: Thailand appreciates the data provid ed by the EU. Thailand wonders whether "export 
subsidies" as stated in the text are equivalent to "export refunds" as used in Table 4.7. Could the 
EU provide further information on its export subsidies in sugar and how the EU has reduced them?  
EU reply: Export subsidies and export refunds are used as equivalent terms in the text. The 
evolution of the payments from the EU budget on export subsidies for sugar is presented in Table 
4.7 of the WTO Secretariat report. 
Page 119 (paragraph 4.29) 
Question 4: Could the EU provide information of 31 products, which had a fill rate below 1% and 
the reason(s) of such situation.  
EU reply: Low fill rates for tariff quotas may result from market conditions such as competitive 
domestic production. For the specific quotas concerned, see the EU's notification referred to in 
paragraphs 4.27 and 4.29 (G/AG/N/EU/12 of 13 December 2012).  
QUESTION RAISED BY ASEAN  
QUESTION REGARDING GOVERNMENT REPORT 
Pages 12-13 (paragraph 3.16) Question: The European Union has announced that it will deepen "trade policy agenda of an 
unprecedented scale," including bilateral negotiations with Japan and the United States. ASEAN is 
interested in learning the progress of these negotiations, in terms of the timeline, the substance to be covered in terms of both the breadth of goods,  services, and investment and the area coverage 
such as competition policy, intellectual properti es, etc. Will these free trade agreements, when 
concluded, overshadow the WTO rights and obligations given that the EU, the US and Japan are 
among the biggest traders in the world 
EU reply:  The EU and Japan officially launched FTA negotiations on 25 March 2013. The EU 
Member States gave the Commission the authorisation to open negotiations in November 2012. 
The first round of talks took in Brussels on 15 to 19 April. The second round of talks took place in Tokyo on 24-28 June. The EU and the USA officially launched FTA negotiations on 18 June 2013. 
The EU Member States gave the Commission the authorisation to open negotiations on 
14 June 2013. The first round of talks with the USA took place on 8-12 July in Washington. Both negotiations will be ambitious and comprehensive, covering not only trade in goods but also services, investment and behind-the-border issues. Both agreements will be fully compliant with 
WTO rules and complement WTO rules and commitments. Beyond their pure bilateral value, they 
can have a systemic reach to the extent that they  provide a laboratory for filling the gaps in the 
multilateral rulebook and develop regulatory soluti ons that can be a basis for subsequent work at 
multilateral level. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 341 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FR OM TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO 
Extracts taken from: WT/TPR/S/284 • European Union – Trade Policy Review, Report by 
Secretariat  
3. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure  
3.2 Measures Directly Affecting Exports  
3.2.1 Registration and documentation (page 69) 
3.131. In general, goods exported out of the EU must go through an export procedure and 
declared at customs. If no simplified procedure is used, the export declaration is made on the 
Single Administrative Document (SAD) or its electronic equivalent at the customs office of export, at the place where the declarant/exporter is estab lished, or where the goods are packed or loaded 
for export. If this is not possible for administrative reasons, the EU Customs Code allows for 
declarations to be lodged with any customs office which is competent for the operation in question. 
An export declaration may also be accepted by a customs office other than that normally responsible, provided there are "duly justified good reasons". 
Question:  
1. How long does the export procedure usually take? 
EU reply:  The following deadlines apply for the submission of the export declaration: 
 24 hours prior to the loading of the goods onto the vessel for containerized cargo, 
 for bulk/break bulk cargo, in general, at least 4 hours before leaving the port in the EU 
customs territory, 
 30 minutes prior to departure from the airport in the customs territory of the EU, for air 
traffic, 
 at least 2 hours prior to departure from the customs office of exit, in the case of rail and 
inland waters traffic, 
 at least one hour prior to departure from th e customs office of exit, for road traffic. 
The total length of time of the export procedur e depends on the treatment of consignments which 
may vary from one Member State to another. There are also modifications applicable for specific cases such as intermodal transport or under cond itions set out under an international agreements. 
3. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure  
3.2 Measures Directly Affecting Exports (page 69) The EU has indicated that goods exported out of the EU must go through an export procedure and 
declared at Customs. Additionally, it is mentioned that the information contained in the export 
declaration is complemented, where appropriate, by security-related data. 
Question: 2. a. What kind of information is classified as security-related data? 
EU reply: The security-related data is the one which is collected in advance by customs authorities 
for the purposes of risk analysis. 
b.  How does the data obtained affect the export declaration? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 342 - 
 
  EU reply:  The data that has to be submitted for the purposes of safety and security is part of the 
export declaration. 
3. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure  
3.1.6 Import control and restrictions (page 52) 
3.61. Import licences are not subject to fees and are not transferable. There is no penalty for non-
utilization of an import licence or portion of it. However, for import licences for agricultural products, importers must lodge a security to apply for an import licence; the amount of the 
security is product specific, and is forfeit if the product in question is not imported or only partially 
imported during the validity period of the licence. 
Question: 3. a. With respect to the import licence for agricultural products; what is the validity period of 
the licence; regardless of whether or not it is utilized? 
EU reply:  The validity period varies according to the product. The products concerned and the 
guarantees required are listed in Annex II, Part 1 to Regulation (EC) No 376/2008. 
b.  What is the amount of the security for items such as cocoa, coffee and beverages? 
EU reply:  Cocoa, coffee and beverages are not on the list. 
c. Is this information readily available for persons wishing to obtain import licences? If so, 
where can it be found within the specific EU countries and electronically? 
EU reply:  Concerning agricultural products, information is readily available for persons wishing to 
obtain import licenses. Operators are informed about all binding provisions by the Official Journal 
of the European Union published on the EUR-Lex website: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm 
A list of the agencies responsible for issuing impo rt and export licenses is published under Article 
29 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/2008 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licenses and advance fixing certificates for 
agricultural products. The following official publication (2012/C 255/03) http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ: C:2012:255:0009:0021:EN:PDF gives the list of 
these agencies as of date of 24 August 2012. Th e following link on the EU Export Helpdesk for 
Business is also a useful source of information: 
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib /docs/2013/may/tradoc_151262.pdf .  
4. Developments in Selected Sectors 
4.1 Agriculture  
4.1.3 Agriculture policies (page 114) 
4.6. In 2007, the European Agricultural Guidance  and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) was replaced by 
two separate funds: 
- the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) that covers Pillar I which includes market 
measures and direct payments, in particular the Single Payment Scheme and the Single Area Payment Scheme… 
Question: 
4. Can the EU provide an overview of the Single  Payment Scheme and the Single Area Payment 
Scheme? 
EU reply:  The Single Payment Scheme and the Single Area Payment Scheme are explained in the 
EU's DS:2 notification G/AG/N/EEC/58 of 24 February 2009. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 343 - 
 
  4. Developments in Selected Sectors 
4.1 Agriculture  
4.1.3 Agriculture policies (page 114) 4.1.3.2 Export subsidies (page 118) 
4.23. The use of export subsidies in the EU cont inued to decline although they were still being 
used in 2011 for some products such as poultry meat, eggs, beef and veal, processed pig meat products and some Non-Annex I products  (prepared foods containing eggs). 
Question: 
5. Can the EU account for this decline in the use of export subsidies?  
EU reply:  This decline in the use of export subsidies is due to changes in market conditions and 
policy orientations. 
 WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 344 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM TURKEY 
REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT 
1.5 Foreign Direct Invest ment, pp. 23-24, Table 1.3 
Table 1.3 shows that there is an increase in FDI. It  is also observed that there is an increase on 
sales of family companies because of aging population in EU.  
Could the Delegation of EU kindly comment on, if population structure of the EU had born 
an effect on the increased Turkish investments? 
EU reply:  There is no evidence that the EU's ageing population has an impact on the location and 
evolution of Turkish outward FDI. According to  the few surveys conducted with Turkish firms 
engaged in FDI abroad, including in the EU, the main factors influencing their location choice are access to the EU single market so as to benefit from market size and scale economies, quality 
standards and technology sharing and sometimes the acquisition of brand names. We acknowledge 
that such surveys are mostly based on large firms which account for the bulk of the value of Turkish outward FDI and tend to pursue growth strategies with a view to increasing their 
competitiveness through either geographical or product diversification. SMEs may give more 
consideration to other factors in their location decisions but little is known empirically on why, where and how they engage in outward FDI. While only aggregate data on FDI are available to the 
EU, the Turkish delegation may have access to the micro data needed to identify whether and to 
what extent EU family companies are involved in Turkish FDI. We would welcome any information or insight on the issue. 
2.5.1 Foreign Investment Regime 
Are there any incentives which are provided by the EU to the foreign investors in 
collaboration with third countries? 
EU reply:  Article 18 of the Treaty of the Functionin g of the European Union (TFEU) prohibits 
discrimination on the grounds of nationality and as a result incentives which are provided by the 
EU or its Member States would be accessible to foreign investors provided they fulfill the concrete criteria of the aid scheme in question. According to Article 107 TFEU, the European Commission's 
task regarding aid given by the EU member states is  to verify their compatibility with the internal 
market. In fulfilling its task, the European Commission does not focus on any possible collaboration with third countries. 
3.1.1 Measures Directly Affecting Im ports , Procedures, pg. 39, para. 3.5 
It is mentioned in the report that "The time need ed to complete import procedures varies between 
member States. It is among the shortest in the world for Estonia, Cyprus, Denmark (5 days), the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (6 days) but from 1.5 to 1.8 times the average 
time of OECD countries for Greece, Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Italy and Bulgaria. Hungary 
requires the longest time for import procedures: 19 days (or 1.9 times the OECD average). " 
Is there any effort at the EU level to harmonize these differences in completing import 
 procedures? 
EU reply: The EU is convinced that the data provided  by the World Bank concerning the time 
taken for "import procedures" does not reflect the reality and has informed the Secretariat to that 
effect. The EU objective is to ensure that the time to complete import procedures across the EU is as short as possible. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 345 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM UKRAINE 
Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/284) 
3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports  
3.1.2 Customs valuation  
According to paragraph 3.15, "the transaction value is the primary basis for customs value 
determination. The transaction values used are c.i.f. values. Around 95% of all import declarations 
are accepted in accordance with the transaction value method." 
Question:  Could the EU kindly indicate major reasons for the rejection to accept about 5 % of 
declarations in accordance with the transaction value method? What goods and volumes of imports 
were subject to customs valuation under other methods? 
EU reply:  In this context, the term "accepted declarations" is to be read in the meaning of 
"regularly lodged and registered declarations". The indicated percentage therefore refers to the 
number of lodged declarations where the customs value is determined in accordance with the 
transaction value method, and not to the refusal of the customs authorities to apply such method. 
The remaining 5% refers therefore to all those cases where the use of the transaction value method is not possible, lacking the conditions laid down in Article 29 of the Customs Code – no 
sale, or not acceptable restriction or conditions, or transaction between related parties where the 
relationships affected the value of the goods. 
3.1.4 Tariffs 
3.1.4.1 MFN tariffs  
Paragraph 3.39 notes that "… the EU uses seasonal duties and duties that are reduced if a 
product's declared price is above a certain level (entry price system). Entry prices apply on 28 tariff lines at the 8-digit level, including tomatoes, cucumbers, courgettes, citrus fruits, grapes, 
apricots, and plums…". 
Question:  Could the EU kindly indicate to what goods reduced duties were applied in 2011 and 
2012 under the entry price system, as well as origin of these goods? What were volumes of such 
imports and their percentage in the total import s of goods subject to the entry price system?  
EU reply:  This data is not available. However, the entry prices were fixed during the Uruguay 
Round and have not been updated since. The average import price for these products is generally 
higher than the entry price. Therefore the vast ma jority of imports is made above the entry price 
and are not affected by the system. 
Paragraph 3.40 states that "… the average AVE of non- ad valorem tariff rates is 24.5%, compared 
with 4.8% for ad valorem duties. … dairy is subject to the highest average tariff rate, followed by 
sugars and confectionary, live animals and their products, and cereals and preparations. All rates 
above 100% are AVEs relating to agricultural goods, applying to, inter alia , prepared or preserved 
mushrooms (197% and 170%), citrus juice includ ing orange juice and grape juice (196.3% and 
165.3%), certain meats and edible meat offal (192.1% and 120.1%), goat meat (166.7%), whey 
(164.8%), olive oil (154.1% and 120.6%), and isoglucose (135.3%)… The highest rates for non-agricultural products apply on motor vehicles (22%) and on fish (22-26%). 
Question:  Since, as mentioned in the Summery, "relatively few countries trade with the EU on an 
MFN basis as the EU has a considerable number of trade agreements with other countries as well 
as a GSP and GSP+, and EBA schemes", could the EU kindly indicate the volume of imports 
subject to very high MFN tariffs for agricultural products? 
EU reply:  This data is not immediately available and its disaggregation would be excessively 
complex and potentially inaccurate since imports are made at MFN rates, a variety of preferential 
rates and under a wide range of preferential and MFN tariff rate quotas. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 346 - 
 
  3.2 Measures Directly Affecting Exports  
3.2.4 Official support and related fiscal measures 
According to paragraph 3.147 "a drawback system continues to apply under the EU Customs Code. 
It allows importers to claim repayment of import duties paid on imported goods if they export such 
goods in the form of "compensating products"… In addition, the Customs Code establishes a 
suspension system whereby imported goods intended for export in the form of compensating products are not subject to import duties." 
Paragraph 3.148 further notes that "… the Moderniz ed Customs Code will eliminate the drawback 
system, as the number of importers using this procedure has decreased to a level where the management cost of the procedure is now disproportionate to the benefits provided by the scheme." 
Question:  Could the EU kindly elaborate on reasons for the decreased attractiveness of the 
drawback and suspension systems? What were amounts of the revenue forgone (repaid and 
suspended import duties) under these schemes, as well as the systems' management cost in 
2010, 2011 and 2012? 
EU reply:  An increasing number of operators in the EU end up selling their processed products on 
the EU market (after drawback system), or at least, they don't know at the moment of the 
importation if they will export it or put it on the EU market.The EU wants to give full flexibility to 
the economic operators and has thus deleted the requirement in the drawback system for 
exporting the processed product. Thus, the drawba ck system has become less attractive since it 
doesn't make much sense any more, if there is no requirement to export. The EU does not have 
information on the amounts of the revenues and the management costs. 
4 DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTED SECTORS 
4.1 Agriculture 
4.1.3 Agriculture policies  
4.1.3.3 Market access 
Paragraph 4.24 notes that "… the reforms of the CAP that have taken place over the last decades 
did not address market access directly…".  
Paragraph 4.25 further states that "… the tariff rates vary considerably from one product to 
another. In addition, many agriculture products are subject to non- ad valorem duties that also 
vary in type (from simple specific duties to more complex forms such as those in the Meursing 
Table) as well as the degree of protection applied to different products. Furthermore, for some 
products, particularly for fresh fruit and vegetables, seasonal duties may apply."  
Question:  Since, as mentioned in the Summery, the EU's reforms in agriculture "have not 
affected market access conditions…", does the EU have any plans to liberalize market access in 
agriculture as a part of reforms to be implemented in 2014? 
EU reply:  CAP reforms are not intended to change the EU's agricultural tariff structure. Any 
change will result from a successful conclusion to  the DDA. In the meantime, the EU will continue 
to respect its WTO commitments. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 347 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO QUESTIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES 
Part I: Questions on the Secretariat Report 
2. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIME 
2.1 Legal and Instit utional Framework 
Page 26-27, paragraphs 2.1 through 2.3 and Ta ble 2.1: The Secretariat report explains the 
division of competences between the EU and its member States with respect to the legal and 
institutional framework for trade and investment policies. According to paragraph 2.3 of the 
Secretariat report, "Under the Lisbon Tr eaty, the EU has exclusive competence, inter alia , for trade 
and investment policies and member States may develop legal acts in these areas only when authorized by the EU. The scope of common commercial policy covers trade in goods, trade in services, trade aspects of intellectual property ri ghts, foreign direct investment, and trade defence 
measures." 
i.  How is a party to an international trade and investment agreement with the EU to 
distinguish which articles of the agreement fall  within the exclusive competence of the EU 
as opposed to the shared competence of the EU and the member States ( i.e., a "mixed 
trade agreement")?  
EU reply:  the division of competences between the EU and the Members States is delineated in 
the EU Treaties. The extent of the Common Commercial Policy (TFEU Art. 207) is quite broad and 
would normally cover most of the provisions usua lly negotiated in these agreements. International 
agreements concluded by the EU , or by the EU and its Member States, are binding on EU Member 
States, independently of the question of internal division of competences. 
ii.  What is the effect of shared competence  on implementation, amendment, termination 
and/or breach of a mixed trade agreement?  
EU reply:  If an agreement is mixed, it means that both the Union and its Member States are 
parties, each to the extent of their competence. Actions under the agreement will be carried out by 
the Union and/or its Member States in accordance  with the allocation of competences under the 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 
iii. How does the EU define the scope of "foreign direct investment" (which falls within the 
exclusive competence of the EU under the Lisbon Treaty)?  
EU reply:  The European Court of Justice has defined "direct investments" as follows: 
"…investments of any kind made by natural or legal persons which serve to establish or maintain 
lasting and direct links between the persons prov iding the capital and the undertakings to which 
that capital is made available in order to ca rry out an economic activity." (Judgment of 12 
December 2006, Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, Case C-466/04 
Page 27, paragraph 2.2: The Secretariat report explains that the "EU's trade and trade-related 
policies are formulated and implemented by means of  two types of legislation," primary legislation 
and secondary legislation.  
i.  Please explain the process by which the EU decides to formulate and implement an article 
or provision of a mixed trade agreement using primary legislation.  
EU reply:  Where the implementation of an agreement requires the adoption of a legislative act (as 
opposed to delegated acts or implementing acts), such legislative act is, as a rule, adopted 
following the ordinary legislative procedure as  set out in Article 294 of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union. The decision to adopt or not a legislative act depends on whether there is a need to lay down a new legislative framework for implementing one or several 
provisions in international agreements. 
ii.  Please explain the process by which the EU decides to formulate and implement an article 
or provision of a mixed trade agreement using secondary legislation.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 348 - 
 
