G/TBT/W/543  
21 June 2018 
(18-3886) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade  Original:  Spanish  
 
  
EUROPEAN UNION – QUALITY SCHEMES FOR AGRICULTURAL  
PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS  
STATEMENT BY URUGUAY TO THE COMMITTEE ON TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE,  
20 AND 21 JUNE 2018  
The following communication, dated 2 0 June 2018, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Uruguay . 
 
_______________  
 
 
1.  Uruguay regrets having to raise this specific trade concern  once again . 
2.  As the Committee is aware , our country is extremely  concerned abo ut the possible trade and 
systemic implications of the protection and registration of the term "d anbo" as a protecte d 
geographical indication (PGI) in the European Union . 
3.  In view of time constraints and so as not to repeat information  already mentioned in previous 
statements, I will refer back to the statement we made  at the Committee's last meeting, which 
appears in full  in documen t G/TBT/W/469 . There we provide  numerous reasons as to why our 
country believes that  "danbo" is a generic term and, as such, not eligib le for registration as a 
geographical indication or subject to any limitation on free use . 
4.  In spite of this , we would like once again to express our disappointment with each of the replies 
received from the delegatio n of the European Union . Each time we have enquired – and we have 
done so on several occasions in recent years – the EU delegation has replied that it had no 
information to provide on th e application, as the process was still ongoing . However, despite the 
EU's claim that it had no news to report, a little while later, on 1 9 October  2017 to be exact, we 
learned of the publication in the Official Journal of the European U nion of Implementing 
Regulation  2017/1901, which registered the term "danbo" as a PGI . 
5.  Furthermore , since March  2017, the EU delegation has also maintained that this is solely  an 
intellectual property rights  matter  and that , as such , it should not be handled by  this Committee, 
while overlooking the fact that the regulation under which these ri ghts are granted had been 
notified to the TBT Committee by the EU itself on 1 8 November  2013 in document 
G/TBT/N/EU/139 . 
6.  Similarly , the EU delegation is also attempting to ignore the fact that labelling requirements are 
covered  by the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade , and not intellectual property, as they 
claim . 
7.  In this regard, we would once again like to remind the European  Union of the existence of 
Codex  Stan 264-1966, the standard regulating the production and labelling of danbo cheese, in 
whose  preparation, approval and subsequent revisions the European Union itself participated . 
8.  Furthermore, in the case DS231 : European C ommunities – Trade description of sardines , the 
Panel found that a Codex Standard is a "relevant international standard" within the meaning of 
Article  2.4 of the TBT Agreement and  that, as such, it should be used "as a basis" when drawing 
up regulations . G/TBT/W/543  
- 2 - 
  9.  From a reading of the eighth "Whereas" clause  of Implementing Regulation  2017/1901, which 
protects  and registers the term "danbo" as a PGI, everything seem s to indicate that the 
European  Union did not use Codex Stan  264, the standard specifically for "danbo" , "as a basis" for 
this Implementing  Regulation either . 
10.  We once again urge the European Union to review this measure, which n ot only constitutes  an 
unjustified barrier to trade  in and of itself , but also raises serious doubts and questions about the 
international standards that serve as a reference for this Organization, such as those of the 
Codex  Alimentarius . 
 
__________