WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
ORGANISATION MONDIALE DU COMMERCE  
ORGANIZACIÓN MUNDIAL DEL COMERCIO  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
30 April 2007 
 (07-1792) 
Trade Policy Review Body 
26 and 28 February 2007 Original:  English/Spanish 
                 anglais/espagnol                  inglés /español 
 
TRADE POLICY REVIEW 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Minutes of Meeting
 
Addendum  
Chairperson:  H.E. Mr. Vesa Himanen (Finland)  
 This document contains the advance writte n questions, and replies provided by the 
European Communities.1 
  __________________________________________________________________________________ 
Organe d'examen des politiques commerciales 
26 et 28 février 2007 
 
EXAMEN DES POLITIQUES COMMERCIALES 
COMMUNAUTÉS EUROPÉENNES 
Compte rendu de la réunion
 
Addendum  
Présidente:  S.E. M Vesa Himanen (Finlande) 
 
 Le présent document contient les questions écrites communiquées à l'avance et les réponses fournies par les Communautés Européennes.
1 
  __________________________________________________________________________________ 
Órgano de Examen de las Políticas Comerciales 
26 y 28 de febrero de 2007 
 
EXAMEN DE LAS POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES 
COMUNIDADES EUROPEAS 
Acta de la reunión
 
Addendum  
Presidente:  Excma. Sr. Vesa Himanen (Finlandia) 
 
 En el presente documento figuran las pre guntas presentadas anticipadamente por escrito, 
junto con las respuestas facilitadas por las Comunidades Europeas.1 
 
                                                      
1 In English, and Spanish only./En anglais et espagnol seulement./En inglés y español solamente.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
 WRITTEN QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS 
PREGUNTAS DE ECUADOR  
 
La Misión Permanente del Ecuador ante la OMC saluda muy atentamente a la Organización Mundial 
de Comercio – División de Examen de las Políticas Comerciales – y se permite transmitir de acuerdo al 
aerograma WTO/AIR/2951 la pregunta que formula la de legación de Ecuador a la delegación de las 
Comunidades Europeas en el marco de su Examen de  política Comercial, a reserva de realizar otras 
preguntas en caso de ser necesario.   "De acuerdo al documento WT/TPR/G/177, apartado 43 del informe de las Comunidades Europeas, se 
reconoce que varios terceros países han expresa do su preocupación por determinadas iniciativas 
comunitarias en materia legislativa en asuntos MSF por  su posible efecto en el comercio.  Al respecto 
el Ecuador solicita a las Comunidades Europeas cono cer si dichas prescripciones, especialmente en lo 
relacionado con niveles máximos de residuos químicos en productos agrícolas se basan en testimonios 
científicos y en un análisis del riesgo existente, to mando en cuenta que en algunos casos, la legislación 
europea resulta más estricta que las normas intern acionales y como son compatibles esas iniciativas 
comunitarias con lo que señala el apartado 54 del Informe de la Secretaría del documento 
WT/TPR/S/177 en el que se expresa que uno de los objetivos de las Comunidades Europeas en materia 
MSF es prestar asistencia técnica a los países en desarrollo para la creación de capacidad institucional 
en cuestiones sanitarias y fitosanitarias?"  
QUESTIONS BY SINGAPORE 
 
 
Chemicals   
  
Re para 69 (page 107) of the Secretariat Report, we note that the EC is the world’s leading chemicals 
producing area. It has a turnover of 440 billion Euro s and accounts for 28% of world production. MFN 
tariffs on industrial chemicals and basic industrial chemicals averag e 4.7%, with rates ranging up to 
50.9%.   In para 71, the Secretariat has reported that  the chemicals sub-sector is heavily regulated with 
over 40 Directives and Regulations. In this regard, we note that REACH would soon be entering into 
force.   
 
With regard to regulations in this sector, Si ngapore together with other ASEAN Members have 
registered our concerns on the potential adverse im pact that the REACH could have on our chemical 
imports into the EC in the Committee on Technical Ba rriers to Trade. The concer ns that we had raised 
can be found in  G/TBT/GEN/41. We look forward to receiving the EC’s clarifications to the issues and questions that we had raised on the REACH. We hope that the EC has taken our concerns and 
those of other members into account in its decision to bring REACH into effect.  We would appreciate 
the EC’s comments on this.   
 Export Restrictions  
 
Para 72 (page 65) of the Secretariat Report states that  the EC does not apply taxes, charges or levies on 
exports. However, in para 73, the Secretariat has noted that Member States may impose export 
restrictions, including export authorization on a temporary basis 
 
Under what circumstances could the EU Member St ates apply these export restrictions? What products 
are subject to these restrictions?   
 
Export authorization is envisaged to be applied on a temporary basis. How long would this temporary 
measure be applied?   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 4  
 
 How would the EC reconcile the Member States’ ability to impose export restrictions, albeit on a 
temporary basis and its consistency with GATT XI  which (apart from certain specific stipulated 
situations) generally prohib its export restrictions.  
 
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS BY SINGAPORE
 
 Q1: REACH will affect the chemical trade inevita bly and may lead to trade unbalance and disputes 
after its entry into force. How is the European  Commission going to resolve these potential problems? 
Which measures will the EU take to reduce the nega tive impacts of the REAC H Regulation on trade? 
 
Q2: There are concerns that REACH may introdu ce a more complex and onerous burden on foreign 
companies exporting to the EU. What  measures has the EU taken (or will take) to ensure a more level 
playing field?    Q3: On the implementation of REACH, is the Co mmission planning to provide certain financial and 
technical assistance to help countries  
 Q4: Due to the big differences betw een the large-scale enterprises and SMEs on financing, technology, 
and human resource, SMEs will face more difficultie s in compliance with REACH administration than 
large-scale enterprises. How did th e European Commission balance the different interests between the 
large-scale enterprises and SMEs? How are the interests of SMEs addressed then? 
 
QUESTIONS BY NEW ZEALAND
 
 Lisbon agenda 
 Q1 The EC and Secretariat reports set out the EC ’s busy work programme under the umbrella of 
the Lisbon agenda, looking to boost economic growth  and employment rates.   New Zealand notes, 
however, that the majority of this work is focu ssed on improving intra-EC structures (e.g. removing 
barriers to cross-border investment in certain sect ors), and that economic growth has been largely 
driven by domestic demand.  We would be inte rested in the EC’s perspective on the role of 
international trade and investment in cont ributing to economic growth in the future. 
 Tariffs (use of non-ad valorem) 
 
Q2 The EC’s average applied MFN tariff has in creased over the past two years because falling 
prices have meant higher ad valorem equivalents  (AVEs) for some agricultural products.  Non-ad 
valorem tariffs apply to 10% of the tariff lines, ma inly on agricultural goods.  Given that the EC is 
preparing a new schedule of commitments following the two most recent rounds of enlargement of the 
customs union, will the EC take this opportunity to convert its specific and mixed duties common in 
the agricultural area to their ad valo rem equivalents, and to bind them? 
 
Agriculture 
 
Q3 The Secretariat’s report highlights that the EC has a liberal trading regime for non-agricultural 
goods while maintaining high levels of protection and subsidies for agricultural produce.  Explicit in 
WTO membership is a fundamental commitment to tr ade liberalisation, and the EC has specifically 
linked economic prosperity to open markets, most r ecently in relation to its paper, ‘Global Europe:  
Competing in the World’.  Can the EC confirm th at its commitment to improving world trade applies 
fully to agricultural trade?   Q4 Following enlargement of the customs union on 1 May 2004, the EC conducted Art. XXIV:6 
negotiations with several WTO members, including Ne w Zealand.  The bilateral market access aspects  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
 were concluded in late 2005, but so far there h as been no plurilateral discussion of the EC’s proposals 
for revised AMS and export subsidy commitments.  When will the EC circulate the consolidated 
proposed EC-25 commitments to WTO members in a draft schedule?  Q5 New Zealand applauds the direction of the EC’s reforms of its common agricultural policy, 
including trade policy, in the direction of greater mark et orientation.  Noting that producers’ receipt of 
the ‘single farm payment’ (SFP) is dependent on  their meeting mandatory standards, we would 
appreciate hearing about the EC’s experience with th is incentive policy.  In those member states where 
the SFP has been implemented in 2005–06, what propor tion of payments has been withheld due to 
breaches of minimum standards?   
 
Q6 According to Appendix table AIV.1 (page 147), 12 of the now 27 member states have continued to provide some direct payments on a basi s that is coupled to current production levels.  Is 
the EC concerned about the potential for inter-country trade distortion to be caused by this ‘patchwork 
quilt’ of subsidies, and does the EC agree that ha rmonising these policies to full decoupling would be 
the fairest and most efficient policy direction for the future?  
 
Fisheries 
 
Q7 New Zealand applauded the decision to reform  the common fisheries policy in 2003.  Having 
recognised the urgency to act to address the fisher ies crisis, we saw these policy changes as heralding a 
more environmentally-responsible approach to this sector in Europe, while also recognising the needs 
of fishing communities in a period of adjustment.   New Zealand is disappointed then, that less than three years later, these positive moves are already 
being eroded by a series of retrograde steps.  In adopting the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) in June, 
the Council re-introduced subsidies that will exacerba te the over-capacity problems in the sector.  The 
Commission has also proposed a regulation that would allow member states to increase by ten-fold the 
level of de minimis aid to €30,000 per undertaking in  the fisheries sector.  Can the EC explain why it 
has increased the level of de minimis aid by this magnitude?  Q8 The Secretariat report notes that the ‘EFF is aimed at, inter alia:  better supporting the major 
objectives of the CFP, in particular the sustaina ble exploitation of fisheries resources, including 
aquaculture…’ Could the EC please elaborate on what  it is doing to ensure sustainable aquaculture?  
Could the EC please also explain whether or no t it uses feed from wild capture fisheries for 
aquaculture?  
Q9 Can the EC please explain how it disciplines s ubsidisation to overfishing within the 200-mile 
fishing zones of Member States?  
Services 
 
Q10 It seems that education services are not exem pt from the EC Directive on Services in the 
internal market, according to paragraph 78 of the Secret ariat’s report.  Does this mean that education is 
to be treated on the same basis as other services s ectors under the directive? Please outline in detail 
how the services directive affects or facilitates th e provision of for-profit education services amongst 
member states, and in particular whether it impa cts on the portability of education subsidies to 
consumers or institutions between member states. 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 6  
 
 Customs 
 
Q11 We fully support the Commission’s proposals to  modernize the Customs Code — in particular, 
the drive to improve the cohesiveness in customs ad ministration.  This modernisation would allow the 
timely and efficient exchange of data necessary to safeguard quota and other trade administration 
against fraud and error.  We note the Secretaria t’s comment that the speed and extension of 
interconnected IT systems remains the principa l challenge in implementing the Customs 2007 
programme.  Can the EC provide an indication of the likely timeline for the adoption of these proposals 
by the Council and European Parliament?  When will a system be in place which allows for the 
reconciliation of data among member states and the Commission? 
 
Technical barriers to trade 
 
Q12 We note that harmonised standards in the EU  are developed by European standardisation 
bodies such as ETSI, CENELEC and CEN.  What consid eration is given to a dopting existing relevant 
international (ISO) standards during this process?  Wh at is the level of alignment between EU and ISO 
standards?  
QUESTIONS BY SWITZERLAND
 
 Report by the Secretariat 
I. E
CONOMIC ENVIRONMENT  
(1) Main Characteristics  
1. Para 5: How do the EC authorities assess the positive e ffects of EMU on intra euro-area trade 
in goods? What are the explaining factors besid es reduced trade costs and increased transparency 
brought about by the single currency? Is there a si gnificant difference with respect to the impact of 
EMU on extra euro-area trade?   
(2) Recent economic developments 
 
2. Para 16 : The Secretariat states that the reforms a ppear to have improved the overall business 
environment and enhanced competition in the EC. At the same time, it says that  the speed of internal 
market integration has slowed down, with limite d progress on the transposition of internal market 
directives and a high level of infringement cases. Do  the EC authorities share this assessment? Also, 
according to EC projections, growth in the EU will be at or above potential for three years in a row 
(2006 : 2.8% ; 2007 : 2.4% ; 2008: 2.4%) and employmen t is finally growing faster. Beside the cyclical 
component, to what extent can we relate this growth  performance to the results of the Lisbon strategy 
implementation?  
II. Trade and investment regimes 
(1) Trade agreements and arrangements (i) Overview 
 
para 27:  What role do you see for preferential trade agre ements in the development of EU's relations 
with other large emerging econom ies such as Chin a and Russia? 
 
(ii) Preferential trade agreements and arrangements 
 Para. 59  states that countries graduate once they ha ve achieved a "certain level of industrial 
development". How did the Commission determine the graduation criteria? 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
 Para. 60 : It is said that the special incentive arra ngement for sustainable development and good 
governance is available to vulnerable  countries. How does the Commi ssion determine vulnerability? 
 
III. Trade policies and practices by measures  
 
(2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports (viii) Contingency trade remedies - (b) Anti-dumping (AD) measures 
 
Para. 41 of the Secretariat's report indicates that the 2004 amendment to EC's AD legislation imposed 
a mandatory time limit of a maximum of 15 months for the completion of review investigations. Other 
WTO Members are, to our knowledge, able to conduc t this review process within a maximum of 180 
days (6 months). Given the chilling effect that the initiation of an investigation has on the trade of the 
product(s) concerned by an AD investigation, could the European Communities indicate whether a further shortening of the timeframe for the conduct of these investigations is being contemplated by the 
EC and, if not, what are the reasons that explain the need for such an extended period of time to 
conduct the AD investigations in view of their pot entially high economic costs both for the European 
Union and for the exporting countries ?  As para. 42 of the Secretariat's report suggests, the EU  made an abundant use of the anti-dumping 
instrument in recent years. Indeed, according to EC  data, no less than 77 AD investigation initiations 
and 39 definitive AD measures were imposed betwee n January 1, 2004 and September 30, 2006. Could 
the European Communities, in view of the large number of AD measures that were imposed, explain 
how they reconcile the conflicting interest of, on the one hand, consumers and the economic sectors 
that use the targeted imports as inputs for higher value added products, and, on the other hand, those of the domestic producers that compete with those products  to avoid that the interest of the latter group do 
not systematically supersede those of the former group ? 
 
(3) Measures Directly Affecting Exports 
(iii) Export prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing 
 
Para. 73 of the Secretariat's report indicates that under existing regulations, exports are not subject to 
any quantitative restrictions. Howeve r, the report also suggests that  EU Member States may impose 
export restrictions, including export authorizations, on a temporary basis. Could the European 
Communities indicate if Members are free to impose su ch measures or, if not, on the basis of what 
criteria or conditions they are allowed to undertake such a step ?  
Report by the European Communities 
 
3. In para. 11  of the Report submitted by the European Communities it is said that a European 
Globalisation Fund was created, spending € 500 million each year. We would be interested to learn how the Commission services intend to make the distincti on between ordinary structural change, that is 
going on permanently, and to which companies ha ve to respond without any specific government 
support, and transformations of business structures cau sed by globalisation, qualifying for such aid. 
How does the creation of this fund compare with the obj ective to curb state aid. What are the links to 
the programmes mentioned in § 58 of the Secretariat's report, where - as one of the elements of the Communities industrial policy - managing structural ch ange is mentioned, with pointing to textiles, 
leather, furniture, footwear, ceramics, printing, mo tor vehicles, shipbuilding, steel, and certain food 
industries as sectors concerned. Are these the eligib le loosers of globalisation ? Furthermore, how 
important is the escalating tariff scheme for processed food as a possible element of industrial 
protection ? The indications in § 61 do  not give a coherent picture.  
 4. Para . 64 : The European Commission introduce the Tr ade Sustainability Impact Assessments 
(SIAs) for all major trade negotiations. Switzerla nd would like to know about the European Union's WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 8  
 
 experiences with this instrument. What are the positive and negative aspects of this instrument? 
Switzerland would also be interested in an exch ange of experiences with the European Commission 
about Sustainability Impact Assessments.  
PREGUNTAS DE ARGENTINA
 
 
WT/TPR/G/177, INFORME DE LAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEAS 
 III. PRINCIPALES ACONTECIMIENTOS REGISTRADOS EN LA POLITICA  COMERCIAL DE LAS CE (2005-2006) 
1) Principales Objetivos de la Política Co mercial estructural institucional para la 
 formulacion de la política comercial  Párrafos 34, 35 y 36, páginas 14/15  
¿Cómo entienden las CE la equidad en el comercio  para los países en desarrollo, teniendo en cuenta 
la alta protección y las distorsiones en agricultura  que dificultan seriamente sus exportaciones, y las 
demandas excesivas que las CE formulan que no les de jan margen para la ejecución de sus políticas 
comerciales?  ¿Sobre qué bases las CE cuestionan los derechos a la exportación de los países en desarrollo cuando 
constituyen herramientas legítimas conforme la s disciplinas de la OMC para generar recursos 
tributarios, ejecutar políticas de precios y favo recer el consumo de los sectores menos favorecidos? 
 WT/TPR/S/177/Add.1, INFORME DE LA SECRETARIA  
II. REGÍMENES DE COMERCIO E INVERSIÓN 
2) Objetivos de Política Comercial ii) OMC a) Negociaciones del Programa de Doha para el Desarrollo 
 
Párrafos 28, 29 y 30, páginas 28/29. 
 
Con relación al Párrafo 30 del Informe de la Secret aría, la Argentina desea señalar que, más allá de 
lo expresado como objetivos generales, observa con preocupación un habitual y creciente recurso de 
las CE al mecanismo previsto en el Art. XXV III del GATT 1994, es decir a la renegociación de las 
concesiones, siempre bajo la forma de establecimiento  de contingentes, por encima de los cuales se 
establecen derechos de importación extra-cuota de ta l magnitud que impiden el efectivo flujo de 
comercio. Esta práctica, además de  conllevar a una virtual distorsión de lo expresado como principios 
orientadores de su política comercial, podría ser c onsiderada en contradicción con las disposiciones 
del Acuerdo sobre la Agricultura de la OMC,  que impide el restablecimiento de restricciones 
cuantitativas sobre aquellos productos ob jeto de arancelización en el marco de dicho Acuerdo. Como 
es de conocimiento los altos aranceles que impide n el flujo de comercio pueden considerarse como 
una restricción cuantitativa que ha sido prohibida en virtud del párrafo 4.2. del Acuerdo sobre la 
Agricultura. Ejemplos de los resultados del recurso al  Art. XXVIII, son las modificaciones sufridas por 
los contingentes arancelarios otorgados en productos de  origen argentinos tales como ajos y carne 
aviar. Por ello, resulta de int erés conocer la compatibilidad de la tendencia enunciada con los 
principios que la CE reseña en los párrafos citados.  
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
 III. POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS 
1) Introducción ii) Arancel NMF común  
Párrafo 11, página 52  
 
¿Podrían las CE brindar el detalle de las posicio nes arancelarias agrícolas definidas como picos 
arancelarios y crestas arancelarias según el detalle del Cuadro III.1: “Estructu ra del Arancel NMF de 
las CE, 2004-2006”, así como su descripción, el arancel ad valorem y su equivalente ad valorem 
(EAV) en el caso de que dichas posiciones est én expresadas en derechos específicos, compuestos, 
mixtos o variables.  
 
Párrafo 12, página 53  
 
Podrían las CE brindar en forma detallada el cálc ulo de los equivalentes ad valorem (EAV) de los 
aranceles no ad valorem de aquellos productos agríco las con precios de entrada y con el llamado 
“componente agrícola” (EA o AD F/M -  AD S/Z).  Respecto a la advalorización de las posiciones aran celarias con precios de entrada, podrían las CE 
informar ¿qué arancel se utilizó, a qué período del año corresponde y el por qué de dicha elección? 
 
Finalmente, respecto de los productos procesados con “componente agrícola” , podrían  las CE 
informar la combinación de ingredientes utilizado para  calcular cada uno de ellos o en su defecto el 
supuesto implícito para el cálculo?  Párrafo 15 y datos contenidos en el Cuadro III. 4 Análisis recapitulativo de los aranceles NMF 
aplicados por las CE, 2006, página 56 
 Podrían las CE informar cuales son las posici ones agrícolas que poseen el máximo arancel 
explicitado en el Cuadro III.4 citado. Se solicitan as imismo, los datos de origen que se utilizaron para 
calcular el EAV correspondiente.  
Resulta muy preocupante el número creciente de incrementos sustanc iales de aranceles -inclusive a 
niveles prohibitivos- que las CE están llevando a c abo en productos agrícolas de fuerte interés para 
los países en desarrollo como son por ejemplo el  trigo, el banano y el ajo, en negociaciones 
enmarcadas en el artículo XXVIII del GATT de 1994.  
¿Podrían las CE explicar cuál es la lógica de in crementar sustancialmente sus aranceles consolidados 
en medio de una Ronda? ¿Cómo se co mpatibiliza ello con los futuro s compromisos en materia de 
acceso a mercados que resultarán de la Ronda de  Doha?  ¿Cuántos y c uáles productos agrícolas 
piensan las CE “desconsolidar” antes de la finaliz ación de la Ronda? ¿Est a práctica responde acaso 
a un cambio de la política comercial europea?  
Finalmente, En las negociaciones agrícolas bajo el Mandato de Doha, las CE han justificado la 
preservación de aranceles no ad valorem con el argum ento siguiente, expuesto en el JOB(06)/190 del 
16/6/06:  “The EC can not accept conversion in schedules of specific, compound and mixed duties to ad valorem 
form only. Specific duties are more transparent and pr edictable than ad valorem duties. Specific duties 
cannot be manipulated as easily as  ad valorem duties, which are calculated as a percentage of customs 
value and can be declared in ways, which are not reliable. […]  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 10  
 
 Según sostienen las CE  los aranceles no ad valorem  son más transparentes, predecibles y no pueden 
ser manipulados.¿Podrían las CE indicar los mo tivos por los cuales demanda que en las 
negociaciones de Doha sobre acceso a mercados en  productos agrícolas to dos los aranceles se 
consoliden sólo en términos no ad valorem? Y sostie nen, por el contrario, que todos los aranceles no-
agrícolas se consoliden ad valorem. ¿Cómo explican esta inconsistencia? 
Acaso ello significa que la supuesta falta de transparencia y predecibilidad de los aranceles ad 
valorem sólo puede existir  en productos agrícolas?  
 vii) Prohibiciones, restricciones y licencias de importación  
Párrafo 34, página 65  
La Argentina desea señalar que se han experiment ado dificultades en relación con el régimen de 
administración de diversos contingent es arancelarios. En particular cabe mencionar el régimen de 
gestión del contingente de maíz correspondiente a la península ibérica, del que nuestro país es 
usuario, cuya escasa claridad en materia de imputación por origen, contabilidad y excepciones ha 
producido complicaciones de interpretación incluso par a los mismos Estados Miembros de las CE. En 
tal sentido, se vería con agrado que las  CE explicitaran por qué el contingente de maíz destinado a la 
península ibérica –del cual la Argentina es el principal abastecedor- es objeto de tal falta de 
transparencia que pone en tela  de juicio y dificulta conocer su efectiva utilización. 
 
2) Medidas que Afectan Directamente a las Importaciones  
x) Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias 
 
Párrafo 54, página 73 
 
¿Podrían explicar las CE cómo compatibiliza el establecimiento de requisitos comunes para las 
importaciones de terceros países (es decir, a nivel Co munitario) con el establecimiento de condiciones 
diferenciales en la circulación intra-zona, por ejempl o, derivadas de la aplicación del principio de 
regionalización sanitaria? 
 Párrafo 55, página 73 
 
¿Podrían las CE explicar los fundamentos científicos  por los cuales han procedido a dar de baja una 
cantidad importante de principios activos como  productos fitosanitarios bajo la revisión de la 
Directiva 91/414/CE cuando esas bajas se deben a raz ones comerciales, es decir que las empresas han 
decidido no presentar solicitudes de revalidación?. P odría la CE explicar cuales son las razones por 
las cuales establece para esas sustancias dadas de ba jas por razones comerciales, un Límite Máximo 
de Residuos por default (0,01 ppm) para produc tos importados?. Podrían las CE señalar qué 
normativa internacional han tenido en cuenta par a tomar estas medidas que tienen un impacto 
altamente negativo en terceros países?. ¿Podrían las CE explicar por qué no adoptan los LM R que el CODEX tiene establecido en el proceso 
actual de revisión y establecimiento de nuevos LMR bajo el Reglamento CE 396/2005? 
 
¿Podrían las CE señalar por qué  no han seguido la normativa internacional existente al establecer 
niveles tan bajos de presencia máxima de toxinas de  fuzarium en maíz para alimentación animal bajo 
el Reglamento 1881/06?. Las CE han tenido en cuenta si esta medida es proporcional al riesgo que se busca proteger así como los posibles impactos en países en desarrollo exportadores a la UE?.  
 
¿Podrían explicar los criterios que emplea en los casos en los que establece o mantiene medidas 
sanitarias o fitosanitarias que representen un nivel  de protección sanitaria o fitosanitaria más elevado 
que el que se lograría medi ante medidas basadas en las normas, directrices o recomendaciones 
internacionales pertinentes? En todos los casos se basa en una evaluación del riesgo conforme lo  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 11 
 
 
 estipula el Acuerdo MSF o puede utilizar otras va riables no técnico-sanitarias para apartarse de las 
normas internacionales?  En relación con los compromisos mu ltilaterales en la materia, la Ar gentina observa con preocupación 
la implementación del nuevo régimen de LMR para plaguicidas (Reglamento CE 396/2005). Al 
respecto, y en cuanto a la descripción de competencias de la AESA, se solicita a las CE informar si la 
mencionada Agencia está involucrada en la efectiv a confección de los anexos del Reglamento antes 
mencionado y, en tal caso, de qué modo participa en la misma, ya que no se ha constatado una clara 
correspondencia entre las decisiones reflejadas en la  confección de los anexos al Reglamento citado y 
las prácticas de análisis de riesgo que deberían guiar la fijación de LMRs de plaguicidas en el marco 
de la normativa del CODEX. 
 
Párrafo 56 y 57, página 74 
 
¿Podrían las CE señalar por qué no han estab lecido aún un sistema común en materia de 
procedimientos de vigilancia en todos los Es tados miembros cuando alguno de ellos detecta una 
sustancia peligrosas bajo el sistema RASFF?  ¿Comprenden las CE que prácticas distintas en los estados miembros (número de partidas bajo 
vigilancia, tratamiento por empresa o por país, et c.) generan costos innecesarios a los exportadores. 
Piensan las CE establecer una normativa común en el corto plazo?.  
 
¿Podrían las CE señalar cómo verifican el orig en de una notificación del RASFF de sustancias 
peligrosas para la salud, cuando se trata de c ontaminantes naturales detectados en partidas a granel 
de productos para procesamiento o alimentación anim al que tienen formas de manipuleo, descarga, y 
almacenamiento altamente contaminantes en territorio europeo? 
 
En el caso que en el marco del proceso de adhesi ón de un país al bloque Comu nitario se le otorgue un 
plazo adicional o waiver para el cumplimiento de los estándares sanitarios y/o fitosanitarios de las 
CE, ¿qué normas aplica el país en cuestión a las im portaciones  de terceros países? Las normas de las 
CE o las normas nacionales? 
¿Podrían explicar qué mecanismo internos ha est ablecido para tomar en cuenta los comentarios 
recibidos sobre las notificaciones realizadas? 
 Párrafo 59, página 76  Podrían explicar si ha desarrollado nueva evidenc ia científica para mantener la prohibición de 
determinadas sustancias con efecto hormonal para estimular el crecimiento? 
 4) Medidas que afectan a la Producción y el Comercio iii) Derechos de propiedad intelectual d) Observancia  
Párrafo 119, página 96 
 ¿Podría identificar los aspectos en los cuales el Reglamento N° 1383/2003 del Consejo, relativo a la 
observación de los DPI en las fronteras exterior es de las CE fija estándares superiores a los 
establecidos en el Acuerdo TRIPs? 
 
Conforme lo expresado por las CE, dicho Reglamento se aplica en las “fronteras exteriores”, ¿existe 
una diferencia entre los niveles de protección o las normas de observancia a los derechos de WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 12  
 
 propiedad intelectual cuando las mercancías provie nen de países extra zona de la que se brinda 
fronteras adentro?  Considerando que el mencionado Reglamento ha sido especialmente elaborado pensando en 
infracciones “marcarias” evidentes a simple vista, ¿cuáles son los mecanismos previstos para que la 
autoridad aduanera pueda evaluar  la posibilidad de una  infra cción a un derecho de propiedad 
intelectual, cuando el derecho en juego deriva de una patente, sin utilizar el  Reglamento N° 1383/2003 
de manera abusiva? ¿Cómo se compatibiliza el principio de agotamiento del derecho con el 
Reglamento N° 1383/2003?  
IV. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES POR SECTORES 
1) Introducción  Párrafo 4, página 98  
¿Podían las CE brindar detalles sobre las me didas adoptadas para “disociar los pagos de la 
producción”? Asimismo, podría brindar informació n sobre cómo operan los pagos desacoplados? 
 ¿Cómo prevé la CE que dichas ayudas desacopl adas lleguen al pequeño productor o a las 
explotaciones familiares que sostiene n el medio rural y no a las grandes compañías y terratenientes 
más ricos de Europa, como lo afirmara el informe  de Intermón Oxfam de Marzo de 2005? 
 
¿Podría especificar a que productos agrícolas y no agrícolas se aplican el tipo arancelario máximo 
del 167,2%?   ¿Podría brindar mayores datos económic os sobre los efectos de la ayud a interna en la generación de 
excedentes agrícolas? 
 1) Agricultura y Actividades Conexas 
i) Características Principales ii) Política Agrícola Común a) Panorama general 
 
Párrafo 8, página 101  
 ¿Podrían las CE brindar detalles sobre las propuestas  de reforma para el tabaco, aceite de oliva, 
algodón, lúpulo, azúcar y el algodón? En particul ar la naturaleza de los subsidios y operatividad 
del/los sistema/s y montos aplicados y/o pr oyectados en los próximos cinco  años. 
 
¿Podrían las CE brindar alguna información s obre las propuestas previstas para fines de 2006 o 
principios del año en curso para los subsectores  del vino y los frutos, legumbres y hortalizas?.  
 Párrafo 9, página 102  
 
Según lo expresado en el párrafo mencionado, los agricultores acumulan a los pagos directos los 
correspondientes a nivel regional, los que además pueden estar vinculados a los pagos y a la 
producción. ¿Podrían las CE informar si ha sido defin ido un límite porcentual o en monto de subsidios 
que cada agricultor particular puede recibir anualmente y, de existir este límite, podría indicar si en el 
mismo se computan los subsidios correspondientes a ni vel regional? ¿Podría asimismo cuantificar el 
“vínculo limitado entre los pagos y la producción (“di sociación parcial”) de los subsidios otorgados a 
nivel de cada uno de los Estados Miembros?   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 13 
 
 
 Asimismo, 
¿Podrían señalar las CE cómo se computan en las notific aciones de Cajas (apoyo interno) de la OMC, 
los pagos nacionales establecidos legalmente bajo el sistema de modulación, los cuales difieren por 
país y producto de manera sensible? ¿Podrían las CE indicar cómo procederán a notificar  los sistemas diferentes que aplican los Estados 
Miembros para el cálculo de subs idios bajo el Single Farm Payment? 
 ¿Podría las CE señalar cómo procederán a no tificar el nuevo sistema de pagos desacoplados 
diferenciado por “commodities”, dado que se entie nde que es decisión de  cada Estado Miembro 
aplicar los mismos, lo cual está implicando formas  diferentes de instrumentación (porcentajes de 
decoupling distintos por países y productos)? 
 Finalmente, considerando que la última noti ficación de la que se dispone sobre los pagos directos 
para la limitación de la producción (art. 6:5 del AsA) corresponde al año 2003/2004 (G/AG/N/EEC/53 
del 8/12/2006) :  
¿Podrían informar los niveles aplicados por pr oducto para los años 2004/2005 y 2005/2006? 
¿Podrían indicar además los niveles por producto  correspondientes a los nuevos 10 miembros 
ingresados a las CE el 1/5/2004?  
Párrafo 10, páginas 102/103  
 
Con relación a los NEM-10 ¿podrían las CE detalla r cómo compatibilizan los compromisos asumidos 
por cada uno de los NEM-10 en sus Listas de Apoy o Doméstico antes de su ingreso a la UE con la 
implementación del régimen vigente en las CE, someramente descripto en el párrafo citado? 
 Asimismo, 
Podrían las CE informar cuándo van a negociar la s CE con los demás Miembros de la OMC sus 
niveles de apoyo doméstico distorsivo: en el caso de sus 25 miembros, por el período desde el 1/5/2004 
al 1/1/2007 (32 meses) y, en  el de sus 27 miembros, desde el 1/1/2007?  Teniendo en cuenta que han transcurrido más de 33 meses desde el ing reso de los 10 países que 
ingresaron a las CE el 1/5/2004, ¿podría indica r las CE  las razones de semejante atraso? 
 
La notificación G/AG/N/EEC/53 del 8/12/2006, que incluye los niveles de apoyo doméstico por el 
período 2003/2004 parece abarcar también parte del p eríodo posterior al 1/5/2004, en el que las CE 
pasaron a ser 25 países.  ¿Podría la CE completar esta notificación con los su bsidios aplicados, desde el 1/5/2004 hasta el final 
del año notificado (o sea, 2003/2004)? 
 Finalmente,  las CE adoptaron el compromiso sobre la lim itación del área sembrada en el Anexo a la 
Sección I de la Parte IV de su lista Nro. CXL, se gún el cual la misma queda sujeta a un valor máximo 
de 5.482.000 hectáreas para los 15 miembros de las CE.  
¿Podría la CE informar sobre cómo ha implemen tado este compromiso, indicando las medidas en sus 
disposiciones internas que prevengan la superación de  este nivel? Y, dado que el punto (4) del Anexo 1 
de dicho compromiso establece que, en caso de ampliación de las CE, el mismo se enmendaría.¿Cuándo van las CE a iniciar la negociac ión sobre este acuerdo con otros miembros de la 
OMC?  
 
Párrafo 11, página 103  
 ¿Podrían las CE indicar si el mencionado plan de acción ha sido elaborado y detallar las medidas 
concretas con relación a los continge ntes arancelarios de importación?  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 14  
 
 Específicamente, respecto del continge nte arancelario ibérico de maíz: 
 En septiembre de 2005 la Comisión aprobó el Reglamen to Nº 1558/2005 que modifica el Reglamento 
Nº 1839/95 relativo a las cuotas de maíz y sorgo de España y de Portugal. En el caso del contingente arancelario de ma íz a ser importado por España, la modificación del 
Reglamento comunitario se aparta de la glosa nego ciada por las CE un su lista CXL de la OMC, ya 
que transforma un compromiso de carácter precep tivo que obliga a las CE a fijar un arancel intra-
cuota que permita asegurar que el contingent e arancelario será utilizado plenamente, en uno de 
carácter facultativo en el que la rebaja del arancel  queda sujeta a condiciones existentes del mercado. 
 
¿Podrían las CE explicar cual es la racionalidad del Reglamento Nº 1558/2005 y si consideran que el 
mismo es compatible con los términos y condiciones que fueron negociados en su lista de concesiones 
consolidada en la OMC? En el caso afirmativo, cuál sería la racionalidad que permitiría transformar 
normas obligatorias de un reglamento (Reglament o Nº 1839/95) en normas facultativas (Reglamento 
Nº 1558/2005) y afirmar que tienen el mismo alcance? 
 
¿Podrían las CE confirmar que las importaciones de  maíz flint no se encuentran computadas bajo los 
contingentes arancelarios incluidos en el Reglamento 1558/2005?  ¿Podrían las CE confirmar que las importaci ones que pagan aranceles NMF plenos e ingresan a 
España y Portugal no se computan como parte de lo s contingentes arancelarios incluidos en el 
Reglamento 1558/2005? 
 ¿Podrían las CE confirmar que las importaciones bajo el nuevo contingente arancelario NMF de 242.074 tn. cuando ingresen, total o parcialmente, por España y Portugal  no estén siendo computadas 
como parte de los contingentes arancelarios incluidos en el Reglamento 1558/2005?   
 
¿Podrían las CE señalar si la reforma propuesta de  eliminación del precio de intervención del maíz 
tendrá consecuencias en la forma de administraci ón de los cupos de maíz  para España y Portugal? 
 
Párrafo 12, página 104  
 
¿Podrían las CE especificar cómo ha compatibilizado sus compromiso s referidos a los programas de 
limitación de la producción bajo la caja azul por la ampliación de las CE-12 a CE-15 y, asimismo, 
cómo compatibilizará dichos compromi sos por la ampliación a los NEM-10? 
 
Párrafo 13, página 105/106  
 
¿Podrían las CE especificar los productos que c oncentran el mayor porcentaje de ayuda y a qué 
montos se refiere?   ¿Podrían las CE indicar los montos de las ayudas trans feridas de caja ámbar a caja azul así como los 
productos alcanzados? 
 
Párrafo 14, página 106 
 ¿Podrían las CE brindar detalles sobre las directiv as estratégicas para el desarrollo rural en 2007-
2012 (competitividad de la agricultura  y silvicultura, medio ambiente y campo y calidad de vida y 
diversifación de la economía rural)? 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 15 
 
 
 Párrafos 15 y 16, página 106  
 ¿Podrían brindar detalles sobre la “ayuda de mini mis” mencionada y, en particular, explicar con qué 
criterio se incluye a la pesca bajo la ayuda “de mini mis”, toda vez que el acuerdo que rige este sector 
es el de Subvenciones y Medidas Compensatorias, en  el cual  no existe una categoría “de minimis”? 
Por otra parte,  
 La mencionada ayuda “de minimis” a los productos de la pesca ¿ha sido notificada ante el Comité de 
Subvenciones y Medidas Compensatorias? En ca so de que no sea así ¿Cómo se asegura el 
cumplimiento de lo estipulado en el artículo 25 del Acuerdo sobre Subvenciones y Medidas 
Compensatorias? 
 Párrafo 17, página 106  ¿Podrían explicar los motivos en qu e se sustenta el régimen especial  en materia de etiquetado y 
trazabilidad de OGMs? 
 Asimismo, en relación con este tema, la Argentina ve con preocupación la ausencia de mención alguna 
en el documento sobre la falta de cumplimiento por  parte de ciertos Estados  Miembros del fallo del 
Grupo Especial del OSD de la OMC en la materi a, habiéndose incluso registrado manifestaciones por 
parte de algunos de ellos en cuanto a su eventual recurso a diversos canales para mantener 
restricciones contrarias a las recomendaciones del OSD.  Al respecto, se estima pertinente que las CE 
expliciten las medidas que han adoptado, en el marco  de la normativa OMC, para lograr el pleno 
acatamiento por parte de todos sus Esta dos Miembros del fallo antes mencionado. 
 
Párrafos 19 y 20 y datos contenidos en el Cuadro IV. 5 Gastos en garantía, por producto,  2004-2005, 
páginas 108/109  
¿Podrían las CE brindar detalles sobre el gasto tipificado como de “Ayuda a la Producción” para el 
Aceite de Oliva que, según aparece en el Cuadro menc ionado, el monto de la misma alcanzó en 2006 
los 2.236,0 millones de Eus?  
Párrafo 22, página 111  
 
¿Podría las CE informar o brindar un promedio de utilización de los 91 contingentes arancelarios 
para productos agrícolas que dice tener más actualizado que el de 2002 y los motivos –si los hubiere– 
de la falta de llenado total de los mismos cuando est a situación ocurra?. Si esta nueva tasa media de 
utilización de los contingentes fuese inferior al 62% del 2002, ¿podría explicar los motivos? y, en el 
caso de que fuese superior, qué medidas que hay a tomado las CE considera relevantes para dicho 
cambio positivo?  ¿Podrían las CE indicar los fundamentos legales por los cuales consideran que las reformas a los 
sistemas de gestión de contingentes arancelario s establecidas en el Reglamento 1301/2006 no 
afectarán las concesiones otorgadas a terceros países en la OMC, particularmente los contingentes 
arancelarios que son administrados por los países ex portadores (por ejemplo, carne bovina de alta 
calidad o músculos delgados del diafragma)?  ¿Podrían las CE explicar qué medidas han tomado  o piensan implementar para evitar que exista un 
mercado secundario de licencias de importac ión en las cuotas de ajos frescos? 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 16  
 
 IV. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES POR SECTORES 
5) Sector Manufacturero ii) Sectores Industriales Específicos b) Productos Químicos 
 
Párrafo 71, página 134 
 En cuanto al sistema REACH, la Argentina desea m anifestar su preocupación respecto de su futura 
implementación, no sólo en razón del evidente encarecimiento que el mismo implicará para la 
industria, sino su eventual consistencia con los compromisos asumidos en el orden multilateral, 
debiendo evitarse que el futuro régimen pudiera cons tituirse en una barrera técnica para el comercio 
en contraposición a las normas (TB). En este senti do, el régimen recientemente aprobado ha desatado 
controversias aún en el ámbito de las CE, las c uales no parecen a la fecha haber sido debidamente 
superadas. La Argentina, en tanto país en desarro llo, no observa hasta el momento un esfuerzo de las 
CE por explicitar y aclarar los diferentes aspectos del régimen en cuestión acorde con su complejidad 
y envergadura, por lo que se apreciaría poder evaluar  con mayor detalle la compatibilidad de este 
complejo instrumento con las normas multilaterales, así como prevea las CE la asistencia necesaria 
para su instrumentación por los países en desarr ollo potencialmente afectados, tales como la 
Argentina.  Frente a esta nueva situación, la Argentina desea conocer:  
¿Si se ha evaluado el impacto negativo que REACH tendrá en las exportaciones de los países en 
desarrollo?  ¿Si se ha evaluado si la implementación de REACH impondrá costos excesivos que pudieran resultar en distorsiones no sólo en el sector químico, sino en distintos sectores industriales relacionados con la 
industria química en los países en desarrollo?  
¿Si se prevé respetar el principio de proporcionalid ad, buscando los menores costos comerciales en la 
aplicación de las medidas, en especial para los país es en desarrollo y asegurar que su aplicación no 
genere ninguna disrupción del mercado?  4) Energía  
Párrafos 50 y 51, página 124  
¿Podrían confirmar las CE si todos los Estados  miembros aplican restricciones cuantitativas a las 
importaciones de biodiesel?  
¿Podrían informar las CE si los Estados miembr os aplican el mismo tr atamiento impositivo al 
biodiesel importado y al producto nacional o europeo?  PREGUNTAS ADICIONALES DE ARGENTINA
 
 
WT/TPR/S/177, INFORME DE LA SECRETARIA 
 
I. OBSERVACIONES RECAPITULATIVAS  4) Poíticas sectoriales Párrafo 17, página xii 
 
Podrían las CE indicar cuál es el tipo de ayuda estatal destinada al sector manufacturero? 
Podrían explicar en qué consiste la nueva polític a industrial destinada a promover la competitividad 
del sector?   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 17 
 
 
 II. REGÍMENES DE COMERCIO E INVERSIÓN 
 5) Acuerdos comerciales ii) OMC Párrafo 34, página 30 
 
Podrían las CE explicar el motivo por el cual  se hallaban pendientes las notificaciones mencionadas 
en este párrafo? Ya han sido realizadas? Podr ían describir el contenido de las mismas? 
 III. POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS 
 
2) Medidas que afectan directamente a las importaciones i) Procedimientos aduaneros y valoración en aduana Párrafo 7, página 51  
Podrían las CE indicarnos en qué tiempo estimado entrarán en vigencia las modificaciones aduaneras 
allí descriptas?  Párrafo 9, página 51 Podrían las CE informar qué tipo de medidas tie nen previsas para solucionar el problema de la 
velocidad y extensión de las redes aduaners de TI interconectadas? 
 
ii) Arancel NMF común Párrafo 11, página 52  
Podrían las CE informar el listado de bienes para los que los tipos arancelarios aplicados y 
consolidados son distintos, as í como sus respectivos niveles? 
 
Párrafo 11-15, páginas 52-56  
En adición a las preguntas formuladas con relación a los párrafos citados – además de la información 
acerca de la metodología utilizada para la conversión de los aranceles no ad valorem en su promedio 
ad valorem – podrían las CE informar los motiv os por los que el promedio de aranceles NMF 
aplicados para los capítulos 1 a 24 (productos agrícolas  y de la pesca), es del 18%, superior al 16,5% 
informado en el Mecanismo de Examen de Polític a Comercial anterior, de octubre de 2004 (Cuadro 
III.3, página 51 del Informe de la Secretaría, WT/TPR/ S/136).  Se destaca que el informe actual de la 
Secretaría – WT/TPR/S/177, página 52 y 53 – señal a que los productos agrícolas también tiene un 
promedio del 18,6% superior al de 2004. Asimismo, específicamente con relac ión al párrafo 13 Cuál es la ju stificación que sustentan las Ce 
para la existencia de aranceles que alcanzan porcenta jes tales como el 427,9%? No sería este nivel 
arancelario equivalente a une  prohibición para importar? 
Podría informar acerca de los aumentos de aranceles en cada capítulo, conforme a la table que sigue: 
 
Code and description Applied MNF tariff average by HS2, 
2004 (%) TPR October 2004 Applied MNF tariff average by HS2, 
2006 (5) TPR February 2007 
Total average (97 chapters from the harmonized system) 6.5 range of tariffs were from 0-209.9% 6. 9 reange of tariffs were from 0-427.9% 
01 Live animals 20.6 range of tariffs were from 0-107.8% 25.7 range of tariffs were from 0-167.2% 
02 Meat and edible meat offal 28.9 range of tariffs were  from 0-192.2% 30.0 range of tariffs were from 0-427.9% 
04 Dairy produce; birds' eggs; natural 
honey;  edible products of animal origin, 
not elsewhere specified or included 38.4 range of tariffs were from 0-209.9% 39.5 range of tariffs were from 0-134.4% 
06 Live trees and other plants;  bulbs, 
roots and the like; cut flowers and ornamental foliage 6.0 6.1 
   
07 Edible vegetables and certain roots and 13.2 14.2 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 18  
 
 Code and description Applied MNF tariff average by HS2, 
2004 (%) 
TPR October 2004 Applied MNF tariff average by HS2, 
2006 (5) 
TPR February 2007 
tubers 
10 Cereals 39.6 range of tariffs were from 0-101. 1% 55.2 range of tariffs were from 0-116.6% 
11 Products of the milling industry; malt; 
starches; insulin; wheat gluten 22.2 25.0 
13 Lac; bums; resins and other vegetable 
saps and extracts 2.2 2.7 
15 Animal or vegetable fats and oils and 
their cleavage products ; prepared edible 
fats; animal or vegetable waxes 8.9 9.2 
17 Sugars and sugar confectionery 23. 6 range of tariffs were from 2.1-
114.4% 27.3 range of tariffs were from 0.1-
163.8% 
18 Cocoa and cocoa preparations 17.9 18.7 
19 Preparations of cerelals, flour, starch of milk; pastry cooks' products 20.3 21.8 
20 Preparations of vegetables, fruit, nuts 
or other parts of plants 20.9 range of tariffs were from 0-146.9% 23.4 range of tariffs were from 0-300.8% 
21 Miscellaneous edible preparations 9.6 11.4 
22 Beverages, spirits and vinegar 5.7 ra nge of tariffs were from 0-58.6% 6.5 range of tariffs were from 0-105.9% 
23 Residues and waste from the food 
industries; prepared animal fodder 7.0 range of tariffs were from 0-76% 14.1 range of tariffs were from 0-122% 
24 Tobacco and manufactured tobacco 
substitutes 18.3 19.7 
Source: WTO. 
 
Aranceles no ad valorem  
Podría informar la metodología con la que los aranceles no ad valorem han sido convertidos a su EAV 
para calcular un promedio ad valorem?  
BENEFICIARIOS DE SUBVENCIONES AGRÍCOLAS 
 a) Podría indicar qué Estados miembros de las CE han dado a conocer la nómina de personas 
físicas y jurídicas que reciben subvenciones agrícolas? b) Podría indicar las razones por las que ci ertos Estados miembros se han negado a dar esta 
información? 
 PREGUNTAS DE CHILE
 
 Observaciones recapitulativas 
 Párrafo 5 del informe de la Secretaría. ¿En qué fecha se estima culminarán las negociaciones para la 
adhesión de Turquía y Croacia?  
I. ENTORNO ECONÓMICO 
 Párrafo 22  del informe de la Secretaría. ¿En qué f echa se estima que estará vigente en la Comunidad la 
Directiva sobre Servicios? ¿Qué requisitos deben cumplirse para su adopción y puesta en vigencia? 
 
II. RÉGIMEN COMERCIAL Y DE INVERSIONES 
 
Párrafo 37 del informe de la Secretaría. ¿Cuáles s on los elementos adicionales que desea incorporar en 
los acuerdos bilaterales de nueva generación c on sus principales interlocutores comerciales? 
 ¿Qué iniciativas en la esfera de la política come rcial considera la comunicación sobre promoción del 
trabajo decente?  III. POLITICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 19 
 
 
  
(2) (v). Normas de origen 
 
pág. 64, párrafo 29 del Informe de  la Secretaría. ¿En qué plazo se pondrá en vigencia la Comunicación 
COM (2005)100?  
 
(2) (ix). Obstáculos técnicos al comercio. 
 
Pág. 70, párrafo 48 del Informe de la Secretaría . ¿En qué plazo estiman las CE la posibilidad de 
alcanzar la plena armonización de las normas y los reglamentos técnicos al interior de las CE?.   
 
Pág. 70, párrafo 48 del Informe de la Secretaría . Entre los reglamentos armonizados se encuentra el 
Reglamento REACH. ¿Se ha considerado su impact o una vez que entre en vigor sobre la industrias 
comunitarias y extranjeras? ¿Qué medidas se pi ensan tomar para disminuir el impacto negativo 
relacionado?  
 
Pág. 70, párrafo. 49 del Informe de la Secretaría. ¿C on el nuevo enfoque adoptado, en la medida que se 
cumpla con la norma específica armonizada, el propio productor o importa dor puede poner la marca 
CE y no se requiere certificación de los “ notified bodies ” comunitarios?  
 Pág.71, párrafo 50 del Informe de la Secretaría. En los casos de reglamentos no armonizados, las CE 
aplican el principio de reconocimiento mutuo en el mercado interior, para productos que han sido 
producidos cumpliendo especificaciones técnicas o de ca lidad diferentes de las que se apliquen a los 
bienes de producción nacional.  ¿Qué tratamiento se le da a un producto que no es originario del 
mercado interior, en una situación similar?  (3) (ii) Impuestos a las exportaciones 
 
¿Podría precisar las disciplinas que desea se apliquen en relación a los impuestos a la exportación? 
 
(4) (iii) Derechos de propiedad intelectual 
 1. ¿En qué consistirían los puntos de  referencia más estrictos para co mbatir la falsificación y proteger 
los derechos de  la propiedad inte lectual que se estarían considerando?  ¿A qué restricciones de acceso a 
los recursos que no estén basadas en razones ambi entales y de seguridad, que desea suprimir, se 
refieren las Comunidades?  
 
2. ¿Que elementos a la luz de los NS de la OMC llevan a la Unión Europea a afirmar que existe un uso 
abusivo de nombres?  
IV. POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR SECTORES 
 
(3) Sector pesquero a su política pesquera   
 
1. En los puntos 41 y 44 del informe de la Secretar ía se menciona la preocupación de las Comunidades 
Europeas, manifestada a través de una “nueva Políti ca Pesquera Común (PPC), por hacer frente a la 
sobreexplotación de determinadas reservas pesqueras.   
En ese contexto, ¿podrían precisar y explicar cu ales iniciativas están desarrollando para hacer más 
transparente el esfuerzo pesquero de la flota comunitaria que opera en alta mar? 
 2. En el punto 47 del Informe de la Secretaría se  hace referencia al In strumento Financiero de 
Orientación de la Pesca (IFOP) y al Fondo Europeo de la Pesca (FEP) a partir del 2007, como la WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 20  
 
 principal forma de ayuda financiera para el subsect or. Se indica a su vez que el FEP tiene como objeto, 
entre otras cosas, “el fomento de métodos de pesca y de producción que sean respetuosos del medio ambiente”.   En ese sentido, ¿cuales esfuerzos se  están realizando para evitar que  dichas políticas de subsidio se 
traduzcan en una sobreexplotación de los recursos  pesqueros, en las respectivas Zonas Económicas 
Exclusivas de los Estados miembros y el Alta Mar,  provocada por la excesiva capacidad de la flota 
comunitaria?  3. Siempre en relación con la mencionada preo cupación medioambiental de la política pesquera 
comunitaria, nos interesaría saber si existen norm as, nacionales o europeas, cuyo objeto sea regular la 
pesca en la Alta Mar adyacente a las Zonas Económi cas Exclusivas europeas, en función del efecto que 
esta actividad pueda tener para la conservación de lo s recursos pesqueros dentro de la Zona Económica 
Exclusiva de los Estados miembros de las Comunidades Europeas.        
4. ¿Podría precisar los elementos que a su juicio debieran considerarse para el establecimiento de 
disciplinas en materia de subvenciones a la pesca?  
Indicaciones geográficas 
 
De acuerdo a la nueva legislaci ón, Reglamento 510/2006, se establece un sistema simplificado de 
registro para las indicaciones geográficas.  
 1. ¿Podría proporcionar mayores detalles sobre este pr ocedimiento? En particular, los requisitos para 
obtener el registro.  
2. ¿Existe alguna diferencia entre los requisito s y el procedimiento establecido para indicaciones 
geográficas extranjeras y los requisitos y el procedimiento establecido para las indicaciones geográficas de la Unión Europea (UE)?   3.  En los últimos años la UE ha suscrito acuerdos comerciales bi laterales donde reconoce listados de 
indicaciones geográficas a terceros países. ¿Son estas indicaciones geográficas incorporadas de forma 
automática en este registro comunitario?  
 4. ¿Alguno de los acuerdos comerciales bilaterales suscritos por la UE incorpora la extensión de la 
protección adicional con que cuentan los vinos y l as bebidas espirituosas del artículo 23 del Acuerdo 
sobre los ADPIC a todo tipo de productos? 
 
5. ¿Alguno de los acuerdos comerc iales bilaterales suscritos por la UE incorpora el reconocimiento 
para productos específicos distintos de vinos y bebidas espirituosas? 
 
Estrategia para la observancia de los derechos de propiedad intelectual en terceros países 
 Conforme a la estrategia elaborada en el año 2004 por las Comunidades Europeas, la metodología 
utilizada para la determinación de los países prior itarios se basa en los siguientes 3 factores: a) 
Encuesta “ on enforcement of intellectual property rights in third countries ”. Dicha encuesta es 
distribuida en embajadas de Esta dos Miembros, asociaciones de titu lares de derechos, cámaras de 
comercio, etc; b) países relevantes en términos de  actual o potencial volumen de comercio con la 
Comunidad Europea; y c) información en aduana sobre cantidad de mercaderías incautadas en las 
fronteras de la UE.  1. ¿Cuál es la ponderación que tiene cada uno de ésto s factores para la incorporación de un país en 
alguno de los 3 listados?.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 21 
 
 
  
2. En lo relativo a los dos últimos factores ¿se ha n utilizado fuentes propias o de terceros? En caso que 
hayan utilizado fuentes externas,  ¿son estas fuentes públicas? 
 3. En cuanto a las estadísticas de mercancías incautadas en las fronteras de la UE, ¿se consideran como 
mercancías piratas o falsificadas a quellos productos puestos en los canales  de comercio fuera de la UE 
por los titulares o con autorización de los titulares? Es decir, ¿se les da el mismo tratamiento a bienes 
del mercado negro y a bienes del mer cado gris (importaciones paralelas)? 
 
QUESTIONS BY JAPAN
 
 
REPORT BY THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (WT/TPR/G/177 
 III. KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EC’S TRADE POLICY (2004-06) 
(1) Main Trade Policy Objectives 
 
Question 1 (paragraph 30, page 11) Japan would like to be advised of the EC’s unde rstanding on the relationship between the issue of 
climate change and “environmental goods”, the term which was used in the speech by the EC 
Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, on 18 December, 2006.  Japan would also like to be informed of the 
EC’s idea on how to define the “environmental good s” which are particularly related to climate 
change. 
 
III. KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EC’S TRADE POLICY (2004-06) 
(3) Main Components of EC Trade Policy 
(ii) Bilateral, bi-regional and au tonomous trade policy initiatives 
 
Question 2 (paragraph 45, page 15) According to paragraph 45 of the EC’s Report, the EC states that it continues to pursue its bilateral, bi-
regional and other trade policy instruments and meas ures in a complementary manner to the priority 
granted to the multilateral route.  In this regard, Japan would like to be advised of the outlook of the 
EC’s policy on and prospects of such bilateral, bi-regional and other trade policy instruments and 
measures, including those with Asian countries (e.g. Korea and India) and regional organizations (e.g. 
ASEAN and GCC). 
 
REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT (WT/TPR/S/177 
II. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(4) Trade Regulations and Business Environment  
Question 3 (paragraph 22, page 22) Under the Prospectus and Transparency Directiv es, the European Commission will require, from 
January 2009, companies from third countries includ ing Japan which have made or will make public 
offerings or listing within the EU to prepare their consolidated financial statements in accordance with 
International Financial Reporting Standards (IF RSs) or other accounting standards which are 
equivalent to IFRSs.  In this respect, Japan unders tands that the European Commission will conclude a 
final decision on the equivalence of accounting stan dards (or GAAP) of third countries including Japan 
by the end of 2008.  In the process of equivalen ce assessment, the Committee of European Securities 
Regulators (CESR) assessed Japanese GAAP is considered equivalent to IFRS taken as a whole, 
pointing out the need for some remedies.  
 The outcome of the final decision by CESR is import ant, in relation to the international credibility of 
Japanese GAAP, and for the Japanese  companies currently issuing and listed in the EU Member 
countries, to ensure their continued access to the European capital market.  The European Commission WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 22  
 
 should not require Japanese companies issuing and listed in the EU Member countries to make 
remedies to the financial statements.  Even if th e European Commission is to require some remedies to 
the Japanese companies, they should be limited to “narrativ e disclosure”, instead of numerical 
adjustment. Japan recognizes that the convergence of accounting standards would best be achieved 
through the market forces, and as long as each standard  is considered to be equivalent, these standards 
should be allowed to co-exist and not to  be excluded from the European markets. 
 In light of the above-mentioned viewpoints, Japan  would like to be advised of the EC’s policy 
pertaining to regulations on accounting standards.  II. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIMES (5) Trade Agreements and Arrangements (iii) Preferential trade ag reements and arrangements 
(a) Agreements with European countries/groupings 
EC accession  
Question 4 (paragraph 40, page 29) On 21 December, 2006, Japan requested the EC that it wished to enter into bilateral consultations and 
negotiations in order to discuss the issue of the pr oposed increase of the EC’s tariff rate concessions 
resulting from the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the European Union on January 1, 2007.  In 
response to such a request from Japan , the EC replied on 31 January, stating that it was prepared to 
have a meeting to address the said concern of Japan.  In the meantime, imports from Japan to the EC 
have been subject to higher tariff rates in creased by the EC since January 1, 2007. 
 
When Japan and the EC negotiated a compensatory adju stment at the time of the EC’s enlargement in 
May, 2004, it took one year and ei ght months until a mutually satisfactory solution was reached.  As a 
consequence, Japanese companies exporting products to  the EC suffered from increased tariff rates for 
a long time due to the delay of the conclusion of the negotiation.  Japan strongly wishes that a 
satisfactory resolution will be achieved in a timely manner this time.  
In this regard, Japan would like to be advised of how the EC intends to move forward on this matter. 
 
II. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(5) Trade Agreements and Arrangements 
(iii) Preferential trade ag reements and arrangements 
(c) Non-reciprocal preferential arrangements  
Generalized System of Preferences (GPS) 
 Question 5 (paragraphs 59 and 61, pages 35 and 36) 
According to paragraphs 59 and 61, pages 35 and 36, of the Secretariat’s report, the EC grants LDCs 
duty-free and quota-free access to the EC market under the “everything but arms (EBA) initiative”.  In 
this regard, Japan would like to have the following information: 
(1) the number of all tariff lines for which LDCs are granted duty-free and quota free access; 
(2) the number of tariff lines of “arms”; and 
(3) the ratio of imports from LDCs to which su ch duty-free and quota-free access were granted in 
proportion to the total imports from LDCs (both in terms of the number of tariff lines and the volume of imports (to the first decimal place)). Question 6 (paragraph 62, page 37) 
Japan understands that, in addition to the temporary withdrawal measures indicated in paragraph 62, 
page 37, of the Secretariat’s Report, preferential arrangements may also be withdrawn under the EC’s 
GSP scheme on condition that pertinent items (s ections) of developing countries are regarded 
competitive enough in the EC market.  Is this w ithdrawal measure also applied to LDC products? 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 23 
 
 
 Question 7 (paragraph 63, page 37) 
According to paragraph 63, page 37, of the Secretariat’s report, the EC’s GSP scheme includes a 
safeguard clause.  In this regard, Japan w ould like to have the following information: 
(1) whether the safeguard clau se has ever been invoked;  
(2) If so, the items to which the clause has been invoked and the respective invocation periods; and 
(3) the investigation process and the necessary measur es/steps taken to invoke the clause (e.g. whether 
it is necessary to enact an additi onal/supplementary law or a regulation for each specific safeguard 
measure or not).   Question 8 (paragraph 64, page 37) 
According to paragraph 64, page 37, of the Secretar iat’s report, there is a declining trend in trade 
shares and low ratios of GSP utilization.  What do es the EC consider as the reason for such recent 
inactive GSP utilization?  III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports (i) Customs procedures and valuation 
 
Question 9 (paragraph 7, page 41) 
What is the current status of the two proposals to modernize the CC which had been adopted by the EC 
Commissions in November 2005 and were under c onsideration by the Council and the European 
Parliament as of October 2006?  Have they already been enacted? If so, please explain the measures being implemented under the two regulations.  Question 10 (paragraphs 5-9, pages 40-42) 
Japan notes that some divergences exist among Member  States’ classifications of same goods imported 
into the EC and is reported that traders are requi red in some cases to address such divergences in 
accordance with specific customs regul ations at the port of entry. 
 
In light of this, Japan would like to be advised of  the measures taken by the EC in order to dissolve 
such divergences among Member States as well as tho se taken in order to improve the procedures for 
retrospective impositions of tariffs which result from changes in classification of goods after their entry 
into the EC market.  III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports (ii) Common customs MFN Tariff 
 
Question 11 (Table III.1, pages 42-43) 
The report states that the EC applies several types of tariffs; ad valorem rates are the most widely used 
(90%), followed by specific (6.4%), compound (2%), a lternate (0.7%), and variable (0.9%).  In this 
regard, Japan would like to be advised of the crite ria based on which the EC decides which type of 
tariff to impose on a specific product.  Question 12 (Table III.4, page 46) 
Japan would like to be advised of possible reduc tions by the EC of high tariffs on imports of 
automobiles (10%) and home electronic appliances (14%).  
Question 13 (paragraph 11, page 42) 
While Japan appreciates that the EC has bound all its tariff lines in the WTO, it would like to have 
clarification on the issues on the Information Technology Agreement as follows. (1) The Information Technology Agreement (ITA)  established in 1996 has been promoting 
developments of the information technology, an d thus contributing to industrial and social 
developments, by encouraging IT industries to s ophisticate the products covered by the ITA or add WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 24  
 
 functions to such products.  Most ITA members im pose no tariffs on such sophisticated products or 
those with additional functions, which Japan finds ap propriate in light of the objective and purpose of 
the ITA.  In this regard, Jap an is concerned that the EC does impose tariffs on imports of such 
sophisticated products or those with additional functions by classifying them as non-ITA products 
under the EC’s customs law.  In Japan’s view, such  EC’s unilateral reclassifications of ITA products 
into non-ITA products is the restoration of tr ade barriers on ITA products, which the ITA members 
once determined to eliminate, and thus results  in the impediment of information technology 
development. 
From the above-mentioned point of view, Jap an would like to ask the following questions. 
(a) Whether sophisticated ITA products and those with  additional functions rema in to be covered under 
the ITA is a fundamental issue for the objective a nd purpose of the ITA.  Japan considers that a 
unilateral decision of an ITA member to exclude su ch sophisticated products and those with additional 
functions from the ITA coverage will adversely affect the implementation of the ITA since such unilateral decision disturbs the ITA members’ cons istent recognitions on th e ITA product coverage.  
Japan further considers that if any disagreement should arise among the ITA members concerning the 
ITA product coverage, it should be resolved by achieving a common understanding among the ITA 
members.  In this sense, what kind of scheme does th e EC consider appropriate in order to prevent such 
diversification of the ITA members’ understanding on the product coverage and in order to maintain a 
consistent view of the produc t coverage among the members? 
 
(b) As one of the main members who encouraged ot her WTO Members to participate in the ITA, what 
does the EC consider paragraph 1 of the ITA Declar ation means, which provides that “[e]ach party’s 
trade regime should evolve in a manner that enhances market access opportunity for information 
technology products”?  How does the EC reflect its interpretation of the said paragraph in 
implementing the ITA? 
 
(2) A digital camera with an additional function is  one of the products with which the ITA members 
have different opinions on whether to be covered by the ITA.  Recen t digital cameras usually have a 
function of moving image recording.  Japan understa nds that the EC is now considering classifying 
such digital cameras as non-ITA products due to th e said additional function now added to digital 
cameras.   In Japan’s view, such  a function is an additional one attached to conventional digital 
cameras.  In this regard, Japan woul d like to ask the following questions. 
 
(a) What is the EC’s rationale/justification for im posing tariffs on digital cameras with a moving image 
recording function by classifying them as non-ITA pr oducts?  Is such imposition of tariffs consistent 
with the EC’s obligations in its Schedul e of Concessions set out based on the ITA? 
(b) Please provide information on details of the procedures for deciding the classification of digital 
cameras within the EC.  Are interested ITA me mber countries and also their enterprises provided 
opportunities to make comments during the procedure? (c) Are there any enterprises or production-bases which produce digital cameras within the EC? 
(d) Please provide information on details of the proc edures and the conditions for the tariff suspension 
to be granted to the products which are reclassi fied as a result of the above-mentioned internal 
considerations within the EC. Are interested IT A member countries and their enterprises provided 
opportunities to make comments during the procedures? 
 
(3) Digital multifunction machines are digital equipm ent with multiple functions of printers, fax 
machines, scanners, and the like, which are utilized in connection with computers or networks. Japan 
understands that the EC has decided to classify these digital equipment as non-ITA products and has 
been imposing tariffs on them.  In this regard, Japan would like to ask the following questions. 
(a) What is the rationale/justification of the EC to impose tariffs on digital multifunction machines by 
classifying them as non-ITA products?  Is such im position of tariffs consistent with the EC’s 
obligations in its Schedule of Concessions set out based on the ITA?  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 25 
 
 
 (b) Are there any enterprises or production-bases which produce digital multifunction machines within 
the EC? (c) Please provide information on details of the conditions and the specific procedures for a tariff 
suspension to be granted to products which have been reclassified as non-ITA products as a result of 
the above-mentioned consideration within the EC.  Are interested ITA member countries and their 
enterprises provided opportunities to ma ke comments during the procedures? 
 
(4) As far as Japan understands, the EC has an opini on that flat-panel displays (FPDs) are not ITA-
covered products and are subject to  tariff imposition if they have a function of receiving a video signal 
regardless of whether they are utiliz ed principally as computer displays or not.  Japan is not convinced 
by such reasoning of the EC Commission, since the Commission fails to consider what the principal 
function of a product is in determining the product’ s classification.  Japan further understands that all 
the FPDs are now subject to tariff imposition, regardl ess of whether they are used as computer displays 
or not, while a tariff suspension was granted to some of those displays until the end of 2006.  In this 
regard, Japan would like to ask the following questions. 
(a) What is the rationale/justification of the EC to  impose tariffs on FPDs with a function of receiving a 
video signal, classifying them as non-ITA products?  Is  such imposition of tariffs consistent with the 
EC’s obligation in its Schedule of Concessions set out based on the ITA? 
(b) Are there any enterprises or production-bases which produce FPDs with a function of receiving video signal within the EC? 
(c) Please provide information on the details of  the conditions and the specific procedures for 
extending the tariff suspension on FPDs, which was e ffective until the end of 2006?  Are interested 
ITA member countries and their enterprises provided opportunities to make comments during the 
procedures? 
 III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports (ii) Other duties and taxes 
(a) Value-Added Tax 
 Question 14 (paragraphs 17-21, pages 47-50) 
Japan notes that each custom within the EC employs  different procedures for the imposition of value-
added taxes (VATs) depending on which Member Stat e they are located in.  Japan would like to be 
advised of the EC’s initiative in harmonizing and simplifying the EC Memb er States’ procedures 
pertaining to VATs, including their refund. 
 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
(viii) Contingency Trade Remedies  
Question 15 (paragraph 37, page 54) Paragraph 37, page 54, of the Secretariat’s Report indicates that no major changes were made to EC’s 
legislations pertaining to contingency trade remedies.  In this regard, Japan understands that the EC is 
holding public consultations for the purpose of e ffective application of contingency trade remedies. 
Japan would like to have detailed information on th e EC’s goals/objectives that it seeks to achieve 
through such public consultati ons and any preliminary ideas on how to achieve that end. 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 26  
 
 Question 16 (paragraph 42, page 55) 
Japan understands that the EC has been conducting the anti-dumping investigation on the importation 
of Japanese “Certain Camera System”.  In connec tion with this anti-dumping investigation, Japan 
would like to clarify the standards based on which the EC defines the product scope under the 
investigation.  Specifically, what kind of elemen ts (e.g. physical characteristics, end uses and 
functions) are considered in deciding the product scope? 
 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
(ix) Technical barriers to trade (TBT)  
Question 17 (paragraph 51, page 57) The current “new approach” of the EC does not have  a system enabling the EC to directly designate 
CABs located outside the EC under the relevant  EC laws (cross-border designation scheme).  
Article 6.4 of the TBT Agreement stipulates that “[m] embers are encouraged to  permit participation of 
conformity assessment bodies located in the territo ries of other Members in their conformity 
assessment procedures under conditions no less favour able than those accorded to bodies located 
within their territory or the territory of any other country.”  
 And it is also stated that “[t]he Committee rene ws its encouragement of Members to allow the 
participation of conformity assessment bodies located  in the territory of other Members in their 
conformity assessment procedures, on a non-discriminatory basis, as stated in Article 6.4 [of the TBT Agreement]”, in paragraph 36 of the WTO doc ument (G/TBT/19), “FOURTH TRIENNIAL REVIEW 
OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT ON TECHNICAL 
BARRIERS TO TRADE UNDER ARTICLE 15.4,” which was completed in Nov. 2006. 
 
Moreover, it is also stated in paragraph 39 of the said WTO document that “[t]he Committee notes that 
the mutual introduction of cross-border designation syst ems in equivalent fields by governments can be 
a cost-effective agreement.” 
 Japan requests that the EC adopt the cross-border designation scheme in  relevant directives, wherever 
possible, at this opportunity of reviewing the “new  approach.”  The adoption of such scheme will 
contribute to trade facilitation for foreign manufacture rs willing to export to the EC. At the same time, 
it will enable EC companies investing in countries outs ide the EC to acquire certifications of products 
by CABs under EC laws in such countries, where the production cost is low, and to bring their 
products into the EC market quickly with lower cost  for certifications. It is thus beneficial for EC 
companies in that their investme nts in such countries where the production cost is low will be 
promoted. In this way, the cross-border designation sc heme is beneficial for not only trade partners of 
the EC but also the EC itself.  
From the above-mentioned point of view, Japan has the following questions. 
(1) What does the EC think about introducing the scheme for designating CABs outside the EC?  (2) Does the EC have currently legal provisions wh ich forbid designating CABs outside the EC? Or, 
are such legal provisions scheduled to  be introduced in the future?  
(3) If such legal provisions exist or are scheduled to be introduced, what is the rationale and/or 
background of those provisions? 
 
Question 18 (paragraph 52, page 58) 
Concerning the EC’s regulation for pedestrian protec tion, with regard to which it notified a relevant 
Directive under the TBT Agreement in 2003 (G/TBT/N/ EEC/27), Japan notes that the EC is currently 
establishing new standards for their protection, wh ile internationally-harmonized standards are now 
being developed under the Global Agreement.  In th is regard, Japan would like to be advised of  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 27 
 
 
 whether and how the EC is planning to establish its  standards in line with the said internationally-
harmonized standards.  IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR (2) Agriculture and Related Activities (ii) Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 
(a) Overview  
 
Question 19 (paragraph 22, page 89) On tariff quotas on agricultural products, the average quota fill rate in 2002 was 62% according to 
paragraph 22 of Chapter IV of the Secretariat Report.   
(1) Japan requests clarification on the specific reasons of the low fill rate. 
(2) Japan would also like to confirm whether, as a result of EU enlargement from 15 to 27 Member 
States, the EC intends to increase its tariff quot as allocations accordingly in the near future.  
 
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(4) Energy 
 
Question 20 (paragraph 51, page 99) 
Paragraph 51, page 99, of the Secretariat’s Report indicates that “[o]verall policy measures comprise full market opening to all consumers and producers by  2007” and “further interconnection of European 
energy grids”.  (1) A full opening in the electricity retail market is  scheduled to be completed by July 2007 under the 
EC’s Electricity Directive (2003/54/EC).  Japan woul d like to be advised of (a) whether the Member 
States which have not completed the liberalization ye t are scheduled to complete such liberalization; 
(b) whether there are any Member St ates, among those that have not comp leted liberalization, that will 
introduce restrictions on price-charge, such as pr ice-cap, together with the introduction of the 
liberalization; and (c) what kind of measures, in  addition to unbundling, the EC will take for the 
purpose of promoting competition and ensuring the exclusion of the power of market domination. 
 (2) Please provide detailed information on the meas ures taken by the EC for the purpose of achieving 
“further interconnection of European energy grids”. 
 
Question 21 (paragraph 53, page 101) 
(1) According to paragraph 53, page 101, of the Se cretariat’s Report, about 25 million Euro per year 
was budgeted to support the development of the trans-Eu ropean energy network.  In this regard, Japan 
would like to have information on (a) whether the EC has special earmarked revenue sources of this 
budget and (b) on what criteria the EC decides th e allocation of the said budget among pertinent 
development projects is based.   
(2) Does the EC provide any support other than the above-mentioned financial measures for the 
construction of transnational energy networks?  IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR (5) Manufacturing 
(ii) Selected industries 
(c) Chemicals  
Question 22 (paragraph 71, page 107) Japan would like to be advised of the EC’s view s on the following questions and concerns of Japan 
with regard to REACH, which is now examined within the EC. 
 
(1) Time frame for the duty to communicate info rmation on substances in articles (Article 33) WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 28  
 
 According to Article 33, any supplier of an articl e containing a substance lis ted in a candidate list, 
which will be made in accordance with Article 59(1) , shall provide information for safe use just after 
the list is made. Japan believes this requirement does not provide enough notice. 
Some transitional period, such as that for notification of substances in articles (Article 7(2)), should be 
set.  
(2) Establishment and disclosure of  a candidate list (Article 59(1)) 
A candidate list which will be made in accordance with Article 59(1) could have a big impact on all 
industries which use substances listed in it. It shoul d be made clear when and how it will be established 
and enough time for comments should be allowed for when drafting it.  
(3)Substance-tailored exposure-driven testing (ANNEX XI) 
Based on the exposure scenario, testing in accordan ce with sections 8.6 and 8.7 of ANNEX VIII, 
ANNEX IX and X may be omitted, and the Commission shall adopt the criteria for justification. 
Japan expects imported polymers could be included in this waiver clause and, therefore, would like to 
ask the Commission to hear from non-EU participants in drafting it.  
(4) SIEF (Substance Information Exchange Forum) (Article 29) 
With regards to consortium formati on and data sharing in SIEF, there are still many unclear points in 
practice, e.g. who will lead the consortium, what the function of SIEF leader will be, and so on. Non-
EU registrants especially, do not have enough informa tion on the organization and/or the situation of 
the EU industry, and this could leave them at a disadvantage. Japan hopes for a clear and detailed 
guidance that will enable us to avoid legal risks in view of competition law and intellectual property 
rights. 
 
(5) Requirements for recycle products 
When recycled materials that will be  used for recycled products in the EU are exported to the EC, are 
they subject to registration/notification? In cases where exporters of those products have to make 
registration/notification for them, detailed pr ocedures should be presented as soon as possible. 
 
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(6) Services 
(i) Overview  
Question 23 (paragraph 76, page 109) (1) Japan congratulates th e recent accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EC, and would like to be 
advised of the impact of this recent membership extension on the services sector in the EC, with 
statistics if possible.   (2) What are the EC’s efforts currently made and th ose envisaged in the future  in addressing the issues 
of monopolies and differences in regulation across Member States, which are identified in the 
Secretariat’s Report as “the most important barriers to trade in services in the EC”? 
 
Question 24 (paragraph 77, page 109) 
What are the impacts as well as changes expected to o ccur to the EC’s services trade, other than those 
mentioned in the Report such as expected GDP increase and job creation, as a result of the 
amendments to the domestic legislations and regulat ions of the Member States made pursuant to the 
adoption of the Services Directive?  With respect to such impact and/or  changes, it is also mentioned in 
the Secretariat’s Report that the Services Directive met heavy opposition fearing “social dumping”.  Japan would like to have information on potentially  negative impacts caused by the Services Directive, 
if any, which might affect the positio n of the EC in services negotiations. 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 29 
 
 
 Question 25 (paragraph 78, pages 110-111) 
The adopted Services Directive is explained to enter into force two years after its publication, without 
any reference to the date of publication.  Japan w ould like to be advised of the expected date of 
publication. 
 
Question 26 (paragraph 80, first sentence, page 111) While Japan appreciates both the level as well as the wide sectoral coverage of the scheduled 
commitments made by the EC, clarification and/or detailed information on the issues below is sought 
as follows: 
 (1) Horizontal Commitments: Services c onsidered as Public Utilities (Mode 3) 
What services are considered as public utilities which ma y be subject to public monopolies or to which 
exclusive rights are granted to private operators?  
(2) Horizontal Commitments: Investment (France, Portugal and Italy) 
What are the existing restrictions and r eservations on newly privatized companies? 
 (3) Horizontal Commitments: Moveme nt of Natural Persons (Mode 4) 
What are the objectives and reasons for placing the limitations on the maximum duration of stay for 
intra-corporate transferees? 
 (4) Legal entities (Finland, Mode 3, NT) What are the criteria for obtaining the “state pe rmit”?  Please also provide information on the 
reservations on NT in terms of difference of treatm ent between subsidiaries of third-country companies 
and their branches or agencies, as well as in terms of less favorable treatment toward subsidiaries of 
third-country companies which do not show an effective and continuous link with the economy of one of the EEA Member States.    (5) Legal services Japan has been requesting France to permit provisi on of legal advisory an d legal representational 
services by foreign lawyers in relation to the law of  the jurisdiction in which they are qualified, and 
requesting Germany to permit foreign lawyers to pr ovide written advice on international law and third 
country law, neither of which had been dealt with ad equately.  Japan would like to be advised of the 
initiative of the EC in urging the aforementioned EC Member States to pr ovide a response to the 
requests.  Question 27 (paragraph 80, third sentence, page 111) 
Japan acknowledges the thorough effort made by th e EC in concluding Artic le XXI negotiations and 
welcomes the new consolidated schedule due to en ter into force in the near future, following, 
according to the Secretariat’s Report, the “inter nal decision-making procedure of the EC and its 
Member States.”  Japan would like have the detailed information on the expected internal procedure as 
well as the envisaged timeframe thereof after the conclusion of the WTO certification procedure. 
 IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR (6) Services (iii) Telecommunications and postal services 
 
Question 28 (paragraph 110, page 120) 
We understand that the EC is working on a review of the “telecoms regulatory framework”, which is 
common to all Member States.  
Could the EC provide further details of the b ackground, outlook and schedule of this review? 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 30  
 
 Question 29 (paragraph 110, page 120) 
We recognize that the EC will conduct a review of the “universal service”. We would like to know the 
background, outlook and schedule of the review in detail.  Question 30 (paragraph 109, page 139; also, para graph 82 of Section III, Table A III.1, pages 
139-142) 
(1) The governments of some Member States hold more  than half the shares of telecommunications 
sector entities. Could the EC provide further informa tion on its plans for the sale of such state-owned 
shares of these entities?  
 (2) Also, Japan understands that some restrictions st ipulated under domestic la ws and regulations, with 
respect to which the EC maintains reservations as indicated below in the EC’s WTO offer for the 
telecommunication service sector, have already been el iminated.  We would like to know what plan is 
in place and what progress has been made concerni ng relaxation and removal of such restrictions. 
 
・Finland: nationality requirement for board  members and management directors  
・France : restrictions on foreign equity participation 
・Poland: restrictions on fore ign equity participation 
・Slovenia: restrictions on fo reign equity participation 
 
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(6) Services 
(iv) Transport 
(a) Overview  
Question 31 (paragraph 115, page 122) Paragraph 115, page 122, of the Secretariat’s Repor t indicates that “[l]iberalization of cabotage in the 
other modes of transport in the EC occurred in stat es: … 1 January 1999 for maritime cabotage.”  Does 
such “liberalization” of “maritime cabotage” mean the liberalization of transport between any port in 
different EC Member States?  Or is such liberaliza tion limited to the transport between ports within the 
same Member State?  Japan would also like to be advised of whether such liberalization for maritime 
cabotage applies only to vessels of the EC registry or  whether it also applies to those of any nation’s 
registry.  Question 32 (paragraph 117, page 123) 
The last sentence of paragraph 117, page 123, of th e Secretariat’s Report refers to “agreements with 
third countries” which includes measures on mark et access to maritime transport services and on the 
right of establishment of maritime companies.  Japa n would like to be advised of the “third countries” 
referred to in that paragraph. 
 
QUESTIONS BY THAILAND
 
 
WTO Secretariat Report (WT/TPR/S/177)  
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(2) Agriculture and Related Activities (ii) Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 
(a) Overview  
Para 13:  The Secretariat Report refers to payments based on (1) area planted and animal numbers as 
well as (2) payments based on historical entitleme nt.  Could the EC please explain the difference 
between the two types of payments?  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 31 
 
 
 Para 23:   Regarding the limitation on liberalization of agricultural products under the EC’s various 
bilateral and regional trade agre ements, could the EC please explain why processed agricultural goods 
imported into the EC from its preferential partne rs are subject to customs duties comprising an 
industrial and an agricultural component? Furthermor e, what is the differen ce in the custom duties 
between industrial and agricultural components?  (b) Policy by selected products: Cereals  
Para 29: Regarding support through direct payments, th e Secretariat Report states that in France and 
Luxembourg direct payments of up to € 63 per tonne are available to cereals farmers in remote areas.  
Does this rate of payment apply to rice?  Are all payments of € 63 per tonne the Single Farm Payment? 
And does this payment rate apply to all areas of each EC Member State? 
 The Secretariat Report also indicat es that the CMO for cereals supports EC producers mainly through 
the intervention price.  Please provide details on how and when the intervention support price system 
of rice in EC is applied. 
 
(b) Policy by selected products: Beef and veal  
Para 31: Could the EC please explain its emergency suppl y-side schemes to control beef and veal 
production in detail?  Para 32: The Secretariat Report states that, “regarding direct payments of CAP reform in beef and veal 
section, Member States that opted for partial d ecoupling may keep up to 100% of the suckler cow 
premium (€ 200 per animal) and up to 40% of the sl aughter premium for adult bovine animals (€ 80 
per animal).”  Does this mean th at Member States which choose to receive 100% suckler cow premium 
coupled can also choose to receive up to 40% of the slaughter premium for adult bovine animals coupled? 
 
The Secretariat Report further states that, “Altern atively, [Member States] may keep 100% of the 
slaughter premium for adult bovine animals coupled , or instead, up to 75% of the special male 
premium (€ 150 or 210 per animal, depending on type).  Also, Member States may retain up to 100% of 
the calf slaughter premium (€ 50 per animal) as a pr oduct –specific payment.”  Does this mean that 
Member States can choose another formula of coupled rather than the described formula, such as 75% 
of the special male premium plus 100% of the calf slaughter premium coupled?  
 
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS BY THAILAND
 
 1. Market Access: TRQ Administration 
• How could the EC solve the problems of too many nominees applying for import quota?  
 
2. Sugar Reform  
We understand that under the new sugar regime, ex port licenses may be granted to out-quota tariff 
subject to Management Committee regulation and within a quantitative limit. 
• What are the criteria used by the Management  Committee in granting export licenses to out-
quota portions? 
• What would a quantitative limit be? Please furthe r clarify the process for keeping quantities 
within this limitation.   
 
3. Single Farm Scheme 
• Are all payments under Single Farm Payments (SFP) decoupled? Please clarify in detail. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 32  
 
 • Please identify the impact of SFP. How has it a ffected current production in specific sectors 
such as cereals, sugar and dairy? 
• We understand that to receive the SFP, farmers ha ve to keep all farmland in good agricultural 
and environmental conditions as well as comply with the statutory management requirement called cross-compliance.  Are farmers under the SFP scheme eligible to receive other forms of 
support such as direct payments and coupled payments? 
• Under the 2003-2004 CAP Reform Single Payment Scheme, the 15 original Member States 
could choose to receive payment through two methods: “Single Farm Payment (SFP) and 
Regional Payment (flat- rate payment).” 
 
(1) Single Farm Payment (SFP) method can be calculated as follows: 
 
SFP Aid (each farmer) = [(average ∑ Farmer’s Individual Aid 2000-2002) / (average ∑ Individual's 
Eligible Hectares 2000-2002)] * Farmer 's Current Eligible Hectares 
 
(2) Regional Payment (flat-rate payment)  can be calculated as follows 
 Regional payment (per farmer) = [(average ∑ Aid in Region 2000-2002) / (average ∑ Eligible Region 
Hectares 2000-2002)] *Farmer's Current Eligible Hectares 
 
Among the ten new EC Member States, Slovenia a nd Malta use the SFP method while the other eight 
countries use Single Area Payment (SAPS) method. 
 
The questions are as follows: 
 
1. For the SFP method, does the phrase “…average ∑ Farmer's Individual Aid 2000-2002…” 
mean the sum of all aids based on production in the entire project of only a farmer (average during 2000-2002)? If not, please explain and provide examples. 2. Please explain the Regional Payment method (flat-rate payment) and provide examples.     
3. What are the differences in benefits under the SFP and flat-rate payment methods for EC 
farmers? 4. The EC’s eight new Member States have chosen to implement the Single Area Payment 
(SAPS) method.  How is this calculated? Please e xplain any formulae involved and provide examples.  
In addition, what are the differences in the methods chosen by Slovenia and Malta, and the EC original 
Member States?  Please explain and give some examples. 
5. Have any Member States elected to NOT rece ive decoupled payment? Please explain.  
Furthermore, if Member States choose to receive  partial decoupled, what is the maximum ratio 
between coupled and decoupled of each product that the EU Commission permits? 
 
4. Notified Support: under the WTO  
• Has the EC notified all expenditures from both levels (national expenditure from Member 
States and Federal expenditure/EC central Budget) to the WTO?  
 
5. 2003-2004 CAP Reform  
The intervention supports the price of rice reduced by 50 percent. However, when considering direct 
income payments, part of the payments are include d in SFP (Single Farm Payment) while another part 
is converted to crop-specific aid. 
 
The questions are as follows: 1. What is the meaning of crop-specific aid? Does it mean payments (aid) that is tied or linked to 
production? If yes, how can it be calculated, and whic h data is used in such calculation: current or 
historical production?  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 33 
 
 
 2. In Single Farm Payments for rice, are payments  (aid) to farmers decoupled payments (fixed 
payments that are not tied to current  production) or partial decoupled? 
3. If the payments are partial decoupled, what is the maximum ratio between coupled and 
decoupled payments for each EC Member State? 4. Is crop specific aid different from coupled payment in Single Farm Payment (in the case of 
partial decoupled)? If yes, how are they different? 
 
6. Export Competition 
• Has the EC developed the idea of eliminating ex port subsidies as a result of the DDA?  Which 
product(s) would be most affected?  
 
7. SPS measures 
• Since the outbreak of high pathogenic avian influenza (Avian Flu) in the EC, what measures 
have been undertaken to minimize the impact within the EC?  How affective have they been?  
• Will the EC consider the Free-Zone disease/comp artment as another option to minimize the 
effect on trade with non-EC exporting countries?  
 
PREGUNTAS DE MÉXICO
 
 
WT/TPR/G/177  III. PRINCIPALES ACONTECIMIENTOS REGISTRADOS EN LA POLÍTICA  COMERCIAL DE LAS CE (2004-2006) 
 1. En referencia a la Comunicación de octubre de 2006: Una Europa Global: competir en el 
mundo, México desea conocer qué tipo de acuerdos va a negociar la UE con los países andinos y 
Centroamérica, así como con Corea, India, la ANSEA y China. 
 
2. En el párrafo 26 del Informe de las Comunidades se indica que éstas, al aplicar su política 
comercial, otorgan prioridad a la vía multilatera l y a la OMC y que únicamente cuando se considera 
conveniente y necesario se recurre, a título comp lementario, a nuevas iniciativas bilaterales o 
birregionales. ¿Cuáles son los criterios para consid erar conveniente y necesarias tales iniciativas con 
países y/o bloques en América y Asia? ¿Se limitan a las cuestiones que no están prontas para ser 
debatidas a nivel multilateral y al potencial de los mercados como se menciona en el párrafo 28? 
 
3. ¿En qué consiste la revisión de la  estrategia de la UE en materia de acceso a los mercados para 
centrarla en los obstáculos no arancelarios, tal como se indica en el párrafo 29 del Informe, en el cual 
también se afirma que las medidas adoptadas por algunos  de los principales interlocutores comerciales 
de las CE para restringir el acceso a sus sumini stros de estos insumos están causando importantes 
problemas a algunas ramas de producción de las CE? 
 
4. ¿Cuál es el estado que guarda el desarrollo de la Política Europea de Vecindad (PEV) y los 
planes de acción hacia los tres países occidentales  recientemente independiza dos mencionados en el 
párrafo 49 del Informe (Ucrania, Moldova y Belarús)? 
 
5. Las CE y los países ACP están negociando acu erdos de asociación económica, tal como se 
indica en los párrafos 52  ¿es posible esperar que efec tivamente su entrada en vigor será el 1º de enero 
de 2008 o son previsibles desde ahora algunos retrasos?   
 
6. En el párrafo 56 del Informe se afirma que al marg en de los acuerdos de libre comercio y de las 
iniciativas regionales o autónomas, las CE han adopt ado con distintos países desarrollados iniciativas 
más concretas en relación con la facilitación del come rcio. Se menciona, por ej emplo, la cooperación WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 34  
 
 en materia aduanera, medidas sanitarias y fitosan itarias, competencia, normalización y certificación. 
¿Por qué se omite decir en el Informe que al am paro de algunos acuerdos de asociación económica con 
países en desarrollo, como es el caso de México, ta mbién se han implantado este tipo de iniciativas de 
facilitación del comercio a través de proyectos de cooperación?  IV. COMPROMISO DE LAS CE CON LA SOSTENIBILIDAD Y EL DESARROLLO  (2004-2006) 
 
7. En el párrafo 68 del Informe se afirma que el fo rtalecimiento de la capacidad comercial en los 
países en desarrollo puede contribuir de manera signi ficativa al crecimiento y el desarrollo sostenible. 
Se agrega que la falta de capaci dad institucional o de infraestructura dificulta la posibilidad de obtener 
el máximo provecho de las diferentes disposic iones y esferas de cooperación de los acuerdos 
bilaterales de las CE. Estando de acuerdo con lo anterior, ¿cuáles son las áreas prioritarias y los 
proyectos de cooperación que prevén las CE ejecutar con los países ACP?   WT/TPR/S/177 II. REGÍMENES DE COMERCIO E INVERSIÓN 
 
8. En relación con el párrafo 27, ¿cuál es el al cance en materia de i nversión de las nuevas 
negociaciones de acuerdos preferenciales, en particular con los países andinos, Centroamérica y Corea del Sur? 
 