  EU reply:  The implementation of an agreement does  not always require the adoption of a 
legislative act. In certain circumstances, where there is no need to set up a new legislative 
framework, the Commission can adopt delegated or implementing acts, as foreseen in Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. 
iii. Can the EU please explain how it selects the type of secondary legislation it will use to 
formulate and implement an article or provisio n of a mixed trade agreement? In particular, 
please explain the process by which the EU de cides to formulate and implement an article 
or provision of a mixed trade agreement through a "regulation"; through a "directive"; 
through a "decision"; or through "recommendations and rulings"?  
EU reply:  The choice of instrument will depend on the subject-matter of the legislation and the 
aim to be achieved. In certain areas, the type of legislative instrument to be used is specified in 
the Treaties; if that is not the case, under Arti cle 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union, the institutions shall select it on a case-by-case basis, in compliance with the applicable procedures and with the principle of proportionality.  
Page 28, paragraph 2.10: According the Secretaria t report, "The European Parliament ratifies 
trade agreements by simple majority, while the Council generally needs a qualified majority to 
give consent. Unanimity by the Council is required for agreements on trade in services, trade-
related intellectual property rights, and foreign direct investment that includes 'provisions for 
which unanimity is required for the adoption of inte rnal rules,' as well as for agreements on trade 
in cultural and audiovisual services that 'risk prejudicing the Union's linguistic and cultural diversity,' and for agreements in the field of so cial, education, and health services that 'risk 
seriously disturbing the national organization of su ch services and prejudicing the responsibility of 
a member State to deliver them.'" 
i.  As a point of clarification, is unanimity Council approval required for all agreements on 
trade in services and trade-related intellectual property rights, or only for such agreements 
that include "provisions for which unanimity is required for the adoption of internal rules"? 
EU reply:  Article 207(4) of the Treaty on the Functi oning of the European Union sets out the 
general rule, which is qualified majority voting and the cases in which unanimity is required.  
ii.  How does the EU decide whether or not agreements include provisions that require 
unanimity to be adopted in internal rules? Pl ease describe the relevant provisions (or types 
of provisions) that require unanimity in order to be adopted in internal rules. 
EU reply:  The aim, content and context of the provis ions in international agreements determine 
the procedures to be followed. The Treaty on th e Functioning of the European Union provides for 
unanimity for the adoption of certain measures in areas such as, the introduction of new 
restrictions to the liberalization of capital movements (Article 64(3); tax harmonization (Articles 
113 and 115 TFEU) , social policy (articles 153(2)  and 155(2); and land planning and choice of 
sources of energy (Article 192(2). 
iii. According to paragraph 2.9 of the Secretariat report, on ratification of trade agreements, 
the European Parliament and the Council vote  on trade agreements as a whole. If an 
agreement includes any provisions that require unanimity in order to be adopted in internal rules, does that mean that the entire services, IPR or direct foreign investment 
agreement must be approved by unanimity, or only such provisions that must be adopted 
in internal rules?  
EU reply:  Article 207(4) of the Treaty on the Functi oning of the European Union sets out the 
voting procedures for the negotiation and conclusion of agreements in the field of the common 
commercial policy. As agreements are normally considered as a whole for the purposes of ratification, there are no separate votes on specific chapters or provisions. 
Page 29, paragraph 2.11: According to the Secretariat report, agreements that go beyond the 
competence of the EU may require ratification by national parliaments of individual member 
States. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 349 - 
 
  i. For mixed trade agreements, prior to member State ratification, what is the exact legal 
status of those articles of the agreement not subject to provisional application? 
The status of those articles would be of treaties signed but not yet ratified . Mixed agreements 
may enter into force only after ratification by all MS of the EU.  
ii.  If a particular member State ratifies a mixed trade agreement that includes articles or 
provisions not subject to provisional application, do these articles or provisions enter into force with respect to that member State soon after its ratification of the agreement or 
must all member States ratify the agreement before these articles or provisions enter into 
force? 
EU reply:  As a general rule, the mixed agreements to which both the European Union and its 
Member States are parties provide that the agreemen t shall enter into force once all the applicable 
ratification procedures have been completed by all parties to the agreement including the EU and 
all its Member States.  
2.4. Preferential Trade Agreements and Arrangements  
2.4.1. Unilateral Preferences 
Page 31, Paragraph 2.24: Can the European Union pr ovide lists of countries that will no longer 
receive GSP benefits because they are classified as high or upper-middle income for the most 
recent three years by the World Bank (20 countries)?  
EU reply:  Starting from 1 January 2014, the revised GSP Regulation will defer preferences for: 
 7 high-income countries - Bahrain, Brunei Darussalam, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, 
United Arab Emirates; 
 1 high-income territory – Macao; 
 12 upper-middle income countries – Argentina, Belarus, Brazil, Cuba, Gabon, Kazakhstan, 
Libya, Malaysia, Palau, Russian Federation, Uruguay, Venezuela. 
2.4.2. Reciprocal preferences 
Page 35, Paragraph 2.40: The Secretariat states that the "CARIFORUM region has concluded a 
comprehensive EPA".  
i.  How does this differ from the interim Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) referenced in 
paragraph 2.40?  
ii.  When will this EPA be implemented? 
iii. Which ACP countries initialed an EPA in 2007 but have not yet signed and ratified it, and 
are therefore in jeopardy of losing  duty-free and quota-free access?  
EU reply to the above sub questions: 
i. A comprehensive agreement tends to cover areas th at go well beyond trade in goods, covering 
for instance trade in services. 
ii. The Cariforum EPA is already under implementation. 
iii. The countries that might be affected are listed in the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1528/2007 as regards the exclusion of a numb er of countries from the list of regions or 
states which have concluded negotiations ( http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:348:0001:0154:EN:PDF ), except 
the countries listed in the Annex to the Regulation (EU) No 527/2013 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 amending Council Regulation (EC) No WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 350 - 
 
  1528/2007 (http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:165:0059:0061:EN:PDF ). 
3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
3.1.1. Procedures 
Page 39, paragraph 3.4: The Secretariat's report states that national administrations and member 
State courts are in charge of applying EU customs legislation under monitoring by the Commission 
and the EU Court of Justice.  
i.  Please provide additional information about how the Commission, specifically by 
administrative procedures, monitors each member State's application and operation of the 
EU customs legislation?  
EU reply: The Commission carries out monitoring activities in cooperation with the Member States 
so as to ensure the correct, timely and uniform application of EU customs law. Specific monitoring 
activities are also carried out, for example, under the Customs 2013 programme in close cooperation and partnership with the Member States. On the basis of this programme, the 
Commission carries out monitoring visits to the customs administrations of the Member States, 
usually on the basis of targeted sectorial enquiries. The Commission gathers information about the practices of the national customs administrations, provides technical and legal advice, and when it 
detects that a Member State has failed to comply with EU Law, the Commission can use its powers 
(i.e., action for non-compliance) to initiate infringement proceedings. Moreover, the Commission may also receive complaints from operators , which it then investigates.  
ii.  How does the Commission, without resorting to  the EU Court of Justice, resolve different 
interpretations of the EU customs legislation among its Members where each member's 
operations lead to different treatment of importers or imported shipments? 
EU reply: It is not the case that different treatment of importers or shipments arises due to the 
operations of each of the Member States of the EU . At technical level, and in carrying out its work, 
the Commission is assisted by the Customs Code Committee, which consists of representatives of 
the Member States and which is chaired by the Commission. The Customs Code Committee is responsible for all aspects of EU customs law. For instance, the Customs Code Committee (Tariff 
and Statistical Nomenclature Section) is responsible for examining questions on the Combined 
Nomenclature, and to resolve situations where different interpretations of the goods classification nomenclature may occur. As a result of the discu ssions in the Committee, and so as to settle the 
differences in interpretation, the Commission may decide to take implementing measures or to 
issue relevant guidance. 
Page 39, paragraph 3.5:  The Secretariat report states that Hungary requires the longest time for 
import procedures (19 days, or 1.9 times the OECD average). Can the EU please provide some 
explanation as to why it takes Hungary close to 19 days to complete import procedures compared 
to other members such as Estonia, Denmark, Ne therlands, and the United Kingdom who complete 
import procedures in 5 to 6 days? 
EU reply:  The EU is convinced that the time taken for "import procedures" in this Member State, 
mentioned in the World Bank report, does not refl ect the reality and has informed the Secretariat 
to that effect. The EU objective is to ensure that the time to complete import procedures across the EU is as short as possible. 
Page 39, paragraph 3.6: The Secretariat's report states that specific appeals procedures are set 
out in national legislation, and vary across member states. 
i.  Can the EU further explain what the EU legislation requires of each member State? 
ii.  Can the EU provide some details as to what differences are found among its 27 member 
States, such as how the times for appeals di ffer, differences in who may appeal, and the 
different actions that may be appealed? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 351 - 
 
  EU repley to i. and ii:  Article 243 of the Customs Code, provides for the right of appeal in two 
stages: it may be exercised initially before the customs authorities in the Member State where the 
decision has been taken or applied for. Appeal decisions taken by the individual Member State's customs authorities could be then appealed before an independent body, a judicial authority in 
that Member State. The EU Customs Code sets out the obligation to provide for a two stage appeal 
across the EU, without setting out detailed rules for appeal procedures. However, fundamental differences as regards appeals procedures, to the detriment of appellants, do not exist. 
i.  Can the EU please provide some information as to what it plans to do in the future in order 
to harmonize the appeal procedures across all its member States, if any? 
EU reply:  There are no plans to harmonize appeal procedures.  
Page 40, paragraph 3.6: The Secretariat's report states that review by national courts of a decision 
taken by the customs administration of one member State is not binding on the customs 
administration of other member States.  
ii.  How do member States' customs authorities treat other administrative decisions of another 
member State's customs authority? Are one member State's administrative decisions on customs matters binding on another EU member State?  
EU reply:  The statement by the Secretariat, as cited, is not correct. In principle, the EU customs 
legislation foresees where decisions of the cu stoms authority of one MS are binding on the 
customs authorities of other MS. See, for instance , Art. 356(2) of the Customs Code implementing 
provisions (CCIP) on delays for transit procedur es, which are fixed by the customs authority of 
entry of goods, and are binding on all other MS . Another example is in relation to binding 
information on tariff information or origin (see Art. 11 CCIP), by which BTIs and BOIs bind all other customs authorities. 
iii. Does the Commission have a role in providing administrative uniformity across the EU 
member States based on appeal decisions taken by individual member State's customs 
authorities?  
EU reply:  Article 243 of the Customs Code, provides for the right of appeal in two stages: it may 
be exercised initially before the customs authorit ies in the Member State where the decision has 
been taken or applied for. Appeal decisions taken by the individual Member State's customs authorities could be then appealed before an independent body, a judicial authority in that Member State.  
National courts are responsible for ensuring that EU law is properly applied in each Member State. 
In order to prevent that courts might interpret EU law in different ways, national courts may, and in some instances must, refer questions on the interpretation or validity of EU customs law to the 
Court of Justice of the EU ('preliminary ruling procedure'). 
Page 40, paragraph 3.8: The Secretariat's report states that traders, or their representatives, must 
lodge import declarations for their imports to the customs office in the member State. Non-
established persons may lodge declarations for transit or for temporary admission.  
i.  Can the EU provide some clarity as to what it means to be established in the EU/member 
State for purposes of filing an import declaration? 
EU reply:  Persons established in the EU' means: i) in the case of a natural person, any person 
who is normally resident there; ii) in the case of a legal person or an association of persons, any 
person that has in the EU its registered office, central headquarters or a permanent business 
establishment. 
ii.  Can a non-resident importer file its own import declaration or must it use the services of a 
hired representative in the EU? 
EU reply:  Current law states that a customs declaration may be made by any person (declarant) 
who is able to present the goods in question or to have them presented to the competent customs WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 352 - 
 
  authority, together with all the documents which are required for the application of the rules 
governing the customs procedure in question. While the person making a custom declaration (i.e. the declarant) must be established in the EU, exceptions include cases such as lodging a declaration for transit or temporary importation, or declarations on an occasional basis. Persons 
who are not in a position to meet these requirements can, however, arrange for the necessary 
formalities to be accomplished by a person acting on their behalf (i.e., by a representative established in the EU). 
Page 41, paragraph 3.11: The Secretariat's report states that carriers must lodge at the "customs 
office of first entry" electronic Entry Summary Declarations for goods from outside the EU.  Can the 
EU provide some further details on this provision, specifically is this only for carriers, or must all import declarations for free circulation be filed at the first port of arrival or first entry? 
EU reply:  All the goods brought into the customs te rritory of the EU shall be covered by a 
summary declaration, with some exceptions. The summary declaration shall be lodged at the 
customs office of effective entry. Customs authorities may allow the summary declaration to be 
lodged at another customs office, provided that this office immediately communicates or makes 
available electronically the necessary particular s to the customs office of entry. The summary 
declaration shall be lodged before the goods are br ought into the customs territory of the EU. The 
summary declaration shall be lodged by the person who brings the goods, or who assumes 
responsibility for the carriage of the goods into the customs territory of the EU. Notwithstanding 
this obligation, the summary declaration may be lodged instead by certain other persons. 
There is no requirement that import declarations for free circulation must be filed at the first port 
of arrival or first entry. 
3.1.4. Tariffs Page 45 and 46, Table 3.2 Structure of MFN tariffs in the EU-27: Footnotes a, b, and c state that 
ad valorem equivalents (AVEs) were estimated based on import data at the eight-digit tariff from 
Eurostat database. In the case of unavailability, the  ad valorem part is used for compound and 
alternate rates. 
i.  Can the European Union describe in which cases data is unavailable and why? 
ii.  Can the European Union estimate how many ad valorem  tariffs are used in lieu of 
compound or alternative rates because import data is unavailable?  
EU reply:  These questions should be addressed to the WTO Secretariat which made these 
calculations. 
3.1.5. Domestic taxes collected at the border 
Page 49, paragraph 3.49-3.51: The Secretariat's repo rt states that each member State has its own 
right to set and apply VAT. Each member may apply up to two reduced rates of at least five 
percent on 21 categories of goods and services, with a number of derogations on the application of 
zero rates, and super-reduced rates. The Secret ariat further notes that the standard VAT rate 
covers two thirds of total consumption, with the remainder subject to other rates.  
i.  Can the EU provide some explanation as to how this process (including the divergence in 
tax rates, with the collection occurring prior to clearance) facilitates trade?  
EU reply:  VAT is a national tax contributing to about 22% of Member States' tax receipts. It is 
subject to common rules and a common framework at EU level (The VAT Directive). The VAT 
Directive ensures that Member States have sufficien t flexibility to determine their fiscal policy, and 
– subject to certain imperatives- decide on the most efficient tools to serve the policy goals set. 
Rates of VAT, or variations in such tax rates, have no bearing on the facilitation of international 
trade.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 353 - 
 