9. También en relación con el párrafo 27 ¿cuál es el enfoque que están adoptando en las nuevas 
negociaciones con países en desarrollo respect o a la movilidad de personas (modo 4)?. 
 
10. De acuerdo con el párrafo 38 ¿tienen contemplado las CE elaborar alguna comunicación sobre 
las implicaciones económicas del acceso de Bulgaria y Rumania a la UE? 
 
11. Tal como se indica en el Informe de la Secret aría, en su párrafo 42, el artículo 19 del EEE 
prevé exámenes cada dos años de las condiciones del co mercio de productos agrícolas entre las partes. 
¿Cuáles fueron los resultados de la negociación con Is landia que se preveía deberían aplicarse a partir 
de enero de 2007? ¿Cuál es el estatus de la ne gociación con Noruega que se reanudó a mediados de 
2006? 
 
12. En el párrafo 46 se indica que en octubre de 200 5 se iniciaron las negociaciones de adhesión de 
Turquía, país con el que la UE tiene una Uni ón Aduanera; sin embargo, también señala que no se 
cuenta con un calendario para la in tegración de la agricultura a tal Unión. ¿Cuáles han sido las razones 
que han impedido completar el esque ma de la Unión Aduanera con Tu rquía para incluir a los productos 
agrícolas  a ocho años de la Decisión 98/223/CE? 
 
13. Respecto al párrafo 47, ¿qué tipo de instrume ntos de cooperación aduanera se utilizan para 
garantizar el origen de los productos cuando se aplica la acumulación diagonal?  ¿Se estaría 
contemplando incorporar compromisos en este tema en las nuevas negociaciones de acuerdos 
preferenciales? 
 
14. Favor de aclarar la fecha de entrada en vigor del Tratado de Libre Comercio entre México y la 
UE, pues en el párrafo 51 del Informe de la Secretar ía se registra octubre de 2000 y, en realidad, las 
Decisiones del Comité Conjunto 2/2000 y 2/2001 entraron en vigor el 1 de julio de 2000 y el 1 de 
marzo de 2001, respectivamente. 
 
15. En virtud del Acuerdo de Cotonou, las CE están negociando acuerdos de asociación económica 
con los países ACP que entrarían en vigor el 1 de  enero de 2008. Según se indica en el párrafo 66 se 
dispondrá la eliminación progresiva de las medid as arancelarias y no aran celarias para bienes y  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 35 
 
 
 servicios, incluyendo otras cuestiones relacionadas con el comercio. Favor de aclarar si efectivamente 
se dispondrá la eliminación de las medidas no arancelarias y si se prevén esquemas de cooperación económica y de facilitación de comerc io para fortalecer la capacidad institucional de los países ACP en 
medidas sanitarias y fitosa nitarias, derechos de propiedad intel ectual, contratación pública, política de 
competencia, inversión, medio ambiente normas laborales, normalización – certificación, y seguridad 
alimentaria. 
 
III. POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS 
 
16. En el párrafo 3 del Informe de la Secretaría  se reconoce que los reglamentos técnicos, las 
normas y las medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias no est án totalmente armonizados entre los Estados 
miembros. ¿A pesar de los esfuerzos de las CE para  la facilitación del comercio, no constituye la falta 
de armonización un obstáculo importante para los países ACP y los PMA que deseen exportar o 
diversificar sus exportaciones a la UE? 
 
17. En materia de reglas de origen en el párrafo 29 de l Informe de la Secretaría se da cuenta de las 
acciones para simplificar las reglas de carácter preferencial, entre ellas se incluye la sustitución de la certificación de origen por una declaración de orig en hecha directamente por el exportador, mientras 
que el registro y control de tal certificación los hará la autoridad competente. ¿Cuándo prevé la UE 
llevar a cabo tal sustitución en los acuerdos de  asociación que tiene en vigor con países 
latinoamericanos? ¿Esta sustitución formará parte de las disposiciones a incluir en los acuerdos que 
tiene en proceso de negociación o en breve te ndrá con otros países y bloques latinoamericanos? 
 
18. El informe de la Secretaría, en su párrafo 53,  señala que las CE no ha firmado nuevos acuerdos 
de reconocimiento mutuo desde al anterior examen de sus políticas comerciales y que serán bilaterales, 
circunscribiéndolos  a subsectores industriales especí ficos, según proceda para cada país asociado.  
¿Cuál es el avance alcanzado por las actividades preparatorias? ¿Se ha considerado en la cobertura a 
los países que no son candidatos ni posibles candidatos a la adhesión? 
 
19. En el párrafo 110 del Informe se indica que la  falta de acuerdo con respecto a requisitos de 
traducción y cuestiones jurisdiccionales ha impedido llegar, hasta la fecha, a un acuerdo final sobre la introducción de la patente comunitaria. ¿Qué ac ciones están o estarán implementando las CE para 
instrumentar la propuesta inicialmente presentada en  2000 sobre la patente comunitaria y cuál es el 
status de la reforma del Convenio sobre la Patente Europea? 
 
20. En el párrafo 117 citan que la lista de produc tos de calidad regionales no se ha actualizado 
desde 2004. ¿Tienen las CE intención de actualizar la lista de Indicaciones Geográficas en el corto 
plazo? 
 
IV. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES POR SECTORES 
 
21. El párrafo 11 establece que en 2005 se adoptó una Comunicación en la que la CE pedía que en 
2006 se elaborara un plan de acción que enunciara me didas concretas respecto a las  organizaciones 
comunes del mercado, régimen de intervención,  contingentes arancelarios, restituciones a la 
exportación , salvaguardias promoción de productos agrícolas, entre otras medidas. ¿Podrían las CE explicar si dicho plan de acción de elaboró y, si es así, el estado actual de este? 
 
22. De acuerdo con el párrafo 27 ¿podrían expli car las medidas que las CE están tomando 
actualmente en relación con los recientes brotes de in fluenza aviar de alta patogenicidad en Hungría y 
Reino Unido? 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 36  
 
 23. En el párrafo 37 se dice que los países en desa rrollo gozan de acceso preferencial al mercado 
comunitario del azúcar, ¿podrían las CE precisar los términos en los que estos países seguirán gozando 
de tal acceso preferencial? 
 
24. Según es señalado en el párrafo 54, el In forme de la Comisión de 2005 sobre el 
funcionamiento del mercado de la electricidad y el gas concluyó que la integración del mercado sigue 
siendo insuficiente y es bajo el nivel de comercio transfronterizo. Dado que los objetivos no han sido 
alcanzados, por ejemplo los relacionados con in terconexión, y que los Es tados miembros llevan 
retrasos en la aplicación de directivas, ¿qué acciones están emprendiendo las CE para la integración del 
mercado? 
 
25. El Consejo Europeo de Lisboa estableció como objetivo para las CE llegar a ser la economía 
más competitiva y dinámica del mundo en 2010, lo cual  depende en gran medida del desarrollo de la 
competitividad del sector manufacturero, tal como se plantea en el párrafo 57 del Informe. Sin 
embargo, tal como es señalado en el párrafo 61, hay una falta de competitividad en la producción 
comunitaria de insumos requeridos por la industria y existe una progresividad mixta de los aranceles 
aplicados a los insumos o, peor aún, en los casos en que no existe producción doméstica el arancel 
muestra una progresividad positiva. ¿Cómo están enfren tando las CE este problema a la luz de la nueva 
política industrial? 
 
26. La industria del automóvil de las CE está sumame nte regulada, la falta de mercado interior y 
de armonización en determinadas esferas ha sido objeto de críticas, tal como se anota en el párrafo 67 
del informe de la Secretaría. Existe una hoja de ruta  para aumentar la competitividad de tal industria, 
cuyas recomendaciones son enumeradas en el párrafo 68, en el cual se indica que a finales de 2006 se 
presentarían propuestas para el seguimiento de tales recomendaciones. ¿En qué consisten las 
propuestas y cuáles son los resultados del seguimiento? 
 
IV. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTOR ES / 6) Servicios / ii) Servicios 
 financieros 
 
27. México está interesado en conocer cuáles han si do los principales resultados, hasta el día de 
hoy, de la implementación de la “estrategia quinque nal” (mencionada en el párrafo 83) en materia de 
servicios, la cual empezó a operar en diciembre de 2005.  
 
28. En el párrafo 85 se menciona que en mayo de  2005 los supervisores bancarios, los bancos 
centrales y los ministerios de finanzas suscribieron un Memorándum de Entendimiento sobre cooperación en situaciones de crisis financiera. Méxi co quisiera una explicación más detallada de los 
principales componentes de dicho Memorándum, así como el alcance de los mismos.  
 
IV. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTOR ES / 6) Servicios / ii) Servicios 
 financieros / b) Sector bancario 
 
29. En el párrafo 90 se menciona que en octubre de 2005 se publicó una propuesta de directiva 
modificada destinada a la creación de un verdadero mercado interior de crédito al consumo y a la 
mejora de la protección de los consumidores. Méxi co está interesado en conocer cuáles han sido los 
principales resultados para el sector bancario por la implementación de dicha directiva.  
 
30. En el párrafo 91 se señala que en junio de 2004 se publicó el marco revisado sobre 
convergencia internacional de medidas y normas de capital (Basilea II), que se ha introducido en la 
legislación comunitaria mediante la refundición de la Directiva bancaria  codificada y la Directiva sobre 
la adecuación del capital. México está interesado en  conocer si existe algún estudio sobre cuál podría 
ser el impacto por la incorporación de dichas normas. 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 37 
 
 
 31. México está interesado en conocer cuál es la participación porcentual en el mercado bancario 
de los principales bancos tanto públicos como  privados que operan en la Unión Europea. 
 
IV. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTOR ES / 6) Servicios / ii) Servicios 
 financieros / d) Valores 
 
32. En el párrafo 100 se menciona que el mercado único de valores debía completarse en 2004. 
México está interesado en conocer qué sucedió con dicho mercado, es decir, de qué forma está operando actualmente. 
IV. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES  / 6) Servicios / iii) Servicios de 
 Telecomunicaciones y Servicios Postales  
33. México está interesado en conocer cuántas empr esas no pertenecientes a la UE que prestan 
servicios de telecomunicaciones y servicios postales operan en el mercado europeo.  
 
34. México está interesado en conocer si existe alguna  limitación a la inversi ón extranjera para que 
invierta en empresas europeas de telecomunicaciones y postales. 
 
IV. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES / 6) Servicios / iv) Transporte / a) 
 Panorama general 
 35. En el párrafo 112 se menciona que la UE ha enfrentado dificultades en la aplicación de la 
política común de transporte prevista en el Trata do de Roma. México está quisiera una explicación más 
detallada sobre cuáles han sido esas dificultades que se han presentado en el sector del transporte.  
 
36. En el párrafo 115 se señala que se mantiene n algunas restricciones en ciertos modos de 
transporte. México quisiera saber si la UE tiene algún plan o proyecto que contemple la eliminación de 
esas barreras en el corto plazo.  
IV. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES / 6) Servicios / iv) Transporte / e) 
 Transporte aéreo 
 37. En el párrafo 131 se menciona que en enero de 2006 entró en vigor una política común de 
transporte aéreo, en donde se facultaba a la Comisi ón para prohibir o restringir actividades de aquellas 
líneas aéreas que no fueran seguras. México está inte resado en conocer cuáles son los lineamientos por 
los cuales una línea aérea se considera que su servicio puede resultar inseguro para el usuario y en caso 
de que una línea aérea se le haya prohibido prestar el servicio, podría ésta volverlo a prestarlo y bajo 
qué condiciones. 
 
IV. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES / 6) Servicios / v) Turismo 
 
38. México está interesado en conocer si se permite la participación del capital extranjero en el 
sector de turismo de la UE y en qué condiciones.  
 
39. En el párrafo 134 se señala que con el objetivo de impulsar el turismo en la UE se buscará una 
mejor utilización de los instrumentos financieros comunitarios disponibles. México quisiera conocer 
qué tipo de mecanismos financieros existen en la UE y cómo operan, que podrían ayudar a impulsar el 
desarrollo del sector. 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 38  
 
 Pregunta general sobre servicios 
 
40. México está interesado en conocer si existe  alguna dependencia ya sea gubernamental o no 
gubernamental o algún sitio en Internet, en donde se pue de obtener la legislación completa en materia 
de servicios de las Comunidades Europeas. 
 
QUESTIONS BY AUSTRALIA
 
 I. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT (3) TRADE PERFORMANCE AND INVESTMENT 
 The EC report notes that intra-EC trade is almo st twice as large as external merchandise trade 
(WT/TPR/G/177, page 9, paragraph 22).  Could the EC  provide data on the relative shares of intra-EC 
trade and external trade for (a) agricultural imports  and exports, and (b) industrial product imports and 
exports?  Have these proportions changed following the EC-25 enlargement?   
 
II. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(5) TRADE AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS (i) Overview 
 
With regard to the recent accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the EU, on what grounds did the EC 
select 2002-2004 as the reference period for the import statistics circulated in October 2006 for the 
purposes of compensatory adjustments under Artic le XXIV.6 GATT 1994?  Could the EC advise on 
the availability of 2005 trade statistics?  
(iii) Preferential trade agreements and arrangements 
 
Australia understands that the overseas countries a nd territories (OCT) of individual EC Member 
States do not form part of the customs territory of the EC.  In relation to the OCT, the Secretariat’s 
report notes only that the EC provides duty-free and quota-free treatment on all products originating in the OCT on a non-reciprocal basis (WT/TPR/S/177, pa ge 39).  Nevertheless, a number of questions 
arise regarding the trade relationship between the EC, individual EC Member States and the OCT.   
 
(i) Could the EC clarify whether any of the OC T form part of the customs territory of an 
individual EC member state? 
(ii) Are there any EC-wide policies relating conve rgence in harmonisation of the trade regimes of 
the OCT? 
(iii) Noting, that France has scheduled GATS co mmitments in respect of New Caledonia, has 
consideration been given to scheduling commit ments in the goods sector for New Caledonia, 
and/or to scheduling commitments on goods or services for other French OCTs? 
(iv) In regard to the OCTs of other EC Member States, could the EC or the member state 
concerned advise whether any of them form part of their customs territories for WTO purposes? 
(v) Could the EC advise the expenditure on subsidi es at EC and EC member state level for exports 
to the OCT? 
 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(2) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS 
(ii) Common Customs MFN Tariff  
Non- ad valorem  duties on agricultural goods account for 10 per cent of the EC’s MFN tariffs, and 46 
per cent of agriculture tariffs.  The Secretariat’s report (WT/TPR/S/177, page 43-44, paragraphs 12-13) 
highlights the difficulties that this poses in regard to the transparency and pr edictability of the EC’s  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 39 
 
 
 tariff, and thus of the EC market.  With this in mind, what consideration has the EC given to replacing 
all of its non- ad valorem  tariffs with ad valorem  tariffs? 
 With respect to the aver age of MFN applied tariff levels on  agricultural products given in the 
Secretariat report (WT/TPR/S/177, page 45, paragra ph 14, as well as page 89-94, paragraph 24, 29, 32 
and 35), is the EC able to advise whether these take into account the tariffs applied as Special 
Safeguards (SSG)?  If not, could the EC provide  the relevant figures which include the SSG 
component?  
(vii) Import prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing 
 
Australia understands that, as a general rule, import licences are freely available to any person within 
the EC, without discrimination between Member States or the status of the individual applying for a licence.  Could the EC advise of exceptions to that ge neral rule, in regard to import licences restricted 
to individual Member States or to categories of producers within Member States?   
 
(x) Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures 
 
The EC’s new food hygiene package of legislati on codifies new procedures for listing third country 
establishments.  These procedures extend the time peri od in comparison to the old legislation – now a 
20 day review period by Member States and a 10 day wait from the time an establishment is listed on 
the EC website before it can officially export to th e EU market.  Under the same package of legislation 
there is no requirement for a domestic establishment’ s approval and registration to be reviewed by all 
Member States before being finalised, thus allowi ng the establishment free access to trade with all 
Member States.  
• Why are establishments exporting product to the EU  subject to review by all Member States, 
while no such requirement exists for domestic establishments? 
 Commission Decision 2004/438/EC of 29 April 2004 lays down animal and public health and 
veterinary certification and conditi ons for introduction in the EU of heat-treated milk, milk-based 
products and raw milk intended for human consumption.  Annex 1 lists  countries authorised to import 
different milk products into the EU, presumably based  on their animal health status.  Column A lists 
countries authorised for import of raw milk (A ndorra, Canada, Switzerland, Chile, Iceland, New 
Zealand, and the United States of America).  Column  B lists countries authorised for import of heat-
treated (pasteurised) milk and milk products and includes Australia, Greenland, Croatia, Former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Romania.  Con sequently, Australia cannot export raw milk or 
milk products made from raw milk to the EU. 
 
• Australia seeks an explanation for the listi ng (and the ban); especially given Australia's 
favourable animal health status (recognised freedom from foot and mouth disease, rinderpest, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, bovine brucellosis, and bovine tuberculosis). 
 As the Secretariat report notes (WT/TPR/S/177, pa ge 61, paragraph 58), the EC has undertaken a 
review of its legislation for animal by-products not intended for human consumption and is currently 
preparing and implementing changes to this legislation.    
• Could the EC clarify whether, or in what circ umstances, animal by-products not intended for 
human consumption must now be sourced from an imals that have never been treated with 
substances prohibited pursuant to Council Dir ective 96/22/EC, for example, hormonal growth 
promotants – HGPs.   
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 40  
 
 The EC specifies the appropriate levels and technical  parameters required for processing for imports of 
processed animal by-products not intended for hu man consumption.  In the case of dogchews, those 
made from hides and skins of ungulates require a heat treatment sufficient to destroy pathogenic organisms (including Salmonella); while those made  from animal by-products other than hides and 
skins of ungulates require a heat treatment of at least 90 °C throughout their substance.   
 
• Could the EC please explain the justification for prescribing two different processing 
requirements for imported dogchews?   
 In 2005, Australia notified the Commission of a di screpancy in the animal by-products legislation 
relating to the requirements for placing pet food, dog chews and technical products on the market 
(these requirements apply domestically within the EU) and the model certificate conditions for imported dog chews.  Australia was advised at the time  that this discrepancy would be resolved, but in 
draft legislation (SANCO 3890/2005 Rev. 11), this discrepancy between requirements for domestic 
product and imported product not only remains but has been further enhanced to also include differing 
requirements for dog chews made from fish products.   
 
• Could the EC explain why more restrictive pro cessing requirements apply to imported product? 
 
(4) MEASURES AFFECTING PRODUCTION AND TRADE 
(i) State-owned enterprises; and (ii)  Competition policy and regulatory issues 
 
The Secretariat refers, in its report, to Member State monopolies (page xii, paragraph 22 and page 109, 
paragraph 76, WT/TPR/S/177) and the impact of these on trade in services.  Table AIII.1 of the Secretariat’s report, “Selected State-Owned Enterprises in the EC”, does not indicate which, if any, of 
these are monopolies.    
• Do such monopolies exist only in the services sect or, and could the EC provide further details, 
including by sector (industrial, agriculture, servi ces) of such Member State monopolies (State-
owned or otherwise)? 
 
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(2) AGRICULTURE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES 
(ii) Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)  
The Secretariat report notes that the single paymen ts scheme replaces most of the existing premiums 
under different Common Market Organizations (CMO s) (WT/TPR/S/177, page  82, paragraph 9).  
Which premiums under different CMOs have not been replaced by the single payments scheme?  Is it 
intended that over time all of the premiums will be replaced by the single payments scheme?  If so, 
how long does the EC anticipate it will take for the single payments scheme to fully replace the 
premiums?  Member States that implement the single paymen t scheme regionally may choose to only undertake 
partial decoupling and maintain a limited link between payments and production. 
(i) Could the EC please explain the limitation of the link between payments and production? 
Which Member States have opted for partial decoupling? 
(ii) What, if any steps, is the EC taking to en courage Member States to fully decouple subsidies? 
(iii) Does the EC plan to eventually replace the present coupled payments allowed for in the 2003 
Mid Term Review reforms with decoupled payments? 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 41 
 
 
 Will the EU claim green box status for its Single Fa rm Payment given the current stipulation that 
farmers cannot receive the Single Farm Payment if they grow potatoes or fruit and vegetables on land 
with Single Farm Payment entitlements?    The Commission has recently made proposals for in tegrating fruit and vegetables producers into the 
Single Farm Payment.  What will this mean for th e stipulation that farmers receiving the Single Farm 
Payment will not be permitted to receive the paym ent if they grow potatoes, fruit and vegetables on 
entitlement land? Under the conditions for the Single Farm Payment, farmers are required to maintain the areas on which 
entitlements are paid in good agricultural and envi ronmental condition.  How consistent is this 
stipulation with paragraph 6(d) of  Annex 2 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, given that land is a 
factor of production? 
 
Beef and veal 
 The Secretariat report alludes to possible structural adjustment in the beef and veal sectors due to the 
introduction of the decoupled single payment scheme by some Member States and a slight relative 
price increase in cereal feed prices (WT/TPR/S, pa ge 93, paragraph 33).  Has the EC undertaken any 
analytical work on the benefits of the changes to the beef and veal sectors? 
 
Biofuels 
 
The EC report notes, inter alia, that the EC's exte rnal competitiveness policies will need to encourage 
the use of renewable energies including biofuels (W T/TPR/G/177, page 11, paragraph 30).  The 2003 
Biofuels Directive set out an indicative target of 5. 75% for the market share of biofuels in the overall 
transport fuel supply.  It has been reported th at the Commission is proposing a minimum mandatory 
target of biofuels in transport fuel of 10 per cen t for 2020.  The EC and the Member States appear to 
have a range of programs designed to promote biofuels usage.  (i) Could the EC provide details of programs at EC-wide level, including budgetary outlays and 
other forms of assistance, relating to energy crops  such as energy set asides and biofuels usage 
targets? 
(ii) Are there any product-specific arrangements fo r the sale of agricultural products for dedicated 
biofuels production? 
(iii) Could the EC provide details, at the level of  individual Member States, in the following areas 
• Member state biofuels consumpti on targets (mandatory and other) 
• Direct or indirect tax concessions for biofuels production and consumption 
• Funding for biofuels production 
 
(6) SERVICES 
 Australia welcomes the finalisation of negotiations with the EC under Article XXI of the GATS that 
agreed on a compensation package for WTO members affected by the modification or withdrawal of services commitments to accommodate EC enlargement to 25 Member States .  The final outcome demonstrated the workability of the previously  untried GATS Article XXI mechanism to modify 
permanently GATS schedules.  The Secretariat re port notes (WT/TPR/S/177, page 11, paragraph 80) 
that the new schedule will enter into force following  the completion of the certification procedure in 
the WTO and the internal decision-making proce dure of the EC and its Member States, where 
applicable.    
• Given that the certification process concluded on 15 December 2006, could the EC advise a date 
for the entry into force of the compensation package?  If it is unable to do so, could the EC WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 42  
 
 advise what action it has undertaken internally - for example, taking the issue to the Council of 
Ministers - for approval and to expedite the package's early entry into force? 
 
QUESTIONS BY CANADA
 
 
Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/177) 
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure, (2) Measures Directly Affecting    Imports, (ix) Technical Barriers to Trade, pp. 57-59:   
General Questions on Harmonization of Standards 
 
This section of the Secretariat Report notes the efforts the EC has made towards harmonization of 
standards and technical regulations, and the shift to wards the use of new-appr oach directives. Canada 
commends the EC efforts in both areas.  
 
1. Could the EC provide information on what percentage of standards used by the EC are 
harmonized with relevant international standards? 
 2. Could the EC advise whether there is any re gulatory obligation or policy in the EC which 
enshrines Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement, i.e.  a responsibility to look first to international 
standards? 
 3. Could the EC advise whether there is any regula tory obligation, policy or practise in the EC to 
integrate consideration of the regulations, standa rds or approaches of trading partners in the 
development and review of standa rds and technical requirements? 
 
According to the Press Release of the 2774th Council Meeting of Agriculture and Fisheries  (that took 
place 19 to 21 December 2006), the European Coun cil adopted an amendmen t to Council Regulation 
(EEC) No 2092/91 introducing interim import rules for organic products pending application of the 
new legislation on organic products, as certain import  provisions of the current legislation expired on 
31 December 2006 (16408/2/06). 
 
4. Could the EC provide information on why th ese amendments to the import rules of organic 
products have not yet been notified to the WTO TBT Committee?  5. Could the EC provide Canada  with a copy of the adopted interim import rules for organic 
products? 
 
Question on Belgian legislation 
  
On January 25, 2007, the Belgian Assembly voted in  favour of legislation banning the importation of 
seal products from Canada.   This is despite the EC's January 16, 2007 res ponse to a September 2006 
declaration by the European Parliament in which the EC stated that there is no conservation threat to 
the seal population.  The EC has also drawn attenti on to the need for measures taken by Member States 
to be compatible with international obligations and to be notified to the WTO for scrutiny.   
 6. Given that the Belgian legislation is inconsis tent with Belgium's commitments under the WTO, 
could the EC explain how it intends to  respond to the Belgian legislation?  
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 43 
 
 
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure, (2) Measures Directly Affecting  
  Imports, (ix) Technical barriers to trade (TBT), pages 57, paragraph 49: 
 
The Secretariat Report states that, 'Conformity assessment of industrial products is carried out by bodies designated by Member Stat es in accordance with the Community  procedure for the notification 
of bodies.'  
 7. Could the EC advise whether there are an y non-European conformity assessment bodies 
(CABs) which have been designated by Member States?  
8. Could the EC provide information on the process by which a foreign CAB could apply to 
become designated?  9. How does the EC perceive the fulfillment of the requirements of Article 6.1 of the TBT Agreement within the context of th is system of Member designation? 
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure, (2) Measures Directly Affecting  
  Imports, (ix) Technical barriers to trade (TBT), pages 57, paragraph 51: 
 
Paragraph 51 of the Secretariat Report notes an Action Plan for European Standardization was 
developed in 2005. Canada understa nds that a Final Plan was released in April 2006. This plan 
includes significant attention to strategies to promote the European standardization system 
internationally and the promotion of the Europ ean standards-receptive regulatory model at the 
international scale.   10. Could the EC advise whether it intends to include consideration of existing international 
standards and regulatory models, and/or those of thei r trading partners, in the development and review 
of EC standards and regulations? 
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure, (2) Measures Directly Affecting    Imports, (xi) Government proc urement, page 61, paragraph 61:  
 The Secretariat report states that "the EC public procurement regime aims to increase competition and 
transparency, and to create opportunitie s, better quality, and valued services". 
1  
 11. Could the EC provide information on effort s to harmonize green public procurement policies 
among the Member States? 
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure, (4) Measures Affecting Production and 
  Trade, (iii) Intellectual property rights, (a) Industrial Property, Patents, page 74, 
  paragraph 109:  
Canada notes that according to the Secretariat Report “Further to a comprehensive consultation 
exercise launched on 16 January 2006, a public hearin g on the contemplated [patent] reforms was held 
on 12 July 2006” and that the “results of both the c onsultation and the hearing will be reflected in an 
action plan likely to be adopted by the end of 2006.”    12. Could the EC provide an update on the status of the action plan, including whether it has been 
adopted, and if so, where it is available?  
 
                                                     
 
1 SIMAP online information. Viewed at http://simap.eu.int/A/2330efb7-Oaab-b34c-
04c0377ccce3f48d_en.html. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 44  
 
 13. If the action plan has not been adopted, could the EC provide an update of when it is likely to 
be adopted?  Is it facing any particular obstacles that might slow it down? 
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practice by Meas ure, (4) Measures Affecting Production and 
  Trade, (iii) Intellectual property rights, (b) Geographical indications, page 76, 
  paragraph 117:  
According to the Secretariat Report, the EC ma intains a shortlist of regional quality products.  
However, the list has not been updated since 2004.  
14. Could the EC advise whether this list differs from the list of PGIs/PDOs?  If so, in what way 
does it differ?    15. Could the EC advise whether foreign applican ts are entitled to apply and have their products 
included on the list of regional quality products?   
 
16. Could the EC provide information on when it e xpects the list of regional quality products to be 
updated? 
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure, (4) Measures Affecting Production and 
  Trade, (iii) Intellectual property rights, (c) Copyright and related rights,  
  page 76, paragraph 118: 
 
According to the Secretariat Report, in 2005 th e Commission made a recommendation on collective 
cross-border management of copyright and related ri ghts for legitimate online music services, and that 
the recommendation brought forward two options. The two options could foster EC-wide licensing of 
digital music and an invitation to strengthen nationa l legislation for the management of legitimate 
online services, as well as the relationship between collective rights managers, on the one hand, and right holders or commercial users, on the other hand.    17. Could the EC provide an update of the status of the recommendations?    
18. Could the EC provide information on any pl ans for moving forward on the two options that 
were presented?  
 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector, (2) Agricu lture and Related Activities, (ii) Common 
  Agriculture Policy (CAP), page 85, paragraph 14: 
 
The Secretariat Report states "The EC's rural de velopment regulation (second pillar of the CAP) 
includes accompanying measures (e.g. agri-envir onmental measures, early retirement schemes, 
afforestation, and payments to assist farmers in least-favoured areas).”   19.  Could the EC provide details on what percenta ge of the forested land base is in "least-favoured 
areas"? 
 20. Could the EC advise how much rural developm ent assistance is directed to the forest sector, 
and how much of the funding is  related to afforestation? 
 
21. Could the EC provide details on the status of The Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and 
Trade (FLEGT) Action plan and what the next steps are for this initiative? 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 45 
 
 
 Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector, (5) Manuf acturing, (ii) Selected industries, (b)  
  Automotive, pages 106 and 107, paragraphs 67 and 68: 
 
Paragraph 67 states that, among other things, unique technical regulations (i.e., technical regulations 
that have not been harmonized with internationa l standards) in the EC automotive sector have 
contributed to market distortions and increasing costs. Paragraph 68 further states that under a recently 
launched ten-year initiative, the EC plans to simp lify and improve regulation of the automotive sector 
by, inter alia , replacing 38 Directives governing the sector with UNECE regulations.  
 22. Could the EC provide an update on the replacement of 38 EU Directives with UNECE 
regulations? 
 23. Could the EC provide further information on  the initiative, including information on which 
Directives will be replaced and the timelines for replacement?  
24. Could the EC provide information on what othe r steps are being taken by the EC to simplify 
and improve regulation in the automotive sector?  
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector, (5) Manuf acturing, (ii) Selected industries,   
  (c) Chemicals, page 107, paragraph 71: 
 The Secretariat Report states that a key policy objec tive is to ensure a smooth transition from existing 
legislation to the new regulatory framework for chemicals called REACH. The REACH legislation was expected to be adopted by the end of 2006, with entry into force around April 2007. The Secretariat Report further notes that REACH will be costly, in the order of 2.3 billion euros in direct costs over an 
11 year period, to the chemicals industry. 
 
Comment: The considerable costs,  whatever the figure, will be borne by the chemicals industry 
globally, not just within EU, due in part to possible trade impediments.  Canada understands that REAC H will impose more stringent requirements on transported 
intermediates than onsite intermedia tes. Because they are transported,  imported intermediates will face 
more stringent assessment requirements than locally  produced onsite intermediates, potentially placing 
foreign manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage.   25. Could the EC provide inform ation on how it intends to implement these requirements such that 
they do not create unnecessary barriers to trade? 
 
Canada also understands that the requirement that all monomers used in the manufacture of polymers 
be registered is not risk-based, and that it could unfairly disadvantage importe rs. The polymer importer 
will be responsible for registration of substances that  they may never handle or use. Moreover, in many 
instances the monomer has been transformed prior to  import and no longer exists in the polymer. The 
supplier may not know the identity of the monomers or the manufacturers of the monomers that were 
used to make the polymer. Canada believes a risk-based approach would focus on any unreacted 
monomers in polymers that are present in sufficient c oncentrations to present a risk to humans or the 
environment.   26. Could the EC confirm that the requirement to  register will apply only to unreacted monomers 
in polymers? 
 Canada understands that mineral or es and non-chemically modified concentrates are not subject to 
registration or evaluation but are poten tially subject to authorization.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 46  
 
 27. Canada seeks clarification as to the EC interp retation of “chemically modified” in the context 
of mineral ores and concentrates. Will the EC interpre t and equate a chemical surface treatment of an 
ore or concentrate that does not alter the bulk com position of the concentrate to be equivalent to a 
chemical modification of the concentrate?  
Canada understands that the EC plans to review the exemptions in Annex IV and V within one year of 
the entry into force of REACH.   28. Does the EC plan to consult its trading partne rs when it reviews the scope of exemptions under 
REACH?  
 Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector , (6) Services, (i) Overview, page 109, paragraph 77; and 
  Report by the EC, Part II, Key Developments in the EC (2004-06),     (2) Developments in the Internal Market and Central Policy Areas, pages 7 and   8, paragraphs 12 and 13: 
 According to the Secretariat Report, on 13 January 2004, the Commission presented its proposal for a 
Directive on Services in the Internal  Market (the “Services Directive”). 
 According to the Report from the EC, the Services  Directive was adopted in December 2006. The 
Services Directive, once implemented, will remove the remaining obstacles to the free circulation of 
services in the EC. 
 
29. Could the EC provide WTO Members with peri odic reporting pertaining to the details of the 
implementation of the Services Directive?   
 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector,  (6) Services, (i) Overview, Box IV.2: Identified barriers 
  to trade in services in the EC
2, page 110:  
 
Box IV.2 of Part IV of the Secretariat Report says that “ Residence requirements , particularly those 
relating to managers of services enterprises, may gi ve rise to problems. For example, depending on the 
country, two thirds, one half, or at least one of  the members of the management board must be 
resident.”  
 30. Could the EC advise what steps they are ta king to address the issue, and reduce levels, of 
residency requirements, particularly relati ng to members of the management board?   
 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector, (6) Serv ices, (i) Overview, page 111, paragraph 79:  
  
According to the Secretariat Report, tourism is among many other services activities not subject to a comprehensive internal market policy.   31. Does the EC expect this type of service to be subject to such a policy in the future? If yes, what 
factors will be taken into consideration in deciding the inclusion of tourism? 
 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector, (6) Servi ces, (v) Tourism, page 127, paragraph 134:  
 
The Secretariat Report states that the Commission tabled in March 2006 a new strategy to boost 
tourism in the EC. One of the elements upon which th e strategy is based is "more policy coordination 
between Member States and tourism stakeholders."   
                                                     
 
2 OECD (2005), The EU’s Single Market: at your Service?  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 47 
 
 
 32. Could the EC elaborate on the aspects of touris m policy that are subject to such coordination? 
As well, the strategy calls for the Commission to pr esent a proposal for an “Agenda 21” for tourism by 
2007.  33.   When is the EC expecting to announce the release of its Agenda 21 proposal on tourism? 
What additional information (beyond what is publicly  available) could the EC provide regarding the 
elements of an Agenda 21 for tourism?  
 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector, (6) Servi ces, (v) Tourism, page 128, paragraph 135:  
 The Secretariat Report states that numerous tourism initiatives receive funding from EC programmes, 
with the Structural Funds being the most important.  34. Could the EC provide examples of initiatives that  are funded by the Structural Fund, as well as 
the criteria used to fund such initiatives?  
 Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector; (6) Servi ces; (ii) Financial Services; (b) Banking,  
  page 114, paragraph 92:  
Paragraph 92 of the Secretariat Report indicates that  EC legislation does not permit Member States to 
treat branches of third country credit institutions mo re favourably than those having their head office in 
the EC. 
 35.  Could the EC explain the reasoning behind this requirement?  36.  Does the EC maintain a similar requirement w ith respect to branches of third country insurance 
companies? 
 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector; (6) Services;  (ii) Financial Services; (c) Insurance,  
  page 115, paragraph 97:  
Paragraph 97 of the Secretariat Report states that the Reinsurance Directive adopted in 2005 allows 
reinsurance undertakings authorized by their home Member State to undertake business throughout the 
EC through the single passport.  37.  Could the EC clarify whether the Reinsurance Directive has lead to th e removal of collateral 
requirements in all Member States for both risks ceded within the EC and abroad? 
 
38. To the extent that any Member State mainta ins collateral requirements, could the EC specify 
which Member States do so?    39. If any Member State maintains collateral requi rements, could the EC indicate whether the 
requirements in these Member States will be phased out and under what timeframe?  Report by the European Communities (WT/TPR/G/177)  Part III. Key Developments in the EC’s Trad e Policy (2004-06), (3) Main Components of 
  EC Trade Policy, (i) The EC and the WTO, page 14, paragraph 43: 
 
In paragraph 43 of the EC’s Report, the Eu ropean Communities high lights the health and 
environmental objectives of several legislative initi atives that have received attention from trading 
partners due to the possibility of negative trade implications. The new EC legislation on chemicals – 
REACH – is one of the initiatives cited. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 48  
 
 Canada appreciates legitimate hea lth and environmental objectives of REACH, and the stated intention 
not to impede international trade.  40. Could the EC outline efforts underway or antic ipated to ensure that the implementation of 
REACH does not create unnecessary barriers to trade? 
 
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS BY CANADA
 
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Me asure, (1) Introduction, page 40,   
  paragraph 3, and (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports, (ix) Technical  
  Barriers to Trade (TBT), page 57, paragraph 48.    
Paragraph 3 of Part III (1) of The Secretariat report states "Technical regulations, standards and 
sanitary and phytosanitary measures have been under continued review by the Commission; in certain 
areas, they have not been fully harmonized among Member States." Paragraph 48 of Part III (2) (ix) of 
the Secretariat Report further states that, "Full harmon ization of Standards and technical regulations in 
the EC has not been achieved".    Canada has experienced difficulties with indivi dual EC Member States implementing non-harmonized 
measures, which in some instances have also been  inconsistent with WTO obligations. Canada has 
appreciated past efforts of the EC to address such situations. 
 
1. Could the EC provide information regardi ng plans to ensure harmonization of technical 
regulations, standards and sanitary and phytosan itary measures among Member states, including 
timetables and any thematic areas for priority action?   
2. Could the EC provide information on in fringement proceedings underway and recently 
undertaken regarding compliance of Member States with EC requirements and international trade 
obligations pertaining to technical regulations, st andards and sanitary and phytosanitary measures?  
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure, (2) Measures Directly Affecting  
  Imports, (viii) Contingency trade remedies, (b) Anti-dumping (AD) measures, 
  page 55, paragraph 44.  
The Secretariat Report states that the number of AD no tifications by the EC to the WTO has decreased 
significantly since the late 1990s; notifications of ot her contingency measures have decreased slightly 
(Table 111.8).   
Canada notes that the Commission recently publishe d a Green Paper for public consultations on trade 
defence instruments. In the release of the Green  Paper, the Commission highlighted the fundamental 
changes that have occurred in the EC economy.  
3. Could the EC elaborate on what gave rise to the review and publication of the Green Paper?  
4. Does the EC believe that industries becoming mo re globally oriented is reflected in a reduced 
incidence of trade remedy measures?  
5. Could the EC elaborate on the objectives of the review and could the EC also indicate the time 
frames for the review and the next st eps that will follow its conclusion? 
 
Question on Belgian legislation 
 
On January 25, 2007, the Belgian Assembly voted in  favour of legislation banning the importation of 
seal products from Canada.   This is despite the EC's January 16, 2007 res ponse to a September 2006  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 49 
 
 
 declaration by the European Parliament in which the EC stated that there is no conservation threat to 
the seal population.  The EC has also drawn attenti on to the need for measures taken by Member States 
to be compatible with international obligations  and to be notified to the WTO for scrutiny. 
 The European Commission has stated  that it plans to carry out an assessment of the seal hunt's humane 
killing standards.    
 6. Given the EC's commitments under the WTO,  what specific measures is the European 
Commission considering in response to its proposed  study on the humane aspects of the seal hunt? 
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure, (4) Measures Affecting Production and 
  Trade, (iii) Intellectual property rights, (b) Geographical indications, page 76,   paragraph 116. 
 
According to the Secretariat Report, the EC has new legislation, Council Regulation No. 510/2006, for 
the protection of geographical indications and desi gnations of origin for agricultural products and 
foodstuffs.    Canada hopes that this new legislation will assist  in making the EC consistent with its WTO 
obligations, particularly TRIPS obligations as they re late to geographical indications, and that the EC 
will begin to recognize and grant protection for foreign GIs.   
 
7. Could the EC provide information outlining ho w GIs are enforced under this new legislation 
and in the EC generally?   8.  Could the EC provide information on what manner of enforcement will be provided for the 
protection of foreign designations that may ultimately be granted protection in the EC? 
 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector, (2) Agri culture and Related Activities, (i) Main  
  features, page 81, paragraph 7.   
 
The Secretariat Report states that "Forests and ot her wooded land cover 160 m illion ha (around 42% of 
the EC's total landmass), and are increasing at a rate of 0.3% per year.
3  
 9. Could the EC provide details on the diversity of their forest and wooded land cover, such as 
the amount of area that is protected or in parks w ith respect to available land for forest management 
and harvesting?  Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector, (5) Manuf acturing, (ii) Selected industries, (b)  
  Automotive, pages 106 and 107, paragraphs 67 and 68.  
Paragraph 67 states that, among other things, unique technical regulations (i.e., technical regulations 
that have not been harmonized with internationa l standards) in the EC automotive sector have 
contributed to market distortions and increasing costs. Paragraph 68 further states that under a recently 
launched ten-year initiative, the EC plans to simp lify and improve regulation of the automotive sector 
by, inter alia , replacing 38 Directives governing the sector with UN Economic Commission for Europe 
(UNECE) regulations.  
10. Could the EC confirm specifically which UNECE  regulations will be used to replace these 38 
EU Directives?  
                                                     
 
3 Eurostat (2005d). WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 50  
 
 11. Could the EC provide information on what step s are being taken to further the development of 
global regulations under the UNECE 1998 Agreement?  
QUESTIONS BY BRAZIL
 
 
I – BIO-FUELS 
 
1) – In paragraph 29 of document WT/TPR/G/177, it is stated that “[t]he Commission will further 
renew its Market Access Strategy to focus on non- tariff barriers and ask EC industry to identify key 
sectors and priority problems. These may include, for example, the services or other sectors or 
particular markets as well as issues related to norms and standards ...”. 
 The main standard applicable to biodiesel in the EU market is EN 14214. Among others, it sets out 
technical specifications referring to density and iodine value which are compatible with biodiesel 
produced from rapeseed – of which the EU is a la rge producer – but severely limit the use of other 
vegetable oils imported by the EU, such as soybean oil or palm oil. These specifications have no 
reasonable technical or environmental justifi cation and represent a clear technical barrier. 
 Given that the European Commission recognised in its Communication 34 of 8 February 2006 the need to amend this standard, when does it intend to have a new set of technical specifications  for  biodiesel  
in  place? 
 
2) – In paragraph 30 of document WT/TPR/G/177, it is  stated that “[i]n relation to climate change, the 
EC's external competitiveness polici es will need to encourage energy efficiency, the use of renewable 
energies including bio-fuels, low emission technology  and the rational use of energy in Europe and 
globally”. 
 
In its Communication 845, of 9 January 2007, th e European Commission proposes the creation of a 
“system of incentives/support” to maximize envir onmental benefits and discourage unsustainable 
practices in bio-fuels production. The said system “should be designed to avoid an y discrimination between domestic production and 
imports and should not act as a barrier to trade”. It would be interesting to know in greater detail how 
the EC intends to design this system in order to attain these aims. 
 
II – EXPORT OF RESIDUES  
 
As stated in Chapter IV, paragraph 63, of docum ent WT/TPR/G/177, the EC attaches great importance 
to the promotion of sustainability. Environmental and social objectives are key issues for the EC, both 
internally and externally. In this context, Regula tion (EC) nº 1013/2006 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council, of 14 June 2006, deals with sh ipments of waste. The Regulation shall apply from 
12 July 2007 and refers, inter a lia, to shipments of waste "exported from the Community to third 
countries" (article 1, c). How will this legislation apply in the case of exports by the EC of products 
which the importing country (a non OECD member) ch aracterizes as waste and would not be able to 
manage according to the requisites stated in article 49,b? 
 
III – AGRICULTURE SECTOR, SANITARY AND PHYTOSSANITARY MEASURES 
 
1) Considering the item 16 of the document WT/T PR/G/177 (page 8), could the Commission inform 
about: 
 
a) The quantities of sugar (quota and out of  quota) produced, consumed, imported 
and exported from July 2006 to today,  as well  as forecasts for 2007/2008 and 
future years?  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 51 
 
 
  
b) Statistics on export license issuance (quantity and export refunds)? 
 
c) Within the legal tender system for quota sugar? 
 
d) Within the complementary system? 
 
e) Export sales from intervention? 
 
f) Quantities available and sold? 
 
g) Intervention selling prices? 
 
h) Applicable export refunds and b udgetary funds for such refunds? 
 
i) Quota surrender forecasts? 
 
j) Quantities surrendered to date and fo recast levels of Surrender?  
 
k) Commission proposals for amendments to Council Regulations 318/2006 and 
320/2006? 
 
l) Measures for supply of sugar to industrial users? 
 
m) Including Commission actions in contem plation to open special import quotas 
and/or to allocate supplies from withdr awn stocks (Article 19(2) of Council 
Regulation 318/2006)?  
 
n) Proposals for market withdrawal actions  and/or temporary quota reductions? 
Assessments of impact on supply, market  prices and export availability of  
market  withdrawal  options?  
 
o) Available budgetary resources for financ ing export refunds, restructuring and 
private storage (Article 18 of Council Regulation 318/2006) including producer contributions? 
 
2) Still concerning sugar imports, could the EC prov ide statistical data (and estimates for the next 
marketing year) regarding:  
 
a) production, under quota a nd non-quota sugar;  
 b) exports, within and outside the legal tender system; 
 
c) imports; 
 d) consumption; 
 
e) quota surrender; 
 
f) 
sugar carried-forward; 
 
g) sugar for industrial use, and; 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 52  
 
 h) sugar destined to “outermost regions”.  
 3) Item 57 of the document WT/TPR/S/177 (page 60) mentions that the EC established a data base on “trade di storting” SPS measures in third countries, including 
foot-and-mouth disease. The EC applies the concept of regionalization for the Brazilian bovine meat 
exports to the EU. However, even for the areas cons idered by the EC as free of FMD in Brazil, it is 
required that the bovine meat exported must be  unboned and maturated. How does the Commission 
justify such requirements?  4) Could the EC explain why SPS measures affecti ng Brazilian exports of c itrus – Council Directive 
2000/29/EC May 2000 and Commission Decision 2004/416/EC  of 29 April 2004 – were not notified to 
the SPS Committee?   5)  Spain notified a SPS Emergency Measure that suspends the importation of fresh citrus fruits from Brazil based on an EC Council Directive 2000/29/EC . Is this a provisionally adopted SPS measure 
within the meaning of Article 5.7 of SP S Agreement? If yes, has Spain/the EC:  
 
a) sought to obtain additional information nece ssary for a more objective assessment of 
risk?  
 b) reviewed the measure within a reasonable period of time? 
 
6) In 2006, shipments of Brazilian fresh oranges have  been intercepted in European ports allegedly for 
containing Guignardia citricarpa  Kiely. Could the EC explain which kind of methodology was used to 
identify the fungus?   
a) For how long has this type of methodology been used within the Community?  
 b) Is this methodology used by all EC member states?  
 
c) Could the EC also specify whether this kind of methodology may identify both 
viable and non-viable fungus?  
 ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS BY BRAZIL
 
 I – SERVICES 
 WT/TPR/S/177 IV (6)  
 1. Liberalization of trade in services within the EU  market has been moving forward at an uneven pace 
recently. Could the EU delegation indicate how the internal debate has impacted its stance in 
multilateral services negotiations regarding both market access and rules?   
2. Economic nationalism in services seems to be on the rise in some Member States of late, most 
visibly with regard to proposed mergers and acqui sitions in the financial and energy sectors. What 
measures have been taken by the European Commissi on to tackle this surge in protectionism? Could 
the EU delegation also provide an evaluation as to  if this recent upswing in economic nationalism has 
undermined its push for greater liberalisation of trad e in services within the Doha Round by giving its 
trading partners mixed messages regarding th e possible benefits of liberalisation and non-
discriminatory regulation in these sectors?   3. The EU has recently concluded the first exerci se of modification of schedules under Article XXI of 
the GATS, with reference to the enlargement of the Union. Could the EU delegation provide an  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 53 
 
 
 evaluation of the results of this exercise, particularly  in light of its systemic implications for future 
applications of Article XXI?  
II – ANTIDUMPING  
 WT/TPR/S/177 III (2) (viii) page 55 paragraph 41  
 1) With reference to the amendments in the EU’s Antidumping legislation carried out in 2004 
(mentioned in paragraph 41 Page  55), Brazil would appreciate additional information on the 
motivations and the results obtained with the cha nges introduced in the following issues: (a) the 
definition of anti-circumvention practices; (b) w ho has the right to request the initiation of an 
investigation on circumventing practices; (c) the rule s on the possibility for exporters to be exempted 
from extended duties when circumvention takes place outside the EC.   2) With regard to Table III.8 (Contingency Measu res Notified by the EC), on page 56, please comment 
on the reasons for the significant reduction in 2003 concerning the initiation of AD investigations (7 
against 20 in 2002 and 29 in 2004) and the adoption of  definitive measures (3 against 25 in 2002 and 9 
in 2004)?   
III - FISHERIES  
 WT/TPR/S/177 IV (3)  (ii) page 96  paragraph 41  
 3) According to paragraph 41, page 96 of the Secr etariat’s report, “Since 1 January 2003, the EC has 
operated a new CFP, aimed at addressing some of th e main problems faced by the industry, including 
the overexploitation of certain fishing stocks.” Among the main changes introduced by the new policy, 
the report mentions socio-economic measures togeth er with new control and enforcement measures. 
Brazil would appreciate further information on tho se issues, including the following: the kind and 
extension of the social-economic measures; the co mponents of new fishery control and enforcement 
measures taken by the EC.   4) According to the same report (paragraph 42, page 96), the CMO for fishery and aquaculture 
products comprises a “price support system that sets  minimum prices below which fish products cannot 
be sold”. In addition, it is said that for “ 2006, 18.2 million Euros was budgeted for price support 
interventions”. The report does not provide detaile d information about the actual operation of the 
system. Brazil would appreciate to learn more a bout the structure and operation of such system.  
 IV – INTELECTUAL PROPERTY  
 
WT/TPR/S/177 III (4) (iii)   5) According to paragraph 109 of document WT/TPR /G/177, “The commission launched a review of 
its patent policy, as part of a general effort to ha rmonize the internal market, by focusing on three main 
issues: possible introduction of a Community patent, improvements to the current system, and the 
determination of possible areas for harmonizati on.” Could the EC speci fy exactly what the 
improvements were? Were they considered in face of the possible existence of IP related anti-competitive practices?   
6) In the same paragraph 109, an Action Plan is info rmed to have been adopted by the end of 2006. 
Has this Plan been actually adopted and, in case the an swer is affirmative, would it be possible to have 
access to this Plan?   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 54  
 
 WT/TPR/S/177 III (4) (iii)  
 7) With regard to paragraph 116, it is stated that Council Regulation 510/2006 opens « registration 
directly to producer groups in third countries and not through their national administration ». Is the EC considering extending this modification to geographi cal indications for products other than those 
covered by the newly adopted Regula tion, such as, for example, wines and spirits? In case there is no 
work underway in this regard, could the EC explai n how to justify the TRIPS-compatibility of such 
procedural discrepancy?   WT/TPR/S/177 III (4) (iii)  
 
8) Concerning paragraph 123, could the EC a) clarif y the criteria used in orde r to identify the so-called 
« priority countries» ? ; b) explain why countri es with a better law enforcement record against 
counterfeiting and piracy can be worse labeled than those countries with less significant commitment 
in these areas?  
 
9) Also with respect to paragraph 123: a) considering that the EC « Enforcement Survey 2006 » cautions that « The published results reflect the view of  the parties and their perception of the situation; 
and not necessarily the strict reality”, could the EC elucidate how it is willing to redress the negative consequences that might ensue for affected countries in terms, e.g., of foreign investment from the 
dissemination of information that does “not necessarily [reflect] the strict reality”? b) in view of the 
trade-adverse effects that might stem from the dissemination of such anecdotal information as 
contained in the “Survey”, could the EC please explain how the publication of studies of such as these are in conformity with TRIPS Article 41, according to which enforcement “procedures shall be applied 
in such a manner as to avoid the crea tion of barriers to legitimate trade”?  
 V – SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES 
 
WT/TPR/S/177 IV (2) (ii) Page 94 Paragraph 34 to 37   10) The new European Community sugar regime entere d into force in July 2006. Could the EC provide 
information (including figures) regarding the operation of the new instruments, such as: private storage 
aid; sugar withdrawal; temporary and permanen t quota reduction; quota surrender; intervention 
purchases; intervention exports (if any); export refunds ; budgetary situation, a nd; restructuring aid. 
Could the EC provide statistical recent data (and estimates for the ne xt marketing year) regarding: 
production (under quota and non-quota sugar); export s (within and outside the legal tender system); 
imports; consumption; quota surrender; sugar carried -forward; sugar for industrial use, and; sugar 
destined to “outermost regions” Sanitary and phytosanitary Measures Citrus fruits:  
 11) Could the EC explain why SPS measures affecti ng Brazilian exports of c itrus  -Council Directive 
2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 and Commission Decision 2004/416/EC of 29 April 2004 - were not notified to the SPS Committee?  
 
QUESTIONS BY THE UNITED STATES
 
 Comments for the Secretariat:  
 
We note that the Secretariat’s report does not provi de any comment on the EC’s launching of a review 
of its Trade Defense Instruments, nor the subseque nt Green Paper commenting on the EC system.  The 
Secretariat may want to include a section in the repor t that describes the examination that is currently 
underway in the EC. (See Secretariat report section “Measures Directly Affecting Imports – 
Contingency Trade Remedies”.)  
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 55 
 
 
 Paragraph 64 on page 104 of the report states that “[t]he EC's trade relations in the subsector are 
governed, at the bilateral level, by the 1992 EC/U.S.  Agreement on Trade in Large Civil Aircraft.”  
The main objective of this bilateral agreement is to regulate the level of both direct and indirect 
government support to the aircraft industry.  On Oc tober 6, 2004, the United States abrogated the 1992 
agreement on grounds of non-compliance by the EC.  Therefore, the agreement is not in effect between 
the parties, and it is inaccurate to state that th e agreement governs the EC's trade relations on this 
issue.  The two sentences referenci ng the agreement should be deleted. ( See Secretariat report section 
“Manufacturing - Selected industries – Aerospace”. ) 
 
Questions for the EC: 
 
II. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
 Policy Formulation and Implementation 
 1.  Paragraph 11 on page 19 of the Secretariat report explains that the EC has carried out a number of 
Sustainability Impact Assessments (SIAs) of bot h its WTO DDA objectives and of several bilateral 
FTA negotiations.  Current SIAs are being prepared  for agreements with China and Ukraine.   
 
Please describe how the output of the SIA process is incorporated into the EC's trade negotiations 
and the development of provisions for trade agreements. 
 
Trade Policy Objectives 
 
2.  Paragraph 15 on page 20 of the Secretariat report notes that “markets are still fragmented in retail 
financial services, public procurement, transport,  energy and telecommunication”, especially for 
SMEs, and that public consultati ons concluded in June 2006.   
 
Please describe the EC’s plans for completing the in ternal market, and for consultation with third-
country stakeholders in this process.  Is ther e an update on the state of the internal market? 
 
Trade Agreements and Arrangements - Overview 
 
3.  Paragraph 25 on pages 23-24 of the Secretariat report notes the accession of Romania and Bulgaria on January 1, 2007.    
A) Please describe the transitional arrangements that new member States have been provided in 
terms of their adoption of the acquis communautaire . 
 
B) Please describe the specific intellectual proper ty rights commitments that new member States 
are required to adhere to as part of their adoption of the acquis communautaire  or as part of 
enlargement generally.  
 
C)  In advance of the January 1, 2007 accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the EC, the United 
States entered into negotiations with the EC pur suant to GATT 1994 provisions relating to the 
expansion of customs unions.  As part of their accession, the two new EC member States were required to change their tariff schedules to confor m to the EC’s common external tariff schedule, 
resulting in increased tariffs on certain importe d products, including certain U.S. products.  
Pursuant to GATT 1994 Articles XXIV:6 and XXVIII, the United States and certain other WTO Members are entitled to compensation from the EC to offset some of these changes.  The expansion 
of EC quotas to account for the addition of Romani a and Bulgaria to the EC common market is 
another key element of the negotiations.  Please comment on the EC’s timeframe for concluding WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 56  
 
 bilateral compensation agreements with  interested WTO Members and the timeframe for 
implementing the resulting commitments.  
 
4.  In paragraph 26 on page 24 of the Secretariat repo rt, it is explained that in many of the EC’s PTAs 
“liberalization is asymmetrical,” with partner count ries liberalizing at a slower pace and over a longer 
period of time than the EC.   
 
At the end of the transition period, is the degree of liberalization also asymmetrical?  That is, at the end of the transition period, has the EC eliminated a larger number of tariff lines, covering a larger share of trade, than its partners?   
 
5.  Paragraph 27 on page 24 of the Secretariat report explains that the EC has launched a new initiative 
to pursue new PTAs around the world.  Paragraph 27 also describes how the EC’s preferential trade 
agreements (PTAs) increasingly include provisio ns related to the harm onization of technical 
requirements (including standards).   
 
A)  What criteria does the EC apply to identify markets with which to negotiate a PTA? 
 
B)  Please describe what types of technical requirements are most frequently subject to 
harmonization. 
 
C)  How do harmonized standards apply to tradin g relationships with third countries as well as 
countries that have PTAs with the EC?     D)  Does harmonization of  standards include recognition of thir d-country products that meet those 
standards and qualify for the CE mark or other approval in either the EC or its partners? 
 
Trade Agreements and Arrangements - WTO 
 
6.  Paragraph 29 on page 24 of the Secretariat report states that “[t] he EC supports key elements of 
sustainable development (environment protection, libe ralization of trade in environmental goods, social 
development, and cons umer concerns)”.   
 
A)  Can the EC clarify how consumer concerns are applied in determining policy approaches to 
sustainable development?    B)  How are these concerns defined and what weight are they given when they conflict with 
science-based analysis of the environmental implications of a given policy?   
 
Trade Agreements and Arrangements – Pref erential trade agreements and arrangements 
 
7.  Paragraph 53 on pages 33-34 of the Secretariat report states that the EC’s  Euro-Mediterranean free 
trade area is based on “agreements between the EC and individual Mediterranean countries.”   
 
How does this approach conform with the EC’s ear lier statement in paragraph 25 that it tries to 
establish “regional groupings”?  Is the EC worki ng to create free trade between the Mediterranean 
countries?   
   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 57 
 
 
 III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
Measures Directly Affecting Imports - Customs procedures   
8.  In view of its recognition of the complaints of economic operators regarding lack of harmonization 
of penalties for customs infractions, the EC Comm ission, in its draft Modernized Customs Code, 
proposed establishing a “common framework” on administrative penalties for customs infractions.
4  
What steps, if any, has the EC take n to establish that “common framework”? 
 
9.  Pages 40-42 of the Secretariat report describe the EC’s customs regimes, but do not address the 
January 1, 2007 enlargement. 
 
A) What have the new member States done to bring their customs regime in line with those of the 
EC(15)?     B) Have any transitions been granted to the new member States in this area?   
 
Measures Directly Affecting Imports – Common Customs MFN Tariff 
 
10.  The United States is concerned about EC proposals that would no longer guarantee duty-free treatment for certain products covered under the Information Technology Agreement (ITA).  For 
example, set-top boxes with a communication functio n are covered under Attachment B of the ITA but 
the EC is considering no longer guaranteeing duty-fr ee treatment for almost all set-top boxes as they 
incorporate a cable or network-based modem instea d of a telephone-base modem or have a hard drive. 
 We have similar concerns with respect to the EC's  treatment of other ITA products and raise questions 
about the EC’s obligations under GATT Article II.  
Please explain how the EC’s proposals to no long er guarantee duty-free treatment for set-top 
boxes with a communication function are consistent  with its commitment to bind and eliminate 
customs duties on these products wherever  they are classified in the HS?  
 
Measures Directly Affecting Imports—Import Licensing 
 11. In paragraph 33, page 53 the S ecretariat briefly mentions the EC’s import licensing system.   Could 
the EC provide further information regarding its import licensing system?  In particular: 
 
A)  Can the EC confirm whether import licenses can be issued to applicants other than EC 
companies? 
 
B)  Has the EC established comm on criteria for product counting against import licenses (tons vs. 
boxes) across its different ports?  If yes, what steps has the EC taken to ensure effective application 
of such criteria among all member States?    
Measures Directly Affecting Imports - Contingency Trade Remedies 
 
12.  Paragraph 37 on page 54 of the Secretariat repo rt states that “if the Council establishes that the 
combination of either anti-dumping or countervailing,  and safeguard measures could lead to effects 
greater than ‘desirable’ under the EC's trade defe nse policy, then the anti-dumping or countervailing 
measures may be amended, suspended, or repealed (partially/totally)…”.   
 
                                                     
 
4. European Commission, Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, TAXUD/447/2004 Rev 
2, An Explanatory Introduction to the modernized Customs Code , p. 13 (Feb. 24, 2005). WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 58  
 
 Please describe the process that the Council follows and the criteria that it applies in determining 
whether the application of trade remedies “leads to  effects greater than ‘desirable’ under the EC’s 
trade defense policy.”   
 
Measures Directly Affecting Imports - Contingency Trade Remedies – Anti-dumping Measures 
 
13.  Paragraph 41 on page 55 of the Secretariat re port discusses recent EC anti-dumping legislation.   
 
Please provide information regarding the transparency  of the EC’s investigation process, including 
whether and how interested parties are provided th e opportunity during the investigations to view 
and comment on detailed facts and calculati ons upon which findings may be based, and the 
decision-making process of Commission staff and the Advisory Committee.  
14.  While paragraph 42 on page 55 of the Secret ariat report indicates the number of investigations 
initiated, the number of provisional and final measu res imposed, and the number of cases terminated, it 
does not report such details for the EC's price undertak ings or their reviews (e.g., refund and interim).   
 
Please provide further information on the EC’s prac tice with regard to Price Undertakings, Refund 
Reviews, and Interim Reviews.  In particul ar, please provide information on the number of 
agreements in place (including the type of agreem ent), the number of reviews (by type) that were 
conducted, and a summary of the results of such reviews.   
 
15.  Paragraphs 42 and 43  on page 55 of the Secretariat report state that “the definitive AD measures 
applied were mostly
 ad valorem duties” and “most  AD rates applied were ad valorem.”    
 
A)  Please provide a further explanation for those measures that were applied and did not  use the 
ad valorem  duty.  How and on what basis were thes e other AD measures applied? What was the 
rationale for doing so?    B)  In how many antidumping investigations since March 2001 have the EC authorities made 
comparisons pursuant to the “targeted dumping” provi sion in the last sentence of Article 2.4.2 of 
the Antidumping Agreement?  Please identify these investigations.  How many of the 
investigations, in which comparisons were made on th is basis, resulted in imposition of definitive 
antidumping duties?  In which investigations, since March 2001, have the EC authorities not
 made 
comparisons pursuant to this “targeted dumping” provision? 
 16.  With respect to the information provided on an ti-dumping in paragraphs 41-44 of the Secretariat 
report: 
 
Will the EC extend any existing antidumping orders  to imports of goods under those orders into 
the new member States?  Will injury investigati ons be conducted in those markets in relation to 
those orders?   
 Measures Directly Affecting Imports—Technical Barriers to Trade 
 
17. Paragraph 48 on page 57 of the Secretariat re port states “full harmonization of standards and 
technical regulations in the EC has not been achieved.”  
 
A)  When and how does the EC envision achievi ng full harmonization of standards and technical 
regulations across member States?   B)  Could the EC outline specific steps being taken and future action plans to ensure full 
harmonization?   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 59 
 
 
  
C)  How does the EC currently alert third country tr aders of changes in memb er State legislation to 
adopt the EC standards?   D)  How does the EC plan to improve transparen cy in alerting trading partners as member States 
come into harmonization with EC regulations?  
 
18. Paragraph 49 on page 57 gives an overview of th e EC standard setting process and mentions the 
three standard setting bodies.  
 
A) Could the EC provide further information on how these standard setting bodies operate and the 
extent of their respective jurisdiction(s)? 
B) Is there a mechanism in place that allows trading partners to provide these entities with 
comments during the standards development process? 
 19.  Paragraph 52 on page 58 of the Secretariat re port states that “[u]nder the WTO TBT Agreement, 
EC member States made 54 notifications in 2004, 68 in 2005 and 62 in 2006 (up to October 2006) 
whilst the EC made 29, 24 and 35 notifications respectively.”  
A)  Has the EC undertaken a systematic review of  how to address trading partner concerns that its 
notifications of TBT measures frequently seem to come only after an internal consensus on new 
measures has been reached between the Commission and member States, i.e., when it is too late 
for trading partners (and their comments) to have  an impact on proposed measures?  Is the EC 
willing to undertake such a review if one is not already underway? 
 
Measures Directly Affecting Imports—Sa nitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
 20.  In paragraph 54, page 59, the Secretariat Report explains the split competency between the 
Commission and member States.    
A) Please explain the process by which the Comm ission ensures that member States implement 
EC legislation in a consistent manner.   
B)  What steps, if any, is the EC taking to  improve the current pro cess to guarantee full adoption 
of EC-wide measures in member States?  C) What is the mechanism by which exporters to the EC can seek to remedy inconsistencies when 
and if they arise? 
 
21.  Paragraph 54, page 59 of the Secretariat Re port highlights that the Commission coordinates with 
member States to implement EC legislation on SPS measures.  
A)  Could the EC provide further details as to  the coordination process between the Commission 
and member States for the implementation of such measures?  For example, do representatives 
from both the Commission and member States meet regularly to ensure effective and harmonized 
adoption of EC measures?  Are target dates set for member States to fully comply with EC legislation?  B)  How does this coordination process ensure that member States satisfy their WTO SPS 
Agreement obligations regarding transparency, cons ultation and notification.  What, if any, steps 
are taken to ensure that member States satisfy  their national treatment obligations in the 
implementation of SPS measures? C) What type of oversight does the Commission have or employ in order to ensure member States’ compliance to their WTO SPS Agreement obligations?   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 60  
 
  
22.  Paragraph 55, on page 59 no tes the differences in risk analys is responsibility between European 
Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the Commission, and member States.   
 
A) Does the EC have a legal framework providing mechanisms to ensure that risk management 
and risk communication decisions are based on risk assessments?   
 B) Are EFSA risk assessments used as the b ases for EC SPS measures?  If not, what is the 
competent body that produces such assessments?” Or, are we talking about the potential for an 
SPS measure applied by an individual member State? 
 
23.  Paragraph 56, on page 59 men tions certain transitional measures or  derogations the EC has granted 
to member States.    
A)  Are similar transitional measures or deroga tions automatically extended to other non-member 
State trading partners?  If not, what steps does th e EC take to ensure that such transitional 
measures or derogations do not raise potential mo st-favored-nation or national treatment issues? 
 B)  Please provide a brief description of any derogations or transiti onal periods provided to 
Romania and Bulgaria for meeting EC food safety requirements and standards. 
 
1)  In particular, please describe the trans itional periods or deroga tions from meeting EC 
meat processing requirements granted to the new member States. 
 
2)  Have third countries been granted similar transitional periods or derogations?  If so, will 
such derogations be kept in place until the end of the transitional period provided by the EC 
to Romania and Bulgaria? 
 3)  Are third country exports of meat and meat products permitted to enter Romania and Bulgaria subject to the same restrictions or standards currently applied by these new member 
States in their domestic markets, or are third country imports subject to more-restrictive EC requirements?  If imports into Romania and Bulgaria are subject to more-restrictive 
conditions, how will the EC ensure that it and the new member States satisfy their national 
treatment obligations? 
 
C)  What is the process by which non-member State trading partners may seek similar transitional measures or derogations in the event that they are unable to implement EC measures? 
 
24.  Paragraph 57 on page 60 notes that the EC a nd member States notified 107 SPS measures in 2004, 
44 in 2005, but only 11 through October 2006.   
 
A)  Has the EC undertaken a systematic review of  how to address trading partner concerns that its 
notifications of SPS measures frequently seem to come only after an internal consensus on new 
measures has been reached between the Commission and member States, i.e., when it is too late 
for trading partners (and their comments) to have  an impact on proposed measures?  Is the EC 
willing to undertake such a review if one is not already underway? 
 B) Please comment on the timing of the EC approving  a regulation that would allow the import of 
poultry treated with Anti-Microbial Treatments, the efficacy and safety of which has been 
demonstrated by several EC scientific studies.   
Measures affecting production and trade - Competition policy and regulatory issues  
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 61 
 
 
 25.  The Secretariat Report does not address the issue of price controls maintained by EC member 
States (paragraphs 85-97 on pages 67-73).  American companies have reported that a number of EC 
Members maintain measures related to price cont rols, maximum allowable reimbursement for drugs 
under national health insurance systems, and pe riodic mandatory price reductions, among others. 
 
A) With respect to price controls on pharmace uticals, what steps do the Communities and its 
member States take to avoid to the fullest practicab le extent effects prejudicial to the interests of 
the United States, which is a principal global source of innovative pharmaceuticals, and other 
members supplying imported pharmaceuticals, within the meaning of paragraph 9 of Article III of 
the GATT 1994?   
 
B) The Government of Poland implemented a pr ice reduction regulation for pharmaceuticals in 
July 2006 that appears to apply exclusively to  imported products, including those imported into 
Poland from other EC member States.  Please explai n how this regulation can be reconciled with 
the national treatment requirements of GATT Article  III, as well as with the EC’s own rules for 
ensuring non-discriminatory treatment within the single European market for goods.  
 
Measures affecting production and trade – Intellectual Property Rights 
 26.  The Secretariat report’s discussion of patents (paragraphs 109-115 on pages 74-76) fails to address 
the status of implementation, by the EC’s memb er States, of Directive 98/44, governing patent 
protection for biotechnological innovations.    
Please provide an update on the status of implementation, by the EC’s member States, of Directive 98/44. 
 
27.  Paragraph 116 on page 76 of the Secretaria t report refers to the enactment of a new Council 
Regulation governing the protection of geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs.  While the United States welcomes certai n clarifications achieved through this Regulation, 
some elements of the Regulation appear to create new uncertainties.  For example, Article 14(2) of this 
Regulation, which is concerned w ith the relationship between tradem arks and geographical indications, 
appears to introduce a new potential confusion rega rding the status of trademarks applied for, 
registered, or established by use after January 1, 1996, a reference date which was not present in the 
predecessor Regulation.    
Please clarify whether, under this provision, a tr ademark owner could be prevented from using its 
trademark, or could be prevented from exercisi ng its TRIPS Article 16 rights, with respect to 
trademarks applied for, registered, or establishe d by use after this reference date, even if such 
application, registration, or establishment occurs prior to the registration of a related geographic 
indication.  
 
28.  Paragraph 117 on page 76 of the Secretariat report states that the EC maintains a shortlist of 
regional products that does not yet contain the products of new member States.    
A)  Could the EC confirm whether this list c ontains any products from non-EC sources?   
 
B)  Could the EC confirm whether they have received any requests for GI status for products from 
non-EC sources – either in the area of food and food  products or in the area of wine and spirits – 
and, if so, how those requests are being processed?   
 29.  Paragraph 118 on page 76 of the Secretariat repor t briefly discusses copyright-related issues.  The 
United States is aware that at least one member  State of the European  Communities has enacted WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 62  
 
 copyright legislation during 2006 which establishes procedures for the mandated disclosure of 
potentially proprietary and IPR-protected technical  information on technological protection measures 
related to digital rights management, under certain circumstances.  The Unite d States understands that 
similar legal measures may be under considerat ion by other member States of the European 
Communities.   
 
A)  Please discuss how such a mandatory disclosur e is, or is not, in accordance with Community 
legislation, including in the area of copyright or other aspects of intellectual property rights.    B)  Could the EC answer the same question with r espect to obligations in international agreements 
to which the EC and/or its member States are parties, including the TRIPS Agreement and the 
WCT and WPPT?   
 30.  Paragraphs 119-121 on pages 77-78 of the Secr etariat report discuss enforcement legislation and 
activity within the European Communities.  Owners of intellectual property in the United States have 
noted that, while the EC appears to apply a more  effective approach to IPR enforcement on an 
aggregate level, problems of internal piracy and co unterfeit activity remain difficult in a number of 
individual member States of the EC.    
Please elaborate on how Directive 2004/48/EC an d other EC legal and policy instruments are 
being applied in order to foster a more even im plementation of high standards of IPR enforcement 
across the territory of the EC. 
  
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
Introduction 
 
31.  Paragraph 3 on page 79 of the Secretariat report states that “the EC is seeking to save 20% of its 
energy consumption by 2020 through, inter alia , the use of energy-efficient technologies…” and that 
“[s]ome of the EC's key policy aims in the subsector are security of energy supply, promotion of competition, and completion of the internal market by 2007.”  
Please provide further information on the EC’s “key  policy aims” for the use of energy efficient 
technologies and the promotion of competition.  Pl ease also provide further details on whether the 
key policies direct institutions to provide financial assistance to energy efficient technology industries. 
 Agriculture and Related Activities - Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)  
32.  Paragraph 22 on page 89 of the Secretariat re port explains that the EC is currently applying 91 
tariff-rate-quotas on agricultural products.   
A)  What, if anything, is the EC doing to addr ess tariff-rate quotas in the enlargement context?  
Specifically, when will it consolidate quotas a nd increase quota volumes to account for the 
addition of Romania and Bulgaria as part of the January 1, 2007 enlargement.    B)  When will the EC notify a revised tariff schedule reflecting new TRQ commitments?    
C)  What is the EC doing to ensure that quota commitments by acceding countries are upheld, 
or if eliminated by their adoption of the EC’s common external tariff, that third countries are 
appropriately compensated?   D)  How is the EC monitoring fill rates of the EC-25 quotas?     WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 63 
 
 
 E)  How will the EC ensure that third country ma rket access is not affected by enlargement for 
products such as pork, where, prior to enlargem ent, exports to Romania were not subject to 
quantitative restrictions but now are subject to an EC TRQ?    F)  Please provide an update on how the EC is addressing complaints from various WTO 
Members that the banana import regime it impl emented on January 1, 20 06 fails to meet the 
conditions of the 2001 Doha banana  waivers - specifically, that the regime will not “at least 
maintain total market access for MFN banana suppliers”? 
 
Fisheries – Main features 
 
33.  Paragraph 38 on page 95 of the Secretar iat report discusses the EC's production of fishery 
products, stating that the output of the processing sub sector is nearly twice the value of production of 
the catching subsector, but does not provide the underlying value information.  
Please provide information on the value of the EC’s harvest fisheries production. 
 
Fisheries – Common Fisheries Policy 
 
34.  Paragraphs 41-42 on page 96 of the Secretariat report explain the EC’s Common Fisheries Policy.   
 
A)  In 2006 the EC revised its Common Fish eries Policy to allow certain aid for vessel 
modernization.  Please describe the types of modernization measures that would be eligible for support under the revised policy and how they woul d be distinguished from vessel “renovation”. 
 B)  We understand that the EC has proposed raising the ceiling on de minimis  state aid from Euro 
3000 to Euro 30,000 for small enterprises.  Please describe what  purposes this aid could be used 
for.  C)  Please describe in more detail “the price support system that sets minimum prices below which fish products cannot be sold”.  Does this system apply for all fisheries products?  How is 
the price level set? 
 
35.  Paragraph 47 on page 98 of the Secretariat re port states that the 2007-13 budget for the EC’s new 
fisheries support mechanism, the Eu ropean Fisheries Fund (EFF), is Euro 3.8 billion, a Euro 1 billion 
increase from assistance for the 2000-06 period, including “strengthening the competitiveness and 
viability of operators in the subsector” and “promo ting environmentally frie ndly fishing and production 
methods”.  An additional Euro 2.3 billion will be a llocated to finance the “so -called second instrument 
of the CFP,” including assistance to “conservati on, control and surveillance, governance, and 
international aspects.”  
A)  Please provide further details on the major differences between the new European Fisheries 
Fund (EFF) and the current Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance?  What specific 
provisions are included in the EFF for “strengthening the competitiveness and viability of 
operators in the resources?”    B)  Please explain the distinction between  EFF funding and funding under the “second 
instrument” for conservation measures —what pr ograms are eligible for assistance under each? 
 
C)  Please describe in more detail what steps to strengthen “competitiveness and viability” would 
be eligible for assistance under the EFF. 
 
Energy WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 64  
 
  
36.  Paragraphs 52 and 53 on pages 100-101 of the Secr etariat report state that the EC’s Action Plan for 
Energy Efficiency is comprised of seven ty-five measures in ten priority areas.  
 
Please provide further details on the seventy-five  measures and list the ten priority areas.  
 
37.  Pages 99-101 of the Secretariat Report describe EC energy initiatives.    
As the EC drafts product-specific directives im plementing the EUP Directive, how will the EC 
ensure transparency for third-country producer s and technologies before minimum levels and 
methodologies are established?  Will third-country producers and experts be able to participate in 
stakeholder sessions? 
 
Manufacturing – Selected industries – Chemicals 
 38.  Paragraphs 69-71 on pages 107-108 of the Secr etariat report explain that the EC’s key policy 
objective on chemicals is to ensure a smooth tran sition from the existing legislation to the REACH 
framework.  Implementation of REACH will presen t substantial challenges for industry as well as 
governments – both within the EC and overseas.     
A)  How does the Commission intend to evaluate and address the costs and other effects of 
REACH on imported products? 
 
B)  How does the Commission plan to ensure the consistency of member State implementation of 
REACH?  
C)  What specific guidance does the Commission pl an to develop for member States and foreign 
stakeholders on the operation of REACH? 
  D)  How does the EC intend to ensure that implementation focuses on chemicals that present the 
greatest risk? 
 
E)  Please comment on how REACH will effectiv ely streamline and simplify the EC regulatory 
system.  How will the European Commission, EC member States, and the European Chemicals 
Agency efficiently and coheren tly coordinate this process? 
 39.  Paragraph 71 on page 107 of the Secretariat Report states that the EC believes that the costs to 
industry of REACH will be 2.3 billion Euros over an 11 year period.  Some assessments suggest that 
total costs could be considerably higher.  
How does the EC intend to reflect downstream cost s (and the impact of EC enlargement) in its 
assessment of the impact of this legislation?   
 
40.  Paragraph 71 on page 108 explains that th e European Chemicals Ag ency has to be fully 
operational one year after entry into force of this new legislation.  
How does the EC plan to ensure that  the agency is fully operational, and that it is able to evaluate 
applications promptly in order to prevent trade barriers and supply chain disruption?  
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 65 
 
 
 Manufacturing - Selected Industries - Textiles and Clothing 
 
41.  Paragraph 74 on page 108 of the Secretariat report states that “[t]he textile and clothing subsector 
does not enjoy any specific incentives.  However, like any manufacturing industry, it can benefit from incentives listed in the guide of ‘G rants and Loans from the EC’.”  
 
Please provide further information regarding the typ es of incentives listed in the guide of “Grants 
and Loans from the EC.”  Are all industries in a ll sectors eligible for the incentives listed in this 
guide?    
PREGUNTAS DE PERU
 
 II. AGRICULTURA 
1.- Como lo señala el Documento Preliminar del Examen de Política Comercia (EPC), las 
Comunidades Europeas (CE) han iniciado un proceso de reforma de política agraria el cual está 
orientado a disminuir los niveles de ayuda para  los productos agropecuarios, y principalmente 
desligarla de la producción. En este marco, se est ablecieron los pagos no vinculados, se redujeron los 
pagos directos así como los precios de intervención para algunos productos.  
A pesar de los avances realizados, las CE man tienen varios programas que continúan generando 
distorsiones al comercio. Esto genera preocupación considerando que la Comuni dad Andina y la Unión 
Europea vienen sosteniendo conversaciones con mir as a iniciar un proceso de negociación hacia un 
Acuerdo de Asociación. Adicionalmente, el EPC  evidencia que algunos productos agropecuarios no 
sólo son beneficiados con ayudas directas sino que también se benefician de instrumentos de política 
comercial, establecidos para proteger a la producción nacional del incremento de las importaciones.   
Subsidios a la Exportación 
 
Considerando que las subvenciones a la exportación aplicadas por la CE representan aproximadamente el 90% del total de las subvenciones a la expor tación notificadas por los miembros de la OMC
5, causa 
preocupación el anuncio de que éstas recién serán eliminadas en el año 2013.   En particular, cabe resaltar el hecho de que durante  la campaña de comercialización 2002/2003, las CE 
concedieron subvenciones a la exportación por  un valor total de 3100 millones de euros
6. Los 
productos lácteos (yogurt, leche, leche entera en polvo y nata), la mantequ illa, y la carne de bovino 
fueron los más beneficiados aunque también fi guran los vinos, frutas, legumbres y hortalizas7.   
 Otro dato que llama la atención está relacionado co n el azúcar. Para poder exportar este producto, las 
CE deben subvencionar el 75% del precio de intervención
8. Considerando el alto costo del régimen, se 
espera que éste sea reformulado de manera tal que supere las metas establecidas por las CE. Al respecto, ¿podrían indicar las CE cuáles son los lin eamientos para la reforma del mencionado régimen? 
 
                                                     
 
5 EPC página xi 
6 EPC página 112 
7 EPC página 82 
8 EPC página 118 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 66  
 
 Ayudas Internas - Régimen de Pago Único  
 
2.-  En el EPC elaborado por la Secretaría de la OMC se indica que en el año 2005 la suma total 
gastada en los programas con mayores efectos de distorsión ha sido el 63.8% de la ayuda a los productores. Asimismo, el informe indica que la desvinculación de los pagos es aún parcial. En 
consecuencia, algunos productos como el trigo duro, arroz, lácteos, algodón, entre otros siguen 
beneficiándose de ayudas ligadas a la producción.  
 A pesar de la reducción con respecto al 2003 (71. 7%) aún sigue siendo un monto considerable. Es 
importante que se precise cómo será la escala de reducción de esta medida en la reforma agrícola 
iniciada por las CE. 
 2.1. ¿Podrían  indicar las CE si se ha pensado en modificar la aplicación que pueden hacer los 
Estados miembros a nivel re gional para otorgar pagos di rectos a los agricultores, 
independientemente de los que ya hayan reci bido como pagos únicos en forma directa? 
2.2. Asimismo, ¿podrían indicar si se ha pensado en  modificar la disociación parcial que pueden 
realizar los Estados miembros? 
 
SERVICIOS 
 
3.- ¿Podrían proporcionar mayor información sobre lo s requisitos de residenc ia que cada país impone 
no solo a los directivos sino para cualquier otro tipo de servicio profesional?  
 4.- ¿Podrían proporcionar mayor información sobre las profesiones en las que se exige títulos de 
aptitud profesional y los mecanismos de reconocim iento de los mismos (ya sea tanto entre países 
miembro de la CE como con terceros)?  
 
5.- ¿Podrían proporcionar mayor información sobre las condiciones en las cuales las autoridades nacionales autorizan el reembolso de los gastos médicos en que se haya incurrido en el exterior? 
¿Cuando se reembolsan los servicios médicos que reciben las personas en el exterior?  
 
OBSTACULOS TECNICOS AL COMERCIO 
 6.- ¿Podrían las CE explicar con mayor detalle la  interacción entre la potestad de los Estados 
Miembros de aplicar reglamentos técnicos nacional es y el principio de reconocimiento mutuo, tanto 
para productos nacionales como importados?  
7.- ¿Las CE permite la participación de personas in teresadas de terceros países en el desarrollo y 
elaboración de normas, reglamentos técnicos y pro cedimientos de evaluación de la conformidad? 
 8.- ¿Podría la CE entregar mayor información acerca de las prácticas de control del mercado para productos regulados? En particular, si la verificación del cumplimiento se efectúa principalmente en la 
aduana o en el mercado ¿cómo ope ra para productos nacionales?  
 
9.- Respecto a la aceptación de evaluaciones de la  conformidad de primer a parte (declaración de 
proveedor), se agradecerá conocer ¿qué criterios utili zan las CE para determinar los productos sujetos a 
este tipo de evaluaciones y si cuentan con informac ión estadística sobre su confiabilidad luego de 
acciones de fiscalización posterior?. 
 
10.- Los Acuerdos OTC y MSF de la OMC establecen  que los reglamentos nacionales o regionales no 
pueden imponer un tratamiento difere nte sobre productos similares como consecuencia de como son 
producidos o formulados. Esto se  exige particularmente cuando el  producto final no muestra ningún 
signo de haber seguido tal proceso o formulación. Sin embargo, el Reglamento REACH ha sido  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 67 
 
 
 utilizado para discriminar entre productos en r azón únicamente de sus procesos o métodos de 
producción. En este caso, las CE han aplicado el principio de precaución a sustancias y artículos terminados que contienen tales sustancias, presumi endo a priori que son inherentemente peligrosos 
para la sociedad de las CE. En este caso las CE  está protegiendo al público contra un peligro no 
identificable y no medible para los seres hu manos o el medio ambiente y que aún no se ha 
materializado. Podrían señalar ¿qué medidas han adoptado las CE para modificar el Reglamento 
REACH a la fecha?  
III. MEDIDAS SANITARIAS Y FITOSANITARIAS 
11.- Con relación al Reglamento de las CE sobre N ovel Food, el propósito original de este Reglamento 
era tomar en cuenta la creciente manipulación en el campo de elaboración de alimentos. Sin embargo, 
también se incluyó, dentro del ámbito de aplicación de l Reglamento, los alimentos de origen natural y 
alimentos que son del consumo de la población del lugar de origen desde tiempos milenarios. El 
procedimiento de autorización bajo el Reglamento de Novel Food resulta ser demandante de tiempo y generador de costos, además de obstaculizar innecesariamente el comercio. A ello se suma que los 
procedimientos de autorización no están cubiertos c on límites de tiempo. ¿Podrían indicar las CE cómo 
se realizó la evaluación de riesgo correspondiente para adoptar esa legislación y cómo se condice dicha evaluación y el Reglamento mencionado con los co mpromisos asumidos por las CE en el Acuerdo 
sobre Aplicación de las Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanit arias? ¿Podrían indicar las CE qué medidas están 
adoptando para corregir esta situaci ón que va en perjuicio de los in tereses de exportación de varios 
países en desarrollo?  
 
PESCA 
12.- Respecto  a las 7,3 millones de toneladas de productos pesqueros, el cual 80,8 % corresponde a 
capturas totales. ¿Qué porcentaje de esas capturas to tales se realizan en aguas extranjeras bajo los 
acuerdos de pesca suscritos por la Comunidad? 
 
13.- Con la adhesión de los NEM-10 el número de embarcaciones y su capacidad de tonelaje han disminuido debido a la política de la CE de reducir el  exceso de capacidad de flota. ¿Cuántas de estas 
naves han sido trasladadas a terceros países para disminuir el esfuerzo pesquero? ¿Cuántas han sido 
desguezadas?  
14.- ¿cómo funcionan los precios mínimos de oferta establecidos por la OCM para terceros países que 
exportan a las CE?, ¿Este sostenimiento del precio no distorsiona el mercado y afecta a la libre competencia?  15.- A qué parte del proceso productivo son des tinadas las compensaciones pagadas por las CE a 
terceros países bajo el nombre de acuerdos "meridi onales" o "septentrionales"?. Consideran las CE que 
se trata de una subvención?  16.-¿Cómo se otorga y quienes son los principales be neficiarios de la ayuda financiera del Instituto 
Financiero de Orientación de la Pesca (IFOP)?   
17.-¿Podrían indicar las CE en qué estado se encuentra la reforma del sector pesquero?  
 18.- ¿Podrían explicar las CE el concepto de ayuda “de minimis” otorgada al sector pesquero, el monto actual otorgado y el previsto, así cómo la comp atibilidad de estas subvenciones con el mandato 
ministerial otorgado en Doha y en Hong Kong para la elaboración de disciplinas en el sector pesquero? 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 68  
 
 INVENCIONES Y NUEVAS TECNOLOGÍAS 
 
19.-Con relación al párrafo 111 del Informe de la Se cretaría, ¿Cuáles fueron las principales causas del 
fracaso de la propuesta de legislación relativa a la  patentabilidad de las invenciones ejecutadas en 
ordenador? ¿Se ha proyectado una nueva propuesta c onsiderando que, como se menciona en el párrafo 
113, el 39% de solicitudes de patente se refiere a tec nologías basadas en la electricidad y la física, las 
cuales incluyen a las invenciones implementadas en ordenador?  20.-Respecto al párrafo 115, ¿Cuáles fueron las principales divergencias en la armonización respecto al tipo preferible de protección para las secuencias de genes y sobre la patentabilidad de las células madre 
embrionarias (pluripotentes)? ¿existe una tendenc ia mayoritaria al respecto de estos criterios? 
 
PREGUNTAS DE HONDURAS
 
 INFORME DE LA SECRETARÍA DE LA OMC 
POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS 
2) M
EDIDAS QUE AFECTAN DIRECTAMENTE A LAS IMPORTACIONES  
i) Procedimientos aduaneros y valoración en aduana 
 
1. El párrafo 6 de la página 50 de l Informe de la Secretaría se me nciona el concepto de  operador 
económico autorizado. 
 
¿En qué casos se suspende o se retira el estatuto de  operador económico autorizado y cuál ha sido la 
proporción de casos de suspensión y de retiro?  ¿Podría la CE compartir su experiencia desde la introducción del estatuto de operador económico 
autorizado? ¿cuáles han sido los logros y los obstáculos? 
 ¿Cuáles son las funciones y obligacion es del operador económico autorizado?  
 2. En el mismo párrafo 6 de la página 50 del Informe de la Secretaría se hace alusión a la 
presentación a las oficinas de aduanas de declaraciones previas a la llegada. 
 
¿Qué ventajas se obtienen con la presentación en cu alquier aduana, de la información, previa a la 
llegada de las mercancías?  3. En el párrafo 6 del informe de la Secretaría  se menciona que el análisis se llevará a cabo 
mediante “técnicas de tratamiento automatizado de datos”. 
 ¿Podría la CE proveer una explicación más amplia sobre estas técnicas?  4. En el párrafo 7 del informe de la Secretar ía se indica que entre las propuestas específicas cabe 
citar las encaminadas a la centralización de los proced imientos de despacho, c on una sola oficina para 
la realización de los procedimientos aduaneros y de otro tipo aplicables en la frontera exterior de las 
CE, y la puesta en marcha de un punto de entrada electrónico con ventanilla única. 
¿Cuál es la situación actual en cuanto a aplicación del concepto de ventanilla única en la CE, en el que 
los comerciantes tienen acceso a un portal de inform ación y un punto de acceso electrónico único para 
las transacciones de exportación e importación? 
 
5. En el párrafo 8 página 51 del informe de la  Secretaría, se hace referencia a las declaraciones 
electrónicas.   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 69 
 
 
 ¿Cuál es la proporción de utilización de declaraciones electrónicas? 
 ¿Cuánto tiempo considera la CE que le tomará mode rnizar los procedimientos aduaneros hasta llegar a 
una aduana electrónica?  
¿Existe un sistema único automatizado a nivel com unitario para el intercambio de información y 
análisis de riesgo?  6. En el párrafo 8, página 51 el informe de la Secretaría se refiere a la declaración sumaria.  
¿Cuál es la información que debe contener la declaración sumaria? 
 ¿En qué casos se dispensa el requisito de la presentación de la declaración sumaria?  ¿En qué casos la declaración sumaria puede ser objeto de adaptación? 
 