  ii.  Are there any plans to either try to bring uniformity to VAT assessment across the whole of 
the EU, or at a minimum make this a post-release and post-clearance assessment and 
collection?  
Assumption not correct. 
EU reply:  On 6 December 2011, the Commission adopte d a Communication on the future of VAT. 
If the measures proposed were implemented, this would lead to create a simpler, more efficient 
and more robust VAT system in the EU and thus will facilitate businesses trading within the EU. As regards import VAT collection, Member States shall lay down the detailed rules for import VAT 
payment.  
Import VAT may be collected: (1) immediately at the EU border; (2) deferred for certain amount 
of days; (3) postponed to the VAT return. Theref ore, EU rules allow Member States a number of 
choices, and the resulting flexibilities for economic operators. It should be noted that EU rules do 
not allow Member States to charge or collect VAT prior to release of goods.  
3.1.8. Technical regulations and standards Page 57 , paragraph 3.84: With regards to techni cal requirements and conformity assessment, the 
Secretariat report states "The Commission does not have accurate numbers of products that are 
not subject to non-harmonized rules." What regula tions, if any, are currently in the process of 
being harmonized?  
EU reply:  For a detailed list of all recently adopted or planned legislative proposals of the 
Commission, thus including technical regulations, please consult the following documents: 
Commission Work Programme 2013 and related Roadmaps, Commission initiatives adopted in 2013 and Commission initiatives planned until the end of 2013 at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/key-documents/index_en.htm .  
These documents are updated monthly and provid e an overview of most important Commission 
activities (legislative and non-legislative). 
Page 60, paragraph 3.93: The Secretariat report indicates that there is no statutory requirement 
to publish notices of preparation of legislation, but proposals to the European Parliament and the 
Council are published in the official journal and the decision making process can be monitored via 
the internet. What is the mechanism for third countries to participate early in this process? It has 
been our experience that a great deal of work is  done prior to publication of proposal, thereby 
limiting the consideration that can be given to the concerns of third countries. Is the Commission looking for ways to address this issue? 
EU reply:  Before proposing legislation the Commission takes stock of existing national laws of EU 
Member States and of its main trading partners and conducts an impact assessment to evaluate 
the potential economic, social and environmental consequences of any new initiative with 
significant impacts. This analysis also evaluates specific impacts on international trade, and on 
developing countries in particular, with a view to identifying options which do not create 
unnecessary barriers to trade and are consistent with the EU's WTO obligations.26  
As part of this comprehensive impact assessment, the European Commission carries out an 
extensive web-based consultation of stakeholders on proposed policy options via a single access 
point on the Commission's website (http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice), through which all 
consultations may be accessed. These consultations are open to stakeholders and public 
authorities of third countries as well. Additional "targeted" consultations of specific stakeholder 
groups may also be arranged, the modalities of which very much depend on the subject-matter of 
the proposed initiatives. Often the web-based consultation is followed by public hearings, 
workshops, etc.  
                                               
26 European Commission – Impact Assessment Guidelines, Doc. SEC (2009) 92 of 15.1.2009, at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/docs/iag_2009_en.pdf . WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 354 - 
 
  It should be stressed that public stakeholder cons ultations in the EU system take place very early 
in the impact assessment process to allow stakeholders to influence the framing of the problem and the choice of options.  
Finally, and beyond the above generally applicable tools for seeking input from stakeholders, a 
variety of regulatory cooperation mechanisms wi th the competent authorities of third countries 
allow for an early exchange of information on on-going and planned regulatory initiatives. 
Page 61 paragraph 3.97: The Secretariat report na mes the recognized EU standards organizations. 
What other standards organizations, if any, does the EU recognize as equivalent? What is the 
process to recognize third country organizations? 
EU reply:  EU does not recognize standardisation organisations as such equivalent to the European 
standardisation organisations, but it instead under certain conditions recognises international 
standards as equivalent to European standards. 
For example, CEN coordinates its work with the International Standards Organisation (ISO), and 
their relationship is governed by the Vienna Ag reement signed in 1991. The aim of the agreement 
is to increase transparency of work in CEN to ISO members, avoid duplication of work and 
structures, and to increase the speed of elaboration, availability and maintenance of standards. More than 2500 European Standards are identical to ISO. 
Another example is the coordination of work be tween CENELEC and International Electro-technical 
Commission (IEC) on the basis of the Dresden Agreement signed in 1996. The aim of the agreement is to the common planning of new work and parallel voting with the objective of avoiding duplication of effort. Nearly 80% of Euro pean Standards in the electro-technical field are 
identical or based on IEC standards. 
Other examples of international standards recogn ised in the EU are those developed by ITU, 
UNECE, Codex Alimentarius Commission, ICAO, UN GHS etc. 
Page 62, paragraph 3.99: The Secretariat report states that conformity assessment bodies not 
established in the EEA cannot qualify as notified bodies. Why is this the case? Is the EU 
considering a mechanism that would allow third countries to have their own CABs to be recognized 
as notified bodies? If not, why not? 
EU reply:  Notified bodies carry out tasks pertaining to the conformity assessment procedures 
referred to in the applicable technical regulations when a third party conformity assessment is 
required. As they take responsibilities in the area of public interest, the EU policy approach is that 
they should be legally answerable to the competen t national authorities of the EU Member State in 
which they are established. Thus, the EU Member States' notifying authorities are responsible for 
assessing that a conformity assessment body has the technical competence and capability of 
carrying out the conformity assessment in question, as well as that it has the necessary level of 
independence, impartiality and integrity. Furthermore, EU Member States are responsible for ensuring that notified bodies maintain their co mpetence at all times and are capable of carrying 
out the work for which they are notified. To that  end, notified bodies are subject to regular 
monitoring of their activities. In case of failure to fulfill their obligations, notified bodies may incur civil or criminal penalties. In order for the syst em to operate as intended, notified bodies must 
therefore be answerable by law to the compet ent notifying authorities and come within the 
jurisdiction of an EU Member State. This is only legally possible if notified bodies are established as 
legal entities in the EU. 
The EU has concluded a number of multi-sector Mutual Recognition Agreements with third 
countries within the meaning of Article 6.3 of th e WTO TBT Agreement, including with the United 
States, according to which CABs established in the MRA partner are authorized to issue certificates carrying the same validity as those issued by notified bodies. In addition to such formal 
agreements, in those limited areas where the EU requires mandatory third party conformity 
assessment the EU system provides significant flexib ilities for the acceptance of foreign conformity 
assessment results by permitting notified bodies to enter into subcontracting arrangements with third country CABs and to participate in international voluntary cooperation arrangements with WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 355 - 
 
  other CABs for the mutual recognition of test reports and certificates such as the IECEE CB 
scheme27 or the IECEx system.28 
Page 62, paragraph 3.100: The Secretariat report indicates "National accreditation bodies must 
recognize the equivalence of the services of other national accreditation bodies that have 
successfully passed the peer review. Member States cannot refuse certificates or test reports 
issued by a conformity assessment body accredited by another member State's national accreditation body." Why is this option not afforded to third countries?  
EU reply:  Regulation (EC) No. 765/2008/EC established a European common accreditation 
framework for the primary purpose of reinforcing the unity of approach in the assessment of the 
technical competence of conformity assessment bodies (CABs) operating in the EU. This was  
considered necessary to enhance mutual confidence in the EU internal market in the quality of 
CABs and of their test reports and certificates. 
Like the vast majority of other WTO Members, the EU legislator considered that, in order to 
strengthen the role of accreditation as the last level of control in the conformity assessment chain, 
accreditation should be performed as a public authority activity, free from commercial pressure 
and on a not-for-profit basis.  
The EU's common accreditation framework is therefore first and foremost a tool to support the 
EU's internal regulatory policy in relation to the assessment of the technical competence of CABs 
which are designated to undertake specific tasks under EU product related legislation (e.g. notified bodies under EU's New Approach legislation). 
The EU regulatory framework on accreditation provides for a single accreditation body per EU 
Member State and strict requirements they have to fulfil. Accreditation bodies are subject to 
rigorous and transparent peer evaluation organised by EA (European Cooperation for Accreditation). EA is recognised under Regulation (EC) No. 765/2008 as the official European 
accreditation infrastructure. The objective of th e peer evaluation system is to ensure the 
equivalence of the level of competence of conformity assessment bodies, to facilitate mutual recognition and promote overall acceptance of accreditation certificates and conformity 
assessment results. The proper functioning of th e peer evaluation system is overseen by the 
European Commission in cooperation with the EU Member States. 
EA and its national Members are active members of ILAC (International Laboratory Accreditation 
Cooperation) and IAF (International Accreditation Forum) as well as of the multilateral recognition 
arrangements operated by these organisations.  
European accreditation operates according to the same principles as international accreditation 
regarding the assessment of the technical competence of laboratories, inspection and certification 
bodies as derived from relevant ISO/IEC standards, guides and recommendations. This is provided 
for in Regulation (EC) No. 765/2008 thus enshrining in law the respect for international tools in the field of accreditation and contributing to strengthening the very operation of the ILAC and IAF 
multilateral recognition arrangements in the EU.  
3.1.9. Sanitary and phytosanitary standards (SPS) Page 64, paragraph 3.106: The Secretariat report states "Among the notified measures, the EU 
identified 13 as 'trade facilitating'." How is a measure determined to be trade facilitating?  
EU reply: During the period since the last EU TPR, the EU indeed issued several notifications on 
measures which were identified as trade facilitatin g. Their trade facilitating nature was decided on 
a case by case basis taking into account the impact of the new measures. 
                                               
27 Worldwide System for Conformity  Testing and Certification of Electrotechnical Equipment and 
Components (IECEE) Certific ation Body (CB) Scheme. 
28 International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) System for Certification to Standards Relating to 
Equipment for Use in Ex plosive Atmospheres. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 356 - 
 
  Page 65, paragraph 3.112: The Secretariat report states "the Commission noted that measures 
adopted under this Law are always based on risk analysis." What is the Commission's definition of 
risk analysis?  
EU reply: Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 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 defines, in Article 3, paragraph 10, 'risk analysis' as a process consisting of three interconnected components : risk assessment, risk management and risk 
communication. Paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 define  'risk assessment', 'risk management' and 'risk 
communication' respectively. 
Does this mean that risk assessments are available for all measures adopted by the Commission?  EU reply:  Yes, this means that in all those cases where risk assessment is relevant.  
For example, was a risk assessment conducted in relation to EC 28/2012 
EU reply: The question refers to Commission Regulation (EU) No 28/2012 of 11 January 2012 
laying down requirements for the certification for imports into and transit through the Union of 
certain composite products and amending De cision 2007/275/EC and Regulation (EC) 
No 1162/2009. For public health related requirements the risk assessment was indeed carried out by EFSA . 
Page 65, paragraph 3.113: The Secretariat report states "Regarding animal health and food of 
animal origin, the Commission stated that EU legislation is largely based on OIE/Codex 
recommendations, standards, and guidelines; in rare cases where the EU does not follow OIE/Codex recommendations, the EU SPS measures are based on the scientific opinion of the 
EFSA."  
i.  What guidelines did the Commission consult in drafting EC 28/2012? Was there a scientific 
opinion issued by the European Food Safety Au thority (EFSA) for this regulation? If not, 
why not?  
EU reply: For animal health a risk assessment was not done because the import conditions were 
taken from existing import requirements for import into the EU of the products of animal origin 
contained in the composite products covered by Regulation (EU) No 28/2012. 
For public health a risk assessment was carried out by EFSA: "Scientific Opinion on Public health 
risks represented by certain composite products containing food of animal origin" 
ii.  Since 2011 there have been several instances where the scientific opinion of EFSA has not 
been followed when developing/amending regulations. Are there criteria that used to determine that the EFSA guidance is not sufficient? 
EU reply:  In certain cases EFSA concludes that there is not enough scientific information available 
for a full risk assessment – the EU would then adopted temporary measures on the basis of Article 
5.7 SPS. It may also happen that the objectives pursued by the EU in the adoption of a specific 
piece of legislation go beyond those set out in th e SPS Agreement. Notably, Article 5 of Regulation 
178/2002 refers to the general objectives of " a high level of protection of human life and health and the protection of consumers' interests, includin g fair practices in food trade, taking account of, 
where appropriate, the protection of animal health  and welfare, plant health and the environment. 
Food law shall aim to achieve the free movement  in the Community of food and feed […]". 
Page 66, paragraphs 3.116 and 3.117: The Secretariat report states that "Requests for first-time 
imports of live animals and products of animal or igin must be submitted to the Commission by the 
competent national authority of the exporting country" and "Approvals may cover all or part of a 
country, reflecting its animal and public health stat us and the type of animal or product of animal 
origin for which approval is sought."  
i.  Does this mean that if a country is approved to ship meat and meat products to the EU, 
they are also approved to ship composite products containing meat without further review WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 357 - 
 
  at the Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health? Given that the attestations for the 
products are virtually identical, it would seem to be overly burdensome to be required to go through the process more than once. Can the EU please describe the appropriate 
process? 
EU reply:  A country authorised to export processed products of animal origin is also authorised to 
export composite products containing those processed products (e.g. US authorised for meat 
products is also authorised to export composite products with those meat products) no further authorisation is needed. This is laid down in Regulation (EU) No 28/2012.  
ii.  The Secretariat also notes that "The Commission adopts the draft legislation provided that 
the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health agrees." In what circumstances and for what reasons may the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal health not agree with the adoption of draft legislation? Must the Standing Committee base its decision on a relevant international standard or an EFSA opinion?  
EU reply:  In the exercise of its implementing powers, the Commission is usually assisted by 
Committees made up of Member States' representatives. These Committees operate through 
various procedures laid down in the so-called "Comitology" Regulation (Regulation no. 182/2011 
laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States 
of the Commission's exercise of implementing powe rs). The primary role of these Committees is to 
provide an opinion on the draft measures that the Commission intends to adopt. These opinions 
can be more or less binding upon the Commission according to the procedure which has been 
foreseen by the legislator. 
The two procedures under which the Committees operate are: 
 the advisory procedure: the opinion is deli vered by simple majority of the Committee's 
component members ; the opinion is not binding but the Commission takes utmost account of the Committee's opinion 
 the examination procedure: the opinion is delivered by qualified majority 
  When no opinion is delivered, the chair may, subject to certain conditions, submit an 
amended draft measure to the same Committee or  refer the draft measures to the Appeal 
Committee. 
  When a negative opinion is delivered the Commission shall not adopt the draft 
implementing act. Subject to certain condit ions, the chair may submit an amended draft 
measure to the same Committee or refer the draft measures to the Appeal Committee. 
MSs have the power to vote in favour, against or abstain on the Commission's proposals however 
they have to give an explanation on the reasons for abstention and vote against. Negative opinion 
or abstentions of committee members can have various motivations: technical, legislative, procedural etc. 
The regulatory procedure with scrutiny continues to apply in all basic acts which make reference to 
it until those acts are formally amended. The opinion is delivered by qualified majority. 
The co-legislators, both the Council and the European Parliament, are continuously informed of 
Committee proceedings. In addition, the legislator's right of scrutiny is foreseen in Art. 11 of the 
Comitology Regulation. 
In respect of international standards, it is recalled that 178/2002 in Article 5 requires international 
standards to be "taken into consideration in the development or adaptation of food law, except 
where such standards or relevant parts would be an ineffective or inappropriate means for the 
fulfillment of the legitimate objectives of food law or where there is a scientific justification, or where they would result in a different level of pr otection from the one determined as appropriate 
in the Community." WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 358 - 
 