¿En qué circunstancias excepcionales las autoridad es aduaneras pueden aceptar declaraciones sumarias 
en papel?  
v) Normas de origen 
 7. En el párrafo 29 de la pági na 63 del informe de la Secretaría se señala lo siguiente: “las 
certificaciones de origen se sustituirían por una d eclaración de origen hecha directamente por el 
exportador, y las autoridades competentes del país de exportación tendrían la responsabilidad de llevar 
a cabo el registro y el control de la certificación de origen”  
¿Cuál es la diferencia real entre la certificación de or igen y la declaración de origen que sustituiría a la 
primera? 
8. En este esquema la autoridad competente es la responsable del registro, control y 
cumplimiento de las normas de origen.  ¿No han considerado que el responsable de las normas de origen debería ser el exportador o 
importador, considerando que es el benefi ciario directo de las preferencias? 
 
ix) Obstáculos Técnicos al Comercio 
 
9. En relación con el párrafo 48, página 70, del info rme de la Secretaría en el que se indica que la 
CE no ha logrado una plena armonización.  
 ¿Qué áreas de producción son las que no han se han podido normalizar?   ¿Para que Miembros de la CE son estas áreas sensibles o de mayor comercio?  
Podría la CE enumerar las áreas de producción y al gunos de los inconvenientes que se han tenido para 
la armonización de normas que como región están aplicando actualmente en las áreas aun no normadas 
y si esto no va en contra el principio de una Unión como tal.  10. En relación con el párrafo 50, página 71 del informe de la Secretaría, en el que se señala que 
“las CE aplican el principio de reconocimiento mutuo en el mercado interior”. 
 ¿Qué debe cumplir o, es más, que ha establecido la CE para aplicar el principio de reconocimiento? 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 70  
 
 Si dentro de la región no se tiene una normativa com ún, ¿esto no implica tener una libertad para tratar 
de proteger un sector específico y elaborar normativa mas restrictiva, es decir con mas requisitos que compliquen el comercio de la región y se conver tiría en un obstáculo técnico al comercio?   
 
x) Medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias (MSF) 
 
11. En relación con el párrafo 54, página 73 del in forme de la Secretaría, en el que se indica que 
los Estados Miembros aplican la legislación de la  CE sobre cuestiones sanitarias y fitosanitarias en 
coordinación con la Comisión. 
 
¿Pueden los miembros de la CE adoptar dis posiciones nacionales o requisitos de importación 
diferentes a los requerimientos de la legislación comunitaria? ¿Qué mecanismo o procedimiento se utiliza para l ograr consenso en cuanto a las regulaciones 
sanitarias?  
12. En el párrafo 55, página 73 se menciona que  la AESA sigue siendo la principal institución 
encargada del análisis científico de todas las cu estiones sanitarias y fitosanitarias a nivel comunitario. 
 ¿Cómo aplican los servicios nacionales en materia sa nitaria y fitosanitaria, al momento que un tercer 
país solicita una evaluación de riesgo?  
¿Cuál es el procedimiento que sigue la Comisión u or ganismo de que se trate para aprobar una Ley y si 
existe una supervisión especial sobre los países de la  CE para verificar si aplican dicha legislación? 
 13. En relación con las notificaciones, párrafo 57, página 74 del informe de la Secretaría. 
 
¿Cómo aplica el sistema de notificaciones entre los mismos Miembros de la CE?  
 ¿Cuál es el mecanismo que utilizan internamente pa ra conocer quizás de forma inmediata las medidas 
adoptadas antes de conocerlo por medio de la OMC?  14. En el párrafo 58, página 75 del informe de la Secretaría, se indica que en varios reglamentos se 
establecen procedimientos para la aplicación de la legislación principal sobre sanidad en relación con 
subproductos animales no destin ados al consumo humano. 
 
¿Es vinculante a todos los Miembros la legislación común o aplica solamente para los Miembros que la 
adopten? 
 
¿Puede un bien agropecuario importado por un país Mi embro de la CE movilizarse internamente en la 
región comunitaria sin controles en frontera?  
IV. POLITICAS COMERCIALES POR SECTORES 
2) A
GRICULTURA Y ACTIVIDADES CONEXAS  
ii)   Política Agrícola Común  
15. En relación con el párrafo 8 de  la página 101 del informe de la Secretaría, en el que se indica lo 
siguiente: “Según la Comisión, para finales 2006 o principios de 2007 se prevén propuestas para reformar los subsectores del vino y los frutos, legumbres y hortalizas”. 
 
¿Podría la CE explicar si las reformas para el subs ector de legumbre y hortalizas que indican serán en 
la misma tendencia que las reformas para el algodón?   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 71 
 
 
 ¿La Referencia IP/07/75 de fecha 24/01/2007 de la Co misión Europea, ¿forma parte de dicho paquete 
de reformas?   16. En relación con el párrafo 14 de  la página 106 del informe de la  Secretaría en el que se indica 
que se creará un único Fondo Agrario Europeo para el Desarrollo Rural. 
 
¿Cuáles son las modalidades para la asignación de los recursos de Fondo Agrario Europeo? 
 
17. En relación con el párrafo 22 de  la página 111 del informe de la  Secretaría, se menciona que la 
tasa media de utilización de los contingentes fue del 62 por ciento en 2002. 
 
¿Podría la CE explicar como influyen las modalidades de asignación de los contingentes a obtener una tasa media tan baja en la utilización de los mismos?   18. En relación con el párrafo 35 de la página  118 del informe de la Secretaría se indica lo  
siguiente: “En octubre de 2004, las CE también re sultaron perdedoras en una diferencia en que un 
Grupo Especial de la OMC resolvió que las CE ya no pueden subvencionar las exportaciones adicionales de azúcar para equilibrar las importacion es preferenciales, proceden tes principalmente de 
los países ACP.  En abril de 2005, el Órgano de Ap elación de la OMC confirmó las constataciones del 
Grupo Especial”  
¿Han cumplido la CE con las resoluciones de lo s Grupos Especiales que indican que no se pueden 
subvencionar las exportaciones adicionales de azúcar para equilibrar las importaciones preferenciales? 
 
6) SERVICIOS 
i) Panorama general 
 
19. En la página 137 del informe de la Secretaría  en el Recuadro IV.2 sobre los obstáculos al 
comercio de servicios identificados en la  CE, el cual se refiere a los monopolios. 
 
¿Para el establecimiento de proveedores de servic ios, en que sectores de servicios hay monopolio en 
los países miembros de la CE?   
 ¿En que Países Miembros de la CE existen monopolios?  
 
20. En la página 137 del informe de la Secretaría  en el Recuadro IV.2 sobre los obstáculos al 
comercio de servicios identificados en las CE, el  cual se refiere a los requisitos de residencia. 
 
¿En que países de la CE, se requiere que los "Directi vos de las Empresas" sean residentes dos tercios, 
la mitad o por lo menos uno de los miem bros del Consejo de Administración? 
 21. En la página 137 del informe de la Secretaría  en el Recuadro IV.2 sobre los obstáculos al 
comercio de servicios identificados en las CE, el  cual se refiere a los títulos de aptitud profesional. 
 
¿Se reconocen los títulos profesionales obtenidos en el extranjero por profesionales de la CE y por 
profesionales que no son de la CE?   ¿A qué tipo de Reglamento se refieren sobre el Reconocimiento de Títulos Profesionales? 
 22. En el párrafo 78, página 138 del informe de la  Secretaría señala lo siguiente: “El 4 de abril de 
2006 la Comisión adoptó una versión modificada de la propuesta de Directiva sobre los servicios en la 
que se elimina la norma del país de origen, que est aba encaminada a que los proveedores de servicios WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 72  
 
 pudieran observar la legislación de su país cuando operaran en otro Estado miembro de las CE;  esa 
cláusula se ha sustituido por una disposición sobre el libre suministro de servicios”. 
 
¿Podría la CE proveer una explicación más a fondo sobr e la disposición sobre el "libre suministro de 
Servicios"? 
 
23. En el mismo párrafo 78, página 138 del inform e de la Secretaría, se hace alusión a que la 
versión revisada abarca todos los subsector es de servicios, con unas pocas excepciones. 
 
¿Podría la CE identificar cuáles son las pocas excepciones? 
 ii) Servicios financieros  
a) Panorama general 
 24. En el párrafo 82 del informe de la Secret aría, página 139 se hace alusión a que pese a los 
progresos logrados con el PASF, las diferencias inst itucionales y los obstáculos transfronterizos entre 
los Estados Miembros siguen entorpeciendo el desarro llo de un mercado unificado para los servicios 
financieros. 
 
¿Cuáles son las diferencias Institucionales y los obst áculos transfronterizos de servicios financieros?  
 
25. En el párrafo 84, página 140 del informe de la  Secretaría se menciona que en el marco de la 
nueva estrategia, la Comisión trabaja actualmente  con los Estados Miembros y los colectivos 
interesados en un Código de Conducta sobr e compensación y liquidación de operaciones 
transfronterizas con el fin de mejorar su se guridad y eficiencia y reducir su costo. 
 
¿Podría la CE identificar "los colectivos interesados"? 
 b) Sector bancario  26. En el párrafo 92 del informe de la Secretaría , página 143, se señala lo siguiente: “Con arreglo a 
la legislación comunitaria, los Estados miembros  no concederán a las sucursales de entidades de 
crédito de terceros países un trato más favorable que el dispensado a las que tengan su oficina principal 
en las CE. No obstante, las CE pueden concluir acuerdos con terceros países y, en consecuencia, 
conceder a las sucursales de entidad es de crédito de terceros países un trato idéntico al dispensado en el 
territorio de las CE”. 
¿A qué tipo de acuerdos se refiere en lo indica do arriba, para conceder a las sucursales de  
entidades de crédito de terceros países el mism o trato dispensado en el territorio de la CE? 
 c) Seguros  27. Con relación al tema de seguros se formulan  las siguientes preguntas (Párrafos 93-98, páginas 
143-144): 
 
¿Se permite el establecimiento de su cursales (Banca y Seguro) de terceros países en el territorio de la 
CE?  ¿Se permite el establecimiento de sucursal es (Banca y Seguros) de los países de la CE? 
 
¿Cuales son las normas que se establecen para los compañías de seguros de terceros países?   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 73 
 
 
 iv) Transporte 
 
b) Transporte por carretera 
 28. En el párrafo 119 del informe de la Secretaría , página 154, se señala que el cabotaje realizado 
por los NEM-10 fue tan sólo del 6 por ciento del total de las CE-25, y más de la mitad de esa 
proporción correspondió a transportistas polacos (500 m illones de toneladas-kilómetro). Ello se debe a 
que los transportistas de la mayoría de los NE M-10 se enfrentan aún con restricciones legales. 
 
¿A qué tipo de restricciones legales se enfrentan los transportistas?  
OTRAS PREGUNTAS  
 
29. En los párrafos 52 y 53, página 19 de l Informe de las Comunidades Europeas 
(WT/TPR/G/177), se mencionan las relaciones de las CE con los 77 países de África, el Caribe y el 
Pacífico (ACP). 
 ¿Podría la CE indicar si la negociación de los Acuerdos de Asociación Económica entre la CE y los 
ACP estarán concluidas a finales del 2007 y que para no demorar su aplicación entrarán en vigor al 
momento de su firma?  
¿Está consciente la CE que otorgar un mejor acceso a los países ACP como resultado de Acuerdos de 
Asociación Económica significa que otros países en desarrollo similarmente ubicados, como Honduras, 
perderán ese acceso en un porcentaje equivalente?  Ya que el informe de la CE no proporciona mayo r información en cuanto al tratamiento que será 
otorgado a los países ACP bajo los Acuerdos de Asociación Económica. ¿Podría la CE ampliar la 
información en lo que concierne a productos de interés para Honduras, como el banano? 
 ¿Podría la CE confirmar que los Ac uerdos de Asociación Ec onómica conferirán al banano de los países 
ACP condiciones de acceso que son superiores al régimen de preferencias que tienen hoy en día?  
 
30. El párrafo 55, página 20  del Informe de las Comunidades Europeas (WT/TPR/G/177), se 
indica lo siguiente: En 2005 se aprobó un nuevo Re glamento sobre el SGP para el período 2006-2008 
que mejora el acceso a los mercados para los produ ctos de exportación de los países en desarrollo y 
economías en transición. Se entiende que la vigencia  del SGP-plus normalmente  concluiría el 31 de 
diciembre 2008. 
 
¿Podría la CE indicar si dicho régimen preferencial será ser ampliado y por cuantos años?  31. Siempre en relación al SGP, el párrafo 64, pági na 45 del informe de la Secretaría, se indica lo 
siguiente: “El SGP ha mejorado las posibilidades de los pa íses en desarrollo de obtener acceso a los 
mercados de las CE.  No obstante, existe una tende ncia a la disminución de la participación en el 
comercio y los índices de utilización del SGP son bajos”
  
 ¿Está de acuerdo la CE con lo expresado en el inform e de la Secretaría de la OMC respecto al bajo 
índice de utilización del SGP-plus y a qué lo atribuyen?  
32. Arancel del Banano: 
 ¿Por qué la CE ha impuesto un arancel de 176€ t. m. a nuestras importaciones de banano que es muy 
superior a su arancel medio NMF para productos agrícolas?  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 74  
 
 ¿Reconoce la CE que el haber impuesto un nuevo aran cel que es más del doble del que se pagaba bajo 
el régimen anterior es contrario a los objeti vos de la Programa de Desarrollo de Doha?  
  33. Ampliación de la CE   
¿Podría la CE indicar si la ampliación ha servi do para otorgar nuevas oportunidades de acceso a los 
países ACP en mercados donde nunca antes habían tenido presencia?   ¿Podría la CE indicar cuando reconocerá el inte rés de Honduras como abastecedor sustancial de 
banano al mercado de la CE?   
 
34. La CE ha consignado en su Informe que ap lica puntualmente las resoluciones del Órgano de 
Solución de Diferencias.   ¿Cómo compatibiliza la CE esa declaración con el hecho de cada mes en las reuniones de ese órgano 
un creciente numero de delegaciones han expresa do preocupación por el no cumplimiento de 
Banano-III?.  
 ¿Por que ha preferido recurrir a un mecanismo de mo nitoreo que solo desvía la atención y no es idóneo 
para resolver las dificultades que están enfrentando lo s países de América Lati na, ni para impedir que 
las mismas se magnifiquen en el futuro cercano? 
 
PREGUNTAS DE COLOMBIA
 
 
INFORME DE LA SECRETARÍA (WT/TPR/S/177) 
CAPITULO  II. REGÍMENES  DE COMERCIO  E INVERSIÓN 
Reglamentación comercial y entorno empresarial  
En el párrafo 19 el informe de la Secretaría come nta que de conformidad con el capítulo 4 del Tratado 
de las CE, están prohibidas, con escasas excepciones, todas las restricciones de la circulación de mercancías y capitales, así como del suministro de servicios entre los Estados miembros, y entre éstos 
y terceros países.  Además, los Estados miembros pueden adoptar medidas para impedir la infracción 
de leyes y reglamentos nacionales y por otra parte,  los Estados miembros pue den aplicar disposiciones 
pertinentes de su legislación fiscal que diferencien a los contribuyentes en función de su lugar de 
residencia o del lugar donde se invierta el cap ital, siempre y cuando ello no dé lugar a una 
discriminación arbitraria o a restricciones encubiertas. 
1. Respecto a las medidas de salvaguardia que puede  adoptar el Consejo sobre los movimientos de 
capital, Colombia desea saber si existe un instrume nto jurídico de las CE estableciendo los criterios 
objetivos que sigue el Consejo para imponer dic has medidas.  ¿Históricamente cuáles son las 
situaciones en las cuales dichas medidas han sido impuestas? 
 
2. Por favor especificar cuáles s on las restricciones a la inversión direct a en bienes raíces, prestación 
de servicios financieros y mercados de capitales (admis ión de acciones a cotización).  En caso de que 
las restricciones no sean homogéneas para toda las CE , es decir que difieran por países, por favor 
especificar en qué consisten para cada uno de sus miembros? 
 
A
CUERDOS COMERCIALE S 
Panorama general 
El párrafo 26 establece que algunos de los acuerdos pr eferenciales recíprocos de las CE comprenden 
aspectos bilaterales y multilaterales, y en casi t odos los casos la liberalización es asimétrica. Además 
que se han hecho revisiones y que en la mayor part e de los casos esas revisiones han dado lugar a una  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 75 
 
 
 mayor liberalización del comercio de productos no  agrícolas y productos agrícolas y, en algunas 
ocasiones, del comercio de servicios.  
Respecto a los acuerdos preferenciales que abarcan la esfera de liberalización de las corrientes de 
inversión y de capital, Colombia tiene las siguientes inquietudes:   3. Cuáles son las diferencias en términos de oblig aciones incluidas y de estructura, entre lo que 
abarcan los referidos acuerdos y los acuerdos bila terales de inversión que varios Estados miembros 
de las CE suscriben con el resto del mundo?    4. Existe un impedimento legal par a que las CE negocien como CE acuerdos bilaterales de inversión 
con terceros Estados? Es decir, existe una directriz Europea u otro tipo de instrumento jurídico que 
prohíba dicha negociación, o se requeriría un mandat o especial para que las CE negociaran tratados 
bilaterales de inversión (o un acuerdo comercial c on un capítulo de inversión) que incluyeran entre 
otras disciplinas aquellas de trato nacional, tr ato de nación más favorecida, prohibición de 
expropiación ilegal, expropiación indirecta, trato ju sto y equitativo, libre transferencia, la resolución 
de controversias inversionista-Estado, etc.?  
 5. Existe algún impediment o legal o constitucional en la legislació n de los Estados par te de las CE que 
no permita la suscripción de un acuerdo bilatera l de inversión o de un acuerdo comercial con un 
capítulo de inversión, con las disciplinas antes mencionadas, entre un tercer Estado y las CE? 
 
F
ORMULACIÓN Y APLICACIÓN DE POLÍTICAS  
En el Párrafo 8 se comenta que en el proceso de adopción de decisiones, intervienen diversas 
instituciones. El Consejo o el Parlamento, por su pa rte, pueden delegar facultades en la Comisión, que 
en tal caso adopta las decisiones, asistida por un co mité compuesto de representantes de los Estados 
miembros (comitología), que actúa con arreglo a lo s procedimientos consultivo, de gestión, de 
reglamentación o de salvaguardia.  
6. Las decisiones asistidas por el comité (comitol ogía) a las que se refiere este punto, se establecen 
para el comercio intracomunitario o comprenden tamb ién las decisiones y procedimientos sobre el 
comercio proveniente de terceros paí ses o países extracomunitarios?   
REGLAMENTACIÓN COMERCIAL Y ENTORNO EMPRESARIAL  
En el párrafo 17 el Informe de la Secretaría come nta sobre el fomento y facilitación a la creación de 
nuevas empresas, que hacen parte del Programa de I nnovación. En el párrafo 18 se hace referencia al 
Programa Marco de Competitividad e Innovación, propuesto para el perí odo 2007-2013, tiene por 
objeto fomentar la utilización de tecnologías de la información, tecnologías ambientales y fuentes de 
energía renovables.  
7. Agradecemos se nos suministre mayor informac ión cómo operan los pr ogramas de apoyo a las 
empresas,  en qué consiste el apoy o y a cuáles empresas se otorga?  
En el párrafo 19 se comenta que de conformidad con el capítulo 4 del Tratado de las CE, están 
prohibidas, con escasas excepciones, todas las restricc iones de la circulación de mercancías y capitales, 
así como del suministro de servicios entre los Estados miembros, y entre éstos y terceros países.  8. Nos podría indicar la UE cuáles son las excepci ones que se mantienen a la libre circulación de 
mercancía y capitales y en el suministro de servicios entre los Estados miembros y entre éstos y 
terceros países?   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 76  
 
 En el párrafo 20 se comenta que el Tratado prohí be también las restricciones a la libertad de 
establecimiento, con inclusión de la apertura de agencias, sucursales o filiales, aunque puede haber 
excepciones con respecto a las disposiciones que pr evean un régimen especial para los extranjeros. 
Adicionalmente, a partir del 2004 entró en vigor el Estatuto de la Sociedad Anónima Europea, en 
virtud del cual las empresas que operen en varios Estados miembros  pueden constituirse como una sola 
empresa.  
9. Existe alguna limitación o restricción comunitari a o nacional de alguno de  los países miembros de 
las CE, a la conformación de sociedades dedicada s al comercio exterior, con socios o capital 
extracomunitarios? 
CAPITULO III. POLITICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS, NUMERAL 2)  
Procedimientos aduaneros y valoración en aduana 
La Secretaria informa al final del párrafo 7 que “ ... Entre otras propuestas específicas cabe citar las 
encaminadas a la centralización de los procedimient os de despacho, con una sola oficina para la 
realización de los procedimientos a duaneros y de otro tipo aplicables en la frontera exterior de las CE, 
y la puesta en marcha de un punto de entrada electrónico con ventanilla única.” 
10.. Podrían explicar mas ampliamente como funcionará  el centro de procedimientos de despacho y la 
ventanilla única? 
Igualmente la Secretaria informa en el párrafo 8 que  “ Por otra parte, el Reglamento (CE) Nº 648/2005 
prevé la presentación de información previamente a la llegada de las mercancías, en forma de 
declaración sumaria y por vía electrónica, en cualquier  oficina de aduanas, excepto cuando se trate de 
mercancías que atraviesen aguas o espacios aéreos territoriales.” 
 
11. Cómo garantiza las CE el cumplimiento del prin cipio de trato nacional, que puede ser no atendido 
al discriminar los procedimientos aplicados a las importaciones intracomunitarias, frente a la de 
terceros países? . Cuál es la diferencia tanto en co stos como en tiempos de esta diferencia en la 
presentación de la declaración de las mercancías? 
 
Otros derechos e impuestos 
El párrafo 17 contiene información relacionada con el IVA y su completa armonización en el ámbito 
comunitario. 
12. Existe en el corto o mediano plazo, iniciativas  de las autoridades comunitarias competentes para 
establecer un único sistema armonizado en materia de IVA y de impuestos al consumo de bienes y 
servicios?   
MEDIDAS COMERCIALES ESPECIALES 
 
En el párrafo 37 numeral viii), se informa que las CE pueden aplicar simultáneamente sobre un mismo 
producto, medidas de salvaguardia y derechos antid umping o compensatorios. Sin embargo, cuando 
esta combinación de medidas da lugar a efectos mayores de lo “deseable”, las CE pueden derogar los 
derechos antidumping o compensatorios y reemplazarlos por “otras” medidas.   
13. Cuáles son esas “otras medidas” que reemplaz an los derechos antidumping o compensatorios y 
cuál ha sido la experiencia práctica de la CE en este tema?. 
 En el párrafo 41, se menciona la modificación de la legislación de la CE, en materia de elusión.    WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 77 
 
 
 14. Han aplicado las CE medidas anti-elusión c ontra terceros países y qué procedimiento se utiliza 
para comprobar que se están anulando los efectos  correctivos de un derecho antidumping ? 
 OBSTÁCULOS TÉCNICOS AL COMERCIO (OTC) 
 En el párrafo 48 informa la Secretaría que “en l as CE no se ha logrado la plena armonización de las 
normas y los reglamentos técnicos.  Los productos introducidos en el merc ado de un Estado miembro 
deben cumplir, cuando corresponda, la legislación naciona l y la legislación comunitaria pertinentes;  el 
cumplimiento se determina mediante procedim ientos de evaluación de la conformidad.” 
 15. Al respecto, solicitamos nos informen si el alcan ce de la legislación comunitaria en el tema de 
normas y reglamentos técnicos, así como las relacio nadas con medidas sanitari as y fitosanitarias,  es 
más restrictiva que las  disposiciones de legislación de cada estado miembro?   
 
16. El cumplimiento de lo dispuesto en los regla mentos técnicos comunitarios, podría ser suficiente 
para que se permita el ingreso de productos a los estados y no imponer así mayores obstáculos al 
comercio, habida cuenta de la existencia de tant as normativas y reglamentos técnicos como estados 
pertenecientes a las Comunidades.  Lo que se cumple para ing resar a un estado no es suficiente para 
ingresar a otro? 
 
En párrafo 50 se comenta que en las  materias de l OTC no  armonizadas, los Estados miem bros pueden 
legislar para aumentar la transparencia y están obligados a notificar los proyectos de normas a los 
organismos comunitarios de normalización y los pr oyectos de reglamentos técnicos a la Comisión 
Europea.   Por su parte, el párrafo 52 contiene informaci ón sobre las notificaciones que realizaron los Estados 
miembros y la Comisión Europea a la Secretaría de la OMC en desarrollo de las disposiciones del 
Acuerdo OTC. Sobre el particular, Colombia está interesada en conocer si:   
17. Las Comunidades Europeas y  los países mi embros  han notificado a la OMC todos los  
reglamentos técnicos vigentes? 
 
18. Existe un inventario de reglamentos técnicos  vigentes en las Comunidades Europeas y en los 
países miembros?  19. Para cuándo tienen previsto las Comunidades Eur opeas lograr la plen a armonización de sus 
normas y reglamentos técnicos?  
 
20. Qué porcentaje de reglamentos técnicos en las Comunidades Europeas están basados en normas 
técnicas internacionales?  21. Las Comunidades Europeas realizan estudios de impacto en el comercio cuando elaboran sus 
reglamentos técnicos? 
 
22. Son tenidas en cuenta por  las Comunidades Europeas las observaciones que presenta un país 
sobre un proyecto de reglamento técnico al moment o de expedirlo? Cuál es el procedimiento para 
trabajar las observaciones comunitariamente? Que sucede si un Estado miembro no está de acuerdo 
con las observaciones formuladas por un tercero? 
 
23. Se ha aplicado el Plan de Acción para la Normaliz ación Europea en lo relativo a la incorporación 
de normas internacionales en el marco de la CE?  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 78  
 
 24. Puede un país miembro celebrar acuerdos de  reconocimiento mutuo sobre algún producto con un 
país no miembro?  25. Existen en la actualidad organi smos de acreditación, certificación  y/o laboratorios, de carácter 
comunitario? En caso afirmativo, ¿Cuáles son los requisitos, trámite y procedimiento para celebrar 
acuerdos de reconocimiento mutuo entre est os y un organismo de un país no miembro? 
 26. Podrían señalar el link a través del cual se puede acceder a la información sobre reglamentos 
técnicos comunitarios en la página Web de las Comunidades Europeas?  
27. Existe un trato especial y diferenciado para paí ses en desarrollo en la Propuesta de Reglamento 
del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, relativo al  registro, la evaluación, la autorización y la 
restricción de las sustancias y preparados químicos (REACH)?  MEDIDAS SANITARIAS Y FITOSANITARIAS (MSF) 
 El párrafo 54 señala que el régimen común en mate ria sanitaria y fitosanitaria tiene por objeto, entre 
otros, mantener la legislación comunitaria en materia sanitaria y fitosanitaria se prevé una Política 
Comunitaria de Sanidad Animal que es taba en curso de examen en octubre de 2006. Por su parte, en el 
párrafo 55 se expresa que la AESA (Autoridad Eur opea de Seguridad Alimentaria) sigue siendo la 
principal institución encargada del análisis científic o de todas las cuestiones sanitarias y fitosanitarias a 
nivel comunitario y que pretende ampliar las comisi ones científicas para incluir expertos en diversas 
esferas fitosanitarias.   
28. Se basan efectivamente las medidas adoptadas por  las CE en los resultados científicos obtenidos 
por los organismos internacionales de referencia y AESA o se apartan de estos? De ser así, ¿Podrían 
las CE explicar las razones para esto y el susten to legal sino se basan en los análisis de riesgo 
conforme establece el Acuerdo sobre MSF de la OMC?  
29. Teniendo en cuenta que la AESA sigue siendo la  institución encargada del análisis científico de las 
cuestiones sanitarias y fitosanitarias a nivel comun itario, centrada en la eva luación de riesgos, como 
se compatibilizará la actividad de esta Agencia con las actividades de la Comisión y de los Estados 
miembros quienes son los responsables de la gestión de  riesgos y el funcionamiento de los sistemas de 
control alimentario? 
 30. Colombia desea conocer si la CE tiene prevista la ampliación de  sus programas de asistencia 
técnica a los países en desarrollo, para adecuar su  capacidad institucional a las nuevas exigencias 
fitosanitarias que se deriven de los estudios y los conceptos emitidos por las nuevas comisiones 
científicas de la AESA. 
 
En consonancia con lo anterior, las CE vienen tr abajando en la modificación del Reglamento 258 de 
1997, sobre los nuevos alimentos.  
31. Toma la CE en consideración la información té cnica y científica que pueden suministrar los demás 
países miembros, generalmente PED y PMA, y el historial de consumo seguro en sus lugares de 
origen, para la elaboración de los respectivos aná lisis de riesgo que sustenten las exigencias que 
deben cumplir los nuevos alimentos?    
Las CE han reconocido en el Comité MSF de la OM C que el sector privado viene adoptando requisitos 
sanitarios o fitosanitarios cada vez mayores, como es  el caso particular del EUREPGAP, los cuales se 
convierten en estándares de obligatorio cumplimi ento para acceder o pe rmanecer en ese mercado.   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 79 
 
 
 32. Qué acciones adelantan las CE para evitar que estas exigencias no representen una restricción o 
un mecanismo de discriminación a las exportaciones de los PED y los PMA? 
33. En qué casos particulares las CE han aplicad o el trato especial y diferenciando a los PED 
conforme lo establece el artículo 10 del Acuerdo MSF  para la implementación de MSF en los países exportadores y mediante cuál(es) modalidad(es), de ta l manera que les permita cumplir con los niveles 
adecuados de protección exigidos por las CE?   
En el párrafo 57, menciona la S ecretaría que para ayudar a sus exportadores las CE han establecido una 
base de datos sobre MSF de terceros países "con efect os de distorsión del comercio". Tales distorsiones 
del comercio se refieren, entre otras cuestiones, a encefalopatía espongiforme bovina, influenza aviar 
altamente patógena, certificación, fiebre aftosa, aditi vos alimentarios, peste porcina clásica y lista de 
establecimientos.  
 
34. No obstante la explicación dada, Colombia d esea conocer la interpretación que las Comunidades 
Europeas le dan a la frase “efectos de distorsi ón del comercio”, principalmente en relación con el 
Acuerdo MSF de la OMC. 
 
CONTRATACIÓN PÚBLICA 
 
En el párrafo 62 se indica que las nuevas direc tivas introdujeron cambios en varios temas.  
 
35. Agradecemos ampliar la información sobre el te ma: "vi) aclaraciones sobre el trato de cuestiones 
sociales y ambientales".  
El párrafo 64 menciona que en las nuevas directivas, las CE otorgan trato no discriminatorio a los proveedores en el ámbito comunitario.   36. Agradecemos aclarar si el concepto de no discriminación establecido en las nuevas directivas,  
cubre a los proveedores extranjeros además de los proveedores de la CE.  Si no es así, apreciamos 
una explicación de cuáles condiciones son diferentes par a un proveedor extranjero de un país con el 
que la CE no ha suscrito un acuerdo de contratación pública.  
 
El párrafo 65 se refiere a los contratos que pueden quedar exentos del proced imiento establecido en la 
Directiva 2004/17.  
 
37. Entendemos que las empresas de servicios públic os que hacen parte de los sectores consignados en 
la directiva mencionada, los cuales están en competencia abierta, dado que no hay restricciones al acceso, no están obligadas a aplicar la Directiva 2004/17 en sus contratos. De esta forma, los 
contratos se realizan de acuerdo con las normas del derecho privado. Si no es así, por favor explicar. 
 
Medidas que afectan a la producción y el comercio 
Derechos de propiedad Intelectual 
 
En el párrafo 115 el Informe de la Secretaría comenta que en 2005 la Comisión adoptó un informe 
sobre patentes relacionadas con secuencias de gen es y sobre la patentabilidad de invenciones 
relacionadas con células madre y que la Comisi ón no ha adoptado una posic ión con respecto a las 
interpretaciones de los Estados miembros sobre el tipo preferible de protección para las secuencias de 
genes, ni tampoco ha adoptado una posición defin itiva sobre la patentabilidad de las células madre 
embrionarias. 
 
38. Cuándo la Comisión proyecta considerar nuevamente el tema descrito con el fin de adoptar alguna 
posición uniforme respecto del patentamien to de células madre pluripotentes? WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 80  
 
 39. Cuáles son los medios de protección que han si do considerados para las secuencias de genes? 
 
(a) En el párrafo 114, 121 y 122, se comenta que  la Oficina Comunitaria de Obtenciones 
Vegetales recibió una gran mayoría de so licitudes y los títulos correspondía a obtenciones 
ornamentales y sobre la observancia de los DPI, así como el aumento de los artículos 
falsificados y pirata decomisados en las fronteras de las CE. 
Colombia desea saber si, 
 
40. Dentro de las medidas de observancia adopt adas o por adoptar para la protección de los 
Derechos de Propiedad Intelect ual, existe algún tipo de medidas  que permitan a la autoridad 
aduanera la suspensión de operaciones en frontera  que impliquen una infracción a los Derechos de 
Obtentor de Nuevas Variedades Vegetales, o de cualquier otro modo, que permitan proteger este tipo de derechos en las fronteras?  CAPITULO IV. POLITICAS COMERCIALES POR SECTORES 
AGRICULTURA Y ACTIVIDADES CONEXAS  
En el párrafo 8  se indica que en el marco de la re forma de la PAC iniciada en 2003, las CE en 2006 
empezaron a introducir reformas en algunos sectores , orientadas a reducir las subvenciones causantes 
de distorsión del comercio.   
En el caso del algodón, se estableció que “el 65% de las subvenciones de las CE al algodón se 
disociarán de la producción y se pagarán como sosten imiento de los ingresos de los agricultores (pagos 
del compartimento verde) y el 35% se destinará a los productores como ayuda por hectárea cultivada 
con algodón (pagos del compartimento azul)”.   41. Cómo garantizan las CE que esta recomposició n de apoyos de una caja a otra no sigue causando 
efectos distorsionantes  sobre la producción y el comercio? 
 
En el párrafo 9 de la página 102, se presentan los elem entos claves de la reforma de la PAC iniciada en 
2003.  Dentro de ellos, el régimen de pago único desvinculado de los precios y la producción es uno de 
los más importantes. Sin embargo, también se señal a que “los Estados miembr os también pueden optar 
por mantener un vínculo limitado entre los pa gos y la producción ("disociación parcial")”.  
 
42. Bajo este escenario en el que siguen existiendo los dos sistemas, ¿cuál es el mecanismo aplicado 
por las CE para asegurar la condición de desv inculación parcial entre los pagos y la producción?, 
¿en qué consisten las propuestas de reforma para los subsectores del vino y los frutos, legumbres y 
hortalizas?  
Otras medidas utilizadas por las CE se refieren a la  “reducción obligatoria de los pagos directos 
(modulación) aplicables a las grandes explotaciones para  financiar la nueva políti ca de desarrollo rural; 
la reforma del mecanismo de intervención para los productos con desequilibrios estructurales, como la 
mantequilla, el centeno y el arroz;  el ajuste de los mecanismos de ayuda pa ra otros productos (por 
ejemplo, el trigo duro, las patatas de fécula, lo s forrajes desecados y los frutos de cáscara) y un 
mecanismo de disciplina financiera que garantiza que los gastos no sobrepasen el presupuesto para la 
reforma, fijado hasta 2013”.   
43. De acuerdo con lo anterior, ¿cómo se ha venid o cumpliendo esta reducción de los pagos directos y 
cómo se garantiza que estos apoyos al desarrollo ru ral no son distorsionantes?, ¿qué entienden las CE 
por productos con desequilibrios estructurales y en  qué consiste la reforma del mecanismo de 
intervención?, ¿en qué consiste el ajuste del mec anismo de ayuda para otros productos como el trigo 
duro, las patatas de fécula, los forra jes desecados y los frutos de cáscara?  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 81 
 
 
  
44. Con base en lo establecido en el párrafo 16 ¿cuál es el cumplimiento que se ha venido dando al 
reglamento sobre la ayuda de “de minimis”? y ¿cóm o se vincula con el compromiso de “de minimis” 
establecido en el Acuerdo sobre la  Agricultura en la OMC?  
 Con relación a los métodos de asignación de continge ntes arancelarios señalados  en el párrafo 22:  
 
45. A qué productos se aplica el método de  asignación mixta y en qué proporción? 
 
De acuerdo con lo indicado en el párrafo 24, sobre la necesidad de las CE de mantener subvenciones 
para la exportación de algunos excedentes y para ciertos productos agrícolas elaborados: 
 
46. Cuál es el nivel de subvención a la exportaci ón que consideran las CE como indispensables y para 
qué productos? 
 Para el caso de los cereales, definido en el párrafo 29: 
 
47. Cómo opera el precio de intervención para cada producto? 
 
Con relación a la reforma al régimen del azúcar expresado en el párrafo 35 y 36: 
 48. Cuándo empezó a operar esta reforma?  49. Cómo se han venido cumpliendo las reducciones en el precio de referencia definidas en los 
periodos de tiempo de 2006/07 y como se prevé reali zarlas en el período  2009/10 para asegurar un 
equilibrio sostenible en el mercado? 
 
50. Cómo opera el “sistema de almacenamiento pr ivado como red de seguridad en caso de que el 
precio del mercado baje a un nivel inferior al precio de referencia”? y ¿bajo qué modalidad es notificado a la OMC?  
En el documento de la Secretaría no se hace alus ión al banano, producto de especial interés para 
Colombia. El acceso al mercado europeo de este producto procedente de los países latinoamericanos 
sigue siendo restrictivo y discriminatorio, considerando el contingente arancelario preferencial de 775.000 Ton libre de arancel otorgado a los países AC P, frente al arancel único de 176 EUR/Ton para 
los países NMF, adoptado a partir del 1° de enero de 2006.    51. De acuerdo con lo anterior, ¿tienen las CE previstas acciones concretas para equilibrar las 
condiciones de acceso para los países NMF que  son grandes exportadores como Colombia? 
 
51. bis En el informe de la Secretaría se indica que las CE han consolidado en la OMC todas sus 
líneas arancelarias (Lista CXL).  Con motivo de las ampliaciones de las comunidades de 15 a 25 Estados miembros, y ahora a 27, ha habido camb ios en los aranceles tanto consolidados como 
aplicados. En el caso del banano, la s CE notificaron su intención de sustituir sus concesiones respecto 
de la partida 08030019 (banan as) incluida en su Lista y a la fecha no se ha notificado la modificación 
de la Listas. Podrían en ese sentido indicar las CE  cuál es el arancel consolidado de las bananas?  
Otro de los mecanismos que hacen parte de la políti ca comercial de las CE y que no se menciona en el 
informe de la Secretaría es el Sistema de Pr ecios de Entrada que se aplica a algunos productos 
agrícolas. Este mecanismo que establece aranceles fijos y variables a las importaciones es uno de los 
obstáculos más importantes para el acceso al mercado europeo.   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 82  
 
 52. Teniendo en cuenta que las reducciones ar ancelarias a través de este mecanismo han sido 
limitadas en los acuerdos de libre comercio suscr itos por las CE, es de interés conocer ¿qué acciones 
concretas han previsto las CE para reducir signific ativamente los aranceles aplicados bajo este 
esquema en el marco de futu ras negociaciones comerciales? 
 
PESCA 
 
Se menciona en el párrafo 39 que en el 2004, la  flota pesquera de las CE constaba de 92.422 
embarcaciones;  6.713 pertenecían a los NEM-10, con una antigüedad media de 19 años.  Antes de la 
adhesión de los NEM-10, el número de embarcacion es y su capacidad en tonelaje y en potencia había 
disminuido, debido principalmente a la política de l as CE de reducir el exceso de capacidad de flota 
con el fin de lograr un mejor equilibrio entre el esfue rzo pesquero y los recursos pesqueros disponibles.   
 
53. Podrían proporcionar información en torno al tam año actual de la flota pesquera de las CE y sus 
planes de reducción, si los hay?.  Existe  algún cronograma previsto para tal reducción? 
 
El párrafo 44 señala que “un aspecto importante de la  política pesquera de las CE, a la luz de la 
fragilidad de las poblaciones de peces de sus aguas terr itoriales y de la excesiva capacidad de la flota, 
sigue siendo el desarrollo de opor tunidades de pesca en otras pa rtes, ya sea mediante acuerdos 
bilaterales o, en alta mar, mediante las organizaciones regionales de pesca (ORP)”.    54. En desarrollo del Código para la Pesca R esponsable de la FAO, varias ORP vienen 
implementando medidas para el control de la P esca Ilegal No Declarada y No Documentada (IUU), 
que incluyen la adopción de medidas comerciales.  Podrían las CE explicar cómo ha sido la implementación de tales medidas, según corresponda,  en las diferentes ORP en las que participan? 
 
En el párrafo 47 se proporciona información sobre el  Instrumento Financiero de Orientación de la 
Pesca (IFOP), que será sustituido a partir de 2007 por el Fondo Europeo de la Pesca (FEP) con 
funcionamiento similar. Así mismo se relacionan lo s objetivos del   FEP y se mencionan datos sobre el 
presupuesto para el período 2007-2013.   
55. Podría las CE ilustrar algunas de las accion es o proyectos que se piensan adelantar con recursos 
del FEP?.  En particular, qué tipo de proyectos en  materia de explotación sostenible se contempla 
financiar?  Sector Manufacturero  
La Secretaria menciona importantes montos de ayuda estatal  que se dirigen en cerca del 65 por ciento a 
actividades manufactureras y diversos subsectores de ser vicios, el 24 por ciento a la agricultura y la 
pesca, el 9 por ciento al carbón y el 2 por ciento al transporte (cuadro III.13).  Igualmente informa en el 
Capítulo IV, que el sector manufacturero (CIIU, re visión 2, definición) sigue siendo uno de los 
principales beneficiarios de la ayuda estatal.  
56. Podrían informar en que cons iste la ayuda estatal y bajo que  disposiciones del Acuerdo de 
Subvenciones y Medidas Compensatorias de la OM C  están amparados los beneficios otorgados al 
sector manufacturero?  A que Est ados miembros se destinan?  
 Servicios 
 
(b) La Secretaría menciona en el párrafo 76 que en 2 005 el sector de los servicios (incluidos los de 
construcción) representó el 77,7 por ciento del valor añadido bruto y un porcentaje similar del  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 83 
 
 
 empleo total (156 millones de personas). Adem ás, que entre los principales obstáculos al 
comercio de servicios existentes en las CE  figuran los monopolios y las diferencias de 
reglamentación entre los Estados miembros. 
57. En qué sectores de servicios se mantie nen a la fecha monopolios en las CE? 
 
58. Frente al pie de página, por favor explicar por qué las PYMES no pueden realizar actividades 
tranfronterizas? Es por la diferencia de reglamentac ión entre los Estados? De ser así, la Directiva de 
Servicios del 2004 no pretende liberalizar el  mercado interno de servicios en las CE? 
 
(c) En el párrafo 77 el Informe de la Secretaría  comenta que la Comisión presentó en 2004 su 
propuesta de Directiva sobre los servicios en el mercado interior ("Directiva sobre los 
servicios") y considera que la Directiva sobre lo s servicios constituye el principal marco para 
las reformas y beneficios derivados. Pese a prev erse esos beneficios, la Directiva tropezó con 
una gran oposición de diversas partes, en par ticular de los sindicatos, que temían un "dumping 
social". 
 
59. De la lectura del párrafo anterior se entiende que  la propuesta de directiva de servicios de las CE 
sólo aplicaría a los prestadores de servicios que estén establecidos en un Estado miembro (modo 3). 
Sin embargo, el Tratado Constitutiv o de la CE establece que quedarán prohibidas las restricciones a 
la libre prestación de servicios dentro de la Co munidad para los nacionales de los Estados miembros 
establecidos en un país de la Comunidad que no sea el del destinatario de la prestación, o sea el modo 
1. La inquietud que le surge a Colombia es, en defi nitiva, a cuáles modos de suministro aplicaría la 
liberación del comercio de servicios?  60. Si la Directiva tiene como pr opósito lograr un verdadero mercado in terior en el plazo de 10 años, 
significa ello que actualmente no existe libre comercio de servicios en las CE? 
 
61. Cuáles son las disciplinas que rigen la liberalización del comercio de servicios en las CE? Es decir, se aplica trato nacional, acceso a mercados, p resencia local obligatoria y trato de nación más 
favorecida? 
 
(d) El Informe de la Secretaría comenta en el párra fo 78 que en abril de 2006 la Comisión adoptó 
una versión modificada de la propuesta de Directiva sobre los servicios en la que se elimina la 
norma del país de origen, que estaba encamina da a que los proveedores de servicios pudieran 
observar la legislación de su país cuando operara n en otro Estado miembro de las CE. Y que  
esa cláusula se ha sustituido por una disposición sobre el libre suministro de servicios.  La versión revisada abarca todos los subsector es de servicios, con unas pocas excepciones. 
Colombia agradece responder: 
62. Cuáles son las pocas excepciones a las que hacen  referencia, Por cuánto tiempo se mantendrán 
esas excepciones? 
 
(e) En el párrafo 79 el Informe de la Secretaría comenta sobre los principales acontecimientos que 
han tenido lugar en el sector de los servicios  desde el anterior Examen de las Políticas 
Comerciales de las CE, entre ellos: progresos con respecto a la aplicación del marco regulador 
de las telecomunicaciones y de la Directiva sobre los servicios postales. 
63. Cuáles son los principales progresos con respect o a la aplicación del marco regulador de las 
telecomunicaciones?  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 84  
 
 64. Qué se entiende por plena realización del marco interior de servicios postales? 
 
Servicios financieros 
 
El párrafo 82 comenta sobre el PASF para el perí odo 1999-2005, como principal instrumento de las CE 
para fomentar la integración de los mercados fina ncieros y que pese a los progresos logrados con el 
PASF, las diferencias institucionales y los obstáculo s transfronterizos entre los Estados miembros 
siguen entorpeciendo el desarrollo de un mercado unificado para los servicios financieros.   
 
65. Cuáles son los obstáculos transfronterizos que entorpecen el desarrollo de un mercado unificado 
para los servicios financieros en las CE? 
 
(f) El informe de la Secretaría en el párrafo 83 establece que en diciembre de 2005 se puso en 
marcha una nueva estrategia quinquenal sobre los servicios financieros para consolidar los 
progresos realizados y eliminar los obstáculo s subsistentes a la plena integración de los 
mercados de servicios financieros. 
66. Cuáles son los obstáculos que aun persisten que im piden la plena integrac ión de los mercados de 
servicios financieros en las CE?  Servicios de telecomunicaciones y servicios postales  
(g) En el párrafo 104 la Secretaría comenta sobre helecho que la competencia está llevando a los 
operadores de telecomunicaciones fijas y móviles a invertir en nuevas tecnologías para reducir 
costos y situarse en un entorno de convergencia.  Esta competencia en el mercado de voz fija 
de las CE sigue basándose en gran medida en el acceso indirecto a productos al por mayor, por ejemplo preselección de operador y selección de operador.   También que últimamente ha 
aumentado considerablemente el número de operadores que ofrecen servicios VoIP, y 
actualmente puede disponerse de esos servicios en la mayor parte de los Estados miembros. 
67. Cuáles son las razones que explican el crecimien to en el número de operadores públicos de 
telefonía fija y el reducido número de competido res importantes? Existen estímulos especiales dentro 
del régimen de la CE que impulsen este crecimiento?  
68. En qué consiste el esquema de preselecci ón y selección del operador? Cómo se relaciona este 
esquema con la portabilidad del número? Existen obligaciones esp ecíficas para estos operadores en 
cuanto a portabilidad? Cuál es el régimen aplicable en esta materia?  69. Se consideran los proveedores de telef onía móvil proveedores importantes (principales 
operadores) en el régimen de la CE? 
 70. Cuáles son las obligaciones de los proveedores  importantes (principales operadores) en materia 
de desagregación, reventa e interconexión dentro de  la CE? En qué consiste el acceso indirecto 
(acceso bitstream)?  
71. Existen obligaciones especiales para lo s operadores que ofrecen  serviciosVoIP?  
 72. Existe un régimen especial para los pr oveedores de los servicios de valor agregado? 
 Transporte 
 
(h) En el párrafo 115, se comenta sobre el hec ho que todos los modos de transporte están 
liberalizados en las CE desde 1993, aunque se mantienen algunas restricciones;  por ejemplo,  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 85 
 
 
 no existe aún cabotaje en el transporte de carga  por ferrocarril, ni apertura del mercado de 
transporte de pasajeros por ferrocarril.  
73. Esa liberalización en cabotaje aplica únicamente para los países de las CE? 
(i) El Informe de la Secretaría en el párrafo 117 comenta que las empresas extranjeras que se 
establecen como personas jurídicas en las CE están sujetas al mismo marco regulador en 
materia de transporte que las empresas de las CE. 
74. Cuáles son esas medidas incluidas en la  mayoría de los acuerdos bilaterales? 
 PREGUNTAS E INQUIETUDES PLANTEADAS POR LA REPUBLICA DE COLOMBIA EN EL MARCO DEL EXAMEN DE POLITICA COMERCIAL DE LAS COMUNIDADES 
EUROPEAS 
INFORME DEL GOBIERNO (WT/TPR/G/177) CAPITULO
 II. PRINCIPALES  ACONTECIMIENTOS  REGISTRADOS  EN LAS  CE (2004  – 
2006) 
EVOLUCIÓN DEL MERCADO INTERIOR Y DE LOS EL EMENTOS PRINCIPALES DE POLÍTICA GENERAL  
En el párrafo 11 del Informe de Gobierno, menciona n las CE que se  ha puesto en marcha una nueva 
iniciativa destinada a facilitar la reintegración en el mercado laboral de los trabajadores excedentarios, 
como consecuencia de los cambios en la estructura de l comercio mundial.  Cada año, a partir de enero 
de 2007, se pondrán a disposición 500 millones de eu ros con cargo al Fondo Europeo de Adaptación a 
la Globalización.   
75. Cómo consecuencia de los camb ios en la estructura del comercio mundial, cómo se prevé que va a 
funcionar este Fondo Europeo de Adaptación a la  Globalización?, será sólo para las personas 
cesantes?, involucrará otras esfera s o sólo las consecuencias d erivadas del comercio mundial? 
(ii)  
En el párrafo 12 del Informe de Gobierno, se comenta que se tomaron diversas medidas para 
consolidar el mercado interior, tanto de los Estados miembros como de terceros países.  En diciembre 
de 2006, la Directiva sobre servicios que, una vez in corporada y aplicada, eliminará los obstáculos que 
subsisten a la libre circulación de servicios en las CE.    
C
OLOMBIA DESEA POR FAVOR AMPLIAR LA SIGUIENTE INFORMACIÓN : 
76. Ampliar la información acerca del alcance de la  Directiva sobre servicios de diciembre de 2006.  
 
77. A partir de qué fecha se permitirá la libre circu lación de servicios en las CE. Esa libre circulación 
abarcará también a las personas físicas?  78. Cómo se concreta esta nueva Dir ectiva en los compromiso s específicos de las CE en el marco de 
las negociaciones de servicios en la OMC? 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 86  
 
 CAPITULO
 III. PRINCIPALES  ACONTECIMIENTOS  REGISTRADOS  EN LA POLITICA  
COMERCIAL  DE LAS  CE (2004  – 2006) 
PRINCIPALES COMPONENTES DE LA POLÍTICA COMERCIAL DE LAS CE 
Iniciativas bilaterales, birregionales y au tónomas en materia de política comercial 
 
(a) El párrafo 46 comenta sobre las relaciones mediante acuerdos comerciales de varios países 
europeos con las CE, especialmente mediante acuerdos comerciales.  
79. Cuál es el alcance del acuerdo en materia de  movimiento de personas suscrito con Suiza?. Qué 
categorías específicas cubre? 
 Menciona la CE en el párrafo 53 de su informe, que las negociaciones de los Acuerdos de Asociación 
Económica comenzaron en septiembre de 2002 con deba tes en todos los países ACP.  La fase 
siguiente, a escala regional, se centró en cuestiones relativas a la creación de mercados en las seis 
regiones abarcadas por los acuerdos (África Occidental , África Central, África Oriental y Meridional, 
la Comunidad de Desarrollo del África Meridional, el Caribe y el Pacífico).  Están en curso 
negociaciones técnicas, centradas en el texto de los ac uerdos y el enfoque de la liberalización de bienes 
y servicios. Continúan intensificándose las relacion es con Sudáfrica sobre la base del Acuerdo de 
Comercio, Desarrollo y Cooperación de 1999.  
80. Nos podrían indicar las CE si el cronograma p revisto para culminar el Acuerdo de Asociación con 
los ACP se está cumpliendo?  Se utilizará un esque ma similar al empleado con los miembros del 
Acuerdo de Cotonú para las negociaciones previst as con los países de la Comunidad Andina?  
 QUESTIONS BY HONG KONG, CHINA
 
 
Competition (WT/TPR/S/177, P. xii, Para. 22; P. 69, Para. 91; and WT/TPR/G/177 P. 11, Para. 29) 
 
1. Para. 29 of the European Communities’ Report states that “the Commission will further renew 
its Market Access Strategy to focus on non-tariff ba rriers and ask EC industry to identify key sectors 
and priority problems.  These may include, for example, the services or other sectors or particular markets as well as issues related to … … restrictions on competition , and other regulatory issues.”  
What are the plan and expected out comes for such a renewal of the Market Access Strategy, especially 
in relation to the matters pointed out at Para. 22 of the Secretariat Report’s Summary Observations 
concerning “significant barriers to trade in services rema in both at the intra-EC level and vis-à-vis third 
countries; these include monopolies  and differences in regulation across Member States”? 
 
Tariffs 
(WT/TPR/S/177, P. 42 – 46, Paras. 11, 13 – 15, Tables III.1, III.2 & III.4)  
 2. The proportion of tariff lines with quotas has increased from 3.3% in 2004 to 3.4% in 2006.  
Would the EC consider lowering the number of such tariff lines? 
 3. In 2004, 6.8% of the EC's tariff lines carried nui sance applied rates.  This figure increased to 
9.4% in 2006.  Would the EC take steps to decrease or even totally eliminate nuisance tariffs for trade 
facilitation purpose? 
 
4. We appreciate that the EC has bound all its ta riff lines and has maintained the same applied 
and bound rates for over 98% of its tariff lines.  Ho wever, while the overall average applied tariff is 
6.9% in 2006, the average rate for agricultural pro ducts is more than twice standing at 18.6% and for 
individual agricultural products, the applied rates are extremely high (up to 427.9%).  Besides, we note 
that for three product categories, the applied tariffs appear to have problems of consistency with the  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 87 
 
 
 corresponding bound tariffs.  Grateful for the clarification from the EC. 
 
Technical Barrier to Trade 
(WT/TPR/S/177, P. 57, Para. 50) 
 5. In non-harmonized areas of technical regulations , the EC applies the principle of mutual 
recognition in the internal market: goods lawfully  produced in one Member State cannot be banned 
from sale on the territory of another.  Nevert heless, as harmonized regulations are more trade 
facilitating, is there any plan for the EC to fu rther reduce the number of non-harmonized technical 
regulations (“old-approach directives”)?  IV. FINANCIAL SERVICES 
(WT/TPR/S/177, P. 113-114, Para. 89) 
 6. We note that Member States of the EC must not apply more favourable EC provisions to 
foreign bank branches than those applied to bran ches of credit institutions having their head office 
within the EC.  However, the EC may agree to appl y identical provisions to branches having their head 
office within or outside the EC when the principle of reciprocity is observed by the country in which 
the head office of the foreign bank branch is based.   Could the EC advise on the consistency of such a 
condition of reciprocity for the granting of nationa l treatment to foreign bank branches with its MFN 
obligation undertaken under  Article II of the GATS? 
 
V. AIR TRANSPORT SERVICES 
(WT/TPR/S/177, P. 126, Para. 131) 
 
7. We note that the common air transport policy ente red into force in January 2006 authorized the 
EC to ban or restrict the activities of unsafe airlines  within the EC.  An initial list was established of 
airlines considered to be unsafe, and therefore not permitted to fly passenger or cargo in the EC or operate within European airspace.  We are inter ested to know how the EC drew up such a list. 
 
Trade Facilitation (WT/TPR/G/177, P. 18, Para. 56) 
 Para. 56 of the European Communities’ Report stat es that “[i]n addition to the FTA, regional or 
autonomous initiatives described above, the EC has also established frameworks with a number of 
developed countries for continued dialogue on trade issues, and  certain more specific  bilateral 
initiatives related to trade facilitation ”.  What are these bilateral 
 
QUESTIONS BY TURKEY
 
 WT/TPR/S/177 
I. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 
(2) RECENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS,  Para 9  
Secretariat Report  reads that “Unemployment in the EC-25 peaked at 9.1% in 2004  before decreasing 
to 8.8 % in 2004 to 8.6% in 2005”. The  Report further reads that new and some old Member States 
still experience high unemployment. 
 It is understood from the Report that the Commission  relinguished  to attain the Lisbon and Stockholm 
employment targets, except for female employment, unless all Member States   urgently pursue comprehensive  labour market reforms. 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 88  
 
 • How does  EC consider the future of labour market in member states? Are there any  new 
targets for  employment replacing those  set by the Lisbon and Stockholm Councils in order to be attained by  2010?    
 
• Does EC consider to take measures to accelerat e the labour market reforms including those to 
enhance productivity in member states ?  
 
• How does  EC see the  impacts of  enlargemen t on the  employment  targets in general? 
 
WT/TPR/S/177 II. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIMES (5) TRADE AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS, Para 58, 64  
Secretariat report mentions that the new GSP sc heme which applies from 1 January 2006 to 31 
December 2008   aims to promote sustainable development and good governance  in vulnerable countries.  It is also noted at the Report th at the GSP Scheme has enhanced th e potential for developing countries 
to access markets . 
 
• How does EC consider the  assessment by the  Secretariat Report, para 64  that there is  a 
declining trend  in trade shares and low ratios of  GSP utilization? If it is so considered, what 
reasons does  EC think  could be claimed to that regard?  
 
• Are there any impact analysis concluded to indicate the effectiveness of new   GSP Scheme of 
the EC   to promote sustainable development? 
 
PREGUNTAS DE COSTA RICA
 
 Agricultura IV. Políticas comerciales por sectores / 2. Ag ricultura / i) Características principales 
 
1. El párrafo 6 indica que las CE son el principa l exportador e importador de productos agrícolas 
del mundo; que sus exportaciones en el 2004 de determinados productos  representaron una parte 
sustancial del comercio mundial, entre ellos están lo s vinos (alrededor del 40 por ciento);  carne de 
porcino, quesos y leche en polvo (cerca de un tercio);   y mantequilla, huevos y azúcar (alrededor del 20 
por ciento). Además se indica que las CE son auto suficientes en una amplia variedad de productos 
agrícolas, en donde en el año 2004, el nivel más a lto de autosuficiencia corr espondió a la leche entera 
en polvo, seguida de la leche desnatada en polvo, el azúcar, el trigo y la mantequilla; asimismo, una parte de la producción agrícola de las CE de pende de las oportunidades de exportación.  
 
De esta forma, ¿consideran las CE coherente con el  proceso de desarrollo de países como Costa Rica 
(que es un país exportador de productos agrícolas), el  mantener un alto nivel de apoyo a la producción 
y a las exportaciones (pese a sus reformas en el 2003 ) en aquellos productos agropecuarios en los que 
las CE representan una parte sustancial del comerc io mundial, así como un alto nivel de protección 
arancelaria en aquellos productos agropecuario s en los que las CE son autosuficientes? 
 IV. Políticas comerciales por sectores / 2. Agricultura / i) Política Agrícola Común 
 
2. Tomando en cuenta los pasos que han dado las CE en la reforma de su Política Agrícola 
Común (PAC) y reconociendo la necesidad de mayores esfuerzos en la misma y en otras políticas que 
ayudan a distorsionar el comercio mundial, ¿creen las CE que han logrado reducir las distorsiones que  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 89 
 
 
 provocan este tipo de ayudas internas al pasar prog ramas de apoyo del compartimiento ámbar (con 
límite de cuantía) a los compartimientos azul y verde (ambos sin límite de cuantía)?   3. Pese a las reformas de la PAC en el 2003, aún existen sectores producti vos aislados de los 
mercados mundiales, recibiendo altos apoyos a la producción. De esta forma, ¿qué porcentaje de la 
producción por sector se encuentra aún en esta situación?  
 
Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias 
 
4. En el párrafo 54 se habla sobre la Política Comunitaria de Sanidad Animal aplicable en el 
ámbito de las CE; ¿dónde se puede encontrar info rmación sobre la misma? ¿Qué implicaciones puede 
tener sobre terceros países?   5. ¿Se encuentran todos los requerimientos de im portación sanitarios y fitosanitarios que aplica 
cada país de las CE acordes con la legislación comunitaria? ¿Cuáles regulaciones sanitarias y 
fitosanitarias de importación aplicadas por un país de las CE son más rigurosas que la regulación 
comunitaria?  6. Párrafo 60. ¿A qué obedece la restricción impuesta al aceite de palma? 
 
Procedimientos aduaneros y valoración en aduanas. 
 
7. Página 50, Párrafo 5. En este párrafo se hace  mención a que durante el período objeto de 
examen se han añadido al Código, procedimient os relacionados con la seguridad y se han hecho 
preparativos y celebrado consultas con miras a una impor tante reforma.     Quisiéramos conocer si esta 
importante reforma atiende la resolución del Órga no de Apelación en el sentido de poner las medidas 
de conformidad con los compromisos del GATT,  en  el marco de la cont roversia "Determinadas 
cuestiones aduaneras"   
Normas de Origen 
 
8. Página 63, Párrafo 28. En el marco de las consultas tendientes a las  modificaciones en las 
normas de origen para promover su simplificación y específicamente el trabajo del Libro Verde, 
quisiéramos conocer los  avances posteriores a la Comunicación sobre el futuro de las normas de origen preferenciales (COM (2005)100) con miras a su definición, posterior aprobación y puesta en práctica por parte de las instituciones de la Unión Europea y otros usuarios.  Antidumping, medidas compensa torias y de salvaguardia 
 
9. Párrafo 41 ¿Cuál es el procedimiento establecido por la UE con relación a la determinación de 
la legitimación activa para la solicitud de inicio de  investigación en materia de prácticas de elusión? 
 
Obstáculos Técnicos al Comercio 
 10. Párrafo 48. ¿Cómo se da la convivencia de l as normas y reglamentos técnicos nacionales y 
comunitarios? ¿Qué pasa si hay aspectos que se contraponen entre uno y otro reglamento técnico? 
¿Respecto a cuál de ellos se da la evaluación de la  conformidad? ¿Existe alguna directiva comunitaria 
que establezca una estructura definida para los reglamentos técnicos?  
 
11. ¿Con relación a las directivas de antiguo enf oque y las de nuevo enfoque, están migrando las 
directivas de antiguo enfoque hacia el nuevo enfoqu e? ¿Deben las directivas que se emiten en cada país 
seguir el criterio del nuevo enfoque?  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 90  
 
 12. Párrafo 49. Con relación a la evaluación de la  conformidad, ¿es realizada por organismos de 
gobierno y privados? ¿Deben estar acreditados? ¿Exi sten órganos de acreditación comunitarios o a 
nivel de cada país? Si es a nivel de cada país ¿cuál  es el procedimiento para la aceptación de dicho 
organismo como acreditador por parte de los demás países de la UE?  
 
13. En materia de acreditación, ¿existen acuerdos de  reconocimiento para órganos de acreditación 
entre la UE y otros países? Si es así, ¿abarca todo ti po de productos? ¿Con qué países?  ¿En qué tipos 
de producto se permite el uso de la declaración de conformidad del proveedor? ¿Esa posibilidad es 
comunitaria o a nivel de cada país? ¿En qué instrume nto consta la posibilidad de l uso de la Declaración 
de Conformidad del Proveedor? 
 
14. Párrafo 50. Si bien no se prohíbe la comercia lización de una mercancía producida en un estado 
parte de la UE bajo especificaciones que difieren de las que tiene el otro país donde se comercializará; 
sí podría prohibirse dicha comercialización por razo nes de salud, consumidor y medio ambiente. En 
ese caso, ¿quién y cómo se determina que efectivam ente se están afectando dichos aspectos? ¿lo hace 
el país de consumo o debe ser una decisión comun itaria? En el caso de pr oductos importados que han 
ingresado por un país pero el destino final es otro pa ís de la UE, ¿puede este país interponer aspectos 
de salud, consumidor y medio am biente para prohibir la come rcialización del producto importado 
aunque haya sido permitido su ingreso en el punto de  ingreso periférico? ¿Como aplica el criterio de 
libre movilidad de mercancías para producto importado?  
15. Párrafo 51. Respecto a las  normas y reglamento s técnicos comunitarios, ¿qué porcentaje de 
ellos se basan en normativa internacional? En  los casos que no están basados en normativa 
internacional, ¿cuales son las razones por las que se presenta dicha situación?  
 
Propiedad Intelectual 
 
16. Con respecto al nuevo reglamento 510/2006 del Co nsejo, del 20 de marzo del 2006 relativo a 
la protección de indicaciones geográficas y de las de nominaciones de origen de los productos agrícolas 
y alimenticios, ¿podrían detallar en  qué consisten las modificaciones principales en relación con la 
normativa anterior de la UE (Reglamento 2081/92 del Consejo)?  
 
17. En el párrafo 123 del Informe de la Secretaría  se menciona que a finales del año 2004, la 
Comisión adoptó una nueva estrategia para mejorar la observancia de los derechos de propiedad 
intelectual en terceros países y que como parte de  dicha estrategia se está procediendo a revisar los 
capítulos de propiedad intelectual de sus acuerdos bila terales.  Asimismo, se menciona que en el año 
2005 se inició un estudio sobre la ob servancia de los derechos de pr opiedad intelectual en 40 países, 
cuyos resultados se anunciaron a finale s del año 2006.  En este sentido, ¿podrían explicarnos si a raíz 
de esta revisión de los capítulos de propiedad intel ectual en los acuerdos bilaterales, la UE piensa 
impulsar nuevas políticas o medidas en la negociación de nuevos acuerdos comerciales en el tema de observancia de los derechos de propiedad intelect ual? Si es así, ¿en qué consistirían estas nuevas 
políticas o medidas? Por otra parte, en relación con el  estudio sobre la observanc ia de los derechos de 
propiedad intelectual, ¿podrían detallarnos las prin cipales conclusiones a qué llegó la UE sobre dicho 
estudio y si han valorado tomar medidas correctivas a raíz de este estudio y cuales serían dichas 
medidas?  
Pesca 
 18. Párrafo 42. ¿Cómo se determinan los precios mí nimos de venta de los productos de la pesca y 
cada cuánto se determinan? 
 19. Párrafo 44. ¿Cómo determinan las CE el monto o el tipo de asistencia financiera que otorgan a 
los países con los que mantienen acuerdos bilaterales de pesca?  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 91 
 
 
 20. Párrafo 47. ¿Qué programas específicos se han identificado para el periodo 2007-2013 dentro 
del Fondo Europeo de  la Pesca (FEP)?  
 
Energía 
 
21. Párrafo 50. ¿En qué consiste el  régimen de franquicia arancelaria aplicable a las importaciones 
de electricidad?  22. Párrafo 51. ¿En qué consisten las medidas de  política general en materia energética que 
permitirían la plena apertura de los mercados a todos los consumidores y productores para el 2007? 
 
Servicios 
 
23. Párrafo 76. ¿Qué sectores se mantienen bajo m onopolio en la Unión Europea? ¿Cuáles sectores 
tienen legislación diferente en tre los Estados Miembros? 
 
24. ¿Cuáles son las limitaciones para que presta dores extranjeros puedan prestar servicios 
profesionales? ¿Cuáles servicios profesionales se regulan a nivel de la Unión Europea y cuáles a nivel de la legislación interna de cada Estado Miembro?  25. Párrafo 79. Dado que muchos servicios no están  sujetos a una política general de mercado 
interior ¿cuál es el marco regulatorio para el sector turismo? ¿Se regula este sector como un mercado 
unificado o aplica la legislación de cada Estado Miembro?  26. Párrafo 82. ¿Cuáles son las diferencias instituci onales y los obstáculos transfronterizos entre 
los Estados Miembros que interfieren en el de sarrollo del mercado unificado para los servicios 
financieros? 
 27.        Párrafo 83. ¿Qué mecanismos de supervisión consolidada se han implementado? 
 28. Párrafo 84. ¿Cuáles son los obstáculos jurídicos de las operaciones transfronterizas de 
servicios financieros?  
 
29. Párrafo 90. ¿Qué tipo de regulación se prete nde adoptar para el caso de las empresas 
especializadas en reaseguros?  30. Párrafo 134. ¿Puede un extranjero prestar servi cios de turismo en la Unión Europea? ¿Cuáles 
son las limitaciones o restricciones que aplican para la prestación de servicios de turismo por parte de 
un proveedor extranjero?  
Disposiciones Institucionales 
En el párrafo 7 del documento WT/TPR/G/177  se indica que el Consejo Europeo inició en el mes de 
junio del 2006, consultas internas sobre el modo de continuar el proceso de reformas al proyecto de 
Constitución de la Unión Europea. En este sentido: 
 
31. ¿Han habido avances y acuerdos logrados en dicho foro de consultas? ¿Cuáles? 
 32. ¿Se mantienen suspendidos los procesos de refe réndum y ratificación en el resto de países de la 
UE? 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 92  
 
 QUESTIONS BY THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA
 
 ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 1. 11 EC Members Trying to Fulfill the Maastricht Convergence Criteria 
(WT/TPR/S/177 pp.2~3, para.3~5)  
Currently, 11 EC Member States are showing effort  to fulfill the Maastricht convergence criteria in 
order to join the euro zone.  
 In the case of the Baltic countries, which are Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, higher growth rates are an 
imperative in order for them to catch up with the eu ro zone in terms of per capita income. However, it 
is difficult for these countries to achieve high growth  rates while meeting the inflation convergence 
criterion at the same time. This is because high growth rates usually cause high rates of inflation, while 
the monetary policy is constrained by pegging exchange rates to the euro.  
  
We would like to request the EC's recommenda tions to these countries regarding which policy 
strategies would be the best in order to simultaneous ly achieve these two goals, i.e., reaching the euro 
zone level of income and meeti ng the economic convergence criteria.  
 
2. Higher Inflationary Pressure  
(WT/TPR/S/177 p.6, para.10) 
 
Despite peaks in the price of oil, inflation rates in  the EU economy have been rather modest. Recently, 
however, there are growing concerns about higher inflation rates in the economy, as inflation rates 
have consistently surpassed 2%.  
 What is the ECB's opinion in regards to this si tuation and what are your plans in overcoming 
inflationary pressure? 
 
TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
3. The Influence of Association Agreements and FTAs on the Economy 
(WT/TPR/S/177 pp.32~33, para.50~51)  
 Since the establishment of the Association Agreemen t with Chile and the formation of an FTA with 
Mexico, what are your general evaluations of the im pact of liberalization in the agriculture and service 
areas in both countries?  
 The liberalization schedule shown in the FTA with Me xico was designed to be more drastic than that 
of Chile's schedule. How do you evaluate this scheme?  
 
4. The Status Quo of the EC's Performance in FTAs  
(WT/TPR/S/177 pp.27~36, para.38~66)  
 
The EC announced its new trade policy titled "Global Europe" proposing to conc lude a bilateral FTA 
although priority was given to the WTO/DDA negotiation.  
 According to the new trade policy "Global Europe", it is known that the EC has selected Korea, India 
and the ASEAN as its primary FTA partners and that  the Council is discussing the mandate submitted 
by the Commission.  
 
When are these FTA negotiations expected to be launched?  
 
Does the EC consider any other potential FTA pa rtners excluding Korea, India and the ASEAN?   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 93 
 
 
 Although we acknowledge that the FTA  negotiations may not be influenced by the DDA negotiations, 
does the EC envisage that the resumption of the DD A negotiations will affect the timing of the FTA 
negotiations?  
 
5. Increasing Unemployment in the Labo r Markets of the Original Members  
Caused by the Enlargement of the EU 
(WT/TPR/S/177 p.29, para.38~39)  
 
According to paragraph 38 ～39 of the Secretariat's report, the EC 's enlargement in May 2004 brought 
many positive effects, including more economic grow th in the ten new Member States. However, the 
report expresses concern that the potential combinat ion of relocating economic activities to the new 
Member States, together with FDI flows and labor  migration from the new to the original Member 
States, will cause unemployment rates to rise in the original Member States.  
 
We would like to know the EC's respon se to the concerns mentioned above.  
 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 6. The Trend of Revising the Rules of Origin  
(WT/TPR/S/177 p.51, para.28~29)  
 
It is known that the EC is working to comprehensiv ely revise the current complex preferential rules of 
origin named the pan-Euro-Mediterranean system . As follow-up measures of this initiative, the 
Communication on the future of preferential rules of origin was adopted in 2005.  
 We would like to kindly request the EC to provide detailed information to the greatest extent possible 
on the development of new preferential rules of origin since the 2005 Communication.  
 
When does the EC expect the new ru les of origin to be introduced?  
  
What is the relationship between the revised rules of or igin and the rules of origin in the EU's previous 
FTAs?  
 Does harmonizing preferential rules of origin mean that the EC seeks to apply diagonal cumulation 
among countries who have FTAs with the EC?  
 It is reported that the EU determines the origin of some imported products, including copy machines, 
based on a negative list. Although the WTO Rules of Origin Agreement defines their rules of origin 
principally based on a positive standard, what is th e EC's reason for determining these products on a 
negative list?  
 
7. Adopting a Green Paper to Enhance the EC's Trade Remedy  
(WT/TPR/S/177 pp.54~56, para.37~47)  
 
The EU undertook a total of 250 contingency trade re medies since 1995 (as of June 30, 2006), which 
puts the EU at third place in the list of countries that  frequently resort to such measures. Furthermore, 
the EU has initiated a total of 345 anti-dumping i nvestigations since 1995 (as of June 30, 2006).  
 
Contingency trade measures should be placed to protect domestic industries from unfair foreign trade 
practices in exceptional cases.  Given that even a initiation of an investigation affects the business 
activities of the company under investigation as it imposes additional burdens, the EC is requested to 
be more cautious before taking such measures.  
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 94  
 
 On 12 Dec. 2006, the EU adopted the Green Paper fo r public consultation about the effective use of 
EU's trade defense instruments in a changing global economy.  
 
What are the major issues in the Green Paper to be  addressed by the EC and how have Member States 
responded to the Green Paper?  
 
The review of the EC's current trade defence in struments could have implications for the ongoing 
WTO/DDA negotiations on Rules. What is the EC's position on this issue?  
 
8. Harmonizing Standards and Technical Regulations with International 
 Standards  
(WT/TPR/S/177 p.57 para.49, 53)  
 
According to the Secretariat's Report, when member s develop standards and technical regulations that 
are not in harmony with international standards, they are required to notify the European standards 
organizations of draft standards and the Eur opean Commission of draft technical regulations.  
 
With regards to the development of the standard s and technical regulations, we would like to be 
informed of a way to gain access to  the specified directives that describe the procedure mentioned 
above, and also receive detailed informati on on how transparent this procedure is.  
 
9. Type Approval System for Automobiles  
(WT/TPR/S/177 p.57 para.49, 53)  
 
The EC member states utilize the type approval system  for automobiles in which the safety of a vehicle 
is inspected by the respective government prior to manufacture.  
 Although the Korean government exempts inspections  on 25 out of the 41 items subject to safety 
inspections in automobiles produced in the EC, th e EC committee inspects all 41 items on Korean cars.  
 Is the EC considering reciprocal exemption of safet y inspections on items that the Korean government 
has already exempted for EU automakers?  
 
10. Restriction of the Use of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) 
(WT/TPR/S/177 p.57 para.48)  
 
Since July 2006, the EU has banned the use of lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), polybrominated biphenyls 
(PBBs), and hexavalent chromium polybrominat ed diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in electronics.  
 Due to the enactment of the RoHS, manufacturers have had difficulty securing substitutable substances 
for 65 specific materials and constructing a risk assesment system. The regulation is actually 
recognized as a trade barrier.  
 
In addition, enforcement regulations an d penalties vary by EU member state.  
 
Does the EU have a plan to prevent the RoHS from being recognized as a substantial trade barrier and 
unify the enforcement regulations and penalties of each member state?  
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 95 
 
 
 11. Unifying the Certification Systems  
(WT/TPR/S/177 p.57 para.48)  
 Certain EU member states including France, Spain and the Netherlands, require separate certification 
in addition to the CE mark.  
 
Regulations on product liability requ ire exporters to affix a laundry label on products for sale in the 
EU. As there is no unified standard relating to la undry labels, each EU member state regulates for 
itself.  
 Therefore, there are concerns that this double cer tification system imposes a heavy burden on exporters 
and can act as a technical barrier to trade.  
  
Does the EU plan to unify regulations and the certification system?  
 
12. Green Government Procurement Policy  
(WT/TPR/S/177 p.62 para.62)  
 
It is known that the EU committee is considering th e enactment of the Green Government Procurement 
Policy, a policy that gives incentives to environment friendly products including goods with eco-labels.  
 
We would like detailed information regarding this policy. Does the EU plan to revise regulations 
relating to this policy in order to prevent the eco-l abel from becoming a de facto technical regulation?  
 
13. Decreasing the Rate of Advertising Procurement Contracts  
(WT/TPR/S/177 p.63 para.68)  
 
The percentage of public procurement contracts pub lished in the Journal is known as an indicator of 
market transparency. According to Eurostat, proc urements advertised in the Official Journal 
represented about 16% of total proc urements in 2004.  The reported percentage of 2004 decreased in 
comparison to 2003 when the open procurement rate w as about 22% of the total. Such decrease reflects 
that the percentages published by the newl y acceding countries are substantially low.  
 Such decrease implies that it is not mandatory to  advertise procurement contracts. Are there any 
strategic plans that will encourage the active participation of Member States?  
 
14. The Effect of Privatizing EC State-Owned Enterprises  
(WT/TPR/S/177 p.67, para.82~84)  
 
According to paragraph 84 of the Secretariat's report,  an OECD study reveals that the privatization of 
EC state-owned enterprises (SOEs) has not achieve d the initially envisioned level of competitiveness.  
 What is the EC's view on the problems pointed out by this study, such as the lack of a clear distinction 
between the role of the State as a regulator and as an owner of competing businesses?  
 15. EU‘s Policy in Enforcing IPR  
(WT/TPR/S/177 pp.73~78, para.104~123)  
 Korea acknowledges the fact that the number of c ounterfeit and pirated goods in the market have 
significantly increased year after year. Therefore, effective measures must be adopted to solve this 
problem. In this regard, we sincerely agree with th e EU's policy to intensify the enforcement of IPR.  
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 96  
 
 However, Korea estimates that it is inappropriate that the EU has included Korea in category 3 of "the 
list of priority countries/regions" announced as a follow-up measure of the "Strategy for the Enforcement of IPR in Third Countries" because of certain problems it has, such as its grounds being 
unclear. Korea urges the EU to exclude Korea from this list.  
 Korea fully recognizes that firm and efficient IPR la w enforcements are required for the protection of 
IPR. Therefore, various measures are being activ ely taken to improve the enforcement of IPR 
throughout all the relevant authorities on IPR by taking measure such as reinforcing the protection 
control of IPR, enhancing in th e legal and regulatory system, and improving of the awareness the 
protection of IPR.   
 
In this context, Korea believes that it is not a ppropriate that the EU has made a list of priority 
countries/regions with a unilateral standard based on  the results of the IPR Enforcement Survey in 
which the repliers were only by EU right-hol ders, associations and other groups concerned. 
Accordingly, Korea requests the EU should approach this issue prudently based on statistics and data 
gathered in a fair and transparent way. We would like to ask the EU to explain its position.  
 16. Plan to Change the European Patent System  
(WT/TPR/S/177 p.74, para.109~110)  
 Changes in the European patent system is a matter of huge concern to Korean companies. According to 
paragraph 74 of the Secretariat's re port, much effort has been made in order to adopt a Community 
Patent System and a European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA) in Europe at the same time.  
 
We would like to ask the EC to explain the current  situation of discussions that have been made and 
the future prospects in introducing the Community Patent System and the EPLA.  
 
17. Compulsory License Needed for Patents  
(WT/TPR/S/177 p.75, para.112)  
 
In 2006 (Regulation No. 816/2006), compulsory li censes were adopted for patents relating to the 
manufacture of pharmaceutical products exporte d to countries with public health problems.  
 In addition to the case stated above , is the EC willing to allow compulsory licensing when the patent 
right is not active? And can patent terms related to pharmaceutical products that take a considerable 
amount of time to conduct safety tests also be extended?   
 18. The EC's Policies to Improve EC Copyright Management (WT/TPR/S/177 p.76, para.76~118)  
 Recently, there have been discussions on improving th e copyright system in Europe. One issues is the 
improvement of the copyright levy system. This is  because the present EC copyrights are managed by 
national copyright associations of each Member State, a procedure widely acknowledged as 
complicated and costly in the making of contract s for licensing copyrights in several Member States.  
 
In this regard, we would like to ask the EC to e xplain the Commission's policy direction to improve the 
EC copyright management, its expect ed benefits to the EC copyright holders, and the possible impact 
on Non-EC copyright holders.   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 97 
 
 
 TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
19. The Classification of Agricultural Subsidies  
(WT/TPR/S/177 p.82, para.9)  
 
According to paragraph 9 of the Secretariat report, Member States may choose to maintain "partial decoupling" payment. If a Member States chooses to maintain payment, is it categorized as a domestic 
subsidy of a green or blue box?  
 20. The Basis of Exemption from Labeling GM food/feed  
(WT/TPR/S/177 p.85, para.17)  
 According to paragraph 17 of the Secretariat's report, the EC has introduced an exemption from 
labeling genetically modified(GM) food and feed if it contains adventitious or technically unavoidable 
traces of GMOs that are 0.9% in Regulation(EC) No .1829/2003. Could the EC explain the scientific 
basis of this exemption?  
 
21. Division of Processed Agricultural Goods  
(WT/TPR/S/177 p.89, para.23)  
 
According to paragraph 23 of the Secretariat's report, processed agricultural goods are subject to 
custom duties if comprised of an industrial and an agricultural component. How does the EC 
differentiate between industrial components and agricultural ones when making tariff concession 
schedules for bilateral trade agreements, such as FTAs?  
 
22. The Low Fill Rate of the TRQ in Some Products 
(WT/TPR/S/177 p.89, para.22)  
 
According to the WTO document (G/AG/N/EEC/48), th e average fill ratio for the TRQ of the EC was 
62% in 2002. In particular, there was zero utilization for several produc ts, for instance, fresh or frozen 
swine carcasses, sweet potatoes, prepar ation of malt, and barley. Zero percent of the fill rate for several 
products can be interpreted as an example in whic h the TRQ administration of the EC was operated 
toward restricting fair trade.  
 How does the EC evaluate such a low fill rate for the TRQ in terms of the TRQ administration?  
 
23. The Intervention System in Cereal Markets  
(WT/TPR/S/177 p.91, para.29)  
 
According to paragraph 29 of the Secretariat's re port, rye is excluded from the intervention system. 
Would the EC explain the reason for this exclusion?  Is there any other cereal products that will be 
excluded from the intervention system in the future?  
 
24. Energy Policies  
(WT/TPR/S/177 p.99, para.49~55)  
 Though the EC as a whole is efficient in using en ergy, the new Member States, which consist of 
countries in Central and Eastern Europe, are not as advanced. Therefore, substantial steps must be 
taken to in order to improve their energy efficiency rates.  
 
It is questionable whether the EC can achieve its goal to increase the share of renewable energy from 
the present 6% to 12% by 2010. What major polic ies are being implemented to reach this goal?  
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 98  
 
 Though the EC regulator is trying to make the ener gy market more competitive, it is true that the 
market became more oligopolistic or monopolisti c as a result of big merges between energy 
companies. Some member countries are also inclined to limit the entrance of foreign energy enterprises 
in the name of national energy security. What pol icy directions or responses does the EC have in 
regards to these challenges?  
 25. Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals  
(WT/TPR/S/177 pp.107~108, para.69~71)  
 
We understand that REACH, a regulated system for the safe use of chemicals, is consistent with global 
trends to protect the health of humans and the environment. However, such system should be 
implemented in a way that minimizes any possi ble negative impacts on trade and the industries 
concerned. In addition, REACH s hould not act as a trade barrier or increase the cost of trade in 
chemical products.  
 
The European Commission finalized the draft of  the REACH regulation in October 2003, and 
submitted it to the European Parliament and Co uncil. The REACH regulations were adopted in 
December 2006, and will enter into force on 1 June 2007.  
 During the EU's internal review process on REACH regulations, the EC was kindly advised to 
positively reflect the views of chemical industries and countries outside the EU. As the regulation is 
finally being adopted, we hope that the EC positiv ely reflects the views of non-EU countries and 
chemical industries in the process of establishing the REACH Implementation Projects(RIPs) through 
CWG and SEG meetings. This will help the producer s and importers of chemicals adapt to the new 
REACH regulations.  
 
The adoption of the REACH regulation positively contri butes in protecting public health standards and 
the environment while promoting sustainable deve lopment and is therefore being evaluated in a 
positive light. However, there is concern that the regul ation will act as a shield to chemical industries 
within the EU, and that the elements that discr iminate non-EU countries could impose a heavy burden 
on the industries concerned, thus shrinking the international chemical industry.  
 
In particular, we are concerned that pre-registered  substances in Articles and Polymer within the EU 
will be exempt from registration, eventually discrim inating non-EU countries. What is the EC's view 
on this opinion?  
 Therefore, we hope that the EC revises this discr iminative aspect and makes the range of Articles 
limited and clear in the process of establis hing RIPs through CWG and SEG meetings.  
 
26. Integration of Service Market  
(WT/TPR/S/177 pp.109~111, para.76~78)  
 
As the Secretariat's report has aptly pointed out, the EC has a significant barrier in the service sector 
mainly due to different regulations in Member  States. Having considered this, the European 
Commission proposed a Directive on Services in the Inte rnal Market(the "Service Directive) on Jan. 13 
2004, and it was approved by the European Parliame nt on November 2006 and finally by the Council 
on December 2006.  
  
In order to fully implement this Service Directive across the EU, member states must bring into force 
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necess ary to comply with this Directive. With this 
in mind, when does the EC expect this Directive to be implemented? In addition, what is the scope of 
this Directive?  
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 99 
 
 
 Will the Service Directive be applied to the servi ce sector in the EC's future FTA negotiations?  
 What is the relationship between the Service Direct ive and other Directives that have been excluded 
from the scope of this Directive, but covered by  individual directives regarding financial services, 
telecommunications, transportation, port services, and healthcare?  
 
The Directive does not apply to several service ar eas such as the area of culture, audio-visuals, 
education, and health. Does this mean that these areas will be excluded from the scope of the EU's 
plans for further market integration of services? If so, are these areas also excluded from the EU's 
future FTA negotiations regarding the service sector?  
 
According to the 'Single Market Scoreboard ' published by the Commission in December 2006, 
infringement proceedings (e.g. misapplication and/or incorrect transposition) of service rules in itself 
accounted for 9%, with 107 cases across the EU. This has been one of the biggest barriers for market 
integration in the service sector.  
 In particular, the 'Financial Services Action Plan(FSA P)' was the EC's central tool for fostering market 
integration in the financial service sector. However,  institutional differences and cross-border barriers 
between member states run counter to full integration.  In this light, infringement of new regulations or 
directives regarding the services of member states are a major concern.  
 
Does the EC have any measures in dealing w ith infringements conducted by member states?  
 
The EU becomes a regulatory authority for the fi nancial service sector through financial market 
integration. However, it is our understanding that each member stat e still has supervisory competence 
over financial service sectors.  
 Could the EC indicate the service areas to which shared competence between member states and the 
EC is applied?  
 In addition, will these areas be included in the EC ' future FTA negotiations regarding financial 
services?  
 
27. Services Market  
(WT/TPR/S/177 pp.109~127, para.77~133)  
 
The liberalization of service in the EC faced gr eat opposition from labourers residing in the original 
member states. If the EC sticks to its position on lib eralization, how will the EC soothe its opposition? 
Does the EC have a persuasive plan for this?  
  
Transport: Because of the 'EU Community Close', airliners in non-EU countries hesitate being placed 
on EU lines in fear of losing in excessive competitio n against European airlines. This reluctance may 
result in aggravating the transport service in the EC. Do you have any plans or opinions regarding this 
issue?  
 
Tourism:  In order to keep its leading position in tourism, the EC may have to invest its resources in 
tour infra for the new Member states as they may be under-developed. Do you have any plans or 
projects regarding this issue?  
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 100  
 
 28. Inclusion of the Aviation Sector into the EU ETS  
 
The European Commission has proposed to revise its current Directive (Directive 2003/87/EC) to 
include civil aviation sectors into the EU Greenhou se Gas Emission Trading Schemes (ETS) regardless 
of the nationality of carriers.  
 
Although we acknowledge the EC's overall aim to comb at climate change, we are concerned about the 
unilateral nature of this measure and its scope, as it has an extra-territorial effect. It also disregards the 
basic principle of "common but differentiated res ponsibility", which is described in international 
climate regimes, such as the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.  
 
In this context, we suggest that the EC limit the scope  of legislation to intra-EU flights, while pursuing 
a multilateral consensus in the international ar ena through bodies such as the ICAO or the UNFCCC 
for extra-territorial application of the legi slation. What is the EC's position on this?  
 
29. Terminating the TBR Procedure for Korea n pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries  
 Although the original reasons that caused the in itiation of TBR against Korean pharmaceutical and 
cosmetic industries in 1998 have been settled, th e EC has not yet terminated the TBR procedures 
suspended on 1 January 2000 raising new issues on both regimes.  
 
In case of the pharmaceutical industry, the new Dr ug Expenditure Rationalization Plan entered into 
force on 29 December 2006. With regards to the co smetic industry, bilate ral consultations are 
progressing on new issues raised by the EC a lthough all previous issues have been settled.  
 
Having considered this, the EC is requested to te rminate the TBR procedure for Korean cosmetic and 
pharmaceutical industries as soon as possible.
 
 QUESTIONS BY CHINA
 
 
Chapter 2: Trade and Investment Regime Preferential Trade Agreement p. 28-29, para. 47-40   
 
1. According to statistics by WTO, total trade va lue by EU25 reached US$8,137 billion in 2005, of 
which US$5,346 billion was among the EU Member St ates, accounting for 65.7% percent of total 
value, US$2,791 billion was with non-EU trading pa rtners, accounting for 34.3% of total value, 
slightly over 1/3. 
  
What measures will EC take to promote trade be tween EU member states and non-EU trading 
partners so that the effects of trade diversion could be eased? 
 
Chapter Three: Trade Policies and Practices by Measure  
Customs Valuation (p. 40-42, para 5-9)  
Some EU member states use the prices of similar products from “the third country” for the purpose of customs valuation regarding certain imported products , which is not consistent with the Article 7 of 
GATT 1994 and Article 1.1 of the WTO Customs Valuation Agreement. 
 
Article 7 of GATT 1994 and WTO Customs Valuation Agreement provides that each member shall 
recognize that the basis for valuation of goods fo r customs purposes should, to the greatest extent 
possible, be the transaction value of the goods bei ng valued; each member shall recognize that the 
customs value should be based on simple and equita ble criteria consistent with commercial practices 
and that valuation procedures should be of general application without distinction between sources of  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 101 
 
 
 supply. Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the WTO Custom s Valuation Agreement provides that the customs 
value of imported goods shall be the transaction valu e. Therefore, the practices by some EU member 
states are obviously not in line with the above provisions.  Article 11 and Article 13 of WTO Customs Valuati on Agreement provides that each member shall 
provide in regard to a determination of customs valu e for the right of appeal, without penalty, by the 
importer or any other person liable for the paymen t of the duty and Article 13 of WTO Anti-dumping 
Agreement specifies that if, in the course of de termining the customs va lue of imported goods, it 
becomes necessary to delay the final determination……, the legislation of each Member shall make provisions for such circumstances. However, Ar ticle 245 of the EC Council Regulation 2454/92 
specifies that the provisions for the above pr ocedures be decided by each member state. 
 