  Page 67, paragraph 3.121: The Secretariat report no tes that all food must comply with the general 
requirements on pesticide residue levels. EU Regulation 396/2005 establishes MRLs and import 
tolerances based on a risk assessment that consider s exposure to the pesticide at issue. However, 
EU Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009, which governs th e registration of plant protection products, 
establishes several hazard-based "cut-off" criteria  that essentially exclude certain categories of 
products from consideration for normal authorization for use in the EU. For such products, the EU would not perform a risk assessment but would delist them. For products delisted due to the 
hazard-based cut-off criteria, the residue limit will be set at 0.01 mg/kg. How will the EU 
determine import tolerances for plant protection products delisted due to hazard-based criteria? Will the EU perform a risk assessment and establish those tolerances on the basis of that risk assessment as provided for in Regulation 396/ 2005, and consistent with the SPS Agreement?  
EU reply:  Maximum residue levels (MRLs) of pesticide residues, including import tolerances, 
continue to be set under Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, and any expected modifications to the 
current MRLs will continue to be notified to WTO under the SPS agreement. The EU will ensure that 
any links in respect of MRLs that derive from other legislation are made as, and when, appropriate. 
Page 68, paragraph 3.126: The Secretariat report notes that, in March 2013, the Commission 
adopted the Implementing Regulation on requir ements to be fulfilled by companies when 
submitting applications for the authorization of new GMOs for food/feed uses. Further, the 
Secretariat reports that the Commission's stated "o bjectives of this Implementing Regulation are: 
to reinforce and improve the authorization process of GM food and feed; to clarify the requirements for submitting a request; and to ha ve these requirements formally endorsed by EU 
member States." Will the implementing regulations increase or decrease the significant delays in 
the authorization process, both in preparing the EFSA opinion and in developing and adopting the necessary regulatory action, and how?  
EU reply:  The adoption of the Regulation (EU) No 503/2013 on applications for authorisation of 
GM food and feed will not change the EU approach on risk assessment of GMOs which will continue 
to be science based and transparent. 
The Regulation will minimise the impact of asynchronous authorisation by further simplifying the 
authorisation process. It will improve the scientifi c certainty for applicants as it will clarify the 
requirements to be fulfilled for the submission of  an application and the protocols to be followed 
for conducting trials/studies. It should also therefore minimise the need for EFSA to request 
additional studies/data and reduce the time needed for the risk assessment phase.  
The Regulation foresees a transitional period of 6 months during which companies have the choice 
to submit applications either in line with this Regulation or with the previous rules (Regulation 
No 641/2204 and 2011 EFSA guidelines). 
The Regulation can be adapted based on new scientific developments when needed. Page 68, paragraph 3.127: The Secretariat notes that "under certain circumstances, member 
States are allowed to temporarily restrict or prohibit the use and/or sale" of genetically engineered 
products that are authorized at EU level on their own territory, and that six member States currently maintain such prohibitions. EFSA has issued a number of opinions finding that there is no scientific justification for these member State ba ns, some of which were the subject of a WTO 
dispute settlement panel. What is the process for lifting these temporary prohibitions? Is there a 
scientific basis for the proposed regulation to amend Directive 2001/18/EC to allow member States to prohibit cultivation of genetically engineered crops in their territories? 
EU reply:  The EU will use appropriate measures in its disposal, including infringement procedures 
where relevant, to repeal measures which are not considered justified. The EU's Ordinary 
Legislative Procedure applies to the pr oposal to amend Directive 2001/18/EC.  
3.3. Measures Affecting Production and Trade 
3.3.2 Subsidies and other government assistance 
Page 73, Section 3.3.2.1: The Secretariat report in this section discusses the general framework 
for subsidies and state aids in the European Union. Regarding aid to specific sectors, on June 11, WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 359 - 
 
  2013, the European Commission in a press release announced an action plan for the steel sector. 
According to the announcement, the plan proposes various measures to help this sector. 
i.  Please provide additional information about how the European Commission and the EU 
member States will assist the steel sector under the action plan. 
ii.  Does the action plan envision any direct support for the steel sector or steel companies? If 
so, please provide details of such support. 
iii. The action plan discusses the reduction of energy costs for energy intensive industries 
such as steel. How does the Commission intend to achieve that goal? 
iv. Will funding for the steel sector under the European Innovation Partnership for Raw 
Materials and under the Research Fund for Coal and Steel be enhanced under the steel action plan? 
EU reply:  
i. The Commission proposes in its action plan to ensure EU steel producers have access to third 
country markets through the negotiation of preferential trade agreements as well as enforcement tools designed to ensure that the playing field is leveled with our trading 
partners. Innovation, energy efficiency and sust ainable production processes are vital for the 
next generation steel. The Action Plan also foresees targeted measures to support employment in the sector and accompany the restructuring to ensure that highly skilled labor is retained in 
Europe. 
ii. The Steel sector – like any other sector- can benefit from state support measures that 
contribute to the EU 2020 objectives: R&D and innovation, training and employment aid and 
aid to increase environmental protection. In addi tion, steel is recognized as one of the sectors 
at risk of carbon leakage due to high indirect  carbon costs. Under the EU Emissions Trading 
Scheme (ETS) State aid Guidelines, it might therefore receive financial compensation as from 2013 until 2020 [ETS 3
rd phase]. However none of these schemes is new and Steel Action Plan 
does not introduce any new state aid instruments for the sector. 
iii. In the EU, Energy costs represent approximatel y 40% of operating costs in Energy Intensive 
Industries (EII), so in sectors like steel energy costs are one of the main competitiveness 
drivers. Differences in end user electricity pr ices between EU Member States are due to a 
complex interaction of various factors,. An effi cient internal energy market will stimulate 
competition and reduce prices but this requires adequate cross-border and trans-European energy infrastructure, which will only be achieved through targeted action by the EU and its 
Member States.  
Amongst other initiatives, the Commission proposes: 
 to put in place guidance to Member States on renewable energy support schemes and the 
competition assessment of long-term supply contracts,  
 to analyse the composition and drivers of energy prices and costs  
 to analyse the impact of the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) on electricity prices in the 
EU and, examine the need for appropriate measur es to address the risk of carbon leakage. 
The Commission will also call upon EU Memb er States to contribute to these goals; 
iv. As far as the Research Fund for Coal and Steel (RFCS) is considered, it is managed by the 
Commission and operating on its own legal basis, is a separate and distinct instrument from 7th 
Framework Programme for Research (FP7) and will be similarly distinct from the forthcoming 
Horizon 2020 (H2020). 
 It is not possible to provide information on a future budget beyond 2014.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 360 - 
 
   As far as H2020 is considered, steel per se is not highlighted there.  
In relation to Energy Intensive Industries, rele vant aspect include R&D demonstration and pilot 
projects for new technologies for cleaner, more resource and energy-efficient technologies, including to initiatives such as the SPIRE (Sustainable Process Industry through Resource and 
Energy Efficiency).  
Additionally, under the European Innovation Partne rship, the EU will explore options to foster 
innovation in the steel industry along the raw mate rials value chain (priority projects in the fields 
of extraction, recycling and substitution). 
3.3.3. Government Procurement Page 81, paragraph 3.206: The Secretariat report notes that the Directives mention "other" 
aspects such as social, innovation, and environmental considerations that can be incorporated into 
technical specifications, selection and award criteria, and contract-performance clauses. Can the 
EU provide examples as to how "social" considerations have been incorporated into the public procurement process, and clearly identify what constitutes as "social" consideration? 
EU reply: Social considerations can be taken into account into public procurement procedures by 
contracting authorities at specific stages. Examples of social considerations that could be relevant 
in a procurement procedure can be found in the Guide published by the European Commission at 
the following address: 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/public procurement/other_aspects/index_en.htm .  
Page 81, paragraph 3.208: The Secretariat report notes that the Utilities Directive grants 
exemptions from the procurement rules when it co nsiders that competitive conditions ensure the 
entities buy commercially without favoring a national industry. Does the Commission maintain a 
list of specific markets and entities that have been exempted from the procurement rules of the 
Utilities Directive? What criteria does the Commission use to determine that an entity in question 
is operating in a competitive condition? Are there additional examples of entities that are exempt 
in specific markets other than those provided for in Footnote 192 of the linked document? 
EU reply: Specific activities in given countries may be  exempt from public procurement rules of 
Directive 2004/17/EC if it can be proved that the activity is directly expose d to competition on 
markets to which access is not restricted. The Commission decision on whether an activity is directly exposed to competition, is taken on the basis of criteria that are in line with the EU Treaty provisions on competition, such as the characte ristics of the goods or services concerned, the 
existence of alternative goods or services, the pric es and the actual or potential presence of more 
than one supplier of the goods or services in question.  
Commission decisions on exemption under Article 30 of the Directive 2004/17/EC are published on 
the Official Journal of the European Union and can be searched on line at the following address: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm .  
All the relevant decisions adopted under Arti cle 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC are available for 
consultation on-line. 
Page 82, paragraph 3.210: The Secretariat report notes that publication requirements for below-
threshold procurements in the member States va ry, and that some contracting entities publish 
above-threshold procurement only. Can the Commissi on provide, for the purpose of transparency, 
a list of the contracting entities in member States that publish below-threshold procurement? Can 
the Commission identify where such procurement is published? 
EU reply: The Commission is not in a possession of a list featuring contracting entities in member 
States that publish below-threshold procurement. Contracting authorities may publish below-
threshold procurement either in the 'Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union', on 
TED (Tenders Electronic Daily), the online version of the 'Supplement to the Official Journal of the 
European Union', dedicated to European pub lic procurement or their 'buyer profile'. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 361 - 
 
  Pag 84, paragraph 3.219: The Secretariat report no tes that in 2009, out of a total of €420 billion 
above-threshold procurement in the EU, some €352 billion was open to GPA Parties. Can the EU 
explain what makes up the additional €68 billion in above threshold procurement, and can the EU 
explain why this additional procurement is not open to GPA Parties? 
EU reply: The additional procurement, not open to GPA Parties, is listed in detail in the Annexes to 
the annual statistical reports to GPA (available at 
http://www.wto.org/english/trat op_e/gproc_e/gpstat_e.htm ).  
The procurement not open to GPA Parties under current GPA include various elements, including 
defence procurement, the so-called "IIB servic es" and the purchases of fuel by utilities. 
Page 85, paragraph 3.222: The Secretariat report no tes that there are no explicit provisions in the 
EU Directives generally excluding the participation of suppliers from third countries in the EU public 
procurement market. However, the Secretariat also notes that the Utilities Directive contains 
provisions which allow contracting authorities to reject foreign bidders. Can the Commission identify which provisions in the Utilities Directive provide for this exclusion authority? Does the 
Commission have any authority to rule on the decisions made by the contracting authorities as in 
the proposed regulation mentioned in paragraph 3.223? 
EU reply: Tenders covering products originating in third countries with which the Community has 
not concluded, whether multilaterally or bilaterally, an agreement ensuring comparable and 
effective access for Community undertakings to the markets of those third countries, may be rejected by contracting entities under the conditions specified in Article 58 of Directive 2004/17/EC (Utilities Directive). In this context it is ad ded that, in accordance with Directive 92/13/EEC, 
Member States have set up remedies systems the aim of which is to ensure that, as regards 
contracts falling within the scope of Directive 2004 /17/EC, decisions taken by contracting entities 
may be reviewed effectively. Under the proposed Regulation mentioned in paragraph 3.223 
decisions made by the contracting authorities to exclude from procedures for the award of 
contracts tenders comprising goods or services originating outside the Union, are subject to approval of the European Commission.  
Page 85, paragraph 3.223: The Secretariat report notes that the Commission adopted a proposal 
for a regulation on the access of third-country goods and services to the EU's procurement market. 
Can the Commission provide an update on the stat us of this proposal as well as next steps? 
EU reply: The Commission proposal is on the table of  the EU co-legislators– - the European 
Parliament and the Council. In the Council, the Me mber States have worked through a first reading 
of the proposal at technical level. In the European Parliament the proposal is currently subject to debate in several Committees – with the Committee in charge of international trade in the lead-. 
The European Parliament is likely to  vote on the proposal in autumn.  
Page 85, paragraph 3.224: The Secretariat notes that the use of e-procurement accounts for 
5-10% of procurement procedures carried out across the EU, and that the Commission adopted a 
legislative proposal to make the use of electronic tendering procedures mandatory for "certain 
phases" of the procurement process by mid-2014. Please identify which phases of the procurement process will be required to use electronic tendering procedures by this mid-2014 deadline.  
EU reply: A study carried out for the European Commission has estimated the take up of 
e-procurement (measured as the value of public pr ocurement with tenders submitted electronically 
out of the total value of public procurement in the EU) at about 10% in 2011.  
However, it should be noted that the deadline of mid-2014 concerning the first two phases 
referred to above, respectively mid-2016 for e-submission are the time limits foreseen in the 
Commission proposal for the revised Directive 2004/18/ EC. At this stage the proposal is still under 
discussion by the co-legislators and the precis e deadline will depend on the outcome of the 
on-going discussions. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 362 - 
 
  3.3.5. Intellectual Property rights 
Page 91, paragraph 3.245: The Secretariat report says that the Unitary EU patent will follow the 
principle of regional exhaustion, as does the European Union. For the Unitary patent will the region 
be defined as the EU, the member states of the European Patent Convention (EPC), those states 
recognizing the Unitary patent, or follow some other definition? 
Page 91-92, paragraph 3.249: The Secretariat reports that the Commission appointed a high-level 
mediator in April 2012 to look into possible compromise solutions with regards to the divergence of 
national laws on private copying levies. In January 2013, the mediator presented a set of 
recommendations for consideration by the Commission. The report, titled "Recommendations resulting from the Mediation on Private Co pying and Reprography Levies" was published 
January 31, 2013.  
i.  What are the Commission's views on the substance of the recommendations contained 
therein?  
ii.  In terms of next steps, what is the Commission planning, if anything, as part of any EU-
wide effort to implement, enact and/or further consider or consult with member States on any of the recommendations and substance contained therein?  
EU reply on the above two sub questions: During the Competitiveness Council of 29 June 2013 
an exchange of views has taken place regardin g the recommendations issued by independent 
mediator Mr Vitorino. Member States' reactions to these recommendations were diverse. The 
Commission has taken stock of these reactions. In parallel, the recommendations are being 
carefully analysed by the Commission. They constitute an important element feeding into the ongoing 'fitness check' of the copyright sy stem as initiated by the Commission on 
18 December 2012 with the adoption of the Communication on Content in the Digital Single 
Market. 
Page 96, paragraph 3.263: The Secretariat report states that the Unified Patent Court will have 
jurisdiction also on "classical" European Patents in infringement and revocation proceedings. Does 
this mean that the Unified Patent Court could rule on a European Patent Office (EPO) patent that 
was validated in any of the European states? Does the jurisdiction also apply to Spain and Italy that do not participate in the "enhanced cooperation"? And does the jurisdiction also extend to 
patents that are validated in other EPC countries that are not part of the EU, such as Turkey, 
Switzerland, etc.? 
EU reply: The UPC will have jurisdiction where, under the Brussels I Regulation, the courts of a 
Contracting Member State have jurisdiction (in a matter governed by the agreement). The 
Brussels I Regulation will be shortly amended in order to clarify the situation. 
Page 99, paragraph 3.276: The Secretariat report references European Commission documents 
COM(2013) 161 final and COM(2013) 162 final, 27 March 2013. In those documents, the EU 
proposes to "increase legal certainty" by ex tending the grounds for refusal of trademark 
registration to cover protected traditional terms for wine and traditional specialty guaranteed. Does the EU consider "traditional terms for wine" and "traditional specialty guaranteed" intellectual 
property rights? What would be the nature of the refusal? 
EU reply: Traditional terms for wine" and "traditional specialty guaranteed" are not protected as 
intellectual property at EU level. 
Pages 100 and 101, paragraph 3.286: The Secretariat reports that "a large number of EU and 
third-country GIs are already protected in third counties and in the EU through bilateral 
agreements that the EU has signed with its trading partners." How is the EU enforcing protection of non-EU GIs in the European Union? 
EU reply: Non-EU GIs registered under EU legislation are protected in accordance with the 
relevant legislation referred to in the WTO Secretariat report.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 363 - 
 
  Provisions on the protection of non-EU GIs listed in bilateral agreements are laid down in those 
agreements. These are published in the Official  Journal of the European Union and publicly 
available on the EU's websites, in particular the Treaties Office Database and http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gi-international/index_en.htm . 
4. DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTED SECTORS  
4.1. Agriculture 4.1.3. Agriculture Policies not yet arrived 
Page 117, paragraph 4.20: The Secretariat report states that EU member States are required to 
establish national strategies that define the objectives of the program based on the list objectives 
defined by the EU regime on fruits and vegeta bles. Where can these national strategies and 
explanations of how they are implemented in ea ch member State found? Please provide links to 
any documents and websites cited. 
EU reply:  EU Member States' national strategies can be found on the webpages dedicated to the 
fruit and vegetables sector at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fruit-and-vegetables/country-
files/index_en.htm . 
Explanations of how national strategies are implemented in each Member State can be found in 
each national strategy. Together with the objectiv es pursued, the national strategy also defines: 
 the nature of the actions that are eligible for support under the operational programmes of the 
producer organisations; 
 the monitoring and evaluation requirements and procedures in relation to operational 
programmes, including the reporting obligations for producer organisations. 
Page 118, paragraph 4.21: The Secretariat report states that the EU Commission for Agriculture 
and Rural Development presented an acti on plan for the olive oil sector.  
i. When will the recommendations of this report be adopted and implemented? 
EU reply:  There is no precise roadmap for the activities to be undertaken. The Action Plan for the 
olive oil sector is a working document; it does not constitute a binding legal obligation. However, a 
modification of Regulation (EC) No 2568/91 on the characteristics of olive oil and olive residue oil 
and on the relevant methods of analysis, providing for the reinforcement of quality controls and 
the standardisation of reporting, was pub lished in March 2013 (Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) No 299/2013). Also, the IOC on 27 May 2013 adopted decisions regarding the strengthening of certain quality and authenticity parameters (stigmastadienes, alkyls esters, wax, myristic acid) as well as the definitive adoption of the global method. These modifications are 
expected to be integrated into EU law (Regulation (EC) No 2568/91) by the end of 2013. 
Regarding Regulation (EU) No 29/2012 on market ing standards, an amendment providing for the 
improvement of labelling, the storage conditions and the date of harvest is under preparation. 
ii.  Does the European Union foresee any major changes between the recommendations and 
what will ultimately be adopted, including support levels? 
EU reply:  The Action Plan does not concern support levels. 
iii. The report further states that producer organizations should be enlarged and "current 
measures and those envisaged under the CAP reform should be implemented…" How would 
this be accomplished?  
a. Does the Commission have any targets in terms of when producer organizations 
are of sufficient size and a sufficient portion of producers participate?  
EU reply: Such a decision is in the hands of producer organisations. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 364 - 
 
  b. It is noted that 60-70 percent of producers in Greece and Spain participate in 
producer organizations. What changes, if any, would be envisioned in these two member States? 
EU reply: Participation in a producer organisation is on a voluntary basis. The scheme is EU-wide 
and not specific to individual Member States. 
c. For what reason is participation in producer organizations so low in other member 
States? 
EU reply: Historical, structural and geographical reasons are behind the differences in the size and 
rate of participation in cooperatives/producer organisations.  
iv. The Commissions' report also states that support should be provided under the second 
pillar for investments in processing with a view of improving operating results. It is also 
noted that the report states that there is growing imbalance between producers and 
primary processors that should be corrected. Please clarify how these two policy objectives 
align with one another. 
EU reply:  At this stage it is premature to predict th e actions and policies that will be adopted to 
balance the market. 
v.  Finally, the Commission's report also indicates that "specific needs at the regional or sub-
regional level are taken into account and dealt with in concrete terms through packages of 
measures or appropriate thematic sub-programs and include a description of the strategy 
with clear objectives" and the Commission expects member States to include olive thematic sub-programs. Please provide a more detailed explanation on 1) what these specific needs are in olive oil and 2) what types of "appropriate thematic sub-programs" are envisioned. 
EU reply:  Sub-programs, if any, would be on a vo luntary basis and would take into account 
regional or national characteristics. 
4.2 Fisheries 
4.2.3. Policies 
Page 127, paragraphs 4.45, 4.46 and 4.47: The Secretariat references on-going reform efforts to 
the Common Fisheries Policy as well as the contin ued problem of overfishing and overcapacity of 
the EU fishing fleet. Can the EU elaborate with respect to how the current CFP reforms under 
consideration will address the issues of over capacity and overfishing and whether fisheries 
assistance to fisheries in such a condition will continue to be provided?  
EU reply:  The European Commission expects that, based on the reform of the EU Common 
Fisheries Policy, all forms of subsidies to the EU fleet which could contribute to overfishing and/or 
overcapacity would be removed. The reform foresees measures to this extent. However, the final outcome of the reform of the EU Common Fisheries Policy is unknown at this stage as it remains 
subject to adoption under the ordinary legislat ive procedure foreseen by the Treaty on the 
functioning of the European Union which has not yet been completed by the date of writing. 
Pages 130-131, paragraphs 4.59-4.65: The Secretar iat report outlines elements of the European 
Fisheries Fund (EFF), noting that the current E FF is for the years 2007-2013, and the State aid de 
minimis  program. Please elaborate on the current reforms under consideration for both the EFF 
and the State aid programs and whether such refo rms will account for both the status of fish 
stocks and the capacity of a fishery with respect to the provision of fisheries assistance. Is the 
level of de minimis  funding under consideration as part of the reform effort, and if so, is there an 
intention to reduce the de minimis ceiling?  
EU reply: The proposed reform of the Common Fisheries Policy aims at accounting for both the 
status of fish stocks and the capacity of a fishery, with respect to the provision of fisheries 
assistance, in as much as it proposes to remove all forms of subsidies to the EU fleet which could contribute to overfishing and/or overcapacity. The final outcome of the reform of the EU Common WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 365 - 
 
  Fisheries Policy is unknown at this stage as it remains subject to adoption under the ordinary 
legislative procedure foreseen by the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union which has 
not yet been completed by the date of writing. 
On state aid, the European Commission launche d a public consultation, which closed on 
17 June 2013, to collect the views of citizens an d stakeholders on the way forward concerning the 
review of two Regulations: 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 875/2007 of 24 July 2007 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 
of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the fish eries sector and amending Regulation (EC) No 
1860/2004 (hereafter "de minimis Regulation")  
Commission Regulation (EC) No 736/2008 of 22 July 2008 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 
of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium -sized enterprises active in the production, 
processing and marketing of fisheries products (hereafter "the Block exemption Regulation" or 
"BER")  
It also aimed at obtaining information on the experience of national administrations and 
stakeholders in applying both Regulations. 
The review has to be put in the context of th e reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), 
currently being negotiated by the EU co-legislators. The State aid instruments specific to the 
fisheries sector will have to be reviewed to re flect the priorities and objectives of the Common 
Fisheries Policy, including the contents of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). 
The review is also part of the State aid Modernisation (SAM) initiative of the European 
Commission. 
Further information on this consultation can be found on the following web address: 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/maritimeaffairs_fisheries/consultations/state-aid/index_en.htm .  
Part II: Questions on the Government Report  
Page 13, paragraphs 3.17: The European Union describes newly signed agreements with Korea 
and Colombia as a "new-generation of 'Deep and Comprehensive' FTAs." Does the EU have 
standards and criteria for future "deep and comprehensive" FTAs as it relates to the inclusion of 
agricultural products in tariff elimination and reduction? 
EU reply:  The concept of DCFTA does not refer specifically to tariff and non-tariff barriers in the 
agricultural sector. Deep and Comprehensive shou ld be understood as covering the largest scope 
of sectors and chapters. This can include for instance far-reaching liberalisation of services and 
investment, suppression of non-tariff barriers th rough regulatory convergence wherever possible 
to achieve strong trade facilitation provisions, provisions for IPR and competition and new co-operative provisions in areas relating to trade and sustainable development. 
Page 13, Paragraph 3.19: The European Union states that it is strengthening its ties in its 
neighborhood through "deep and comprehensive" FTA negotiations. Is there a difference between 
the EU's goals in eliminating and reducing tariff and non-tariff barriers to agricultural trade in 
"deep and comprehensive" agreements with the EU's neighbors versus agreements with non-
neighbors? 
EU reply:  As stated in the previous reply, the concept of Deep and Comprehensive FTA does not 
refer specifically to tariff and non-tariff barriers in the agricultural sector. With its neighbours, the 
EU envisages not only tackling trade obstacles at  the borders, but also focussing on regulatory 
approximation with EU law. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 366 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS FROM CANADA 
Report by the Secretariat WT/TPR/S/284 
Part II. Trade and Investment Regime: (2.5.2 ) Foreign Investment: Bilateral Investment 
Treaties: paragraph 2.56, page 37:  
4. Could the EU explain how its new regulation on bilateral investment treaties (BITs) will 
affect the existing BITs of its member States? In particular, when the EU negotiates with a partner country an FTA that includes a comprehensive investment chapter with protection disciplines, 
what will become ofan existing  BIT with that partner country? 
EU reply:  Regulation 1219/2012 does not directly affect existing bilateral investment treaties 
signed by Member States with third countries be fore 1 December 2009 (the date of entry into 
force of the Lisbon Treaty). The Regulation only  endorses the status of these agreements under 
the EU law by confirming that these agreements may be maintained in force by Member States 
until they are replaced by a bilateral investment agreement between the Union and the same third country. The replacement mechanism is also applicable to agreements which were signed (or will 
be signed) by Member States after 1 December 2009 subject to specific authorisations issued by 
the Commission.  
Given that the Regulation does not provide fo r co-existence of Member States' and Union 
investment agreements with the same third country , future EU investment agreements will include 
clauses specifying that an EU agreement with a given third country replaces agreements between EU Member States with the same country, and confirming that provisions of Member States' agreements will cease to apply from the date of entry into force of the EU agreement.  
Canada follow up question:  Could the EU elaborate on the process by which existing BITs will 
be replaced by EU investment agreements? Specifically, what options for replacement are 
envisioned to fulfil the Regulation's requiremen t that existing bilateral agreements no longer 
be "maintained in force" where the European Union negotiates an investment treaty with the same 
country?  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (3.3.3) Government Procurement; 
3.3.3.1 Legislative Framework; paragraph 214, page 83:  
The Secretariat Report states that "In the proposals to "modernize" the procurement Directives, in 
December 2011 the Commission proposed "an increased possible use of negotiation through the competitive procedure with negotiation and prior publication". In response to concerns with regard 
to the risks involved in the increased use of negotiation, the Commission stated that it is conscious 
of the risk, and negotiations therefore must be supervised in a transparent manner: contracting 
authorities must specify at the time of prior pu blication the subject matter of the contract, the 
award criteria and the minimum requirements to be  met, which may not be changed in the course 
of negotiations. Any change in those parts of the technical specifications must be communicated to all firms participating in the negotiations allowing them to submit new, adapted tenders. Before 
the negotiations are concluded, every interested supplier must be given the possibility to submit a 
final tender." 
23. Is there any guideline or criteria that were developed to help the Commission advise and 
supervise the use of negotiation for public procurement?  
EU reply:  Before adopting the proposal for new directives the Commission undertook to consult 
the stakeholders and became aware of possible conc erns related to increased use of negotiations. 
The proposal is currently discussed by the legisl ators, the Council and the European Parliament. 
Canada follow up question:  Was the consultation with stakeholders a public process and was 
there a report of the consultations prepared? If so  please provide a link to the process and or the 
report. If no link or report is available, plea se explain the concerns raised by stakeholders. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 367 - 
 
  EU reply:  The consultation of stakeholders on the mo dernisation of EU public procurement policy 
carried out by the European Commission via a Green Paper was a public process. The background 
documents (including the Green Paper which launched the consultation) as well as the contributions to the public debate can be found at the following address: 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocur ement/modernising_rules/consultations/index_en
.htm.  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (3.3.3) Government Procurement; 
3.3.3.1 Legislative Framework; paragraph 216, page 84:  
The Secretariat Report states that "Most member States have laws or regulations governing 
below-threshold procurement, sometimes covering contracts above and below thresholds in the same laws, although these laws may apply different rules to each group." 
27. Please identify which member States do not have laws or regulations governing below-
threshold procurement. 
EU reply: The EU directives on public procurement do  not apply below the thresholds. However, 
the Member States are in any case bound to apply the principles of transparency and non-
discrimination based in EU law. It is up to them  to ensure the proper implementation of these 
principles according to the legal tradition of the country concerned. 
Canada follow up question:  Considering that the Commission sp eaks on behalf of EU member 
States which are members of the WTO, could the Commission identify which EU member States do 
not have laws or regulations governing below-threshold procurement? 
EU reply:  Member States such as United Kingdom and Ireland have no specific laws or regulation 
governing procurement below thresholds. However it must be noted that: i) in the United Kingdom 
the general principles of transparency and non-discrimination still apply and ii) in Ireland guidelines foresee that a competitive process should be used unless there are justifiably 
exceptional circumstances.  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (3.3.3) Government Procurement; 
3.3.3.2 GPA and international proc urement; paragraph 219, page 84: 
The Secretariat Report states that "Although the thresholds are the same, the coverage of the GPA 
is different from that of the Directives. The GPA covers entities, goods, and services, including construction services, as specified in EU's Appe ndix I. In 2009, out of the total €420 billion above-
threshold procurement in the EU, some €352 billion was open to GPA Parties." 
28. What are the entities, goods, and services that are covered by the Procurement Directives 
but not by the GPA? 
29. In 2009, what share of the procurement contracts open to GPA Parties went to non-EU 
firms? 
30. Among such firms, what share of the procurement contracts open to GPA Parties went to 
non-EU firms from GPA parties? 
31. What share of the procurement contracts open to GPA Parties went to non-EU firms from 
non-GPA parties? 
EU replies to questions 28 to 31: Such detailed statistics are not available at EU level. 
However, a recent study on cross-border-procure ment above the EU thresholds shows that over 
2007-2009 approximately 12 per cent of all cross border contracts were awarded to non-EU 
countries. Of all the indirect cross border procurement through foreign affiliates the percentage of contracts to firms owned or affiliated to non–EU corporations would be 40%.  
Canada follow up question:  What portion of overall procurement does cross-border 
procurement represent? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 368 - 
 