2. Would EC please explain the consistency of the practices of some of its member states 
regarding customs valuation with the WTO Customs Valuation Agreement? 
 
3. How those member states implement the requiremen t that “the basis for valuation of goods for 
customs purposes should, to the greatest extent possi ble, be the transaction value of the goods being 
valued” and “the customs value should be based on simple and equitable criteria consistent with 
commercial practices”? 
 4. During the process of customs valuation, how  to safeguard the substantial and procedural 
rights of complainant and consistent implementation among member states?  
 
Compulsory labels of origin  (p. 51, para. 28-29) 
 
The draft regulation on Compulsory Labels of Or igin on certain products from third countries (com 
(2005) 661 Final) submitted by the European Commission to Council of Ministers on Dec. 162005 
requires compulsory labels of origin on certain industrial products from third countries, including leather, shoes, textiles, clothing, potte ry, glassware, jewellery, furniture, etc. 
 Industries in some EU member states have continuous ly requested EC to adopt compulsory labels of 
origin. 
 
5The proposed system of compulsory labels of origin only applies to certain products from third 
countries, mainly those produced by developing countr ies, while not to EU products. Could EC please 
elaborate on how this conform to the national treatment principle of WTO and Article 2 of WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin? 
 
Import procedures (p. 40-42, para 5-9.) 
 
Although the Customs Code and its implementation rul es are applied to all EU member states, customs 
authorities of member states are also granted much  discretion in customs and tariff matters, which 
leads to the inconsistencies in classification, va luation and custom proce dures on imported products in 
different customs authorities of member states. This  has created the uncertainty for foreign exporters. 
 
6. Is EC planning to remove such inconsistencies? 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 102  
 
 Technical Barriers to Trade (p. 57-59, para. 48-53) 
 
z REACH Regulation:  
 The Council of Ministers passed Regulation (E C) No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, 
Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chem icals (REACH) on Dec.18, 2006, which will take in 
effect on June.1, 2007.  REACH will replace the existing 40 legal acts and create a single system for all chemical substances and be implemented in all the EU Member States. 
 
Certain aspects of REACH have negative impact on trade. First, the over complicated registration procedures and high testing fees will significantly in crease the cost of production enterprises. Second, 
only enterprises and individua ls within EU have the right to make registration. This will lead to 
different treatment between EU and non-EU producers. Moreover, the regulation does not provide 
specific procedures for evaluation and approval of chemicals, which may lead to much discretion in 
approval process. These will be negative impact as a whole on downstream industries and international 
trade of chemical products.  
 
7
．Fees for registration and experiment will be a burden for many developing member exporters of 
chemicals, would EC consider to reduce the cost  for developing member exporters to obtain the 
experiment data needed for registration? 
 
8．With regard to the data sharing system establishe d by REACH, what measures would EC take to 
protect the trade secrets of the enterprises concerned?  
 
9．How does EC prepare to disclose the information regarding implementation of REACH in a timely 
manner? 
 
z Regulation on Traditional Chinese Herbal Medicine 
 Pursuant to the Regulation on Traditional Chinese Herb al Medicine (2004/24/EC), there are a series of 
conditions for such medicine to access to EU ma rket: producers who export medicine to EC market 
must obtain the certification of GMPthe quality of the exported medicine must meet the standards 
provided in Medicine Code of EC and the importe rs of EC must obtain medicine import licence. 
However, it should be noted that a lot of Chinese he rbal products are not just used as medicine, but 
also as food additives and health care products. 
 10. Does EC have any plan to improve market acce ss for Chinese herbal products in the form 
of food, food additives and health care products? 
 
z the eco-design requirements for energy-using products (EuPs) 
 
The European Commission issu ed Directive 2005/32/EC on establishing a framework of eco-design 
requirements for energy-using products (EuPs) in Ju ly 2005. It is provided that manufacturers should 
control products’ energy consumption by mean s of product design or adopting environmental 
management system, conduct conformity assessment pur suant to the implementation rules formulated 
by the European Commission separately, and the CE  marking be attached. Otherwise, the product is 
not allowed to be placed on the market. In line with the regulation, the EU Member States should 
formulate relevant laws and regulations to officia lly implement the directive as of 11 August 2007 at 
the latest.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 103 
 
 
 According to the requirement of the directive,  enterprises are required to conduct environmental 
evaluation in the entire process from designing to dis posal of the energy-using products. This will 
entail huge technical and financial burden to export enterprises of third countries, in particular the 
developing ones. 
 11. Could EC specify what products exactly are co vered by the directive and what procedures are 
needed for conformity assessment? 
 
12. Considering that implementation of EuPs will have adverse effect on developing members, is 
EC prepared to take concrete acti ons to alleviate such effect? 
 
z New CR Solution Concerning Cigarette Lighter 
 The EC adopted the CR Solution, which requires Memb er States to take measures to ensure that only 
child-resistant lighters  are placed on the market and to prohibit the placing on the market of novelty 
lighters on May 11, 2006. The Solution also emphasized that only tests made in EC-recognized 
laboratories are accepted. Up until now, only laborator ies in the US and Europe (only one lab) are 
recognized, which falls far short of the test  applications from foreign companies.  
 
13. Could EC please explain how negative effects on trade caused by this CR Solution could be 
minimized in accordance with the TBT Agreement? 
 
z two directives concerning electronic and electrical equipments 
 On 13 August 2005, Directive 2002/96/EC on waste el ectrical and electronic equipment (Directive 
WEEE) went into effect. The Directive provides that producers of products sold in EU markets after 13 
August 2005 shall provide deposit to  ensure that the expenses incurred in the collection, treatment, 
recycling and environment-friendly disposal of wast e electrical and electronic products will be paid by 
the producers, and that producers should also pay fo r the disposal of waste products (not intended for 
private household users) placed on the market (his torical wastes) before 13 August 2005 in accordance 
with the corresponding market share of the producers.   
In addition, Directive 2002/95/EC on the restricti on of the use of certain hazardous substances in 
electrical and electronic equipment (Directive RoHS) specifies the maximum amount of six hazardous substances including lead, mercury, cadmium, chromi um VI, PBB and PBDE used in electrical and 
electronic equipment. RoHS Directive does not specify how Member States should monitor the implementation of RoHS and how to punish activities violating the Directive. Furthermore, standard 
testing methods and procedures for the amendmen t to the exemption list is still lacking.  
 
The product scope covered by the two directives almost includes all electrical and electronic 
equipments for civilian use, thus directly affec ting the exports of household appliances and electronic 
products to the EU market. The above requirement s and associated problems will inevitably increase 
the costs of exporters, and create uncertainties for them. 
 
14. Could EC 
 a.  provide a detailed guideline on the implementation of RoHS?  b.  promulgate the exemption list on the basis  of scientific evidence as soon as possible, and 
 c.  provide reference testing methods? 
 
z other directives and general comments 
 In recent years, EC has promulgated a series of directives which greatly increase the numbers of applicable standards, hence increase the cost of co mpliance by exporters of re levant products. These WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 104  
 
 directives include, but not limited to: the Directiv e on batteries and storage batteries and disposed ones 
on Sept. 6, 2006; the Directive 2004/108/EC on electromagnetic compatibility in December 2004; Directive 2000/53/EC banning the use of cadmium in batteries for electrical vehicles; Directive 
76/769/EEC prohibits the use of six types of phthalates in toys.  
No doubt, WTO agreements allow members to prot ect the environment and human health through 
appropriate standards. However, we are quite c oncerned on certain aspects of these EC Directives 
relating to standards. These include:  
- lack of sufficient scientific evidence; 
- lack of sufficient consideration of technical feasibility and economic cost; 
- ambiguity in standards, with some standa rds lacking practical operational procedures; 
- discretion of EU member states in implemen tation, hence significant discrepancies among 
different member states; 
 
 15. Could EC elaborate on how such Directives and their implementation conform to the TBT 
Agreement, especially on whether this constitutes disguised restrictions on international trade? 
 
SPS measures(p. 59-61, para. 54-59) 
 
z directive on indication of food ingredients 
 
On December 22, 2006, EC issued a directive ( 2006/142/EC) to amend the original directive about 
listing of ingredients on food labels . The main reason in doing so, as we understand it, is that research 
results have shown the existence of allergy caused by  lupin. However, strictly speaking, albumen in 
many beans may cause allergy. There are quite detailed rules on indicating allergens passed by 
Codexwhich do not include lupin and products thereo f, and under which it should suffice to indicate 
the raw materials used in production for the purpose of labelling the allergens. 
 
 16. While China believes that the Codex standard is sufficient for the regulatory purpose of the 
EC, could EC explain how this new directive confor m to the requirements of Codex as well as SPS 
Agreement? 
 
Anti-dumping Issues (p. 55-56, para. 41-44) 
 
z notification before initiation of  antidumping investigation  
 
Both Article 5.5 of WTO Anti-dumping Agreement and Article 5.5 of EC Anti-dumping Regulation 
provide that the investigation authority shall notif y the government of the exporting member concerned 
before they make the decision to initiate an investiga tion. However, in quite a number of investigations 
initiated by EC against Chinese export products, EC  didn’t notify Chinese government in advance, 
which made it extremely difficult for Chinese res pondents to submit responses on time. For example, 
in the silico-manganese inves tigation initiated on September 6
th, 2006, it was on the day of its initiation 
of the investigation that EC sent a notification to Chinese government. In certain plastic sacks and bags 
investigation initiated on June 25th, 2005, EC gave a notification to Chinese government two days (i.e. 
June 27th) after EC initiated the investigation. In certain  plastic sacks and bags investigation on June 
30th, 2005 and ironing board investigation on February 4th, 2006, EC didn’t send a notification to 
Chinese government in advance.  
 
17. Could EC explain how such practice conform to the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement? 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 105 
 
 
 z disclosure of information 
 
Disclosure of information regarding anti-dumping inv estigations by EC has been insufficient. For 
example, in the anti-dumping investigation against Chinese exports of certain footwear, the name of 
the complainant could not be found in the public ve rsion of the complaining document. In the anti-
dumping investigation of certain finished polyester filament apparel fabrics, EC didn’t disclose the 
name of seven complainants and the market shar e of each of them. It was difficult for Chinese 
respondents to evaluate whether the complainants we re eligible to represent the domestic industry of 
the EU. 
 18. Would EC please explain how this practice conform to Article 4 and Article 5 of Anti-
Dumping Agreement? 
 
z review of new exporter  
 
Article 9.5 of WTO Anti-dumping Agreement provides th at the investigation authorities shall promptly 
carry out a review for the purpose of determining individual margins of dumping for any exporters or producers in the exporting country. And such a re view shall be initiated and carried out on an 
accelerated basis, compared to normal duty assessme nt and review proceedings in the importing 
Member.    
However, Article 11.4, Article 9.6 and Article 17 of EC Anti-dumping Re gulation (384/96) provide 
that if sampling method is used in antidumping inves tigation, then foreign producers and exporters can 
only apply for new exporter treatment , and the rate granted will be the weighted average rate of the 
rates given to the enterprises in the sample, rather than a dumping margin calculated on the basis of the 
individual applicant’s normal value and export price. 
 
Furthermore, EC has no clear provisions regardi ng the examination of new exporter’s petition of 
review and the time of initiation.   
19. How EC justifies the provisions on new export er review with the rules of WTO Anti-dumping 
Agreement?  
 
20. Regarding petitioners meeting the requirements  of new exporters, could EC’s investigation 
authority determine the individual dumping margin for each of them based on their own normal value 
and export price, without considering whether th ere is a sampling method used in the initial 
investigation? 
 
Intellectual Property (p. 74-76, para. 109-115) 
 
The EU is yet to establish a uniform pan-European IP  protection system. At present, each member state 
has its own patent application and protection system. Membership of the European Patent Office is not 
the same as EU membership, which adds to th e difficulty of foreign patent application. 
 
EU is yet to establish an efficient mechanism to encourage innovation, as the IP application cost is high 
and the time needed is long. For example, a patent  application through European Patent Office could 
take as long as 4-5 years in some cases.   21. Does EC consider to have a uniform IP system  applicable to all EU member states and to 
enhance the efficiency for paten t application and examination? 
 
 22. Could EC please explain the reasons why EU has not become a member of WIPO 
Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 106  
 
  23. What actions has EC taken to im plement Art.6.3 of TRIPs on transparency? 
 
 24. Dose EC impose criminal penalty concerning piracy on Internet? What is the responsibility 
of the Internet service providers in Intern et piracy? Does it include criminal penalty? 
 
 25.  How does EC plan to push forward the DDA through its efforts in the agricultural sector? 
 
Trade in Services (p. 109-111,para. 76-80) 
 
z General issues: 
 
26. Movement of people is an important mode of services trade, however, difficulties associated with the visa requirements and complex procedures to get work permit by EU has been a major obstacle in 
this regard. Furthermore, for those who have al ready obtained a visa and a work permit, there is 
restriction on their free movement within EU. The inability of construction workers who are permitted 
to work in one of the EU member states to move freely to another member state is just one example, 
 
 Is EC prepared to take meas ures to improve the situation? 
 
Postal Service  (p.117-121, para. 103-111) 
 
 27. During the process of liberalization of postal services and the elimination of monopoly, 
what measures will the European Commission prepa re to take to avoid (remove) discrimination 
against postal service providers of other WTO members? 
 
Professional Services 
 
28.  The nationality requirement and limit on the number of professionals allowed to enter EU has 
been a major concern. These sectors include accounti ng, architectural, medical and legal services. In 
the tax service sector, only tax consulting servi ce is open to foreign service providers.  
 
 Is EC prepared to reduce the restrictions me ntioned above so as to grant foreign professionals 
meaningful market access?  
Travel and Tourism (p. 127-128, para. 133-135) 
 
29.  Some of the EU member states have not fulfilled their obligation to allow foreign travel 
agencies to set up and provide travel and tourism services in EU. E.g., one member state committed in 
its service schedule to allow foreign travel agenci es to set up branches or subsidiaries “subject to 
approval”. However, in practice, neither specific criteria nor operational procedures are in place to guide the relevant authority in processing the applic ation. Foreign service providers therefore find it 
difficult to do their business in that member state. 
 
 Could EC please clarify this issue?  
Telecommunication Services (p.117-121, para. 103-111) 
 
 30. Could EC please provide basic information regarding foreign investments in EU’s 
telecommunication markets, including, inter alia, the main sources investment, number of foreign 
carriers, their scope of business, income, number of users and theirindividual market shares? 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 107 
 
 
  31. Could EC please provide information regar ding the charges imposed on telecom carriers 
operating in the EU markets, including license fee,  charge for frequency occupation, and regulatory 
charge.  
 
 32. When foreign invested telecom carriers se ttle revenue with telecom carriers of Great 
Britain, a 17.5 VAT is imposed, wh ich increases the operating cost of foreign telecom carriers. Would 
EC please clarify the rationale, cr iteria, scope and purpose for the VAT? 
 
 33. Foreign inter-corporate transferees in G reat Britain may not en joy the benefit for low-
income families and the tax rebate for child raisin g although they are taxed no less than those working 
for domestic enterprises. Would EC please clarify wh ether Great Britain is planning to eliminate this 
discriminatory treatment?  
 
 34. Germany adopted an Amendment to “Telecommunication Law” in 2006, allowing 
Deutsche Telecom to refuse foreign telecom carriers to get interconn ected with its newly built high-
speed cable networks. Could EC please give more information about the Amendment and provide a 
copy of the Amendment? Has the Amendment been implemented? How would EC ensure the 
consistency of the Amendment and its implementati on with the requirements of the Reference Paper 
regarding interconnection? What is the rate of int erconnection charged by Deutsche Telecom? Is the 
rate regulated by government or subject to consultation between telecom operators? 
 
QUESTIONS BY THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, 
KINMEN AND MATSU  
 Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/177) 
I. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 
(3) TRADE PERFORMANCE AND INVESTMENT (iii) Foreign Direct Investment 
(page 13, paragraph 23) 
According to our understanding, the investment incen tives provided by the EC are divided into four 
different regional categories. The EC reviews the regional categories every two years and makes adjustments. Therefore, the investment incentives provided by each Member State may be modified as 
a result of such reviews. 
 
As transparency and predictability are vital to ma king investment decisions, could the EC please 
advise whether the existing incentives enjoyed by foreign investors in the EC may be nullified or 
diminished by such reviews? If so, will any transition measures be granted? 
 We understand that the EC has recognized some 20 i nvestment incentives offered by its individual 
Member States. Any other investment incentives offe red by individual Member States could be subject 
to challenge by the EC, on the grounds that the measu res are inconsistent with relevant EC regulations. 
 
Could the EC please advise how foreign investors can assess whether an investment incentive offered 
by an individual Member State is consistent with relevant EC regulations? 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 108  
 
 II. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(3) TRADE POLICY OBJECTIVES 
(page 20, paragraph 14) 
The harmonization of regulations across all Member  States, and a single standard for investment-
related regulations, are important factors to be taken into consideration by foreign investors. However, 
differences exist between the requirements and standard s of each Member State with regard to the EC's 
CE standards, the free movement of business personnel,  and participation of labour unions in direct 
investment or mergers and acquisitions.  
 
Given the above, could the EC please provide mo re detailed information on its future plans for 
economic and regulatory harmonization and standardi zation, which will make the newly-expanded EC 
a less complex and a more predictable, integrated  and attractive foreign in vestment destination? 
 
(5) TRADE AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS  
(i) Overview  
(page 24, paragraph 27) It is noted in the Secretariat Report that the EC a nnounced its intention to launch new preferential trade 
negotiations, and indicated that key economic criteri a for new PTA (Preferential Trade Area) partners 
included market potential and the level of protec tion against its export interests. Based on these 
criteria, the current priorities are ASEAN, the Republic of Korea, India and MERCOSUR. 
 
Could the EC please elaborate further on the term s and scope of the two economic criteria mentioned 
above, and on the status of the ongoing negotiations with ASEAN and the Republic of Korea? In addition, will the EC revise its intention to laun ch new preferential trade negotiations following the 
recent full resumption of the previous ly-stalled Doha Round negotiations? 
 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(2) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS 
(viii) Contingency trade remedies 
(page 55, paragraph 41) 
Following such dispute settlement cases as India-Be d Linen (DS141) and US-Zeroing (DS294), what is 
the EC’s view on the possibility of WTO Members ma king changes to their zeroing practices? In light 
of the results of the aforementioned cases, has the EC made any adjustments to the method used to 
calculate dumping margins in its AD investigations and reviews?  (x) Sanitary and phytosa nitary (SPS) measures  
(page 59, paragraph 54) 
 
The EC’s common SPS regime aims to comply with WTO rules and regulations, and to maintain EC 
SPS legislation in line with international guidelin es. Since 27 October, 2005, however, the EC has 
imposed a suspension of imports of commercial cap tive live birds from the third countries, regardless 
of their status concerning the highly pathogenic avia n influenza (2005/760/EC). Neither the relevant 
notifications nor any scientific justification for the imposition of the above -mentioned measure have 
been received from the EC.  
Could the EC please explain how the above is in compliance with the relevant international standards, 
such as the requirements of Chapter 2.7.12. of the OIE’s Terrestrial Animal Health Code, and how it 
fulfils its transparency obligations under the WTO SPS Agreement ?    WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 109 
 
 
 (3) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING EXPORTS 
(v) Export assistance 
(page 66, paragraph 80) 
As indicated in the Report, the EC undertook cons ultations with Brazil (along with other OECD 
members) with a view to establishing an understanding on export credit for civil aircraft.  
Does this mean that OECD members are trying to  reach an agreement with Brazil on the issue of 
Annex I(k) of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM)?  Has any progress 
been made on this issue?  
(4) MEASURES AFFECTING PRODUCTION AND TRADE 
(i) State-Owned Enterprises 
(page 67, paragraph 84) 
An OECD study has pointed out that the priva tization of EC State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) 
produced mixed results as most have not achieved th e level of competitiveness initially envisioned. A 
range of factors has contributed to the under-performance of many partly privatized SOEs, in terms of profit margins and returns on equity and investment , compared with competing private enterprises.  
Does the EC plan to take any action to improve the performance of partly privatized SOEs? If so, what 
type of action is contemplated  and how would it be implemented? 
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(2) AGRICULTURE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES (ii) Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 
 
(page 83, paragraph 12) 
It is noted that the EC’s Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) in the marketing year 2003/04 was 
reduced to €30,884 million, and domestic support through green box and blue box measures amounted 
to €22,074 million and €24,782 million, respectively.   
It would be appreciated if the EC could please descri be in detail for us the related agricultural policy 
reform programmes responsib le for the above results. 
 (3) FISHERIES (ii) Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) 
 
(page 96, paragraph 42) 
It is mentioned that the EC spent €14.5 million on price support interventions in 2005 and this budget 
was increased to €18.2 million in 2006.  
 
Could the EC please provide more detailed backgro und information on the price support system, its 
mechanism and the fish species involved?   (4) ENERGY 
(page 99, paragraph 51) 
The Green Paper adopted by the Commission in Marc h 2006 set up three main policy aims for the EC 
in energy: completion of a fully competitive intern al market; assuring the security of energy supply; 
and achieving environmentally sustainable, clean , and efficient energy supply and use.   
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 110  
 
 At present, measures to achieve these aims seem to  be concentrated on energy supply.  We are 
interested in learning about any  demand-side measures whic h will encourage more consumer 
participation in efficient energy use.  
 
(pages 100-101, paragraph 52)  
It is noted that the Energy Community Treaty signed on 25 October 2005 between the EC and nine 
Southeast European countries constitutes the largest intern al market for electricity and gas in the world.   
 
Since market structures and the development status of the EC differ from those of the nine Southeast 
European countries involved, could the EC please describe the benefits that the above-mentioned 
development is expected to bring about in the future?   Since it came into force on 1 July 2006, has the 
Treaty yet resulted in any concrete achievemen ts in the European electricity and gas market? 
 
We understand that on 6 July 2005, the EC Council and Parliament adopted and approved the Energy-
using Products (EuP) Directive, which will enter in to force on 11 August 2007. This Directive defines 
conditions and criteria for setting, through subsequent implementing measures, requirements regarding 
environmentally relevant product characteristics (suc h as energy consumption) and allows them to be 
improved quickly and efficiently.  However, it does not introduce directly binding requirements for 
specific products.  
In view of the fact that the EC is not a producer of many of the products in qu estion, will the EC invite 
stakeholders from third countries to participate in consultations, such as th e Eco-design Consultation 
Forum, to help draw up the implementing measu res for particular product groups, as well as to assess 
voluntary steps that might be taken to achieve the Directive's aims?  (page 101, paragraph 54)  
Several Member States either missed the implementa tion deadline of 1 July 2004, or have still not 
implemented recent Directives on key issues promoting the liberalization of the electricity and gas market.    
How are the EC authorities intending to deal with  this delay? Apart from pursuing judicial 
proceedings in the European Court of Justi ce, are there any accompanying countermeasures 
envisaged to bring about the necessary legislati on for liberalization and en sure effective enforcement 
of the Directive in advance among Member States?  
 
(pages 101-102, paragraph 55)  
While the EU Commission in 2003 set up the European Regulators Group for Electricity and Gas (ERGEG) and all Member States now have electricity and gas regulators, in 2006 EC energy ministers 
rejected a Commission proposal for a single EC-wid e regulator seeking to counter national monopolies 
and reduce bills. Furthermore, a flurry of cross-bor der takeovers and bids has seriously undermined 
steps taken by EC regulators to open up national energy markets to competition.   
Could the EC please inform us of the current a ttitudes of each Member State towards strengthening 
EC-wide regulations for promoting competition in  the energy markets, and what future enforcing 
measures are contemplated by the EC authorities? 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 111 
 
 
 (5) MANUFACTURING  
(ii) Selected industries 
(c) Chemicals 
(pages 107-108, paragraph 71) 
The application of the new REACH (registration, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals) legislation is widely expected to place an extr a burden and higher costs on business. Although the EC 
commits to making the transition to the new syst em as easy as possible, a lack of certainty and 
transparency apparently still exists regarding appli cation procedures, standards and testing methods.  In 
particular, there is a lack of information about the standards applying to chemical products not 
currently manufactured in the EC.  
 
In this connection, could the EC please clarify whether the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) will 
consult and cooperate with thir d countries regarding the standards applicable to these chemicals? 
 
In addition, for the implementation of the REACH, it is a prerequisite to fulfil the inspection and 
qualification requirements for all European imports bearing valid certificates.   
 
In the interests of enhancing the effectiveness of the REACH implementation and avoiding any 
suspicion of monopolization by specified institutes,  as well as shortening the inspection period for 
manufacturers, it would be appreciated if the EC could clarify whether it will recognize and accept 
certificates issued by those institu tes with export nations’ approval. 
 (d) Textiles and clothing 
(page 108, paragraph 75) 
As indicated in the Report, the EC has set restricti ons on the import levels of  certain textile products 
originating in China until the end of 2007. 
Could the EC advise whether these restriction meas ures are likely to be extended, or will they be 
replaced by other control or monitoring measures? 
(6) SERVICES 
(iii) Telecommunication and postal services 
(page 118, paragraph 105) 
We are pleased to see that most Member States had notified the Commission of their telecoms market 
reviews by October 2006, as required by the new regulatory framework.    
We would appreciate knowing, however, the reasons why some countries are still unable to implement 
the new regulatory framework?  Can the EC say by  when exactly all Member States are expected to 
implement the framework?  
(iv) Transport 
(page 126, paragraph 128) 
As indicated, air carriers established in the EC have  free access to the market to provide services within 
the EC, including cabotage within individual Member States.   
We would be interested in having the EC's view on th is granting of cabotage in the context of Article 7 
of the 1944 Chicago Convention which states that each  contracting State undertakes not to enter into 
any arrangements which specifically grant any such privilege on an excl usive basis to any other State 
or an airline of any other State, and not to obtain any such exclusive privilege from any other State. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 112  
 
 Please could the EC provide a list of countries w ith which it has concluded air service agreements, and 
also describe the relationships between such ag reements and those which individual Member States 
have concluded with non-EC States? 
 
(v) Tourism 
 
(page 127, paragraph 134) 
The Report mentions that the Commission will presen t, by 2007, a proposal for an “Agenda 21 for 
tourism”.  It would be appreciated if the EC could share with us the relevant details of this proposal.  
 
Information Technology  
(Without reference to specific paragraph/s in the Secretariat Report) 
 
It has been more than 10 year s since the WTO Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information 
Technology Products (ITA) entered into force. From our experience over these years, we conclude that 
the ITA has been contributing significantly to the growth of trade in IT products among Members, as well as to the global development of the IT industr y and general utilization of information technology 
around the world. 
 
Recently, several IT products previously classified unde r the ITA have either been excluded, or have 
been scheduled to be excluded from continuing to enjoy the zero tariff treatment in the EC.  Some 
Members have expressed their serious concerns in  the ITA Committee and a workshop was held in 
January this year for ITA participants to meet with industry representatives. 
 We would appreciate knowing more about the EC’s rea sons for the changes to its tariff classifications, 
and how it proposes to address industries’ concerns that  fewer and fewer IT products in future might 
be qualified to enjoy tariff-f ree treatment within the EC? 
 PREGUNTAS DE NICARAGUA
 
 
III. POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS 2) M
EDIDAS QUE AFECTAN DIRECTAMENTE A LAS IMPORTACIONES  
xi) Contratación pública  
En el párrafo 63 del documento WT/TPR/S/177, páginas 77 y 78 señala: 
 
En virtud de la Directiva 2004/18, los proced imientos de licitación pública y restringida pueden 
utilizarse a discreción de las autoridades.  Los contratos de servicios públicos pueden adjudicar se mediante procedimientos de licitación pública o 
restringida o procedimientos negocia dos.  Habida cuenta de que en la Directiva sobre los servicios 
públicos se establece que las entidades contratantes  pueden elegir entre esos tres procedimientos a 
discreción, no se ha estimado necesario introducir más flexibilidad (ni, por consiguiente, un diálogo competitivo).”   ¿Al respecto, por favor explique sobre el al cance o efecto de la aplicación discrecional de los 
procedimientos de licitación pública o licitación restringida,  especialmente en lo referente al respeto 
de los principios inherentes a esta materia como la transparencia, y como contribuye esto a lograr la 
máxima competencia posible?  
¿A su criterio cuáles son las ventajas o desv entajas que resultan de dicha discrecionalidad?  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 113 
 
 
  ¿Podría explicar el procedimiento de la licit ación pública y la licitación restringida, los montos 
o umbrales que dan lugar la aplicación de cada uno de ellos, así como las condiciones que dan lugar a 
la aplicación de cada uno de ellos? 
 
POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS 
4) MEDIDAS QUE AFECTAN A LA PRODUCCIÓN Y EL COMERCIO 
iii) Derechos de propiedad intelectual 
 
1. En base al párrafo 105, Pág. 91, del Informe de la Secretaria, WT/TPR/S/177, la adhesión de la CE 
al protocolo de Madrid, efectiva a partir de octu bre de 2004, permitió a los titulares de marcas de 
fábrica o de comercio  de los países miembros del Protocolo de Madrid pueden designar a las CE en su 
solicitud de registro internacional de marcas de fábrica o de comercio, de manera que si la Oficina de 
Armonización del Mercado Interior (OAMI) no la deniega, la protección es válida en los 25 Estados miembros de la CE.    
 Puede considerarse que esta adhesión ha fortalecido a la OAMI y cuál es el rol del resto de 
oficinas de propiedad industrial, en materia de  concesión de marcas de fábrica o de comercio? 
 2. En el párrafo 109, Pág. 93, del Informe de la Secretaria, WT/TPR/S/177, El  ejercicio de consultas 
realizado en el año 2006, por la CE sobre la materi a de patentes, conllevó a la ejecución de un plan de 
Acción.   
 
 Explique el contenido del Plan de Acción en materia de patentes , producto de las audiencias 
realizadas?  3. En el párrafo 112, Pág. 94, del Informe de la  Secretaria, WT/TPR/S/177, se indica que el 27 de 
mayo de 2006, la Comunidad Europea (CE) adoptar on el  Reglamento  No. 816/2006 relativo a la 
concesión de licencias obligatorias de patentes pa ra la fabricación de productos farmacéuticos 
destinados a la exportación a países con problemas de salud pública.    De conformidad con el citado Reglamento, cuál es el procedimiento jurídico  para la concesión 
de licencias obligatorias  con fines de exportación?   
 
4. El párrafo 114, Pág. 95, del Informe de la Secr etaria, WT/TPR/S/177, indica las estadísticas de la 
Oficina Comunitaria  de Obtenciones Vegetales, muestra que recibió  2,517 en 2003,  2656 en 2004 y 
2733 en 2005, así como 1,701, 1,867 y 2,178 títulos, respectivamente.    
 Señalar cuántos de estos títulos obtuvieron doble protección, es decir mediante la protección 
“sui generis” de obtenciones vegetales  y mediante la protección de patentes? 
 5. En el párrafo 116, Pág. 95, del Informe de la Secretaria, WT/TPR/S/177, menciona la nueva 
legislación referida a marcas de fábrica o de comercio y las indicaciones geográficas, contenidas en el Reglamento No. 510/2006 del Consejo, de 20 marzo de 2006. 
 
 Favor explique si dicho reglamento establece un tratamiento especial entre Marcas y 
Denominaciones de Origen ?   
 Existe relación entre ambos, o quien goza de mejor jerarquía (Una marca o una denominación 
de origen).  
 
6. En materia de Derecho de Auto r y Derechos Conexos, en el párrafo  118, Pág. 96, del Informe de la 
Secretaria, WT/TPR/S/177, indica que las CE cuen ta con una recomendación relativa a la gestión 
colectiva transfronteriza de los derecho de autor y derechos conexos en el ámbito de los servicios 
legales  de música en línea.   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 114  
 
  Favor Indique el aumento de las licencias de música digital.   
Explique las directrices generales sobre solución de  diferencias, responsabilidad, y distribución de los 
derechos recaudados?  7. En los párrafos 119 al 123, Pág. 96 y 97, del Info rme de la Secretaria, WT /TPR/S/177, Las CE han 
indicado que continúa esforzándose en mejorar la ob servancia, tanto dentro de la CE como en sus 
fronteras exteriores, que le permitan luchar eficazmente  contra los actos de falsificación y piratería.   
  Explique cuál es el mecanismo de cooper ación que desarrollará con sus interlocutores 
comerciales, para luchar contra la piratería y falsificación ? 
 
8. Explique cuáles serán los nuevos estándares de Propiedad Intelectual que exigirán a sus socios 
comerciales? 
 
QUESTIONS BY PAKISTAN
 
 
1. EC's MFN tariff is applicable to only nine WTO Members accounting for its 30% of 
merchandise imports (Para 9). Such a trade policy regime of one of the major trading nation hints to 
undermine the multilateral trading system. How would EC reconcile its commitment to the Multilateral 
System in this backdrop?  
2. Despite having average tariff of 4% for non-ag ricultural goods, EC maintains tariff peaks as 
well as tariff escalations especially on the products of  export interest to the developing countries like 
textile and clothing and leather products. On one hand, EC through its EBA and GSP scheme is 
helping some developing countries and on the other hand, its trade policy is discriminated against 
products of interest to the remaining developing coun tries. How would EC justify such a dichotomy in 
its policies? 
PREGUNTAS DE BOLIVIA  
 
Documento de la Secretaría WT/TPR/S/177 
Capítulo I) Entorno Económico, 3) Result ados Comerciales e Inversiones iii) Inversión 
Extranjera Directa, parágrafo 23.  
Siendo que las CE-25 son el principal origen y destino de IED del mundo:  
 
Pregunta : 
¿Existen restricciones  a las inversiones extranjeras directas en la Unión Europea? ¿En caso afirmativo 
en qué sectores económicos se presentan estas restri cciones? ¿Pueden ser diferentes las normas de los 
25 países examinados en lo referente al tratam iento a las inversiones extranjeras directas? 
 Capítulo  II Regímenes de Comercio e Inversión,  2) Formulación y Aplicación de Políticas,  Parágrafo 11  
Siendo que “la Comisión utiliza evaluaciones del impact o del comercio en la sostenibilidad (EIS del 
comercio) para analizar los efectos económicos, ambientales y sociales de los acuerdos comerciales 
tanto en las CE como en sus interlocutores comerciales.” 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 115 
 
 
 Pregunta : 
¿La CE tiene algún método o mecanismo para controlar o medir el impacto ambiental en la aplicación 
de los subsidios y medidas de ayuda interna, pa rticularmente en aquellos sectores donde se involucran 
el manejo de los recursos naturales y la biodiversidad? 
Capítulo II. Regímenes de Comercio e Inv ersión, 5 Acuerdos Comerciales, ii) OMC a) 
Negociaciones del Programa de Doha para el Desarrollo,  Parágrafo 30  
Debido a que en octubre de 2005 las CE ofrecieron eliminar para 2013 todas las prácticas de exportación causantes de distorsión del comercio, co n inclusión de las subvenciones a la exportación 
 Pregunta:  
¿Qué mecanismos aplicará la CE para eliminar hasta el 2013 todas las prácticas de exportación 
causantes de distorsión del comercio, con inclusión de las subvenciones a la exportación, así como 
aumentar el acceso a los mercados y reducir la ayuda interna, y cómo compensará a sus países 
miembros que mantienen un alto porcenta je de dependencia de estas medidas? 
 
Capítulo II. Regímenes de Comercio e Inversi ón, 5 Acuerdos Comerciales, iii) Acuerdos y 
disposiciones comerciales preferenciales, a) Ac uerdos con países y grupos de países europeos, 
Adhesiones a la CE, Parágrafo 37 
En referencia a que  la mayor parte de los nuevos Estados  miembros han introducido medidas 
temporales con respecto a la adquisición de tierras agrícolas por ciudadanos de otros países. 
Pregunta: 
¿Las medidas que aplican los nuevos Estados miembr os de la CE para la  adquisición de tierras 
agrícolas pueden considerarse discriminatorias? 
Capítulo III. Políticas y Prácticas Comerci ales por Medida, 3) Medidas que Afectan 
Directamente a las Exportaciones, iv) Subv enciones a la Exportación, Parágrafo 78 
Se hace referencia a que durante el período obje to de examen se han otorgado subvenciones a la 
exportación de diferentes productos.  
Pregunta: 
¿Podrían las CE proporcionar información adicional a las notificaciones realizadas en materia de 
subvenciones a las exportaciones?  Es decir por  producto, cuantía y países de la CE que son 
beneficiarios? 
¿Puede describirse el mecanismo para la obtención de l subsidio a la exportación que debe realizar el 
productor y/o exportador de la CE y si existe un li mitante en cuanto al monto máximo que se puede 
recibir de subsidio a la exportación, al r especto, los pequeños productores de la CE no
 son beneficiados 
con este subsidio? WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 116  
 
 Capítulo III. Políticas y Prácticas Comerciales por Medidas, 4) Medidas que afectan a la 
producción y el comercio, ii) Política de competencia y cuestiones normativas, a) Medidas antimonopolio, parágrafo  87  
Debido a que la Comisión ha revisado sus normas sobre el acceso a los expedientes de las partes 
implicadas en asuntos antimonopolio y que en di ciembre de 2005 publicó un documento de debate 
sobre abusos excluyentes, donde se hace referencia a la marca única.  
Pregunta : 
¿Sobre la  marca única mencionada en este párrafo, el pr oblema que este puede generar es de exclusión 
de mercado a los proveedores, reflejándose en una colusión vertical que pue de afectar de manera 
directa a los consumidores, y obviamente al resto de proveedores. ¿Este tipo de consideraciones  están 
siendo tomadas en cuenta en el examen del docum ento de debate sobre abusos excluyentes?  
Capítulo III. Políticas y Prácticas Comerciales por Medidas, 4) Medidas que afectan a la 
producción y el comercio, ii) Política de comp etencia y cuestiones normativas, b) Fusiones, 
Parágrafo 97 
Durante el período objeto de examen no han variado las directrices establecidas por las CE en relación 
con las fusiones horizontales.  
Pregunta : 
¿Qué medidas se tienen contempladas para temas como colusiones implícitas? 
Capítulo III. Políticas y Prácticas Comerciales por Medidas, 4) Medidas que afectan a la 
producción y el comercio, iii) Derechos de propie dad intelectual, a) Propiedad Industrial, Marcas 
de fabrica o de Comercio y dibujos y modelos industriales,  Parágrafo 106 
El Comité Económico y Social Europeo (CESE) public ó un dictamen que reforzaba la opinión antes 
citada y manifestó que el obrar de otra manera conduciría a un monopolio de producto de facto  en el 
mercado secundario 
Pregunta  
¿El dictamen del CESE ha considerado otros posibl es efectos en el mercado secundario, además de 
prever un posible monopolio de facto, tras la modificación? 
Capítulo III. Políticas y Prácticas Comerciales por Medidas, 4) Medidas que afectan a la 
producción y el comercio, iii) Derechos de prop iedad intelectual, a) Propiedad Industrial, 
patentes, parágrafo 114 
La Oficina Comunitaria de Obte nciones Vegetales recibió 2.517 solicitudes el 2003; 2.656 el 2004 y 
2.733 el 2005, así como 1.701; 1.867 y 2.178 títulos, respectivamente;  la mayoría de las solicitudes y 
los títulos correspondía a obtenciones ornamentales.  
Pregunta  
¿Tiene la Oficina de Obtención de Vegetales de la CE un regi stro sobre variedades vegetales 
provenientes de Sudamérica?   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 117 
 
 
 Capítulo IV. Políticas Comerciales por Sector es , 2) Agricultura y Actividades Conexas, ii) 
Política Agrícola Común , a) Panorama general, Parágrafo 22 
Debido a que la CE tiene 91 contingentes arance larios para productos agrícolas (en comparación 
con los 89 de 2003) 
 
Pregunta:  
¿Cuál es el alcance de la última notificación presentada  a la Secretaría de la OMC sobre administración 
de contingentes arancelarios y cuáles son los cambios principales con respecto a la administración en 
años anteriores? 
QUESTIONS BY INDIA
 
 
NTBs related to SPS issues  
 
q 1. rejection of fishery product consignment on the ground of high content of cadmium. 
 consignments of fishery products have been reject ed by italy and ireland on the grounds of cadmium 
above prescribed limits. however, it has been observe d that the sampling followed by them is not in 
line with Commission Directive 2001/22/EC of 8
th March 2001, which prescribes drawl of two samples 
and results reported as mean of the two, where-in the above cited case, we understand that only one 
sample was tested. 
 
In view of the above, ec may need to issue instru ctions that for sampling of the consignments (for 
heavy metal); Member States should follow  the Commission Directive 2001/22/EC of 8th March 2001.  
 We request the ec to issue instructions to Memb er States that they should follow the Commission 
Directive 2001/22/EC of 8
th March 2001 for sampling of consignments (for heavy metal)  
 
Q 2.Import of Meat and Meat Products  
EU does not allow import of  Indian buffalo meat due to prevalence of foot and mouth diseases (FMD) 
in Indian cattle.  Like the Codex standards for f ood products, OIE guidelines are taken as international 
standards for trade in animal and animal products.  A ccording to article 2.1.1.22 of the OIE Terrestrial 
Animal Health code, fresh meat could be expor ted from an FMD infected country provided the 
veterinary requirements as stipulated in the OIE code are followed.   Following OIE guidelines, India 
exports deboned and degl anded frozen boneless meat.  The carcasses are compulsorily chilled at 2-4
0C 
for 24 hours resulting in a pH value of less than 6, which guarantees availability of safe and risk free 
product for export.  Scientifically, it has been pr oved that deboned and deglanded boneless meat 
having pH below 6 is a risk free product wherein no harmful virus including FMD virus can survive.  It is further stated that OIE experts on FMD ha ve opined that if the recommendations of OIE 
international animal health code are followed, it would be sufficient to prevent transmission of FMD 
and rinderpest from one country to another.   FMD is not transmissible to humans and pose no public health hazards.  The EU is not agreeing to our contention that they should be guided by the OIE 
stipulations for trade in Livestock products and ar e adopting higher and more stringent standards than 
the International Standards which is not WTO comp atible.  The European Commission is, apparently, 
taking recourse to the “precautionary principle” in spite of the fact that the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission, at its 24
th session held at Geneva in 2001 had agreed to as follows: 
 
“When there is evidence that a risk to human hea lth exists but scientific data are insufficient or 
incomplete, the Commission should not proceed  to elaborate a standard but should consider WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 118  
 
 elaborating a related text, such as a code of pr actice, provided that such a text would be 
supported by the available scientific evidence.”  
Will EC take steps to be guided by the OIE stipula tions for trade in Livestock products to make its 
procedures WTO compatible?  
 
Q 3. Non-availability of Sanitary and Phyto sanitary standards  in English language 
 
At times, EU member countries have been releasing SPS standards only in the language of EU country 
which has introduced the measure. This results in  difficulties for Indian exporters to understand the 
standards.   
 May we request the EC to ensure that all SPS st andards are available in English language also. 
 
Q 4.Issues relating to delay in clearance of flowers: 
 
Most farms exporting floricultural products in Indi a have a very stringent pest control management 
system operational which adheres to Internatio nal standards. Most farms have adopted Good 
Agricultural Practices (GAP). Some of them even ha ve MPS-A certification. Many of them are at the 
certification stage.  
Despite high quality procedures prevalent on the e xporting farms and very stringent phytosanitary 
inspection procedures, Indian floricultural produce is  being subject to 50 % checks at entry points in 
the Netherlands. This is a time consuming process and results in unwanted delays in clearances, 
processing and delivery of the consignments to the en d clients.  Such delays cause loss of quality and 
reputation.  During the past five years it has been ob served that the rejection has been virtually nil.  
Only one shipment each during 2004, 2005 & 20 06 has been destroyed at Amsterdam.   
 
When will it be possible for EU to reduce checks on Indian floriculture consignment to a reasonable 
level of say 3-5% so as to avoid unnecessary delays leading to heavy losses in the ornamental quality 
of flowers? 
 
Market Access Issues
 
 
Q 5.Milk Products: 
 
EIC is operating a food safety management system  based certification (FSMSC) for export of milk 
products to ensure that the quality of the produc ts exported meets importi ng country requirements. 
Under this scheme, processing units having the cap abilities to meet the requirement specified in the 
GOI Notification No. SO 2720 dated 28/11/2000 EC  Directive No. 92/46/EEC dated 16/06/92, are 
approved. The processing unit is assed in terms of raw materials, process and finished product controls, 
GMP, GHP, testing facilities, tec hnical competence of manpower, wast e disposal mechanism, record 
keeping and capability to confirm to standards. Re gular 3- tier surveillance in terms of routine 
monitoring visits, periodic supervisor y visits and corporate audit is done to ensure the implementation 
of the norms laid down as well as any additional re quirements of the importing countries. The farms 
from where the milk is procured are also monito red and representative samples are drawn and tested 
for residue and toxic contents as per the RMP (Resi due Monitoring Plan). The above ensures that the 
requirements of the importing country are met.    
 
During the recent visit of the FVO mission team to India to evaluate control of residues in live animals 
products, including controls on veterinary medici nal products in line with Council  96/23/EC, the 
residue monitoring system for milk was also assessed . The team visited farms, milk collection centre 
and processing units to assess control of residues of VM Ps in milk and Milk products. The team also  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 119 
 
 
 visited a recognized laboratory being used by Ex port Inspection Council of India for the purpose of 
analysis of raw milk for different residues as per RM P. Overall the team was broadly satisfied with the 
control measures in place from milk production level to  processing level and the analytical facilities.  
 In view of the above, a letter was addressed to The Director, European Commission, Ireland on 27
th 
November 2006 inviting a FVO Mission team for assess ment of our Milk products processing plants so 
as to allow imports of milk products from India into  the EU. However they have so far not responded 
or fixed any date. As a result export to EU has still not started.    We request that an FVO Mission may be orga nized urgently and approval expedited.  
 Q 6. Egg Products: 
 
India is on the list of authorized third countries from which member state of the EU can import egg products (Commission Decision No.94/278/EEC), theref ore, India can export egg products to member 
states on the basis of bilateral agreements. Presen tly Belgium, Germany, Austria and Denmark are 
importing egg products from India on bilateral basis. 
 
However some of the EIC approved establishments  have expressed difficulti es in exporting their 
products to some of the European member states like Germany and Denmark. in light of the new EC 
Regulation 853/2004, and Decision 2006/696/EC dated 28-8-2006. The matter has been taken up with 
the German Authorities. The German authorities have also been informed that official veterinarians 
who are authorized by the German Federal Minist ry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection 
may inspect our Milk establishments for conformity.  As far as exports to Denmark is concerned, it is 
informed that Danish authorities are insisting for a different type of Health certificate in which both 
Health aspects and veterinary aspects are addressed. Presently EIAs are issuing health certificates for 
EC as per Directive 89/437/EEC dated 20/06/1989. Meanwhile, Article 25 and 26 of the Commission 
Decision 2006/696/EC dated 28/08/2006 provides for tran sitional period which is six months after the 
day following that of its publication in the official Journal of the European Union. i.e. upto 28 February 
2007. Danish Authorities may be requested to accept the present form of Health Certificate i.e. as 
given in the earlier EU directive, which is  presently in force, till the new Commission 
Decision 2006/696/EC is effective.  
 
During the recent visit of the FVO mission team to India to evaluate control of residues in live animals products, including controls on vete rinary medicinal products in lin e with Council directive 96/23/EC, 
the residue monitoring system for egg was also  assessed. The team in their overall conclusion 
expressed the view that there are comprehensive resides control plans in place for egg products. 
 
In view of the fact that different countries are a ddressing import of egg produc ts differently and also 
the need to negotiate bilateral agreements with co untries separately, it is essential that EC notifies a 3
rd 
country list for import into all EC member states wh ich would also help in facilitating trade. This issue 
has been taken up even before 2000, but th e same has not been addressed till date.  
 
We request EC may take steps for an early notif ication of the third country list for egg products. 
 Q 7.harmonization of microbiological standards by eu  
 The EC has not harmonized norms for microbial sta ndards as well as methods of inspection, sampling 
and test.  Member countries are, therefore, having their own norms. examples of such cases are from 
spain, norway, italy and france where many consignm ents have been rejected due to detection of vibrio 
parahaemolyticus and vibrio cholerae  in consignments.  Based on information collected from other 
countries, it is observed that none of the im porting countries have specified limits for vibrio 
parahaemolyticus  in raw products. standards for this micro-or ganism have been laid only in ‘ready to WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 120  
 
 eat cooked products’ or ‘seafoods for raw consumption’ and here again, limits ha ve been specified at 
level ranging from 1,000 to 10,000 per gram. 
 
One of the key elements of the Agreement on SPS is  ‘harmonization’ in which member countries are 
expected to base their SPS measures on international standards. It also means that within the EU 
member states there should be common norms follo wed, and in case of different norms, these should 
be justified through risk analysis.  Further while  processing, an exporter may at times not be clear 
about the specific country of destination within the EU countries. As a result, while certifying the consignments of marine products for export to the countries of EU, it becomes difficult for Export 
Inspection Council of India to decide against which norms to certify, which may in effect lead to 
rejection of the product. 
 Will EC initiate steps for harmonization of microbiol ogical requirements within the EU and are there 
any time limits being fixed for completing harmonization? 
 Q 8. Upgradation of GBR Status of India  
The Scientific Standing Committee of the European  Commission after examining the application of 
India for determination of BSE status, categorized India as the country of GBR level-II, i.e., BSE is 
unlikely but not excluded that domestic cattle are infect ed with BSE agent.  The Department of Animal 
Husbandry has provided additional de tails to the European Commission for upgrading India’s Status to 
GBR level-I (no risk of BSE).  India has made effo rts to re-determine its status from GBR level II to 
GBR level-I by submitting the requisite details.  Howeve r, this is being delayed by the EC.  The delay 
in re-determining the status of India is affecting our  exports of bovine animal casings to the European 
Commission even though 15 units of animal casings  have been approved by the EC. Since the GBR 
status of India has not changed in the intervening pe riod, the restrictions on import of bovine animal 
casings from India still apply.   
We request the EC to re-determine the GBR status of India at the earliest so that export of meat and 
meat products to the EU can resume. 
 
Q 9. Export of Animal Casings to EU – Notifica tion of additional animal casings processing plants 
Export of Animal Casings to EU – Notification of  additional animal casings processing plants - The 
matter regarding notification of additional animal ca sings processing plants was taken up with the EC 
authorities in Sept. 2004, however, the EC had clarified that since India was categorized as a GBR II country, it could neither certify the bovine casings no r the ovine and caprine casings for exports to the 
EU.  In March 2005, APEDA had sent a detailed justif ication wherein it was clarified that  the ileum 
part of the small intestine of sheep and goat is re moved from casings of sheep and goat in order to 
remove the SRM.  It was also clarified that in case of bovine casings, India is not exporting any part of 
intestine from duodenum to rectum which have been declared as SRM.  However, India is exporting 
only weasand and bladders which are not the part of SRM.  The EC was requested to notify the 
additional animal casings processing plants.  
We request the EC to inform the date by wh ich the animal casing units will be notified.  
 
Q  10. Pesticides Residue Limits in Gherkins, Grapes, etc. 
 
One of the main problems being faced by our exporte rs of grapes, gherkins etc., is the differential 
pesticide residue levels followed by different member st ates of the EU, in spite of the fact that there are 
EU wide harmonized levels prescribed by the EC as well as Codex.  This problem has been pointed out 
to the EC.  However, such variation in the resi due levels pose difficulties for intra-EU trade for 
products exported by India. This is resulting in a s ituation that the Indian exporters are able to trade  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 121 
 
 
 with only some of the EU countries.  This amounts to a breach of WTO obligations by the EC (under 
SPS Agreement and GATT Articles III, VIII, X and XXIV).    The problem continues to stay and intra-EU trade is  becoming more and more difficult.  This problem 
is being faced in a number of products and India is  expected to have bilateral agreements with the 
member states for export of various items.   
 Most of time, the maximum residue levels of p esticides and antibiotics are introduced without any 
scientific justification.  This is done on arbitrary b asis taking recourse to “precautionary principle”.   
This principle is being followed in spite of the f act that the Codex Alimentarius Commission, at its 24
th 
session held at Geneva in 2001 had agreed to as follows : 
 
“When there is evidence that a risk to human hea lth exists but scientific data are insufficient or 
incomplete, the Commission should  not proceed to elaborate a standard but should consider 
elaborating a related text, such as a code of practice,  provided that such a text would be supported by 
the available scientific evidence.”  
Not only this, the European Commi ssion keeps on reducing the maximum residue levels of pesticides 
and antibiotics very frequently and without giving ade quate notice.  It becomes difficult for developing 
countries like India to keep pace with the ever changing MRLs. 
Will EC take steps to bring the regulations prevai ling in all its member states at to remove such 
disparity, provide adequate advance notice to frequent  changes made by it and thus facilitate trade?   
Q  11. Definition of Whisky – CN Code  
 
India has been constantly requesting European Commission for recognition of Indian whisky as a 
“whisky” in the EU market to ensure a level playin g field.  The EC has so far not responded positively. 
As per the CN Code, an alcoholic  beverage can be calle d a whisky only if it produced exclusively from 
cereals by distillation and is matured for a period of three years.  The EC authorities have informed that 
there is no scope for change of definition of whisky by them.  They suggested that India should come 
up with some creative solution that could be consid ered but the use of term  ‘whisky’ may not be 
possible.  The EC has also sugg ested that in case we can give detailed clarification on technical 
aspects, their customs experts could consider the issue for tariff concessions.   
 
The technical experts from the All India Distillers’ A ssociation are of the view that the extra neutral 
alcohol (ENA) produced from molasses and used as a base for production of Indian whisky is as good 
as the ENA produced from cereals/grains.  In the EU countries, whisky has been traditionally 
produced from cereals because they do not pro duce sugarcane.  Even in USA, no one has ever 
challenged whisky produced from molasses.   
 
It is also pertinent to mention here that EU countries are adopting double standards.  They are 
reluctant to import Indian whisky as “whisky”, but at  the same time they insist that their whisky should 
be allowed to be imported into India under the ‘na tional treatment clause’.  It appears that Indian 
whisky is dissimilar to EU whisky when exported from  India to the EU, but when EU whisky is to be 
imported into India, then it is  similar to Indian whisky.   
 
During the Sub-Commission meeting, the EU side main tained that Indian whisky made from molasses 
could not be recognized as whisky.  To this, the Indi an side has informed about the difficulties faced by 
the Indian spirit industry in getting thei r trade marks registered in the EU and  indicated that the 
action taken by European Commission was not conduc ive to enhancement of trade.  There has been no 
positive outcome on the matter.  
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 122  
 
 We again request the EC to reconsider the ca se of the Indian whiskey as “whiskey”.  
 Q  12. Equivalence Agreement with European Union on Organic Products  
Vide Regulation No.956/2006 dated 28.06.2006, th e EU notified equivalence of Indian organic 
standards with those of the European Union and Indi a was included in the list of third countries eligible 
to export organic products certified by accredited certif ication bodies in India.  In para 3(2) of the 
Annexure to the Regulation it is stated under the heading ‘Orgin’ that ‘products of category 1(a) and organically grown ingredients in products of category 1(b) that have been grown in India
’ can be 
certified by the Indian certification bodies. 
 
The provision that products of Indian origin only are allowed to be certified by the accredited 
certification bodies is trade restrictive as they are not able to expand their business outside the shores 
of India.  organic certification is a process certific ation and products certifie d under the NPOP (which 
is equivalent to the EC standards and procedures) should be allowed to be cer tified, if such products 
are otherwise allowed to be expor ted from such countries to the EU.  There may be situations where 
nearby countries may wish to get their products certified by India certification bodies for exports to the European Union on account of lower cost involved in sourcing the services from India.  However, in 
light of the restriction imposed by the said regulation, the Indian certification bodies are deprived of this opportunity and the grower/exporters are deni ed the choice to source less expensive services for 
organic certification. 
 
We request that the restriction imposed by para 3(2)  of the EU Regulation be removed to facilitate 
trade.  Q  13. Impact of 10 new EU members on India’s Export of non-basmati rice   
 
Ten new countries have joined EU  on 01.05.2004. Countries, Czech  Republic, Latvia, Lithuania and 
Poland used to import fair quantities of non-basmati rice from India prior to their accession to EU while Cyprus, Malta and Estonia imported small quantities from India. But the details given in the 
table below show that post accession Poland, Latvia, Malta and Czech Republic have not imported any 
quantities of non basmati rice from India during 2004 -05 and 2005-06 whereas Estonia after importing  
400 tonnes in 2004-05, has stopped importing in 2005-06. Lithuania is the only country, which has 
continued importing from India during these two years. 
 
It is noteworthy that prior to the accession of these ten new countries into the EU, rice from India was 
permitted duty free entry. According to the curren t duty structure of the EU for rice, a duty of  Euros 
152.50 per tonne is levied on white milled rice and Euros 42.5 per tonne on brown rice. The application of import duty into these countries has hampered market access for Indian non basmati 
rice. 
 
Details of exports of non basmati rice from Indi a to the new members of EU during the period 
2000-01 to 2005-06 is given in the table below: Qty : MTs     Val : ‘000$ 
 
Country 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 
 Qty Val Qty Val Qty Val Qty Val Qty Val Qty Val 
Cyprus 92 29 206 58 15 4.13 0 0 9 3 121 43 
Malta 0 0 20 9 60 15 20 5 0 0 0 0 
Estonia 0 0 112 19 1351 233 192 42 400 183 0 0 
Czech Rep 57 13 4985 809 5050 834 1930 365 0 0 0 0 
Hungary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.10 0.06 
Latvia 0 0 3675 51 31287 1401 341 69 0 0 0 0 
Lithuania 0 0 0 0 885 145 1778 343 250 69 1150 258 
Poland 10 1 3895 702 24336 3966 1263 276 0 0 0 0 
Slovenia 0 0 264 63 130 25 0 0 0 0 0 0  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 123 
 
 
 Country 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 
 Qty Val Qty Val Qty Val Qty Val Qty Val Qty Val 
Slovania 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
TOTAL 159 44 13157 1711 63114 6622 5524 1122 659 257 1271 319 
Source : DGCIS 
 
We request EC to enter into consultations with Indi a to compensate due to levying of duty on import of 
Basmati rice by the new members of the EU.  
Q  14. Market Access for Mushrooms  
 
India and other developing countries have been ta king a position with the European Union and in the 
WTO deliberations that market access through pref erential treatment should not form part of the 
minimum access.  The reason that it does not provide equal trade opportunity to all trading partners 
which are party to the multi lateral agreement.  The most vivid example in this regard is camouflaging 
of the TRQ for preserved mushrooms.  India has b een denied fair-market access to the European 
Union.  In this context, India ask the European Union to provide data on the value of the imports covered under preferential agreements out of the total imports of the European Union. 
 
In case compensation negotiations have to be he ld for a reasonable share of market access under 
Article XXVIII, a country should either be an IN R (Initial Negotiating Right), or a PSI (Principal 
Supplier Interest) or should have a substantial s upplier status in a commodity.  For qualifying as a 
substantial supplier status, a count ry should have a minimum of 10% turnover of that product in a 
particular market.  In the case of mushrooms, although India is the third largest supplier to the EU, the 
import licencing procedures have been formulated by substantial supplier inter est.  In 1977, our share 
of preserved mushrooms in the EU market was about  12.5% which has substantially been eroded by 
the EU licensing procedures.  One reason is the limita tions in exports due to limited quota available in 
“others” category in which India figures.  Secondly, import licences, which are issued to new importers 
are not for economically significant quantities.  It is  suggested that these flaws in the TRQ system and 
licensing procedure in case of mushrooms may be questioned.   
 
Under the Agreement on Agriculture, the EU is expect ed to provide market access to a certain extent 
every year.  It is observed that they have incr eased market access in case of preserved mushrooms, but 
only in the case of those countries who do not have the capacity to fulfill even half of their quota.  The 
policy followed by the EC under their mushroom quot a regime is a clear example of camouflaging 
market access.  Under the Agreement on Agriculture , WTO members are obliged to administer TRQs 
in such a way that the quota gets fully utilised.  The members are bound to maintain by entire TRQ 
even if re-allocation becomes necessary.   This h as been held by the appellate body in the banana 
dispute against the EC.  It is felt that the same l ogic will have to be applied in the case of mushrooms. 
 In the early nineties, when India made a request fo r a separate quota for mushrooms, the EU side had 
stated that India should first fulfill “others” category and then if there is an additional demand, then a 
separate quota could be offered.  When India fille d up the “others” category quota and requested for 
additional access, this was denied stating that the country specific quotas could not be opened up.  
India then requested for increasing the quota in the “others” category on the same lines as they had 
done for the country specific quotas. But, this request has always remained pending.  
 
The issue of mushrooms was raised by India during  the last JWG meeting reiterating its long pending 
request for an increase in the quot a for the “others” category that h as remained static (it has been 
partially increased for the year 2007) while the same  had been increased for other countries that did not 
fulfill even half of their allotted quota.  It w as added that the licensing policy in the EU was 
discriminatory against the new exporters, which re sulted in an underutilization of the quota in the WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 124  
 
 “others” category.  Now, the EU side has again been  advising India to first utilize quota in the “others” 
category.   The issue of quota for mushrooms is a long standing  demand from India and we request the EC to 
respond positively. 
 
Q  15. Product testing approach  
 
There are impractical approaches to product testi ng. Taking the example of aflatoxin in spices, 
processed food, groundnuts, cereals, etc., there is a requirement of meeting a certain MRL value of 
aflatoxin in these products.  The sampling procedure for testing purposes is extremely complex and 
expensive.  In other words, it is technically and economically not feasible in case of developing countries.  Moreover, it is expected that the MRL sh ould be respected on arrival of the consignment at 
the port of the importing countries (e.g. EU ports).  This is impractical because aflatoxins can come up at any stage after drawl of samples for testing.  The voyage provides an optimum environment for 
growth of aflatoxins.  No exporting country can abso lutely guarantee this, not even the most developed 
countries.  
We request the EC to be practical in its approach to product testing.  
Q  16. Destruction of consignments  
Customs clearance procedures are unreasonable on many occasions. As per the EU procedures, the 
inspection authorities destroy processed food consignment at their ports if the risk to human health is 
high.  This is unreasonable.  The exporting countr ies must have the first right to the rejected 
consignment and should have the option to either take it back to their country or to ship it to another 
country where it is acceptable according to its laws.   
May we request the EC to drop this unreasonable procedure.  
Q  17. Destruction of export consignments by importing customs 
 
Commission Decision 2005/34/EC on Minimum Required Performance Limits fo r certain residues, 
allows for the re-dispatching of consignments containing prohibited or non-authorized substances at 
levels above the MRPL under the following c onditions (Article 3, 3 a), b) and c): 
 
The competent authority shall allow re -dispatch of consignments only if : 
 
(a) the destination has been agr eed with the feed or food busi ness operator responsible for the 
consignment; and 
 
(b) the feed and food business opera tor has first informed the competen t authority of the third country 
of origin or third country of destination, if di fferent, of the reasons and circumstances preventing 
the placing on the market of the feed or food concerned within the Community; and 
 (c) when the third country of destination is not the third country of origin, the competent authority of 
the third country of destination has notified the competent authority of the preparedness to accept 
the consignment. 
 
Previous to the adoption of the decision, rejected  consignments were being destroyed by the health 
authorities of importing countries of EC as per the provision of the EC Directive 97/78/EC. However 
based on the representation of exporting counties including India this aspect was reviewed and conditions to allow for return of non-conforming consignments incorporated in the above Decision   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 125 
 
 
  
There have been instances in th e recent past, where two consignments of fish and fishery products 
exported to UK through Southamp ton port have been destroyed due to presence of nitrofurans 
metabolites above MRPL (Notification 2006.AVP da ted 31.3.2006 and 2006.BJ M dated 14.6.2006).  
The issue was taken up with Food Standards Agen cy, UK as well as Principal Port Environmental 
Health authority, UK  to permit the cargo to be returned to I ndia for further testing and disposal as per 
laid down norms.    The UK authorities did not agree on the grounds that  the consignment has exceeded the MRPL of 1 
ppb for Nitrofuran, and that Article 19(2) does not allow re-dispatch as an option.  
 
They have further elaborated that, Article 19 to  22 of Regulation (EC) 882/2004 provide the current 
enforcement options to be taken as regards non-co mplaint imported food consignments. Article 19 
of 882/2004 sets out the measures that may be taken and Article 19(2) sets out the options available for 
products which are deemed to be in jurious to health or unsafe. As per their understanding, this measure 
would be applicable for consignments that exceed the MRPL of 1 ppb for Nitrofurans and that Article 
19 (2) does not allow re dispatch as an option. Further, following advice from the Food Standards 
Agency, the Association of Port Health Authoriti es has advised member authorities in the UK that 
destruction should be the considered course of acti on for any future consignments for products which 
are deemed to be injurious to health or unsafe, a nd that this approach should be consistent across the 
UK.  
 
In india’s understanding, the clau se 21 has been inserted to allow the re-dispatch of non-conforming 
consignments based on a mutual understanding between  the competent authorities of the importing and 
exporting country.   
In view of the above case, this issue had been di scussed in the india-eu tbt/sps joint working group 
meeting held on 10-11 july 2006, wherein the eu  side had clarified “that in january 2005 the 
commission had adopted decision 2005/34/ec on mi nimum required performan ce limits for certain 
residues, which allowed for the re-dispatching of consignments containing levels above the mrpl.  
Previous to the adoption of the decision such c onsignments had to be destroyed.  Following the 
adoption of the decision, such consignments can be returned with the consent of the exporting country.  
eu member states are responsible for implementing the decision.”    
 It may be pointed out that other member states are re turning such consignments back to the country of 
origin.   
We seek ec’ urgent action to clarify and issue necessary instructions to the Member States on 
interpretation of clause 19 2 (a) of regulation ( ec) no. 882/2004 as well as article 21 regarding re-
dispatch of consignments to ensure smooth trade between the EU and India.  
Q  18. Countervailing duty on graphite electrodes of Indian origin 
 
The Council of the European Union by its regula tion dated 13 September 2004, imposed a definitive 
countervailing duty on graphite electrodes originating from India. This was applicable only for imports 
from India and not from other countries having si zeable quantity of exports to EU countries.  
 The Indian manufacturers had submitted a joint appli cation pursuant to Article 230 of the EC Treaty on 
29 November 2004 to the Court of First Instance of the European Community.  No hearing has so far 
taken place in the matter.  
May we request the EC to ensu re an early decision on the joint application made by the Indian 
manufacturers. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 126  
 
  
Q  19. Export of Refrigerators 
 
The mandatory CE certification requirement imposed by the EU have made export of refrigerators 
difficult for Indian exporters. In particular, there are two clauses in EU standards which create barriers 
for Indian exporters : 
 In India, R141B, an internationally accepted insula ting foam is used in manufacture of refrigerators, 
which is not allowed by EU, although it is acceptable in USA and Australia. The insulating 
effectiveness of C-Pentane, the insulation fo am preferred by EU, is not as good as R141B.  
Conforming to this requirement would al so increase cost for Indian exporters.  
 The restrictions on hazardous substances (RoHS), restrict s the use of certain metals in refrigerators.  
This not only has negative impact on the product qua lity and reliability but also entails high cost of 
compliance to small businesses. 
 
May we request the EC to look into these regulations  which are adding to cost for the Indian exporters 
and also resulting in a less efficient product.  Services issues 
 
Q  20. Mode 4 issues 
 
There are a number of Mode restrictions in the EC, namely requirement for 3-6 years of professional experience for contractual suppliers and independe nt professionals, delays in awarding of Visas and 
differing regulations governing pr ofessional qualifications across Members. For example, a service 
provider from a Member State that has no requirement for a professional diploma, who wishes to 
become established in another Member State that h as such a requirement will not find it easy to have 
professional qualifications recognized. This creates barriers to trade.  
 
What steps is the EC taking to remove such restrictions?  
 
Q  21. Television Broadcast Directive of EC  
EC has adopted a legislative proposal of Television w ithout Frontier Directive. In spite of this several 
member states have their own specific legislations  resulting in different policies being pursued in 
different member states. This is affecting market access for Indian broadcasters who cater to a large 
Indian Diaspora in the EC.  
 
Is the EC contemplating bringing all member nations  to adhere to the Directive by committing this in 
its GATS schedule?  Q  22. Economic Needs Test (ENT) 
 
It has been observed that EC has imposed ENTs on unclear basis on the entry of Foreign Service 
providers.  
 
What is the EC position on the application of ENTs? 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 127 
 
 
 Q  23. Telecommunication Services 
 
Under GATS EC has given commitments for MA a nd NT for voice telephony and data services, 
however, implementation of these requirements is  uneven across Member nations, specially in 
provisioning and pricing of unbundled local loop, line sharing, co-location and provisioning of leased 
lines.  
 
What steps is the EC taking to correct this anomaly? 
 Q  24. Architectural Services  
 
It is seen from the EC schedule under Mode 3, that there are no restrictions for Architects to obtain a 
license to provide services in Austria. However, it has been seen that only citizens from EU and EEA 
Member States are eligible to obtain a license to prov ide independent architectural services in Austria. 
 
We request the EC to change the restrictive regime.  Q  25. Business Visitors 
 
Under the EC commitment in the horizontal section for the category of ‘Business Visitors’, does it also include business visitors for meeti ngs, discussions and training etc?  
 
Q  26. Territorial Requirement to set up business  
 
A service provider who wants to provide services thr oughout the EC is obliged to establish in several 
regions due to nationality a nd residency requirement leading to unnecessary costs.  
 
By when does the EC intend to  do away with this barrier? 
 Q  27. Residence and Requirements  
In a large number of member nations there are requirements of number of board members to be residents. This leads to increasing cost for service providers.  
 
Is the EC considering to do away with these requi rements especially when the incorporation of 
company can ensure compliance of laws and regulations?  
Q  28. Discriminatory Tax treatm ent against foreign service providers  
 
More favourable tax treatment for services by local providers is a major hindrance to the provision of 
services. For example, in some Member States the costs of professional training are tax-deductible only if the courses take place within the Member State. Similarly, life insurance and additional insurance 
policies, pension fund and investment fund contracts can  be offset against tax only if concluded with 
local insurance companies. 
 
We request the EC to take steps to provide a level playing field to all service providers irrespective of 
the nationality?  
 
Q  29. Reimbursement of Medical Costs: 
 
Authorization for the reimbursement of medical cost s incurred in another Member State is only granted 
by national authorities under certain conditions, and this may discourage persons insured under social 
security schemes from turning to service providers established in another Member State. Often, WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 128  
 
 persons who decide for various reasons to travel to  another Member State to receive medical treatment 
will not be reimbursed. This discour ages persons from seeking medical care in countries like India, and 
therefore hinders trade.  
 
By when is the EC planning to provide a more trade friendly regime? 
 
Q  30. Disciplining Domestic Regulations:  
 
It is seen that market access commitments are nega ted by invoking a plethora of domestic regulations. 
Even in cases where a policy regime has allowed the entry of professionals , such regimes have 
witnessed sudden changes making it difficult for Indian  professionals to continue. A recent example is 
that of Indian doctors in the UK, who are facing an uncertain future due to the recent sudden change in 
policy announced by the Department of Health of  the UK.  The Indian doctors undergoing training 
have been affected midway. Hence, there is a st rong case for disciplining domestic regulations in a 
transparent manner after discussions and public deba te and also allowing period for transition.  
 
Is the matter being examined for putting in place disciplines autonomously and in particular for having 
some transitional arrangements for the affected Indian doctors?  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 129 
 
 
 ADDITIONAL ADVANCE WRITTEN QUESTIONS 
SECOND DAY OF THE MEETING 
QUESTIONS BY THE UNITED STATES  
 
II.  TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
 
Trade Agreements and Arrangements  
1.  With respect to U.S. question 4, page 3:  Pa ragraph 66 on page 38 of the Secretariat report states 
that the EC’s Economic Partne rship Agreements with the ACP countries will recognize 
“[d]evelopment concerns…through flexibility vis-à-vis depth of liberalization…”   
 
The EC states in its response that “several EC  FTAs with developing countries in the past 
have…asymmetric levels of liberalization even at  the end of transition periods, where the EC has 
eliminated duties ….covering a larger share of tr ade than its trading partners….” And that this 
“asymmetry reflects the difference in the levels of development….”   Please explain how, in 
preferential agreements which require lower levels of liberalization from developing country partners, 
the EC ensures that the agreement will enhance th e economic development of the developing country 
partners.  If a number of agreements are in effect  where one partner’s level of liberalization is 
substantially less than that of th e EC, does the EC intend to revis it these agreements as levels of 
development change?  If not, how does the EC inte nd to avoid trade diversion caused by disparities 
among PTAs? 
 2.  In light of the EC's response to U.S. question 5(c), page 4, that third-country products meeting New 
Approach criteria can access the EC market on the same basis as a supplier from a member State, do 
EC PTA's ensure that third-country products me eting these criteria can also access the markets of the 
partner in the agreement on the same basis as member  state products, or do origin restrictions apply?  
 3.  The United States appreciates the EC’s reply to U.S. question 7, page 5.  We have one additional 
question on the EC’s Euro-Mediterranean free trad e area.  Paragraph 53 on pages 33-34 of the 
Secretariat report describes the EC’s aim to create  a Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area through 
elimination of tariffs on industrial goods and “p rogressive liberalization of trade in agricultural 
goods…”. 
 Please explain what is meant by “progressive libera lization” and how it differs from the GATT Article 
XXIV requirement that duties be eliminated on substantially all trade?  
4.  Paragraphs 66-68 on pages 38-39 of the Secretar iat report discuss the replacement of the Cotonou 
Agreement with bilateral Economic  Partnership Agreements.   
 Please describe the status of negotiations with each of the regional groupings, including duty-
elimination of agricultural goods (including value-ad ded products), and the respective tariff elimination 
schedules contemplated for the EC and its partners.  Will this process be completed by the expiration 
of the WTO waiver for Cotonou preferences?   
 
5.  Several delegations mentioned th e latest round of enlargement and the need for the EC to work with 
members to conclude GATT XXIV:6 tariff compensation as well as agreements on services related the 
accession of Romania and Bulgaria.  We would be in terested in your views on timetable for reaching 
agreements with members on GATT XXIV:6, as.  In addition, despite this enlargement taking place on 
January 1, the EC did not update its tariff schedule to reflect the consolidation of tariff rate quotas to 
account for the addition of the new members.  The EC should notify a revised schedule reflecting WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 130  
 
 consolidated tariff rate quotas.  Members should not  have to wait for the conclusion of GATT XXIV:6 
negotiations with all members. (Some of t hose negotiations are still underway from the 2004 
enlargement).  We would appreciate an update on all of these issues.    
III.  TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
 
Measures Directly Affecting Imports – Customs Procedures 
 
6.  The EC's response to U.S. question 8, page 6, states that “[t]he proposal on the Modernized 
Customs Code addresses the issue. . . .”  While Ar ticle 19 of the proposal on the Modernized Customs 
Code deals with administrative penalties, it provid es very little detail on how the EC will go about 
establishing a 'common framework.'  In particular, pa ragraphs 1 and 2 of Artic le 19 apparently require 
each member State to establish its own penalties for 'failure to comply with the customs rules.'  
Paragraph 3 then states that 'the criteria and cond itions for the application of administrative penalties 
for infringements of the customs rules shall be determined in accordance with the committee 
procedure.'  Could the EC please elaborate on how, if at  all, 'the committee proce dure' has been used to 
establish the 'common framework' referred to in the EC 's initial response?  If 'the committee procedure' 
has not yet been used to achieve this end, could th e EC please elaborate on how it is contemplated that 
the committee procedure will be used to achieve this end? 
 
Measures Directly Affecting Imports – Sa nitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
 
7.  As we noted in our opening statement, most major U.S. commodities remain blocked from the EC 
market.  A number of our written questions related to the process of developing and coordinating EC 
SPS policies.  This process remains slow and non-transpar ent.  In its response, the EC points to a legal 
framework ensuring that SPS decisions are based on risk assessments.  Howeve r, in specific cases, 
even when the efficacy and safety of a given g ood has been demonstrated by EFSA studies, the 
regulatory process does not move forward.  What is the EC doing to address situations such as biotech 
approval or approval of the use of anti-microbi al treatments for use on poultry where EFSA risk 
assessments are complete but real market openings have yet to occur?  
 
Measures Affecting Production and Trade – Intellectual Property Rights 
 
8.  In response to U.S. question 26, concerning wh ich Member States had implemented Directive 98/44 
(on patent protection for biotech inventions), the EC  refers to a website link that does not appear to 
include information after July 2005.  At that time, Italy, Luxembourg, Latvia and Lithuania had not yet 
implemented.  Moreover, since July 2005, Romani a and Bulgaria have acceded to the European 
Union.  Can the EC provide complete implementa tion status for all member countries, including any 
new accessions?   9.  The United States appreciates the EC's respon se to U.S. question 27 on page 22.  Could the EC 
clarify whether, under the Regulation, an owner of  a pre-existing trademark could be prevented from 
using its trademark, or could be prevented from exer cising its TRIPS Article 16 rights, if the trademark 
did not have sufficient renown or was used or regist ered a short time before the geographical indication 
was filed?  IV.  TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR
 
 Manufacturing – Selected Industries – Chemicals
 
 
10.  Under REACH, the United States understands that the Commission and member States will 
compile a list of candidate substances for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV (authorization) which the 
European Chemicals Agency will review.  Can the EC elaborate on its communication plan for  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 131 
 
 
 ensuring that this candidate list is not misused as a “black list” before the Ag ency's Committee for Risk 
Assessment has had a chance to formul ate an opinion on the substance?  
  11.  The United States understands that this list of candidate substances could amount to 1500 - 3000 
chemicals, and that importers could be required to  test for trace amounts of these substances -- which 
are not intended to be released into the environmen t -- in components and notify them to the Agency, 
even before there is any requirement to register them and even before these substances appear on the 
Agency's risk assessment work program.   Is this accurate, and, if so, is there a plan to alleviate the 
burden of this testing and reporting?    
12.  REACH appears to require polymer exporters to register monomers that were used to manufacture 
an imported polymer product, even though the monom ers are not present in the product and cannot be 
released into the environment.  Can the EC confirm whether this is the case and explain the rational for 
requiring registration of products that ar e not present in the imported product?  
  
13.  REACH also appears to exclude from the defi nition of “phase-in substance” non-toxic substances 
in imported cosmetic products that were previous ly exempted from notification requirements under the 
Dangerous Substances Directive.  The same is appa rently not true of cosmetics manufactured in the 
EC.  The effect appears to be that non-EC cosmetic  manufacturers will have to register all substances 
in cosmetics over the one metric ton per year thresh old by June 2008 in order to continue selling those 
cosmetics in the EC, even though they were prev iously exempted from registration.  Is this 
understanding accurate, and if so, is there any plan for reducing the risk of requiring currently imported 
cosmetics to be pulled from the market after June 2008? 
PREGUNTAS DE ARGENTINA
 
 
ix) Obstáculos Técnicos al Comercio (OTC) 
Párrafo 53, página 72 
 ¿Podrían las CE especificar qué tipo de modificaciones se están in troduciendo a los acuerdos de 
reconocimiento mutuo ya existentes? 
x) Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias (MSF) 
Párrafo 54, página 73  
 
¿Podrían las CE especificar los lineamientos genera les de la Política Comunitaria de Sanidad Animal 
prevista para 2007? 
3) Medidas que afectan directamente a las exportaciones 
iv) Subvenciones a la exportación 
Párrafo 78, página 82  
 ¿Podrían especificar las CE las reformas del me rcado referidas en este párrafo? ¿Podrían indicar 
cuáles serían los productos que -como resultado de tales reformas-  tendrían derecho a esas 
subvenciones? WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 132  
 
 4) Medidas que afectan a la Producción y el Comercio 
ii) Política de competencia y cuestiones normativas Párrafo 85, página 83   ¿Podrían aclarar las CE en qué consisten los esfuerzos y/o las medidas y acciones que se están 
realizando para hacer cumplir las disposiciones sobre fusiones que tienen consecuencias 
transfronterizas?  
Párrafo 98, página 88  ¿Podrían las CE aclarar bajo qué condiciones son otorgadas las ayudas previstas en las directrices 
para el periodo2007-2013? ¿Qué re quisitos deben cumplir las emp resas/inversores  para acceder a 
las mismas? ¿Se estableció un tope máximo en cuanto al otorgamiento de dichas ayudas? 
IV. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES POR SECTORES 
3) Pesca ii) Política Pesquera Común (PPC) 
Párrafo 43, página 121 
¿Podrían las CE informar espec íficamente los productos abarcados por los nuevos contingentes 
arancelarios,  así como los volúmenes involucrados en dichos contingentes? 
Párrafo 47, página 123 
 ¿Podrían las CE explicar cuáles son los instrumentos  utilizados o a utilizar por el FEP para lograr la 
consolidación de la competitividad y la vi abilidad de los operadores  del subsector? 
 
5) Sector Manufacturero i) Visión General Párrafo 57, página 128   
¿Podrían las CE enumerar las medidas adoptadas en el marco de la nueva política industrial? 
¿Está dicha política en conformidad con los principios y normativas de la OMC? 
Párrafo 58, página 128 
 
¿Podrían las CE explicar más específicamente en qué consistirían las siete iniciativas de la nueva 
política industrial? 
Párrafo 59, página 128  
 
¿Podrían las CE aclarar de forma más específica cómo buscan lograr los objetivos allí propuestos? 
¿Cómo piensan promover el espíritu empresarial y las capacidades;  mejorar el acceso de las PYME a los mercados;  reducir el papeleo, por ejemplo, el relacionado con las ayudas estatales y la 
participación de las PYME en los programas comunitarios? Asimismo, se propone mejorar el potencial 
de crecimiento de las PYME, por ejemplo potenciando su capacidad de innovación e investigación y aumentando el apoyo financiero que se les ofrece; ¿ qué medidas serían utilizadas en pos de potenciar la 
capacidad de innovación e investigación? ¿bajo qué condiciones se otorgaría un mayor apoyo financiero?  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 133 
 
 
 Párrafo 60, página 129   
¿Podrían las CE informar respecto del funcionam iento de los programas que allí se mencionan? 
¿Cuáles son los requisitos exigidos para acceder a dichas subvenciones? Una vez concedida la 
subvención, ¿se exige el cumplimiento de metas de tipo cuantitativas? 
Párrafo 61, página 129  
 ¿Podrían las CE especificar cuáles son las industr ias que reciben subvenciones para las exportaciones 
de los productos manufacturados menc ionados? Teniendo en cuenta que se refiere a un subsidio para la 
exportación y que involucra a productos manufactura dos, ¿tienen planeado la eliminación de dichos 
subsidios? En caso que así no sea, ¿cuál sería el motivo? 
ii) Sectores industriales específicos.  
c) Productos químicos 
Párrafo 71, página 134  
En adición a las preguntas ya formuladas sobre el sistema REACH, el mismo establece una distinción 
entre sustancias “nuevas” y sust ancias “existentes”, las cuales no estarían sujetas a los mismos 
requisitos de ensayo. ¿Podrían las CE indicarnos cuáles son los criterios par a determinar cuando una 
sustancia es “nueva” y cuando es “existente”? 
Asimismo, con relación a la carga de la prueba ¿ podrían las CE explicar por qué esta carga debe 
recaer en el solicitante?¿Cómo se determina si el riesgo derivado del uso está adecuadamente 
controlado? ¿Cómo se demuestra al solicitante que “las ventajas socio económicas compensan los 
riesgos”?¿Qué criterios se utiliz arán para determinar si la ventaja socio económica compensa los 
riesgos?¿Cómo es posible compatibilizar este punto c on el objetivo del sistema de garantizar un nivel 
suficientemente elevado de protección de la salud humana y del medio ambiente? 
Por otra parte y en cuanto al registro, ¿podrí an las CE  explicarnos qué periodo o periodos de 
referencia se utilizan para determinar el registro obligatorio cuando la sustancia posee propiedades 
peligrosas y esté prevista la liberación de la misma fuera  del artículo,  y la notificación obligatoria en 
el caso de las sustancias que se liberen de man era fortuita al utilizar el artículo?¿Cómo se 
determinará fehacientemente la c antidad de sustancias químicas c ontenidas en artículos que son 
comercializadas en cantidades superiores a una tone lada? ¿Los importadores tienen la obligación de 
efectuar una declaración del contenido de estos artí culos? ¿Qué autoridad ejercerá el control y la 
determinación de estas cantidades? La agencia eu ropea encargada de administrar el sistema REACH 
¿elaborará orientaciones tendientes a ayudar a lo s productores e importadores para la aplicación de 
estas disposiciones? Si es así, ¿en qué conspira  el apoyo? ¿Tendrá algún costo adicional al del 
registro de la sustancia?  
¿Podrían las CE brindar información específica sobre los costos que deberá afrontar el solicitante 
durante todo el proceso de registro?¿Podrían explicar  cómo funcionará el “sistema de autorización 
de los usos de las sustancias extremadamente preocupantes”, y cuál será el costo para la 
empresa?¿Podrían explicar cuáles son los requisitos que debe cumplir el representante del fabricante 
no comunitario?   Las sustancias intermedias ¿estarán sometidas a los mismos procedimientos que las demás sustancias 
incluidas en el REACH? ¿En estos casos, los co stos del procedimiento serán los mismos para las 
empresas? ¿En cuánto se reducirían los costos  del proceso para las empresas que realicen 
presentaciones conjuntas? ¿Podrían informarnos los pl azos con los que cuenta la Comisión Europea 
para evaluar, si es que ya se ha efectuado, el inform e sobre determinados  polímeros y de qué manera WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 134  
 
 se incorporarán y se implementarán estas comunicaciones al REACH? Finalmente ¿podrían  
explicarnos cómo funcionan los foros de información sobre sustancias? 
Se estima oportuno manifestar algunas inquietudes respecto al nuevo marco no rmativo para productos 
químicos (REACH), el cual afectará de manera negativa las exportaciones hacia las CE. En este 
sentido, nuestras mayores preocupaciones giran en torno a cuándo entrará en vigencia este nuevo 
sistema, cuáles serán los costos que deberán a frontar las empresas solicitantes del registro, 
fundamentalmente para empresas no comunitarias de países en desarrollo, y cuales serán las medidas 
de apoyo que se tomarán para ayudar a los product ores e importadores a fin de cumplir con los 
requerimientos de esta nueva legislación. 
6) Servicios  
i) Panorama general 
 Párrafo 77, página 136  
En la nota al pie N° 115, se dice que en la Direc tiva se propone el reconocim iento mutuo entre Estados 
miembros de documentos que permitan a las empresas suministrar servicios;  el establecimiento de 
"ventanillas únicas" para la expedición de permis os de actividad en cada Estado miembro y la 
prohibición de exigir permisos, a menos que est én justificados por el interés general.  
¿Podrían las CE explicar qué tipo de permisos  están justificados por el “interés general”? 
Recuadro IV.2:  Obstáculos al comercio de ser vicios identificados en las CE, página 137  
¿Tienen previsto las CE  eliminar el  trato fiscal más favorable que se otorga a los servicios 
suministrados por proveedores locales, lo cual co nstituye un obstáculo al suministro de servicios? 
¿Tienen previsto las CE tomar medidas para ar monizar las normas de contabilidad entre los 
miembros y remediar los inconvenientes derivados de  esto? ¿Tienen  previsto las CE implementar 
algún tipo de sistema que implique menos gasto de administración?  
iv) Transporte  
a) Panorama General 
 Párrafo 115, página 153 
¿Podrían las CE informar el motivo por el que aún no se ha producido la liberalización total del 
cabotaje en todos los modos de transporte?¿Tien en pensado las CE la apertura del mercado de 
transporte por ferrocarril?¿Existen otras restricci ones en el mercado del transporte, además de las 
mencionadas a modo de ejemplo en el informe de la Secretaría? 
QUESTIONS FROM JAPAN
 
 
Japan understands that the purpose of the Trade Polic y Review Mechanism (“TPRM”) is “to contribute 
to improved adherence by all Members to rul es, disciplines and commitments made under the 
Multilateral Trade Agreements … by achieving greater  transparency in, and understanding of, the trade 
policies and practices of Members.” (Paragraph A.(i) of Trade Policy Review Mechanism)  With regard to question No. 13, it is truly regretta ble that the EC has not provided sincere answers to 
the questions we raised for the purpose of “achieving greater transparency,” such as those regarding the 
procedures for tariff classification and the obtaining tariff suspension in the EC. 
 
The issue of the ITA affects not just the 69 ITA par ticipants, but all of the WTO Member countries. In  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 135 
 
 
 this sense, this is clearly a matter of “rules, disciplines and commitments made under the Multilateral 
Trade Agreements.” Japan also stresses that our con cern is not an expansion of the product scope of the 
ITA in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Ministerial Declaration (WT/MIN(96)/16), but rather the maintenance of the current scope of the ITA.  
Japan is highly concerned of a unilateral decision by an ITA participant to exclude sophisticated 
versions of IT products and th ose with additional functions from the ITA coverage. Such a conduct 
will adversely affect the existing commitment unde r the ITA. If any disagreement should arise among 
the ITA members concerning the ITA product covera ge, it should be resolved by achieving a common 
understanding among the ITA members. 
 
In light of the said point of views, Japan would like to ask the EC again to reply to question No. 13. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 136  
 
 REPLIES PROVIDED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
 
ECUADOR
 
 Question 1 
 
La Misión Permanente del Ecuador ante la OMC saluda muy atentamente a la Organización Mundial 
de Comercio – División de Examen de las Políticas Comerciales – y se permite transmitir de acuerdo al 
aerograma WTO/AIR/2951 la pregunta que formula la de legación de Ecuador a la delegación de las 
Comunidades Europeas en el marco de su Examen de  política Comercial, a reserva de realizar otras 
preguntas en caso de ser necesario.  
 "De acuerdo al documento WT/TPR/G/177, apartado 43 del informe de las Comunidades Europeas, se reconoce que varios terceros países han expresa do su preocupación por determinadas iniciativas 
comunitarias en materia legislativa en asuntos MSF por  su posible efecto en el comercio.  Al respecto 
el Ecuador solicita a las Comunidades Europeas cono cer si dichas prescripciones, especialmente en lo 
relacionado con niveles máximos de residuos químicos en productos agrícolas se basan en testimonios 
científicos y en un análisis del riesgo existente, to mando en cuenta que en algunos casos, la legislación 
europea resulta más estricta que las normas intern acionales y como son compatibles esas iniciativas 
comunitarias con lo que señala el apartado 54 del Informe de la Secretaría del documento 
WT/TPR/S/177 en el que se expresa que uno de los objetivos de las Comunidades Europeas en materia 
MSF es prestar asistencia técnica a los países en desarrollo para la creación de capacidad institucional 
en cuestiones sanitarias y fitosanitarias?"  
Answer 
 
This question has been fully replied by the EC in document G/SPS/GEN/557 "Questions and answers 
on the procedure to obtain import tolerances and the inclusion of active substances for plant protection 
uses in the European Communities list", dated 9 Marc h 2005. The EC invites Ecuador to consult this 
text again.  
 
Further to the abovementioned document, the EC woul d like to note that the EC made 40 notifications 
under the SPS Agreement in the field of PPP residues and 18 notifications under the TBT agreement, 
during the period 2004-2006. These notifications aime d at informing about the EC's intention to 
introduce SPS standards leading to a greater level of phytosanitary protection that would be obtained by the measures based on the pertinent international regulations (that is to say, the CODEX). The EC 
always seeks to comply with Article 3.3 of th e SPS Agreement, indeed all the proposals are 
substantiated on scientific risk analysis, wh ich is always provided when requested.  
 