  EU reply:  The same study has identified a share of 1.6% direct cross-border procurement and 
11.4% indirect cross-border procurement through affiliates when measured by number of awards 
over the same period (2007-2009). The figures are different when contract value is used instead of number of awards. Thus, 3.5% of the value of contracts is awarded directly cross-border and 
13.4% indirectly through affiliates. 
32. Is there a practice for member States to indicate on notices of intended procurement 
whether a contract is covered by the GPA? 
EU reply: Yes. The EU has established standard forms for publication of notices for public 
contracts. The notices contain a field for indicating whether the contract is covered by GPA. 
Canada follow up questions:  
a) Could the EU provide a copy of the standard form for publication of notices for public 
contracts?  
EU reply:  The mandatory standard forms to be used in procurement procedures are set out in 
COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 842/2011 of 19 August 2011 establishing 
standard forms for the publication of notices in  the field of public procurement and repealing 
Regulation (EC) No 1564/2005, including the standard form for contract notices. 
b) Is it compulsory for all member States to use the standard form? If so, could the EU provide 
an explanation as to why the notice of inte nt number 2013/s 054-088642 published on 16 March 
2013 did not include the field indicating whether the contract was covered by the GPA? 
EU reply:  Member States must use the standard form for contract notices (Annex 2 of the 
Regulation 842/2011). The publication in question was made on standard form 17 (i.e. Annex XVI 
of Regulation EU 842/2011) which has no GPA field to tick, as it applies the provisions of the 
defence and security Directive (2009/81/EC). 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure: (3.3.3) Government Procurement; 
3.3.3.2 GPA and international proc urement; paragraph 222, page 84: 
The Secretariat Report states that "the Defence Directive leaves it up to member States to decide 
whether or not to accept foreign bids." 
33. How does the Commission work with member States to guide them in determining when a 
defence procurement is covered under the GPA an d requires procuring authorities/entities to 
accept foreign bids? 
EU reply: Article XXIII (1) of the GPA provides that nothing in the Agreement shall be construed 
to prevent any Party from taking any action or not disclosing any information which it considers 
necessary for the protection of its essential securi ty interests relating to the procurement of arms, 
ammunition or war materials, or to procurement indispensable for national security or for national 
defence purposes. By virtue of this Article, th e contracts covered by the EU Defence Procurement 
Directive are exempted from the application of the GPA. This exclusion means that, in the specific 
context of defence and security markets, Member St ates retain the power to decide whether or not 
their contracting authority/entity may allow economic operators from third countries to participate 
in contract award procedures. As to the Commission, it retains the power to open an infringement procedure in specific cases where it would come to the conclusion that a specific contract would fall out of the scope of the EU Defence Procurement Directive. 
Canada follow up questions:  
a) In the cases where the Commission came to the conclusion that a specific contract fell out of 
the scope of the EU Defence Procurement Directive, how many infringement procedures were 
opened by the Commission during the review period? Please provide a list. How many of these 
were found substantiated? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 369 - 
 
  b) Can the EU provide a reference in the Defense Procurement Directive that confirms that 
procurement of the goods listed in the EU's WT O-GPA Annex 4 is excluded from the directive? 
Report by the European Union (WT/TPR/G/284) 
Part II. The European Union in a Changing World: (2.3) Developments in the Internal 
Market and Central Policy Areas; Public  procurement; paragraph 36, page 8: 
The Government Report notes that "The European Union keeps its public procurement market 
largely open to international competition, despite growing pressure on its domestic market, in 
particular from emerging economies on certain key sectors (railways, construction, IT services). In 
the European Union, public expenditures represent nearly 19% of GDP and it is an essential lever for kick-starting growth." 
57. Given the size of below-threshold procurement and that member States report differently on 
it, how does the Commission evaluate the level of intra-EU cross-border procurement that is below 
threshold value of EU directives as well as the share of below-threshold contracts awarded to foreign bidders?  
EU reply:  The cross-border interest of contracts below threshold is rather limited. Therefore, and 
as the information on those contracts is not complete, the Commission does not evaluate them on 
a regular basis. 
Canada follow up question:  Understanding that the Commission does not evaluate them on a 
regular basis, when was the last time the Commission evaluated the level of intra-EU cross-border 
procurement that is below threshold value of EU di rectives as well as the share of below-threshold 
contracts awarded to foreign bidders? What was the methodology used? 
Part II. The European Union in a Changing World: (2.3) Developments in the Internal 
Market and Central Policy Areas; Public  procurement; paragraph 37, page 8: 
The Government Report notes that "On 20 Decemb er 2011, the European Commission adopted a 
proposal aimed at a modernization of public procurement in the European Union. This programme 
includes the revision of Directives No 2004/17/EC  (procurement in the water, energy, transport 
and postal services sectors) and No 2004/18/EC (public works, supply and service contracts), as 
well as the adoption of a directive on concessions, which were until now only partially regulated at 
European level. The legislative procedure for the adoption of these proposals progressed well in 2012." 
58. How is the partial nature of the coverage for works concessions reflected in the EU's market 
access schedule in its Annex 6? 
EU reply:  It is to be noted that the above mentioned text is still in discussion with the co 
legislators in the EU.  
Canada follow up question:  Considering that the directive on concessions is still being discussed 
by the co-legislators in the EU, we understand from the Government report that under the current 
situation, work concessions are only partially regulated at the European level. How is this current 
partial coverage of work concessions reflected in the EU's market access schedule of its GPA 
Annex 6? 
Other  
October 17, 2012 Proposal to amend the Renewable Energy Directive and the Fuel 
Quality Directive (2012/0288) . 
Renewable Energy Directive an d Indirect Land Use Change  
61. Has the Commission considered what the potential impact of the proposed 5 percent limit 
would be on investment for first and second generation biofuel technologies? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 370 - 
 
  EU reply:  The cap does not limit production or use of first generation biofuels, but the amount of 
such biofuels that can be counted towards EU Member States renewable energy target for 
transport sector. The Commission expects that if its proposal were adopted there would be greater investments in the production of second generation biofuels, while investment trends for first 
generation biofuels would depend on market conditions. 
62. Canada notes there is no international scientific consensus with respect to calculating the 
effect of Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Canada requests 
the EU provide a rationale for proposing a single ILUC GHG estimate for all oil crops in proposed 
Directive 2012/0288.  
EU reply:  The cap does not limit production or use of first generation biofuels, but the amount of 
such biofuels that can be counted towards EU Member States renewable energy target for 
transport sector. The Commission expects that if its proposal were adopted there would be greater 
investments in the production of second generation biofuels, while investment trends for first generation biofuels would depend on market conditions. 
Canada follow up question:  It would appear that a clerical error has occurred and that the 
response provided to question 63 is in fact the an swer to question 62. Could the EU please provide 
a response to question 63? 
63. The current RED has no ILUC obligations, and the current proposal has a reporting function 
only. Will the next amendment move further towards mandatory inclusion of ILUC in GHG calculations in their 2017 mandatory reduction targets?  
EU reply: The Commission's proposal is based on the best available science with regards to the 
indirect land use change impacts of biofuels consumed in the EU. In this context, the Commission 
has proposed to use a more robust average value for all oil crops for reporting purposes, given the fact that vegetable oil markets are closely interconnected. Analysis shows that the difference in 
ILUC impacts is negligible amongst the different  oil crops, as shown by the IFPRI study. The 
Commission has proposed that these estimates are only included in the reporting obligations by Member States. 
73. Now that the EUTR is in effect, what kind of outreach on the application of the EUTR is 
planned? 
EU reply: Both the Commission and the EU Member States have taken various measures with the 
aim to reaching out and explaining the new Regula tion to domestic and third country stakeholders. 
Some examples are a communication campaign commissioned by the Commission with materials 
in all EU languages; participation of EU officials in various national and international fora where the EUTR is discussed; providing explanations and clarification to partners within the framework of 
bilateral dialogues and video-conferences; translation of the Regulation into Russian, Chinese and 
other languages. The EU Member States, who are responsible for the implementation of the EUTR, 
are also undertaking outreach work with national stakeholders and their international partners.  
Canada follow up question:   
a) W h a t  k i n d  o f  g u i d a n c e  i s  p r o v i d e d  b y  t h e  C o m m i s s i o n  t o  M e m b e r  S t a t e s  w i t h  r e s p e c t  t o  
Member State outreach work with national stakeholders? 
b) What kind of outreach work with national stakeholders is being undertaken by each of the 
Member States? 
EU reply:  
a) The Commission provided materials in all EU languages for use by Member States in their 
outreach work with national stakeholder and a dedicated website: 
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eutr2013 ). Furthermore a Guidance document providing 
interpretation of certain provisions of the Regulation has been translated into all EU languages in 
order to facilitate understanding of the Regulation by operators at national level.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 371 - 
 
  b) EU Member States are not required to formally report to the Commission about their outreach 
work with national stakeholders. However they have shared information about such activities in regular meetings held at EU level on implementati on of the EU Timber Regulation. They have used 
a variety of means to target different stakeholder groups.  
 WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 372 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO ADDITIONAL AND FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS FROM CHINA 
SUMMARY Page 10 (Para 11) 
During the review period there was no major change in agricultural policy as implementation of the 
last set of reforms continued. More reform is expe cted to be decided in 2013 for implementation in 
2014. As a result of past reforms and higher inte rnational prices for agricultural commodities, the 
total level of support to the agriculture sector has declined over the past few years and for most 
products there is now little difference between EU and international prices. However, the EU's 
reforms have not affected market access conditions and tariffs remain higher than on non-agricultural products and in some cases these tariffs are complex and/or seasonal.  
Additional question: 
1．In view of these comments in the Secretariat Report, what measures will the EU take to reform 
and lower tariffs of agricultural products? How will the EU address this issue in the TTIP 
negotiations with the US?  
EU reply:  As said in the TPR meeting (18 July) in its statement, the EU has no plans to 
autonomously change its tariffs for agricultural products and in particular CAP reforms are not 
intended to do so. Any change will result from a successful conclusion to the DDA. The detail of 
FTA negotiations between the EU and its partners remains a matter for the countries concerned. The EU will continue to respect its WTO commitments and in particular will continue to ensure that its FTAs fully comply with the relevant WTO rules. 
3. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
Page 39 (Para 3.2) 
According to the Commission, existing customs proc edures are to be streamlined in the UCC, once 
adopted; this also applies to the rules for custom s declarations and for the placing of goods under 
a customs procedure which will be modernized, in particular by requiring that customs declarations, as a rule, be made electronically and providing for only one type of simplified 
declaration. 
Questions: 
29．Could the EU please explain the meaning of "o nly one type of simplified declaration" ? 
EU reply:  The UCC will provide different types of simp lifications. The EU explained during the TPR 
meeting that there was a mistake in the secretariat report section. 
Follow-up question: 
2．Could the EU please clarify whether it is "only one type of simplified declaration" or "different 
types of simplifications" that the UCC will prov ide? What does the "one type of simplified 
declaration" or the "different types of simplifications" specifically mean? 
EU reply: Please refer to the above answer. 
Page 52 (Para 3.62) 
The EU maintains import restrictions on, inter alia , security, technical, sanitary, phytosanitary, and 
environmental grounds. Some such controls/restrictions stem from treaties and international 
conventions to which it, and/or its member States, are party, for instance the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 373 - 
 
  Questions: 
44．Is the EU required to fulfill the obligation to impose import restrictions under an international 
treaty as long as one Member State is a party to the international treaty or are such import 
restrictions only applicable to the Member State which is a party to the treaty? 
EU reply: In principle, the international agreements to which the European Union is not a party 
are not legally binding upon the European Union. However, the European Union may decide to 
implement the obligations imposed by an international agreement even if it is not party to such 
agreement. For example, in some cases the European Union cannot become a party to a convention dealing with matters falling within the EU competence because the convention in question does not provide for the participation of regional economic international organization. In 
such cases the European Union may authoirze, or even require, the Member States to participate 
in the convention and will implement internally any obligations arising from that convention. 
Follow-up question: 
3．In which industries and sectors does the EU maintain import restrictions on, inter alia, security 
and technical grounds? Where can the lists of th e products subject to these restrictions be 
available?  
EU reply:  China is kindly asked to refer to the Quantitative restrictions notification 
(G/MA/QR/N/EU/1 dated 8 May 2013). 
Page 52-53 (Para 3.64) 
In 2012, the Regulation No. 1225/2009 (known as "Basic Anti-dumping Regulation") was amended 
twice (September and December 2012) reflecting the rulings of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body and of the European Court of Justice. These amen dments are related to the treatment of exporters 
from non-market economy countries. According to the Commission, the amendment codifies the 
practice of the Commission to resort to sampling when investigating claims for market economy treatment made by exporters located in economies in transition; the amendment also clarifies the 
methodology to be followed to establish the duty  rate applicable to non-sampled cooperating 
exporting producers. Suppliers which are legally distinct from other suppliers or from the State 
may nevertheless be considered as a single entity for the purpose of specifying the duty. In this 
examination, account may be taken of factors such as the existence of structural or corporate links 
between the suppliers and the State or between su ppliers, control or material influence by the 
State in respect of pricing and output, or the economic structure of the supplying country. Both amendments have been notified to the WTO.  
Additional questions: 
4．In regard to the amendment to the Regulation No. 1225/2009, in March 2012, the Commission 
issued an announcement inviting enterprises involved in 52 anti-dumping measures against China 
to submit requests for review. However, it seems that the EU has not proposed practical 
procedures or specific implementing details fo r the review up till now. Relevant Chinese 
enterprises believe that they have been confronted with obstacles in legal procedures for the 
review. What are the considerations of the EU on th is issue? Will the EU promulgate specific review 
procedures? 
EU reply:  As indicated in point (a) of the Notice 2012/C 86/04 (published on 23.03.2012, 
hereafter the "Existing measures Notice"), the European Commission will consider applications for 
reviews pursuant to article 2 of Council regulation n°1515/2001 ("WTO enabling regulation") in 
two situations: i) "where the applicant was denied individual treatment (…)" or ii) "where the applicant considers that it was discouraged from cooperating and requesting individual treatment 
in the investigation leading to the adoption of the anti-dumping measures because of the 
administrative burden imposed by Article 9(5) of  the Basic Regulation or because it considered 
that it did not meet all criteria required by Arti cle 9(5) of the Basic Regulation". The aim of such 
reviews is to take into account the Dispute Settlement Body findings on Article 9(5) of the Basic 
Regulation (i.e. on "individual treatment") in respect of anti-dumping measures in force. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 374 - 
 
  Any exporting producer in non-market economy countries which considers that it meets the 
aforementioned conditions can file an application for a review following the procedure mentioned in point (b) of the Existing measures Notice. As explained in point (b), to be admissible, an application shall: 
"state that the anti-dumping measure to which the applicant's exports to the European Union are 
subject is based on circumstances mentioned in point (a) (…)"; and "contain information on export quantities to the European Union and export prices  and comparison within the meaning of Article 2 
of the Basic Regulation covering the investigation period on the basis of which the applicable 
anti-dumping duty was based". Point (b) also prov ides practical guidance for cases where the use 
of export data from the applicant covering the original investigation period become impracticable (for instance because the original investigation period is too remote in time and there are no 
verifiable records of the export data). In this respect, the Existing Measures Notice invited any 
exporting producer in non-market economy countries which considers that such measures should be reviewed, in the light of the legal interpretation s regarding Article 9(5) contained in the reports, 
to request a review on the basis of Article 2 of the WTO enabling Regulation and also provided to 
this purpose guidance with regard to the procedure, in particular with regard to the information to be provided, as well as detailed contact details. The European Commission already had the 
opportunity to reply to questions from producers in the PRC regarding the procedure explained 
above. Moreover, a number of Chinese companie s submitted applications and most of them 
already received letters inviting them to complete their submission, especially with regard to information on export quantities and export prices to the European Union when this information 
was missing from the first submission.  
Please note that, should individual treatment be granted to an exporting producer following this 
kind of review, this exporting producer would bene fit by definition from an individual duty rate. 
Please also note that any exporting producer can at any time lodge a request for an interim review 
in accordance with article 11(3) of the Basic Antidumping Regulation if it considers that it meets the legal conditions set in this article. As indicated in the notice n°2012/C 86/04, "the right to 
submit a request for an interim review in accord ance with Article 11(3) of the Basic Regulation 
remains unaffected". 
5．Before the amendment to the Regulation No. 1225/2009, responding enterprises in 
anti-dumping cases may file application for "market economy status" and would be eligible for 
lower and even zero anti-dumping duty rate as long as the application for "market economy status" is confirmed, even if they are not the sample enterprises in the investigation. After the 
amendment, however, non-sampled enterprises no longer have the opportunity of applying for 
"market economy status" and will finally be subject to the weighted average duty rates of the sampled enterprises. Does the EU believe that such amendment is fair to enterprises originally 
qualified for "market economy status"? China has always held that using "surrogate country" in 
calculation of dumping margin is in its essence discrimination. Such a practice damages seriously the interests of Chinese enterprises and brings a high degree of uncertainty to bilateral economic and trade relations. China requests that such discrimination be terminated and that Chinese 
enterprises be treated fairly. 
EU reply: The use of the sampling technique provided fo r in Article 17 of the Basic Anti-dumping 
Regulation for the purposes of determining claims  for market economy treatment ('MET') pursuant 
to subparagraph (c) of Article 2(7) of that Regula tion is allowed under the rules of the World Trade 
Organisation. For example, the panel of the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade 
Organisation in the dispute DS405 'European Union — Anti- Dumping Measures on Certain 
Footwear from China' ( 4 ) (report adopted on 22 February 2012) found that China did not 
establish that the Union acted inconsistently wi th Articles 2.4 and 6.10.2 of the Anti-dumping 
Agreement, paragraph 15(a)(ii) of China's Accession Protocol, and paragraph 151(e) and (f) of China's Accession Working Party Report, by faili ng to examine the market economy treatment 
applications of the cooperating Chinese exporting producers that were not part of the sample for 
the original investigation.  
The purpose of the amendment in question was only to clarify that a determination under 
subparagraph (c) of Article 2(7) of the Basic Regulation should not be made for exporting 
producers that are not part of the sample, unless such producers request and obtain individual examination in accordance with Article 17(3) ther eof. This means that even in cases where the 
sampling technique is used, exporting producers not initially selected in the sample have the WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 375 - 
 
  possibility to submit the necessary information (including the MET claims) within the time-limits 
provided for in the basic Regulation and to requ est their individual margin of dumping to be 
calculated, except where the number of exporters or producers is so large that individual examinations would be unduly burdensome and wo uld prevent completion of the investigation in 
good time. 
The practice described above with regard to the use of sampling technique for MET claims is 
applied consistently and without discrimination in all cases concerning non-market economies.  
Page 58 (Para 3.92) 
In the context of the last TPR of the EU, some WTO Members were concerned that the EU's 
technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures would create unnecessary obstacles to trade such as the compliance overburdens on foreign small-and-medium-sized enterprises. In 
response, the EU indicated that its regulations, most of which are subject to an impact 
assessment, are developed according to a transparent process allowing ample opportunity for interested parties from other WTO Members to participate and make their views known, and are 
largely based on relevant international standa rds. Moreover, regulatory impact assessments 
contain a specific "SME test" that analyses in detail the effects of the legislative proposals on SMEs. The Commission pointed out that several measures were taken to mitigate the compliance 
burdens on SMEs (e.g. reduced registration or conformity assessment fees, simplified 
administrative requirements, etc.). The EU also pr ovides technical assistance to assist developing 
countries meet regulatory requirements on bilateral and multilateral bases.  
Additional question: 
6．Chinese enterprises are greatly concerned with the Directive 2004/24/EC and believe that the 
request for "bibliographical or expert evidence to the effect that the medicinal product in question, 
or a corresponding product has been in medicinal use throughout a period of at least 15 years 
within the Community" in the Directive is very much unfair to the large number of herbal medicinal products not produced in Europe. Moreover , according to the Directive 2004/24/EC, the 
registration fee of each herbal medicinal product amounts to nearly US$100,000 and the 
investment in production-related certification and software could be even higher. With the extremely high costs and expenses, only large pharmaceutical enterprises in developed countries can register herbal medicinal products, and the Directive gives no consideration at all to the 
special needs of developing countries and SMEs in respect of expenses and their development. Is 
the EU willing to properly adjust the Directive in the context of its polices to help SMEs adapt to 
the EU's technical regulation? 
EU reply: Traditional herbal medicinal products are medicinal products and as a consequence, EU 
legislation on pharmaceutical products for human use also applies. However, a simplified 
registration procedure is in place for herbal medici nal products with a long tradition, which do not 
fulfill the requirements for a marketing authorisatio n, in particular those requirements whereby an 
applicant can demonstrate by detailed references to published scientific literature that the constituent or the constituents of the medicinal products has or have a well-established medicinal use with recognised efficacy and level of safety (so-called "well established use"). The simplified 
procedure allows the registration of herbal medicinal products without requiring particulars and 
documents on tests and trials on safety and efficacy, provided that there is sufficient evidence of the medicinal use of the product over a period of at least 30 years, including at least 15 years in 
the European Union. If the "well-established use" cannot be proven, applicants still have the option 
of going through the normal marketing authorisat ion procedure. In addition, in view of the 
particularities of herbal medicinal products, a Committee for Herbal Medicinal Products (HMPC) has 
been established at the European Medicines Agency to  further facilitate registration in the field of 
traditional herbal medicinal products. More detailed information regarding this legislation can be found on the following website ( http://ec.europa.eu/health/human-use/herbal-
medicines/index_en.htm#geninf ). Regulation (EC) No 2049/2005 laying down rules regarding 
special conditions relevant to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises in connection with the 
European Medicines Agency is available at the following website: (http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pag es/regulation/general/general_content_0000
60.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac0580024b94 ). The European Commission has no intention to review 
Directive 2004/24/EC in the near future. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 376 - 
 
  Page 73 (Para 3.168) 
Rules for the compatibility assessment of state aid are set out in specific Commission guidelines. 
They are detailed in a number of "horizontal" or "sectoral" guidelines: horizontal guidelines for regional aid, research, development, innovation, ri sk capital, environmental aid, training aid, and 
aid for disadvantaged or disabled workers; sector-specific guidelines for the financial sector, 
agriculture, audio-visual production, broadband (new guidelines adopted in 2012), broadcasting, 
coal industry, electricity, fisheries, postal services, shipbuilding (new guidelines adopted in 2011), 
steel, synthetic fibres, motor vehicles industry, and transport. 
Additional questions: 
7．How does the Commission review and approve the state-aid programs of its member states? 
What are the specific working procedures and what  are the key elements considered in the review 
and approval? 
EU reply:  The criteria to determine the compatibility of State aid with the internal market are set 
out in detail in the General Block Exemption Regulation and the guidelines applicable to different 
types of aid (e.g. Regional Aid Guidelines, Environmental Aid Guidelines, Risk Capital Guidelines ). The Commission will consider an aid measure compatib le with the Treaty only if the positive effects 
in terms of contribution to a well-defined objective of common interest overweigh the negative 
effects in terms of competition distortions. This is reflected in particular by the requirements that the aid is necessary and appropriate for the achiev ement of the objective; has an incentive effect 
(the aid must change the behaviour of the undertaking(s) concerned in such a way that it engages 
in additional activity which it would not carry out without the aid or it would carry out in a 
restricted or different manner or location); and is proportionate (the aid amount must be limited to the minimum needed to induce the additional investment or activity).  
Depending on the type of aid, those general principles are specified in more detailed conditions 
that have to be complied with. For an overview of the rules, please consult the following website: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/legislation.html .  
Specific working procedures and key elements cons idered in the review and approval of State Aid 
are detailed in the Vademecum on State aid.1 Note that exemption regu lations are planned to be 
revised by the end of 2013 or mid-2014. The deta ils of the reform process are provided on DG 
Competition's dedicated webpage². 
1 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/stu dies_reports/vademecum_on_rules_09_2008_en.pdf   
² http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/modernisation/index_en.html   
8．How does the EU view the relationship between th e definition of state-aid in the EU law and the 
defintion of subsidy as contained in the WTO SCM Agreement? To what extent are they same or 
different? 
EU reply: The criteria defining EU State aid are set out in Article 107(1) TFEU which says: "Save 
as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any ai d granted by a Member State or through State 
resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring 
certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between 
Member States, be incompatible with the internal  market". The main criteria are therefore very 
similar to those defining a subsidy under ASCM (Sta te resources, advantage, selectivity and effect 
on trade between Member States). The main difference in the definition of EU State aid and of 
ASCM subsidies lies in the sectoral scope. Unlike ASCM, EU State aid disciplines cover not only aid to goods, but also aid to services. 
9．Could the EU please provide the number of state- aid programs submitted by the member states 
for review since the last Trade Policy Review of the EU as well as situation of the final decisions 
made by the EU? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 377 - 
 
  EU reply:  The EU regularly publishes information on the Commission website on the state-aid 
programs notified to the Commission by the EU Member States and on the Commission 
enforcement activities in this field: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid /studies_reports/studies_reports.html . Currently, 
information is available for the period up to 2011. An update will take place by autumn 2013. 
Page 85 (Para 3.223) 
Furthermore, the Commission states that if it finds that restrictive practices exist and result in 
"lack of substantial reciprocity" and all attempts to consult and negotiate with the third country in 
question are in vain, the Commission may consider EU-wide restrictive measures. 
Additional question: 
10．What are to be considered as "restrictive practices"? Could the EU please illustrate specific 
conditions? 
EU reply:  China is referring to a piece of draft legislation which is currently on the table of the EU 
co-legislators- the European Parliament and the Council- and which may be modified during the 
EU's legislative process. The EU can therefore not give any detailed answer to this question. 
Page 91 (Para 3.248) 
The Commission has submitted a proposal for a Directive on "Collective Management of Copyright 
and Related Rights and Multi-Territorial Licensing of  Rights in Musical Works for Online Uses in the 
Internal Market" in July 2012. The main objectives of the proposed Directive are twofold: first, to 
enhance the transparency and governance of collecting societies to ensure, inter alia , that right 
holders can freely choose the collecting society and are remunerated more quickly; and second, to 
facilitate cross-border licensing of musical works for online use to allow their distribution across the EU while collecting the revenues due to the auth ors, thus benefiting authors, service providers 
and consumers. The economic relevance of establishing EU-wide minimum standards in this field is 
highlighted by the fact that more than 250 collect ing societies collect about €6 billion in royalties 
every year and that about 80% of the total revenue collected by collecting societies stems from 
licensing of musical works. The reported target date for the adoption of the proposed Directive is 
March 2014. 
Additional question: 
11．Could the EU please inform the progress in respect of the proposal for a Directive on 
"Collective Management of Copyright and Related Righ ts and Multi-Territorial Licensing of Rights in 
Musical Works for Online Uses in the Internal Market" submitted by the Commission in 2012? Will 
the proposal be adopted in March 2014 as scheduled? Are there any obstacles? 
EU reply: The negotiations of the proposed directive on "Collective Management of Copyright and 
Related Rights and Multi-Territorial Licensing of Rights in Musical Works for Online Uses in the 
Internal Market" ("CRM proposal") are progressing well and all parties have accepted to begin 
trilogues, in view to reach an agreement before the 2014 elections of the European Parliament. 
Page 91 (Para 3.250) 
As a contribution to the preservation and dissemination of the cultural heritage and to the 
development of Europe's knowledge-based economy, a number of initiatives have been taken by 
the EU, including the digitisation and online accessi bility of "orphan works" (i.e. works protected by 
copyright for which the author cannot be located), as well as the setting up of collective licensing 
schemes for "out-of-commerce" works (i.e. works protected by copyright for which authors or 
publishers are known, but which are not available in traditional or new digital channels of trade). Given that orphan works represent a significant part of libraries' and cultural institutions' collections in the EU, the establishment of a harmonized framework was considered essential in 
order to advance large-scale digitisation projec ts. For this purpose, Directive 2012/28/EU of 25 
October 2012 on Certain Permitted Uses of Orphan Works provides for an exception to copyright, permitting cultural institutions to digitise orphan works in the printed and audiovisual sector, as WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 378 - 
 
  well as phonograms and works embedded in ot her works or phonograms, and to make them 
available online to the public. 
Additional question: 
12．The Directive 2012/28/EU of 25 October 2012 on Certain Permitted Uses of Orphan Works 
adopted in 2012 has to certain extent prevented gi ving up digitisation of "orphan works" whose 
author cannot be determined or located. However, could the Directive be abused in its 
implementation? And how would the EU address such abuses? 
EU reply: The orphan works directive contains rules on how to identify orphan works. It states 
that a cultural organisation that wishes to digitise and make available the work has to conduct a 
diligent search to find its copyright holder(s). In this search, it should rely on sources such as 
databases and registries. The Orphan works directiv e establishes that if a diligent search does not 
yield the identity or location of the copyright hold er(s), the work shall be recognised as an orphan 
work. This status shall then, by virtue of mutual recognition, be valid across the European Union. 
This implies that once a work is recognised as an orphan work, it shall be recognised as such 
across the European Union and the organisations will be able to make it available online in all Member States.  
If the European Commission is of the view that a Member State did not correctly implement the 
Directive, it can initiate infringement proceedings against that Member State and if appropriate, bring that Member State before the Court of Justice of the European Union. 
Abuses by beneficiary institutions of the Directive (i.e. if the search was not conducted in a diligent 
way) will be dealt with by the Member States' courts. 
PART II: QUESTIONS REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT REPORT 
1 INTRODUCTION 
Page 3 (Para 1.6) 
In promoting free, fair and open trade, the Euro pean Union has always been fully committed to a 
strong, rules-based multilateral trading system recognising the utmost importance of fighting all 
forms of protectionism, including as regards non-tariff trade barriers, ensuring better market 
access, promoting appropriate investment conditions (see paragraph 1.3 above), enforce and promote intellectual property rights – an d opening up public procurement markets. 
4 LOOKING FORWARD 
Page 18 (Para 4.5) 
Trade policy will continue to be put at the serv ice of development and the European Union and its 
Member States will continue to make efforts to assist developing countries in achieving growth and 
reducing poverty within the framew ork of sustainable development. 
SECRETARIAT REPORT Page 53 (Para 3.67) The legislative framework for anti-dumping (AD)  and countervailing (CV) measures in the EU 
remained largely unchanged duri ng the period under review. 
Questions: 
46．Although the legislative framew ork for anti-dumping and countervailing measures in the EU 
remained largely unchanged during the period und er review, the frequency of remedy measures 
adopted by the EU on Chinese products has increased considerably, and in particular, investigation has been initiated by the Commission where there has been no application from industry. Is this 
an indication that the policy of the EU on trade remedies is undergoing changes? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 379 - 
 
  EU reply: China is a major trading partner of the EU and both the volume and value of trade are 
significant. This fact together with certain trade distortions usually resulting from State 
interference in the Chinese economy may lead to  a number of trade defence investigations of 
i m p o r t s  f r o m  P R C .  H o w e v e r ,  i t  h a s  t o  b e  n o t e d  t h a t  o n l y  a  v e r y  s m a l l  f r a c t i o n  ( a b o u t  1 % )  o f  
Chinese imports are subject to measures. Other WTO Members have initiated more investigations 
against imports from China (e.g. Canada, USA) than the EU. Antidumping and CVD cases are a response to distortions of trade operated by th e exporting countries and/or the exporters. The 
possibility to initiate trade defense investigations, ex-officio (not based on a complaint), in 
exceptional circumstances, is provided for in th e WTO agreement and also in the EU's Basic Anti-
dumping and Anti-Subsidy Regulations. There have been hardly any investigations initiated ex-officio. Such investigations could be initiated also in cases of injury of the Union industry, where 
threats of retaliation might have dissuaded the industry from submitting a complaint. 
Follow-up Questions: 
13．In respect of State interference and resulting trade distortions, China does not think that the 
EU is in any way different in nature if we look at such policies as in the agricultural sector, in the 
civil aircraft sector as well as those reflected in the aforementioned state-aid system. During the 
period of this Trade Policy Review, China sees a trend that the EU is adopting more protectionist 
measures against China. How would the EU justify such a policy direction in its handling of bilateral economic and trade relations with China in view of its position against trade protectionism as stated in Paragraph 1.6 of the Policy Statement?  
EU reply:  As stated in the report and in the reply to question 46, the EU is a moderate user of 
trade defense measures and only a very small fraction of Chinese imports are subject to measures. 
Investigations are virtually always initiated on the basis of a complaint by the industry and 
providing that these requests contain sufficient pr ima facie evidence of trade distortions, caused 
by the import of dumped or subsidized products. The purpose of trade defense, as practiced by the 
EU, is not to protect domestic industry against competition from imports, but to eliminate trade 
distortions caused by dumping or subsidization.  
As regards state aid and as detailed in previous  replies to China, the European Commission has 
established a worldwide unique system of rules under which State aid is monitored and assessed in the European Union. In fact, the EU Treaty pron ounces the general prohibition of State aid. The 
founders, however, saw of course that in some  circumstances, government interventions are 
necessary for a well-functioning and equitable econ omy. Therefore, the Treaty leaves room for a 
limited number of policy objectives for which State aid can be considered compatible. This legal 
framework is regularly reviewed to improve its efficiency and to respond to the call of the 
European Councils for less but better targeted State aid in order to boost the European economy. 
14．What specific measures will the EU take in future to help developing countries including China 
to realize growth under a sustainable development framework? 
EU reply:  The 2012 Communication of the Europe an Commission on "Trade, Growth and 
Development"29, referred to in paragraphs 2.13 of the Secretariat Report and 3.32 of the EU 
Report, outlines the direction for the EU's trade and investment policies for development over the 
next decade. In this context, the Communication specifically highlights initiatives aimed at enhancing the contribution of trade and investment to sustainable development, such as, among 
others, the inclusion of dedicated provisions in the EU bilateral trade agreements, the promotion of 
sustainable management of some key natural resources, and the support of corporate social responsibility practices.  
PART III: OTHER QUESTIONS 
Additional questions: 
15．What are the EU's expectations for growth in the next two years?  
                                               
29 COM(2012) 22 final, available at: 
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/january/tradoc_148992.EN.pdf . WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 380 - 
 