As regards paragraph 54 of the document WT/TPR /S/177, a detailed answer can be found in the 
document circulated as G/SPS/GEN/669, dated 30 March 2006, " Technical assistance in the SPS field 
provided by the European Communities " and its associated information. Under the framework of this 
TA, one of the EC activities in this field is of particular interest: a two-weeks training on residues 
organised and funded by the EC (DG TRADE) fo r developing countries in LABERCA (veterinary 
school, Nantes, France). This training was designed for laboratory specialists and provided in depth 
theoretical and practical training on laboratory sk ills, implementation of residue monitoring plan, 
extraction and purification techniques, screening a nd confirmatory analytical methods, and control 
plans for residues in third countries. The course also included EC and international legislation 
concerning residues and contaminants in food like, for example, to understand the difference between 
banned substances, non-authorised substances, illegal use of authorised substances and substances for 
which MRL have not been established in the EC sy stem. The main objective of this training was to 
help developing countries (currently facing technical pr oblems to export products of animal origin into 
the EC) to have a better access to the EC market. Th is residue training was attended by 20 participants  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 137 
 
 
 from 15 developing and least developed countries. Ec uador was invited to this training in 2005 and 
2006.   
 
The EC is not aware of any Ecuadorian agricu ltural product being stopped because of lack of 
compliance with pesticide residues legislation. Mo reover, analyzing the evolution between 2003 and 
2006 of exports from Ecuador to the EC under HS H eadings 06 (Live Plants), 07 (Vegetable Foods), 
08 (Fruits and nuts), 09 (Coffee etc.) and 10 (Cereals), a sustained increase of EC imports of Ecuadorian products can be noticed. The EC does not see any incompatibility in promoting a high level 
of protection of consumers in the EC while helpi ng its suppliers to comply with these regulations; a 
proof that this is perfectly possible is the sustained increase of exports from Ecuador to the EC .  
 
SINGAPORE
 
 
Chemicals   
Question 1 
 
Re para 69 (page 107) of the Secretariat Report, we note that the EC is the world’s leading chemicals 
producing area. It has a turnover of 440 billion Euro s and accounts for 28% of world production. MFN 
tariffs on industrial chemicals and basic industrial chemicals averag e 4.7%, with rates ranging up to 
50.9%.   In para 71, the Secretariat has reported that  the chemicals sub-sector is heavily regulated with 
over 40 Directives and Regulations. In this regard, we note that REACH would soon be entering into 
force.  With regard to regulations in this sector, Si ngapore together with other ASEAN Members have 
registered our concerns on the potential adverse im pact that the REACH could have on our chemical 
imports into the EC in the Committee on Technical Ba rriers to Trade. The concer ns that we had raised 
can be found in  G/TBT/GEN/41. We look forward to receiving the EC’s clarifications to the issues and questions that we had raised on the REACH. We hope that the EC has taken our concerns and 
those of other members into account in its decision to bring REACH into effect.  We would appreciate 
the EC’s comments on this.   
 
Answer 
The EC recently notified REACH Regulati on No 1907/2006 under the WTO/TBT Agreement 
(G/TBT/N/EEC/52/Add.3). The Regulation will enter into force on 1 June 2007.  
 
Regarding Singapore and other Members' concerns about REACH as inter alia  raised in document 
G/TBT/GEN/46 (G/TBT/GEN/41 wrongly indicated), the EC provided a comprehensive reply in Appendix 1 and 2 of the REACH notification document.  In addition, REACH experts will be present at 
the next TBT Committee meeting on 21-22 March to present the adopted REACH Regulation. 
 
Export Restrictions
  
 
Para 72 (page 65) of the Secretariat Report states that  the EC does not apply taxes, charges or levies on 
exports. However, in para 73, the Secretariat has noted that Member States may impose export 
restrictions, including export authorization on a temporary basis.    
Question 2 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 138  
 
 Under what circumstances could the EU Member St ates apply these export restrictions? What products 
are subject to these restrictions?   
Answer 
It appears from the WTO Secretariat's Report that th e Secretariat is referring to Article 8 of Council 
Regulation (EEC) No. 2603/69.  If that is correct, then Article 8 has not been in force since 1972.  This being so, the further questions below become largely hypothetical.   
 
Question 3 
Export authorization is envisaged to be applied on a temporary basis. How long would this temporary 
measure be applied?   
Answer 
See answer to question 2  Question  4  
How would the EC reconcile the Member States’ ability to impose export restrictions, albeit on a 
temporary basis and its consistency with GATT XI  which (apart from certain specific stipulated 
situations) generally prohib its export restrictions.  
 
Answer 
See answer to question 2 
 
REPLIES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SINGAPORE
 
 
Q1: REACH will affect the chemical trade inevita bly and may lead to trade unbalance and disputes 
after its entry into force. How is the European  Commission going to resolve these potential problems? 
Which measures will the EU take to reduce the nega tive impacts of the REAC H Regulation on trade? 
 
Q2: There are concerns that REACH may introdu ce a more complex and onerous burden on foreign 
companies exporting to the EU. What  measures has the EU taken (or will take) to ensure a more level 
playing field?    Q3: On the implementation of REACH, is the Co mmission planning to provide certain financial and 
technical assistance to help countries  
 
Q4: Due to the big differences betw een the large-scale enterprises and SMEs on financing, technology, 
and human resource, SMEs will face more difficultie s in compliance with REACH administration than 
large-scale enterprises. How did th e European Commission balance the different interests between the 
large-scale enterprises and SMEs? How are the interests of SMEs addressed then? 
 
Answer 
A separate document with answers to all REACH-rela ted questions asked in the framework of the EC 
TPR 2007 will be made available.   
 
NEW ZEALAND
 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 139 
 
 
 Lisbon agenda -Questions from New Zealand 
 
Question 1  The EC and Secretariat reports set out the EC’s busy work programme under the 
umbrella of the Lisbon agenda, looking to boost economic growth and employment rates.   New 
Zealand notes, however, that the majority of this work is focussed on improving intra-EC structures 
(e.g. removing barriers to cross-border investment in certain sectors), and that economic growth has 
been largely driven by domestic demand.  We would be interested in the EC’s perspective on the role 
of international trade and investment in c ontributing to economic growth in the future. 
 
Answer 
The competitiveness of European economies is built on two foundations. First, having the right internal 
policies which equip Europe and Europeans fo r globalisation, and which maintain open and 
competitive markets in Europe. Second, creating th rough negotiations open and fair markets around the 
world in which European companies can compete and in which they have legal protection when they 
do. Both most be underpinned by effective rules, effectively enforced. The Lisbon strategy sets the 
policy framework of our work on the internal dimens ion for Europe to seize the opportunities of this 
change.  The purpose of the recent Communication adopted by the Commission "Global Europe: Competing in the World" is to set out the external co mpliment to that agenda. It develops a strategy for 
external competitiveness which is adapted to the challenges of th e twenty-first century. The core 
message of this Communication is clear: rejecti on of protectionism at home; activism in opening 
markets abroad.  
EU openness is critical. In a global market, with global supply chains, Europe needs to import to 
export. In parallel, if EU economic strength is built on trade, then its prosperity is directly linked to the 
openness of trade partners' markets. Tackling barriers abroad is not just about lowering tariffs - it is 
about creating markets in which European compan ies get freedom to compete and legal protection 
when they do so. The EU will tend to achieve this  by creating, through negotiation, the conditions for 
open, rules-based markets around the world.  
Without doubt, the single most effective way to tackle  this agenda is through th e WTO.  It is the most 
effective means of expanding and managing world tr ade.  It helps put trade at the service of 
development.  It is a central pillar of the intern ational system. That is why the Communication "Global 
Europe: Competing in the World" emphasises th e primacy of multilateral negotiation. The Doha 
Development Agenda remains EU's top priority.  
In addition, the Communication sets out a series of  initiatives that the European Commission already 
started to elaborate and implement to develop the co mpetitiveness agenda for trade policy. This agenda 
covers in particular: a new strategy on market access to improve EC ability to identify and remove 
barriers to trade, particularly non-tariff barriers, in key countries and sectors; a next step in EC work to 
protect intellectual property rights by setting out pr iority countries for enforcement and co-operation; 
new proposals for opening public procurement markets abroad; a review of trad e defence instruments; 
a new generation of carefully chosen bilateral free trade agreements; a renewed strategy for trade with China as part of a broader strategy for a fair partnership.  
 
Tariffs (use of non-ad valorem) 
 Question 2.  The EC’s average applied MFN tariff has increased over the past two years because 
falling prices have meant higher ad valorem equivalents  (AVEs) for some agricultural products.  Non-
ad valorem tariffs apply to 10% of the tariff lines, ma inly on agricultural goods.  Given that the EC is 
preparing a new schedule of commitments following the two most recent rounds of enlargement of the 
customs union, will the EC take this opportunity to convert its specific and mixed duties common in 
the agricultural area to their ad valo rem equivalents, and to bind them? WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 140  
 
  
Answer 
The EC understands and supports the n eed to have transparent, calculabl e and foreseeable tariffs.  This 
objective can be achieved both by ad valorem and specific duties. 
Agriculture 
 
Question 3  The Secretariat’s report highlights that the EC has a liberal trading regime for non-
agricultural goods while maintaining high levels of protection and subsidies for agricultural produce.  
Explicit in WTO membership is a fundamental commi tment to trade liberalisation, and the EC has 
specifically linked economic prosperity to open markets,  most recently in relation to its paper, ‘Global 
Europe:  Competing in the World’.  Can the EC c onfirm that its commitment to improving world trade 
applies fully to ag ricultural trade?  
 
Answer 
The EC is committed to improve world trade and h as confirmed this by its offer on agriculture from 
October 2005 in relation to market access, domestic support and export subsidies in the context of the 
DDA negotiations. Beside the multilateral path numerous preferential trade instruments apply, 
including the Generalised System of Preferences (G SP); the "Everything but Arms" initiative allows all 
agricultural products from Least Developed Countries free market access to the EC. 
 Question 4  Following enlargement of the customs union on 1 May 2004, the EC conducted Art. 
XXIV:6 negotiations with several WTO members, including New Zealand.  The bilateral market 
access aspects were concluded in late 2005, but so far there has been no plurilateral discussion of the 
EC’s proposals for revised AMS and export subsidy commitments.  When will the EC circulate the consolidated proposed EC-25 commitments to WTO members in a draft schedule? 
 Answer 
The EC is in the process of preparing a consolidat ed schedule for EC-25. The consolidated schedule 
will be presented once all XXIV.6 agreements have been signed.  Question 5  New Zealand applauds the direction of th e EC’s reforms of its common agricultural 
policy, including trade policy, in the direction of greater market orientation.  Noting that producers’ 
receipt of the ‘single farm payment’ (SFP) is de pendent on their meeting ma ndatory standards, we 
would appreciate hearing about the EC’s experience with  this incentive policy.  In those member states 
where the SFP has been implemented in 2005–06, what  proportion of payments has been withheld due 
to breaches of minimum standards?    Answer 
The cross compliance requirements introduced by the 2003 CAP reform have been operational since 
2005 for all direct payments (SPS, SAPS and coup led payments). Cross-compliance also applies as 
from 2007 to eight measures under the rural development policy. A report from the European Commission to the European Council will be publis hed by the end of March 2007 and will include 
information on the implementation of cross-compliance by Member States. 
 
Question 6  According to Appendix table AIV.1 (page 147), 12 of the now 27 member states have 
continued to provide some direct payments on a basi s that is coupled to current production levels.  Is 
the EC concerned about the potential for inter-country trade distortion to be caused by this ‘patchwork 
quilt’ of subsidies, and does the EC agree that ha rmonising these policies to full decoupling would be 
the fairest and most efficient policy direction for the future?  
  
Answer  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 141 
 
 
 The CAP reform payment scheme has provided th e option for Member States to retain limited 
components of their national ceilings and pay coupled aids to certain sectors defined at the Community 
level. The conditions for granting the aid in Me mber States are also laid down in Community 
legislation.    
As regards the potential for trade distortion, the Eu ropean Commission is obliged to submit a report to 
the Council on the possible consequences, in terms of  market and structural developments, of the 
implementation of the option on coupled aid schemes by 31 December 2009 at the latest.  
Fisheries 
 
Question 7  New Zealand applauded the decision to re form the common fisheries policy in 2003.  
Having recognised the urgency to act to address th e fisheries crisis, we saw these policy changes as 
heralding a more environmentally-responsible approach  to this sector in Europe, while also recognising 
the needs of fishing communities in a period of adjustment.  
New Zealand is disappointed then, that less than three years later, these positive moves are already 
being eroded by a series of retrograde steps.  In adopting the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) in June, 
the Council re-introduced subsidies that will exacerba te the over-capacity problems in the sector.  The 
Commission has also proposed a regulation that would allow member states to increase by ten-fold the 
level of de minimis aid to €30,000 per undertaking in  the fisheries sector.  Can the EC explain why it 
has increased the level of de minimis aid by this magnitude? 
 
Answer 
In pursuing the specific objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the Community has to 
ensure the long-term future of fishing activities and the sustainable exploitation of resources and thus 
to make essential structural adjustments to strike  a balance between resources and fishing capacity.  
 
With the new European Fisheries Fund (EFF), the EC  has now the means to speed up the elimination 
of surplus capacity and, as a number one priority, to oversee stock recovery or management plans and 
other emergency measures in an economically efficien t and socially equitable manner. More explicitly, 
the EFF will provide aid to fishermen and vessel owners affected by measures taken under multi-
annual plans, designed to help threatened stocks re cover, within the framework of national plans for 
the adjustment of the fleets concerned.  
 In this context of adjustment of fishing capacity , it should be stressed that, as agreed under the CFP 
reform of 2002, aid for the renewal of the fleet – which contributed to creating overcapacity – came to 
an end in December 2004. This is maintained in the new EFF.  
 
With regard to aid for the replacement of engines, th is has been designed in su ch a way that the overall 
fishing effort is not increased but rather decreased . Indeed bigger vessels will not receive such aid 
unless they reduce their engine power.   Similarly, support to improve the selectivity of fi shing gear and environmentally-friendly fishing 
methods will also contribute to reinforce the environment dimension of the reformed CFP. 
 Consequently, and in line with the reform of the CFP, aid from the EFF will not be used for measures 
that increase the fishing capacity of the European fl eet. On the contrary, the available money under the 
new fund will be spent in bringing capacity  in line with available fish resources. 
 
In June 2005 the European Commission issued its St ate aid action plan, aiming at a State aid policy for 
less and better targeted State aid . Within this cont ext, the Commission proposed  to set clear ‘positive’ 
and ‘negative’ priorities and thereby, on the one hand strengthening the rules for granting aid and refining the economic approach in assessment of Stat e aid; on the other hand, in order to focus on the WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 142  
 
 most distortive types of aid, excluding from ex ante assessment certain categories of aid, and 
increasing the level of de minimis aid. The proposal fo r the increase of the de minimis aid for fisheries 
should be seen in this context.   Furthermore, and as mentioned in the "Draft Explanatory Memorandum" to the aforementioned 
European Commission's proposal, experience has show n that the de minimis ceiling of € 3.000, over 
any period of three years, is too low, in particular  due to the higher turnover of the average EC fishing 
firms compared to agriculture firms, as well as th e fact that, unlike certain sectors under the common 
agricultural policy, the fisheries sector do es not benefit from direct income support. 
 
Finally, it should be noted that, with regard to the specifics of the fisheries sector and seen the 
objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy concerning the conservation of fish stocks, the proposed 
regulation contains two additional exemptions specific to  fisheries. No aid shall be granted that serves 
to increase capacity or for the purchase and construction of fishing vessels. 
 
Question 8  The Secretariat report notes that the ‘EFF is aimed at, inter alia:  better supporting the 
major objectives of the CFP, in particular the sustai nable exploitation of fisheries resources, including 
aquaculture…’ Could the EC please elaborate on what  it is doing to ensure sustainable aquaculture?  
Could the EC please also explain whether or no t it uses feed from wild capture fisheries for 
aquaculture?  Answer 
The European Commission adopted on 19 September 2002 a Communication to the European Council 
and the European Parliament on “A strategy for the sustainable development of European aquaculture”. 
This document identifies a number of challenges that the Community’s aquaculture sector is facing, or 
will face, in the coming years and proposes a numb er of objectives and actions to meet these 
challenges. The European Council has already adopte d some of the legislative proposals (e.g. new 
funding scheme under the European Fisheries Fund) put forward by the European Commission in the 
framework of the aforementioned strategy.    Concerning the use, by EC enterprises, of feed from wild capture fisheries for aquaculture, the 
Commission has published a number of reports and st udies on this subject. In this context, and as 
mentioned in the aforementioned Communication, the European Commission considered that research 
to find alternative protein sources for fish feed should be given top priority, in order to allow a further 
development of carnivorous fish farming and, at the same time, ensure the sustainability of industrial 
fisheries.  
The European Commission’s Communication (documen t COM(2002) 511 final of 19 February 2002) 
and the reports and studies on the EC's aquacultur e industry are available at the www.europa.eu
  
website.  Question 9  Can the EC please explain how it disciplines subsidisation to overfishing within the 
200-mile fishing zones of Member States? 
 
Answer 
Please refer to the EC's substantive submissions to the WTO's Negotiating Group on Rules (fisheries 
subsidies), in particular: Sections 2 and 3 of WTO document TN/RL/W/82 of 23 April 2003, and 
Section 4 of WTO document TN/RL/W/178 of 11 April 2005. 
 
Please note that all related the EC legislation, releva nt to EC economic operators, is applicable beyond 
the limit mentioned by New Zealand in its question.  
Services  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 143 
 
 
  
Question 10  It seems that education services are not ex empt from the EC Directive on Services in 
the internal market, according to paragraph 78 of  the Secretariat’s report.  Does this mean that 
education is to be treated on the same basis as ot her services sectors under th e directive? Please outline 
in detail how the services directive affects or fac ilitates the provision of for-profit education services 
amongst member states, and in partic ular whether it impacts on the porta bility of education subsidies to 
consumers or institutions between member states.  
Answer 
The European Court of Justice has recognized that th e characteristic of remuneration is absent in the 
case of activities performed, for no consideration, by the State or on behalf of the State in the context 
of its duties in the social, cultural, educational and judicial fields, such as courses provided under the 
national education system. The payment of a fee by recipients, for example, a tuition or enrolment fee paid by students in order to make a certain contri bution to the operating expenses of a system, does not 
in itself constitute remuneration because the service is  still essentially financed by public funds. These 
activities are, therefore, not covered by the definiti on of "service" in Article 50 of the EC Treaty and do 
not therefore fall within the scope of Directive 2006/123/EC on Services in the Internal Market. 
Moreover, the Directive does not concern require ments governing access to public funds for certain 
providers, such as those laying down conditions un der which providers are entitled to receive public 
funding. Normally State Universities do not fall within the scope of the Directiv e; therefore, in these 
cases, tuition fees will not be concerned by the pr ohibited restriction on recipients concerning 
discriminatory limits on the grant of financial assistance to the recipient by the fact that the provider is 
established in another Member State or by reason of the location of the place at which the service is provided (Article 19(b)).  By contrast, totally private schools and universities offered by private 
operators in addition to the national education syst em are covered by the scope of application of 
Directive 2006/123/EC.   Customs 
 
Question 11  We fully support the Commission’s proposals to modernize the Customs Code — in 
particular, the drive to improve the cohesiveness in customs administration.  This modernisation would 
allow the timely and efficient exchange of data necessary to safeguard quota and other trade 
administration against fraud and error.  We note the Secretariat’s comment that the speed and extension 
of interconnected IT systems remains the princi pal challenge in implementing the Customs 2007 
programme.  Can the EC provide an indication of the likely timeline for the adoption of these proposals 
by the Council and European Parliament?  When will a system be in place which allows for the 
reconciliation of data among member states and the Commission? 
 
Answer 
Discussions on the Electronic Customs proposal are well advanced and adoption could be foreseen 
during 2007. Concerning the Modernized Community  Customs Code (MCCC), it is foreseen that it 
will be adopted in 2008. These dates will depend on  the time taken by the co-decision procedure. 
 
The electronic systems for the ex change of information between Member States and the Commission 
are being progressively introduced. A fully functiona l system is in place for transit (NCTS - New 
Computerised Transit System). The first phase of the Export Control System, enabling the electronic exchange of export/exit information between custom s offices of export and customs offices of exit, 
went live in January 2007. Full operation of export and import control systems, which will provide for 
the handling of exit/entry summary decl arations, is planned for July 2009. 
   
Technical barriers to trade WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 144  
 
  
Question 12  We note that harmonised standards in  the EU are developed by European 
standardisation bodies such as ETSI, CENELEC and CE N.  What consideration is given to adopting 
existing relevant international (ISO) standards durin g this process?  What is the level of alignment 
between EU and ISO standards? 
 
Answer 
The EC and the European Standardisation Organisati ons are aligned to international standardisation 
and promote international standards. The princi ple is "go international wherever possible". 
Accordingly, CEN and CENELEC have developed cooperation agreements with their respective 
international counterparts. For CEN, it is the Vie nna agreement concluded w ith ISO. For CENELEC, it 
is the Dresden Agreement concluded with IEC. In th ese agreements the partners agree to cooperate and 
to develop common standards wherever possible. As  a result, roughly 80% of the CENELEC standards 
are identical with IEC standards and 35% of CEN sta ndards are identical with ISO standards. For more 
detailed information, please consult th e CEN and CENELEC web- sites at 
http://www.cen.eu/cenorm/index.htm
 (CEN) and  
http://www.cenelec.org/Cenelec/Homepage.htm  (CENELEC). 
 
SWITZERLAND  
 
Report by the Secretariat 
I. E CONOMIC ENVIRONMENT  
(1) Main Characteristics 
Question 1 
Para 5: How do the EC authorities assess the positive eff ects of EMU on intra euro-area trade in 
goods? What are the explaining factors besides reduced  trade costs and increased transparency brought 
about by the single currency? Is there a significant difference with respect to the impact of EMU on 
extra euro-area trade?  
Answer 
Available empirical evidence points to a sizeable e ffect of EMU on trade in the euro area. Several 
empirical studies are now available which, based on estimated trade models, all conclude that the euro 
has already had a large impact on intra-euro-area tr ade. Depending on the studies considered, the effect 
of EMU on intra-euro-area import flows is estimated to  range between five and fifty percent. Baldwin's 
review of the existing empirical literature conclude d that the euro probably did boost intra- euro-area 
trade by something like five to ten percent on averag e, although the estimated size of this effect is 
likely to change as new years of data emerge.  
The impact of EMU on extra-euro-area trade, from th e point of view of non-EMU participants should 
be smaller, to the extent that EMU participants ta ke a smaller share of their trade (compared to intra-
euro-area trade). Reduced hedging costs and increased transparency should also have stimulated trade 
with non-EMU participants. However, no comprehensiv e empirical studies that estimate the impact of 
EMU on extra-euro-area trade are known. Such estimation would be surrounded by even bigger uncertainties than the above-mentioned intra estimation.  For such an "extra" estimation, the effect of 
EMU should be disentangled from the effects of , amongst others, the 2004 EU enlargement, the 
integration of China and India in the world econom y and the related slici ng-up of the value-added 
chain. Moreover, this should be done over a very short sample period. Finally, while bilateral trade 
data are only available in values, the EMU period is  also characterised by very large movements in 
commodity prices, which complicate an assessment of trade volume developments.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 145 
 
 
 (2) Recent economic developments 
Question 2 
Para 16 : The Secretariat states that the reforms a ppear to have improved the overall business 
environment and enhanced competition in the EC. At the same time, it says that  the speed of internal 
market integration has slowed down, with limite d progress on the transposition of internal market 
directives and a high level of infringement cases. Do  the EC authorities share this assessment? Also, 
according to EC projections, growth in the EU will be at or above potential for three years in a row 
(2006 : 2.8% ; 2007 : 2.4% ; 2008 : 2.4%) and employ ment is finally growing faster. Beside the 
cyclical component, to what extent can we relate this growth performance to the results of the Lisbon 
strategy implementation? 
Answer 
The assumed limited progress on transposition of IM directives cannot be confirmed. The latest 
Internal Market Scoreboard publishe d at the beginning of February 2007 
(http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/s core/docs/score15bis/score15bis_en.pdf ) shows the best results 
achieved since the publication of the scoreboard. At the end of 2006, the average transposition deficit 
of the 25 Member States was 1.2%. It came for the firs t time below the interim target of 1.5% that the 
Heads of State and Government agreed on in 2001. Wh ile the number of directives to be transposed in 
2006 was lower than in recent years, their number is comparable to that of 2002 and before. However, 
the average transposition deficit today is significantly  lower than in those years.  Therefore, the good 
results cannot be explained exclusively by the rela tively lower number of directives that had to be 
transposed in 2006. However, the incorrect transp osition and application of Internal Market rules 
remain a problem, with a significant increase in infri ngement proceedings over the last year in the new 
Member States. If broken down by sector, infringeme nts relating to the environment transport and 
energy and taxation and customs union account for almost half of all infringement cases.  
 The upturn in economic conditions is most welcome of c ourse, even if it is to a considerable extent due 
to transitory cyclical developments. Nevertheless,  resilient employment growth especially of women 
and older workers, coupled with the rapid declines in unemployment levels compared with previous 
economic cycles, suggests that structural improvements have taken place in the labour market. Labour productivity has also picked up, and while cyclical f actors play a role, we also take note of the positive 
increase in investment in ICT.   
In the euro area, Member States undertook a number of reform measures over the period 2001-06, 
sometimes in some of the most difficult and politica lly sensitive topics such as the labour market, the 
welfare state (including pension systems), the liber alisation and deregulation of sheltered markets and 
measures to integrate financial markets. 
 
• the average tax wedge has fallen in most euro -area countries and almost all countries have 
 taken measures in the fields of unemp loyment and welfare-related benefits; 
 
• eight euro-area countries introduced reforms to the public pension systems and many 
 countries tightened early-retirement schemes. Reform of health care and other aspects of 
 social protection have also been on the agenda in many Member States; 
 
• competitive conditions in many product markets ha ve considerably changed over the last five 
years, driven inter alia by the liberalisa tion of network industries (telecommunications, 
electricity, gas), competition policy and measures that foster the efficiency of public interventions; 
• concrete results are visible in the process of EU financial integration, particularly in wholesale 
markets where the euro-area money and de rivatives markets are highly integrated; 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 146  
 
 Such reforms have increased the utilisation of lab our in the Euro area measured in terms of the 
numbers of persons employed by 0.9% per year  on average between 2000 and 2006 (0.6% annually in 
terms of hours worked) leading to the creation of mo re than 7.4 million new jobs. This mainly reflects 
the rise in the euro area employment rate from 61.7% in 2000 to an estimated 64.3% in 2006, and the decline in the aggregate unemployment rate from 10.5% in 2000 to 7.6% by November 2006. More 
formal studies have shown that the job-intensity of growth has increased compared with previous 
economic cycles, and that structural reforms coupled  with wage moderation are important explanatory 
variables. The decline in the NAIRU to 7.8% in  2006 compared with 8.8% in 2000 provides further 
evidence of a structural improvement in the functioni ng of the labour market in the euro area. It is 
estimated that reforms in areas such as unemploym ent benefits, taxes and the ease of entry for new 
firms have reduced the structural unemployment rate  by 1.1 p.p. and boosted GDP in the euro area by 
1.7% since 1995.  Analysis carried out at EC level on the economic and budgetary impact of ageing populations confirms that a considerable share of the observed increase in the employment rate of older 
workers (aged 55 to 64) is due to past refo rms of pension and early retirement systems. 
 
II. Trade and investment regimes 
1) Trade agreements and arrangements 
i) Overview 
Question 3 
para 27:  What role do you see for preferential trade agre ements in the development of EU's relations 
with other large emerging econom ies such as Chin a and Russia? 
Answer 
Russia is an important trading partner for the EC , with imports and exports reaching about EUR 200 
billion in 2006. The current basi s for EC-Russia economic relations , the Partnership and Cooperation 
Agreement, will come to an end of its initial 10-y ear period in November 2007. Preparations for a new 
framework agreement are currently underway and nego tiations could be launched in the near future. 
Given the importance of Russia as trading partner and its geographic proximity, the EC aims to 
strengthen and substantiate the trade and economic provisions in the new agreement. A decision on 
whether this will be of preferential character ha s not been taken yet a nd will largely depend on 
progress in Russia's WTO accession process whic h is a current priority for the EC. 
Regarding China, the EC currently does not envisag e a preferential agreement. However, negotiations 
to upgrade the outdated 1985 EU-China Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement are about to 
begin, and will offer the opportunity to deepen the EC-China trade and investment ties without offering 
preferential concessions in goods or services trade. 
ii) Preferential trade agreements and arrangements 
Question 4 
Para. 59  states that countries graduate once they ha ve achieved a "certain level of industrial 
development". How did the Commission determine the graduation criteria? 
Answer 
Graduation is an important component of the GS P scheme to ensure that the GSP focuses on the 
countries most in need and helps them play  a greater role in international trade. 
Products benefiting from GSP can be  graduated from the scheme, if they become competitive on the 
EC market. This is a sign that these products no l onger need the GSP to boost their exportation. Thus,  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 147 
 
 
 graduation indicates that the GSP has successfully perfo rmed its function in relation to the country and 
product in question.   The graduation mechanism became simpler under the current scheme. A single straightforward 
criterion is applied: share of the EC market expr essed as a share of exports from GSP countries. This 
share is 15%, with 12.5% for textiles and 12.5% for clothing. 
 
Question 5 
Para. 60 : It is said that the special incentive arra ngement for sustainable development and good 
governance is available to vulnerable  countries. How does the Commi ssion determine vulnerability? 
Answer 
Countries requesting to benefit from the special incentive for sustainable development and good 
governance need to demonstrate that their economies are poorly diversified, and therefore dependent 
and vulnerable. Poor diversifica tion and dependence is defined by Article 9.3 of Council Regulation 
No 980/2005 under which a vulnerable country is one:  
(a) that is not classified by the World Bank as a hi gh income country during three consecutive years, 
and whose five largest sections of its GSP-covere d imports to the Community represent more than75% 
in value of its total GSP-covered imports, and  
(b) whose GSP-covered imports to the Community represent less than 1% in value of total GSP-
covered imports to the Community. 
III. Trade policies and practices by measures  
(2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
(viii) Contingency trade remedies - (b) Anti-dumping (AD) measures 
 
Question 6 
Para. 41 of the Secretariat's report indicates that the 2004 amendment to EC's AD legislation imposed 
a mandatory time limit of a maximum of 15 months for the completion of review investigations. Other 
WTO Members are, to our knowledge, able to conduc t this review process within a maximum of 180 
days (6 months). Given the chilling effect that the initiation of an investigation has on the trade of the 
product(s) concerned by an AD investigation, could the European Communities indicate whether a further shortening of the timeframe for the conduct of these investigations is being contemplated by the 
EC and, if not, what are the reasons that explain the need for such an extended period of time to 
conduct the AD investigations in view of their pot entially high economic costs both for the European 
Union and for the exporting countries ?  
Answer 
The amendment of the EC's AD legislation imposed for the completion of interim and expiry review 
investigations a target duration of twelve mont hs, with a mandatory maximum period of fifteen 
months, and for newcomer reviews, a mandatory maximum duration of nine months. The target 
duration is fully in line with Ar ticle 11.4 ADA and equal to the law of many other WTO Members. 
Furthermore, with the introduction of a binding maximum deadline, the EC went beyond its obligations under the ADA, which does not foresee bi nding deadlines for reviews.  
 
With regard to the appropriate length of review i nvestigations, it should be considered, as a matter of 
fact and law, that investigating authorities have to  reconcile two different objectives. On the one hand, 
they should strive to carry out investigations sw iftly, on the other hand they must also ensure the 
accuracy of the findings and give the parties sufficient time and opportunity for exercising their rights of defense. The time-limits for AD investigations in the EC are set in su ch way that these objectives WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 148  
 
 can be achieved in the best possible way. Where th e indicative target time period cannot be met in EC 
review investigations, it will usuall y be due to the factual and legal complexity of the case and/or the 
necessity to give parties extensive opportunity to defend their rights.   
Question 7 
As para. 42 of the Secretariat's report suggests, the EU  made an abundant use of the anti-dumping 
instrument in recent years. Indeed, according to EC  data, no less than 77 AD investigation initiations 
and 39 definitive AD measures were imposed betwee n January 1, 2004 and September 30, 2006. Could 
the European Communities, in view of the large number of AD measures that were imposed, explain 
how they reconcile the conflicting interest of, on the one hand, consumers and the economic sectors 
that use the targeted imports as inputs for higher value added products, and, on the other hand, those of 
the domestic producers that compete with those products  to avoid that the interest of the latter group do 
not systematically supersede those of the former group ?  
Answer 
The EC does not share the assessment  by the WTO Secretariat that the EC made an abundant use of the 
anti-dumping instrument in recent years. When comparing the period from 1995 until the end of 2003 with the period of 1 January 2004 to 30 September 2006, the number of new investigations has gone back from 30 on average to 26. Over the same pe riods definitive anti-dumping measures have declined 
from 23 on average to 13 on average during 1 January 2004 to 30 September 2006. Furthermore, the total number of measures in force by the EC h as significantly decreased since 2002 (from 184 to 135 in 
September 2006).  
 Finally, these absolute figures are only meaningful wh en put in relation to the overall trade volume. In 
that respect it should be noted that the percen tage of trade volume covered by AD measures is 
relatively stable over the years at a very moderate level. In comparison with other WTO members and 
taken over time, the EC can therefore be seen as an  important trade defence user, but nevertheless a 
moderate one when considering the overall volume of trade.   As regards the potentially conflicting interests be tween consumers, users and importers on the one 
hand and domestic producers on the other hand, these are already taken into account in the course of 
the investigations through the Community interest test which the EC applies as one of the few trade 
defense jurisdictions. The Community interest test states that measures can only be imposed where the 
Community Institutions determine that imposing them is not against the intere st of the EC economy. 
However, experience shows that in the vast majo rity of cases, the impact of Anti-Dumping measures 
on prices paid by the consumers is negligible. Ne vertheless, the question about the balancing of 
different interests has recently been raised in  the Green paper on the use of the trade defence 
instruments, which the Commission has published in December 2006 for a wider public consultation 
and will be deeply discussed in the consultation process.   
(3) Measures Directly Affecting Exports 
(iii) Export prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing Question 8 
 Para. 73 of the Secretariat's report indicates that under existing regulations, exports are not subject to 
any quantitative restrictions. Howeve r, the report also suggests that  EU Member States may impose 
export restrictions, including export authorizations, on a temporary basis. Could the European Communities indicate if Members are free to impose su ch measures or, if not, on the basis of what 
criteria or conditions they are allowed to undertake such a step ? 
 
Answer  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 149 
 
 
 It appears from the WTO Secretariat's Report that th e Secretariat is referring to Article 8 of Council 
Regulation (EEC) No. 2603/69. If that is correct, then Article 8 has not been in force since 1972. This 
being so, the question becomes hypothetical.  
Report by the European Communities 
Question 9 
In para. 11  of the Report submitted by the European Communities it is said that a European 
Globalisation Fund was created, spending € 500 million each year. We would be interested to learn 
how the Commission services intend to make the distincti on between ordinary structural change, that is 
going on permanently, and to which companies ha ve to respond without any specific government 
support, and transformations of business structures cau sed by globalisation, qualifying for such aid. 
How does the creation of this fund compare with the obj ective to curb state aid. What are the links to 
the programmes mentioned in § 58 of the Secretariat's report, where - as one of the elements of the 
Communities industrial policy - managing structural ch ange is mentioned, with pointing to textiles, 
leather, furniture, footwear, ceramics, printing, mo tor vehicles, shipbuilding, steel, and certain food 
industries as sectors concerned. Are these the eligible loosers of globalisation ?  
Answer 
The support from European Globalisation Fund (EGF) does not involve state aid because it is to be 
granted to workers directly and not to companies,  and because the assistance from EGF cannot replace 
actions which are in the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements.  
Under the terms of article 6 of the EGF Regulatio n (R. 1927/2006) "the EGF shall not finance the 
restructuring of companies or sectors". 
With respect to the distinction to be drawn betwee n ordinary structural change and that caused by 
globalisation, the EGF Regulation requires Member States submitting applications to provide evidence 
that the application relates only to the latter. In  its assessment of the applications the European 
Commission will pay close attention to this issue. 
There are no direct links to the programmes listed in paragraph 58 of the WTO secretariat report. 
Workers made redundant in all sectors are equally eligible under the EGF as long as the link between 
the redundancies and globalisation is clear. The sect ors themselves, and the firms operating in them, 
cannot benefit from the EGF. 
Question 10 
Furthermore, how important is the escalating tariff scheme for processed food as a possible element of 
industrial protection ? The indications in § 61 do not give a coherent picture.  
Answer 
It is true that the elements of paragraph 61 do not give a coherent pictur e. However, these elements 
derived from calculations done by the WTO Secretaria t and are not the EC's responsibility. As regards 
the tariff escalation for processed agricultural prod ucts, this issue needs to be addressed in the 
framework of the DDA negotiations on Agriculture. 
Question 11 
Para . 64 : The European Commission introduce the Trade Sustainability Impact Assessments (SIAs) 
for all major trade negotiations. Switzerland woul d like to know about the European Union's 
experiences with this instrument. What are the positive and negative aspects of this instrument? 
Switzerland would also be interested in an exch ange of experiences with the European Commission 
about Sustainability Impact Assessments. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 150  
 
 Answer 
Trade SIAs are a policy tool that helps trade negotiators better understand the potential effects on 
sustainable development of a trade negotiation. Th rough the SIAs negotiators are informed of the 
possible social, environmental and economic consequences of a trade agreement.  
The positive aspect is that SIAs act as warning systems on potential negative impacts during the 
negotiation itself. Therefore, negotiators can take this information into account in their negotiating 
approach; for instance, foresee ex ceptions or delayed schedules of commitments as well as possible 
flanking measures, likely to correct or mitigate these potential effects. Moreover, the whole SIA 
exercise is public, open to the civil society and thir d country negotiators, who therefore have access to 
information of the SIAs just like the EC negotiators and can make comments. Third country 
negotiators in particular can react as appropriate during the negotiation.  
The negative aspect if any is that SIAs require a substantial investment in financial and human 
resources, including from the negotiators who are involved in the SIA process right from the outset. Moreover, it is sometimes difficult to select good cont ractors, likely to make  balanced assessments, 
where modelling includes the long term effects (i e.: incorporating the effects of investment, 
productivity gains, and other dynamics), and the right  qualitative analysis. The researchers should also 
have the appropriate network of local research cap acity so as to make analyses on the ground, rather 
than only from existing written resources.  
The European Commission is ready to further ex change experiences with  Switzerland about SIAs. 
REPLY TO AN ADDITIONAL ORAL QUESTION BY SWITZERLAND
 
Question 
Following the reintroduction of quotas by the EU fo r the importation of certain textiles and apparel 
goods manufactured in China in 2005, it turned out that certain of the blocked products, mainly 
underwear, had partially been manufactured in China with high quality components such as 
embroideries originating in Switzerland. These co mponents had been exported duty free to customers 
in the EU and then sent by these EU companies to  China for outward processing operations to be 
carried out there. The Council Regulation no. 3096 /94 provides for an utilization of semi-finished 
products originating outside the EU up to a value of 14 % only. However, the value of the products 
sold by Swiss suppliers to European operators concer ned exceeds by far this threshold. This problem is 
known to Brussels but so far no satisfactory solution could be found. 
 
Answer 
This issue was already discussed b ilaterally on several occasions, including at the last EC-Switzerland 
Joint Committee meeting of 15 Decemb er 2006. In addition, a letter was  sent to the Swiss 
Ambassador at the Swiss Mission to the EU in Brussels on 14 December 2006, spelling out 
the procedure availa ble to Switzerland. 
 
ARGENTINA  
 WT/TPR/G/177 
III. PRINCIPALES ACONTECIMIENTOS REGISTRADOS EN LA POLITICA COMERCIAL 
DE LAS CE (2005-2006) 2) Principales Objetivos de la Política Comercial 
(2) ESTRUCTURAL INSTITUCIONAL PARA LA FORMULACION DE LA POLÍTICA 
COMERCIAL  
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 151 
 
 
 Párrafos 34, 35 y 36, páginas 14/15 
Question 1   ¿Cómo entienden las CE la equidad en el comercio  para los países en desarrollo, teniendo en cuenta 
la alta protección y las distorsiones en agricultura  que dificultan seriamente sus exportaciones, y las 
demandas excesivas que las CE formulan que no les de jan margen para la ejecución de sus políticas 
comerciales?  Answer 
 Please refer to the answer under question 2.  
 
Question 2  
 ¿Sobre qué bases las CE cuestionan los derechos a la exportación de los países en desarrollo cuando 
constituyen herramientas legítimas conforme la s disciplinas de la OMC para generar recursos 
tributarios, ejecutar políticas de precios y favo recer el consumo de los sectores menos favorecidos? 
 Answer 
The EC is the biggest single developed country impor ter of agricultural products from the developing 
countries. Following the Everything But Arms initia tive and special trade relations with the ACP 
countries, the market access opportun ities for the developing countries, especially the least developed 
countries to the EC market has improved and will do so in the coming years once the EBA is fully implemented. The EC fully suppor ts the legitimate measures of the developing countries to promote 
their export of agricultural products. The EC has show n an important initiative in opening up its market 
to the developing country imports and calls the ot her developed countries to follow that initiative. 
 
Regarding the application of export taxes – which have the equivalent effects of tariff escalation or, if 
sufficiently trade distorting, export restrictions - the EC considers that basic WTO rules (GATT 1994) 
should apply to Members’ use of such instrument s for trade policy purposes and in reflection of the 
inclusion of duties and other measures on exports in GATT 1947. In consequence, the EC seeks a 
reasonable balance of rights and obligations in the ar ea of export taxes, like what is already the case for 
export restrictions (GATT Article XI). This would also imply maintaining the right of WTO Members 
to apply such measures for the circumstances provided under the current WTO rules, including inter 
alia infant industry, local short supply, government stabilization plans and environment. 
 
WT/TPR/S/177/Add.1 
II. REGÍMENES DE COMERCIO E INVERSIÓN 
2) Objetivos de Política Comercial ii) OMC a) Negociaciones del Programa de Doha para el Desarrollo Párrafos 28, 29 y 30, páginas 28/29. Question 3 
 
Con relación al Párrafo 30 del Informe de la Secret aría, la Argentina desea señalar que, más allá de 
lo expresado como objetivos generales, observa con preocupación un habitual y creciente recurso de 
las CE al mecanismo previsto en el Art. XXV III del GATT 1994, es decir a la renegociación de las 
concesiones, siempre bajo la forma de establecimiento  de contingentes, por encima de los cuales se 
establecen derechos de importación extra-cuota de ta l magnitud que impiden el efectivo flujo de 
comercio. Esta práctica, además de  conllevar a una virtual distorsión de lo expresado como principios 
orientadores de su política comercial, podría ser c onsiderada en contradicción con las disposiciones 
del Acuerdo sobre la Agricultura de la OMC,  que impide el restablecimiento de restricciones 
cuantitativas sobre aquellos productos ob jeto de arancelización en el marco de dicho Acuerdo. Como WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 152  
 
 es de conocimiento los altos aranceles que impide n el flujo de comercio pueden considerarse como 
una restricción cuantitativa que ha sido prohibida en virtud del párrafo 4.2. del Acuerdo sobre la 
Agricultura. Ejemplos de los resultados del recurso al  Art. XXVIII, son las modificaciones sufridas por 
los contingentes arancelarios otorgados en productos de  origen argentinos tales como ajos y carne 
aviar. Por ello, resulta de int erés conocer la compatibilidad de la tendencia enunciada con los 
principios que la CE reseña en los párrafos citados.  
 Answer 
The EC has fully complied with its obligations wh ile exercising its rights under Article XXVIII GATT. 
The EC has, in full accordance with the WTO rule s notified the WTO on 15 June 2006 its intention to 
modify concessions on salted poultry, prepared turkey meat and cooked chicken meat tariff lines and 
has entered into negotiations in good faith with WTO members having negotiating rights on the tariff 
lines in question. The EC has, as an outcome of th e negotiations with partners concerned, reached a 
mutually satisfactory solution for compensatory ad justments. The compensation to be paid for 
exercising EC's rights under Article XXVIII negotiati ons can not be seen as a quantitative restriction, 
but as a negotiated solution. 
 
III. POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS 1) Introducción ii)Arancel NMF común  
Párrafo 11, página 52  
Question 4  ¿Podrían las CE brindar el detalle de las posicio nes arancelarias agrícolas definidas como picos 
arancelarios y crestas arancelarias según el detalle del Cuadro III.1: “Estructu ra del Arancel NMF de 
las CE, 2004-2006”, así como su descripción, el arancel ad valorem y su equivalente ad valorem 
(EAV) en el caso de que dichas posiciones est én expresadas en derechos específicos, compuestos, 
mixtos o variables.   Answer 
Table III.1 is based on analysis and calculations carri ed out by the WTO Secretariat. These calculations 
have not been endorsed by the EC. Furthermore, as indicated in the Secretariats Report, some 102 non-
ad valorem tariff lines have been excluded from the analysis. For these reasons, it is not possible for 
the EC to specify the combination of tariffs included in the analysis and should therefore only be considered as indicative. 
 
Párrafo 12, página 53  
Question 5 Podrían las CE brindar en forma detallada el cálc ulo de los equivalentes ad valorem (EAV) de los 
aranceles no ad valorem de aquellos productos agríco las con precios de entrada y con el llamado 
“componente agrícola” (EA o AD F/M -  AD S/Z). Answer 
The ad valorem equivalents (AVEs) calculations have  been made on the basis of the Secretariat's own 
analysis. The EC has not been involved in this analysis. 
 
Question 6  
Respecto a la advalorización de las posiciones aran celarias con precios de entrada, podrían las CE 
informar ¿qué arancel se utilizó, a qué período del año corresponde y el por qué de dicha elección? 
 Answer 
Please refer to the answer provided to question 5.   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 153 
 
 
  
Question 7  Finalmente, respecto de los productos procesados con “componente agrícola” , podrían  las CE 
informar la combinación de ingredientes utilizado para  calcular cada uno de ellos o en su defecto el 
supuesto implícito para el cálculo? 
 Answer 
These questions concern DDA negotiations and they  have to be addressed under these negotiations.  
 
Párrafo 15 y datos contenidos en el Cuadro III. 4 Análisis recapitulativo de los aranceles NMF 
aplicados por las CE, 2006, página 56  Question 8 Podrían las CE informar cuales son las posici ones agrícolas que poseen el máximo arancel 
explicitado en el Cuadro III.4 citado. Se solicitan as imismo, los datos de origen que se utilizaron para 
calcular el EAV correspondiente. 
 
Answer 
The EC cannot take the credit for WTO Secretariat's own analysis. Further information on the details 
of these calculations could be provided by the Secretariat.  Question 9 Resulta muy preocupante el número creciente de incrementos sustanc iales de aranceles -inclusive a 
niveles prohibitivos- que las CE están llevando a c abo en productos agrícolas de fuerte interés para 
los países en desarrollo como son por ejemplo el  trigo, el banano y el ajo, en negociaciones 
enmarcadas en el artículo XXVIII del GATT de 1994. 
 ¿Podrían las CE explicar cuál es la lógica de in crementar sustancialmente sus aranceles consolidados 
en medio de una Ronda? ¿Cómo se co mpatibiliza ello con los futuro s compromisos en materia de 
acceso a mercados que resultarán de la Ronda de  Doha?  ¿Cuántos y c uáles productos agrícolas 
piensan las CE “desconsolidar” antes de la finaliz ación de la Ronda? ¿Est a práctica responde acaso 
a un cambio de la política comercial europea? 
 Answer 
The EC has not raised any of its import tariffs. The EC  strictly adheres to its international obligations 
and has conducted Article XXVIII ne gotiations in line with WTO legal provisions and compensates in 
terms of TRQ expansions.  
With respect to bananas, it should be noted that  the EC has not concluded Article XXVIII negotiations 
in the hope that a mutually agreed solution with in terested suppliers is still within reach. The tariff 
currently applied maintains (and even increases) market  access for all suppliers, as proved by the 
overall increase in banana imports into the EC during 2006 as compared to 2005. 
Question 10 
 
Finalmente, En las negociaciones agrícolas bajo el Mandato de Doha, las CE han justificado la 
preservación de aranceles no ad valorem con el argum ento siguiente, expuesto en el JOB(06)/190 del 
16/6/06:  “The EC can not accept conversion in schedules of specific, compound and mixed duties to ad valorem 
form only. Specific duties are more transparent and pr edictable than ad valorem duties. Specific duties WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 154  
 
 cannot be manipulated as easily as  ad valorem duties, which are calculated as a percentage of customs 
value and can be declared in ways, which are not reliable. […]  Según sostienen las CE  los aranceles no ad valorem  son más transparentes, predecibles y no pueden 
ser manipulados.¿Podrían las CE indicar los mo tivos por los cuales demanda que en las 
negociaciones de Doha sobre acceso a mercados en  productos agrícolas to dos los aranceles se 
consoliden sólo en términos no ad valorem? Y sostie nen, por el contrario, que todos los aranceles no-
agrícolas se consoliden ad valorem. ¿Cómo explican esta inconsistencia? 
Acaso ello significa que la supuesta falta de transparencia y predecibilidad de los aranceles ad 
valorem sólo puede existir  en productos agrícolas?  
 
Answer 
These questions concern DDA negotiations and they  have to be addressed under these negotiations. 
 
vii) Prohibiciones, restricciones y licencias de importación 
Párrafo 34, página 65  
Question 11 
 
La Argentina desea señalar que se han experiment ado dificultades en relación con el régimen de 
administración de diversos contingent es arancelarios. En particular cabe mencionar el régimen de 
gestión del contingente de maíz correspondiente a la península ibérica, del que nuestro país es 
usuario, cuya escasa claridad en materia de imputación por origen, contabilidad y excepciones ha producido complicaciones de interpretación incluso par a los mismos Estados Miembros de las CE. En 
tal sentido, se vería con agrado que las  CE explicitaran por qué el contingente de maíz destinado a la 
península ibérica –del cual la Argentina es el principal abastecedor- es objeto de tal falta de 
transparencia que pone en tela  de juicio y dificulta conocer su efectiva utilización. 
 Answer 
The EC has engaged in the opening of a tariff quota  for imports of 2 millions tonnes of maize into 
Spain. However, the quantity of certain grain subs titutes imported into Spain is to be deducted in 
proportion to the quantity imported.  Whereas data on imports with reduced tariff are more easily 
monitored, data on the actual imports of the latter have to be gathered by the Iberian authorities and 
sent to the European Commission. This gathering and communication cannot be done without a certain 
time lag. It is for this simple reason that the situ ation of the quota cannot always be permanently up-to-
date over the year.  
 
2) Medidas que Afectan Directamente a las Importaciones  
x) Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias 
 
Párrafo 54, página 73 
 Question 12 
¿Podrían explicar las CE cómo compatibiliza el establecimiento de requisitos comunes para las 
importaciones de terceros países (es decir, a nivel Co munitario) con el establecimiento de condiciones 
diferenciales en la circulación intra-zona, por ejempl o, derivadas de la aplicación del principio de 
regionalización sanitaria? 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 155 
 
 
 Answer 
In the EC, national authorities are responsible for applying EC legisla tion. Article 30 of the EC Treaty 
authorizes them to stop the traffic of goods. Howeve r, when the national authorities apply Article 30 
they must inform the European Commission and the other Member States. In the specific case of 
diseases of vegetables or animals, the European Co mmission, in cooperation with the other Member 
States, monitors that possible prohibitions or limitati ons in the traffic of goods are applied with a view 
to protecting people and animal's health safety an d preservation of vegetables and do not represent a 
hidden restriction of trade.  
The EC applies systematically the principle of re gionalization (Article 6 of the SPS Agreement) and 
has demonstrated that a high level of animal and vegetable health can be kept, without disturbing 
national and international trade more than necessary.  More detailed explanations are in the documents 
G/SPS/GEN/101 of 23 November 1998 "Adjustment to the regional conditions" and G/SPS/GEN/588 
of 8 July 2005 Explanation of Article 6 of the Agreement MSF. The EC has made several offers to 
share its experience in the field with other re gional groups such as MERCOSUR and CARICOM.  
 
Párrafo 55, página 73 
Question 13  ¿Podrían las CE explicar los fundamentos científicos  por los cuales han procedido a dar de baja una 
cantidad importante de principios activos como  productos fitosanitarios bajo la revisión de la 
Directiva 91/414/CE cuando esas bajas se deben a raz ones comerciales, es decir que las empresas han 
decidido no presentar solicitudes de revalidación?. P odría la CE explicar cuales son las razones por 
las cuales establece para esas sustancias dadas de ba jas por razones comerciales, un Límite Máximo 
de Residuos por default (0,01 ppm) para produc tos importados?. Podrían las CE señalar qué 
normativa internacional han tenido en cuenta par a tomar estas medidas que tienen un impacto 
altamente negativo en terceros países? 
 
Answer 
Detailed explanations have been  given in document G/SPS/GEN/557: Questions and answers on the 
procedure to obtain import tolerances and the of incl usion active substances for plant protection use in 
the European Communities list  (29 March 2005). The EC invites Argentina to consult this text again 
and to request all necessary explanations.  
Article II:1 of the SPS Agreement establishes that Me mbers are eligible to adopt the Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures necessary to ensure food safety and animal/pla nt protection,  provided that 
such measures are not incompatible  with the measures of the Agreement. In the period 2004-2006 the 
EC made 40 notifications under the SPS Agreement in the field of residues of plant protection products 
and 18 notifications under the TBT Agreement. Arge ntina made observations that have been fully 
answered. Furthermore a delegation of Argentina wa s received by the Commission in order to obtain 
detailed explanations on the implementation policy for the protection of vegetables.  
In subheading H, paragraphs 17 to 20 of document G/SPS/GEN/557, explanations are provided as 
regards the reasons for having a default MRL of 0. 01 mg/kg, for the effective control of unapproved 
substances.  
Question 14 
¿Podrían las CE explicar por qué no adoptan los LM R que el CODEX tiene establecido en el proceso 
actual de revisión y establecimiento de nuevos LMR bajo el Reglamento CE 396/2005?  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 156  
 
 Answer 
It is not true that the EC does not adopt the MRL of the CODEX. In para.16 of document 
G/SPS/GEN/557, it is explained that, if a phytosanitary  product is not authorized in the EC, the EC can 
agree imports tolerance for Argentine products  in this case, defined as a MRL based on the 
Commission of the Codex Alimentarius or on Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) for legal use of an 
active substance in Argentina. Fo r this, Argentina or any interested party, including the importers, 
should contact EC Member States in order to request these import tolerances. The required 
documentation is described in page 17  of the abovementioned document.  
Question 15  
 
¿Podrían las CE señalar por qué  no han seguido la normativa internacional existente al establecer 
niveles tan bajos de presencia máxima de toxinas de  fuzarium en maíz para alimentación animal bajo 
el Reglamento 1881/06?. Las CE han tenido en cuenta si esta medida es proporcional al riesgo que se busca proteger así como los posibles impactos en países en desarrollo exportadores a la UE?.  
 
Answer  
Article II:1 of the SPS Agreement establishes that Me mbers are eligible to adopt the Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures necessary to ensure food saf ety and animal/plant protection, provided that 
such measures are not incompatible with th e measures of the Agreement. In document 
G/SPS/N/EEC/253, dated 23 December 2004, the European Commission notified its Project-Regulation relating to the toxins of Fusarium spp. In paragraph 13 of the a bovementioned notification, 
extensive details are provided. Fu rthermore, Argentina sent observations to this proposal, and in the 
answer of the European Commission to Argentin a (Fax number SANCO (05) D/530907, dated 27 July 
2005), the EC provided further explanations. Therefore, the EC recommends Argentina to read paragraph 13 of the notification G/ SPS/N/EEC/253 and the text of the answer of 27 July of 2005. If 
needed, these documents could be provided again.  
Question 16 
 
¿Podrían explicar los criterios que emplea en los casos en los que establece o mantiene medidas 
sanitarias o fitosanitarias que representen un nivel  de protección sanitaria o fitosanitaria más elevado 
que el que se lograría medi ante medidas basadas en las normas, directrices o recomendaciones 
internacionales pertinentes? En todos los casos se basa en una evaluación del riesgo conforme lo 
estipula el Acuerdo MSF o puede utilizar otras va riables no técnico-sanitarias para apartarse de las 
normas internacionales?  Answer 
Article II:1 of the SPS Agreement establishes that Me mbers are eligible to adopt the Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures necessary to ensure food saf ety and animal/plant protection, provided that 
such measures are not used as hidden trade restri ctions. Furthermore Article III:3 establishes that 
Members may introduce or maintain sanitary or phy tosanitary measures which result in a higher level 
of sanitary or phytosanitary protection than woul d be achieved by measures based on the relevant 
international standards, guidelines or recommendations, if there is a scientific justification, or as a 
consequence of the level of sanitary or phytosanitary  protection a Member determines to be appropriate 
in accordance with the relevant provisions of para graphs 1 through 8 of Article V. A scientific 
justification is deemed to exist if, on the basis of an examination and eval uation of the scientific 
information available in compliance with the pertinen t measures of this Agreement, a Member determines 
that the regulations, directives or pertinent internatio nal recommendations are not sufficient to obtain their 
suitable level of health or phytosa nitary protection. The EC provid es reliable information about the 
scientific basis of the risk analysis in all its notifications.  
Under the framework of the  SPS Agreement, no other criterion is used.   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 157 
 
 
 Question 17 
 En relación con los compromisos mu ltilaterales en la materia, la Ar gentina observa con preocupación 
la implementación del nuevo régimen de LMR para plaguicidas (Reglamento CE 396/2005). Al respecto, y en cuanto a la descripción de competencias de la AESA, se solicita a las CE informar si la 
mencionada Agencia está involucrada en la efectiv a confección de los anexos del Reglamento antes 
mencionado y, en tal caso, de qué modo participa en la misma, ya que no se ha constatado una clara 
correspondencia entre las decisiones reflejadas en la  confección de los anexos al Reglamento citado y 
las prácticas de análisis de riesgo que deberían guiar la fijación de LMRs de plaguicidas en el marco 
de la normativa del CODEX. 
 
Answer 
Regulation 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down 
the general principles and requirements of food la w, establishing the European Food Safety Authority 
and laying down procedures in matters of food safety " was reported in G/SPS/N/EEC/110, dated 8 
February 2001. During its period of extended observation, until 26 May 2001, no WTO Member - 
including Argentina - presented obser vations against this proposal  
The European Authority of Food Security (EFSA) is an independent legal body of the EC that 
furnishes the European Commission with objective sci entific advice on all matters with a direct or 
indirect impact on food and feed safety, including an imal health and welfare and plant protection. The 
establishment of the EFSA was one of the key measur es contained in the White Paper of the European 
Commission regarding foodstuffs' safety. The EC circ ulated relevant information to all WTO Members 
in document G/SPS/GEN/169, dated 14 March 2000. The EFSA selects information, monitors 
scientific progress, identifies and evaluates any potential risk for the food chain. 
Párrafo 56 y 57, página 74 
Question 18 
 
¿Podrían las CE señalar por qué no han estab lecido aún un sistema común en materia de 
procedimientos de vigilancia en todos los Es tados miembros cuando alguno de ellos detecta una 
sustancia peligrosas bajo el sistema RASFF?  Answer 
It is not true that a common alert system has not been established.  
Firstly, the Council Directive 96/23/EC on measures to  monitor certain substances and residues thereof 
in live animals and animal products establishes that  Member States should draft a national programme 
for residues' control. Furthermore, a residue mon itoring program of pesticide residues must also be 
presented by Member States. The Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) carries out inspections in 
Member States so as to monitor these controls . The results are published on the following website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/specialreports/pesticides_index_en.htm 
 
Any alert detected by RASFF is communicated imme diately to the European Commission. Any further 
action stems from an exchange of view with th e Member States. The detection of a dangerous 
substance originated in an EC' Member State produ ces identical results to its detection in importing 
products. A proof of this has been the paralyzation a nd destruction of numerous consignments of green 
pepper that contained residues of Isofenphos-methyl, which is a non authorized pesticide in the EC.  
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 158  
 
 Question 19 
¿Comprenden las CE que prácticas distintas en los estados miembros (número de partidas bajo 
vigilancia, tratamiento por empresa o por país, et c.) generan costos innecesarios a los exportadores. 
Piensan las CE establecer una normativa común en el corto plazo?  
Answer The EC does not agree that there are different practic es within its Member States. The EC would also 
like to underline that Argentina's statement in question 19 is a very  general one and it is unsupported 
by concrete evidence.  
 
Question 20 
¿Podrían las CE señalar cómo verifican el orig en de una notificación del RASFF de sustancias 
peligrosas para la salud, cuando se trata de c ontaminantes naturales detectados en partidas a granel 
de productos para procesamiento o alimentación anim al que tienen formas de manipuleo, descarga, y 
almacenamiento altamente contaminantes en territorio europeo? 
 
Answer 
The EC invites Argentina to verify the origin of a RASFF notification looking into the public RASFF 
weekly published in DG SANCO website, in which this  information could be f ound. The website is the 
following:http://ec.europa.eu/f ood/food/rapidalert/index_en.htm 
 
 
Question 21 
En el caso que en el marco del proceso de adhesión  de un país al bloque Comunitario se le otorgue un 
plazo adicional o waiver para el cumplimiento de lo s estándares sanitarios y/o fitosanitarios de las 
CE, ¿qué normas aplica el país en cuestión a las im portaciones  de terceros países? Las normas de las 
CE o las normas nacionales? 
Answer  
The Accession Treaty of Bulgaria and Romania to th e European Union and its annexes is published in 
all EC languages in the Official Journal of  the EU, No L157 of 21 June 2005.   
Please see Annex I on legislation for the accession of Bulgaria and Romania.  
Question 22 
 
¿Podrían explicar qué mecanismo internos ha est ablecido para tomar en cuenta los comentarios 
recibidos sobre las notificaciones realizadas?  Answer 
This has been explained in document G/SPS/GEN/456, dated 5 December 2003, " The EC Notification 
Authority and Enquiry the for Po int WTO Agreement on the Applica tion of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
measures: Operational pro cedures and recent experience " .  
Párrafo 59, página 76 
Question 23  Podrían explicar si ha desarrollado nueva evidenc ia científica para mantener la prohibición de 
determinadas sustancias con efecto hormonal para estimular el crecimiento 
 Answer 
The existing prohibition on the use of hormones as growth promoters is suppor ted by a comprehensive 
scientific risk assessment undertaken in 1999 and subsequently updated and reviewed in 2000 and  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 159 
 
 
 2002, respectively. Further review is currently u nderway under the framework of the European Food 
Safety Authority. The EC welcomes scientific i nput from third countries, including from Argentina, 
who also prohibits the use of hormones as growth promoters.  
 
4) Medidas que afectan a la Producción y el Comercio 
iii) Derechos de propiedad intelectual 
d) Observancia Párrafo 119, página 96  Question 24 
¿Podría identificar los aspectos en los cuales el Reglamento N° 1383/2003 del Consejo, relativo a la 
observación de los DPI en las fronteras exterior es de las CE fija estándares superiores a los 
establecidos en el Acuerdo TRIPs?  Answer 
The coverage of Council Regulation 1383/2003 relates specifically to Customs actions in the context of 
possible IPR infringements.  The significant difference with the TRIPS Agreement concerns the area of 
intervention by Customs; whereas the TRIPS Agr eement concerns goods solely at importation, the 
abovementioned regulation sets out the conditions fo r action by Customs when goods are entered for 
free circulation, export or re-export as defined by the Community Customs Code.   
 
Question 25 
Conforme lo expresado por las CE, dicho Reglamento se aplica en las “fronteras exteriores”, ¿existe 
una diferencia entre los niveles de protección o las normas de observancia a los derechos de 
propiedad intelectual cuando las mercancías provie nen de países extra zona de la que se brinda 
fronteras adentro? 
 
Answer 
Council Regulation 1383/2003 provides for actions by Cu stoms, on goods that enter into the European 
Communities, or are exported or re-exported from the community, without discrimination according to 
the origin of the goods.   
 
Question 26 
Considerando que el mencionado Reglamento ha sido especialmente elaborado pensando en 
infracciones “marcarias” evidentes a simple vista, ¿cuáles son los mecanismos previstos para que la 
autoridad aduanera pueda evaluar  la posibilidad de una  infra cción a un derecho de propiedad 
intelectual, cuando el derecho en juego deriva de una patente, sin utilizar el  Reglamento N° 1383/2003 
de manera abusiva? ¿Cómo se compatibiliza el principio de agotamiento del derecho con el 
Reglamento N° 1383/2003?  Answer 
Although it is recognised that there are differences in  the possible types of infringement, as mentioned 
in Article 2.1 of Regulation 1383/2003, the me chanisms provided for by the abovementioned 
regulation do not discriminate between them.  However, in cases where goods are suspected of 
infringing patents, Article 14 does provide the consign ee with a certain additional flexibility, in that the 
consignee is able to obtain the release of the good s or an end to their detention on provision of a 
security.  The Regulation aims to deal with the illegal marketing of goods infringing IPR, without 
impeding the freedom of legitimate trade. It shoul d be noted that the European Communities apply a 
principle of regional (namely Community) exhausti on in relation to all intellectual property rights 
governed by EC legislation.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 160  
 
 IV. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES POR SECTORES 
1) Introducción Párrafo 4, página 98  Question 27 
¿Podían las CE brindar detalles sobre las me didas adoptadas para “disociar los pagos de la 
producción”? Asimismo, podría brindar informació n sobre cómo operan los pagos desacoplados? 
 Answer 
The introduction of the Single Payment Scheme  (SPS) removes links between production and 
subsidies. The main aims are to, allow farmer s freedom to produce to market demand, promote 
environmentally and economically sustainable farming, simplify CAP application for farmers and administrators and strengthen the EC’s position in WTO agricultural trade negotiations. Member States have options in how they calculate and make paym ents. The main difference is whether they base the 
SPS on what direct payments individual farmers rece ived in the historic reference period, thus 
producing different levels of SPS for each farmer, or whether all payments are averaged out over a 
state or region. The main options are:  
 
Basic (historic) approach: each farmer is gran ted entitlements corresponding to the payments he 
received during the reference period (reference amounts) and the number of hectares he was farming during the reference period and which gave right to  direct payments in the reference period.  
 
Regional (flat rate) approach: reference amounts are not  calculated at individual farmer level but at 
regional level - the sum of the payments received by the farmers in the region concerned during the 
reference period. Regional reference amounts are then  divided by the number of eligible hectares 
declared by the farmers of the region in the year of  SPS introduction, to establish the value of a single 
entitlement in that region. Finally, each farmer recei ves a number of (flat rate) entitlements equal to the 
number of eligible hectares declared in the year of SPS introduction. This approach entails some 
redistribution of payments between farmers.  
 
Mixed models: Member States may, in justified cases , apply different calculation systems in different 
regions of their territory. They may also calculate  SPS payments using a part-historic/part-flat rate 
approach. Such ‘hybrid’ systems can further vary ov er the period between first application of the SPS 
and full implementation, giving rise to dynamic as well as to static hybrid systems. ‘Dynamic hybrid’ 
systems can act as a vehicle to transit from the basic (historic) to the regional (flat) rate approach. 
 Member States may maintain a proportion of product-sp ecific direct aids in their existing form (known 
as ‘partial decoupling’), notably wher e they believe there may be disturbance to agricultural markets or 
abandonment of production by moving to the SPS. Member States may choose between several options, at national or regional le vel, but only under well-defined c onditions and within clear limits. 
There is no time limit on continuing partial decoupling.  More detailed information is ava ilable at the Europa website:  
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets/sfp/leg_en.htm
 
 
Question 28 
¿Cómo prevé la CE que dichas ayudas desacopl adas lleguen al pequeño productor o a las 
explotaciones familiares que sostiene n el medio rural y no a las grandes compañías y terratenientes 
más ricos de Europa, como lo afirmara el informe  de Intermón Oxfam de Marzo de 2005? 
 Answer 
The EC do not intend to comment on the results found in a report by Oxfam. The 2003 CAP reform 
changes the way the Common Agricultural Policy op erates. Among several key initiatives, it contains  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 161 
 
 
 one instrument that set new parameters for CA P financing. This instrument known as modulation 
provides a means to ensure the transfer of CAP refunds from direct aids to farmers and market 
measures to rural development meas ures. Modulation is compulsory – Member States must apply it at 
the rates set in the reform. It applies to all farm ers across the EC with exception of the smallest and 
direct payments up to an amount of EUR 5000 per farm will remain free of reductions.  
 
Question 29 
¿Podría especificar a que productos agrícolas y no agrícolas se aplican el tipo arancelario máximo 
del 167,2%?   
Answer The calculations on AVEs were made by the WTO Secret ariat. Therefore, it is not possible to specify 
the exact import tariff. However, the EC invit es Argentina to consult the following website:  
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_c ustoms/dds/en/tarhome.htm
, where all EC import tariffs are available as 
they apply. 
 
Question 30 ¿Podría brindar mayores datos económic os sobre los efectos de la ayud a interna en la generación de 
excedentes agrícolas?  Answer 
The 2003 CAP reform significantly changed the EC agricultural policy. The CAP reform has 
completely changed the way the EC supports its farm  sector and is now geared towards consumers and 
taxpayers, while giving EC farmers the freedom to pr oduce what the market wants. Agricultural sectors 
such as sugar, wine or fruit and vegetables have al ready been reformed or w ill be reformed. For sugar, 
the EC will move from being a net exporter to a net im porter. A similar trend is envisaged for the beef, 
and possibly, for the poultry sector. The EC has geared  its agricultural policy for the future - in the 
right direction.  
We invite Argentina to consult the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/index_en.htm
 
 
3) Agricultura y Actividades Conexas 
i) Características Principales ii) Política Agrícola Común a) Panorama general 
Párrafo 8, página 101  
 
Question 31 
¿Podrían las CE brindar detalles sobre las propuestas  de reforma para el tabaco, aceite de oliva, 
algodón, lúpulo, azúcar y el algodón? En particul ar la naturaleza de los subsidios y operatividad 
del/los sistema/s y montos aplicados y/o pr oyectados en los próximos cinco  años. 
 Answer 
A complete detailed description of all these reforms would be too extensive to  be provided in this 
context. However, we recommend Argentina to consu lt the comprehensive information available at the 
European website. In case Argentina continued to have  specific questions in this regard, the EC would 
kindly provide answers to any question that remained unanswered.  
 
Question 32 ¿Podrían las CE brindar alguna información s obre las propuestas previstas para fines de 2006 o 
principios del año en curso para los subsectores  del vino y los frutos, legumbres y hortalizas?. 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 162  
 
 Answer 
Fruit and vegetable production accounts for 3.1 percen t of the EC agriculture budget and 17 percent of 
total EC agricultural production. In its propo sal, the European Comm ission suggests Producer 
Organisations (PO) to gain greater flexibility and th eir rules to be simplified.  Crisis Management will 
be organised through Producer Organisations.  
As regards the inclusion of fruit and vegetables in  the Single Payment Scheme, the EC would like to 
note that land covered by fruit and vegetables will  be eligible for payment entitlements under the 
decoupled aid scheme which applies in other farm s ectors.  As regards environmental measures, we 
note that the inclusion of F&V in the SPS means th at Cross Compliance will be compulsory for those 
farmers receiving direct payments.  
As regards trade with third countries, and given th at world trade talks are still ongoing, the proposal 
does not touch on the current legal framework on exte rnal trade. However, it is proposed that export 
refunds shall be abolished.  
It should be noted that the abolition of the processing aids will contribute significantly to 
simplification, as will do the new rules on POs and the abolition of export refunds. Simplification will 
be further enhanced by harmonising the basic pr inciples relating to marketing standards for all 
agricultural products, including F&V. 
The proposal will need to be adopted by the Counc il of Ministers and changes may occur. For more 
details about the reform plea se check the Europa website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/ capreform/fruitveg/index_en.htm
.  
On 22 June, 2006, the European Commission pub lished a Communication on reform of the EC’s 
Common Market Organisation for wine, which during the second half of 2006 has been discussed with 
Member States and consulted with stakeholders . A proposal from the European Commission for a 
reform of the wine sector is, therefore, expected by the second semester of 2007.  
 
Párrafo 9, página 102  
 
Según lo expresado en el párrafo mencionado, los agricultores acumulan a los pagos directos los 
correspondientes a nivel regional, los que además pueden estar vinculados a los pagos y a la 
producción.   Question 33 
¿Podrían las CE informar si ha sido definido un lím ite porcentual o en monto de subsidios que cada 
agricultor particular puede recibir anualmente y, de exis tir este límite, podría indicar si en el mismo se 
computan los subsidios correspondientes a nivel regi onal? ¿Podría asimismo cuantificar el “vínculo 
limitado entre los pagos y la producción (“disociación parcial”) de los subsidios otorgados a nivel de 
cada uno de los Estados Miembros? 
 
Answer 
The EC firstly invites Argentina to consult a de tailed overview of the implementation of direct 
payments under the CAP in Member States, which can be found at the following website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets/sfp/ms_en.pdf
.  
 
It should be noted that full decoupling is the ge neral principle from 2005 onwards. Member States may 
maintain some product-specific direct aids alongsid e the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) where this is 
justified in order to avoid production abandonment or severe market disturbance, as a result of moving 
to the SPS. Member States may apply a limited number of options, at national or regional level. In the 
regional (flat rate) model the refe rence amounts are not calculated at individual farmer level but at  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 163 
 
 
 regional level. Within the national ceiling, Member States may establish regional ceilings of reference 
amounts. Regional reference amounts are then divided by the number of eligible hectares declared by the farmers of the region in the year of SPS introd uction, to establish the value of a single entitlement 
in that region. Finally, each farmer receives a numb er of (flat rate) entitlements equal to the number of 
eligible hectares declared in the year of SPS introduc tion. As this model entails some redistribution of 
payments between farmers, some Member States have opted for a so-called hybrid model which 
combines the flat rate approach with an individua l top-up per farmer, calculated according to the rules 
under the historical model.  
 
Question 34 
Asimismo, 
¿Podrían señalar las CE cómo se computan en las notific aciones de Cajas (apoyo interno) de la OMC, 
los pagos nacionales establecidos legalmente bajo el sistema de modulación, los cuales difieren por 
país y producto de manera sensible? ¿Podrían las CE indicar cómo procederán a notificar  los sistemas diferentes que aplican los Estados 
Miembros para el cálculo de subs idios bajo el Single Farm Payment? 
 
Answer 
Modulation provides a means to ensu re the transfer of CAP funds fro m direct aids to farmers and 
market measures to rural development measures.  Modulation is mandatory and Member States must 
apply it at the rates set in the reform. It applies to all farmers across the EC with exception of the 
smallest. In order to finance the additional rural de velopment measures agreed in the reform, all direct 
payments (SPS and other direct aids) will be re duced, by 3 % in 2005, 4 % in 2006 and 5 % from 2007 
onwards until 2012. The EC has not yet notified its  domestic support for the period under which the 
Single Payment Scheme has applied. The distributio n of domestic support between the different types 
of support will be included in the notifications to  the WTO. These notifications are currently under 
preparation. 
 
Question 35 ¿Podría las CE señalar cómo procederán a no tificar el nuevo sistema de pagos desacoplados 
diferenciado por “commodities”, dado que se entie nde que es decisión de  cada Estado Miembro 
aplicar los mismos, lo cual está implicando formas  diferentes de instrumentación (porcentajes de 
decoupling distintos por países y productos)? 
 Answer 
Member States may retain a proportion of product-speci fic direct aids in their existing form, notably 
where they believe there may be disturbance to ag ricultural markets or abandonment of production by 
moving to the SPS. Member States may choose between several options, at nati onal or regional level, 
but only under well-defined conditions and within clear  limits. Whether to partially decouple some of 
the payment is entirely a choice of the individual Member States.    An overview table of the implementation is available at the European Commission webiste: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets/sfp/index_en.htm
 
 Question 36 Finalmente, considerando que la última noti ficación de la que se dispone sobre los pagos directos 
para la limitación de la producción (art. 6:5 del AsA) corresponde al año 2003/2004 (G/AG/N/EEC/53 
del 8/12/2006) :  
¿Podrían informar los niveles aplicados por pr oducto para los años 2004/2005 y 2005/2006? 
¿Podrían indicar además los niveles por producto  correspondientes a los nuevos 10 miembros 
ingresados a las CE el 1/5/2004?  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 164  
 
 Answer 
The EC will submit a notification of its domestic suppor t for the years in question. The EC notification 
for 2003/04 covers support to the EC after Enla rgement on 1 May 2004. Price gap calculations are 
performed on EC25 production levels for a 12 mont h period and include direct payments to 25 
Member States. 
 
Párrafo 10, páginas 102/103  
 Question 37 Con relación a los NEM-10 ¿podrían las CE detalla r cómo compatibilizan los compromisos asumidos 
por cada uno de los NEM-10 en sus Listas de Apoy o Doméstico antes de su ingreso a la UE con la 
implementación del régimen vigente en las CE, someramente descripto en el párrafo citado? 
 Answer  
Eight of the ten new Member States opted for the SAPS (Single Area Payment Scheme) except Slovenia and Malta who opted for the existing EC policy existing upon their accession in 2004. The 8 
Member States continue to apply the SAPS while Slovenia and Malta apply the SPS. The domestic 
support of the new Member States will fall under th e overall EC domestic support notification of the 
EC to the WTO. 
 
Question 38 
Asimismo, 
Podrían las CE informar cuándo van a negociar la s CE con los demás Miembros de la OMC sus 
niveles de apoyo doméstico distorsivo: en el caso de sus 25 miembros, por el período desde el 1/5/2004 
al 1/1/2007 (32 meses) y, en  el de sus 27 miembros, desde el 1/1/2007?  
Answer Negotiations on the reduction of domestic support are currently ongoing in the context of the DDA 
negotiations. 
 
Question 39 Teniendo en cuenta que han transcurrido más de 33 meses desde el ing reso de los 10 países que 
ingresaron a las CE el 1/5/2004, ¿podría indica r las CE  las razones de semejante atraso? 
 Answer 
The EC notification on domestic support is under pr eparation and will be submitted to the WTO.  
 
Question 40 
La notificación G/AG/N/EEC/53 del 8/12/2006, que incluye los niveles de apoyo doméstico por el 
período 2003/2004 parece abarcar también parte del p eríodo posterior al 1/5/2004, en el que las CE 
pasaron a ser 25 países.  ¿Podría la CE completar esta notificación con los su bsidios aplicados, desde el 1/5/2004 hasta el final 
del año notificado (o sea, 2003/2004)? 
 
Answer 
The EC will submit a notification of its domestic suppor t for the years in question. The EC notification 
for 2003/04 covers support to the EC after Enla rgement on 1 May 2004. Price gap calculations are 
performed on EC25 production levels for a 12 mont h period and include direct payments to 25 
Member States. 
 
Finalmente,  las CE adoptaron el compromiso sobre la lim itación del área sembrada en el Anexo a la 
Sección I de la Parte IV de su lista Nro. CXL, se gún el cual la misma queda sujeta a un valor máximo 
de 5.482.000 hectáreas para los 15 miembros de las CE.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 165 
 
 
 Question 41 
¿Podría la CE informar sobre cómo ha implemen tado este compromiso, indicando las medidas en sus 
disposiciones internas que prevengan la superación de  este nivel? Y, dado que el punto (4) del Anexo 1 
de dicho compromiso establece que, en caso de ampliación de las CE, el mismo se enmendaría.¿Cuándo van las CE a iniciar la negociac ión sobre este acuerdo con otros miembros de la 
OMC?  
 Answer 
This limitation of the area sown with oilseeds is no longer applicable since the specific aid for oilseeds 
was eliminated.  
 
Párrafo 11, página 103  
 Question 42 ¿Podrían las CE indicar si el mencionado plan de acción ha sido elaborado y detallar las medidas 
concretas con relación a los continge ntes arancelarios de importación?  
 
Answer 
The European Commission presented a CAP simplifi cation action plan with concrete measures 
envisaged taking account of appropriate suggesti ons made by Member States and stakeholders. 
Proposal 18 proposed to simplify the administration of import tariff quotas managed through a system of import licences. This was achieved with the ad option of Regulation (EC) No.1301/2006. For more 
details consul the following websites: http://ec.eu ropa.eu/agriculture/simp lification/index_en.htm
 and 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/simplification/actionplan_en.pdf )  
 
Question 43  Específicamente, respecto del continge nte arancelario ibérico de maíz: 
 En septiembre de 2005 la Comisión aprobó el Reglamen to Nº 1558/2005 que modifica el Reglamento 
Nº 1839/95 relativo a las cuotas de maíz y sorgo de España y de Portugal. 
En el caso del contingente arancelario de ma íz a ser importado por España, la modificación del 
Reglamento comunitario se aparta de la glosa nego ciada por las CE un su lista CXL de la OMC, ya 
que transforma un compromiso de carácter precep tivo que obliga a las CE a fijar un arancel intra-
cuota que permita asegurar que el contingent e arancelario será utilizado plenamente, en uno de 
carácter facultativo en el que la rebaja del arancel  queda sujeta a condiciones existentes del mercado. 
 
¿Podrían las CE explicar cual es la racionalidad del Reglamento Nº 1558/2005 y si consideran que el 
mismo es compatible con los términos y condiciones que fueron negociados en su lista de concesiones 
consolidada en la OMC? En el caso afirmativo, cuál sería la racionalidad que permitiría transformar 
normas obligatorias de un reglamento (Reglament o Nº 1839/95) en normas facultativas (Reglamento 
Nº 1558/2005) y afirmar que tienen el mismo alcance? 
 
Answer 
The questions 43 to 46 all concern maize import to the EC on which the EC is currently preparing a 
reply to an offical letter from th e Argentinean government. In that le tter these and other issues will be 
adressed in detail. The maize import quota of 2 million tonnes of maize to Spain has always been 
fulfilled. And in the event of a potential shortfall import tranches are opened on an erga omnes basis 
with duty abatement. That import duty is zero.  
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 166  
 
 Question 44 
¿Podrían las CE confirmar que las importaciones de  maíz flint no se encuentran computadas bajo los 
contingentes arancelarios incluidos en el Reglamento 1558/2005?  Answer 
Flint maize imports are counted against this import obligation. 
 
Question 45 ¿Podrían las CE confirmar que las importaci ones que pagan aranceles NMF plenos e ingresan a 
España y Portugal no se computan como parte de lo s contingentes arancelarios incluidos en el 
Reglamento 1558/2005? 
 Answer 
Full duty imports are counted against this import oblig ation. However, import duties are at zero for the 
moment, which is always the case for subsitutes.  
 Question 46 ¿Podrían las CE confirmar que las importaciones bajo el nuevo contingente arancelario NMF de 242.074 tn. cuando ingresen, total o parcialmente, por España y Portugal  no estén siendo computadas 
como parte de los contingentes arancelarios incluidos en el Reglamento 1558/2005?    
Answer Preferential maize imports as well as maize imports under the erga omnes quota in Commission 
Regulation (EC) 969/2006 of 29 June 2006 are not counted against the maize import quota.  
 
Question 47 
¿Podrían las CE señalar si la reforma propuesta de  eliminación del precio de intervención del maíz 
tendrá consecuencias en la forma de administraci ón de los cupos de maíz  para España y Portugal? 
 
Answer 
The proposal to abolish maize intervention is s till under discussion with the Member States and no 
formal decision has been adopted.  
 
Párrafo 12, página 104  
 Question 48 ¿Podrían las CE especificar cómo ha compatibilizado sus compromiso s referidos a los programas de 
limitación de la producción bajo la caja azul por la ampliación de las CE-12 a CE-15 y, asimismo, 
cómo compatibilizará dichos compromi sos por la ampliación a los NEM-10? 
 Answer 
For both waves of enlargement, base areas and ceilings  were based on historical references. In the case 
of the 10 new MS the references had to take into account the specificity of the transition process. On 
this basis, ceilings were determined for direct payments. These are gradually introduced in the 10 new 
MS according to a phasing-in schedule whereby they would reach 100% in 2013. 8 out of the 10 new MS implement a simplified transitional system for direct payments: the single area payment scheme. 
The SAPS is decoupled from production (among other criteria, there is no obligation to produce). 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 167 
 
 
 Párrafo 13, página 105/106  
 Question 49 ¿Podrían las CE especificar los productos que c oncentran el mayor porcentaje de ayuda y a qué 
montos se refiere?  
 
Answer 
These are calculations based on OECD studies and methodology but not by the EC. The EC would 
therefore have to refer to the OCED study itself for further details. 
 
Question 50 
¿Podrían las CE indicar los montos de las ayudas trans feridas de caja ámbar a caja azul así como los 
productos alcanzados?  Answer 
The OCED analysis is made independently by the OECD and further specification would need to be 
requested from the OECD. However, the EC notific ations from 2002/03 and 2003/04 clearly identify 
which part of EC domestic support is noticed as blue and green box support. 
 
Párrafo 14, página 106 
 
Question 51 
¿Podrían las CE brindar detalles sobre las directiv as estratégicas para el desarrollo rural en 2007-
2012 (competitividad de la agricultura  y silvicultura, medio ambiente y campo y calidad de vida y 
diversifación de la economía rural)?  
Answer  
The strategic guidelines adopted in 2006 set out a st rategic approach and a range of options which 
Member States could use in their national strate gy plans and Rural Development programmes. For 
each set of priorities, the EC strategic guidelines are suggesting key actions. Member States shall prepare their national rural development strategies on the basis of six community strategic guidelines, 
which will help to: identify the areas where the use of EC support for rural development creates the 
most value added at EC level; make the link with the main EC priorities (Lisbon, Göteborg);  ensure 
consistency with other EC policies, in par ticular, cohesion and environment; accompany the 
implementation of the new market orientated CAP and the necessary restructuring it will entail in the 
old and new Member States.  
The six strategic guidelines are:  
 Improving the competitiveness of the ag ricultural and forestry sectors,  
 Improving the environment and the countryside,  
 Improving the quality of life in rural ar eas and encouraging diversification,  
 Building Local Capacity for Employment and Diversification,  
 Translating priorities into programmes,  
 Complementarity between Community Instruments  
The Rural Development policy 2007-2013 will focus on th ree areas in line with th e three thematic axes 
laid down in the new rural development regulati on, namely improving competitiveness for farming and 
forestry, environment and countryside and improving quality of life and diversification of the rural WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 168  
 
 economy. A single European Agricultural Fund for Rural development has been set up with a total 
budget of EUR 77.7 billion over the period 2007-2013. Me mber States have made their individual rural 
development programmes with due respect to the ove rall guidelines. At this stage in the programming 
period, it is not possible to indicate exactly what  amount will be spent under each measure of the 
individual axes of the Rural Development Programmes.  It should be noted that the Rural Development 
programmes needs to be approved by the European  Commission. In turn, Member States can add 
certain flexibility regarding their ow n priorities under each of the axes.  
 
Párrafos 15 y 16, página 106  
 Question 52 ¿Podrían brindar detalles sobre la “ayuda de mini mis” mencionada y, en particular, explicar con qué 
criterio se incluye a la pesca bajo la ayuda “de mini mis”, toda vez que el acuerdo que rige este sector 
es el de Subvenciones y Medidas Compensatorias, en el cual  no existe una categoría “de minimis”?  
 Answer 
In June 2005 the European Commission issued its St ate aid action plan, aiming at a State aid policy for 
less and better targeted State aid. In this cont ext, the European Commission proposed to set clear 
‘positive’ and ‘negative’ priorities and thereby, on the one hand, strengthening the rules for granting 
aid and refining the economic approach in assessment of State aid and, on the other hand, excluding 
from ex ante assessment certain categories of aid, and increasing the level of de minimis aid, in order to focus on the most distortive typ es of aid. The proposal for the increase of the de minimis aid for 
fisheries should be seen in this context.  
 
Furthermore, and as mentioned in the "Draft Explanatory Memorandum" to the aforementioned 
European Commission's proposal, experience has show n that the de minimis ceiling of € 3.000, over 
any period of three years, is too low, in particular  due to the higher turnover of the average EU fishing 
firms compared to agriculture firms, as well as th e fact that, unlike certain sectors under the common 
agricultural policy, the fisheries sector do es not benefit from direct income support. 
 Furthermore, it should be noted that, with regard to  the specifics of the fisheries sector and seen the 
objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy concerning the conservation of fish stocks, the proposed 
regulation contains two additional exemptions specific to  fisheries. No aid shall be granted that serves 
to increase capacity or for the purchase and construction of fishing vessels. 
 
Please note that the term "de minimis" , as mentioned in the Secretariat's Report, refers to EC legislation 
in the area of State aid and not to "de minimis"  rule laid down in Article 11(9) of the WTO's 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. 
 
Question 53 
La mencionada ayuda “de minimis” a los productos de la pesca ¿ha sido notificada ante el Comité de 
Subvenciones y Medidas Compensatorias? En ca so de que no sea así ¿Cómo se asegura el 
cumplimiento de lo estipulado en el artículo 25 del Acuerdo sobre Subvenciones y Medidas 
Compensatorias? 
 
Answer 
Following a decision of the WTO Subsidy Committee of 2001, "new and full" notifications are now 
made every second year without annual update notif ications. The last New and Full Notification 
Pursuant to Article XVI:1 of the GATT 1994 an d Article 25 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures of the EC was made on 26 August 2005 (WTO doc. G/SCM/N/123/EEC) and 
related to subsidies granted during the period 2003 and 2004.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 169 
 
 
 As Commission Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 of  6 October 2004 (Official Journal L325 of 
28/10/2004 pp. 4–9) on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to "de minimis"  aid in 
the agriculture and fisheries sectors applied from 1 Ja nuary 2005 onwards, these subsidies, if any, will 
be notified in the next "new and full" notification of the EC.  
As regards the second question, please refer to Article 4 "Cumulation and monitoring" of the 
aforementioned Commission Regulation.  The text of the Regulation and further information of EC state aid legislation relevant to the fisheries 
sector is available at the following website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/legislation/state_aid_en.htm
 
 
Párrafo 17, página 106  Question 54 
¿Podrían explicar los motivos en qu e se sustenta el régimen especial  en materia de etiquetado y 
trazabilidad de OGMs?  Answer 
GMOs and food products derived from GMOs placed on the market must comply with EC labelling 
and traceability requirements. These requirements ar e mainly found in Regulation (EC) 1830/2003 
concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically  modified organisms and the traceability of food 
and feed products produced from genetically modifi ed organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC 
and in Regulation 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed.   Labelling of GMOs is not related to health risk s. It aims at giving consumers a free choice over 
whether or not to buy GMO derived products. Recentl y conducted surveys have confirmed that there is 
strong demand by EC citizens for this informati on to be provided. However, the authorisation 
procedure for GMOs provides for mandatory post-ma rket monitoring of GMOs. Traceability allows an 
efficient removal from the market of products that  may be found during this monitoring to have 
adverse, traceability requirements provide the means to facilitate: control and verification of labelling 
claims and targeted monitoring of potential effects on health and the environment, where appropriate. 
Traceability is a general concept of EC food safety, and not confined to GMOs. 
 
Question 55 Asimismo, en relación con este tema, la Argentina ve con preocupación la ausencia de mención alguna 
en el documento sobre la falta de cumplimiento por  parte de ciertos Estados  Miembros del fallo del 
Grupo Especial del OSD de la OMC en la materi a, habiéndose incluso registrado manifestaciones por 
parte de algunos de ellos en cuanto a su eventual recurso a diversos canales para mantener 
restricciones contrarias a las recomendaciones del OSD.  Al respecto, se estima pertinente que las CE 
expliciten las medidas que han adoptado, en el marco  de la normativa OMC, para lograr el pleno 
acatamiento por parte de todos sus Esta dos Miembros del fallo antes mencionado. 
 