  EU reply: According to the European Economic Forecast Spring 2013, the EU economy is expected 
to stabilise slowly in the course of the first half  of 2013. A noticeable expansion in GDP is expected 
to set in only in the second half of the year, bu t growth should pick up at moderate speed in 2014. 
On the back of a global economic recovery, exte rnal demand is set to remain the predominant 
growth driver, while multiple headwinds continue to weigh on domestic demand. In particular, 
balance-sheet adjustments in the public and private sectors, difficult financing conditions in several Member States, the under-utilisation of resources related to deep adjustment processes and 
unusually high uncertainty will abate only very gradually over the forecast horizon. As a result, 
annual GDP in 2013 is projected to decrease marginal ly in the EU and contract by ½% in the euro 
area. For 2014, GDP growth is forecast at 1½% in the EU and 1¼% in the euro area, which is 
expected to be just strong enough to exceed th e employment threshold and start reducing output 
gaps. This forecast remains predicated on the assumption that continued policy effort will prevent 
another aggravation of the sovereign-debt crisis. More information about the forecast of the EU economy for 2013-1014 can be found at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2013/pdf/ee2_en.pdf .  
16．How will the EU strike a balance between deficit reduction and economic growth?  
EU reply:  
• On the expenditure side of government budgets, while the situation differs across countries, 
Member States are recommended being selective where cuts are envisaged so as to preserve future growth potential and essential safety nets.  
• On the revenue side of government budgets, Member States are recommended to shift the 
overall tax burden towards tax bases that are less detrimental to growth and job creation and to make tax systems more efficient. 
Moreover, the Stability and Growth Pact provides the appropriate framework for a flexible and 
efficient fiscal adjustment. The Pact fixes yearly targets for nominal deficits but puts emphasis on the underlying budgetary position: the consolidation effort recommended to Member States is 
expressed in structural terms, that is, corrected for the impact of the economic cycle and one-off 
and temporary measures.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 381 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS FROM JAPAN 
Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/284) 3 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
3.1 Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
3.1.6 Import control and restrictions 
(Question1: Pages 52, Paragraph 3.62) The report mentions that the EU has entered in to bilateral "Forest Law Enforcement Governance 
and Trade Voluntary Partnership Agreements"(FLEGT VPA) with a number of countries, through 
which imports of timber and timber products from such countries will be subject to a licensing scheme. 
(1) Could the EU provide information on the progre ss of establishing respective licensing schemes 
with each country which has alre ady entered into the agreement? 
(2) Have any licensed timber and timber produc ts been imported to the EU under the VPA? 
(3) Could the EU provide information on the progress of VPA negotiations with countries which 
have not yet entered into the agreement and on the prospect when those negotiations will be 
concluded? 
(4) Is the EU allowed to import non-licensed timber and timber products from countries which 
have entered into the VPA? 
(5) Please provide information on the progress of laying down punitive measures in each EU 
Member State as each is required to do according to the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR) implemented on 3
rd March 2013? 
(6) Have any operators violated the EUTR or had punitive measures applied? 
EU replies to questions 1 to 6: A summary is provided below of the state of progress on 
establishment of the licensing schemes for the countries with which the EU has concluded 
negotiations for FLEGT VPAs.  
Ghana: enabling legislation enacted; good progress being made on timber traceability systems and 
institutional arrangements; 
Cameroon: progress on institutional arrangements, regulatory reform and development of 
traceability systems; 
Republic of Congo: The Republic of Congo was th e first Congo Basin Nation to agree and sign a 
FLEGT partnership agreement with the European Union. The FLEGT Voluntary Partnership 
Agreement was ratified on 19 February 2013. The follow up situation is one of progress on 
institutional arrangements, regulatory reforms, legality verification procedures, traceability system development; 
See VPA signed: http://www.euflegt.efi.int/files/a ttachments/euflegt/roc_eu_vpa.pdf .  
Liberia: some initial progress on development of secondary regulations and procedures, systems 
development and capacity building; 
Central African Republic: progress on institutional arrangements; implementation constrained by 
political instability including in forest areas; 
Indonesia: SVLK legality verification system being rolled out; already obligatory for exports of 
certain timber products.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 382 - 
 
  2) No FLEGT-licensed timber or timber products have been imported to the EU as of July 2013. 
3) The EU is currently negotiating FLEGT VPAs with the following countries: Cote d'Ivoire, the 
Democratic Republic of Congo, Gabon, Guyana, Honduras, Laos, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam. 
The timing for conclusion of these agreements will depend on the dynamics of each negotiation." 
4) The FLEGT VPA agreements provide for a period between entry into force of the agreement and 
full implementation of the FLEGT licensing scheme for that country, during which time the necessary systems can be developed and implemented. During this period timber and timber 
products from these countries can continue to be imported to the EU without FLEGT licences, and 
are subject to the requirements of the EU Timber Regulation.  
5) The European Commission is still compiling information on the penalties laid down by EU 
Member States for violation of the provisions of the EU Timber Regulation and is not yet in a 
position to provide a full overview.  
6) At the time of writing (July 2013) the European Commission was not aware of any legal 
proceedings against EU operators concerning violation of the EU Timber Regulation.  
3.3 Measures Affecting Production and Trade 
3.3.3 Government procurement 3.3.3.2 GPA and international procurement 
(Question2: Page 85, Paragraph 3.223) 
"EU reply to questions 15 to 17" on Page 220 in the RD/TPR/192 is exactly the same as the reply 
to "Question 14" on the same page. Japan would like to know if the EU reply to questions 15 to 17 specified in the current document is correct . If not, please answer the three questions 
(Questions 15 to 17) once again, supposing the case where the restrictive measure of the 
International Procurement Initiative is app lied to procurements above the thresholds. 
＜Reference (Questions 15 to 17) ＞ 
(Question15: Page 85, Paragraph 3.223) 
Article 6.1 of the EU's proposal (i.e. the International Procurement Initiative) stipulates, as a 
requirement for measures restricting the access to the EU's public procurement market, that "the 
value of the non-covered goods or services ex ceeds 50% of the total value of the goods or 
services constituting the tender". Does this mean  that a tender would be subject to restrictive 
measures, even when the value of non-covered go ods or services exceeds 50% of the total value 
of the goods or services constituting the tender and covered goods or services compose the rest of 
the tender? If so, please explain its consistency with the non-discrimination obligations under the GPA. 
(Question16: Page 85, Paragraph 3.223) 
Pursuant to Article 6.4(a) of the International Procurement Initiative, if an international agreement 
concerning market access in the field of public procurement exists between the EU and the third 
country from which the goods or services constituting the tender originate, the Commission's 
approval of the proposed exclusion of the tend er depends on whether that agreement includes 
explicit market access reservations for the EU. On the other hand, if such agreement does not exist, it would be necessary pursuant to Article 6.4(b) that the third country maintain restrictive 
procurement measures leading to a lack of substantial reciprocity in market opening between the 
EU and the third country. Does this mean that th e EU imposes a further requirement with respect 
to the latter in addition to the non-existence of  the international agreement concerning public 
procurement and the EU accords less favorable treatment to GPA countries than non-GPA 
countries? WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 383 - 
 
  (Question17: Page 85, Paragraph 3.223) 
Please explain the consistency of the restrictive measures pursuant to Articles 6 and 10 of the 
International Procurement Initiative with the WT O Agreements. In particular, if these measures 
apply to procurements by entities with specia l or exclusive rights, would the measures be 
inconsistent with Article 3.4 of the GATT, becaus e the requirements of Article 3.8(a) of the GATT 
do not exist in such a case? 
EU replies to GPA and internat ional procurement questions: 
As explained in the TPR meetings, the legislation is  not adopted and is under examination of the co 
legislators. 
3.3.4 Competition policy and regulatory issues 
3.3.4.2 Anti-trust 
(Question3: Page 88, Paragraph 3.234) 
What are the criteria for the EU to determine if  a settlement agreement "delays" entry of generic 
medicine in general or in the case of Lundbeck? 
EU reply:  Generally, the European Commission considers it entirely legitimate for parties to assert 
their patent rights. The European Commission made it clear in its "3rd Report on the Monitoring of 
Patent Settlements" of 2012 , paragraph 3, that it is also legitimate for parties to discontinue a 
patent dispute by way of settlement to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation and to settle 
risks. Moreover, a settlement may save resources of courts and competent administrative bodies. The report explained that competition issues may potentially arise, if a pharmaceutical originator company that holds a patent pays a generic company for commitments that ensure that the 
generic company stays out of the market. Such commitments may in particular be restrictive of 
competition, if they fall outside the scope of the originator's patents. Of concern is also if such commitments were given based on an originator patent granted because of incorrect, misleading 
or incomplete information that does not meet pa tentability criteria. The agreements in Case 39266 
Lundbeck fell into one or more of these categories. A non-confidential version of the Lundbeck decision containing the Commission's detailed re asoning will be published in due course.  
 WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 384 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS BY SWITZERLAND 
3.1.7 Contingency measures 
3.1.7.2 Anti-dumping and Countervailing 
La Suisse s'inquiète de la manière dont certains Etats membres de l'UE appliquent des droits 
antidumping lorsque des produits, soumis à des droits antidumping de l'UE, sont utilisés comme 
composants dans la chaîne de valeur ajoutée d'un pays-tiers qui n'est pas sujet à ces droits antidumping. Il semble que certai ns Etats membres de l'UE appliquent ces droits antidumping dans 
des cas particuliers sur des produits qui ont été suffisamment ouvrés pour obtenir le caractère 
originaire du pays tiers. Aux yeux de la Sui sse, une extension des mesures anti-dumping à des 
pays tiers sans enquête antidumping préalable contrevient à l'Accord Antidumping de l'OMC. L'UE est-elle prête à revoir les pratiques de ses Etats membres pour assurer que ses mesures 
antidumping ne s'appliquent pas aux producteurs de  pays tiers qui ne sont pas visés par les dites 
mesures?  
EU reply:  Trade policy is an exclusive competence of the EU; therefore AD duties are in force and 
applied only at EU level as a whole and not for particular Member States. WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 385 - 
 
  EU REPLIES TO FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES 
Page 60, paragraph 3.93: The Secretariat report indicates that there is no statutory requirement 
to publish notices of preparation of legislation, but proposals to the European Parliament and the 
Council are published in the official journal and the decision making process can be monitored via 
the internet. What is the mechanism for third countries to participate early in this process? It has 
been our experience that a great deal of work is  done prior to publication of proposal, thereby 
limiting the consideration that can be given to the concerns of third countries. Is the Commission 
looking for ways to address this issue? 
EU reply:  Before proposing legislation the Commission takes stock of existing national laws of EU 
Member States and of its main trading partners and conducts an impact assessment to evaluate 
the potential economic, social and environmental consequences of any new initiative with 
significant impacts. This analysis also evaluates specific impacts on international trade, and on 
developing countries in particular, with a view to identifying options which do not create unnecessary barriers to trade and are consistent with the EU's WTO obligations.26 
As part of this comprehensive impact assessment, the European Commission carries out an 
extensive web-based consultation of stakeholders on proposed policy options via a single access 
point on the Commission's website (http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice), through which all 
consultations may be accessed. These consultations are open to stakeholders and public 
authorities of third countries as well. Additional "targeted" consultations of specific stakeholder 
groups may also be arranged, the modalities of which very much depend on the subject-matter of the proposed initiatives. Often the web-based consultation is followed by public hearings, 
workshops, etc. 
It should be stressed that public stakeholder cons ultations in the EU system take place very early 
in the impact assessment process to allow stakeholders to influence the framing of the problem 
and the choice of options. 
Finally, and beyond the above generally applicable tools for seeking input from stakeholders, a 
variety of regulatory cooperation mechanisms wi th the competent authorities of third countries 
allow for an early exchange of information on on-going and planned regulatory initiatives. 
U.S. Follow-up: The EU indicated that "targeted" consulta tions of specific stakeholder groups may 
be arranged. Do EU institutions employ publically available guidelines or criteria laying out how stakeholder groups are formed? How would a third country or foreign company request 
participation in a targeted consultation? Is there any public record of who participated on which 
matter during the course of a year? Also, the EU me ntions that a variety of regulatory cooperation 
mechanisms with the competent authority of third countries allow for early exchange of 
information. Are these formal mechanisms or more informal consultations? Is there a single list of 
such mechanisms and how they operate? 
EU reply: Stakeholders are selected in line with the criteria set by the Commission's minimum 
consultation standard B indicating which parties should be involved in consultation process to 
ensure an inclusive approach (those affected by the policy, those who will be involved in implementation of the policy, or those bodies that  have stated objectives giving them a direct 
interest in the policy). The selection is done on a case by case basis, taking into account the 
specific nature and objectives of each consultation, time and resource availability and the 
specificities of the consultation method used. The id entification of relevant stakeholder groups – as 
well as the definition of the most appropriate consultation strategy for specific initiatives – lies with 
the lead service within the Commission, given that it has the best knowledge of the specificities of 
a given policy area and of the relevant stakeholders. 
Stakeholders interested in taking part in consultations can consult publicly available roadmaps 
indicating which consultations – including targeted consultations – will be carried out to support 
the policy preparation.  WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 386 - 
 
  There is no centralized public record of who participated in targeted consultations. Contributions to 
consultations and consultation summary reports are available on the webpages of each consultation or of the related policy proposal. Publicly available impact assessment reports give an overview of the consultation process, the po sitions expressed and how they are taken into 
account.  
As regards regulatory cooperation mechanisms with the competent authority of third countries that 
allow for early exchange of information, the degree of formality and the scope of these 
consultations can vary and is laid down in the respective bilateral agreements (with candidate 
countries for accession to the EU, EEA countries, neighbourhood countries, countries with which the EU has concluded FTAs with a regulatory ch apter). We are not aware of the existence of a 
single list of such mechanisms and or of  a guide that explains how they operate. 
Page 65, paragraph 3.112: The Secretariat report states "the Commission noted that measures 
adopted under this Law are always based on risk analysis." What is the Commission's definition of 
risk analysis? 
EU reply: Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 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 defines, in Article 3, paragraph 10, 'risk analysis' as a process 
consisting of three interconnected components : risk assessment, risk management and risk 
communication. Paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 define  'risk assessment', 'risk management' and 'risk 
communication' respectively. 
Does this mean that risk assessments are available for all measures adopted by the Commission? 
EU reply: Yes, this means that in all those cases where risk assessment is relevant. For example, 
was a risk assessment conducted in relation to EC 28/2012 
EU reply: The question refers to Commission Regulation (EU) No 28/2012 of 11 January 2012 
laying down requirements for the certification for imports into and transit through the Union of 
certain composite products and amending Decision 2007/275/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1162/2009. For public health related requirements the risk assessment was indeed carried out 
by EFSA. 
U.S. Follow-up: In response to the question regarding whether risk assessments are available for 
all measures adopted by the Commission and the EU  replied, "where the risk assessment is 
relevant." When would a risk assessment not be relevant? 
EU reply: Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 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 states that a risk assessment would not be relevant "where 
this is not appropriate to the circumstances or the nature of the measure". 
Page 99, paragraph 3.276: The Secretariat report references European Commission documents 
COM(2013) 161 final and COM(2013) 162 final, 27 March 2013. In those documents, the EU 
proposes to "increase legal certainty" by ex tending the grounds for refusal of trademark 
registration to cover protected traditional terms for wine and traditional specialty guaranteed. Does the EU consider "traditional terms for wine" and "traditional specialty guaranteed" intellectual 
property rights? What would be the nature of the refusal? 
EU reply: Traditional terms for wine" and "traditional specialty guaranteed" are not protected as 
intellectual property at EU level. 
U.S. Follow-up: We kindly request a response to the second part of the question. Specifically, 
what would be the nature of the refusal of trad emark registration to cover protected traditional 
terms for wine and traditional specialty guaranteed?  
EU reply: According to recital (10) and article 1(10) of the Commission proposals for a Regulation 
amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (document COM(2013)161final), and according to 
Article 4(j) of the Commission proposal for a Directive to approximate the laws of the member WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 
 
- 387 - 
 
  states relating to trade marks (recast) (document COM(2013)162final), the scope of absolute 
grounds for refusal should be extended to cover also protected traditional terms for wine and traditional specialities guaranteed.  
The abovementioned Commission proposals are pres ently in the process of adoption by the Council 
and the European Parliament under ordinary legislative procedure (former codecision), and 
therefore still subject to changes to be  introduced by the EU legislators. 
__________