Answer As indicated before the WTO Dispute Settlement Bo dy following the adoption of the panel report on 
EC-GMOs, the EC intends to fully implement th e panel recommendations. The EC has requested a 
reasonable period of time to do so.  
 
Párrafos 19 y 20 y datos contenidos en el Cuadro IV. 5 Gastos en garantía, por producto, 2004-2005, 
páginas 108/109  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 170  
 
 Question 56 
¿Podrían las CE brindar detalles sobre el gasto tipificado como de “Ayuda a la Producción” para el 
Aceite de Oliva que, según aparece en el Cuadro menc ionado, el monto de la misma alcanzó en 2006 
los 2.236,0 millones de Eus?  
Answer After the CAP reform domestic support to the oliv e sector will move to the green and blue box. 
 
Párrafo 22, página 111  
 
Question 57 ¿Podría las CE informar o brindar un promedio de utilización de los 91 contingentes arancelarios 
para productos agrícolas que dice tener más actualizado que el de 2002 y los motivos –si los hubiere– 
de la falta de llenado total de los mismos cuando est a situación ocurra?. Si esta nueva tasa media de 
utilización de los contingentes fuese inferior al 62% del 2002, ¿podría explicar los motivos? y, en el 
caso de que fuese superior, qué medidas que hay a tomado las CE considera relevantes para dicho 
cambio positivo?  Answer 
In 2002 there has been a low fill rate for a range of  commodities. This low fill rate was mainly the 
consequence of sufficient supply at competitive prices on the internal market. For one of the 
commodities (wheat), the out-of-quota import duty rate being zero for the period, there was no need to 
use the tariff quota. 
 
Question 58 ¿Podrían las CE indicar los fundamentos legales por los cuales consideran que las reformas a los 
sistemas de gestión de contingentes arancelario s establecidas en el Reglamento 1301/2006 no 
afectarán las concesiones otorgadas a terceros países en la OMC, particularmente los contingentes 
arancelarios que son administrados por los países ex portadores (por ejemplo, carne bovina de alta 
calidad o músculos delgados del diafragma)?  Answer 
Regulation 1301/2006 does not change the provisions regarding the authentification certificates 
delivered by the Argentinean authorities under the high quality beef tariff quotas. 
 
Question 59 ¿Podrían las CE explicar qué medidas han tomado  o piensan implementar para evitar que exista un 
mercado secundario de licencias de importac ión en las cuotas de ajos frescos? 
 Answer 
The Commission is currently lookin g into this issue and intends to take appropriate measures. 
 
IV. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES POR SECTORES 
5) Sector Manufacturero 
ii. Sectores Industriales Específicos b) Productos Químicos 
 
Párrafo 71, página 134 
 
En cuanto al sistema REACH, la Argentina desea m anifestar su preocupación respecto de su futura 
implementación, no sólo en razón del evidente encarecimiento que el mismo implicará para la 
industria, sino su eventual consistencia con los compromisos asumidos en el orden multilateral, 
debiendo evitarse que el futuro régimen pudiera cons tituirse en una barrera técnica para el comercio  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 171 
 
 
 en contraposición a las normas (TB). En este senti do, el régimen recientemente aprobado ha desatado 
controversias aún en el ámbito de las CE, las c uales no parecen a la fecha haber sido debidamente 
superadas. La Argentina, en tanto país en desarro llo, no observa hasta el momento un esfuerzo de las 
CE por explicitar y aclarar los diferentes aspectos del régimen en cuestión acorde con su complejidad 
y envergadura, por lo que se apreciaría poder evaluar  con mayor detalle la compatibilidad de este 
complejo instrumento con las normas multilaterales, así como prevea las CE la asistencia necesaria 
para su instrumentación por los países en desarr ollo potencialmente afectados, tales como la 
Argentina.  Frente a esta nueva situación, la Argentina desea conocer:  
 
Question 60 ¿Si se ha evaluado el impacto negativo que REACH tendrá en las exportaciones de los países en 
desarrollo?  ¿Si se ha evaluado si la implementación de REACH impondrá costos excesivos que pudieran resultar 
en distorsiones no sólo en el sector químico, sino en distintos sectores industriales relacionados con la 
industria química en los países en desarrollo?  ¿Si se prevé respetar el principio de proporcionalid ad, buscando los menores costos comerciales en la 
aplicación de las medidas, en especial para los país es en desarrollo y asegurar que su aplicación no 
genere ninguna disrupción del mercado?  
Answer The EC recently notified REACH Regulati on No 1907/2006 under the WTO/TBT Agreement 
(G/TBT/N/EEC/52/Add.3). The Regulation will enter into force on 1 June 2007.   Regarding Argentina and other Members' concerns about REACH as inter alia  raised in document 
G/TBT/GEN/46, the EC provided a comprehensiv e reply in Appendix 1 and 2 of the REACH 
notification document. In addition, REACH expe rts will be present at the next TBT Committee 
meeting on 21-22 March to present the adopted REACH Regulation. 
 
4) Energía Párrafos 50 y 51, página 124 
 
Question 61 
¿Podrían confirmar las CE si todos lo s Estados miembros aplican restricciones cuantitativas a las 
importaciones de biodiesel?  Answer 
The EC would like to note that there are no import re strictions applied and that biodiesel is not tracked 
separately for customs purposes.  
 
Question 62 ¿Podrían informar las CE si los Estados miembr os aplican el mismo tr atamiento impositivo al 
biodiesel importado y al producto nacional o europeo? 
 Answer 
The level of taxation differs from one Member States to another, in a similar way as the level of 
taxation on diesel differs from one country to another.  
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 172  
 
 ANNEX I.  
Accession of BULGARIA and ROMANIA VETERINARY and PHYTOSANITARY issues  Technical adaptations 
 
L363/352 20/12/2006 Council Directive 2006/ 104/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting 
certain Directives in the field of agriculture (vet erinary and phytosanitary legislation), by reason 
of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania 
 
L363/1  20/12/2006 Council Regulation (EC)  No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006 
adapting certain Regulations and Decisions in th e fields of free movement of goods, freedom of 
movement of persons, company law, competition policy, agriculture (including veterinary and 
phytosanitary legislation), transport policy, taxa tion, statistics, energy, environment, cooperation 
in the fields of justice and home affairs, cust oms union, external relations, common foreign and 
security policy and institutions, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania 
 L362/97 20/12/2006 Commission Directive 2006/83/EC of 23 October 2006 adapting 
Directive 2002/4/EC on the registration of estab lishments keeping laying hens, covered by 
Council Directive 1999/74/EC, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania 
 
L362/1  20/12/2006 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1792/2006 of 23 October 2006 
adapting certain regulations and decisions in th e fields of free moveme nt of goods, freedom of 
movement of persons, competition policy, agricultu re (veterinary and phytosanitary legislation), 
fisheries, transport policy, taxation, statistics, social policy and employment, environment, customs union, and external relations by reas on of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania 
 
Integration in the EU systems 
 
ADNS L354/48 14/12/2006 Commission Decision 2006/924/EC of 13 December 2006 amending 
Decision 2005/176/EC laying down the codified fo rm and the codes for the notification of 
animal diseases pursuant to Council Directive 82/894/EEC 
 TRACES L7/23  12/01/2007 Commission Decision 2007/13/EC of 22 December 2006 adapting Decision 
2002/459/EC as regards the additions to be made to the list of units in the Traces computer 
network as a result of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania 
 BIPs L354/52 14/12/2006 Commission Decision 2006/926/EC of 13 December 2006 amending 
Decision 2001/881/EC as regards the list of border inspection posts in view of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania 
 
Approbation of plans 
 
Foot and Mouth Disease L7/36  12/01/2007 Commission Decision 2007/18/EC of 22 December 2006 approving 
contingency plans for the control of foot -and-mouth disease pursuant to Council Directive 
2003/85/EC 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 173 
 
 
 Classical Swine Fever 
L7/38  12/01/2007 Commission Decision 2007/19/EC of 22 December 2006 approving 
contingency plans for the control of classical  swine fever pursuant to Council Directive 
2001/89/EC 
 
Avian Influenza – Newcastle Disease 
L8/26  13/01/2007 Commission Decision 2007/24/EC of 22 December 2006 approving 
contingency plans for the control of avian influenza and Newcastle disease 
 Establishments – Poultry and Hatching Eggs 
L7/33  12/01/2007 Commission Decision 2007/17/EC  of 22 December 2006 approving plans for 
the approval of establishments for the purposes of  intra-Community trade in poultry and hatching 
eggs pursuant to Council Directive 90/539/EEC 
 Residues 
L7/30  12/01/2007 Commission Decision 2007/15/EC of 22 December 2006 approving 
monitoring plans for the detection of residues or  substances in live animals and animal products 
pursuant to Council Directive 96/23/EC as submitted by Bulgaria and Romania 
 
Finances 
 L337/57 05/12/2006 Commission Decision 2006/876/EC of 30 November 2006 approving 
programmes for the eradication and monitoring of  animal diseases, of certain TSEs, and for the 
prevention of zoonoses presented by Bulgaria a nd Romania for the year 2007 and amending 
Decision 2006/687/EC 
 Transitional measures 
 
semen, ova and embryos obtained before 01/01/2007 L7/31  12/01/2007 Commission Decision 2007/16/EC of 22 December 2006 laying down 
transitional measures for intra-Community trade in semen, ova and embryos of the bovine, porcine, ovine, caprine and equine speci es obtained in Bulgaria and Romania 
 
Products of animal origin  obtained before 01/01/2007 
L8/59  13/01/2007 Commission Decision 2007/30/EC of 22 December 2006 laying down 
transitional measures for the marketing of certain pr oducts of animal origin obtained in Bulgaria 
and Romania 
 
Products of animal origin introduced before 01/01/2007 L8/57  13/01/2007 Commission Decision 2007/29/EC of 22 December 2006 laying down 
transitional measures for certain products of an imal origin covered by Regulation (EC) No 
853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council introduced into Bulgaria and Romania from third countries before 1 January 2007 
 
Plant protection Products L38/96  23/12/2006 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1980/2006 of 20 December 2006 
laying down transitional measures amending Regulation (EC) Νο 2076/2002 and Decisions 
2001/245/EC, 2002/928/EC and 2006/797/EC as rega rds the continued use of certain active 
substances not included in Annex I to Dir ective 91/414/EEC by reason of the accession of 
Bulgaria 
L384/79 29/12/2006 Commission Regulation (EC) No 2024/2006 of 22 December 2006 
laying down transitional measures derogati ng from Regulation (EC) No 2076/2002 and 
Decisions 98/270/EC, 2002/928/EC, 2003/308/ EC, 2004/129/EC, 2004/141/EC, 2004/247/EC, WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 174  
 
 2004/248/EC, 2005/303/EC and 2005/864/EC as regards the continued use of plant protection 
products containing certain active substances not included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC 
by reason of the accession of Romania 
 
Classical Swine Fever 
 
Bulgaria  Plans L325/35 24/11/2006 Commission Decision 2006/800/EC of 23 November 2006 approving 
the plans for the eradication of classical swine fever in feral pigs and the emergency vaccination 
of those pigs against that disease in Bulgaria  
 Protective measures L329/67 25/11/2006 Commission Decision 2006/ 805/EC of 24 November 2006 concerning 
animal health control measures relating to classical  swine fever in certain Member States 
 Romania  Plans L329/34 25/11/2006 Commission Decision 2006/802/EC of 23 November 2006 approving 
the plans for the eradication of classical swine fever in feral pigs and the emergency vaccination 
of those pigs and of pigs in holdi ngs against that disease in Romania  
 Protective measures L314/48 15/11/2006 Commission Decision 2006/ 779/EC of 14 November 2006 concerning 
transitional animal health control measures relating to classical swine fever in Romania 
 L32/167 06/02/2007 Commission Decision 2007/69/EC of 18 December 2006 authorising 
Romania to postpone the application of certain provisions of Council Directive 2002/53/EC with 
regard to the marketing of seed of certa in varieties of agricultural plant species 
 Establishments and quality of raw milk 
 
Bulgaria Raw Milk L8/35  13/01/2007 Commission Decision 2007/26/EC of 22 December 2006 amending the 
Appendix to Annex VI to the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania as regards certain milk 
processing establishments in Bulgaria 
Establishments L8/61  13/01/2007 Commission Decision 2007/31/EC of 22 December 2006 laying down 
transitional measures as regards the dispatch of certain products of the meat and milk sectors covered by Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council from 
Bulgaria to other Member States 
 Romania Raw Milk L8/45  13/01/2007 Commission Decision 2007/27/EC of 22 December 2006 adopting certain 
transitional measures concerning deliveries of raw milk to processing establishments and the 
processing of this raw milk in Romania with rega rd to the requirements of Regulation (EC) Nos 
852/2004 and 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of Council 
Establishments  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 175 
 
 
 L8/9   13/01/2007 Commission Decision 2007/23/EC of 22 December 2006 amending 
Appendix B of Annex VII to the 2005 Act of Access ion as regards certain establishments in the 
meat, milk and fish sectors in Romania. 
 
REPLIES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM ARGENTINA  
 
EXAMEN DE LA POLÍTICA COMERCIAL (TPR) DE LAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEAS 
Preguntas de Argentina - (Adicionales)  WT/TPR/S/177, INFORME DE LA SECRETARIA 
 
I. OBSERVACIONES RECAPITULATIVAS  4) Políticas Sectoriales Párrafo 17, página xii  
Question 1 ¿Podrían las CE indicar cuál es el tipo de ayuda estatal destinada al sector manufacturero? ¿Podrían 
explicar en qué consiste la nueva política industr ial destinada a promover la competitividad del sector? 
 
Answer 
The Commission’s industrial policy is a clear commitment to the competitiveness of European 
industry. The need to ensure a solid industrial fa bric has been acknowledged in the renewed Lisbon 
agenda and industrial policy is an important pillar in the new Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs.    
 Industrial policy is – and should remain - horizont al, meaning that it aims to create a better 
environment for all businesses, regardless of size or sector.  At the same time, we must also be able to 
respond to sector-specific conditions and needs. Th is does not mean helping and sheltering some 
sectors from international competition but identify at sectoral level what may hamper their productivity growth.   In the Communication of 2005, the European Co mmission has proposed a number of specific 
initiatives for individual sectors and horizontal cro ss-sectoral initiatives. Seven cross-sectoral 
initiatives have been proposed. Some issues are co mmon to many sectors and they are addressed on a 
cross-sectoral base. For example, the Europ ean Commission has created a High Level Group on 
energy, environment and competitiveness. The gr oup addresses issues where competitiveness, energy 
and environmental policies meet. At the same time, number of specific policy initiatives for individual 
sectors have been suggested. 
The precise issues of these initiativ es differ according to specific sector al needs. What is common to 
them however is that the European Commission consu lts the main stakeholders, the industry, the trade 
unions, the member states and the European Parliame nt, to efficiently address the major issues for the 
respective sectors. These initia tives are tackling key industry issues such as the regulatory 
environment, market access or the enfo rcement of intellectual property rights. 
 
The European Commission has worked on the impl ementation of these initiatives. All of these actions 
should lead to recommendations, if needed. As many stakeholders are involved, these recommendations will have positive impacts on industr ial sectors. This year, the Commission intends 
to launch a mid term review. This wi ll help us have an assessment of our actions launched last year. 
New initiatives will be also announced.   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 176  
 
 VI. II: REGÍMENES DE COMERCIO E INVERSIÓN 
5) Acuerdos Comerciales ii) OMC Párrafo 34, página 30  
Question 2 ¿Podrían las CE explicar el motivo por el cual se hallaban pendientes las notificaciones mencionadas 
en este párrafo? ¿Ya han sido realizadas? ¿Podrían describir el contenido de las mismas?  
Answer 
The EC is aware that a number of its notifications are still outstanding; these concern several areas, 
including agriculture. These notifica tions are currently under prepara tion and will be submitted to the 
WTO in the coming period.  
 
VII. III: POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS 
 
2) Medidas que afectan directamente a las importaciones  i) Procedimientos aduaneros y valoración en aduana Párrafo 7, página 5  Question 3 
¿Podrían las CE indicarnos en qué tiempo estimado en trarán en vigencia las modificaciones aduaneras 
allí descriptas?  
Answer 
Discussions on the Electronic Customs proposal are well advanced and adoption could be foreseen during 2007. Concerning the Modernized Community  Customs Code (MCCC), it is foreseen that it 
will be adopted in 2008. These dates will depend on  the time taken by the co-decision procedure. 
 
VIII.  PÁRRAFO 9, PÁGINA 51 
A.  
Question 4 
¿Podrían las CE informar qué tipo de medidas tiene n previstas para solucionar el problema de la 
velocidad y extensión de las redes aduaneras de TI interconectadas? 
 
Answer 
The electronic systems for the ex change of information between Member States and the Commission 
are being progressively introduced. A fully functiona l system is in place for transit (NCTS - New 
Computerised Transit System). The first phase of the Export Control System, enabling the electronic exchange of export/exit information between custom s offices of export and customs offices of exit, 
went live in January 2007. Full operation of export and import control systems, which will provide for 
the handling of exit/entry summary decl arations, is planned for July 2009. 
 
ii) Arancel NMF común 
IX. PÁRRAFO 11, PÁGINA 52 
A.  
Question 5 
¿Podrían las CE informar el listado de bienes para los que los tipos arancelarios aplicados y consolidados son distintos, así como sus respectivos niveles? 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 177 
 
 
 Answer 
As provided for in the combined nomenclature when the autonomous rates of duty are lower than the 
conventional rates of duty, the autonomous duties are applicable.  
PÁRRAFO 11-15, PÁGINAS 52-56 
B.  
Question 6 
En adición a las preguntas formuladas con relación a los Párrafos citados  - además de la información 
acerca de la metodología utilizada para la conversión de  los aranceles no ad valorem en su promedio ad 
valorem- podrían las CE informar los motivos por los que el promedio de aranceles NMF aplicados 
para los capítulos 1 a 24 (productos agrícolas y de la pesca), es del 18%, superior al 16,5% informado 
en el Mecanismo de Examen de Política Comercial an terior, de octubre de 20 04 (Cuadro III.3, página 
51 del Informe de la Secretaría, WT/TPR/S/136). Se destaca que el Informe actual de la Secretaría -
WT/TPR/S/177, página 52 y 53-  señala que los productos agrícolas también tiene un promedio del 
18,6% superior al de 2004. 
 
Asimismo, específicamente con relación al párrafo 13 ¿Cuál es la justificación que sustentan las CE 
para la existencia de aranceles que alcanzan por centajes tales como el 427,9%? ¿No sería este nivel 
arancelario equivalente a una prohibición para importar? 
Podría informar acerca de los aumentos de aranceles en cada capítulo, conforme a la tabla que sigue:  
CODE AND DESCRIPTION Applied MNF tariff average 
by HS2,2004 (%) TPR OCTOBER 2004 Applied MNF tariff average by 
HS2,2006 (%)  TPR FEBRUARY 2007 
Total Average (97 Chapters from the Harmonized System)  6.5     range of tariffs were from 
0- 209.9 % 6.9      range of tariffs were from 
0- 427.9 % 
01 Live animals 20.6   range of tariffs were from 
0- 107.8 % 25.7   range of tariffs were from 
0-167.2 % 
02   Meat and edible meat offal 28.9    range of tariffs were 
from 0- 192.2 % 30.0    range of tariffs were from 
0- 427.9 % 
04   Dairy produce;  birds' eggs;  natu ral honey;  edible products of animal 
origin, not elsewhere specified or included 38.4     range of tariffs were 
from 0-209.9% 39.5    range of tariffs were from 
0- 134.4 % 
06   Live trees and other plants;  bulbs , roots and the like;  cut flowers and 
ornamental foliage 6.0 6.1 
07   Edible vegetables and cer tain roots and tubers 13.2 14.2 
10 Cereals 39.6 range of tariffs were from 
0- 101.1  % 55.2  range of tariffs were from 
0-116.6% 
11 Products of the milling industry;  malt;  st arches;  insulin;  wheat gluten 22.2 25.0 
13   Lac;  gums, resins and other vegetable saps and extracts 2.2 2.7 
15   Animal or vegetable fats and oils  and their cleavage products;  prepared 
edible fats;  animal or vegetable waxes 8.9 9.2 
17 Sugars and sugar confectionery 23. 6 range of tariffs were from 
2.1- 114.4  % 27.3  range of tariffs were from 
0.1-163.8% 
18   Cocoa and cocoa preparations 17.9 18.7 
19 Preparations of cereals, flour, starch or milk;  pastry cooks' products 20.3 21.8 
20 Preparations of vegetables, fruit, nuts or other pa rts of plants 20.9  range of tariffs were from 
0- 146.9% 23.4  range of tariffs were from 
0- 300.8% 
21 Miscellaneous edible preparations 9.6 11.4 
22 Beverages, spirits and vinegar 5.7       range of tariffs were 
from 0-58.6% 6.5    range of tariffs were from 
0-105.9% 
23   Residues and waste from the food industries;  prepar ed animal fodder 7.0       range of tariffs were 
from 0-76% 14.1  range of tariffs were from 
0-122%  
24 Tobacco and manufactured t obacco substitutes 18.3 19.7 
Source: WTO WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 178  
 
 Answer 
The EC adressed this issue on several occasion during the Trade Policy Review on 26-28 
February 2007. The discrepancy between the tari ffs is due to simple calculations of AVE's, 
which decreases when import prices are hi gh and increases when prices are low.  
 
Aranceles No ad valorem  
 Question 7 Podría informar la metodología con la que los aranceles no ad valorem han sido convertidos a su EAV 
para calcular un promedio ad valorem?  
 
Answer 
The calculations in the above mentioned table has b een made by the WTO Secretariat. The EC has not 
endorsed those figures and hence should only be considered as indicative. 
(a)  
BENEFICIARIOS DE SUBVENCIONES AGRÍCOLAS 
 
Question 8 
a) Podría indicar qué Estados miembros de las CE han dado a conocer la nómina de personas físicas 
y jurídicas que reciben subvenciones agrícolas?  
b) Podría indicar las razones por las que ci ertos Estados miembros se han negado a dar esta 
información  Answer 
The Member States providing information on beneficiaries of CAP payments under shared management can be found on this website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/funding/index_en.htm
  
There is no obligation for Member States to provide such information. 
 
REPLIES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM ARGENTINA ON THE SECOND DAY OF 
THE MEETING  
 ix) Obstáculos Técnicos al Comercio (OTC) 
Párrafo 53, página 72  
 Question 1 
¿Podrían las CE especificar qué tipo de modifi caciones se están introduc iendo a los acuerdos de 
reconocimiento mutuo ya existentes? Answer  
The reply to this question was provided or ally on day 2 of the EC TPR meeting. 
 
x) Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias (MSF) Párrafo 54, página 73  
 
Question 2 
¿Podrían las CE especificar los lineamientos general es de la Política Comunitaria de Sanidad Animal 
prevista para 2007?  
Answer 
The existing EC animal health policy will soon undergo an external evaluation. Animal health policy at 
the EC level plays a key role in facilitating the tr ade in animals and animal products, ensuring food 
safety, preventing the transmission of animal disea ses to humans and providing financial support for  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 179 
 
 
 the control and eradication of many serious diseases.  At the following website all relevant information 
can be found: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/animal/diseases/strategy/index_en.htm
  
 
3) Medidas que afectan directamente a las exportaciones 
iv) Subvenciones a la exportación 
Párrafo 78, página 82   Question 3 
¿Podrían especificar las CE las reformas del mercado referidas en este párrafo? ¿Podrían indicar cuáles serían los productos que -como resultado de tales reformas-  tendrían derecho a esas subvenciones? 
 
Answer 
The reply to this question was provided or ally on day 2 of the EC TPR meeting. 
 
4) Medidas que afectan a la Producción y el Comercio 
ii) Política de competencia y cuestiones normativas Párrafo 85, página 83   Question 4 
¿Podrían aclarar las CE en qué consisten los esfuerzos y/o las medidas y acciones que se están realizando para hacer cumplir las disposici ones sobre fusiones que tienen consecuencias 
transfronterizas?  
 
Answer 
While companies combining forces (referred to below as mergers) can expand markets and bring benefits to the economy, some combinations ma y reduce competition. Combining the activities of 
different companies may allow the co mpanies, for example, to develop new products more efficiently 
or to reduce production or distribution costs. Thr ough their increased efficien cy, the market becomes 
more competitive and consumers benefit fro m higher-quality goods at fairer prices. 
However, some mergers may reduce competition in a market, usually by creating or strengthening a 
dominant player. This is likely to harm consumer s through higher prices, reduced choice or less 
innovation. Increased competition within the Europe an single market and globalisation are among the 
factors which make it attractive for companies to join  forces. Such reorganisations are welcome to the 
extent that they do not impede competition and hence are capable of increasing the competitiveness of 
European industry, improving the conditions of growth  and raising the standard of living in the EC. 
The objective of examining proposed mergers is to  prevent harmful effects on competition. Mergers 
going beyond the national borders of any one Member  State are examined at European level. This 
allows companies trading in different EC Member States to obtain clearance for their mergers in one 
go. 
If the annual turnover of the combined businesses exceed s specified thresholds in terms of global and 
European sales, the proposed merger must be no tified to the European Commission, which must 
examine it. Below these thresholds, the national co mpetition authorities in the EC Member States may 
review the merger. These rules apply to all me rgers no matter where in the world the merging 
companies have their registered office, headquart ers, activities or production facilities. This is so 
because even mergers between compan ies based outside the EC may aff ect markets in the EC if the 
companies do business in the EC. The European Commission may also examine mergers which are 
referred to it from the national competition authorities of the EC Member States. This may take place 
on the basis of a request by the merging companies or based on a request by the national competition 
authority of an EC Member State. Under certain circumstances, the European Commission may also 
refer a case to the national competition authority of an EC Member State. All proposed mergers notified to the Commission ar e examined to see if they would significantly 
impede effective competition in the EC. If they do no t, they are approved unconditionally. If they do, WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 180  
 
 and no commitments aimed at removi ng the impediment are proposed by the merging firms, they must 
be prohibited to protect businesses and consumers from higher prices or a more limited choice of goods 
or services. Proposed mergers may be prohibited, for example, if the merging parties are major 
competitors or if the merger would otherwise signifi cantly weaken effective competition in the market, 
in particular by creating or strengthening a do minant player. However, not all mergers which 
significantly impede competition are prohibited. 
Even if the European Commission finds that a propo sed merger could distort competition, the parties 
may commit to taking action to try to correct this lik ely effect. They may commit, for example, to sell 
part of the combined business or to license tec hnology to another market player. If the European 
Commission is satisfied that the commitments woul d maintain or restore competition in the market, 
thereby protecting consumer interests, it gives conditi onal clearance for the merger to go ahead. It then 
monitors whether the merging companies fulfil thei r commitments and may intervene if they do not. 
 
Question 5 
¿Podrían las CE aclarar bajo qué condiciones son otor gadas las ayudas previstas en las directrices para 
el periodo2007-2013? ¿Qué requis itos deben cumplir las empresas/i nversores  para acceder a las 
mismas? ¿Se estableció un tope máximo en cu anto al otorgamiento de dichas ayudas? 
 
Answer 
Assuming that the question refers to the Guidelin es on national regional aid for 2007-2013, they have 
been published in the Official Journal C 54, 04.03.2006, pages 13-45. Their text can also be found at:  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex UriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52006XC0304(02):EN:NOT
 
 The Guidelines set out the rules for allowing state aid which promotes the development of poorer 
regions, covering aid such as direct investment  grants and tax reductions for companies. The 
Guidelines specify rules for the selection of regions wh ich are eligible for regional aid, and define the 
maximum permitted levels of this ai d (see in particular paragraphs 44 to 49 and 67 of the guidelines for 
maximum aid ceilings). They also define criteria with which an investment must comply in order to be 
eligible for regional aid, like form of aid, eligible  expenses, conditions for maintaining jobs created in 
the region for a determined period, etc.  In order to verify which region in a given Member  State qualifies for regional aid, please refer to the 
regional aid maps, which can be found at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/stat e_aid/regional_aid/regional_aid.html
 
However, it is the Member States who devise stat e aid programmes on the basis of which individual 
companies may be granted aid, or grant ad hoc aid to companies. Such programmes or plans to grant 
individual aids need to be notified to the European  Commission which, applying the criteria stipulated 
in the regional aid guidelines, assesses their compatib ility with the EC law. Only after the Commission 
adopts a decision authorising regional aid can the aid to an individual company be paid out.  
IV. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES POR SECTORES 
3) Pesca ii) Política Pesquera Común (PPC) 
Párrafo 43, página 121 
 Question 6 ¿Podrían las CE informar espec íficamente los productos abarcados por los nuevos contingentes 
arancelarios,  así como los volúmenes involucrados en dichos contingentes? 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 181 
 
 
 Answer 
The Commission is finalising a proposal for a C ouncil Regulation for a successor regime (period 2006-
2009) for the previous set of autonomous tariff quotas, which were opened for 2004-2006. Upon 
adoption of this proposal, the Commission will subm it it formally  to the Council, and make it 
available to the general public.  
 Párrafo 47, página 123  Question 7 ¿Podrían las CE explicar cuáles son los instrumentos  utilizados o a utilizar por el FEP para lograr la 
consolidación de la competitividad y la vi abilidad de los operadores  del subsector? 
 Answer 
Steps to strengthen “competitiveness and viability” eligible for assistance under the EFF may include 
financial assistance to competitiveness of the fish eries sector, including the improvement of its 
structure, organisation and its working environment. 
 For further details please refer to Council Regul ation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the 
European Fisheries Fund. Official Journal of the European Union, L223 of 15/08/2006, pp. 1 – 44.  The above Council Regulation and fu rther information on the EFF is av ailable at the website of the 
European Union www.europa.eu
. 
 
5) Sector Manufacturero i) Visión General Párrafo 57, página 128  
 
Question 8 ¿Podrían las CE enumerar las medidas adoptadas en el marco de la nueva política industrial? ¿Está dicha política en conformidad con los pr incipios y normativas de la OMC? 
 Answer 
The reply to this question was provided or ally on day 2 of the EC TPR meeting. 
 
Párrafo 58, página 128  Question 9 
¿Podrían las CE explicar más específicamente en qué consistirían las siete iniciativas de la nueva 
política industrial?  
Answer 
The reply to this question was provided or ally on day 2 of the EC TPR meeting. 
 
Párrafo 59, página 128  
 Question 10 
¿Podrían las CE aclarar de forma más específica cómo buscan lograr los objetivos allí propuestos? 
¿Cómo piensan promover el espíritu empresarial y las capacidades;  mejorar el acceso de las PYME a 
los mercados;  reducir el papeleo, por ejemplo, el relacionado con las ayudas estatales y la 
participación de las PYME en los programas comunitarios? Asimismo, se propone mejorar el potencial 
de crecimiento de las PYME, por ejemplo potenciando su capacidad de innovación e investigación y aumentando el apoyo financiero que se les ofrece; ¿ qué medidas serían utilizadas en pos de potenciar la WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 182  
 
 capacidad de innovación e investigación? ¿bajo qué condiciones se otorgaría un mayor apoyo 
financiero?  
Answer 
The basis for the EC policy in favour of SME is  the Communication on “Modern SME Policy” adopted 
in November 2005. The Communication translates the Lisbon strategic objectives into concrete action 
lines for supporting SMEs and provides a coherent fra mework for various policy instruments aiming at 
making the 'Think Small First' principle effective ac ross all EU policies. The five areas for actions 
identified by the Communication include promo ting entrepreneurship, improving SMEs’ access to 
markets, cutting red tape, improving SMEs’s growth  potential and strengthening dialogue with SME 
stakeholder.  
As a follow-up of this Communication, a numbe r of initiatives have been taken to promote 
entrepreneurship. First of all, the Communicati on on “Fostering entrepreneurial mindsets through 
education and learning” outlined a series of recommenda tions in order to enhance the role of education 
in creating a more entrepreneurial culture in  Europe. In this framework, a Conference on 
Entrepreneurship Education was organised in Oc tober and specific initiatives such as a study on 
teaching entrepreneurship in higher education or on promoting entrepreneurship in the audio-visual 
media have been launched. Always for encouragi ng entrepreneurship, a Communication on stigma of 
business failure is planned. On the basis of th e results of previous and ongoing work, the 
Communication will present a number of recommendations  on actions to reduce the stigma of business 
failure and to promote fresh start. 
Regarding the reduction of red tape, the Commission  adopted at the end of 2006 a Better Regulation 
package including a strategic review of Better Regul ation in the EU, a document on simplification and 
a document on the reduction of administrative burde ns. The package proposes, among others, a broad 
strategy to reduce by 25% the administra tive burdens imposed on European businesses.  
The participation of SMEs in Community programm es is also encouraged and specific provisions are 
taken in this sense: budget allocation (over 6 billion € of the 7
th Framework programme for research – 
FP7 - are earmarked for SMEs), contact points for SMEs, SMEs are the main beneficiaries of the 
Competitiveness and Innovation framework programme – CIP- while the stimulation of innovation in 
SMEs and entrepreneurship are among the priorities of the structural funds. Moreover, the EC initiatives to improving the SMEs’ gr owth potential include an action plan to foster 
innovation accompanied by different initiatives such as the support to clusters development or to 
sectoral networks, the support to the technology tr ansfer and the increase of financial support.  
An important role will be played in this sense by th e CIP which will provide support for investment in 
innovation activities, for improving access to finance,  for promoting eco-innovation and funding EU 
services in support of business and innovation. In pa rticular, the CIP Financial Instruments (SME 
Guarantee Facility, High Growth and Innovative Company Facility (GIF) and Capacity Building 
Scheme) will provide equity as well as loans to SM Es (the allocated budget is nearly a third of the 
entire CIP budget, e.g. 1.129 million €). 
 
Párrafo 60, página 129    Question 11 
¿Podrían las CE informar respecto del funciona miento de los programas que allí se mencionan? 
¿Cuáles son los requisitos exigidos para acceder  a dichas subvenciones? Una vez concedida la 
subvención, ¿se exige el cumplimien to de metas de tipo cuantitativas? 
 
Answer 
The reply to this question was provided or ally on day 2 of the EC TPR meeting. 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 183 
 
 
 Párrafo 61, página 129 
 Question 12 
¿Podrían las CE especificar cuáles son las industr ias que reciben subvenciones para las exportaciones 
de los productos manufacturados menc ionados? Teniendo en cuenta que se refiere a un subsidio para la 
exportación y que involucra a productos manufactura dos, ¿tienen planeado la eliminación de dichos 
subsidios? En caso que así no sea, ¿cuál sería el motivo?  
Answer 
The EC does not grant export subsidies to any manufactured products.  
 
ii) Sectores industriales específicos.  c) Productos químicos Párrafo 71, página 134  
Question 13 En adición a las preguntas ya formuladas sobre el si stema REACH, el mismo establece una distinción 
entre sustancias “nuevas” y sust ancias “existentes”, las cuales no estarían sujetas a los mismos 
requisitos de ensayo. ¿Podrían las CE indicarnos cu áles son los criterios pa ra determinar cuando una 
sustancia es “nueva” y cuando es “existente”?  
Asimismo, con relación a la carga de  la prueba ¿ podrían las CE expli car por qué esta carga debe recaer 
en el solicitante?¿Cómo se determina si el ries go derivado del uso está adecuadamente controlado? 
¿Cómo se demuestra al solicitante que “las ventajas  socio económicas compensan los riesgos”?¿Qué 
criterios se utilizarán para determinar si la ve ntaja socio económica compensa los riesgos?¿Cómo es 
posible compatibilizar este punto con el objetivo del sistema de garantizar un nivel suficientemente 
elevado de protección de la salud humana y del medio ambiente? 
 Por otra parte y en cuanto al registro, ¿podría n las CE  explicarnos qué periodo o periodos de 
referencia se utilizan para determinar el regist ro obligatorio cuando la sustancia posee propiedades 
peligrosas y esté prevista la liberación de la misma fuer a del artículo,  y la notificación obligatoria en el 
caso de las sustancias que se liberen de manera fortuita al utilizar el artículo?¿Cómo se determinará 
fehacientemente la cantidad de sustancias químicas contenidas en artículos que son comercializadas en 
cantidades superiores a una tonelada? ¿Los impo rtadores tienen la obligación de efectuar una 
declaración del contenido de estos artículos? ¿Qué autoridad ejercerá el control y la determinación de 
estas cantidades? La agencia eu ropea encargada de administrar el sistema REACH ¿elaborará 
orientaciones tendientes a ayudar a los productores e importadores para la aplicación de estas 
disposiciones? Si es así, ¿en qué conspira el apoyo? ¿Tendrá algún costo adicional al del registro de la 
sustancia?   
Question 
¿Podrían las CE brindar información específica sobre los costos que deberá afrontar el solicitante 
durante todo el proceso de registro?¿Podrían explicar  cómo funcionará el “sistema de autorización 
de los usos de las sustancias extremadamente preocupantes”, y cuál será el costo para la 
empresa?¿Podrían explicar cuáles son los requis itos  que debe cumplir el representante del 
fabricante no comunitario?   Las sustancias intermedias ¿estarán sometidas a los mismos procedimientos que las demás sustancias 
incluidas en el REACH? ¿En estos casos, los co stos del procedimiento serán los mismos para las 
empresas? ¿En cuánto se reducirían los costos  del proceso para las empresas que realicen 
presentaciones conjuntas? ¿Podrían informarnos los pl azos con los que cuenta la Comisión Europea 
para evaluar, si es que ya se ha efectuado, el inform e sobre determinados  polímeros y de qué manera WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 184  
 
 se incorporarán y se implementarán estas comunicaciones al REACH? Finalmente ¿podrían 
explicarnos cómo funcionan los foros de información sobre sustancias?  Se estima oportuno manifestar al gunas inquietudes respecto al nuevo marco normativo para productos 
químicos (REACH), el cual afectará de manera negativa las exportaciones hacia las CE. En este 
sentido, nuestras mayores preocupaciones giran en torno a cuándo entrará en vigencia este nuevo 
sistema, cuáles serán los costos que deberán af rontar las empresas solicitantes del registro, 
fundamentalmente para empresas no comunitarias de  países en desarrollo, y cuales serán las medidas 
de apoyo que se tomarán para ayudar a los prod uctores e importadores a fin de cumplir con los 
requerimientos de esta nueva legislación 
 
Answer   
A separate document with answers to all REACH-rela ted questions asked in the framework of the EC 
TPR 2007 will be made available. 
 
6) Servicios  
i) Panorama general Párrafo 77, página 136  Question 14 
En la nota al pie N° 115, se dice que en la Direc tiva se propone el reconocim iento mutuo entre Estados 
miembros de documentos que permitan a las empresas suministrar servicios;  el establecimiento de 
"ventanillas únicas" para la expedición de permis os de actividad en cada Estado miembro y la 
prohibición de exigir permisos, a menos que estén ju stificados por el interés general. ¿Podrían las CE 
explicar qué tipo de permisos están ju stificados por el “interés general”? 
 Answer 
According to Article 9 of  Directive 2006/123/EC on  Services in the Internal  Market, Member States 
cannot make access to a service activity or the exer cise thereof subject to an authorisation scheme 
unless it is necessary in order to serve one of the ov erriding reasons relating to the public interest, is 
proportionate and is non discriminatory. ‘Overriding  reasons relating to the public interest’ means 
reasons recognised as such in the case law of the European Court of Justice, including the following 
grounds: public policy; public security; public safety; public health; preserving the financial 
equilibrium of the social security system; the protection of consumers, recipients of services and workers; fairness of trade transactions; combating fraud; the protection of the environment and the urban environment; the health of animals; intelle ctual property; the conservation of the national 
historic and artistic heritage; social po licy objectives and cultural policy objectives. 
 
Recuadro IV.2:  Obstáculos al comercio de ser vicios identificados en las CE, página 137. 
 
Question 15 
¿Tienen previsto las CE  eliminar el  trato fiscal más favorable que se otorga a los servicios 
suministrados por proveedores locales, lo cual constitu ye un obstáculo al suministro de servicios?  
 
Answer 
In its case law, the European Court of Justice (ECJ ) has repeatedly established that discriminatory tax 
treatment of the kind mentioned in question 15 is incompatible with the EC Treaty. The Commission 
has taken, and continues to take, steps to give effect to that caselaw, by launching infringement 
procedures against non-compliant EC Member States and by issuing more general guidance addressed 
to all Member States.  
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 185 
 
 
 ¿Tienen previsto las CE tomar medidas para ar monizar las normas de contabilidad entre los 
miembros y remediar los inconvenientes derivados de  esto? ¿Tienen  previsto las CE implementar 
algún tipo de sistema que implique menos gasto de administración?  
 Answer 
The EC has already harmonised the accounting rules in the EC. The harmonising legislation in this 
field is the 4
th Company Law Directive on the annual accounts of certain types of companies 
(78/660/EEC) and the 7th Company Law Directive on consolidated accounts (83/349/EEC).  
 We have ongoing exercises with a view of impr oving the current legislative framework in the 
accounting area. The above mentioned Directives have  been amended several times. Last amendment 
was done be Directive 2006/46/EC, which increased ma ximum thresholds for balance sheet and net 
turnover which Member States may apply in dete rmining which companies may be exempted from 
certain disclosure requirements. It introduced  collective responsibility of members of the 
administrative, management and supervisory bodies of the company for drawing up and publishing 
annual accounts and annual reports as well as for drawing up consolidated accounts. It extended 
disclosure requirements to material transactions with  related parties such as key management members 
and spouses of board members. It introduced discl osure of off-balance-sheet arrangements such as 
transactions or agreements which companies may have  with entities, even unincorporated ones that are 
not included in the balance sheet. It also intro duced disclosure of an annual corporate governance 
statement as a specific and clearly identifiable section of the annual report. 
 
As concerns accounts of publicly traded companies gove rned by the law of a Me mber State, they are 
obliged since the 2005 financial year to prepare th eir consolidated accounts in conformity with the 
international accounting standards – IFRS.  
Coming to the second part of your question on reducti on of administrative costs, we have launched a 
simplification project, which would lead to reduction of administrative costs for SME's. Result of this simplification project will be converted into specific legislative measures, which will be adopted at the 
EC level. 
 
iv) Transporte  
a) Panorama General 
Párrafo 115, página 153  Question 16 
¿Podrían las CE informar el motivo por el que aún no se ha producido la liberalización total del 
cabotaje en todos los modos de transporte?¿Tienen  pensado las CE la apertura del mercado de 
transporte por ferrocarril?¿Existen otras restricci ones en el mercado del transporte, además de las 
mencionadas a modo de ejemplo en el informe de la Secretaría? 
 
Answer 
According to Community Directive 91/440/EEC as ame nded successively access to the market for rail 
freight transport services (including the right of cabotage) has been fully opened on 1 January 2007 for 
each railway undertaking licensed in a Member States of  the EC.  For the time being, there are no such 
open access rights yet for rail passenger services in the EC. 
 
CHILE
 
 
WT/TPR/S/177 Observaciones recapitulativas 
 
Párrafo 5 del informe de la Secretaría. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 186  
 
 Question 1 from Chile 
¿En qué fecha se estima culminarán las negociaciones para la adhesión de Turquía y Croacia? 
 
Answer 
There is no date set for the conclusion of EU accession negotiations with Croatia and Turkey. 
 
I ENTORNO ECONÓMICO 
 
Párrafo 22  del informe de la Secretaría.   Question 2 from Chile 
 
¿En qué fecha se estima que estará vigente en la Comunidad la Directiva sobre Servicios?  Qué requisitos deben cumplirse para su adopción y puesta en vigencia? 
 
Answer Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parlia ment and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on 
Services in the Internal Market h as been published in the Official Journal of the European Union L 376 
of 27.12.2006.  It will have to be implemente d by Member States by 27 December 2009.  
 
II RÉGIMEN COMERCIAL Y DE INVERSIONES 
 
Párrafo 37 del informe de la Secretaría.   
Question 3 from Chile 
¿Cuáles son los elementos adicionales que desea in corporar en los acuerdos bilaterales de nueva 
generación con sus principales interlocutores comerciales? 
 
Answer 
The EC will be aiming at FTAs which are WTO compa tible, comprehensive in scope and deep in terms 
of the levels of commitments.  Particular emphasi s will be given to effective provisions to tackle 
regulatory and non-tariff obstacles to trade. 
  
This is further detailed in the Global Europe communication: 
"In terms of content new competitiveness-driven FTA s would need to be comprehensive and ambitious 
in coverage, aiming at the highest possible degr ee of trade liberalisation including far-reaching 
liberalisation of services and investment. A new, am bitious model EU investment agreement should be 
developed in close coordination with Member States.  Where our partners have signed FTAs with other 
countries that are competitors to the EU, we s hould seek full parity at least. Quantitative import 
restrictions and all forms of duties, taxes, charges and restrictions on exports should be eliminated.  
FTAs should also tackle non tariff barriers thr ough regulatory convergence wherever possible and 
contain strong trade facilitation provisions. They  should include stronger provisions for IPR and 
competition, including for example provisions on enforcement of IP rights along the lines of the EC 
Enforcement Directive. We will seek to include pr ovisions on good governance in financial, tax and 
judicial areas where appropriate. We should also ensu re Rules of Origin in FTAs are simpler and more 
modern and reflect the realities of globalisation. We  will put in place internal mechanisms to monitor 
the implementation and the results of new FTAs. 
In considering new FTAs, we will need to work to strengthen sustainable development through our 
bilateral trade relations. This could include incor porating new co-operative provisions in areas relating 
to labour standards and environmen tal protection. We will also take  into account the development 
needs of our partners and the potential impact of any agreement on other developing countries, in  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 187 
 
 
 particular the potential effects on poor countries' preferential access to EU markets. The possible 
impact on development should be included as part of the overall impact assessment that will be 
conducted before deciding to launc h FTA negotiations. In line with our position in the WTO, we will 
encourage our FTA partners to facilitate access by le ast-developed countries to their market, if possible 
by granting duty and quota free access."  Question 4 from Chile 
 
¿Qué iniciativas en la esfera de la política come rcial considera la comunicación sobre promoción del 
trabajo decente?  Answer 
The European Commission's communication on "Promoting Decent Work for All" set out a number of 
trade policy initiatives to ensure that trade imply co ntribute to growth and the creation of employment 
but to the creation of decent employment. The Co mmission will put more of its commercial weight 
behind efforts to promote social standards and decen t work in trade negotiations in the following ways: 
 – Improving the link between the EU's Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), GSP+ and Community external assistance, to help developing countries build capacity to promote decent working 
conditions and meet commitments to the ILO's core labour standards. 
 
– Taking account of the social dimension, decen t work and the recommendations of Sustainability 
Impact Assessments in bilateral and regional trade negotiations, including the EU's Economic 
Partnership Agreements with ACP countries, and our proposed Free Trade Agreements with Korea, 
India, ASEAN, Central America and the Andean Community.   
– Making use of EU policy and instruments, such as external assistance, to promote decent work in 
developing and developed countries.  – Working with partner countries to assess the effect s of trade opening on labour market adjustment, so 
as to smooth the economic transition in the short term.  
– Promoting cooperation between the WTO, UNCTAD, the ILO and other relevant organisations. The 
EU welcomes the joint WTO-ILO study on trade an d employment published on 19 February 2007. We 
encourage WTO members to give the ILO observers hip status for more effective coordination. 
 
III. POLITICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS 
(2) (v). Normas de origen  
pág. 64, párrafo 29 del Informe de la Secretaría.   
Question 5 from Chile 
 ¿En qué plazo se pondrá en vigencia la Comunicación COM (2005)100?  
 
Answer 
The Communication COM(2005) 100 final, regarding the rules of origin in preferential trade 
arrangements has been  in force since 16/03/2005, the date of its adoption. 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 188  
 
 (2) (ix). Obstáculos técnicos al comercio. 
 
Pág. 70, párrafo 48 del Informe de la Secretaría.   
Question 6 from Chile 
¿En qué plazo estiman las CE la posibilidad de alcanzar la plena armonización de las normas y los 
reglamentos técnicos al interior de las CE?  
Answer 
Harmonised legislation allows new EC  laws to be introduced with detailed rules that apply across the 
EC and therefore replace diverging national rules. Th is principle has been applied successfully within 
the EC and has been one of the main mechanisms  used to create the in ternal market for goods. 
However, “full” harmonisation of European regulati ons is not actually a realistic goal, and there is 
therefore no specific target date for this. There are fi elds in which harmonisation is not even a desirable 
goal. Harmonised legislation is made on a case by case basis depending on the need for adopting 
European legislation, as well as taking into account th e principle of subsidiarity (Article 5 of the EC 
Treaty). In a similar way, the development of standards with in the EU will not result in “full” harmonization. 
Standardization is a voluntary process based on consensus amongst different economic actors 
(industry, SMEs, consumers, workers, public author ities, etc). It is carried out by independent 
standards bodies, acting at national and European level.  
 
Pág. 70, párrafo 48 del Informe de la Secretaría.   
Question 7 from Chile 
Entre los reglamentos armonizados se encuentra el Reglamento REACH. ¿Se ha considerado su 
impacto una vez que entre en vigor sobre la industr ias comunitarias y extranje ras? ¿Qué medidas se 
piensan tomar para disminuir el impacto negativo relacionado?   
Answer 
The EC recently notified REACH Regulati on No 1907/2006 under the WTO/TBT Agreement 
(G/TBT/N/EEC/52/Add.3). The Regulation will enter into force on 1 June 2007.  
 
Regarding Chile's and other Memb ers' concerns about REACH as inter alia  raised in document 
G/TBT/GEN/46, the EC provided a comprehensiv e reply in Appendix 1 and 2 of the REACH 
notification document. In addition, REACH expe rts will be present at the next TBT Committee 
meeting on 21-22 March to present the adopted REACH Regulation  
 Question 8 from Chile 
Pág. 70, párrafo. 49 del Informe de la Secretaría. ¿C on el nuevo enfoque adoptado, en la medida que se 
cumpla con la norma específica armonizada, el propio productor o importa dor puede poner la marca 
CE y no se requiere certificación de los “ notified bodies ” comunitarios?  
 
Answer This paragraph of the Secretariat's Report addresses th e procedures used for new approach directives. 
For certain categories of product, supplier’s decl aration of conformity may be used, and the 
intervention of a notified body is not required. This is not a new procedure as such and has formed part 
of the EC’s overall policy on the new and global a pproaches since their inception some years ago. It 
must be stressed that this procedure still obliges th e manufacturer to ensure that a product intended to 
be placed on the EC market is designed and manufactured, and its conformity assessed, to the essential requirements in accordance with the provisions of th e applicable new approach directives. For more 
information please refer to the following website:  http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newapproach/legislation/guide/index.htm
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 189 
 
 
 Question 9 from Chile 
Pág.71, párrafo 50 del Informe de la Secretaría. En los casos de reglamentos no armonizados, las CE 
aplican el principio de reconocimiento mutuo en el mercado interior, para productos que han sido 
producidos cumpliendo especificaciones técnicas o de ca lidad diferentes de las que se apliquen a los 
bienes de producción nacional.  ¿Qué tratamiento se le da a un producto que no es originario del 
mercado interior, en una situación similar? 
 
Answer 
The principle of mutual recognition in the internal market for goods within the EU applies to products 
that are lawfully marketed in one Member State. Th is means that the principle also applies to products 
manufactured in a third country and that are lawfu lly marketed in a Member  State (see Article 24 EC 
Treaty).   
(3) (ii) Impuestos a las exportaciones 
 
Question 10 from Chile ¿Podría precisar las disciplinas que desea se apliquen en relación a los impuestos a la exportación? 
 The EC does not maintain any export taxes. Mindful of the often substantial negative effects of many 
export taxes on all WTO Members’ capacity to benef it from trade and the important distortions of such 
trade policy measures to the functioning of global markets, the EC has also tabled a negotiating 
proposal on export taxes in NAMA, DDA. The proposal would imply the application of basic WTO 
disciplines on the use of export taxes, as well as reduc tion or elimination of the most trade distorting 
measures in accordance with paragraph 16 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration. 
 
Answer 
 
(4) (iii) Derechos de propiedad intelectual 
Question 11 from Chile 
 
¿En qué consistirían los puntos de re ferencia más estrictos para combatir la falsificación y proteger los 
derechos de  la propiedad intel ectual que se estarían considerando?  ¿A qué restricciones de acceso a los 
recursos que no estén basadas en razones ambientale s y de seguridad, que desea suprimir, se refieren 
las Comunidades?  
 
Answer 
The basic approach to address this problem was set out at the end of 2004, in the Strategy for the 
Enforcement of IPR in Third Countries. Since then , we have substantially increased our efforts, 
creating specific dialogues with some of the key partners, leading the debate at the World Trade Organisation (TRIPs Council), preparing more deta iled IPR chapters for our future FTAs, shifting 
technical assistance resources to enforcement, working closely with industry and establishing 
reinforced cooperation with countries sharing our concerns. 
Over the last year, the European  Commission has conducted a wide consultation with EC businesses to 
get a sense of where the problem is focussed and wher e we need to act. The results of our Enforcement 
Survey were published in October 2006. On this basis,  we established a list of priority countries and 
regions on which to focus activity and resources in  the fight against piracy and counterfeiting. 
Although we cannot afford to accept continued, syst ematic and large scale infringements of the rights 
of our industry, our emphasis when addressing the problem with third countries will be on a 
constructive and result-oriented dialog ue, cooperation and technical assistance. 
Question 12 from Chile WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 190  
 
  
¿Que elementos a la luz de los NS de la OMC llevan a la Unión Europea a afirmar que existe un uso abusivo de nombres? 
 
Answer 
It is not clear for us the meaning of NS.  
 
IV POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR SECTORES 
 
(3) Sector pesquero a su política pesquera   
 
En los puntos 41 y 44 del informe de la Secretaría se menciona la preocupación de las Comunidades 
Europeas, manifestada a través de una “nueva Políti ca Pesquera Común (PPC), por hacer frente a la 
sobreexplotación de determinadas reservas pesqueras.   Question 13 from Chile 
En ese contexto, ¿podrían precisar y explicar cu ales iniciativas están desarrollando para hacer más 
transparente el esfuerzo pesquero de la flota comunitaria que opera en alta mar? 
 
Answer 
The EC and its Member States make publicly availabl e, on an ongoing basis, considerable amounts of 
information on fishing effort by the EC's fleet operating in the high seas. 
 The EC is a Contracting Party to a number of Regional Fisheries Organisations. In almost all of the RFO's to which the EC participates, each Contractin g Party is required to forward a number of reports 
on the activities of its fleet to the RFO so th at these bodies can administer the conservation and 
management measures adopted. These reports are of  various kinds and include data on catches and 
fishing effort, lists of vessels authorised to fish, and statistical and sampling data. 
 As most of the commercial fisheries in the high seas adjacent to the Exclusive Economic Zone (200 
miles) of coastal states, are now covered by th e aforementioned Regional Fisheries Organisations, 
information of essentially all fishing effort by EC vessels in the high seas can be found in the relevant 
RFO's.  
 At EC level, the European Commission maintains a register, the "Community Fishing Fleet Register", 
commonly called "Fleet Register" which provides information on vessels operating in the high seas. 
Furthermore, the Commission issues a yearly repor t to the Council and the European Parliament on 
Member States' efforts during the previous year to achieve a sustainable balance between fishing 
capacity and fishing opportunities. These reports, and the corresponding annexes, include abundant 
information on fishing effort of EC vessels in the high seas.  Finally the European Commission publicises a number of studies and reports on the state of the EC 
fishing fleet, including fishing effort in the high seas.  
 
All the aforementioned reports and studies are available at the www.europa.eu
 website. The 
"Community Fishing Fleet Register" can also be accessed at this website.   En el punto 47 del Informe de la Secretaría se hace referencia al Instrumento Financiero de Orientación 
de la Pesca (IFOP) y al Fondo Europeo de la Pesca (FEP) a partir del 2007, como la principal forma de 
ayuda financiera para el subsector. Se indica a su vez que el FEP tiene como objeto, entre otras cosas, 
“el fomento de métodos de pesca y de producción que sean respetuosos del medio ambiente”.  
Question 14 from Chile  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 191 
 
 
 En ese sentido, ¿cuales esfuerzos se  están realizando para evitar que  dichas políticas de subsidio se 
traduzcan en una sobreexplotación de los recursos  pesqueros, en las respectivas Zonas Económicas 
Exclusivas de los Estados miembros y el Alta Mar,  provocada por la excesiva capacidad de la flota 
comunitaria?  Answer 
In pursuing the specific objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the Community has to 
ensure the long-term future of fishing activities and the sustainable exploitation of resources and thus 
to make essential structural adjustments to strike  a balance between resources and fishing capacity.  
 
With the new European Fisheries Fund (EFF), th e Community has now the means to speed up the 
elimination of surplus capacity and, as a number  one priority, to oversee stock recovery or 
management plans and other emergency measures in an economically efficient and socially equitable 
manner. More explicitly, the EFF will provide aid to fishermen and vessel owners affected by 
measures taken under multi-annual plans, designed to help threatened stocks recover, within the 
framework of national plans for the adjustment of the fleets concerned.  
 In this context of adjustment of fishing capacity , it should be stressed that, as agreed under the CFP 
reform of 2002, aid for the renewal of the fleet – which contributed to creating overcapacity – came to 
an end in December 2004. This is maintained in the new EFF.   
With regard to aid for the replacement of engines, th is has been designed in su ch a way that the overall 
fishing effort is not increased but rather decreased . Indeed bigger vessels will not receive such aid 
unless they reduce their engine power.   Similarly, support to improve the selectivity of fi shing gear and environmentally-friendly fishing 
methods will also contribute to reinforce the environment dimension of the reformed CFP. 
 Consequently, and in line with the reform of the CFP, aid from the EFF will not be used for measures 
that increase the fishing capacity of the European fl eet. On the contrary, the available money under the 
new fund will be spent in bringing capacity  in line with available fish resources. 
 
Question 15 from Chile Siempre en relación con la mencionada preoc upación medioambiental de la política pesquera 
comunitaria, nos interesaría saber si existen norm as, nacionales o europeas, cuyo objeto sea regular la 
pesca en la Alta Mar adyacente a las Zonas Económi cas Exclusivas europeas, en función del efecto que 
esta actividad pueda tener para la conservación de lo s recursos pesqueros dentro de la Zona Económica 
Exclusiva de los Estados miembros de las Comunidades Europeas.       
 
Answer 
Within the EC legal framework, measures applicab le in the high seas concern the application of 
conservation and management measures adopted by the RFO's. Such measures is a matter for the 
Member States which are required to apply them once they have been transposed into EC law in the 
same way as measures adopted for the management of internal resources.  For example, the same 
mechanisms apply to the management of quotas as to  management of quotas in EC waters (collection 
of catch data, closed season, etc.). The same app lies in the case of fishing by EC vessels on the high 
seas.  
The measures adopted by RFO's – generally on a consensual basis – are compulsory for the 
Contracting and the Cooperating Parties. Some are al so enforceable against Non-Contracting Parties in 
order to deter their vessels from endangering attainment of the objectives concerned. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 192  
 
 As part of the fight against illegal fisheries cert ain RFO's have put in place commercial measures that 
are implemented on a fair, transparent and non-discrim inatory basis. In concrete terms, they ban 
imports from States that do not comply with the RFO’s conservation measures.  
Question 16 from Chile 
¿Podría precisar los elementos que a su juicio de bieran considerarse para el establecimiento de 
disciplinas en materia de subvenciones a la pesca?  
Answer 
Please refer to the EC's substantive submissions to the WTO's Negotiating Group on Rules (fisheries 
subsidies) in which the EC has set out its views on  the elements that new fisheries subsidies should 
include and has made detailed proposals fo r the establishment of such disciplines.  
 The corresponding WTO documents are the following:  TN/RL/W/82 of 23 April 2003, TN/RL/W/178 of 11 April 2005 and TN/RL/GEN/134 of 24 April 2006. 
 
Indicaciones geográficas 
 
De acuerdo a la nueva legislaci ón, Reglamento 510/2006, se establece un sistema simplificado de 
registro para las indicaciones geográficas.   Question 17 from Chile 
¿Podría proporcionar mayores detalles sobre este pr ocedimiento? En particular, los requisitos para 
obtener el registro. 
 
Answer 
The procedure is set out in Council Regulation (E C) No 510/06 and can be consulted on the following 
website: http://ec.europa.eu/ag riculture/foodqual/quali1_en.htm
 , where the various forms may be 
downloaded. 
In brief, a group of producers in non-EC countries can make an application by defining the product 
specifications, preparing the application and sending it  to the European Commission. Applications may 
be sent directly or via national authorities. The Eu ropean Commission will examine the application and 
check that it meets the requirements, in which case, the application is published in the Official Journal 
of the European Union. This enables interested part ies in the EC and outside to lodge objections. If 
there are no objections, the European Commission registers the protected product name, by publishing 
a regulation in the Official Journal. 
 
Question 18 from Chile  
¿Existe alguna diferencia entre los requisitos y el procedimiento establecido para indicaciones geográficas extranjeras y los requisitos y el procedimiento establecido para las indicaciones 
geográficas de la Unión Europea (UE)?   
Answer 
An EC applicant cannot send applications directly  to the European Commission. They must first 
transmit the application to the Member State in wh ich they are established. The Member State then 
applies to the European Commission. Applicant groups from outside the EC may send applications 
directly to the European Commission or via their na tional authorities. The producers of third countries 
must supply proof that the proposed name is protected in the country of origin. 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 193 
 
 
 Question 19 from Chile  
En los últimos años la UE ha suscrito acuerdos comerciales bilaterales donde  reconoce listados de 
indicaciones geográficas a terceros países. ¿Son estas indicaciones geográficas incorporadas de forma automática en este registro comunitario?   Answer 
Concerning geographical indications under Council Regulation (EC) No 510/06 (agricultural products 
and foodstuffs other than wines and spirits),  the EC has not concluded any agreements. 
 
Question 20 from Chile 
¿Alguno de los acuerdos comerciales bilaterales suscr itos por la UE incorpora la extensión de la 
protección adicional con que cuentan los vinos y l as bebidas espirituosas del artículo 23 del Acuerdo 
sobre los ADPIC a todo tipo de productos? 
 
Answer 
No. 
 
Question 21 from Chile ¿Alguno de los acuerdos comerciales bilaterales suscritos por la UE incorpora el reconocimiento para 
productos específicos distintos de  vinos y bebidas espirituosas? 
 
Answer 
No.  
Estrategia para la observancia de los derechos de propiedad intelectual en terceros países 
 
Conforme a la estrategia elaborada en el año 2004 por las Comunidades Europeas, la metodología utilizada para la determinación de los países prior itarios se basa en los siguientes 3 factores: a) 
Encuesta “ on enforcement of intellectual property rights in third countries ”. Dicha encuesta es 
distribuida en embajadas de Esta dos Miembros, asociaciones de titu lares de derechos, cámaras de 
comercio, etc; b) países relevantes en términos de  actual o potencial volumen de comercio con la 
Comunidad Europea; y c) información en aduana sobre cantidad de mercaderías incautadas en las 
fronteras de la UE.  Question 22 from Chile 
¿Cuál es la ponderación que tiene cada uno de éstos fact ores para la incorporaci ón de un país en alguno 
de los 3 listados? 
 
Answer 
The EC's priority list is not a "black-list" but in dicts the countries with which the EC would like to 
strengthen its co-operation on IPR enforcement and on which countries the EC intends to focus its 
resources regarding IP enforcement. The basis for the selection of countries was the following: 
 
Category 1   
One country is clearly identified as the main prio rity for the EC. This country appears on top of 
virtually all indicators available, be it the value, the volume or the variety of infringements. Indicators 
such as customs seizu res show that alone it is responsible fo r around 2/3 of infringing goods entering 
the EC. On the other hand, it is the country where we  have established the most in-depth cooperation to 
address the problem. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 194  
 
 Category 2   
Countries with high levels of production, transit a nd/or consumption of infri nging goods, with which 
the EC has a preferential relation, including a commitment to adopt the highest standards of IPR 
enforcement, but which need to considerably step -up their efforts and tackle serious deficiencies. 
Category 3   
Countries/regions with high levels of production, transit and/or consumption of IPR infringing goods, 
with which the EC may soon enter into a deeper tr ade relation, which would include higher focus on 
IPR enforcement:  
 
Question 23 from Chile  
En lo relativo a los dos últimos factores ¿se han utilizado fuentes propias o de terceros? En caso que 
hayan utilizado fuentes externas,  ¿son estas fuentes públicas? 
 
Answer 
The European Commission has handled all work on survey on its own - involving both officials in 
Brussels as well as in EC delegations in third c ountries. All public information on the survey is 
available on the European Commission's web site. 
The methodology for the survey was as follows: A qu estionnaire was sent to EC Delegations in 23 
countries, as well as to associations of right-holders  and to companies known to be particularly 
concerned by piracy and counterfeiting. It was requ ested to the recipients (in particular to the 
associations of right-holders) to assist us in making it reach a wider audience. We received a total of 
131 replies to the questionnaire, provided by 35 different entities and covering 65 countries.  
It must be pointed out that some of the Associati ons that co-operated in the survey represent between a 
few dozens and several hundreds of individual compan ies, and that their replies were already a 
summary of the replies provided by  their respective members. The re plies sent by the EC Delegations 
are also in most cases an overview of the positions  expressed by the authorities of the countries in 
question, of domestic right-holders and of EC right-holders established in these countries. 
When assessing the results of this survey, the follo wing points must be taken in consideration: 
The main purpose of the survey is to give the Comm ission services a clear overview of the concerns of 
right-holders trading in or with third countries. Con sequently, the replies reflect the view of the parties 
and their perception of the situation; and not necessarily the strict reality;  
With the exception of the contributions provided by  the EC Delegations, and of the parties that 
supplied documentary evidence of their statements, th e information provided has not been verified by 
the Commission or submitted to the authorities of the countries to which they refer for comments.  
The entities that participated in th e survey are not identified in the text. The questionnaire indicated 
that information regarding the authors of the rep lies would remain confidential and several parties 
required such treatment in order to avoid any negative repercussions from their co-operation.  
The parties were free to choose which countries th ey wanted to cover (with the above mentioned 
exception of EU Member-States). However, in the c ase of the EC Delegations the questionnaires were 
only sent to a limited number of countries. The choice in this case had to do with two criteria: i) countries notoriously known to have problems with piracy / counterfeiting; ii) developed countries 
with a substantial number of right-holders that share the same problems as the EU (e.g. Australia, 
Canada, US and Japan). The purpose of including the latter was to provide a different perspective of a 
similar problem.   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 195 
 
 
 Question 24 from Chile  
En cuanto a las estadísticas de mercancías incautada s en las fronteras de la UE, ¿se consideran como 
mercancías piratas o falsificadas a quellos productos puestos en los canales  de comercio fuera de la UE 
por los titulares o con autorización de los titulares? Es decir, ¿se les da el mismo tratamiento a bienes 
del mercado negro y a bienes del mer cado gris (importaciones paralelas)? 
 
Answer 
According to article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) 1383/2003 counterfeit goods are goods bearing 
without authorisation a trademark identical to the tr ademark validly registered in respects of the same 
type of goods. Pirated goods are goods which are or  contain copies made without the consent of the 
holder of a copyright.  
 The statistics, as last published by the Commission on November 2006, contain the results of all cases 
in which the release of goods has been suspended or  goods have been detained by Member States 
based on the mentioned regulation. 
 
The regulation aims to deal with the illegal mark eting of goods infringing IPR, without impeding the 
freedom of legitimate trade. 
 
JAPAN
 
 
Report by the European Communities (WT/TPR/G/177) 
 
III. KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EC’S TRADE POLICY (2004-06) 
(1) Main Trade Policy Objectives  
Question 1 (paragraph 30, page 11) Japan would like to be advised of the EC’s unde rstanding on the relationship between the issue of 
climate change and “environmental goods”, the term which was used in the speech by the EC 
Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, on 18 December, 2006.  Japan would also like to be informed of the 
EC’s idea on how to define the “environmental good s” which are particularly related to climate 
change.  
Answer 
The EC and Japan have been at the forefront of e fforts to liberalise trade in environmental goods. In 
the EC's view, climate change is an important le nse through which these negotiations must be viewed. 
In its submissions to the WTO (CTESS), the EC  has stressed that greater market access for 
environmental goods and technologies can help to achieve the objectives of inter alia the World 
Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). 
Commissioner Mandelson has used recent speeches to st ress that climate change is no less a priority, 
and that freer trade in environmental goods would help to address climate security challenges. As 
regards questions of definition, the EC believes th at environmental goods are those that contribute to 
the fulfilment of national and interna tional environmental priorities, in th is particular case, in respect of 
climate change. 
 III. KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EC’S TRADE POLICY (2004-06) 
(3) Main Components of EC Trade Policy (ii) Bilateral, bi-regional and au tonomous trade policy initiatives 
 
Question 2 (paragraph 45, page 15) 
According to paragraph 45 of the EC’s Report, the EC states that it continues to pursue its bilateral, bi-
regional and other trade policy instruments and meas ures in a complementary manner to the priority WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 196  
 
 granted to the multilateral route.  In this regard, Japan would like to be advised of the outlook of the 
EC’s policy on and prospects of such bilateral, bi-regional and other trade policy instruments and 
measures, including those with Asian countries (e.g. Korea and India) and regional organizations (e.g. 
ASEAN and GCC). 
 
Answer 
In accordance with it's "Global Europe" strategy 
(http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/sector al/competitiveness/global_europe_en.htm
), the EC has decided 
to aim at a new generation of WTO-compatible FTA s that extend beyond present agreements and build 
towards future multilateral negotiations. These agreem ents will aim to achieve the highest possible 
degree of liberalisation of goods and services as well as addressing rules-based issues. In setting 
geographical priorities, economic considerations ha ve played a primary role, notwithstanding other, 
political considerations. The Council has therefore supported the launch of ne gotiations with ASEAN 
countries, India and South Korea and internal prepar ations are underway to start these negotiations in 
late Spring 2007. Negotiations with Russia and Ukra ine will also be undertak en as soon as their WTO 
accession processes have been completed. The EC will al so give special attention to finalising current 
ongoing negotiations (such as GCC or Mercosur).   
 
Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/177) 
 
II. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(4) Trade Regulations and Business Environment 
 
Question 3 (paragraph 22, page 22) 
Under the Prospectus and Transparency Directiv es, the European Commission will require, from 
January 2009, companies from third countries includ ing Japan which have made or will make public 
offerings or listing within the EU to prepare their consolidated financial statements in accordance with 
International Financial Reporting Standards (IF RSs) or other accounting standards which are 
equivalent to IFRSs.  In this respect, Japan unders tands that the European Commission will conclude a 
final decision on the equivalence of accounting stan dards (or GAAP) of third countries including Japan 
by the end of 2008.  In the process of equivalen ce assessment, the Committee of European Securities 
Regulators (CESR) assessed Japanese GAAP is considered equivalent to IFRS taken as a whole, pointing out the need for some remedies.  The outcome of the final decision by CESR is import ant, in relation to the international credibility of 
Japanese GAAP, and for the Japanese  companies currently issuing and listed in the EU Member 
countries, to ensure their continued access to the European capital market.  The European Commission 
should not require Japanese companies issuing and listed in the EC Member countries to make remedies to the financial statements.  Even if th e European Commission is to require some remedies to 
the Japanese companies, they should be limited to “narrativ e disclosure”, instead of numerical 
adjustment. Japan recognizes that the convergence of accounting standards would best be achieved 
through the market forces, and as long as each standard  is considered to be equivalent, these standards 
should be allowed to co-exist and not to  be excluded from the European markets. 
In light of the above-mentioned viewpoints, Japan  would like to be advised of the EC’s policy 
pertaining to regulations on accounting standards. 
 
Answer 
From January 2007 the Transparency Directive ('TD') requires all issuers that are traded on a regulated 
market in the EC to prepare their annual and half-y early financial statements in accordance with EU 
IFRS.  However, third country issuers are exempt  from that requirement if, for accounting purposes, 
they are subject to a national law that lays down requi rements that are deemed equivalent to EU IFRS.  
Similarly, the Regulation implementing the Prospectus Directive ('PR') requires third country issuers to  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 197 
 
 
 restate all historical financial information, used in a prospectus filed after 31st December 2006, which is 
not drawn up in accordance with EU IFRS  or an equivalent third country GAAP.  
 However, the European Commission has adopted  in December 2006 Regulation 1787/2006 and 
Commission Decision 2006/891/EC which postpone the equivalence decision for two more years and 
confers transitional exemptions for certain cate gories of third country GAAPs, including Japanese 
GAAP. In practice, this means that these requireme nts are deferred for a further two years, until 
31 December 2008, so that issuers using certain GAA Ps would be exempt from the obligation to use 
EU IFRS or to restate financial information.  Th erefore, Japanese companies listed on an EU market or 
wishing to list on an EC market will still be able to use Japanese GAAP without any additional 
requirements, until 31 December 2008. 
 Following a first assessment by CESR in 2005, whic h indicated that Japanese GAAP is equivalent to 
IFRS subject to a number of remedies, the Japanese standard setter (the ASBJ) has set up a comprehensive work programme to converge Japan ese GAAP to International Financial Reporting 
Standards (IFRS) over the next few years.  Th e Commission Services and the Japanese Financial 
Services Agency (FSA) are meeting regularly to  discuss the progress of convergence. The first 
monitoring meeting on the accounting convergence pr ocess was held in Tokyo on 27 November 2006 
and the next one is scheduled to take place in March in Tokyo. These discussions are held as part of the 
regular bilateral meetings held between the Europ ean Commission and the FSA. The conclusion of that 
meeting was that substantial progress has been made  but there are still areas to be further converged 
according to the work program. 
 The Commission plan is to develop a definition for equivalence and an equivalence mechanism. This 
should be finalised by mid 2007. Based on this CESR  will be mandated to examine a number of third 
country GAAPs regarding their progress in direction of equivalence.  
 
At present, the Commission is not in a position to comment on whether Japanese GAAP will be 
considered to be equivalent until this decision is ma de.  This will most probably be in the first half of 
2008.  The Commission will be consulting EC Member States on these proposals. 
 
II. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIMES (5) Trade Agreements and Arrangements (iii) Preferential trade ag reements and arrangements 
(a) Agreements with European countries/groupings 
EC accession  
Question 4 (paragraph 40, page 29) On 21 December, 2006, Japan requested the EC that it wished to enter into bilateral consultations and 
negotiations in order to discuss the issue of the pr oposed increase of the EC’s tariff rate concessions 
resulting from the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the European Union on January 1, 2007.  In 
response to such a request from Japan , the EC replied on 31 January, stating that it was prepared to 
have a meeting to address the said concern of Japan.  In the meantime, imports from Japan to the EC 
have been subject to higher tariff rates in creased by the EC since January 1, 2007. 
 
When Japan and the EC negotiated a compensatory adju stment at the time of the EC’s enlargement in 
May, 2004, it took one year and ei ght months until a mutually satisfactory solution was reached.  As a 
consequence, Japanese companies exporting products to  the EC suffered from increased tariff rates for 
a long time due to the delay of the conclusion of the negotiation.  Japan strongly wishes that a 
satisfactory resolution will be achieved in a timely manner this time.  
In this regard, Japan would like to be advised of how the EC intends to move forward on this matter. 
Answer WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 198  
 
 The European Commission shares Jap an's wish to conclude negotiations under Art. XXIV.6 following 
the enlargement to Bulgaria and Romania as fast as possible. The deadline for receiving claims from 
WTO partners, following the EC's notification, expi red  on 21 January 2007. As indicated in our letter 
to the Japanese Ambassador in Geneva of 31 Jan uary 2007, following the recognition of Japan's 
negotiating rights, we would be happy to arrange fo r a bilateral meeting at a mutually convenient time 
and suggest that our Geneva staff proceeds to determine such a date in the coming weeks. Given that 
the magnitude of the problems is much smaller than  during the previous enlargement, with very few 
products where partners may actually incur losses, we  are confident that we can soon reach a mutually 
satisfactory agreement with  all concerned partners. 
 
II. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(5) Trade Agreements and Arrangements 
(iii) Preferential trade ag reements and arrangements 
(c) Non-reciprocal preferential arrangements  
Generalized System of Preferences (GPS) 
 Question 5 (paragraphs 59 and 61, pages 35 and 36) 
According to paragraphs 59 and 61, pages 35 and 36, of the Secretariat’s report, the EC grants LDCs 
duty-free and quota-free access to the EC market under the “everything but arms (EBA) initiative”.  In 
this regard, Japan would like to have the following information: 
(1) the number of all tariff lines for which LDCs are granted duty-free and quota free access; 
(2) the number of tariff lines of “arms”; and (3) the ratio of imports from LDCs to which su ch duty-free and quota-free access were granted in 
proportion to the total imports from LDCs (both in  terms of the number of tariff lines and the 
volume of imports (to the first decimal place)). 
 Answer 
There are about 9800 tariff lines in the EC’s Co mbined Nomenclature (CN) for which LDCs are 
granted duty-free and quota-free access. For two CN h eadings: 1006 (34 tariff lines) and 1701 (7 tariff 
lines), there are quotas, which are duty free and which are increasing yearly. The outside quota duty 
rate for these tariff lines is also reduced year to  year, until the duties are completely removed by 
September 2009. There are 27 tariff lines in Chapter 93 (“Arms and ammunition; parts and accessories thereof”) of the 
EC’s CN. 
The ratio of duty free imports from LDC countries in  proportion to total imports from LDC in terms of 
the number of tariff lines is – 99,3% and in terms of value of imports - 99,1%.  
 
Question 6 (paragraph 62, page 37) 
Japan understands that, in addition to the temporary withdrawal measures indicated in paragraph 62, 
page 37, of the Secretariat’s Report, preferential arrangements may also be withdrawn under the EC’s 
GSP scheme on condition that pertinent items (s ections) of developing countries are regarded 
competitive enough in the EC market.  Is this w ithdrawal measure also applied to LDC products? 
 
Answer 
Article 14 of the Council Regulation No 980/2005 of  27 June 2005 applying a scheme of generalized 
tariff preferences (GSP) provides that tariff preferences shall be removed in respect of products originating in a beneficiary country of a section, when the average value of Community imports from 
that country of products included in the section c oncerned and covered by the arrangement enjoyed by 
that country exceeds 15% of the value of Community imports of the same products from all countries and territories listed in the GSP Regulation over th ree consecutive years. For each of the section XI(a) 
and XI(b) the threshold is 12,5%. Article 14 app lies only to preferences granted under the general 
arrangement of the GSP and under the special incen tive arrangement for sustainable development and 
good governance. It does not apply to the special a rrangement for least developed countries.       WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 199 
 
 
  
Question 7 (paragraph 63, page 37) 
According to paragraph 63, page 37, of the Secretariat’s report, the EC’s GSP scheme includes a safeguard clause.  In this regard, Japan w ould like to have the following information: 
(1) whether the safeguard clau se has ever been invoked;  
(2) If so, the items to which the clause has been invoked and the respective invocation periods; and 
(3) the investigation process and the necessary measur es/steps taken to invoke the clause (e.g. whether 
it is necessary to enact an additi onal/supplementary law or a regulation for each specific safeguard 
measure or not).  
 
Answer 
The safeguard clause described in Chapter III, Sec tion 2 of the Council Regulation No 980/2005 of 27 
June 2005 applying a scheme of generalized tari ff preferences (GSP) has so far not been used. 
 
As stated above, the safeguard clause has not been invoked. 
 The safeguard clause can be invoked in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III, Section 2 of the 
Council Regulation No 980/2005 of 27 June 2005. Th e procedure includes a legislative step - a 
decision of the European Commission. As provided in Answer No 7(1) the safeguard clause has so far 
not been used.  Question 8 (paragraph 64, page 37) 
According to paragraph 64, page 37, of the Secretar iat’s report, there is a declining trend in trade 
shares and low ratios of GSP utilization.  What do es the EC consider as the reason for such recent 
inactive GSP utilization? 
 
Answer 
For the years 2000-2005 an increasing trend in the share of GSP imports in total EC imports is 
recorded. The GSP imports to the EC increased in this period by 61% and their share in total EC 
imports rose from 41% in 2000 to 66 % in 2005. Consequently, an in crease was also recorded in the 
GSP utilisation rate.  
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
(i) Customs procedures and valuation  
Question 9 (paragraph 7, page 41) What is the current status of the two proposals to modernize the CC which had been adopted by the EC 
Commissions in November 2005 and were under c onsideration by the Council and the European 
Parliament as of October 2006?  Have they already been enacted? If so, please explain the measures 
being implemented under the two regulations. 
 
Answer Discussions on the Electronic Customs proposal are well advanced and adoption could be foreseen 
during 2007. Concerning the Modernized Community  Customs Code (MCCC), it is foreseen that it 
will be adopted in 2008. These dates will depend on  the time taken by the co-decision procedure.  
 
Question 10 (paragraphs 5-9, pages 40-42) 
Japan notes that some divergences exist among Member  States’ classifications of same goods imported 
into the EC and is reported that traders are requi red in some cases to address such divergences in 
accordance with specific customs regul ations at the port of entry. 
In light of this, Japan would like to be advised of  the measures taken by the EC in order to dissolve 
such divergences among Member States as well as tho se taken in order to improve the procedures for WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 200  
 
 retrospective impositions of tariffs which result from changes in classification of goods after their entry 
into the EC market.  Answer 
The EC does not agree that any lack of uniform cl assification of same goods as imported into the EC 
exists. The EC has in place an eff ective mechanism to reconcile any divergence that would occur with 
regard to the tariff classification of g oods imported into its customs territory. 
 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports (ii) Common customs MFN Tariff 
 
Question 11 (Table III.1, pages 42-43) 
The report states that the EC applies several types of tariffs; ad valorem rates are the most widely used 
(90%), followed by specific (6.4%), compound (2%), a lternate (0.7%), and variable (0.9%).  In this 
regard, Japan would like to be advised of the crite ria based on which the EC decides which type of 
tariff to impose on a specific product.  Answer 
The kind of tariffs chosen generally reflect the ch aracteristics of the product and its trade profile. We 
would add that the question implies that the EC is ch anging its tariffs on a continuous basis. This is not 
the case.  Question 12 (Table III.4, page 46) 
Japan would like to be advised of possible reduc tions by the EC of high tariffs on imports of 
automobiles (10%) and home electronic appliances (14%).  
 
Answer 
The reduction of the tariffs on industrial goods, such  as automobiles or home electronic appliances, is 
currently under discussion in the framework of WT O-DDA. There are no plans to reduce these tariffs 
on a general basis outside these discussions. 
 
Question 13 (paragraph 11, page 42) 
While Japan appreciates that the EC has bound all its tariff lines in the WTO, it would like to have 
clarification on the issues on the Information Technology Agreement as follows. (1) The Information Technology Agreement (ITA)  established in 1996 has been promoting 
developments of the information technology, an d thus contributing to industrial and social 
developments, by encouraging IT industries to s ophisticate the products covered by the ITA or add 
functions to such products.  Most ITA members im pose no tariffs on such sophisticated products or 
those with additional functions, which Japan finds appropriate in light of the objective and purpose 
of the ITA.  In this regard, Japan is concerned that the EC does impose tariffs on imports of such 
sophisticated products or those with additional functions by classifying them as non-ITA products 
under the EC’s customs law.  In Ja pan’s view, such EC’s unilateral reclassifications of ITA products 
into non-ITA products is the restoration of trad e barriers on ITA products, which the ITA members 
once determined to eliminate, and thus results  in the impediment of information technology 
development. 
 From the above-mentioned point of view, Jap an would like to ask the following questions. 
(a) Whether sophisticated ITA products and those w ith additional functions remain to be covered 
under the ITA is a fundamental issue for the objec tive and purpose of the ITA.  Japan considers 
that a unilateral decision of an ITA member to exclude such sophisticated products and those with 
additional functions from the ITA coverage will ad versely affect the implementation of the ITA 
since such unilateral decision disturbs the IT A members’ consistent recognitions on the ITA  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 201 
 
 
 product coverage.  Japan further considers that  if any disagreement should arise among the ITA 
members concerning the ITA product coverage, it should be resolved by achieving a common understanding among the ITA members.  In this sen se, what kind of scheme does the EC consider 
appropriate in order to prevent such diversifi cation of the ITA members’ understanding on the 
product coverage and in order to maintain a consistent view of  the product coverage among the 
members? 
(b) As one of the main members who encouraged other WTO Members to participate in the ITA, 
what does the EC consider paragraph 1 of th e ITA Declaration means, which provides that 
“[e]ach party’s trade regime should evolve in  a manner that enhances market access opportunity 
for information technology products”?  How does the EC reflect its interpretation of the said paragraph in implementing the ITA? 
(2) A digital camera with an additional function is  one of the products with which the ITA members 
have different opinions on whether to  be covered by the ITA.  Rece nt digital cameras usually have 
a function of moving image recording.  Japan understands that the EC is now considering 
classifying such digital cameras as non-ITA products due to the said additional function now added 
to digital cameras.   In Japan’s view, such a f unction is an additional one attached to conventional 
digital cameras.  In this regard, Japan would like to ask the following questions. 
(a) What is the EC’s rationale/justification for imposing tariffs on digital cameras with a moving 
image recording function by classifying them as non-ITA products?  Is such imposition of tariffs 
consistent with the EC’s oblig ations in its Schedule of Concessions set out based on the ITA? 
(b) Please provide information on details of the procedures for deciding the classification of digital 
cameras within the EC.  Are in terested ITA member countries and also their enterprises provided 
opportunities to make comments during the procedure? 
(c) Are there any enterprises or production-bases which produce digital cameras within the EC? 
(d) Please provide information on details of the procedures and the conditions for the tariff 
suspension to be granted to the products which ar e reclassified as a result of the above-mentioned 
internal considerations within the EC. Are inte rested ITA member countries and their enterprises 
provided opportunities to make comments during the procedures? 
(3) Digital multifunction machines are digital equipm ent with multiple functions of printers, fax 
machines, scanners, and the like, which are utilized in connection with computers or networks. Japan 
understands that the EC has decided to classify these digital equipment as non-ITA products and has 
been imposing tariffs on them.  In this regard, Japan would like to ask the following questions. 
(a) What is the rationale/justification of the EC  to impose tariffs on digital multifunction machines 
by classifying them as non-ITA products?  Is such imposition of tariffs consistent with the EC’s 
obligations in its Schedule of Concessions set out based on the ITA? 
(b) Are there any enterprises or production-b ases which produce digital multifunction machines 
within the EC? 
(c) Please provide information on details of the conditions and the specific procedures for a tariff 
suspension to be granted to products which have been reclassified as non-ITA products as a result 
of the above-mentioned consideration within the EC.  Are interested ITA member countries and 
their enterprises provided opportunities to  make comments during the procedures? 
(4) As far as Japan understands, the EC has an opinion  that flat-panel displays (FPDs) are not ITA-
covered products and are subject to tariff imposition if they have a function of receiving a video 
signal regardless of whether they are utilized princi pally as computer displays or not.  Japan is not 
convinced by such reasoning of the EC Commissi on, since the Commission fails to consider what 
the principal function of a product is in determin ing the product’s classification.  Japan further 
understands that all the FPDs are now subject to tariff imposition, regardless of whether they are 
used as computer displays or not, while a tariff suspension was granted to some of those displays 
until the end of 2006.  In this regard, Japan would like to ask the following questions. 
(a) What is the rationale/justification of the EC to impose tariffs on FPDs with a function of 
receiving a video signal, classifying them as non- ITA products?  Is such imposition of tariffs 
consistent with the EC’s obligation in its Sc hedule of Concessions set out based on the ITA? WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 202  
 
 (b) Are there any enterprises or production-bases which produce FPDs with a function of receiving 
video signal within the EC? 
(c) Please provide information on the details of  the conditions and the specific procedures for 
extending the tariff suspension on FPDs, which was effective until the end of 2006?  Are 
interested ITA member countries and their enterp rises provided opportunities to make comments 
during the procedures? 
 
Answer 
The view expressed by Japan is not unknown to th e EC as it has already been expressed in the 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of  Trade in Information Technology Products. 
 
The EC would stress that the "Modalities and Produc t Coverage" annexed the Ministerial Declaration 
on trade in information technology provides for th e necessary mechanisms for reviewing the product 
scope (paragraph 3) and resolving classification divergences (paragraphs 5 and 7). 
 
Concerning the specific questions concerning specific products the EC would like to remind Japan that these have been subject to previous discussions be tween the EC and Japan in different fora. The EC 
has nothing to add with regard to those questions except that it finds it irrelevant when classifying 
products whether there are "any enterprises or produ ction-bases which produce …. within the EC" or 
not. 
 
Finally, the EC is not persuaded that the statement in  the Ministerial Declaration "1. Each party's trade 
regime should evolve in a manner that enha nces market access opportunities for information 
technology products" would justify a review of th e product scope without having recourse to the 
process envisaged in paragraph 3 of the modalities. 
 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
(ii) Other duties and taxes 
(a) Value-Added Tax  
 
Question 14 (paragraphs 17-21, pages 47-50) Japan notes that each custom within the EC employs  different procedures for the imposition of value-
added taxes (VATs) depending on which Member Stat e they are located in.  Japan would like to be 
advised of the EC’s initiative in harmonizing and simplifying the EC Member States’ procedures 
pertaining to VATs, including their refund.  Answer 
The European Commission recognises the divergence in application of the common VAT rules among 
EC Member States.  Since taxation is a national matter, EC legislation to harmonise VAT rules is only possible if necessary 
to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market. It sets certain limits to the level 
of harmonisation which may be provided for at EC level.  Among the initiatives already taken by the European Co mmission in this regard is the proposal for a 
one-stop scheme which would provide simplification of tax obligations for traders. The European 
Commission will continue its efforts but also recognises that much will depend on Member States. 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 203 
 
 
 III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports (viii) Contingency Trade Remedies 
 
Question 15 (paragraph 37, page 54) 
Paragraph 37, page 54, of the Secretariat’s Report indicates that no major changes were made to EC’s 
legislations pertaining to contingency trade remedies.  In this regard, Japan understands that the EC is 
holding public consultations for the purpose of e ffective application of contingency trade remedies. 
Japan would like to have detailed information on th e EC’s goals/objectives that it seeks to achieve 
through such public consultati ons and any preliminary ideas on how to achieve that end. 
 Answer 
The European Commission has recently published a Green Paper on Trade Defence Instruments for 
public consultation. The aim of this Green Paper is to launch a reflection on whether there is a need to 
adapt these instruments in light of the far-reaching changes taking place in the global economy, while 
maintaining the efficiency of the TDI to defend EC producers against unfairly traded, subsidized 
imports or dramatic shifts in trade flows.   This process is open and without any preconceived ideas. Consequently the Green Paper does not put 
forward proposals for a change of TDI, but only contains 32 open questions. They cover several 
aspects of TDI law and practice mainly focusing on wh ether our TDI are still sufficiently adjusted to 
today's globalized world. After the consultati on process, which extends until 31 March 2007, the 
Commission will consider on the basis of the reactions received, how to follow-up. It it is therefore at 
this stage not possible to know whether and to what  extent changes to the TDI are appropriate, and if 
so, what form they should take. 
 
Question 16 (paragraph 42, page 55) 
Japan understands that the EC has been conducting the anti-dumping investigation on the importation 
of Japanese “Certain Camera System”.  In connec tion with this anti-dumping investigation, Japan 
would like to clarify the standards based on which the EC defines the product scope under the 
investigation.  Specifically, what kind of elemen ts (e.g. physical characteristics, end uses and 
functions) are considered in deciding the product scope? 
 
Answer 
Since the investigation referred to by Japan is still ongoing the EC is not in a position to comment on 
the product scope in this particular case. However,  in general the EC defines the product scope, in 
accordance with the WTO Anti-Dumpi ng Agreement, on the basis of the basic physical, technical 
and/or chemical characteristics of the product, and, as a subsidiary element, its basic uses. 
 The primary requirement for product types in order to be considered as a single product is that they 
share the same basic physical, technical and/or chem ical characteristics. The fact that the product 
concerned consists of several types, grades or qua lities does not necessarily preclude that they can be 
regarded as a single product, as long as they have th e same basic physical, technical and/or chemical 
characteristics. Consequently, models classified in different product segments will be considered as 
forming one product unless there are clear dividing li nes between the various segments. Furthermore, 
different production processes, quality differences be tween various product types, different packaging 
and price differences of the various types are not in itself relevant. 
 When there are some differences in physical, tech nical and/or chemical characteristics, the second 
criterion in determining whether products types can be  considered to constitute a single product, i.e. if 
they share the same basic end uses,  may play a role. Thus, the fact that various products are competing 
directly with each other may be considered as an i ndication confirming that they form a single product, 
provided the first criteria as mentioned above has been met. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 204  
 
 III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports (ix) Technical barriers to trade (TBT) 
 
Question 17 (paragraph 51, page 57) 
The current “new approach” of the EC does not have  a system enabling the EC to directly designate 
CABs located outside the EC under the relevant  EC laws (cross-border designation scheme).  
Article 6.4 of the TBT Agreement stipulates that “[m] embers are encouraged to  permit participation of 
conformity assessment bodies located in the territo ries of other Members in their conformity 
assessment procedures under conditions no less favour able than those accorded to bodies located 
within their territory or the territory of any other country.”  
 
And it is also stated that “[t]he Committee rene ws its encouragement of Members to allow the 
participation of conformity assessment bodies located  in the territory of other Members in their 
conformity assessment procedures, on a non-discriminatory basis, as stated in Article 6.4 [of the TBT 
Agreement]”, in paragraph 36 of the WTO doc ument (G/TBT/19), “FOURTH TRIENNIAL REVIEW 
OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT ON TECHNICAL 
BARRIERS TO TRADE UNDER ARTICLE 15.4,” which was completed in Nov. 2006. 
 Moreover, it is also stated in paragraph 39 of the said WTO document that “[t]he Committee notes that 
the mutual introduction of cross-border designation syst ems in equivalent fields by governments can be 
a cost-effective agreement.”  
Japan requests that the EC adopt the cross-border designation scheme in  relevant directives, wherever 
possible, at this opportunity of reviewing the “new  approach.”  The adoption of such scheme will 
contribute to trade facilitation for foreign manufacture rs willing to export to the EC. At the same time, 
it will enable EC companies investing in countries outs ide the EC to acquire certifications of products 
by CABs under EC laws in such countries, where the production cost is low, and to bring their 
products into the EC market quickly with lower cost  for certifications. It is thus beneficial for EC 
companies in that their investme nts in such countries where the production cost is low will be 
promoted. In this way, the cross-border designation sc heme is beneficial for not only trade partners of 
the EC but also the EC itself. 
 From the above-mentioned point of view, Japan has the following questions. 
(1) What does the EC think about introducing the scheme for designating CABs outside the EC?  
(2) Does the EC have currently legal provisions wh ich forbid designating CABs outside the EC? Or, 
are such legal provisions scheduled to  be introduced in the future?  
(3) If such legal provisions exist or are scheduled to be introduced, what is the rationale and/or 
background of those provisions? 
 
Answer The EC recognises the value of the discussion on this i ssue in the fourth triennial review of the TBT 
agreement and the renewed encouragement given to Members to allow participation of CABs located 
in the territory of other Members. However, the EC would have fundamental difficulties to introduce 
such a scheme under new approach directives. In th e new approach field, notified bodies must be 
established on the territory of a notifying Member St ate. Notified bodies may have subsidiaries or sub 
contractors established outside of the Community to facilitate access to the Community conformity 
assessment procedures, but they cannot allow the s ubsidiary or the subcontractor to carry out the 
conformity assessment.  Each Member State takes responsibility for the designation of CABs operating 
on its own territory, including monitoring of the da y to day operation of CABs to ensure compliance 
with Community legislation.    WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 205 
 
 
 If a Member State engaged on a cross border designa tion activity, it would need to take responsibility 
for the correct operation of the CAB located in a third country, not only for the import of products into it’s own territory, but also for the import of pr oducts to all other Member States (harmonised 
legislation). This would require some fundamental legal changes to be made. 
We will undertake to raise the issue with  Member States to discuss it further. 
 
Question 18 (paragraph 52, page 58) 
Concerning the EC’s regulation for pedestrian protec tion, with regard to which it notified a relevant 
Directive under the TBT Agreement in 2003 (G/TBT/N/ EEC/27), Japan notes that the EC is currently 
establishing new standards for their protection, wh ile internationally-harmonized standards are now 
being developed under the Global Agreement.  In th is regard, Japan would like to be advised of 
whether and how the EC is planning to establish its  standards in line with the said internationally-
harmonized standards.  Answer 
The development of a draft proposal for a Global T echnical Regulation has been almost completed by 
an ad hoc group working under GRSP of Working Pa rty 29 of the UN/ECE in Geneva.  The EC has 
been a member of this ad hoc group and it has al ways been stated that the development of this 
regulation and any amendment necessary to the EC Directive 2003/102/EC should provide a common 
approach to the subject. This is still the case and the expected adoption, in the near future, of a proposal 
to amend the present EC Directive should reflect this. However, the proposal, when adopted, will be 
subject to the co-decision process of the Eur opean Council and the European Parliament. 
 IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR (2) Agriculture and Related Activities 
(ii) Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 
(a) Overview   
Question 19 (paragraph 22, page 89) On tariff quotas on agricultural products, the average quota fill rate in 2002 was 62% according to 
paragraph 22 of Chapter IV of the Secretariat Report.   
(1) Japan requests clarification on the specific reasons of the low fill rate. 
(2) Japan would also like to confirm whether, as a result of EU enlargement from 15 to 27 Member 
States, the EC intends to increase its tariff quot as allocations accordingly in the near future.  
 
Answer 
In 2002 there has been a low fill rate for a range of commodities. This low fill rate was mainly the 
consequence of sufficient supply at competitive prices on the internal market. For one of the 
commodities (wheat) the out-of-quota import duty rate being zero for the period, there was no need to 
use the tariff quota. 
 
The EC is in the process of consolidating the Bulg arian and Romanian tariff rate quotas into the EC25 
tariff rate quotas. For consolidating the quotas the EC follows the same methodology as was applied in 
the previous enlargements of 199 5 and 2004 which is netting-in and netting-out of tariff rate quotas. 
 IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR (4) Energy  
Question 20 (paragraph 51, page 99) Paragraph 51, page 99, of the Secretariat’s Report indicates that “[o]verall policy measures comprise 
full market opening to all consumers and producers by  2007” and “further interconnection of European 
energy grids”.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 206  
 
 (1) A full opening in the electricity retail market is  scheduled to be completed by July 2007 under the 
EC’s Electricity Directive (2003/54/EC).  Japan woul d like to be advised of (a) whether the Member 
States which have not completed the liberalization ye t are scheduled to complete such liberalization; 
(b) whether there are any Member States, among those that have not completed liberalization, that 
will introduce restrictions on price-charge, such as price-cap, together with the introduction of the 
liberalization; and (c) what kind of measures, in  addition to unbundling, the EC will take for the 
purpose of promoting competition and ensuring the exclusion of the power of market domination. 
(2) Please provide detailed information on the meas ures taken by the EC for the purpose of achieving 
“further interconnection of European energy grids”. 
 
Answer 
(1) Some Member States have not implemented the liberalisation process as set out in the Directive. 
The European Commission pursues infringement procedures against such Member States.  
 
Some Member States have kept or introduced regulat ed prices for large parts of the consumers to a 
degree which contradicts the goal of  liberalisation. In this case, th e European Commission has also 
launched infringement procedures agai nst the Member States concerned. 
 
The European Commission has proposed a wide range of measures to strengthen competition in the energy markets which include apart from further unbundling the strengthening of the regulatory 
powers and more transparency. 
 (2) The EC co-finances a number of TEN-E projects i.e. cross-border network projects in electricity. 
Moreover, it has proposed to strengthen the asso ciation of European regulators ERGEG and of 
European transmission system operators to promote market integration.  Question 21 (paragraph 53, page 101) 
(1) According to paragraph 53, page 101, of the Se cretariat’s Report, about 25 million Euro per year 
was budgeted to support the development of the tran s-European energy network.  In this regard, 
Japan would like to have information on (a) whethe r the EC has special earmarked revenue sources 
of this budget and (b) on what criteria the EC decides the allocation of the said budget among 
pertinent development projects is based.  
(2) Does the EC provide any support other than the above-mentioned financial measures for the 
construction of transnational energy networks? 
 
Answer 
1a) Not applicable 1b) The evaluation is strictly following the TEN Financial Regulation. The conditions are explicitly 
listed in the call for proposal s (foreseen for April 2007). 
2) Closer coordination is also necessary with the EIB and the EBRD for facilitating investment of a 
cross-European nature. Both financial Institutions sh ould consider the projects of European interest as 
one of their top priorities for lending operations. Fo r projects involving countries participating in the 
European Neighbourhood Policy, financing coul d be made available under the Neighbourhood 
Investment Fund. 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 207 
 
 
 IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(5) Manufacturing (ii) Selected industries 
(c) Chemicals 
 Question 22 (paragraph 71, page 107) 
Japan would like to be advised of the EC’s view s on the following questions and concerns of Japan 
with regard to REACH, which is now examined within the EC. 
(1) Time frame for the duty to communicate info rmation on substances in articles (Article 33) 
According to Article 33, any supplier of an articl e containing a substance listed in a candidate list, 
which will be made in accordance with Article 59( 1), shall provide information for safe use just 
after the list is made. Japan believes this requirement does not provide enough notice. 
Some transitional period, such as that for notificati on of substances in article s (Article 7(2)), should 
be set. 
(2) Establishment and disclosure of  a candidate list (Article 59(1)) 
A candidate list which will be made in accordance wi th Article 59(1) could have a big impact on all 
industries which use substances listed in it. It should be made clear when and how it will be 
established and enough time for comments should be allowed for when drafting it. 
(3)Substance-tailored exposure-driven testing (ANNEX XI) 
Based on the exposure scenario, testing in accord ance with sections 8.6 and 8.7 of ANNEX VIII, 
ANNEX IX and X may be omitted, and the Commission shall adopt the criteria for justification. 
Japan expects imported polymers could be included in  this waiver clause and, therefore, would like 
to ask the Commission to hear from non- EU participants in drafting it. 
(4) SIEF (Substance Information Exchange Forum) (Article 29) 
With regards to consortium forma tion and data sharing in SIEF, there are still many unclear points 
in practice, e.g. who will lead the consortium, wh at the function of SIEF leader will be, and so on. 
Non-EU registrants especially, do not have enoug h information on the organization and/or the 
situation of the EU industry, and this could leave them at a disadvantage. Japan hopes for a clear 
and detailed guidance that will enable us to a void legal risks in view of competition law and 
intellectual property rights. 
(5) Requirements for recycle products 
When recycled materials that will be used for recycled products in the EU are exported to the EC, 
are they subject to registration/notification? In cases  where exporters of those products have to make 
registration/notification for them, detailed pr ocedures should be presented as soon as possible. 
 
Answer 
The EC recently notified REACH Regulati on No 1907/2006 under the WTO/TBT Agreement 
(G/TBT/N/EEC/52/Add.3). The Regulation will enter into force on 1 June 2007.  
 Regarding Japan's and other Members' concerns about REACH as inter alia  raised in document 
G/TBT/GEN/46, the EC provided a comprehensiv e reply in Appendix 1 and 2 of the REACH 
notification document. In addition, REACH expe rts will be present at the next TBT Committee 
meeting on 21-22 March to present the adopted REACH Regulation.  IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR (6) Services 
(i) Overview 
 Question 23 (paragraph 76, page 109) 
(1) Japan congratulates th e recent accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EC, and would like to be 
advised of the impact of this recent membership extension on the services sector in the EC, with 
statistics if possible.  
Answer  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 208  
 
 (1) For economic data on Bulgaria and Romania, please see the "CCEQ - Candidate and Pre-Accession 
Countries' Economies Quarterly" to be found in the following website: http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/indicators/cceq_en.htm
 
As noticed by Japan, the figures in paragraph 76, page 109, rela te to EC-25. Comparable figures for EC-27 are expected as from April 2007. Upon publication, they 
will immediately made available to the public via the web-pages of Eurostat: 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/
 
 (2) What are the EC’s efforts currently made and th ose envisaged in the future  in addressing the issues 
of monopolies and differences in regulation across Member States, which are identified in the 
Secretariat’s Report as “the most important barriers to trade in services in the EC”? 
 
Answer 
The EC does not agree that there are significant "i ssues of monopolies" in the EC, and would like 
Japan to elaborate on which monopolies it has in mind.  As regards domestic regulations in the EC and 
its Member States, they fully comply with GATS Article VI. 
 
Question 24 (paragraph 77, page 109) 
What are the impacts as well as changes expected to o ccur to the EC’s services trade, other than those 
mentioned in the Report such as expected GDP increase and job creation, as a result of the 
amendments to the domestic legislations and regulat ions of the Member States made pursuant to the 
adoption of the Services Directive?  With respect to such impact and/or  changes, it is also mentioned in 
the Secretariat’s Report that the Services Directive met heavy opposition fearing “social dumping”.  Japan would like to have information on potentially  negative impacts caused by the Services Directive, 
if any, which might affect the positio n of the EC in services negotiations. 
 
Answer Economic data on the impact of the original proposal  on the Services Directive in the EC can be found 
in the following website: http://ec.europa.eu/in ternal_market/services/services-dir/studies_en.htm
.  
 
Question 25 (paragraph 78, pages 110-111) 
The adopted Services Directive is explained to enter into force two years after its publication, without 
any reference to the date of publication.  Japan w ould like to be advised of the expected date of 
publication. 
 
Answer  
Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parlia ment and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on 
Services in the Internal Market h as been published in the Official Journal of the European Union L 376 
of 27 December 2006. It will have to be impl emented by Member States by 27 December 2009. 
 
Question 26 (paragraph 80, first sentence, page 111) 
While Japan appreciates both the level as well as the wide sectoral coverage of the scheduled 
commitments made by the EC, clarification and/or detailed information on the issues below is sought 
as follows: (1) Horizontal Commitments: Services c onsidered as Public Utilities (Mode 3) 
What services are considered as public utilities whic h may be subject to public monopolies or to 
which exclusive rights are granted to private operators? 
(2) Horizontal Commitments: Investment (France, Portugal and Italy) 
What are the existing restrictions and r eservations on newly privatized companies? 
(3) Horizontal Commitments: Moveme nt of Natural Persons (Mode 4) 
What are the objectives and reasons for placing the limitations on the maximum duration of stay for 
intra-corporate transferees? 
(4) Legal entities (Finland, Mode 3, NT)  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 209 
 
 
 What are the criteria for obtaining the “state pe rmit”?  Please also provide information on the 
reservations on NT in terms of difference of tr eatment between subsidia ries of third-country 
companies and their branches or agencies, as well as in terms of less favorable treatment toward 
subsidiaries of third-country companies which do not  show an effective and continuous link with the 
economy of one of the EEA Member States.   
(5) Legal services 
Japan has been requesting France to permit provisi on of legal advisory an d legal representational 
services by foreign lawyers in relation to the law of  the jurisdiction in which they are qualified, and 
requesting Germany to permit foreign lawyers to pr ovide written advice on international law and third 
country law, neither of which had been dealt with ad equately.  Japan would like to be advised of the 
initiative of the EC in urging the aforementioned EC Member States to pr ovide a response to the 
requests. 
 
Answer 
(1) An indicative list of sectors in which there may be services considered as public utilities is provided 
in the schedule of commitments. In  addition, following the GATS EC-25 consolidation procedure, the 
EC-25 consolidated schedule specifies that tel ecommunication services and computer and related 
services are two sectors in which Member States do not maintain services considered as public utilities 
that may be subject to public monopolies or exclusive rights.  
 
(2) As indicated in the GATS Schedule of the EC, the na ture of the relevant restrictions is as follows:  
 In France and Portugal, foreign participation in newly privatized companies may be limited to a 
variable amount, determined by the respective governments of France and Portugal on a case by case 
basis, of the equity offered to the public.  
 In Italy, exclusive rights may be granted or maintain ed to newly privatized companies. Voting rights in 
newly privatized companies may be restricted in some  cases.  For a period of five years, the acquisition 
of large equity stakes of companies operating in  the fields of defence, transport services, 
telecommunications and energy may be subject to the approval of the Ministry of Treasury. 
 
(3) In order to ensure clarity and transparency of Mode 4 commitments, the EC feels it is important to 
indicate the length of temporary entry and stay perm itted for each category of Mode 4 beneficiaries, 
including ICT. This was one of the elements raised  by the EC in a joint Communication with Bulgaria, 
Canada and Romania on "Mode 4 - a common approach to scheduling" (TN/S/W/32).  
 
(4) As described in the GATS schedule of the EC a nd their Member States, in Finland, a foreigner 
carrying on a trade as a private entrepreneur or as a partner in a Finnish limited or general partnership 
needs a trade permit and has to be permanently resident  in Finland.  If a foreign organization intends to 
carry on a business or trade by establishing a bran ch in Finland, a trade permit is required. A 
permission to act as a founder of a limited company is required of a foreign organization or a private 
person, who is not a citizen of Finland.  
 Under Finnish law, there are different permits to  different forms of company. When however the 
residency requirement in the EEA (for one Board Member, or where applicable, for the private 
entrepreneur) is met and the required information is  included in the application for the trade permit 
(name, name of the company, address, residenc y/contact details etc), the permit is granted 
automatically. There are no additional conditions (suc h as ENTs) attached to the granting of the trade 
permit.  For more information on trade permits in Finlan d, we suggest that Japan consults the following 
websites: http://www.prh.fi/en/kaupparekisteri/yrityksen_perustaminen/ulkomaalaisluvat .
 
http://www.enterprisefinland.fi/listo n/portal/page.lsp?r=3883&l=en  
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 210  
 
 As for the second part of the question, Japan correct ly noted that in the EC GATS schedule, there is a 
horizontal limitation on subsidiaries, which states th at treatment less favourable may be accorded to 
subsidiaries (of third country comp anies) formed in accordance with the law of a Member State which 
have only their registered office in the territory of the EC, unless it can be shown that they possess an 
effective and continuous link with the economy of one of the Member States. 
 
The possibility of considering such less favourable tr eatment remains at the discretion of the different 
Member States.  (5) This issue, which falls outside the scope of th e Trade Policy Review, is to be addressed in the 
framework of services negotiations under the DDA.  
 
Question 27 (paragraph 80, third sentence, page 111) 
Japan acknowledges the thorough effort made by th e EC in concluding Artic le XXI negotiations and 
welcomes the new consolidated schedule due to en ter into force in the near future, following, 
according to the Secretariat’s Report, the “inter nal decision-making procedure of the EC and its 
Member States.”  Japan would like have the detailed information on the expected internal procedure as 
well as the envisaged timeframe thereof after the conclusion of the WTO certification procedure. 
 Answer 
Following the signature of the relevant agreem ents with the "affected" WTO Members and the 
completion of the WTO certification procedure, the European Commission is now proposing the conclusion of the agreements to the Council. The new GATS schedule will enter into force following 
the adoption of the relevant Council decision.     
 
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(6) Services 
(iii) Telecommunications and postal services  
Question 28 (paragraph 110, page 120) We understand that the EC is working on a review of the “telecoms regulatory framework”, which is 
common to all Member States.  
Could the EC provide further details of the b ackground, outlook and schedule of this review? 
 
Answer 
The EC has committed itself (in the existing legisla tion) to review periodically the five European 
Parliament and Council Directives that make up the EC regulatory framework for electronic 
Communications*. The EC also intends to re view the Commission Recommendation on relevant 
markets that complements the above mentioned Direc tives. The main objective of this review is to 
allow the EC to examine how well the existing framework has achieved its objectives and whether 
there is a need to modify it in the light of recent and forthcoming technological and market 
developments so that to continue meeting the need s and expectations of the European consumers. All 
public documents related to this process can  be consulted on the following website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/index_en.htm
 
 
*These five directives are: 
– Framework Directive (2002/21/EC) – Authorisation Directive (2002/20/EC) – Access Directive (2002/19/EC) – Universal Service Directive (2002/22/EC) – Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications (2002/58/EC)  
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 211 
 
 
 The adoption of the European Commission proposals modifying the above Directives and the second 
edition of the Recommendation on relevant markets is  foreseen for June / July 2007, as indicated on 
the page of the Europa website which c ontains the roadmap for this process:  
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/policy/ ecomm/tomorrow/roadmap/index_en.htm#communicati
on1   
 
At this moment the legislative process requiring th e intervention of the European Parliament and the 
Council of Ministers will start. 
 
Question 29 (paragraph 110, page 120) We recognize that the EC will conduct a review of the “universal service”. We would like to know the 
background, outlook and schedule of the review in detail.  Answer 
The EC in ensuring that the applicable universal  service framework addresses the current and future 
needs of its citizens in the light of the recent t echnological and market developments, and has initiated 
a reflection process on its review. In this context, r esponses to the ‘Call for Input’ on the Review of the 
current EC electronic communications network, togeth er with contributions received on the European 
Commission consultation on the scope of Universal Se rvice, suggest a need to further reflect on the 
role and concept of universal service in the 21st centu ry, and give also thought to the balance between 
sector specific and horizontal rules for protecting cons umers, and the feasibility of a one-size-fits-all 
approach to universal service in a Union of 27 Member States. For these reasons, the European 
Commission intends to publish a Green Paper on un iversal service in 2007, to launch a wide ranging 
debate. 
 
Question 30 (paragraph 109, page 139; also, para graph 82 of Section III, Table A III.1, pages 
139-142) 
(1) The governments of some Member States hold more  than half the shares of telecommunications 
sector entities. Could the EC provide further info rmation on its plans for the sale of such state-
owned shares of these entities?  
(2) Also, Japan understands that some restrictions st ipulated under domestic la ws and regulations, with 
respect to which the EC maintains reservations as indicated below in the EC’s WTO offer for the 
telecommunication service sector, have already been eliminated.  We would like to know what plan is in place and what progress has been made concer ning relaxation and removal of such restrictions. 
・Finland: nationality requirement for board  members and management directors  
・France : restrictions on foreign equity participation 
・Poland: restrictions on fore ign equity participation 
    Slovenia: restrictions on foreign equity participation 
 
Answer 
(1) The WTO rules leave WTO Members free to maintain  state ownership in services sectors, so long 
as this does not entail the nullification or impairment  of their GATS specific commitments.  Under that 
condition, it is thus for each Member State of the EC to decide, as a shareholder, if and when it wishes 
to sell wholly or partly its shareholding in a give n service supplier. In the EC, the telecom framework 
anyway ensures that regulators will take all neces sary measures to promote competition, whatever the 
private or state shareholding in operators. That me ans in particular that, for Member States which 
retain ownership in a given operator, the regul atory functions will be exercised completely 
independently from and will not be affected by the shareholding activities of the state. (2) This issue, which falls outside the scope of Trade Policy Review, is to be addressed in the framework 
of services negotiations under the DDA.  
 
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 212  
 
 (6) Services 
(iv) Transport (a) Overview 
 
Question 31 (paragraph 115, page 122) 
Paragraph 115, page 122, of the Secretariat’s Repor t indicates that “[l]iberalization of cabotage in the 
other modes of transport in the EC occurred in stat es: … 1 January 1999 for maritime cabotage.”  Does 
such “liberalization” of “maritime cabotage” mean the liberalization of transport between any port in 
different EC Member States?  Or is such liberaliza tion limited to the transport between ports within the 
same Member State?  Japan would also like to be advised of whether such liberalization for maritime 
cabotage applies only to vessels of the EC registry or  whether it also applies to those of any nation’s 
registry. 
 
Answer 
Liberalisation of maritime cabotage means the freedom  to provide maritime transport services within a 
Member State of the EC. Such freedom applies to an y ship-owner who has regi stered its ships in and 
who flies the flag of any of the Member States of the EC. The legal provi sions are established by 
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).  
 Question 32 (paragraph 117, page 123) 
The last sentence of paragraph 117, page 123, of th e Secretariat’s Report refers to “agreements with 
third countries” which includes measures on mark et access to maritime transport services and on the 
right of establishment of maritime companies.  Japa n would like to be advised of the “third countries” 
referred to in that paragraph. 
 
Answer 
Agreements between the EC and third countries that  include measures on mark et access to maritime 
transport services and on the right of establishment of maritime companies concern Algeria, Armenia, 
Azerbaijan, China, Georgia, Jordan, Kazakhstan,  Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine, and 
Uzbekistan. 
 
THAILAND
 
 
WTO Secretariat Report (WT/TPR/S/177) 
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR (2) Agriculture and Related Activities (ii) Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (a) Overview 
 
Question 1 
Para 13:  The Secretariat Report refers to payments based on (1) area planted and animal numbers as 
well as (2) payments based on historical entitleme nt.  Could the EC please explain the difference 
between the two types of payments? 
 
Answer 
In the historical model of the single farm paym ent scheme the value of a payment entitlement is 
determined by the value of the direct payments receive d by the farmer in a historical reference period 
and the area which generated the direct payments in  the past (reference period). The activation of those 
entitlements for payment is not linked to the area pl anted. Farmers activating those entitlements with a 
hectare of eligible land they keep in good agricu ltural and environmental conditions are entitled for 
payments even if they do not use the land fo r agricultural production. The payments based on 
entitlements are decoupled.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 213 
 
 
  
Question 2 
Para 23:   Regarding the limitation on liberalization of agricultural products under the EC’s various 
bilateral and regional trade agre ements, could the EC please explain why processed agricultural goods 
imported into the EC from its preferential partne rs are subject to customs duties comprising an 
industrial and an agricultural component? Furthermor e, what is the differen ce in the custom duties 
between industrial and agricultural components?  
Answer 
Such bilateral negotiations are carried out on a case  by case basis according to the interests of both 
parts with the view to achieve a win-win situatio n in the framework of WTO rules. The duties of 
processed products are either ad valorem or specif ic or compound or mixed duties which lead to a 
number of possibilities. Furthermore, in the case of some compound duties, the EC updated agricultural schedule CXL does not mention any agri cultural or industrial element. There are some 
cases under Part I, section I, section I-A with a refere nce to the annex 1of this section. This annex is 
explicit in itself. 
 
(b) Policy by selected products: Cereals  
Question 3 
Para 29: Regarding support through direct payments, th e Secretariat Report states that in France and 
Luxembourg direct payments of up to € 63 per tonne are available to cereals farmers in remote areas.  
Does this rate of payment apply to rice?  Are all payments of € 63 per tonne the Single Farm Payment? 
And does this payment rate apply to all areas of each EC Member State?  
Answer 
With the introduction of the Single Farm Payment (SPS) farmers receive direct payments in a 
decoupled way, as a general rule. For cereals partially  coupled payments are also possible. For arable 
crops (but not for rice), for example, a maximum of 25 % of the direct aid may be linked to production. 
But even in this case, the payment does not depend on  the actual production (yield), but on a historical 
reference yield (reference yield * 63 €/tonne).   For rice, the previous per ha payment of 177 euros mu ltiplied by the historical reference yield has been 
reduced to 75 euros per tonne * the reference yield as from the 2005/2006 marketing year. The 
remaining amount is distributed in a decoupled way under the SPS. The rice payment has to be 
considered a separated aid scheme.    
Question 4 
The Secretariat Report also indicat es that the CMO for cereals supports EC producers mainly through 
the intervention price.  Please provide details on how and when the intervention support price system 
of rice in EC is applied.  
Answer 
The intervention agencies buy the paddy rice that is o ffered to them during the period of 1 April to 31 
July and within the limit of 75,000 tonnes per year. The intervention price is fixed at 150€/tonne of 
paddy rice for a standard quality. This price is ad apted according to the quality of the rice taken over. 
The conditions to be complied with (in particular in  respect of quality and quantity) are established in 
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 489/2005. 
 
(b) Policy by selected products: Beef and veal  
Question 5 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 214  
 
 Para 31: Could the EC please explain its emergency suppl y-side schemes to control beef and veal 
production in detail?  
Answer 
In the beef sector, aid for private storage may be granted in case the average EC price for carcases of 
adult male bovines falls below 103% of the basic price (i.e. below 229 €/100 kg) during two 
consecutive weeks. In addition, if the average pr ice in a Member States falls below 156 €/100 kg 
during two consecutive weeks, safety-net public inte rvention shall be opened. Both market support 
measures have not been used in recent years, as the market prices were clearly above the trigger levels. 
 
Question 6 Para 32: The Secretariat Report states that, “regarding direct payments of CAP reform in beef and veal 
section, Member States that opted for partial d ecoupling may keep up to 100% of the suckler cow 
premium (€ 200 per animal) and up to 40% of the sl aughter premium for adult bovine animals (€ 80 
per animal).”  Does this mean th at Member States which choose to receive 100% suckler cow premium 
coupled can also choose to receive up to 40% of the slaughter premium for adult bovine animals 
coupled?  
Answer 
Yes. 
 
Question 7 The Secretariat Report further states that, “Altern atively, [Member States] may keep 100% of the 
slaughter premium for adult bovine animals coupled , or instead, up to 75% of the special male 
premium (€ 150 or 210 per animal, depending on type).  Also, Member States may retain up to 100% of 
the calf slaughter premium (€ 50 per animal) as a pr oduct –specific payment.”  Does this mean that 
Member States can choose another formula of coupled rather than the described formula, such as 75% 
of the special male premium plus 100% of the calf slaughter premium coupled?  
 
Answer 
Yes. 
 
Question 8 Market Access: TRQ Administration 
How could the EC solve the problems of too many nominees applying for import quota?  
 
Answer 
Should the import quota be over-claimed, the quantities will be allocated proportionally to the 
applicants. Further details are contained in  Regulation 1301/2006 and Regulation 2454/93. 
 
Sugar Reform  
We understand that under the new sugar regime, ex port licenses may be granted to out-quota tariff 
subject to Management Committee regulation and within a quantitative limit.  Question 9 
What are the criteria used by the Management Committee in gran ting export licenses to out-quota 
portions?  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 215 
 
 
 Answer 
According to Article 12(d) of Council Regulati on (EC) No 318/2006 out-of-quota production can only 
be exported within the quantitative limit fixed. Si nce the introduction of the sugar reform on 1 July 
2006 no such quantitative limit has been fixed yet. Ther efore, for the time being, out-of-quota sugar or 
isoglucose may not be exported. 
 
Once a quantitative limit for exporting out-of-quota sugar or isoglucose has been established all 
interested and eligible operators can apply fo r an export license on a non-discriminatory basis.  
 
Question 10 
What would a quantitative limit be? Please further clar ify the process for keeping quantities within this 
limitation.    
Answer 
So far, no quantitative limit has been established.  The Community legal act fixing such a quantitative 
limit would also lay down rules for its management a nd a reliable and effective system of monitoring 
would apply. 
 
Single Farm Scheme 
 Question 11 
Are all payments under Single Farm Payments (SFP) decoupled? Please clarify in detail. 
 
Answer 
Yes, all payments under the Single Payment Scheme  are decoupled. Farmers receiving aid under that 
scheme are not obliged to use the eligible area fo r agricultural production. The minimum condition for 
receiving the full amount is that they maintain  the land under good agricultural and environmental 
condition and comply with the statutory management  requirements (cross compliance). In other words, 
comply with standards in public, animal and plant health, environment and animal welfare established 
by Community legislation.  
Question 12 
Please identify the impact of SFP. How has it affect ed current production in specific sectors such as 
cereals, sugar and dairy?  
Answer 
The single payment scheme has been  introduced by 10 Member States in 2005. Five Member States 
have started in 2006. At this stage it is too early to draw conclusions on the impact of the aid scheme 
on production in agricultural sectors. However, th e European Commission will carefully monitor the 
impact on the markets.  
 
Question 13 
We understand that to receive the SFP, farmers have  to keep all farmland in good agricultural and 
environmental conditions as well as comply with th e statutory management requirement called cross-
compliance.  Are farmers under the SFP scheme elig ible to receive other forms of support such as 
direct payments and coupled payments? 
 
Answer 
The obligation to keep all farmland in good agricultural and environmental condition as well as to 
comply with the statutory management requirements is established for all direct payments (coupled and 
decoupled). Depending on the options chosen by Memb er States a part of the national envelope has 
been retained for coupled payments reducing the funds available for the decoupled single payment. 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 216  
 
 Question 14 
Under the 2003-2004 CAP Reform Single Payment Scheme, the 15 original Member States could 
choose to receive payment through two methods: “S ingle Farm Payment (SFP) and Regional Payment 
(flat- rate payment).” (1) Single Farm Payment (SFP) method can be calculated as follows: 
SFP Aid (each farmer) = [(average ∑ Farmer’s Individual Aid 2000-2002) / (average ∑ Individual's 
Eligible Hectares 2000-2002)] * Farmer 's Current Eligible Hectares 
(2) Regional Payment (flat-rate payment)  can be calculated as follows 
Regional payment (per farmer) = [(average ∑ Aid in Region 2000-2002) / (average ∑ Eligible Region 
Hectares 2000-2002)] *Farmer's Current Eligible Hectares 
Among the ten new EC Member States, Slovenia a nd Malta use the SFP method while the other eight 
countries use Single Area Payment (SAPS) method. The questions are as follows: 
 
For the SFP method, does the phrase “…average ∑ Farmer's Individual Aid 2000-2002…” mean the 
sum of all aids based on production in the entire pr oject of only a farmer (a verage during 2000-2002)? 
If not, please explain and provide examples. Please explain the Regional Payment method (flat-rate payment) and provide examples.     What are the differences in benefits under the SFP and flat-rate payment methods for EC farmers? 
The EC’s eight new Member States have chosen  to implement the Single Area Payment (SAPS) 
method.  How is this calculated? Please explain any formulae involved and provide examples.  In 
addition, what are the differences in the methods c hosen by Slovenia and Malta, and the EC original 
Member States?  Please explain and give some examples. Have any Member States elected to NOT receive de coupled payment? Please explain.  Furthermore, if 
Member States choose to receive partial decoupled, what is the maximum ratio between coupled and 
decoupled of each product that the EU Commission permits?  Answer 
1. In the historical model the reference amount for th e farmer is determined by the three years average 
(2000-2002) of the payments the farmer was granted in that reference period. 
 2. In the regional (flat rate) mode l the reference amounts are not calculated at individual farmer level 
but at regional level. Within the national ceili ng Member States may establish regional ceilings of 
reference amounts. Regional refere nce amounts are then divided by the number of eligible hectares 
declared by the farmers of the region in the year of  SPS introduction, to establish the value of a single 
entitlement in that region. Finally, each farmer recei ves a number of (flat rate) entitlements equal to the 
number of eligible hectares declar ed in the year of SPS introduction. As this model entails some 
redistribution of payments between farmers, some Member States have opted for a so called hybrid 
model which combined the flat rate approach which an individual top up per farmers calculated 
according to the rules under the historical model.  3. The differences in terms of benefits are difficu lt to quantify as regions and countries in which the 
schemes apply are very different. However, the main  general difference is that the regional model 
entails some distribution of payments between farmers. 
 4. The SAPS involves the payment of uniform amounts per hectare of agricultu ral land in the Member 
State concerned, up to a national ceiling resultin g from the accession agreement. This single area 
payment is calculated annually for each new Memb er States applying SAPS by dividing its annual 
national financial envelope with the national agricultural area under SAPS. The national agricultural 
area under SAPS is fixed for each new Member States for the whole period of application of this regime. The financial envelope is fixed annually by the Commission on the basis of the quantitative 
parameters resulting from the Act of Accession and ta king into account the gradual introduction of the  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 217 
 
 
 direct payments (i.e. the so-called "phasing-in"). The yearly increase of the amount of the single area 
payment under SAPS is the result of the phasing-in of direct payments.  For example, the amount of the SAPS single area paym ent of Latvia in 2006 was 32.83 Euro/ha. It is 
calculated by dividing the annual financial enve lope ( 48.429 Mio Euro - calculated at the 35% 
phasing-in rate) with the national agricultural area of 1.475 Mio ha.  
 Slovenia and Malta have opted for the single payment scheme from 2007. As foreseen by the 
Community legislation they apply the regional model.  
5. All Member States concerned by the single payment scheme apply decoupled payments. The 
Community legislation provides for the decoupling of direct payments but provides for the Member States option to partially keep some payments to  farmers coupled. Actually the Member States may 
maintain a proportion of product-specific direct aids in their existing form notably where they believe 
there may be disturbance to agri cultural markets or abandonment of production by moving to the SPS. 
Member States may choose between several options, at  national or regional level, but only under well-
defined conditions and within clear limits. The ove rview on Member States' choice is available on our 
webpage: http://ec.europa.eu/agri culture/markets/sfp/ms_en.pdf
 
 
Question 15 
Notified Support: under the WTO  
Has the EC notified all expenditures from both levels  (national expenditure from Member States and 
Federal expenditure/EC central Budget) to the WTO?  
 
Answer 
Yes. 
 
2003-2004 CAP Reform  
The intervention supports the price of rice reduced by 50 percent. However, when considering direct 
income payments, part of the payments are include d in SFP (Single Farm Payment) while another part 
is converted to crop-specific aid.  
 
Question 16 
The questions are as follows: 
What is the meaning of crop-specific aid? Does it mean payments (aid) that is tied or linked to 
production? If yes, how can it be calculated, and whic h data is used in such calculation: current or 
historical production? 
In Single Farm Payments for rice, are payments (a id) to farmers decoupled payments (fixed payments 
that are not tied to current production) or partial decoupled? If the payments are partial decoupled, what is the maximum ratio between coupled and decoupled 
payments for each EC Member State? Is crop specific aid different from coupled payment in Single Farm Payment (in the case of partial decoupled)? If yes, how are they different? 
 
Answer 
1. The general condition for crops specific payment for rice is that the crop is maintained until at least 
the beginning of flowering under nor mal growth conditions. The level of payment is 75 €/ha multiplied 
by relevant historical reference yield. National base areas exist, which, if they are exceeded, the aid per 
farmer is reduced.  
2. There is no option for partial decoupling unde r the Single Farm Payment for rice. The level of 
support of 102€/ha multiplied by re levant national reference yield was fully integrated into SFP 
without any obligation to produce. 3. Not relevant for the rice payment. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 218  
 
 4. Please see description of crop specific payment for rice under point 1.  
 
Question 17 
Export Competition 
Has the EC developed the idea of eliminating ex port subsidies as a result of the DDA?  Which 
product(s) would be most affected?  
 
Answer 
In the Hong Kong WTO Ministerial Declaration the EC agreed to ensure the parallel elimination of all 
forms of export subsidies and disciplines on all export measures with equivalent effect to be completed 
by the end of 2013. It is impossible at this stage to specify which product(s) would be most affected by 
the elimination of export subsidies.  
 
Question 18 SPS measures 
Since the outbreak of high pathogenic avian influenza (Avian Flu) in the EC, what measures have been 
undertaken to minimize the impact within the EC?  How affective have they been?  
Will the EC consider the Free-Zone disease/compartmen t as another option to minimize the effect on 
trade with non-EC exporting countries?  
 
Answer 
Document G/SPS/GEN/641 (20 MARCH 2006) Questions and answers on the EC control measures for 
avian influenza (AI), explains the latest legisla tion adopted by the EC for the prevention of AI, 
including cooperation with third countries, in ternational institutions and research centres.  
 In brief, the EC Member States (MS) immedi ately inform the European Commission and other 
Member States of any presence (or suspected presence) of AI, or any AI confirmed. This information 
appears rapidly in a dedicated Webpage.   In additi on to this, the European Commission, in the course 
of a week, adopts a decision that is made public in  the Official Journal of the European Communities. 
These are notified, where appropriate, to the OIE. Th e follow up of the situation can be easily done by 
visiting the pages of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCFCAH section 
Animal health) in the Europa website. For ot her explanations, please see G/SPS/GEN/641. The EC 
considers that these measures have been very effective.  
 The response to the second question is yes. First, a 3 km radius protection zone and 10 km radius 
surveillance zone must be set up around the site wh ere the disease was detected; Secondly, wider risk 
areas are marked to act as a buffer zone between the affected and non-affected part of the Member 
State; and thirdly, in these restricted areas severe movement restrictions, biosecurity measures and 
intense monitoring of holdings are implemented.   
REPLIES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS BY THAILAND
 
 
WTO Secretariat Report (WT/TPR/S/177)  
II. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(5) T
RADE AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS  
(i) Overview  
Para 25: The Secretariat  Report states that the EC  is a very active player in the WTO and a key 
supporter of the multilateral trading system and the Doha Development Agenda negotiations.  
Furthermore, the EC also has a strong interest in  pursuing bilateral and re gional trade arrangements 
through a multitude of preferential trade negotiations.  In this respect, various bilateral and regional 
initiatives have recently been started with both developed and developing-country Members.    WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 219 
 
 
  
Question 1.Para 66:  Could the EC update us on the progress of  the major negotiations, particularly 
that of the ACP-EU Economic Partnership Agreements  (EPAs) with the African, Caribbean and Pacific 
countries?  Given the time limit of 1 January 2008, how does the EC envisage concluding the 
reciprocal EPA negotiations based on the four main pillars and having the agreements enter into force 
within the next 10 months?   
 
Answer 
Negotiations of Economic Partners hip Agreements (EPAs) are progressing well. The EC and the six 
ACP regions are committedly working towards concludi ng negotiations within the deadline and having 
EPAs enter into force on 1 January 2008. 
 Question 2. Could the EC also provide further informati on on the criteria envisaged for its preferential 
trade negotiations with  new PTA partners that receive priorities, i.e. ASEAN, the Republic of Korea, 
India and MERCOSUR? 
 
Answer  
The Global Europe Communication states that "the key economic criteria for new FTA partners should 
be market potential (economic size and growth) and th e level of protection against EU export interests 
(tariffs and non tariff barriers). We should also take  account of our potential partners’ negotiations with 
EU competitors, the likely impact of this on EU markets and economies, as well as the risk that the 
preferential access to EU market s currently enjoyed by our neighbouring and developing country 
partners may be eroded. Based on these criteria, AS EAN, Korea and India emerge as priorities. They 
combine high levels of protection with large mark et potential and they are active in concluding FTAs 
with EU competitors. Mercosur and the Gulf Co -operation Council, with whom negotiations are 
already ongoing) also have combinations of market potential and levels of pr otection which make them 
of direct interest to the EU." 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(1) I
NTRODUCTION  
Question 3 Para 3:  The Secretariat Report states that export subsidies notified by the EC represent 
approximately 90 percent by value of all WTO Memb ers' notified export subsid ies.  The EC maintains 
such subsidies mainly on agricultural products. Can the EC provide more detailed information on the 
extent to which it remains within its WTO commitments  in this context, specifically with respect to 
sugar?  
Answer  
The EC reform of the common market organisation for sugar has been implemented on 23 May 2006 
and on 1 July 2006. The EC adheres to its WTO co mmitments on subsidies or exports for all products. 
Further information to this end is provid ed by the EC notifications to the WTO. 
(2) M
EASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS  
(i) Customs procedures and valuation 
Question 4. Para 6: The Secretariat  Report states that the EC has signed agreements promoting 
cooperation and mutual administrative assistance in customs matters with China and India and 
promoting customs security with the United States. To  what extent might the equal treatment of other 
WTO Members with respect to customs pro cedures be affected by these agreements? WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 220  
 
 Answer 
The EC has signed several agreements on customs cooperation, including China, India, US, Canada, 
the Republic of Korea, and Hong Kong, Ch ina. These Customs Cooperation and Mutual 
Administrative Assistance Agreements contain the ge neral principles of customs cooperation and also 
a chapter on mutual assistance in  customs matters, which lay do wn under which circumstances and 
how customs authorities can exchange data relati ng to breaches of customs legislation and fraud cases. 
These agreements provide also for the possibility to expand their sc ope and to increase the levels of 
customs co-operation.  The EC has signed an agre ement with the US on 22 April 2004 which expanded 
the scope of the 1997 EC-US customs cooperation agreement to include supply chain security co-
operation, and in particular coope ration as regards the US Container Security Initiative (CSI). These 
agreements do not provide for diffe rentiations with respect to custom s procedures, thus do not alter the 
equal treatment of other WTO Members. 
(ii) Common Customs MFN Tariff 
Question 5. Para 15:  The Secretariat  Report states that most of the EC's high tariff protection is 
maintained almost exclusively on  agricultural commodities and process ed foods. To what extent can 
the EC explain this persistent imbalance in pro duct coverage with respect to its highest tariffs? 
 
Answer  
The EC would like to recall that the calculations in  question were made by the WTO Secretariat which 
asserts in par 14 that the agricultural product are prot ected  with an average MFN tariff of 18.6%. As a 
consequence, the EC does not find the qualificati on of "high tariff protection" appropriate in 
comparison with other WTO Members. 
 
Question 6 The EC has modified its tariff concession in so me instances from a fixed rate to tariff rate 
quotas, such as for poultry products.  Thailand believes th at such modification is counter to the spirit of 
trade liberalization under the Doha Round, par ticularly as poultry farming and processing are 
important sources of income of developing countries.   Does the EC have any policies or measures to 
avoid resorting to trade-restrictive types of tariff modifications in the future?  If so, please elaborate. 
 
Answer  
Any modifications to the EC import tariffs or tari ffs quotas are carried out strictly in accordance with 
EC's international obligations a nd WTO legal provisions of Articles XXVIII and XXIV.6 of the GATT 
1994. 
 
(vii) Import prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing 
Question 7. Para 34:  The Secretariat Report states that 91 of the 98 tariff quotas the EC currently 
maintains are on agricultural products including chicke n, rice, fruits and vegetables. To what extent 
can the EC explain this persistent imbalance in product coverage with respect to its tariff quotas? 
 
Answer  
The EC does not consider that any imbalances exist in relation to product cove rage of its tariff rate 
quotas.   
Question 8. Can the EU explain how the tariff quota leve ls are established and managed (including 
decreased or decreased) in line with  market developments, in particul ar in relation to canned tuna of 
which the level was not adjusted in spite of commitm ents to take market developments into account? 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 221 
 
 
 Answer  
The levels of the tariff quota established by Counc il Regulation (EC) No 975/2003 were determined on 
the basis of the conclusions of a WTO Mediati on process.  The quota was allocated according to 
Article XIII GATT, on the basis of volume of traditiona l trade, to Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia and 
Others.  The level of the quota has been examined in 2005 and 2006; the EC found no justification to 
amend the quota (either increase or decrease). 
(vii) Contingency trade remedies 
(b) Anti-dumping (AD) measures 
Question 9. Para 42: According to the EC data in the Secr etariat Report, from 1 January 2004 to 30 
September 2006 the EC initiated 77 AD investigati ons and imposed 39 definitive AD measures, while 
it terminated a total of 18 cases without taking any me asures.  We urge the EC to note that initiating an 
AD investigation can have a significant impact (t he so-called ‘trade-chilling’ effect) on both the 
product and the company under investigation.  In this  respect, we, as in the previous review, encourage 
the EC to be more cautious in initiating investigati ons and to do so only if the AD authorities have 
thoroughly examined the evidence.  We welcome the EC’s views on this continuing concern of a 
number of Members.  
 
Answer  
Generally speaking the EC is a moderate user of  anti-dumping and anti-subsidy instruments. When 
comparing the period from 1995 until the end of 2003 with the period of 1 January 2004 to 30 
September 2006, the number of new investigations has gone back from 30 on average to 26. Over the 
same periods definitive anti-dumping measures have  declined from 23 on average to 13 on average 
during 1 January 2004 to 30 September 2006. Furtherm ore, the total number of measures in force by 
the EC has significantly decreased since 2002 (from 184 to 135 in September 2006). As regards the 
imposition of definitive measures the absolute figures are only meaningf ul when put in relation to the 
overall trade volume. In that respect it should be not ed that the percentage of trade volume covered by 
AD measures is relatively stable over years at a ve ry moderate level. In comparison with other WTO 
members and taken over time, as stated above, the EC can therefore be seen as an important trade 
defence user, but nevertheless a moderate one when considering the overall volume of trade. 
The EC applies high standards when examining whet her the conditions for initiating an investigation 
are met. However, if the conditions, as set out in the basic anti-dumping regulation, which are in full 
conformity with the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreemen t, are met, the EC is obliged to initiate 
investigations.  In respect of anti-dumping investigations, we w ould appreciate the EC’s responses to the following 
questions: 
Question10. - What plans does the EC have to increas e the level of transparency in its AD 
investigations? 
 
Answer  
The EC considers that its AD legislation and practi ce already ensure a high level of transparency. In 
accordance with the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreemen t all interested parties are granted ample 
opportunity to participate in the investigation and defend their interests, i.e. through access to the non-
confidential file, hearings and disclosure.  The EC has recently published a Green Paper on Tr ade Defence Instruments for public consultation. 
The aim of this Green Paper is to launch a refl ection on whether there is a need to adapt these 
instruments in light of the far-reaching changes taking place in the global economy, while maintaining 
the efficiency of the TDI to defend EC producers against unfairly traded, subsidized imports or dramatic shifts in trade flows.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 222  
 
  
This process is open and without any preconceived id eas. It covers several aspects of TDI law and 
practice, including certain aspects of transparency. After the consultation pro cess, which received, how 
to follow-up. It is therefore at this stage not possibl e to indicate whether and to what extent the level of 
transparency will be affected by this reflection process.  
 
Question 11. - What are the EC’s long-term plans to deal w ith the issue of transpar ency in the stage of 
verification in situations where th ere are a large number of exporters? 
 
Answer  
Please refer to answer to question 10.  
 Question  12- What are the guidelines for examination of known factors other than dumped imports, 
which at the same time are in juring the domestic industry? 
 Answer  
As the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement does not set out a methodology for examining the causal 
relationship between dumping and injury, the inves tigating authorities are free to determine their own 
methodology. In this respect, as a general rule the EC  firstly establishes whether there is a causal link 
between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the EC industry, and secondly it examines the 
impact of each of the known other factors of injury , notably by assessing what would be the situation 
of the EC industry in the absence of such factor. The EC examines whether the effect of these known 
factors is such as to break the causal link between the injury established and the imports concerned. 
This is done by separating and distinguishing the e ffects of these other factors and the effect of the 
dumped imports. If this is not the case the EC conc ludes that the dumped imports taken in isolation 
have caused material injury to the EC industry. 
 
Question  13.- What are the time frame and the operating principles for an undertaking proceeding, and 
how can the EC ensure exporters when they do not offer undertakings, or do not accept an invitation to 
do so, that their decisions shall in no way prejudice consideration of the case?     
Answer  
Normally undertaking offers can be made at any ti me during the investigation, right up to the end of 
the period for comments on the definitive disclosure (Cf.  Article 20 (5) of the basic AD Regulation). If 
the European Commission accepts the undertaking offe red, the Commission Decision enters into force 
at same time as the Council Regulation imposing the definitive measures.  
In accordance with Article 15 of the AD Agreem ent, the European Co mmission informs the co-
operating exporting producers from developing coun tries of the European Commission’s willingness to 
explore the possibility of constructive remedies, incl uding undertakings in its disclosure letter at the 
stage of definitive measures. It should be stressed  however that, as with any country, the European 
Commission can, and does reject undertakings from exporte rs in developing countries (there have been 
such cases), if it is not satisfied that the injurious effect of dumping would be eliminated, or if it is 
considered that acceptance of the undertaking would be  impractical (Cf. Articles 8 (1) and 8 (3) of the 
basic AD Regulation).  It also needs to be stated that no exporting producer  is under the obligation to offer an undertaking (Cf. 
Article 8(2) of the basic AD Regulation). The fact that an exporting producer does not wish to offer an 
undertaking or does not accept an invitation to do so is in no way prejudice to the consideration of the 
case.  
 
Question  14.Please also provide the relevant legal basis under WTO provisions as to how the EC 
could reconcile the enlargement of a customs union and automatic extension of existing trade remedy  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 223 
 
 
 measures to the newly acceded countries.  By analogy  with the previous enlargement (EU-25), does the 
EU have any approaches to address Members’ concerns in this regard?  
Answer  
The question of how to reconcile the enlargement of  a customs union and the application of existing 
anti-dumping measures is not explicitly addressed in the GATT 1994 or in the WTO Anti-Dumping 
Agreement. However, from an anti-dumping perspec tive, enlargement of a WTO member is just 
another of the many parameters which are subject  to modifications during the lifespan of an anti-
dumping measure (such as e.g. the increase of the numb er of domestic producers, other changes in the 
market structure etc.). Since the enlargement do es normally not alter the justification (i.e. the 
fulfillment of the criteria) for applying an anti-dumping measure, there should be no reason to question 
the extension of existing anti-dumping measures to ne w members of a customs union. This is all the 
more so since the economic weight of the new Member States is minor when compared to the EC of 25 
Member States, so that the enlarg ement is unlikely to have an imp act on the economic data justifying 
the imposition of measures. Moreover, the EC has take n a very prudent approach and is ready to open 
reviews for those cases where interested parties re quest such reviews and submit evidence that the 
measures would have been significantly different if  they were based on information including the new 
Member States. Accordingly, exporting producers in  third countries were encouraged and are still 
welcome to submit such requests for en largement-related interim reviews. 
 Question  15.How can the EC justify and ensure that auto matic application of the existing contingency 
trade remedies, for example AD measures, to impo rts into the two newly acceded Member States 
(Bulgaria and Romania), will not be more restrictive th an those applicable prior to the formation of the 
customs union?  Should any increase be expected in the number of trade defense measures taken by the EC after the enlarged EU-27?  Answer  
As regards the first part of the ques tion please see reply above to question 14. 
The EC is not in the position to forecast the numbe r of trade defense measures to be taken after 
the recent enlargement. However, since the industrial output of the new Member States 
represents an insignificant small percentage comp ared to the industrial output of the EC25 the 
EC does not expect a significant change of the trend the EC monitored so far with regard to 
trade defense measures. 
 
(ix) Technical barriers to trade (TBT) 
Question 16. Para 52:  The Secretariat Report states that the nu mber of notifications made by the EC 
and its Member States under the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade increased between 
2004 and 2006.  However, the following paragraph 53 states that the EC has signed no new mutual 
recognition agreements since its last trade policy re view.  Could the EC please explain why it has not 
concluded any new MRAs since its last TPR desp ite the increase in its technical regulations?  
Answer  
The EC does not link the number of technical regul ations with its policy on Mutual Recognition 
Agreements. Mutual Recognition agreements are signed  by the EC with trade partners in areas where 
products are subject to mandatory third-party certifi cation and there is an effective economic interest 
on both parties to facilitate the certification process. Many of the regulations adopted by the EC since 
the last TRP provided for Self Declaration of Conf ormity and thus, would not fall under the scope of 
an MRA. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 224  
 
 (4) M
EASURES AFFECTING PRODUCTION AND TRADE  
(ii) Competition policy and regulatory issues  
Anti-trust 
Question 17.Para 86:  The Secretariat Report states that an ti-competitive agreements are prohibited 
except if beneficial on balance to economic efficiency  and consumer interest. The concept of consumer 
interest is subsumed in the Community Interest  which takes into account the EC’s anti-dumping and 
countervailing duty proceedings. Can the EC clarify how it considers anti-competitive agreements or 
practices in the framework of the Community interest assessment and in particular in light of consumer 
interest in the framework of trade defense instruments? 
 
Answer  As an exception to the prohibition of competition restricting agreements Article 81(3) EC provides 
indeed that this prohibition may be declared inapp licable in case of agreements which contribute to 
improving the production or distribution of goods or  to promoting technical or economic progress, 
while allowing consumers a fair share of the resultin g benefits, and which do not impose restrictions 
which are not indispensable to the attainment of th ese objectives, and do not afford such undertakings 
the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of  a substantial part of the products concerned. 
This is an exhaustive description of the genera l criteria the Commission would apply in its assessment, 
without referring in a addition to a distinct Co mmunity interest assessment. Application of EC 
competition rules has to be distinguished from the Commission's trade defence policy. 
 
As regards trade defence investigations, the EC applies a Community interest test, which seeks to 
determine whether the imposition of measures would not be against the overall interests of the EC. It 
takes into account in particular the interests of  consumers, suppliers, users and the Community 
industry. The preservation of a competitive situation on the market may be a relevant consideration in 
the context of the assessment of the potential eff ect of measures on, in particular, the Community 
industry, users, consumers and suppliers. Indeed, if  measures lead to less competition, this may have 
negative consequences for other parties, in particular  consumers, in terms of increasing prices, reduced 
choice etc.  
The question whether TDI measures could reduce e ffective competition arises if the Community 
industry only consists of a limited number of pr oducers with a significant ma rket share. In such 
situation the danger of reducing competition, cr eating or strengthening an  oligopolistic/monopolistic 
market structure or a dominant position on the mark et, must be assessed and taken into account.  
TDI measures may also prevent the creation of a do minant position of the exporter(s), where dumping 
practices of the latter are likely to drive the Community industry out of the market if no measures are imposed. In that situation competition considerations  would plead in favour of measures. Whether or 
not the risk of a dominant position of exporters exists  depends in particular on the number of exporters 
and the structure of the exporting market(s) concerned. 
If the Community industry has been found to e ngage in anti-competitive practices, the possible 
reduction of competition following the imposition of anti-dumping measures must be examined with 
special care, since measures to protect a cartel ca n obviously not be in the Community interest.  
Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)/Sanit ary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) 
 
Some of the sanitary and phytosanita ry measures of the EC have been the subject of criticism by third 
countries over the years, including comments that th ey are much stricter and somewhat more trade 
restrictive than international regulations, and also that they are not fully harmonized Community-wide.   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 225 
 
 
 This results in high compliance costs in meeting the essential requirements of the regulations.  With 
respect to these observations, we would welcome the EC’s views on the following:  Ouestion 18 - What further steps, if any, have b een taken to fully address these long-standing 
concerns? 
 
Answer 
The EC is of the view that these criticisms are not  valid. The EC operates a very transparent import 
regime in relation to SPS measures which takes fu ll account of its multilateral obligations, including in 
the WTO/SPS Agreement. As the world's largest impor ter of food and food products, it is also clear 
that third countries, including Thailand, enjoy signifi cant market access to the EC. In addition, the EC 
also allocates significant resources to inform and train developing countries on how best to access 
European markets, including compliance with SPS measures. 
The essential requirements for compliance are the same for all producers. Testing and 
Certification is a private and commercial service offered in the market place and open for 
competition. The EC has no role to play  in setting the costs for such services. 
 Question 19 - The EC technical regulations, standards, and SPS measures, albeit having been under 
continued review by the Commission, have not yet b een fully harmonized among Member States.  In 
view of this, what kinds of measures have been or will be taken by the EC to ensure the free flow of 
intra-EU trade as well as trade with third countries?  
 
Answer 
Harmonised legislation allows new EC  laws to be introduced with detailed rules that apply across the 
EC and therefore replace diverging national rules. Th is principle has been applied successfully within 
the EC and has been one of the main mechanisms  used to create the in ternal market for goods. 
However, “full” harmonisation of European regulati ons is not really a realistic goal, and there is 
therefore no specific target date for this. There are fi elds in which harmonisation is not even a desirable 
goal. Harmonised legislation is made on a case by case basis depending on the need for adopting 
European legislation, as well as taking into account th e principle of subsidiarity (Article 5 of the EC 
Treaty).  
SPS measures in relation to imports are very subs tantially harmonised at EC level and only in 
exceptional cases do Member States apply non-harmoni sed measures. Thus when imports from third 
countries access an EC Member Stat e they are free to circulate freely within the Community. This is of 
course one of the major attractions of the EC market for third countries, i.e. access to a trading bloc of 
27 Member States under a single regulatory regime. Efforts are continuing to agree harmonised 
measures for those rare areas which are still subject to national rules. As an example, important 
harmonising measures were agreed in 2006 on microbi ological criteria, including in relation to 
imports.  
 
Ouestion 20 - For the EC standards and SPS measures not fully based on the requirements of 
internationally accepted standards, how does the EC ensure that these are not more trade restrictive 
than necessary?  In addition, please explain why in the EC’s view the use of internationally accepted 
guidelines does not suffice to ensure consumer health and safety and preservation of the environment.   
 
Answer 
EC measures are, where possible, based on relevant  international standards. However, in many cases 
there are no such standards and the EC therefore has to rely on standards developed at the Community 
level. These are no more trade restrictive than necessary and third countries should recall that they 
apply both to trade within the EC and to imports  from third countries in a non-discriminatory manner. 
The EC fully supports the activities of the in ternational standard setting bodies, notably the WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 226  
 
 OIE/CODEX/IPPC, in order to provide as comprehe nsive framework of standards at the multilateral 
level.   As far as standardisation is concerned, it also has to be kept in mind that in the EC, standards are 
voluntary technical documents which are develope d by independent European Standardisation 
Organisations over which none of the EC institutions has any direct influence. In Europe, the standards 
developers follow the internationally recognised pr inciples of standardisation among which figure the 
principles of openness and transparency. In practice, this means that any adop tion of a standard is 
preceded by a public enquiry where any stakeholder be  it within the EC or outside the EU may submit 
its comments.  
The EC and the European Standardisation Organisati ons are aligned to international standardisation 
and promote international standards. The princi ple is "go international wherever possible". 
Accordingly, CEN and CENELEC have developed cooperation agreements with their respective 
international counterparts. For CEN, it is the Vie nna agreement concluded w ith ISO. For CENELEC, it 
is the Dresden Agreement concluded wit IEC. In th ese agreements the partners agree to cooperate and 
to develop common standards wherever possible. As  a result, roughly 80% of the CENELEC standards 
are identical with IEC standards and 35% of CEN sta ndards are identical with ISO standards. For more 
detailed information, it is recommended to have a lo ok at the CEN and CENELEC web- sites. The web 
addresses are: http://www.cen.eu/cenorm/index.htm
 (CEN) and  
http://www.cenelec.org/Cenelec/Homepage.htm  (CENELEC) 
 
MEXICO  
 WT/TPR/G/177 III. PRINCIPALES ACONTECIMIENTOS REGISTRADOS EN LA POLÍTICA 
COMERCIAL DE LAS CE (2004-2006) 
 Question 1 
En referencia a la Comunicación de octubre de 2006: Una Europa Global: competir en el mundo, 
México desea conocer qué tipo de acuerdos va a negociar la UE con los países andinos y 
Centroamérica, así como con Corea, India, la ANSEA y China.  Answer 
The successful conclusion of the DDA remains the foremost EU trade policy priority. However, the 
EU is also pursuing a bilateral agenda which is  a complement to, and not a substitute of, the 
multilateral route. 
The Global Europe communication states that "the key economic criteria for new FTA partners should 
be market potential (economic size and growth) and th e level of protection against EU export interests 
(tariffs and non tariff barriers). We should also take  account of our potential partners’ negotiations with 
EU competitors, the likely impact of this on EU markets and economies, as well as the risk that the 
preferential access to EU market s currently enjoyed by our neighbouring and developing country 
partners may be eroded. Based on these criteria, AS EAN, Korea and India emerge as priorities. They 
combine high levels of protection with large mark et potential and they are active in concluding FTAs 
with EU competitors. Mercosur and the Gulf Co -operation Council, with whom negotiations are 
already ongoing) also have combinations of market potential and levels of pr otection which make them 
of direct interest to the EU." 
 
Question 2 En el párrafo 26 del Informe de las Comunidades se indica que éstas, al aplicar su política comercial, 
otorgan prioridad a la vía multilateral y a la OMC y que únicamente cuando se considera conveniente y 
necesario se recurre, a título comple mentario, a nuevas iniciativas bila terales o birregionales. ¿Cuáles 
son los criterios para considerar conveniente y necesarias tales iniciativas con países y/o bloques en  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 227 
 
 
 América y Asia? ¿Se limitan a las cuestiones que no están prontas para ser debatidas a nivel 
multilateral y al potencial de los mercados  como se menciona en el párrafo 28? 
 
Answer 
See answer to question 1.   
Question 3 
¿En qué consiste la revisión de la  estrategia de la UE en materia de acceso a los mercados para 
centrarla en los obstáculos no arancelarios, tal como se indica en el párrafo 29 del Informe, en el cual 
también se afirma que las medidas adoptadas por algunos  de los principales interlocutores comerciales 
de las CE para restringir el acceso a sus sumini stros de estos insumos están causando importantes 
problemas a algunas ramas de producción de las CE? 
 
Answer  
The improvement of market access abroad for Europ ean exporters was identified in the Global Europe 
Communication
9 as a key part of the objective of in creasing European Competitiveness in global 
markets and creating growth and jobs. The renewed Market Access Strategy tries to adapt the former 
strategy that has been running since 1996 to the ch anges and new conditions in the external markets 
created by globalisation. The appearance of new types of barriers and the persistence of the existing ones makes it necessary to find the appropriate and most  effective instruments to tackle them. This new 
strategy will be designed to respond more effectivel y to EU business needs and it will be developed in 
close cooperation with EU Member States and in full compatibility with other relevant Community 
policies.  
 
Question 4 
¿Cuál es el estado que guarda el desarrollo de la Política Europea de Vecindad (PEV) y los planes de 
acción hacia los tres países occidentales recienteme nte independizados menciona dos en el párrafo 49 
del Informe (Ucrania, Moldova y Belarús)?  
Answer 
The action plans under the European neighbourhood po licy for Moldova and Ukraine were adopted in 
2005 and they are being implemented. The EU is li nked to Moldova and Ukraine by Partnership and 
Co-operation Agreement. There are currently no pl ans to review the Agreement with Moldova. In 
relation to Ukraine, the EU will soon launch negotiations on a new Enhanced Agreement.  
The ratification of the Partnership and Co-opera tion Agreement between the EU and Belarus is 
currently suspended. 
 
Question 5 Las CE y los países ACP están negociando acuerdos de  asociación económica, tal como se indica en 
los párrafos 52  ¿es posible esperar que efectivamente  su entrada en vigor será el 1º de enero de 2008 o 
son previsibles desde ahora algunos retrasos?   
Answer 
Negotiations of Economic Partners hip Agreements (EPAs) are on track. The EC as well as the six ACP 
regions are committed to concluding negotiations within the deadline.  
 
Question 6 
En el párrafo 56 del Informe se afirma que al ma rgen de los acuerdos de libre comercio y de las 
iniciativas regionales o autónomas, las CE han adopt ado con distintos países desarrollados iniciativas 
más concretas en relación con la facilitación del come rcio. Se menciona, por ej emplo, la cooperación 
en materia aduanera, medidas sanitarias y fitosan itarias, competencia, normalización y certificación. 
                                                     
 
9  Commission Communication "The global challenge of  International Trade: a Market Access Strategy 
of the European Union" COM (96) 53 final of 14.02.1996. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 228  
 
 ¿Por qué se omite decir en el Informe que al am paro de algunos acuerdos de asociación económica con 
países en desarrollo, como es el caso de México, ta mbién se han implantado este tipo de iniciativas de 
facilitación del comercio a través de proyectos de cooperación?  
Answer 
As noted in paragraph 54 of the report by the EC, a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement is already in 
place with Mexico. This Agreement includes a chapter on customs / trade facilitation. The EC attaches 
great importance to this, including its elements re lating to customs co-operation and assistance. We 
look forward to working with Mexico to take the issue of trade facilitation and customs co-operation 
forward, not only as part of the existing bilateral framework, but also under the DDA."  
 
IV. COMPROMISO DE LAS CE CON LA SOSTENIBILIDAD Y EL DESARROLLO 
(2004-2006) 
 
Question 7 
En el párrafo 68 del Informe se afirma que el fortal ecimiento de la capacidad comercial en los países 
en desarrollo puede contribuir de manera significativ a al crecimiento y el d esarrollo sostenible. Se 
agrega que la falta de capacidad institucional o de infraestructura dificulta la posibilidad de obtener el 
máximo provecho de las diferentes disposiciones y esferas de cooperación de los acuerdos bilaterales 
de las CE. Estando de acuerdo con lo anterior, ¿cuáles son las áreas prioritarias y los proyectos de cooperación que prevén las CE ejecutar con los países ACP?  
 
Answer 
EC assistance to the ACP countries is programmed through the European Development Fund in 5 year 
tranches.  The programming of this finance is carried out at the country level to support priorities and 
projects identified in national development plans.  This programming process for the 10th EDF (2008 - 
2013) is currently ongoing.  Within the 10th EDF th ere are 6 ACP regional programmes, where one of 
the main focuses will be Aid for Trade including supporting implementation of the Economic Partnership Agreements.  There are also a number of all ACP programmes, which include programmes 
linked to agricultural trade and trade development issues, including supporting ACP engagement at the 
WTO.  However, precise priorities are again de veloped in the context of national needs. 
 WT/TPR/S/177 II. REGÍMENES DE COMERCIO E INVERSIÓN 
 
Question 8 
En relación con el párrafo 27, ¿cuál es el alcance en  materia de inversión de las nuevas negociaciones 
de acuerdos preferenciales, en particular con los países andinos, Centroamérica y Corea del Sur? 
 
Answer 
The FTAs between the EU and the partners menti oned by Mexico should cover establishment in the 
three sectors of the economy (primary, secondary and tertiary sectors). The precise scope of the commitments to be covered in these future FTAs is  subject to upcoming negotiations between the EC 
and its partners. 
 
Question 9 
También en relación con el párrafo 27 ¿cuál es el enfoque que están adoptando en las nuevas 
negociaciones con países en desarrollo respect o a la movilidad de personas (modo 4)?. 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 229 
 
 
 Answer 
The EC will fully respect WTO rules in the contex t of Preferential Trade Area ("PTA") negotiations. 
Specifically as regards trade in services, the PTAs in  question will comply with the conditions set out 
in GATS Article V. The EC understand that, to m eet this condition, PTAs should not provide for the a 
priori exclusion of any mode of supply, including Mode 4.  
 Question 10 
De acuerdo con el párrafo 38 ¿ tienen contemplado las CE elabor ar alguna comunicación sobre las 
implicaciones económicas del acceso de Bulgaria y Rumania a la UE?  Answer 
No, the European Commission does not intend to prepare a communication.  In any case not enough 
time has passed to assess the impact." 
 
Question 11 
Tal como se indica en el Informe de la Secretaría, en su párrafo 42, el artículo 19 del EEE prevé 
exámenes cada dos años de las condiciones del co mercio de productos agrícolas entre las partes. 
¿Cuáles fueron los resultados de la negociación con Is landia que se preveía deberían aplicarse a partir 
de enero de 2007? ¿Cuál es el estatus de la ne gociación con Noruega que se reanudó a mediados de 
2006?  Answer 
Article 19 of the EEA agreement obliges EU and EEA countries to have regular reviews of their trade 
conditions in agricultural products.   As regards to the results of negotiations EU-Icela nd trade will liberalised for a bulk of different 
agricultural products as of March 2007.  
 Norway has entered into negotiations with the EU  end 2006 , also with a view to  deepen the 
liberalisation of agricultural trade  
 
Question 12 
En el párrafo 46 se indica que en octubre de 200 5 se iniciaron las negociaciones de adhesión de 
Turquía, país con el que la UE tiene una Uni ón Aduanera; sin embargo, también señala que no se 
cuenta con un calendario para la in tegración de la agricultura a tal Unión. ¿Cuáles han sido las razones 
que han impedido completar el esque ma de la Unión Aduanera con Tu rquía para incluir a los productos 
agrícolas  a ocho años de la Decisión 98/223/CE?  Answer 
The EU and Turkey have as a common objective to move towards the free movement of agricultural 
products between themselves (as provided for under Article 24 of Decision 1/95 of the Association 
Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the fi nal phase of the Customs Union) and should 
progressively improve the preferential arrangements which they grant each other for their trade in 
agricultural products.  
 
Question 13 
Respecto al párrafo 47, ¿qué tipo de instrumentos de  cooperación aduanera se utilizan para garantizar 
el origen de los productos cuando se aplica la ac umulación diagonal?  ¿Se estaría contemplando 
incorporar compromisos en este tema en las nuevas negociaciones de acuerdos preferenciales? 
 
Answer 
A system of diagonal cumulation requires the appli cation of identical rules of origin between all 
partners countries of the zone. Products that ha ve obtained their originating status through the WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 230  
 
 application of this type of cumulation are subject to a specific proof of origin. Within the Pan-Euro-
Mediterranean zone, either a movement certificat e EUR-MED or an invoice declaration EUR-MED are 
currently used to that effect. 
These proofs include additional information which a llows tracing back the country or countries 
participating in the acquisition of the originati ng status on the basis of diagonal cumulation. The 
standard provisions on administrative cooperation also  apply to subsequent ve rifications of movement 
certificates EUR-MED or invoice declarations EUR-MED. 
 
Question 14 
Favor de aclarar la fecha de entrada en vigor del Tratado de Libre Comercio entre México y la UE, 
pues en el párrafo 51 del Informe de la Secretaría  se registra octubre de 2000 y, en realidad, las 
Decisiones del Comité Conjunto 2/2000 y 2/2001 entraron en vigor el 1 de julio de 2000 y el 1 de marzo de 2001, respectivamente. 
 
Answer 
The Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreemen t between the EU and 
Mexico, signed on 8 December 1997, entered into force on 1 October 2000. Joint Council decisions 
2/2000 and 2/2001, which implement the trade and trad e-related objectives of that Agreement, entered 
into force respectively on 1 July 2000 and 1 March 2001, as indicated in Q14 from Mexico. 
 
Question 15 En virtud del Acuerdo de Cotonou, las CE están  negociando acuerdos de asociación económica con los 
países ACP que entrarían en vigor el 1 de enero de  2008. Según se indica en el párrafo 66 se dispondrá 
la eliminación progresiva de las medidas arancel arias y no arancelarias para bienes y servicios, 
incluyendo otras cuestiones relacionadas con el co mercio. Favor de aclarar si efectivamente se 
dispondrá la eliminación de las medidas no arancelarias y si se prevén esquemas de cooperación 
económica y de facilitación de comerc io para fortalecer la capacidad institucional de los países ACP en 
medidas sanitarias y fitosa nitarias, derechos de propiedad intel ectual, contratación pública, política de 
competencia, inversión, medio ambiente normas laborales, normalización – certificación, y seguridad alimentaria. 
 
AUSTRALIA
 
 I. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT (3) TRADE PERFORMANCE AND INVESTMENT  
Question 1 The EC report notes that intra-EC trade is almo st twice as large as external merchandise trade 
(WT/TPR/G/177, page 9, paragraph 22).  Could the EC  provide data on the relative shares of intra-EC 
trade and external trade for (a) agricultural imports  and exports, and (b) industrial product imports and 
exports?  Have these proportions changed following the EC-25 enlargement?   
 Answer 
The intra-EC 25 share of agricultural imports in re lation to total agricultural imports was 75.7% in 
2005. The corresponding figure for agricultural exports was 76.1% in 2005.  The intra-EC 25 share of non-agricultural imports in relation to total non-agricultural imports was 
62.8% in 2005. The corresponding figure for non-agricultural exports was 66.1% in 2005.  
 
The addition of ten new Member States has resulted in the intra-EC share of agricultural imports 
increasing by 4.1% (2005). The corresponding fi gure for agricultural exports is 4.6%.  
 The addition of ten new Member States has lead to  the intra-EC share of non-agricultural imports 
increasing by 5.7% (2005). The corresponding fi gure for non-agricultural exports is 6.5%.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 231 
 
 
 II. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(5) TRADE AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS (i) Overview 
 
Question 2 
With regard to the recent accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the EU, on what grounds did the EC 
select 2002-2004 as the reference period for the import statistics circulated in October 2006 for the purposes of compensatory adjustments under Artic le XXIV.6 GATT 1994?  Could the EC advise on 
the availability of 2005 trade statistics?  Answer 
Concerning the base period used in the EC notificati on in view of the enlargement with Bulgaria and 
Romania, the EC chose 2002-2204 as a base period for the following reasons: the EC trade statistics 
are constantly updated for at least  a year after the end of the statistical year as further information is 
received from the EC Member States and, in this case, also Bulgaria and Romania. At the time of the 
notification (September 2006), no complete and reliabl e data for the whole year of 2005 was available. 
 
(iii) Preferential trade agreements and arrangements  Question 3 
Australia understands that the overseas countries a nd territories (OCT) of individual EC Member 
States do not form part of the customs territory of the EC.  In relation to the OCT, the Secretariat’s 
report notes only that the EC provides duty-free and quota-free treatment on all products originating in the OCT on a non-reciprocal basis (WT/TPR/S/177, pa ge 39).  Nevertheless, a number of questions 
arise regarding the trade relationship between the EC, individual EC Member States and the OCT.   
 
(i) Could the EC clarify whether any of the OC T form part of the customs territory of an 
individual EC member state? 
(ii) Are there any EC-wide policies relating conve rgence in harmonisation of the trade regimes of 
the OCT? 
(iii) Noting, that France has scheduled GATS co mmitments in respect of New Caledonia, has 
consideration been given to scheduling commit ments in the goods sector for New Caledonia, 
and/or to scheduling commitments on goods or services for other French OCTs? 
(iv) In regard to the OCTs of other EC Member States, could the EC or the member state 
concerned advise whether any of them form part of their customs territories for WTO purposes? 
(v) Could the EC advise the expenditure on subsidi es at EC and EC member state level for exports 
to the OCT? 
 
Answer 
The OCTs are not part of the Community territory . They are constitutionally linked to four of the 
Member States (Denmark , France , the Netherlands and the United Kingdom). The Treaty establishing 
the European Community provides in its Part 4 (Art icles 182 to 188) for the association status of these 
countries or territories with the Community. 
 The purpose of this association is to promote the ec onomic and social development of the OCTs and to 
establish close economic relations between them and the Community as a whole.  In particular, the 
European Community grants unilateral trade pref erences to all products originating in the OCTs. 
 
Accordingly, Article 3 of Council Regulati on (EEC) No 2913/92 (Community Customs Code) 
excludes the OCTs from the custom s territory of the Community. 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 232  
 
 Each OCT is therefore considered by the Community  as a separate customs territory, different from the 
one of the Community and of the individual Member State, which this OCT depends from.  Under Community Law, an OCT is never treated as part of the customs territory of the related Member State. 
 
Concerning subsidies for export, we do not have this  information available as we do not isolate state 
aids to OCTs in our statistics. Information relating to certain subsidies by individual EC Member States 
has most recently been notified to  the WTO in the EC's subsidy notification in the year 2005 (covering 
the years 2003 and 2004). This notification is  available on the WTO website under the document 
numbers G/SCM/123/EEC and G/SCM/123/EEC/Add.1 until Add.25. The EC state aid rules do not 
permit export aid and it goes without saying that the EC does not grant export subsidies, insofar as 
these are prohibited by Article 3 of the SCM Agreement.  
 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(2) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS 
(ii) Common Customs MFN Tariff 
 
Question 4 
Non- ad valorem  duties on agricultural goods account for 10 per cent of the EC’s MFN tariffs, and 46 
per cent of agriculture tariffs.  The Secretariat’s report (WT/TPR/S/177, page 43-44, paragraphs 12-13) 
highlights the difficulties that this poses in regard to the transparency and pr edictability of the EC’s 
tariff, and thus of the EC market.  With this in mind, what consideration has the EC given to replacing 
all of its non- ad valorem  tariffs with ad valorem  tariffs? 
 
Answer 
The question appears to start from the assumption th at ad valorem duties are preferable to non-ad 
valorem ones. There is no evidence that ad valorem duties are more trade facilitating than other duties. 
For instance, specific duties are i ndeed trade facilitating since there is no need for the value of the 
goods as the tariff is calculated on the basis of a cer tain amount multiplied by the quantity, for instance, 
of the good in question. Furthermore, under GATT di sciplines, non-ad valorem duties are still admitted 
and there is no impediment to Members to use them if and when they see it fit and as long as they do 
not break their bound commitments. The EC  understands and supports the ne ed to have transparent, 
calculable and foreseeable tariffs.  This objective can be achieved both by ad valorem and specific 
duties. 
 
Question 5 
With respect to the aver age of MFN applied tariff levels on  agricultural products given in the 
Secretariat report (WT/TPR/S/177, page 45, paragra ph 14, as well as page 89-94, paragraph 24, 29, 32 
and 35), is the EC able to advise whether these take into account the tariffs applied as Special 
Safeguards (SSG)?  If not, could the EC provide  the relevant figures which include the SSG 
component?  Answer 
The analysis has been made by the WTO Secretariat and it is therefore not possible for the EC to 
specify whether the SSG component has been included or not.  
(vii) Import prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing 
 
Question 6 
Australia understands that, as a general rule, import licences are freely available to any person within 
the EC, without discrimination between Member States or the status of the individual applying for a  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 233 
 
 
 licence.  Could the EC advise of exceptions to that ge neral rule, in regard to import licences restricted 
to individual Member States or to categories of producers within Member States?    
Answer 
Please note that in the WTO annual replies to the Questionnaire on Import Licensing Procedures, 
G/LIC/N/3/EEC/9, the EC indicates on page 13, under the heading " Eligibility of importers to apply for 
licence ", the following: " Import licences are issued without di scrimination to any importer in the 
Community wherever the place of his establishment may be in the Community, without prejudice to 
compliance with the other conditions  required under current rules. All p ersons are eligible to become 
importers ".  
In application of provisions laid down in Coun cil Regulations on the common organisation of the 
market of agricultural products in the different sectors, imports into the Community of any of the 
products listed are subject to presentation of an import licence.   Licences are issued by the Member States to any appli cant, irrespective of the place of establishment in 
the Community. Import licences are valid throughout the Community. Such licences are issued subject 
to the lodging of a security guaranteeing that the products are imported during the term of validity of the licence. Except in cases of force majeure, the secur ity shall be forfeited in whole or in part if import 
is not carried out, or is carried out only partially, within that period.  Licences are used in order to monitor the volume of trade with third countries and to manage import 
tariff quotas. In the framework of certain tariff quot a, the access may be reserved to certain applicants, 
according to a definition of the applicant. 
 
(x) Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures  
Question 7 The EC’s new food hygiene package of legislati on codifies new procedures for listing third country 
establishments.  These procedures extend the time peri od in comparison to the old legislation – now a 
20 day review period by Member States and a 10 day wait from the time an establishment is listed on 
the EC website before it can officially export to th e EU market.  Under the same package of legislation 
there is no requirement for a domestic establishment’ s approval and registration to be reviewed by all 
Member States before being finalised, thus allowi ng the establishment free access to trade with all 
Member States.  
• Why are establishments exporting product to the EU subject to review by all Member States, 
while no such requirement exists for domestic establishments? 
 Answer 
Article 28 of the EC Treaty prevents Member States from applying any kind of restrictions in trade 
with other Member States. Imports from third countri es are subject to provisions of Article 152 of the 
EC Treaty that require equivalent norms for products from third countries. This is standard practice in 
all trading blocks. Question 8 
Commission Decision 2004/438/EC of 29 April 2004 lays down animal and public health and 
veterinary certification and conditi ons for introduction in the EU of heat-treated milk, milk-based 
products and raw milk intended for human consumption.  Annex 1 lists  countries authorised to import 
different milk products into the EU, presumably based  on their animal health status.  Column A lists 
countries authorised for import of raw milk (A ndorra, Canada, Switzerland, Chile, Iceland, New 
Zealand, and the United States of America).  Column  B lists countries authorised for import of heat-
treated (pasteurised) milk and milk products and includes Australia, Greenland, Croatia, Former WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 234  
 
 Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Romania.  Con sequently, Australia cannot export raw milk or 
milk products made from raw milk to the EU.  
• Australia seeks an explanation for the listi ng (and the ban); especially given Australia's 
favourable animal health status (recognised fr eedom from foot and mouth disease, rinderpest, 
bovine spongiform encephalopathy, bovine brucellosis, and bovine tuberculosis). 
 
Answer 
Australia is not listed in column "A" (raw milk ) to Decision 2004/438/EC because it is not listed for 
export of live animals in 79/542/EEC. The reason is that  the list of part I of Annex I (live animals) to 
Council Decision 79/542/EEC drawing up a list of third countries from which the Member States 
authorize imports of certain live animals (including bovine animals) and fresh meat is the base for (1) 
the list for non-treated milk and milk based products a nd, (2) part 1 of Annex II (fresh meat) is the base 
for the list for pasteurized milk and milk based pr oducts and (3) the list for sterilized milk and milk 
based products is based on the list for meat products. 
 
Question 9 As the Secretariat report notes (WT/TPR/S/177, pa ge 61, paragraph 58), the EC has undertaken a 
review of its legislation for animal by-products not intended for human consumption and is currently 
preparing and implementing changes to this legislation.    
• Could the EC clarify whether, or in what circumstances, animal by-products not intended for 
human consumption must now be sourced from an imals that have never been treated with 
substances prohibited pursuant to Council Dire ctive 96/22/EC, for example, hormonal growth 
promotants – HGPs.   
 
Answer 
Animal by-products not intended for human consump tion can be sourced both from animals that either 
have or have not been treated with prohibited subs tances, the difference is that material sourced from 
treated animals is classified as Category 1 (u ses are restricted). However numerous derogations 
notified to SPS (G/SPS/N/103 Add.10, Add.14 and Add. 15) have been made to facilitate trade of 
certain Category 1 material such as petfood, hides and skins for technical uses. 
 
Question 10 The EC specifies the appropriate levels and technical  parameters required for processing for imports of 
processed animal by-products not intended for hu man consumption.  In the case of dogchews, those 
made from hides and skins of ungulates require a heat treatment sufficient to destroy pathogenic organisms (including Salmonella); while those made  from animal by-products other than hides and 
skins of ungulates require a heat treatment of at least 90 °C throughout their substance.   
 
• Could the EC please explain the justificati on for prescribing two different processing 
requirements for imported dogchews?   
 
Answer 
The heat treatment required for imported dogchews is the same as the one required for processed 
petfood other than canned products and that is 90°C throughout their substance. That can be applied to 
a wide variety of materials from which dogchews is made. For a specific group of products, those 
made from only hides and skins of ungulates a less seve re heat treatment is foreseen which is sufficient 
to destroy pathogenic organisms (including Salmone lla). In combination with the dry nature of 
dogchew made from hides and skins this is considered  as safe treatment despite of the fact that no 
minimum temperature is required. 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 235 
 
 
 Question 11 
In 2005, Australia notified the Commission of a di screpancy in the animal by-products legislation 
relating to the requirements for placing pet food, dog chews and technical products on the market 
(these requirements apply domestically within the EU) and the model certificate conditions for imported dog chews.  Australia was advised at the time  that this discrepancy would be resolved, but in 
draft legislation (SANCO 3890/2005 Rev. 11), this discrepancy between requirements for domestic 
product and imported product not only remains but has been further enhanced to also include differing requirements for dog chews made from fish products.    Could the EC explain why more restrictive pro cessing requirements apply to imported product? 
 
Answer 
The inclusion of dogchews of fish origin into th e less strict regime is a relaxation of import 
requirements for this specific group of products and represents a step towa rds resolving the issue 
completely ( see also answer  to Question 10 ). 
 
(4) MEASURES AFFECTING PRODUCTION AND TRADE 
(i) State-owned enterprises; and (ii)  Competition policy and regulatory issues 
 
Question 12 
The Secretariat refers, in its report, to Member State monopolies (page xii, paragraph 22 and page 109, 
paragraph 76, WT/TPR/S/177) and the impact of these on trade in services.  Table AIII.1 of the 
Secretariat’s report, “Selected State-Owned Enterprises in the EC”, does not indicate which, if any, of 
these are monopolies.    Do such monopolies exist only in the services sector, and could the EC provide further details, 
including by sector (industrial, agriculture, servic es) of such Member Stat e monopolies (State-owned 
or otherwise)?  
Answer  
The European Commission does not itself keep, and is  not aware of the existence of, any definitive 
register or statistical information on state-ow ned enterprises or on monopolies (state-owned or 
otherwise) in the EC. Because EC regulations, in cluding competition rules, apply to all enterprises 
equally, regardless of their ownership structure, ther e is no particular reason to maintain any kind of 
list of state-owned enterprises. The European Commission would also point out that a monopoly can be obtained via a patent or through the normal play of competition, as well as be ing conferred by State 
regulation. The EC Treaty (article 86) employs th e concept of "special or exclusive rights", and 
provides a legal base for the adoption of legislation liberalising previously monopolised sectors; this 
has been done in a number of sectors, particularly electronic communications, energy, transport, and the postal sector.  
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(2) AGRICULTURE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES 
(ii) Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)  
Question 13 
The Secretariat report notes that the single paymen ts scheme replaces most of the existing premiums 
under different Common Market Organizations (CMO s) (WT/TPR/S/177, page  82, paragraph 9).  
Which premiums under different CMOs have not been replaced by the single payments scheme?  Is it 
intended that over time all of the premiums will be replaced by the single payments scheme?  If so, 
how long does the EC anticipate it will take for the single payments scheme to fully replace the 
premiums?  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 236  
 
 Answer 
The vast majority of direct aids has been decoupled under the Single Payment Scheme (SPS). 
However, under well-defined conditio ns and within clear limits and alongside continuing market 
stabilisation measures, Member States may maintain  a proportion of product-specific directs aids in 
their existing form where they believe there ma y be disturbance to agricultural markets or 
abandonment of production.  Proposals to integrate fruit and vegetables and potatoes into the SPS 
scheme is included in the European Commission refo rm proposal on the fruit and vegetable sector. 
There is no commitment for replacing the partially d ecoupled payment with fully decoupled payments. 
 
Question 14 
Member States that implement the single paymen t scheme regionally may choose to only undertake 
partial decoupling and maintain a limited link between payments and production. 
(i) Could the EC please explain the limitation of the link between payments and production? 
Which Member States have opted for partial decoupling? 
(ii) What, if any steps, is the EC taking to en courage Member States to fully decouple subsidies? 
(iii) Does the EC plan to eventually replace the present coupled payments allowed for in the 2003 
Mid Term Review reforms with decoupled payments? 
 
Answer 
(i) The Community legislation provides for the decoupling of direct payments but provides for the 
Member States the option to partia lly keep some payments to farm ers coupled. Actually the Member 
States may maintain a proportion of product-specific di rect aids in their existing form notably where 
they believe there may be disturbance to agricultu ral markets or abandonment of production by moving 
to the SPS. Member States may choo se between several options, at national or regional level, but only 
under well-defined conditions and within clear li mits. The overview on Member States' choice is 
available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets/sfp/ms_en.pdf
 
 
(ii) The 2003 CAP reform allows for a limited possi bility of coupled payments. Whether to partially 
decouple some of the payments is entirely a choice of the individual Member States.  
 (iii) The EC is currently addressing this issue.  Question 15 
Will the EU claim green box status for its Single Fa rm Payment given the current stipulation that 
farmers cannot receive the Single Farm Payment if they grow potatoes or fruit and vegetables on land 
with Single Farm Payment entitlements?    Answer 
The EC has not yet notified its domestic suppor t for the period under which the Single Payment 
Scheme has applied. The distribution of domestic support between the different types of support will 
be included in the notifications to the WTO. Th ese notifications are currently under preparation. 
 
Question 16 
The Commission has recently made proposals for in tegrating fruit and vegetables producers into the 
Single Farm Payment.  What will this mean for th e stipulation that farmers receiving the Single Farm 
Payment will not be permitted to receive the paym ent if they grow potatoes, fruit and vegetables on 
entitlement land?  Answer 
The European Commission has proposed wide-rangi ng reforms to the Common Market Organisation 
for fruit and vegetables and included a suggesti on to make farmland unde r fruit and vegetables, 
permanent crops and table potatoes eligible hectares in all SPS models. This proposal is currently being 
discussed with the Member States.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 237 
 
 
  
Question 17 
Under the conditions for the Single Farm Payment, farmers are required to maintain the areas on which 
entitlements are paid in good agricultural and envi ronmental condition.  How consistent is this 
stipulation with paragraph 6(d) of  Annex 2 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, given that land is a 
factor of production? 
 
Answer 
To keep the farmland in good agricultural and envir onmental condition is not a requirement to produce 
agricultural goods.  Beef and veal 
 
Question 18 
The Secretariat report alludes to possible structural adjustment in the beef and veal sectors due to the 
introduction of the decoupled single payment scheme by some Member States and a slight relative 
price increase in cereal feed prices (WT/TPR/S, pa ge 93, paragraph 33).  Has the EC undertaken any 
analytical work on the benefits of the changes to the beef and veal sectors? 
 
Answer 
The EC undertook some studies based on projections that showed some production increase at the start of the CAP reform, due to destocking in some Me mber States, followed by a downward evolution in 
the EC beef production in the medium term. Details  about these studies are available on the European 
Commission website: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/index_en.htm  
Biofuels 
 
Question 19 
The EC report notes, inter alia, that the EC's exte rnal competitiveness policies will need to encourage 
the use of renewable energies including biofuels (W T/TPR/G/177, page 11, paragraph 30).  The 2003 
Biofuels Directive set out an indicative target of 5. 75% for the market share of biofuels in the overall 
transport fuel supply.  It has been reported th at the Commission is proposing a minimum mandatory 
target of biofuels in transport fuel of 10 per cen t for 2020.  The EC and the Member States appear to 
have a range of programs designed to promote biofuels usage.  (i) Could the EC provide details of programs at EC-wide level, including budgetary outlays and 
other forms of assistance, relating to energy crops  such as energy set asides and biofuels usage 
targets? 
(ii) Are there any product-specific arrangements fo r the sale of agricultural products for dedicated 
biofuels production? 
(iii) Could the EC provide details, at the level of  individual Member States, in the following areas 
• Member state biofuels consumpti on targets (mandatory and other) 
• Direct or indirect tax concessions for biofuels production and consumption 
• Funding for biofuels production 
 Answer 
(i) The most common support measures for the promotion of the use of biofuels adopted by 
Member States of the EC are tax exemptions for biofuels and, increasingly, the use of biofuels obligations. This means that fuel suppliers are requi red to sell a given percentage of biofuels as share 
of their overall fuel sales. A special aid for energy crops was introduced by the 2003 CAP reform. A premium of EUR 45 per 
hectare is available, within a ‘maximum guaranteed area’ (MGA) of 1.5 million hectares across the EC. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 238  
 
 If applications exceed the guaranteed area ceiling,  the premium is reduced proportionally. The 
premium can only be received for crops grown on non-set aside land. From 2007 this aid has been 
extended to all new Member States applying the Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS) in order to 
provide the same incentives for the production of ener gy crops in all Member States. The MGA has in 
parallel been increased to 2 million ha. With eff ect from 2007 the implementing rules for the aid for 
energy crops regime have also been significantly simplified. 
 Under legislation on Rural Development, the Community can co-finance various measures for 
renewable energy in rural areas. In its ‘Comm unity Strategic Guidelines for Rural Development’ 
(2006), the Commission encourages Member States to include actions in the field of renewable energy 
to their programmes.  
 In 2003 the Biofuels Directive on the promotion of the use of biofuels for transport set reference 
targets at EU level of a 2  % market share for biofuels in 2005 and a 5.75 % share in 2010. In January 
2007 the European Commission has proposed that the EC should set a legally binding target of 20 % of 
renewable energy of total EC energy consumption, and a legally binding target of 10 % of biofuels of 
road transport fuels by 2020.  Also in January 2007 the European Commission made a proposal to 
modify Directive 98/70/EC to include an obligation on transport fuel suppliers  to report and gradually 
reduce life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from the fuel s they supply. If adopted, this measure would 
encourage the use of lower carbon fuels such as biof uels with the extra cost being borne by fuel 
consumers.  (ii) No  
(iii) Member States report to the European Comm ission the excise duty rates on petrol and diesel 
(the normal rate is the maximum tax reduction available). In some cases Member States report as well the specific rates for biofuels.  More information can be found at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_custo ms/resources/documents/taxation/ex cise_duties/energy_products/rate
s/excise_duties-part_II_energy_products-en.pdf  In addition, please refer to the Annex of the Biof uels Progress Report, adopted by the European 
Commission on 10 January 2007. The document numbe r is COM(2006)845 final, the website where it 
can be found: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/index_en.htm  (6) SERVICES  Question 20 
Australia welcomes the finalisation of negotiations with the EC under Article XXI of the GATS that 
agreed on a compensation package for WTO members affected by the modification or withdrawal of 
services commitments to accommodate EC enlargement to 25 Member States .  The final outcome demonstrated the workability of the previously  untried GATS Article XXI mechanism to modify 
permanently GATS schedules.  The Secretariat re port notes (WT/TPR/S/177, page 11, paragraph 80) 
that the new schedule will enter into force following  the completion of the certification procedure in 
the WTO and the internal decision-making proce dure of the EC and its Member States, where 
applicable.   
 Given that the certification process concluded on 15  December 2006, could the EC advise a date for 
the entry into force of the compen sation package?  If it is unable to do so, could the EC advise what 
action it has undertaken internally - for example, ta king the issue to the Council of Ministers - for 
approval and to expedite the pack age's early entry into force?  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 239 
 
 
  
Answer 
Following the signature of the relevant agreem ents with the "affected" WTO Members and the 
completion of the WTO certification procedure, the Commission is now proposing the conclusion of 
the agreements to the Council. The new GATS schedul e will enter into force following the adoption of 
the relevant Council decision. 
 
III. POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS 
 
Question 16 
En el párrafo 3 del Informe de la Secretaría se re conoce que los reglamentos técnicos, las normas y las 
medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias no están totalmen te armonizados entre los Estados miembros. ¿A 
pesar de los esfuerzos de las CE para la fa cilitación del comercio, no constituye la falta de 
armonización un obstáculo importante para los países ACP y los PMA que deseen exportar o 
diversificar sus exportaciones a la UE? 
 
Answer 
The fact that certain sectors are not harmonised does not imply that imports or trade between the EC 
Member States is rendered more difficult, as in th e non-harmonised area, the principle of mutual 
recognition applies. Under this principle any produc t which has been legally produced in one Member 
State, i.e., according to the applicable national requ irements, can be placed on the market of the other 
EC Member States. Only in very exceptional circ umstances and provided there are justified reasons, 
can a Member State block or impede the placement on its market of that prod uct. Products from the EC 
Member States and from third countries would be equally affected. 
 
Question 17 
En materia de reglas de origen en el párrafo 29 del Informe de la Secretaría se da cuenta de las 
acciones para simplificar las reglas de carácter preferencial, entre ellas se incluye la sustitución de la certificación de origen por una declaración de orig en hecha directamente por el exportador, mientras 
que el registro y control de tal certificación los hará la autoridad competente. ¿Cuándo prevé la UE 
llevar a cabo tal sustitución en los acuerdos de  asociación que tiene en vigor con países 
latinoamericanos? ¿Esta sustitución formará parte de las disposiciones a incluir en los acuerdos que 
tiene en proceso de negociación o en breve te ndrá con otros países y bloques latinoamericanos? 
 
Answer 
The proposals contained in the Communication of March 2005 (COM(2005) 100) are being discussed 
internally with a view to their future implementation,  which would in any event begin with GSP.  It is 
therefore premature to give a time indication for re placing the rules which are currently applied in the 
framework of the existing agreements with Latin Am erican countries.  Any change to those rules will 
of course have to be agreed with our trade partners.  The rules of origin to be applied in the context of 
future agreements with Latin Amer ican countries or regions will be de fined at the appropriate moment 
for each case. 
 
Question 18 El informe de la Secretaría, en su párrafo 53, señala que las CE no ha firmado nuevos acuerdos de 
reconocimiento mutuo desde al anterior examen de  sus políticas comerciales y que serán bilaterales, 
circunscribiéndolos  a subsectores industriales especí ficos, según proceda para cada país asociado.  
¿Cuál es el avance alcanzado por las actividades preparatorias? ¿Se ha considerado en la cobertura a 
los países que no son candidatos ni posibles candidatos a la adhesión? 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 240  
 
 Answer 
The ACAAs with the countries named are at a prelimin ary stage.  The priority sectors have mostly now 
been identified, and the countries concerned are aligning their legislation and standards systems 
(including transposition of European  standards) to those of the Comm unity in areas to be covered by 
the ACAA. Some potential ACAA countries are also potential Member States (Croatia, FYR of 
Macedonia), others are not (Algeria, Egypt, etc.). The EC is not considering at the moment any further 
"certification-only" MRA with any country. 
 
Question 19 
En el párrafo 110 del Informe se indica que la falta  de acuerdo con respecto a requisitos de traducción 
y cuestiones jurisdiccionales ha impedido llegar, hasta la fecha, a un acuerdo final sobre la 
introducción de la patente comunitaria. ¿Qué ac ciones están o estarán implementando las CE para 
instrumentar la propuesta inicialmente presentada en  2000 sobre la patente comunitaria y cuál es el 
status de la reforma del Convenio sobre la Patente Europea? 
 
Answer 
The difficulties encountered in making progress on patent reforms led the European Commission to 
launch, in January 2006, a broad consultation to colle ct stakeholders' views on the future patent system 
in Europe. Moreover the Commission organised a public hearing which took place on 12 July 2006. 
The results of this exercise have shown that pate nt users favour the introduction of a Community patent 
and the improvement of the existing European patent system. However, the Common political 
approach adopted by the Council in 2003 on the Commun ity patent is strongly criticised in relation to 
translation requirements and the jurisdictional sy stem. As a follow-up to the consultation, the 
Commission indicated that it will submit a Comm unication drawing operati onal conclusions. This 
communication is currently being prepared.  
 
Question 20 En el párrafo 117 citan que la lis ta de productos de calidad regionales no se ha actualizado desde 2004. 
¿Tienen las CE intención de actualizar la lista de Indicaciones Geográficas en el corto plazo?  
Answer 
The EC does not intend to update the list in question in the short term.  
IV. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES POR SECTORES 
 Question 21 
El párrafo 11 establece que en 2005 se adoptó una Comunicación en la que la CE pedía que en 2006 se elaborara un plan de acción que enunciara medidas concretas respecto a las  organizaciones comunes 
del mercado, régimen de interv ención, contingentes arancelarios,  restituciones a la exportación , 
salvaguardias promoción de productos agrícolas, entre otras medidas. ¿Podrían las CE explicar si dicho 
plan de acción de elaboró y, si es así, el estado actual de este? 
 
Answer 
The European Commission adopte d in December 2006 a proposal for a Council Regulation 
establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products. The proposed single CMO will allow the repeal of more than 40 Council acts and 
will replace more than 600 legal articles in the current  regulations with less than 200. The proposal has 
been sent to the Council and Parliament. The Commi ssion hopes it will enter into force in 2008. 
 Question 22 
De acuerdo con el párrafo 27 ¿podrían explicar las medidas que las CE están tomando actualmente en 
relación con los recientes brotes de influenza aviar de alta patogenicidad en Hungría y Reino Unido? 
Answer  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 241 
 
 
 In Document G/SPS/GEN/641 (20 March 2006) Questions and answers on the EC control  measures 
for Avian Influenza (AI), t he EC explained the last legislations adopted for the prevention of AI 
including cooperation with third countries, institutio ns and international research bodies. In brief, the 
EC's Member States inform immediately the Comm ission and other Member States about any presence 
(or suspected presence) of AI, or any confirmed case of AI. This information can be consulted in the 
following websites: http://europa.eu.int/comm/ dgs/health_consumer/dyna /influenza/index.cfm  and  
http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_threat s/com/Influenza/press_influenza_en.htm  
Thereafter the Commission within a week adopts a deci sion that is published in the Official Journal of 
the European Communities and when pertinent, it is  notified to the OIE. Third countries can monitor 
the situation visiting the pages on the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health 
(SCFCAH) in the Europa website. For explanati ons in greater detail, see G/SPS/GEN/641. The EC 
considers that these measures have been very effective.  
 
Question 23 
En el párrafo 37 se dice que los países en desar rollo gozan de acceso preferencial al mercado 
comunitario del azúcar, ¿podrían las CE precisar los términos en los que estos países seguirán gozando 
de tal acceso preferencial? 
 
Answer 
The common organisation of the markets in the s ugar sector was formally adopted in 2006 and has 
been applicable since the 1 July  2006. There are mainly two preferential agreements that allow 
preferential access to the EC common market for su gar: the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) 
and the Everything but Arms initiative (EBA). The fo rmer applies to all Developing Countries within 
the scope of the agreement while the latter applies to the Least Developed Countries (LDC). Within the 
EBA, free market access for sugar is being phased  in gradually until 20 09. Moreover, the ACP 
(African, Caribbean and Pacific) countries have prefer ential access for certain quantities of sugar to the 
EC under the Cotonou agreement. In the future , the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), 
currently under negotiation, will define the ma rket access conditions of the ACP to the EC.  
 
Question 24 
Según es señalado en el párrafo 54, el Informe de la Comisión de 2005 sobre el funcionamiento del 
mercado de la electricidad y el gas concluyó que la  integración del mercado sigue siendo insuficiente y 
es bajo el nivel de comercio transfronterizo. Dado que los objetivos no han sido alcanzados, por 
ejemplo los relacionados con interconexión, y que los Estados miembros lle van retrasos en la 
aplicación de directivas, ¿qué acciones están empren diendo las CE para la integración del mercado? 
 
Answer 
The European Commission has launched infringement procedures against Member States who have not 
comply with the provisions of the Directive. 
 
Question 25 
El Consejo Europeo de Lisboa estableció como obj etivo para las CE llegar a ser la economía más 
competitiva y dinámica del mundo en 2010, lo cual depende en gran medida del desarrollo de la 
competitividad del sector manufacturero, tal como se plantea en el párrafo 57 del Informe. Sin 
embargo, tal como es señalado en el párrafo 61, hay una falta de competitividad en la producción 
comunitaria de insumos requeridos por la industria y existe una progresividad mixta de los aranceles 
aplicados a los insumos o, peor aún, en los casos en que no existe producción doméstica el arancel 
muestra una progresividad positiva. ¿Cómo están enfren tando las CE este problema a la luz de la nueva 
política industrial? 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 242  
 
 Answer 
The need to ensure a solid industrial fabric has been acknowledged in the re newed Lisbon agenda and 
industrial policy is an important pillar in the new Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs.    
Industrial policy is – and should remain - horizont al, meaning that it aims to create a better 
environment for all businesses, regardless of size or sector. At the same time, public authorities must 
be able to respond to sector-specific conditions an d needs. This does not mean helping and sheltering 
some sectors from international competition but identify at sectoral level what may hamper their productivity growth.  In the Communication of 2005, the Commission has proposed a number of specific initiatives for 
individual sectors and horizontal cross-sectoral ini tiatives. One of them deals with the external 
dimension of industrial policy and aims at ensuring a fair access to third markets for EU industrial 
sectors.  
 
Question 26 
La industria del automóvil de las CE está sumament e regulada, la falta de mercado interior y de 
armonización en determinadas esferas ha sido objeto de  críticas, tal como se anota en el párrafo 67 del 
informe de la Secretaría. Existe una  hoja de ruta para aume ntar la competitividad de tal industria, cuyas 
recomendaciones son enumeradas en el párrafo 68,  en el cual se indica que a finales de 2006 se 
presentarían propuestas para el seguimiento de tales recomendaciones. ¿En qué consisten las 
propuestas y cuáles son los resultados del seguimiento?  Answer 
The Commission adopted on 7 February 2007 a Communication on "A Competitive Automotive 
Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century". In this Communication the Commission proposes replacing 38 EC directives with corresponding gl obal UN/ECE regulations, for instance on tyres, 
safety glass, fog lamps and seatbelts. In addition, self testing and virtual testing will be introduced for 
25 directives and UN/ECE regulations to reduce compliance costs and make administrative procedures 
less costly and time consuming.  
More information on this issue can be found on the web page: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotiv e/pagesbackground/competitiveness/cars21.htm
. 
 
IV POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES / 6) Servicios / ii) Servicios financieros 
 
Question 27 
México está interesado en conocer cuáles han sido los principales resultados, hasta el día de hoy, de la 
implementación de la “estrategia quinquenal” (mencionada en el párrafo 83) en materia de servicios, la 
cual empezó a operar en diciembre de 2005.  
 
Answer 
The European Commission published a White Paper in  December 2005, and sin ce then, a lot has been 
done:  better regulation is now fully embedded in policy making,  
supervisory co-operation has been developing,  
improved inter-institutional balance has been achieved,  
several steps have been taken to improve co mmunication with c consumers and  users,  
a proposed directive aims to achieve greater clarity  in supervisory assessments of M&A  transactions, 
a close co-operation with US authorities has contin ued and dialogue with Japan and  China have 
been deepened,  
the Capital Requirements Directive was formally adopted, 
recommendations on future revisions of the E-m oney Directive and on way forward for  Deposit 
Guarantee Schemes were made,  preparatory work for Solven cy II proceeded apace,  
motor insurance compensation bodies and accide nts with trailers has been addressed,   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 243 
 
 
 an Industry-led Code of Conduct has been adopted in Clearing & Settlement,  
a White Paper on Investment Funds published in November 2006 has proposed  measures to improve 
the efficiency of the EC investment fund market, the future priorities for Company Law and Co rporate Governance have been clarified,  
the required procedures under Transparency Direc tive have been clarified in  implementing 
measures,  
clarifications in application of 3
rd Money Laundering Directive has been made in  implementing 
measures,  reports have assessed the impact of money launde ring directives on the le gal profession  and on non 
face-to-face transactions,  
numbers of regulations adopting IASB standard s and interpretations have been adopted,  
exemption for third country GAAPs has been ex tended until end-2008 provided that  certain 
conditions are met,  and  the framework for auditors' liability in the EC  has been examined. 
 Question 28 
En el párrafo 85 se menciona que en mayo de 2005 los supervisores bancarios, los bancos centrales y 
los ministerios de finanzas suscribieron un Memo rándum de Entendimiento sobre cooperación en 
situaciones de crisis financiera. México quisiera una explicación más detallada de los principales componentes de dicho Memorándum, así como el alcance de los mismos.  
 
Answer The banking supervisory authorities, the central ba nks and the Finance Ministries of the EC have 
agreed on a Memorandum of Understa nding on co-operation in financial crisis situations (MoU) that 
has entered into effect on 1 July 2005.  The MoU will apply to crisis situations with a potential for both cross-border and systemic impact 
affecting individual credit institutions, banking gro ups or banking components of financial groups, as 
well as to other possible systemic disturbances with cr oss-border implications in the financial markets, 
including those affecting payment systems or other financial market infrastructures. Building on the existing EC and national legislati on and arrangements, the MoU aims at supporting 
and promoting co-operation in crisis  situations between banking superv isors, central banks and finance 
ministries. The MoU consists of a set of principles and procedures for sharing information, views and 
assessments, in order to facilitate the pursuance by  these authorities of their respective policy functions 
and preserve the overall stability of the financial syst em of individual Member States and of the EC as 
a whole. In particular, these authorities should be in  a position, if needed, to engage in informed 
discussions amongst themselves at the cross-border level – on the basis of existing networks and 
committees – in the case of crisis situations affecti ng the financial system of more than one Member 
State or the EC as a whole. In cases where EU-wide multilateral co-operation among authorities might 
be needed, the existing EC committees may, within th e scope of their role and tasks, be utilized for 
facilitating the process of exchange of information, views and assessments, along with the central role 
of the consolidating supervisor, especially for the dissemination of information among interested 
parties. The principles and procedures contained in the MoU d eal specifically with the sharing of information, 
views and assessments among the authorities potentially in volved in a crisis situation, the appropriate 
procedures for such sharing of information and the conditions for cooperation a nd information flow at 
the national and cross-border level. In order to fu rther support the enhanced cross-border co-operation 
between authorities, the MoU also includes arrangeme nts for the development, at the national and EC 
level, of contingency plans for the management of  crisis situations, along with stress-testing and 
simulation exercises. 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 244  
 
 IV POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES / 6) Servicios / ii) Servicios financieros 
/ b) Sector bancario 
 
Question 29 
En el párrafo 90 se menciona que en octubre de  2005 se publicó una propuesta de directiva modificada 
destinada a la creación de un verdadero mercado interi or de crédito al consumo y a la mejora de la 
protección de los consumidores. México está intere sado en conocer cuáles han sido los principales 
resultados para el sector bancario por la implementación de dicha directiva.  
 
Answer 
The legislative procedure for a new Directive on cons umer credit is still ongoing. As a result, there are 
no results of its implementation. However, the mo dified proposal for the new Directive aims at 
creating a genuine internal market for consumer  credit while ensuring a high level of consumer 
protection. In order to achieve this, the five ess ential modules of a credit agreement (pre-contractual 
information, contractual information,  annual percentage rate of charge , the right of withdrawal and the 
right of early repayment) would be harmonised th roughout the EC. The banking sector would then be 
able to offer its products in all Member States w ithout necessity to adapt them to different national 
legislations, i.e. banks would save costs when operating cross-border. 
 
Question 30 
En el párrafo 91 se señala que en junio de 2004 se publicó el marco revisado sobre convergencia 
internacional de medidas y normas de capital (Bas ilea II), que se ha introducido en la legislación 
comunitaria mediante la refundición de la Direc tiva bancaria codificada y la Directiva sobre la 
adecuación del capital. México está interesado en cono cer si existe algún estudio sobre cuál podría ser 
el impacto por la incorporación de dichas normas. 
 
Answer 
Directive 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC together implem ent the new capital requirements framework in 
the EU based on the Basel II accord develope d by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision 
(BCBS). The directives seek to ensure consiste nt application throughout the EC of the new 
international framework and replace the old credit risk  capital requirements. The Directives have either 
been transposed or are under transposition in the Me mber States. The Directives entered into force on 1 
January 2007. An impact assessme nt was carried out by PWC in 2004, and a number of quantitative 
impact studies have been carried out in the past years. The report of PWC and the studies can be downloaded from the following website: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_mar ket/bank/regcapital/impact_en.htm
 
 
Question 31 México está interesado en conocer cuál es la partic ipación porcentual en el mercado bancario de los 
principales bancos tanto públicos como pr ivados que operan en la Unión Europea. 
 
Answer 
The European Commission does not have the information requested.  
 
IV POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES / 6) Servicios / ii) Servicios financieros 
/ d) Valores 
 
Question 32 
En el párrafo 100 se menciona que el mercado único  de valores debía completarse en 2004. México 
está interesado en conocer qué sucedió con dicho mercado, es decir, de qué forma está operando 
actualmente.   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 245 
 
 
 Answer 
The single market for securities will be achieved in November 2007. The Directive that regulates the 
single market for securities was adopted in 2004 but it  will only come into force when Members States 
will have transposed it into their national legisla tions. This transposition mu st be completed before 
November 2007. 
 
IV POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES  / 6) Servicios / iii) Servicios de 
Telecomunicaciones y Servicios Postales 
 
Question 33 
México está interesado en conocer cuántas empresas no pertenecientes a la UE que prestan servicios de 
telecomunicaciones y servicios postal es operan en el mercado europeo.  
 
Answer 
The EC does not have detailed figures regarding non-EC based companies providing postal services. 
 
As regards telecommunications services, the EC does not  have available any collected data specific to 
the information asked by Mexico. This is because  the EC does not distinguish between foreign and 
domestic operators as long as they operate within the scope of the EC GATS commitments. There has 
been a constant increase, both in the number of no tified operators as well as in  the number of operators 
actually providing electronic communication services in the EC.  
 
The Report on the Implementation of the Telecommuni cations Regulatory Package prepared each year 
by the European Commission provides an accurate pictur e regarding players in those markets. It can be 
consulted at the following website:  http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/polic y/ecomm/implementation_enforcement/index_en.htm
  
 
A new Report will soon be available providing up-date information on th e questions raised. This being 
said, available data do not discriminate between foreign and EC carriers. 
 
Question 34 
México está interesado en conocer si existe alguna lim itación a la inversión extranjera para que invierta 
en empresas europeas de telecomunicaciones y postales. 
 
Answer 
There are no other limitations to foreign investment in the telecommunications and postal sectors than 
the ones listed in the GATS schedules of the Eur opean Communities and its 27 Member States. In 
addition, the EC is working towards further libera lisation of foreign investment in these sectors.  
 
IV POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES / 6) Servicios / iv) Transporte / a) 
Panorama general 
 
Question 35 
En el párrafo 112 se menciona que la UE ha enfrentado dificultades en la aplicación de la política 
común de transporte prevista en el Tratado de Roma. México está quisiera una explicación más detallada sobre cuáles han sido esas dificultades que se han presentado en el sector del transporte.  
 
Answer 
The diverse nature of the transport market mean s that certain difficulties in applying the common 
transport policy are to be expected.  
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 246  
 
 Question 36 
En el párrafo 115 se señala que se mantienen algunas restricciones en ciertos modos de transporte. 
México quisiera saber si la UE tiene algún plan  o proyecto que contemple la eliminación de esas 
barreras en el corto plazo. 
 
Answer The European Commission is constant ly working to develop the internal market and remove barriers. 
 
IV POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES / 6) Servicios / iv) Transporte / e) 
Transporte aéreo 
 
Question 37 
En el párrafo 131 se menciona que en enero de 20 06 entró en vigor una política común de transporte 
aéreo, en donde se facultaba a la Comisión para prohibir o restringir actividades de aquellas líneas 
aéreas que no fueran seguras. México está interesa do en conocer cuáles son los lineamientos por los 
cuales una línea aérea se considera que su servicio puede resultar inseguro para el usuario y en caso de 
que una línea aérea se le haya prohibido prestar el servicio, podría ésta volverlo a prestarlo y bajo qué condiciones. 
 
Answer 
The list was of prohibited companies is established based on information provided by member states. It is updated on information provided by member stat es and Commission investigations. There are agreed 
common criteria. All the criteria are based on safety issues only. To be taken of the list a company has to show that it has addressed all the concerns raised and fully meets agreed safety standards. 
 
IV POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES / 6) Servicios / v) Turismo 
 
Question 38  
México está interesado en conocer si se permite la participación del capital extranjero en el sector de 
turismo de la UE y en qué condiciones.  
 
Answer 
There are no other limitations to foreign investment  in the tourism sector than the ones listed in the 
GATS schedules of the European Communities and its  27 Member States. In addition, the EC is 
working towards further liberalisation of  foreign investment in this sector. 
 
Question 39 
En el párrafo 134 se señala que con el objetivo de impulsar el turismo en la UE se buscará una mejor 
utilización de los instrumentos financieros comunita rios disponibles. México quisiera conocer qué tipo 
de mecanismos financieros existen en la UE y cómo operan, que podrían ayudar a impulsar el 
desarrollo del sector.  
Answer 
Paragraph 135 of the EC TPR already refers to cont ents and mechanisms of Cohesion Policy to support 
tourism initiatives. In the meantime, a new fundi ng period (2007-2013) has been launched which will 
continue to support the development of tourism business, services and infrastructure. With more emphasis on the objectives of the Lisbon agenda, th e European Development Fund (ERDF) will  focus 
on supporting competitive and sustainable patterns of  tourism, such as innovative SMEs in tourism, 
networks and clusters of businesses in tourism, sustainable enhancement of cultural and natural 
heritage, joint cross-border tourism strategies or in ter-regional exchange of experience. Unlike other 
European Funds, the Structural Funds will continue to  be managed by the Member States and regions.   
For an example of an initiative that has been  financed in the past, please refer to 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index_en.htm
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 247 
 
 
  
Pregunta general sobre servicios 
 Question 40 
México está interesado en conocer si existe alguna dependencia ya sea gubernamental o no 
gubernamental o algún sitio en Internet, en donde se pue de obtener la legislación completa en materia 
de servicios de las Comunidades Europeas. 
 
Answer 
The EUR-Lex system (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/
) provides direct free access to EC law. As concerns 
services and establishment, we suggest that Mexico  consults the following hyperlink: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/en/repert/index_06.htm .   
 
CANADA  
 
Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/177) 
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure, (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports, (ix) Technical Barriers to Trade, pp. 57-59:   General Questions on Harmonization of Standards 
 This section of the Secretariat Report notes the efforts the EC has made towards harmonization of 
standards and technical regulations, and the shift to wards the use of new-appr oach directives. Canada 
commends the EC efforts in both areas.   
Question 1. Could the EC provide information on what pe rcentage of standards used by the EC are 
harmonized with relevant international standards? 
 
Answer 
The EC and the European Standardisation Organisati ons are aligned to international standardisation 
and promote international standards. The princi ple is "go international wherever possible". 
Accordingly, CEN and CENELEC have developed cooperation agreements with their respective 
international counterparts. For CEN, it is the Vie nna agreement concluded w ith ISO. For CENELEC, it 
is the Dresden Agreement concluded wit IEC. In th ese agreements the partners agree to cooperate and 
to develop common standards wherever possible. As  a result, roughly 80% of the CENELEC standards 
are identical with IEC standards and 35% of CEN sta ndards are identical with ISO standards. For more 
detailed information, please refer to the CEN and CENELEC websites: 
http://www.cen.eu/cenorm/index.htm
 (CEN) and  
http://www.cenelec.org/Cenelec/Homepage.htm  (CENELEC) 
 Question  2. Could the EC advise whether there is any regulatory obligation or policy in the EC 
which enshrines Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement, i.e. a responsibility to look first to international 
standards? 
 
Answer 
Please see the answer to Question 1. 
 
Question  3. Could the EC advise whether there is any regulatory obligation, policy or practise in 
the EC to integrate consideration of the regulations, standards or approaches of trading partners in the 
development and review of standa rds and technical requirements? 
According to the Press Release of the 2774th Council Meeting of Agriculture and Fisheries  (that took 
place 19 to 21 December 2006), the European Coun cil adopted an amendmen t to Council Regulation WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 248  
 
 (EEC) No 2092/91 introducing interim import rules for organic products pending application of the 
new legislation on organic products, as certain import  provisions of the current legislation expired on 
31 December 2006 (16408/2/06).  
Answer 
As part of the preparatory work leading up a pro posal for new (or replacement) legislation, the 
European Commission services would consider the appr oaches used in a number of key economies. In 
addition to this, as part of the Better Regulation in itiative, minimum consultation standards have been 
put in place which would allow any interested third country to participate fully in the consultation 
process prior to legislative proposals being made. 
 
Question  4. Could the EC provide information on why these amendments to the import rules of 
organic products have not yet been notified to the WTO TBT Committee?  
Answer 
The Proposal for a Council regulation which ame nded Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91 to introduce 
interim import rules for organic production was notified to the WTO in February 2006 (G/N/TBT/EEC/101) together with the proposal for a Council regulation on organic production and 
labelling of organic products. Both texts were notified at a draft stage and a 60 day period was given to 
WTO members to submit comments.  
Question  5. Could the EC provide Canada with a copy  of the adopted interim import rules for 
organic products?  
Answer 
The text, as adopted by the Council of Ministers, was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 2 February 2007 (L  27/11 of 2 February 2007). 
Question on Belgian legislation 
  
On January 25, 2007, the Belgian Assembly voted in  favour of legislation banning the importation of 
seal products from Canada.   This is despite the EC's January 16, 2007 res ponse to a September 2006 
declaration by the European Parliament in which the EC stated that there is no conservation threat to 
the seal population.  The EC has also drawn attenti on to the need for measures taken by Member States 
to be compatible with international obligations and to be notified to the WTO for scrutiny.   
 Question  6. Given that the Belgian legislation is in consistent with Belgium's commitments under 
the WTO, could the EC explain how it intends to respond to the Belgian legislation?  
 
Answer 
With regard to the conservation and the survival in  the wild of the species concerned, the European 
Commission is in fact of the view that existing EC legislation (Council Directive 83/129/EC, as amended, as well as CITES legislation) provides an adequate response.   
With respect to animal welfare aspects of seal hunting, however, there are reports, but partly 
contradictory, that in some regions seals are being hunted and killed in an inhumane way. The 
European Commission, recognizing the high level of public concerns and in line with its commitment 
to high animal welfare standards, has undertaken to  make a full and objective assessment of the animal 
welfare aspects of seal hunting and will draw conc lusions on the basis of the results obtained. 
 
In view of the above, the Commission services envi sage launching a study of all existing scientific 
information relating to the animal welfare aspects of seal hunting in all respective range states. This 
work will include an extensive stakeholder consulta tion, a critical analysis of the use of acceptable 
humane hunting standards and will finally propose an d assess different options for measures necessary  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 249 
 
 
 to ascertain the use of acceptable hunting standards which reduce as much as possible the pain, distress 
and suffering of the hunted animals.   All results shall present balanced, objective and operational conclusions and recommendations. The 
outcome of this study should enable the Commission to draw sound conclusions and to come back with 
possible legislative proposals if this is warranted by the situation. 
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure, (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports, (ix) 
Technical barriers to trade (TBT), pages 57, paragraph 49: 
 The Secretariat Report states that, 'Conformity assessment of industrial products is carried out by 
bodies designated by Member Stat es in accordance with the Community  procedure for the notification 
of bodies.'   Question  7. Could the EC advise whether there are any non-European conformity assessment 
bodies (CABs) which have been designated by Member States? 
 
Answer 
No. There are no non-European CABs which have  been designated by EC Member States.  
 
 Question  8. Could the EC provide information on the pr ocess by which a foreign CAB could apply 
to become designated?  
Answer 
There are several CABs from European Free Trad e Agreement (EFTA) countries which have been 
designated under the European Economic Area (EEA).  There are also several CABs designated under 
the Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) wh ich we have with a number of countries.  
 Question  9. How does the EC perceive the fulfillment of the requirements of Article 6.1 of the 
TBT Agreement within the context of this system of Member designation? 
 Answer 
In the new approach field, notified bodies must be  established on the territory of a notifying Member 
State. Notified bodies may have subsidiaries or su b contractors established outside of the EC to 
facilitate access to the Community conformity assessment procedures, but they cannot allow the 
subsidiary or the subcontractor to carry out the conformity assessment.  Each Member State takes 
responsibility for the designation of CABs operating on its own territory, including monitoring of the 
day to day operation of CABs to ensure compliance with Community legislation.  
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure, (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports, (ix) 
Technical barriers to trade (TBT), pages 57, paragraph 51: 
 Paragraph 51 of the Secretariat Report notes an Action Plan for European Standardization was 
developed in 2005. Canada understa nds that a Final Plan was released in April 2006. This plan 
includes significant attention to strategies to promote the European standardization system 
internationally and the promotion of the Europ ean standards-receptive regulatory model at the 
international scale.  
 
Question  10. Could the EC advise whether it intends to include consideration of existing 
international standards and regulatory models, a nd/or those of their trading partners, in the 
development and review of EC  standards and regulations? 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 250  
 
 Answer 
The EC is committed to international standards a nd the European Standardisation Organisations are 
aligned to international standa rdisation and promote internati onal standards. The Co-operative 
agreements that already exist between internationa l and regional standards organisations, the Vienna 
and Dresden Agreements between ISO and CEN : http://www.cen.eu/cenorm/index.htm
 (CEN) and 
IEC and CENELEC http://www.cenelec.org/Cenelec/Homepage.htm   respectively, have proved to be 
very good instruments for coordination between the European and international arena and are useful 
examples how to enable input of international standardisation process into the development of 
European standards. However, it is important to not e that when international standards are developed 
in the context of these agreements - and in or der to reap the full benefits of international 
standardisation at European level - these standards s hould also integrate the interests and expectations 
of the society as such.  The EC is also supporting activities at internati onal level which recommend the use of voluntary 
international standards and promotes to our trading partners the use of the international model for 
technical harmonisation via the use of internati onal standards which was recommended by the United 
Nations Economic Commission for Europe(UN/ECE) 
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure, (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports, (xi) Government procurement, page 61, paragraph 61:  
 
The Secretariat report states that "the EC public procurement regime aims to increase competition and 
transparency, and to create opportunitie s, better quality, and valued services". 
10  
 Question  11. Could the EC provide information on effo rts to harmonize green public procurement 
policies among the Member States?  Answer 
The EC seeks to actively promote green public proc urement practices by procuring entities throughout 
the EC (for instance the European Commission recently published a guide on green public 
procurement). Considering their exemplary func tion and huge purchasing power (expenditures 
covering buildings, transport, office equipment, cate ring), green public procurement is considered an 
important tool for steering a change towards mo re sustainable consumption and production patterns 
and increased competition in the field of environmental technologies.  
 Green public procurement is subject to the EC  (and international) le gal framework on public 
procurement. Environmental elements can only be included in procurement procedures if they are 
defined in an objective, transparent, non discrimin atory and verifiable way so as to allow fair 
competition between bidders. 
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure, (4) Measures Affecting Production and Trade, 
(iii) Intellectual property rights, (a) Industrial Property, Patents, page 74, paragraph 109: 
 
Canada notes that according to the Secretariat Report “Further to a comprehensive consultation 
exercise launched on 16 January 2006, a public hearin g on the contemplated [patent] reforms was held 
on 12 July 2006” and that the “results of both the c onsultation and the hearing will be reflected in an 
action plan likely to be adopted by the end of 2006.”    Question  12. Could the EC provide an update on the stat us of the action plan, including whether it 
has been adopted, and if so, where it is available?  
 
                                                     
 
10 SIMAP online information. Viewed at http://simap.eu.int/A/2330efb7-Oaab-b34c-
04c0377ccce3f48d_en.html.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 251 
 
 
 Answer 
The follow-up Communication on patent strategy has been somewhat delayed because of the 
complexity of the patent litigation reforms issue.   Question  13. If the action plan has not been adopted, could the EC provide an update of when it is 
likely to be adopted?  Is it facing any particular obstacles that might slow it down? 
 
Answer 
The Communication is now likely to be adopted on 28 March 2007. 
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practice by Measure,  (4) Measures Affecting Production and Trade, 
(iii) Intellectual property rights, (b) Geographi cal indications, page 76, paragraph 117: 
 
According to the Secretariat Report, the EC ma intains a shortlist of regional quality products.  
However, the list has not been updated since 2004. 
 
Question  14. Could the EC advise whether this list diffe rs from the list of PGIs/PDOs?  If so, in 
what way does it differ?    
Answer 
This list differs from the EC register of PGI/PDO. Only a small number of GIs have been included in 
the short list submitted to the WTO under the DDA negotiations. 
 Question  15. Could the EC advise whether foreign appli cants are entitled to apply and have their 
products included on the list of regional quality products?    Answer 
Foreign applicants can apply to the EC register of PGI/PDO. 
 Question  16. Could the EC provide information on when it expects the list of regional quality 
products to be updated? 
 
Answer The EC does not intend to update the list in question in the short term. 
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure, (4) Measures Affecting Production and Trade, 
(iii) Intellectual property rights, (c) Copyright and related rights, page 76, paragraph 118: 
 According to the Secretariat Report, in 2005 th e Commission made a recommendation on collective 
cross-border management of copyright and related ri ghts for legitimate online music services, and that 
the recommendation brought forward two options. The two options could foster EC-wide licensing of 
digital music and an invitation to strengthen nationa l legislation for the management of legitimate 
online services, as well as the relationship between collective rights managers, on the one hand, and 
right holders or commercial users, on the other hand.   
 Question  17. Could the EC provide an update of the status of the recommendations?   
Answer 
The European Commission Recommendation on On line Music (Commission Recommendation of 18 
October 2005 (2005/737/EC) on collective cross-bord er management of copyright and related rights 
for legitimate online music services (OJ L276, p. 54 of 21 October 2005) rapidly produced concrete 
results in the course of the year 2006. Severa l EC-wide licensing schemes were announced and some 
centralised online licensing platforms became operational.  Some examples: WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 252  
 
 2006 
 On 23 January 2006, EMI Music Publishing announced having entered into a Heads of 
Agreement with the MCPS-PRS Alliance (the UK Collection Society) and GEMA (the German 
Collection Society), with the aim of offering to  license the rights in EMI MP’s Anglo-American 
songs under a single license across Europe for Mobile and On Line Digital uses.  
 On 20 January 2006 the MCPS-PRS Alliance has formed a joint venture with the Spanish 
society (SGAE) that creates a platform for future  joint EC-wide licensing of the Anglo-Hispanic 
repertoire (which includes all Latin American repertoire held by SGAE).   
 Arvato mobile, a Bertelsmann company active in mobile content services has concluded a 
pan-EC mobile license with EMI Music Publishing.  The license covers the use of EMI repertoire 
for mobile subscription services.  
2007 
 On 19 January 2007, the UK Music Publishers  Association (MPA), representing small and 
medium sized music publishers, announced that th eir repertoire would be available for EC-wide 
online licensing through "Alliance digital", run by the UK society MCPS/PRS.  
 On 20 January 2007, EMI Music Publishing and ECLAS (a new online licensing joint 
venture set up by GEMA and MCPS/PRS) have  signed the EC licensing arrangements.  
 On 20 January 2007, it was announced that French society SACEM and Spanish society 
SGAE have set up a joint venture for the EC-wide licensing of their repertoire. 
 
Question  18. Could the EC provide information on any pl ans for moving forward on the two options 
that were presented?  
 
Answer 
As the examples enumerated above illustrate, it is now up to collective rights managers and users of 
copyrighted works to implement the EC-wide lic ensing deals the Commission recommends. To some 
extent, this has already taken place. 
Moreover, the European Commission launched a monitoring exercise on the Recommendation 
on the online music market in January 2007. The questionnaire can be consulted on the following 
website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyrigh t/management/management_en.htm#monitoring . The 
replies are welcome until 1 July 2007.  
 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector, (2) Agri culture and Related Activities, (ii) Common 
Agriculture Policy (CAP), page 85, paragraph 14: 
 
The Secretariat Report states "The EC's rural de velopment regulation (second pillar of the CAP) 
includes accompanying measures (e.g. agri-envir onmental measures, early retirement schemes, 
afforestation, and payments to assist farmers in least-favoured areas).”   Question  19.  Could the EC provide details  on what percentage of the forested land base is in "least-
favoured areas"?   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 253 
 
 
 Answer 
The monitoring data are not broken down accord ing to Least Favoured Areas criterion for these 
measures. As a result of afforestation programmes and due to natural regene ration on marginal lands, 
forest cover in the EC has in creased over the past few decades. 
 
Question  20. Could the EC advise how much rural devel opment assistance is directed to the forest 
sector, and how much of the funding is related to afforestation?  
Answer 
The Rural Development policy 2007-2013 will focus on th ree areas in line with th e three thematic axes 
laid down in the new rural development regul ation: improving competitiveness for farming and 
forestry; environment and countryside; improving qua lity of life and diversification of the rural 
economy. A single European Agricultural Fund for Rural devel opment has been set up with a total budget of 77,7 
billion over the period 2007-2013. The Member States have made their individual rural development 
programmes with due respect to the overall guidelines. At this stage in the programming period it is not 
possible to indicate exactly what amount will be spend under each measure of the individual axes of the Rural Development Programmes. The Rural De velopment programmes needs to be approved by 
the Commission. The Me mber States have flexibility on how they  want to prioritise under each of the 
axes.  
Question  21. Could the EC provide details on the status of The Forest Law Enforcement, 
Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action plan and wh at the next steps are for this initiative? 
 
Answer 
The EC Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trad e Action Plan was adopted in 2003.  It includes 
activities under a number of headings aimed at helping to combat illegal logging and associated trade 
and at improving forest governance.    A number of projects have been funded by the Euro pean Commission to help build capacity to address 
these topics, involving governments, NGOs and the private sector.  Further development cooperation support is likely in the future, particularly in re lation to the FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreements 
described below.   
 Based on a proposal from the European Commissi on, the European Council adopted Regulation 
2173/2005 of 30 December 2005.  This Regulation will apply only to countries with which the 
European Community enters into FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs). Once a VPA has 
been agreed, the EC will only permit the importati on into the EC of timber products in certain 
categories when accompanied by a FLEGT licence.  The FLEGT licence will provide an assurance that 
the products have been obtained from legally harvest ed timber. In addition to FLEGT licencing, the 
FLEGT VPAs will strengthen the capacity of government s and other stakeholders to apply forest laws, 
for instance through greater transparency, and will re inforce government reforms in the forest sector. 
The FLEGT initiative in no way impinges on trade relations between the EC and those countries not 
entering into VPAs. 
 Since September 2006 Malaysia, Ghana and Indonesia have announced their intention to negotiate 
FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreements with the European Community.  First negotiation rounds 
have been held with Malaysia and Ghana.  The intent ion is to conclude the negotiations within a year.  
It is expected that other countries may also deci de to negotiate such FLEG T Agreements with the 
Community.    The European Commission has also been holding a public web-based consultation on further measures 
that could be taken to combat illegal logging and associ ated trade.  Interested stakeholders are invited WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 254  
 
 to submit their views before the 5
th of March through the web-based questionnaire at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/consultations/index_en.htm  
 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector, (5) Manufacturi ng, (ii) Selected industries, (b) Automotive, 
pages 106 and 107, paragraphs 67 and 68: 
 
Paragraph 67 states that, among other things, unique technical regulations (i.e., technical regulations 
that have not been harmonized with internationa l standards) in the EC automotive sector have 
contributed to market distortions and increasing costs. Paragraph 68 further states that under a recently launched ten-year initiative, the EC plans to simp lify and improve regulation of the automotive sector 
by, inter alia , replacing 38 Directives governing the sector with UNECE regulations.  
 Question  22. Could the EC provide an update on the re placement of 38 EU Directives with UNECE 
regulations?  Answer 
The CARS 21 High Level Group, which brought toge ther in 2005 the main stakeholders (Member 
States, industry, NGOs and MEPs), made recommenda tions for future public policy and regulatory 
framework and inter alia identified 38 EC direc tives which could be replaced with international 
UNECE (United Nations Economic Co mmission for Europe) regulations. 
 
On 7 February 2007, the European Commissi on published a Communication  to the European 
Parliament and the Council concerning its positi on on the recommendation of the CARS21 High Level 
Group.  The European Commission confirmed that  it will propose replacing 38 EC directives with 
corresponding UN/ECE regulations as soon as the Framework Directive on type-approval has been 
adopted (expected in 2007). 
 
Question  23. Could the EC provide further information on the initiative, including information on 
which Directives will be replaced and the timelines for replacement?  
Answer 
The list of the directives concerned was published by  the European Commission in its Communication .  
 
More information on this issue can be found on the web page: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/ pagesbackground/competitiveness/cars21.htm. 
 
Question  24. Could the EC provide information on what other steps are being taken by the EC to 
simplify and improve regulation in the automotive sector? 
Answer 
The Commission will, in 2008-2009, also propose th e introduction of necessary technical provisions 
for using self testing and virtual testing in 25 EC directives and UN/ECE regul ations. Furthermore, the 
European Commission will in 2008-2009, cons ider simplifying Directives 71/127/EEC15, 
74/297/EEC, 76/115/EEC and 78/932/EEC as well as UN/ECE Regulation No 122.  
 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector, (5) Manufacturing , (ii) Selected industries, (c) Chemicals, page 
107, paragraph 71: 
 
The Secretariat Report states that a key policy objec tive is to ensure a smooth transition from existing 
legislation to the new regulatory framework for chemicals called REACH. The REACH legislation was 
expected to be adopted by the end of 2006, with entry into force around April 2007. The Secretariat Report further notes that REACH will be costly, in the order of 2.3 billion euros in direct costs over an 
11 year period, to the chemicals industry.   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 255 
 
 
 Comment: The considerable costs,  whatever the figure, will be borne by the chemicals industry 
globally, not just within EU, due in part to possible trade impediments.  Canada understands that REAC H will impose more stringent requirements on transported 
intermediates than onsite intermedia tes. Because they are transported,  imported intermediates will face 
more stringent assessment requirements than locally  produced onsite intermediates, potentially placing 
foreign manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage.   Question  25. Could the EC provide information on how it intends to implement these requirements 
such that they do not create unnecessary barriers to trade? 
 
Answer 
The EC recently notified REACH Regulati on No 1907/2006 under the WTO/TBT Agreement 
(G/TBT/N/EEC/52/Add.3). The Regulation will enter into force on 1 June 2007.   
Regarding Canada's and other Me mbers' concerns about REACH as inter alia  raised in document 
G/TBT/GEN/46, the EC provided a comprehensiv e reply in Appendix 1 and 2 of the REACH 
notification document. In addition, REACH expe rts will be present at the next TBT Committee 
meeting on 21-22 March to present the adopted REACH Regulation.  Canada also understands that the requirement that all monomers used in the manufacture of polymers 
be registered is not risk-based, and that it could unfairly disadvantage importe rs. The polymer importer 
will be responsible for registration of substances that  they may never handle or use. Moreover, in many 
instances the monomer has been transformed prior to  import and no longer exists in the polymer. The 
supplier may not know the identity of the monomers or the manufacturers of the monomers that were used to make the polymer. Canada believes a risk-based approach would focus on any unreacted 
monomers in polymers that are present in sufficient c oncentrations to present a risk to humans or the 
environment.   Question  26. Could the EC confirm that the requirement  to register will apply only to unreacted 
monomers in polymers?  Answer 
Please see answer to question 25 
 Canada understands that mineral or es and non-chemically modified concentrates are not subject to 
registration or evaluation but are poten tially subject to authorization.  
 
Question  27. Canada seeks clarification as to the EC inte rpretation of “chemically modified” in the 
context of mineral ores and concentrates. Will the EC interpret and equate a chemical surface treatment 
of an ore or concentrate that does not alter the bulk composition of the concentrat e to be equivalent to a 
chemical modification of the concentrate?  
Canada understands that the EC plans to review the exemptions in Annex IV and V within one year of 
the entry into force of REACH.   
Answer 
Please see answer to question 25  
Question  28. Does the EC plan to consult its tradi ng partners when it reviews the scope of 
exemptions under REACH?  
 
Answer WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 256  
 
 Please see answer to question 25 
 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector , (6) Services, (i) Overview, page 109, paragraph 77; and Report 
by the EC, Part II, Key Developments in the EC (2004-06), (2) Developments in the Internal 
Market and Central Policy Areas, pages 7 and 8, paragraphs 12 and 13: 
 According to the Secretariat Report, on 13 January 2004, the Commission presented its proposal for a 
Directive on Services in the Internal  Market (the “Services Directive”). 
 According to the Report from the EC, the Services  Directive was adopted in December 2006. The 
Services Directive, once implemented, will remove the remaining obstacles to the free circulation of 
services in the EC. 
 
Question  29. Could the EC provide WTO Members with  periodic reporting pertaining to the details 
of the implementation of the Services Directive?   
 
Answer 
The Directive on Services in the Internal Market  (Directive 2006/123/EC) has been published in the 
Official Journal of the European Union L 376 of  27.12.2006. Member States will have to implement 
the Directive into national law by 27 December 2009. No reporting on the implementation is foreseen 
in the Directive. Further information is available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_marke t/services/services-dir/index_en.htm
 
 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector,  (6) Services, (i) Overview, Box IV.2: Identified barriers to 
trade in services in the EC11, page 110:  
 
Box IV.2 of Part IV of the Secretariat Report says that “ Residence requirements , particularly those 
relating to managers of services enterprises, may gi ve rise to problems. For example, depending on the 
country, two thirds, one half, or at least one of  the members of the management board must be 
resident.”   Question  30. Could the EC advise what steps they are ta king to address the issue, and reduce levels, 
of residency requirements, particularly rela ting to members of the management board?   
 
Answer 
This issue, which is outside the scope of Trade Poli cy Review, is to be addressed in the framework of 
services negotiations under the DDA.  Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector, (6) Serv ices, (i) Overview, page 111, paragraph79: 
 
According to the Secretariat Report, tourism is among many other services activities not subject to a comprehensive internal market policy.   
Question  31. Does the EC expect this type of service to be  subject to such a pol icy in the future? If 
yes, what factors will be taken into consider ation in deciding the inclusion of tourism? 
  
                                                     
 
11 OECD (2005), The EU’s Single Market: at your Service?  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 257 
 
 
 Answer 
The European Commission understands the question  in the sense that services falling under tourism 
are concerned, as tourism as such is not a service in  itself. From that point of view, the respective 
services parts of the tourism activities are alread y covered partly by EC initiatives and policy. 
 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector, (6) Serv ices, (v) Tourism, page 127, paragraph 134:  
  
The Secretariat Report states that the Commission tabled in March 2006 a new strategy to boost tourism in the EC. One of the elements upon which th e strategy is based is "more policy coordination 
between Member States and tourism stakeholders."  
 
Question  32. Could the EC elaborate on the aspects of tourism policy that are subject to such 
coordination?  
Answer 
EC policies affecting tourism will indeed be subject  of such co-ordination. The European Commission 
is currently focussing on an improvement of the functioning of the Tourism Advisory Committee in 
which Member States, the European Commission and Candidate Countries participate.  As well, the strategy calls for the Commission to pr esent a proposal for an “Agenda 21” for tourism by 
2007. 
 
Question  33.   When is the EC expecting to announce the release of its Agenda 21 proposal on 
tourism? What additional information (beyond what  is publicly available) could the EC provide 
regarding the elements of an Agenda 21 for tourism?  
 Answer 
At this stage it is still to premature to indicate clea r dates and data since the establishment of such a 
document is underway and  substan tial consultations will still have to  take place. It is foreseen to 
prepare a Commission Communication on an “Age nda for the Sustainability of a Competitive 
European Tourism” at the end of September 2007 and to launch the Agenda 21 process at the 2007 
European Tourism Forum, hosted by the Portuguese EU Presidency on 26-27 October, in the Algarve. 
 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector, (6) Serv ices, (v) Tourism, page 128, paragraph 135:  
 
The Secretariat Report states that numerous tourism initiatives receive funding from EC programmes, with the Structural Funds being the most important. 
 
Question  34. Could the EC provide examples of initiatives that are funded by the Structural Fund, as 
well as the criteria used to fund such initiatives?  
Answer 
Paragraph 135 already refers to contents and mech anisms of Cohesion Policy to support tourism 
initiatives. In the meantime, a new funding period (2007-2013) has been launc hed which will continue 
to support the development of tourism business, ser vices and infrastructure. With more emphasis on 
the objectives of the Lisbon agenda, the Europ ean Development Fund (ERDF) will  focus on 
supporting competitive and sustainable patterns of tourism, such as innovative SMEs in tourism, 
networks and clusters of businesses in tourism, sustainable enhancement of cultural and natural 
heritage, joint cross-border tourism strategies or in ter-regional exchange of experience. Unlike other 
European Funds, the Structural Funds will continue to  be managed by the Member States and regions.   
For an example, please refer to the following website: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index_en.htm
    
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 258  
 
 Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector; (6) Services; (ii) Financial Services;  
(b) Banking, page 114, paragraph 92:  
Paragraph 92 of the Secretariat Report indicates that  EC legislation does not permit Member States to 
treat branches of third country credit institutions mo re favourably than those having their head office in 
the EC. 
 Question  35. Could the EC explain the reasoning behind this requirement? 
 
Answer 
The reason for the requirement that branches of thir d country credit institutions cannot be treated more 
favourably than those having their head offices in the EC is to ensure that the prudential requirements 
of the banking directives are fully respected  by both types of branch on the basis of a level playing 
field. 
 
Question  36. Does the EC maintain a similar requirement with respect to branches of third country 
insurance companies? 
 
Answer 
The EC insurance directives are silent with respect  to free provision of insurance services from third 
country insurance undertakings, but do include sp ecific rules regarding branches of third country 
insurance undertakings in the EC  - i.e. Article 52 of 2002/83/EC life assurance recast.  
 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector; (6) Services; (ii) Financial Services;  
(c) Insurance, page 115, paragraph 97: 
 
Paragraph 97 of the Secretariat Report states that the Reinsurance Directive adopted in 2005 allows 
reinsurance undertakings authorized by their home Member State to undertake business throughout the 
EC through the single passport.  
Question  37. Could the EC clarify whether the Reinsu rance Directive has lead to the removal of 
collateral requirements in all Member States fo r both risks ceded within the EC and abroad? 
 
Answer 
The EC Reinsurance Directive will come into force on 10 December 2007. Before the introduction of 
the Reinsurance Directive, supervision of pure reinsu rers, unlike direct insurers remained a matter for 
Member States. The EC Reinsurance Directive a bolishes collateral requirements fo r all reinsurance undertakings 
authorised under the directive. The current Reinsurance Directive 2005/68/EC does not  apply to reinsurance undertakings whose head 
office lies outside the Community. The treatment of  these third country reinsurance undertakings 
remains a matter for Member States. 
 However, Article 49 of the Directive does require that a Member State ensures that third country 
reinsurance undertakings commencing or carrying out reinsurance activities in its territory, do not 
receive a more favourable treatment than that afforded  to a reinsurance undertaki ng with its head office 
in that Member State. 
 The Directive does not expressly prohibit Member States from imposing collateral requirements on third country reinsurers.   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 259 
 
 
 Recognising the international nature of reinsuran ce, the EC Reinsurance Di rective also includes a 
provision enabling the conclusion of international ag reements with third countries aimed at defining 
the means of supervision over reinsurance entities which conduct business in the territory of each 
contracting party (Article 50).  
This provision provides for the creation of a flexib le procedure to make it possible to assess prudential 
equivalence with third countries on a Community wi de basis, so as to improve liberalisation of 
reinsurance services in third countries, be it th rough establishment or cross-border provision of 
services.   
Question  38. To the extent that any Member State main tains collateral requirements, could the EC 
specify which Member States do so?    
Answer 
The only countries that currently impose collate ral requirements are France and Portugal.  
 
Question  39. If any Member State maintains collateral requirements, could the EC indicate whether 
the requirements in these Member States will be phased out and under what timeframe? 
 
Answer 
Member States that currently im pose collateral requirements have until 10 December 2008 to remove 
them - i.e. one year after the Directive comes into force - for all reinsurance undertakings authorised 
under the Directive.  It is not yet known whether these Member States will decide to also abolish collateral requirements for 
third country reinsurers and if so over what time frame.  Report by the European Communities (WT/TPR/G/177)  Part III. Key Developments in the EC’s Trade Policy (2004-06), (3) Main Components of EC 
Trade Policy, (i) The EC and the WTO, page 14, paragraph 43: 
 In paragraph 43 of the EC’s Report, the Eu ropean Communities high lights the health and 
environmental objectives of several legislative initi atives that have received attention from trading 
partners due to the possibility of negative trade implications. The new EC legislation on chemicals – 
REACH – is one of the initiatives cited.  
Canada appreciates legitimate hea lth and environmental objectives of REACH, and the stated intention 
not to impede international trade.  Question  40. Could the EC outline efforts underway or antic ipated to ensure that the implementation 
of REACH does not create unnecessary barriers to trade?  Answer 
Please see answer to question 25 
 
REPLIES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM CANADA
 
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure, (1) Introduction, page 40, paragraph 3, and (2) 
Measures Directly Affecting Imports, (ix) Technica l Barriers to Trade (TBT), page 57, paragraph 
48.   
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 260  
 
 Paragraph 3 of Part III (1) of The Secretariat report states "Technical regulations, standards and 
sanitary and phytosanitary measures have been under continued review by the Commission; in certain 
areas, they have not been fully harmonized among Member States." Paragraph 48 of Part III (2) (ix) of the Secretariat Report further states that, "Full harmon ization of Standards and technical regulations in 
the EC has not been achieved".   
 
Canada has experienced difficulties with indivi dual EC Member States implementing non-harmonized 
measures, which in some instances have also been  inconsistent with WTO obligations. Canada has 
appreciated past efforts of the EC to address such situations.  
Question 1. . Could the EC provide information regarding plans to ensure harmonization of 
technical regulations, standards and sanitary an d phytosanitary measures among Member states, 
including timetables and any thematic areas for priority action?   
Answer  
Harmonised legislation allows new EC  laws to be introduced with detailed rules that apply across the 
EC and therefore replace diverging national rules. Th is principle has been applied successfully within 
the EC and has been one of the main mechanisms  used to create the in ternal market for goods. 
However, “full” harmonisation of European regulati ons is not really a realistic goal, and there is 
therefore no specific target date for this. There are fi elds in which harmonisation is not even a desirable 
goal. Harmonised legislation is made on a case by case basis depending on the need for adopting 
European legislation, as well as taking into account th e principle of subsidiarity (Article 5 of the EC 
Treaty).  SPS measures in relation to imports are very subs tantially harmonised at EC level and only in 
exceptional cases do Member States apply non-harmoni sed measures. Thus when imports from third 
countries access an EC Member Stat e they are free to circulate freely within the Community. This is of 
course one of the major attractions of the EC market for third countries, i.e. access to a trading bloc of 
27 Member States under a single regulatory regime. Efforts are continuing to agree harmonised measures for those rare areas which are still subject to national rules. As an example, important 
harmonising measures were agreed in 2006 on microbi ological criteria, including in relation to 
imports.  
 
Question 2.  Could the EC provide information on infri ngement proceedings underway and recently 
undertaken regarding compliance of Member States with EC requirements and international trade 
obligations pertaining to technical regulations, st andards and sanitary and phytosanitary measures?  
 Answer  
Canada needs to be more specific as at any mome nt in time there are many such cases of alleged 
infringement under investigation. The vast majority of  these cases relate to intra-EC trade, which may 
of course also impact in certain cases on third countries. A comprehensive record of cases in progress is avai lable on the website of the European Commission's 
Secretariat General at the following link: 
http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/eulaw/index_en.htm
  
Canada is also welcome to contact the EC directly for information.  
Part III.  Trade Policies and Practices by Measure,  (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports, (viii) 
Contingency trade remedies, (b) Anti-dumpin g (AD) measures, page 55, paragraph 44. 
 The Secretariat Report states that the number of AD notifications by the EC to the WTO has decreased 
significantly since the late 1990s; notifications of ot her contingency measures ha ve decreased slightly 
(Table 111.8).    WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 261 
 
 
 Canada notes that the Commission recently publishe d a Green Paper for public consultations on trade 
defence instruments. In the release of the Green  Paper, the Commission highlighted the fundamental 
changes that have occurred in the EC economy.  
 
Question 3. .  Could the EC elaborate on what gave ri se to the review and publication of the Green 
Paper?  
 
Answer  
The objective of this Green Paper is to launch a re flection on whether there is a need to adapt these 
instruments in light of the far-reaching changes taking place in the global economy, while maintaining 
the efficiency of the TDI to defend EC producers against unfairly traded, subsidized imports or 
dramatic shifts in trade flows. Moreover, several  recent cases highlighted complex issues such as the 
challenge to take sufficient account in the applica tion of TDI of the reality of outsourced production by 
European businesses and to balance the interests of various economic operators in the context of the 
Community interest test. 
 
Question 4.  Does the EC believe that industries becoming more globally oriented is reflected in a 
reduced incidence of trade remedy measures?  
 
Answer  The EC recognises that the fact that industries opera te more globally may affect trade remedy measures 
and triggers a number of questions that are set out in  the Green Paper. However, the EC is not in the 
position to comment on as to whether the fact that  industries become more globally oriented is 
reflected in a reduced incidence of trade remedy measures.  
 
Question 5.  Could the EC elaborate on the objectives of the review and could the EC also indicate 
the time frames for the review and the next  steps that will follow its conclusion? 
 
Answer  The current reflection process is open and withou t any preconceived ideas. However, it does not 
question the legitimacy of using Trade defence instruments in a global economy which has no 
mechanism to correct anti-competitive practices. The Green Paper does not put forward proposals for a 
change of TDI, but only contai ns 32 open questions. They cover several aspects of TDI law and 
practice mainly focusing on whether our TDI are still sufficiently adjusted to today's globalized world. 
After the consultation process, which extends until 31 March 2007, the Commission will consider on 
the basis of the reactions received, how to follow-up. It  is therefore at this stage not possible to indicate 
what are the next steps to be taken, and if so, in what timeframe they will be concluded. 
 
Question on Belgian legislation 
  
On January 25, 2007, the Belgian Assembly voted in  favour of legislation banning the importation of 
seal products from Canada.   This is despite the EC's January 16, 2007 res ponse to a September 2006 
declaration by the European Parliament in which the EC stated that there is no conservation threat to 
the seal population.  The EC has also drawn attenti on to the need for measures taken by Member States 
to be compatible with international obligations  and to be notified to the WTO for scrutiny. 
 The European Commission has stated  that it plans to carry out an assessment of the seal hunt's humane 
killing standards.     Question 6. Given the EC's commitments under the WTO, what specific measur es is the European 
Commission considering in response to its proposed  study on the humane aspects of the seal hunt? 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 262  
 
 Answer  
The outcome of this study should enable the Commi ssion to draw sound conclu sions and consider the 
matter further. All results shall present bala nced, objective and opera tional conclusions and 
recommendations.  Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure,  (4) Measures Affecting Production and Trade, 
(iii) Intellectual property rights, (b) Geograph ical indications, page 76, paragraph 116. 
 
According to the Secretariat Report, the EC has new legislation, Council Regulation No. 510/2006, for 
the protection of geographical indications and desi gnations of origin for agricultural products and 
foodstuffs.   
 Canada hopes that this new legislation will assist  in making the EC consistent with its WTO 
obligations, particularly TRIPS obligations as they re late to geographical indications, and that the EC 
will begin to recognize and grant protection for foreign GIs.   
 
Question 7.   Could the EC provide information outlin ing how GIs are enforced under this new 
legislation and in the EC generally?   
Answer  
Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 provides that GIs are enforced in the EC by competent authorities designated by Member States responsible for controls  in respect of the obligations established by the 
regulation.  Question 8.  Could the EC provide information on wh at manner of enforcement will be provided 
for the protection of foreign designations that may ultimately be granted protection in the EC? 
 
Answer  
The enforcement within a Member State referred to  in the answer to question 7 applies to all GIs 
registered under Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 irrespective of whether they are GIs originating in that Member State, in another Member  State, or in a Third Country. 
 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector, (2) Agriculture and Related Activities, (i) Main features, page 81, 
paragraph 7.   
 
The Secretariat Report states that "Forests and ot her wooded land cover 160 m illion ha (around 42% of 
the EC's total landmass), and are increasing at a rate of 0.3% per year.
12  
 
Question 9. Could the EC provide details on the diversity  of their forest and wooded land cover, 
such as the amount of area that is protected or in  parks with respect to available land for forest 
management and harvesting? 
 
Answer  
The data asked for are not collected at the European level, as forest policy falls  into the competence of 
the EC Member States. EUROSTAT collects such basic information on forest cover as is quoted in the 
question; it does not collect more specific information on areas dedicated to different types of use.  As 
concerns protected areas, there is no harmonised defin ition across the EC of "protected forests".  Some 
of the information requested in this question w ill be available towards the end of 2007, when the 
Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe will publish a report at its next 
Ministerial in November this year. This will, howev er, cover not only the EC but a wider geographical 
area. 
                                                      
12 Eurostat (2005d).  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 263 
 
 
 Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector, (5) Manufacturing , (ii) Selected industries, (b) Automotive, pages 
106 and 107, paragraphs 67 and 68.  
Paragraph 67 states that, among other things, unique technical regulations (i.e., technical regulations 
that have not been harmonized with internationa l standards) in the EC automotive sector have 
contributed to market distortions and increasing costs. Paragraph 68 further states that under a recently 
launched ten-year initiative, the EC plans to simp lify and improve regulation of the automotive sector 
by, inter alia , replacing 38 Directives governing the sector with UN Economic Commission for Europe 
(UNECE) regulations.  
Question 10.  Could the EC confirm specifically which UNECE regulations will be used to replace 
these 38 EU Directives?  
Answer  
On 7 February 2007, the Commission confirmed in a Communication  that it will propose replacing 38 EC directives with corresponding UNECE regulations  as soon as the recast of the Framework Directive 
on type-approval has been adopted (expected in 2007) .  The list of the directives concerned was 
published by the Commission in its Communication. The equivalent UNECE regulations are listed in 
Part II of Annex IV to Directive 70/156/EEC (the Framework Directive which is presently in force). 
 Question 11. Could the EC provide information on what steps are being taken to further the 
development of global regulations under the UNECE 1998 Agreement? 
 
Answer  
The Commission has adopted a policy of encouragi ng increased international technical harmonisation 
of motor vehicle regulations in the framework of both the 1958 and the 1998 Agreements of the 
UNECE in order to contribute to a fair global ope rating environment for the automotive industry. The 
Commission is, inter alia, working towards the adopt ion of global technical regulations on heavy duty 
vehicles’ emission test cycles (both steady and transient cycles), off-cycle emissions and on-board diagnostic systems so that real-life em issions conditions are better reflected. 
 
BRAZIL
 
 
I – BIO-FUELS 
 Question 1 
1) – In paragraph 29 of document WT/TPR/G/177, it is stated that “[t]he Commission will further 
renew its Market Access Strategy to focus on non- tariff barriers and ask EC industry to identify key 
sectors and priority problems. These may include, for example, the services or other sectors or 
particular markets as well as issues related to norms and standards ...”.  The main standard applicable to biodiesel in the EU market is EN 14214. Among others, it sets out 
technical specifications referring to density and iodine value which are compatible with biodiesel 
produced from rapeseed – of which the EU is a la rge producer – but severely limit the use of other 
vegetable oils imported by the EU, such as soybean oil or palm oil. These specifications have no 
reasonable technical or environmental justifi cation and represent a clear technical barrier. 
 Given that the European Commission recognised in its Communication 34 of 8 February 2006 the need 
to amend this standard, when does it intend to have a new set of technical specifications  for  biodiesel  
in  place?  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 264  
 
 Answer 
The Fatty Acid Methyl Ester (FAME) EN 14214 standard was developed by CEN for biodiesel 
(FAME) that could be used in the EC without  any negative effects on engine performance and 
emissions when blended with diesel fuel or used unblended as 100% FAME fuel.  
 
The density and iodine number technical specifications have to do with the cold start properties (start 
up during winter conditions) and stability (long term storage) re spectively of biodiesel (FAME) and 
they are thus based on reasonable and justifiable tec hnical justifications. Therefore, they can not be 
considered as a barrier.  
The need to amend the FAME EN 14214 standard is due to new engine developments and the 
necessity to widen the scope of resources th at can be used for FAME production.  
 The European Commission has tendered the revision  of 6 specifications of the EN 14214 since 1st 
January 2006 to a consortium that is working u nder the auspices of the European Standardisation 
Centre (CEN). It is expected that the work will be  completed by the end of 2007. However, it may take 
up to a year longer for the amendments of the EN 14214 to take effect due to CEN approval procedures.  The European Commission has also  sent a mandate to CEN for the development of a new biodiesel 
standard for Fatty Acid Ethyl Ester. 
 
Question 2 
2) – In paragraph 30 of document WT/TPR/G/177, it is  stated that “[i]n relation to climate change, the 
EC's external competitiveness polici es will need to encourage energy efficiency, the use of renewable 
energies including bio-fuels, low emission technology  and the rational use of energy in Europe and 
globally”. 
 In its Communication 845, of 9 January 2007, the European Commission proposes the  creation of a 
“system of incentives/support” to maximize envir onmental benefits and discourage unsustainable 
practices in bio-fuels production. The said system “should be designed to avoid an y discrimination between domestic production and 
imports and should not act as a barrier to trade”. It would be interesting to know in greater detail how 
the EC intends to design this system in order to attain these aims.  
Answer 
As concerns the system of incentives/support to maximize environmental benefits and discourage 
unsustainable practices in bio-fuel production, the EC is currently assessing both the design and 
implementation of such an approach . It will be important to ensure environmental benefits are sought 
and delivered in a manner that does not distort trad e. Further, non-discrimination will be, as clearly 
indicated in the document mentioned by Brazil, a central and crucial aspect of any forthcoming EC initiative.   
 
II – EXPORT OF RESIDUES  
 
Question 3 
As stated in Chapter IV, paragraph 63, of docum ent WT/TPR/G/177, the EC attaches great importance 
to the promotion of sustainability. Environmental and social objectives are key issues for the EC, both 
internally and externally. In this context, Regula tion (EC) nº 1013/2006 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council, of 14 June 2006, deals with sh ipments of waste. The Regulation shall apply from 
12 July 2007 and refers, inter a lia, to shipments of waste "exported from the Community to third 
countries" (article 1, c). How will this legislation apply in the case of exports by the EC of products  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 265 
 
 
 which the importing country (a non OECD member) ch aracterizes as waste and would not be able to 
manage according to the requisites stated in article 49,b?  
Answer 
Regulation 1013/2006 is the successor to Regulation 259/93 which is currently in force.  Both 
regulations use internationally recognised classi fications of waste and govern procedures to be 
followed by traders in the EC in respect of both hazardous and non-hazardous waste.  Article 49(2)(b) 
of Regulation 1013/2006 applies to substances or object s which are waste as defined by  Article 1(1)(a) 
of Directive 2006/12/EC, to which Article 2(1) of Regulation 1013/2006 refers. This notion of waste 
does not depend on the characterisation of the substance or object by the third country of import. 
 
III – AGRICULTURE SECTOR, SANITARY AND PHYTOSSANITARY MEASURES 
 Question 4 
1) Considering the item 16 of the document WT/TPR /G/177 (page 8), could the Commission inform 
about: 
 
a) The quantities of sugar (quota and out of  quota) produced, consumed, imported and 
exported from July 2006 to today, as well  as forecasts for 2007/2008 and future years?  b) Statistics on export license issuance (quantity and export refunds)? 
 
c) Within the legal tender system for quota sugar? 
 
d) Within the complementary system? 
 
e) Export sales from intervention? 
 
f) Quantities available and sold? 
 
g) Intervention selling prices? 
 
h) Applicable export refunds and budgetary funds for such refunds? 
 
i) Quota surrender forecasts? 
 
j) Quantities surrendered to date and forecast levels of Surrender?  
 
k) Commission proposals for amendments to Council Regulations 318/2006 and 320/2006? 
 
l) Measures for supply of sugar to industrial users? 
 
m) Including Commission actions in contemplation to open special import quotas and/or to 
allocate supplies from withdrawn stocks (Ar ticle 19(2) of Council Regulation 318/2006)?  
 
n) Proposals for market withdrawal actions and/or temporary quota reductions? Assessments of impact on supply, market prices and export availability of  market  withdrawal  options?  
 
p) Available budgetary resources for financi ng export refunds, restructuring and private 
storage (Article 18 of Council Regulation 318/2006) including producer contributions? 
Answer 
a) The export of out-of-quota sugar has not been authorized during the period concerned.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 266  
 
 Export in 2006/07 is currently estimated to reach 2. 8 million tones, which include exports of processed 
products, for the exceptionally 15-month long marketing year of 2006/07 (1.7.2006 – 30.9.2007).  Forecast for EC sugar imports for 2006/07 (15 months) is 4.2 million tonnes and 3.9 million tonnes in 2007/08 (12 months of 1 Octobe r 2007 – 30 September 2008).  
 
Consumption for 2007/08 is forecast to around 16.2 million tonnes. More information on sugar market 
projections can be found in the European Commissi on publication "prospects for agricultural markets 
and income in the EC 2006-2013" and can be found at the following website: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/index_en.htm
 
 
b) On the basis of the most recent data available export licences have been issued for 297 351 tonnes 
since 1 October 2006.  c) These data are included in the reply to answer b) 
 
d) These date are included the reply to answer b)  e) During the first two tenders (i.e. until 8 Febr uary 2007) 1,000 tones were sold for export from the 
intervention stocks at the refund of € 340/t.  
f) As of mid February there was about 8 30,000 tonnes of sugar in intervention.  
 g) The intervention resale price is 632 €/t fo r white sugar and 497 €/t for raw sugar. 
 h) In the 2007 budget year € 419 million have been a ppropriated for export refunds  for sugar. This also 
covers outstanding payments for expor ts carried out in the 2005/06 marketing year. Furthermore, this is 
well below the EC's actual WTO limit of € 513.9 million.  i) In respect of 2006/07 and 2007/08 marketing y ears, about 2.2 million tonnes of quota have been 
renounced.  
j) See point i) 
 k) The European Commission might present proposal s to amend these Council Regulations. However, 
no decision has been made yet; a thorough analysis is currently under way.  
l) An import quota of 200,000 tonnes of white sugar for industrial uses will be open for the marketing 
year 2007/08 on an erga omnes basis. m) It is likely that a decision will be made a nd a relevant European Commission Regulation be 
published in the near future on withdrawal for th e 2007/08 marketing year. Such a measure should also 
improve the supply of the chemical industry with world price sugar. 
 
n) See answer to point m) 
 o) For export refund, please refer to point h)  In respect of the restructuring scheme, 2.2 m illion tonnes of quota sugar were renounced for 2006/07 
and 2007/08. 
 
Question 5 
2) Still concerning sugar imports, could the EC provid e statistical data (and estimates for the next 
marketing year) regarding:   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 267 
 
 
  
a) production, under quota and non-quota sugar;  
 b) exports, within and outside the legal tender system; 
 
c) imports; 
 d) consumption; 
 
e) quota surrender; 
 
f) sugar carried-forward; 
 
g) sugar for industrial use, and; 
 
h) sugar destined to “outermost regions”.  
 
Answer 
a) Production under quota for 2007/08 is currently  estimated at 15,2 million tonnes for EU 27. 
 b) Forecast not yet available and will depend on uptake under the restructuring scheme and eventual 
withdrawals as well as the overall production. 
 c) Forecast for EC sugar imports for 2006/07 (15 months!) is 4.2 million tonnes and 3.9 million tonnes 
in 2007/08 (12 months).   
d) Consumption for 2007/08 is fo recast to around 16.2 million tonnes 
 e) No forecasts available  f) N.A.   
g) An import quota of 200 000 tonnes of white sugar for industrial uses will be open on an erga omnes 
basis.   h) N.A  Question 6 
3) Item 57 of the document WT/TPR/S/177 (page 60) mentions that the EC established a data base on 
“trade distorting” SPS measures in third countries, including foot-and-mouth disease. The EC applies 
the concept of regionalization for the Brazilian bovine meat exports to the EU. However, even for the 
areas considered by the EC as free of FMD in Brazil,  it is required that the bovine meat exported must 
be unboned and maturated. How does the Co mmission justify such requirements? 
 
Answer 
The EC measures for the meat imports from Brazil are applied following the scientific advice of the 
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (see for more details the document "Opinion of the AHAW 
Panel related to Assessing the risk of Foot  and Mouth Disease introduction into the EU from 
developing countries" in http://www.efsa.europa.e u/en/science/ahaw/ahaw_opinions/1357.html).  
See also the inspection reports of the Food Veterina ry Office (FVO) and its recommendations to Brazil 
here: http://ec.europa.eu/fo od/fvo/ir_search_en.cfm.  
•Brazil: Animal/public health/foot and mouth di sease/traceability/certification (Dated 09/2005) 
Inspection number 7589/2005. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 268  
 
 •Brazil: Animal/public health/foot and mouth diseas e/certification (Dated 05/2004) Inspection number 
7185/2004. 
 
Question 7 
4) Could the EC explain why SPS measures affecting Brazilian exports of citr us – Council Directive 
2000/29/EC May 2000 and Commission Decision 2004/416/EC  of 29 April 2004 – were not notified to 
the SPS Committee?   
Answer 
Directive 2000/29 is a codification on a single text after 23 years of existence of EC Phytosanitary law (created in 1977). This codification did not intr oduce new SPS requirements, and therefore, it was not 
notified.  
Question 8 
5)  Spain notified a SPS Emergency Measure that suspends the importation of fresh citrus fruits from 
Brazil based on an EC Council Directive 2000/29/EC . Is this a provisionally adopted SPS measure 
within the meaning of Article 5.7 of SP S Agreement? If yes, has Spain/the EC:  
 a) sought to obtain additional information necess ary for a more objective assessment of risk?  
 
b) reviewed the measure within a reasonable period of time? 
 
Answer 
The EC has taken temporary emergency  meas ures through Commission Decision 2004/416/EC; an 
annual review has taken place  in order to assess whether the measures should be maintained, improved 
or deleted, based on the technical reports on the resu lts of the plant health checks carried out on the 
fruits imported pursuant the Decision. Moreover the European Commission has sought on many 
occasions to obtain additional information on the situ ation in Brazil by letters and on the spot visits. 
 
Question 9 
6) In 2006, shipments of Brazilian fresh oranges have been intercepted in European ports allegedly for 
containing Guignardia citricarpa  Kiely. Could the EC explain which kind of methodology was used to 
identify the fungus?  
a) For how long has this type of met hodology been used within the Community?  
b) Is this methodology used by all EC member states?  c) Could the EC also specify whether this kind of methodology may identify both viable and  non-viable fungus?  
 
Answer 
An inspection protocol for "identification of Gui gnadia citricarpa on citrus fruit" was discussed and 
agreed on by the Relevant Regulatory Committe e within the Commission in March 2003. The 
methodology has been agreed by all Member St ates and could be used by all of them. The 
identification of G. citricarpa relies on classical methods, aiming at development of typical stages of 
this fungus from lesions found on inspected fruits.   
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 269 
 
 
 REPLIES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM BRAZIL  
 I – SERVICES 
 
WT/TPR/S/177 IV (6) 
 
 
Question 1 
Liberalization of trade in services within the EU ma rket has been moving forward at an uneven pace 
recently. Could the EU delegation indicate how the internal debate has impacted its stance in 
multilateral services negotiations regarding both market access and rules?   Answer 
Without sharing the assessment provided by Brazil on the internal liberalization of trade in services 
within the EC, which is the world's most accomp lished and ambitious internal services market  
spreading over several (27) countries, the EC would like to confirm that further liberalisation of trade 
in services  is and  remains one of our key priorities in the DDA context.   Question 2 
Economic nationalism in services seem s to be on the rise in some Memb er States of late, most visibly 
with regard to proposed mergers and acquisitions in the financial and energy sectors. What measures 
have been taken by the European Commission to ta ckle this surge in protectionism? Could the EU 
delegation also provide an evaluation as to if this recent upswing in economic nationalism has 
undermined its push for greater liberalisation of trad e in services within the Doha Round by giving its 
trading partners mixed messages regarding th e possible benefits of liberalisation and non-
discriminatory regulation in these sectors?  
 
Answer 
We do not share the assessment provided by Brazil on  economic nationalism on the part of the EC and 
its Member States. Furthermore, we would like  to  note that the European Commission  is  empowered 
to monitor the implementation of Community Law by the Member States, and to take appropriate legal 
action whenever necessary.  The European Commission has put forward on 12 September 2006 a proposal that will tighten the 
procedures that Member States' supervisory au thorities have to follow when assessing proposed 
mergers and acquisitions (M&A) in the banking, in surance and securities sectors. Current EC rules 
allow supervisory authorities to block proposed M& A if they consider that the 'sound and prudent 
management' of the target company could be put at  risk. The proposed new Directive, which amends 
various existing Directives in these sectors, will in  particular clarify the criteria against which 
supervisors should assess possible M&A operations. This  will improve clarity and transparency in 
supervisory assessment and help to  ensure a consistent handling of M&A requests across the EC.  
Moreover, we confirm that further liberalisation of tr ade in services remains one of our key priorities in 
the DDA context.  
 
Question 3 
The EU has recently concluded the first exercise of modification of schedules un der Article XXI of the 
GATS, with reference to the enlargement of the Un ion. Could the EU delegation provide an evaluation 
of the results of this exercise, particularly in light of  its systemic implications for future applications of 
Article XXI?  
Answer 
The EC-25 consolidation procedure has been carried  out in full compliance with the present provisions 
of WTO Law (Article XXI GATS, S/L/80, S/L/84), as it has also been confirmed by the WTO 
Secretariat's document of 18  December 2006 on the conclusion of the certification procedure.  The 
successful completion of the GATS Article XXI  procedures launched by the EC in this context WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 270  
 
 demonstrates the workability of such procedures. Neve rtheless, with a view to further streamlining the 
procedures for the future, the EC of course remains open to take part in any discussion that would eventually be launched in the WTO.      
II – ANTIDUMPING  
 
WT/TPR/S/177 III (2) (viii)  page 55 paragraph 41 
 
 
Question 4  
With reference to the amendments in the EU’s An tidumping legislation carried out in 2004 (mentioned 
in paragraph 41   Page 55), Brazil would appreciat e additional information on the motivations and the 
results obtained with the changes in troduced in the following issues:  
 (a) the definition of anti-circumvention practices;  
 
Answer It was considered desirable to clarify which prac tices constitute circumvention.  Therefore, some 
circumvention practices that had been encounter ed in the Community's practice were expressly 
mentioned, i.e. slight modification of products subj ect to measures with the purpose of circumventing 
measures and "company hoping" (i.e. the declarat ion of goods as manufactured by an exporting 
producer benefiting from an individual duty lower than the residual duty in order to circumvent the 
measures). Since the entry into force of the amendmen ts to the basic Regulation, there has not been any 
new anti-circumvention investigations initiated co rresponding to the above described circumvention 
practices.  (b) who has the right to request the initiation of  an investigation on circumventing practices;  
 Answer 
On the initiative of the European Commission or at the request of a Member State [of the European 
Community] or any interested party on  the basis of sufficient evidence. 
 (c) the rules on the possibility for exporters to be  exempted from extended duties when circumvention 
takes place outside the EC.  
 
Answer 
When the circumventing practice takes place via a third country, measures ma y be extended to goods 
consigned from that country.  The extension of me asures is only intended to cover the circumventing 
practices and not legitimate trade of goods genuinely  manufactured in the third country.  Therefore, 
exporters in the third country that cooperate with  the anti-circumvention investigation and that can 
prove that are not circumventing are exempted from the extended measures. 
 
Question 5 
 With regard to Table III.8 (Contingency Measures Notified by the EC), on page 56, please comment on 
the reasons for the significant reduction in 2003 conc erning the initiation of AD investigations (7  
against 20 in 2002 and 29 in 2004) and the adoption of  definitive measures (3 against 25 in 2002 and 9 
in 2004)?   Answer 
The EC's AD activity depends basically on the number of admissible applications received. Therefore, 
the EC is not in the position to comment on the reasons  for the reduction in 2003. However, it certainly 
confirms the overall trend of anti-dumping measures used by the EC in recent years which have 
declined significantly e.g. when comparing the period from 1995 until the end of 2003 with the period  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 271 
 
 
 of 1 January 2004 to 30 September 2006, the number of  new investigations has gone back from 30 on 
average to 26. Over the same periods defin itive anti-dumping measures have declined from 23 on 
average to 13 on average during 1 January 2004 to 30  September 2006. Furthermore, the total number 
of measures in force by the EC has significantly decreased since 2002 (from 184 to 135 in September 2006).  
 
III - FISHERIES  
 WT/TPR/S/177 IV (3)  (ii) page 96  paragraph 41 
 
 
Question 6 
According to paragraph 41, page 96 of the Secret ariat’s report, “Since 1 January 2003, the EC has 
operated a new CFP, aimed at addressing some of th e main problems faced by the industry, including 
the overexploitation of certain fishing stocks.” Among the main changes introduced by the new policy, the report mentions socio-economic measures togeth er with new control and enforcement measures. 
Brazil would appreciate further information on tho se issues, including the following: the kind and 
extension of the social-economic measures; the co mponents of new fishery control and enforcement 
measures taken by the EC.  
 
Answer 
The information requested by Brazil is availabl e at the website of the European Commission 
(Directorate General for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs). In particular the following web pages are 
relevant:  On the extension of socio-economic measures: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cf p/structural_measures_en.htm
 
 
On fishery control and enforcement measures: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cf p/control_enforcement_en.htm
 
 
Question 7 
According to the same report (paragraph 42, page  96), the CMO for fishery and aquaculture products 
comprises a “price support system that sets minimum prices below which fish products cannot be 
sold”. In addition, it is said that for “2006, 18.2 million Euros was budgeted for price support interventions”. The report does not provide detaile d information about the actual operation of the 
system. Brazil would appreciate to learn more a bout the structure and operation of such system.  
 Answer 
The EC runs two market intervention schemes, i. e. a withdrawal scheme and a carry-over scheme. 
Guide prices are fixed annually for the species (wild  capture fisheries) covered by the withdrawal 
system on the basis of average prices registered ove r the previous three years in representative ports. 
The guide prices are then used as a reference to set withdrawal prices, which represent a proportion 
(between 70-90%) of the guide price and which depe nd on the quality of the product. If the price falls 
below this level the Producer (fishermen) Organi sations (PO) may take products off the market. 
Products are subsequently used for non-human consum ption purposes or destroyed or may be "carried-
over".  Withdrawn products may be eligible for “carry-over”  where the product is stocked and subsequently 
released once the demand/supply situation has improved. The aid (carry over premium) is a flat rate to 
cover stabilisation and storage costs, and bank ch arges. The carry over aid may be granted for a 
maximum of 18% of the quantities placed on the market.   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 272  
 
 Other EC measures include:  
• Independent interventions by producer orga nisation for products for which it is not 
possible to fix a withdrawal price because of extreme regional disparities and/or the fact that the product is limited to certain areas;  
• Private storage aid applicable to products frozen on board fisheries vessels in the event 
of a serious market disturbance; and  
• Compensatory allowance for tuna, which is paid to Producers Organisations when the 
market price and import price fall below a threshold of 87% of the Community production price. 
•  
More information on the above mechanisms can be  found in the brochure "The common organisation 
of the markets in fishery and aquaculture pr oducts" available at the following web address: 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/facts/ocm_en.pdf
 
 
IV – INTELECTUAL PROPERTY  
 WT/TPR/S/177 III (4) (iii) 
 
 
According to paragraph 109 of document WT/TPR/G /177, “The commission launched a review of its 
patent policy, as part of a general effort to  
harmonize the internal market, by focusing on three main issues: possible introduction of a Community 
patent, improvements to the current system, and the determination of possible areas for harmonization.” Could the EC specify exactly what the improvements were? Were they considered in face of the possible existence of IP  related anti-competitive practices?  
 
Answer  
Work on patent reforms is ongoing in both the Eur opean Patent Organisation (EPO) and the EC since 
1999/2000. Whereas the focus of the EPO has been the reduction of translation requirements for 
European patents and the setting up of a pan-Euro pean patent litigation system complementing the 
European Patent Convention, the EC is consid ering the creation of a single Community patent 
(COMPAT) which would have identical effect throughout the EC. Whilst the London Agreement 
addressing the translation issue was adopted in October 2000 work on the other reform projects 
temporarily came to a halt. The difficulties in maki ng progress in the field of patent reforms led the 
European Commission to launch, in January 2006, a broad consultation on the future patent system in 
Europe. Moreover, the European Commission organised a public hearing which took place on 12 July 
2006. Responses to the consultation exercise have show n that stakeholders favour the introduction of a 
COMPAT and the improvement of the existing Eu ropean patent system. However, the Common 
political approach of the Council on COMPAT which was adopted on 3 March 2003 is strongly 
criticised in relation to translation requirements and the jurisdictional system. As a follow-up to the 
consultation, the European Commission indicated  that it will submit a Communication on patent 
strategy which is likely to be adopted on 28 March 2007.  Question 9 
 
In the same paragraph 109, an Action Plan is inform ed to have been adopted by the end of 2006. Has 
this Plan been actually adopted a nd, in case the answer is affirmative, would it be possible to have 
access to this Plan?  
 
Answer 
Please see answer to question 8.  
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 273 
 
 
 WT/TPR/S/177 III (4) (iii)  
 Question 10 
With regard to paragraph 116, it is stated th at Council Regulation 510/2006 opens « registration 
directly to producer groups in third countries and not through their national administration ». Is the EC 
considering extending this modification to geographi cal indications for products other than those 
covered by the newly adopted Regula tion, such as, for example, wines and spirits? In case there is no 
work underway in this regard, could the EC explai n how to justify the TRIPS-compatibility of such 
procedural discrepancy?  
 
Answer Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 deals only with  geographical indications for foodstuffs other 
than wines and spirits.  In the context of the wi ne  reform, the Commission proposes that the wine 
quality policy incorporated in the Common Market Or ganisation would be made  consistent with the 
horizontal quality policy (on Protected Geographic I ndications (PGIs) and Protected Designation of 
Origin (PDOs)). The Commission proposes to establis h two classes of wines: wine without GI and 
wine with GI. Wines with GI would be further divided into wines with a PGI and wines with a PDO. A procedure for registration and protection of GIs would n eed to be established.  It is therefore premature 
to speculate about the future legal provisions for wi nes which will be proposed to and discussed in the 
Council. The same applies to spirit drinks for which a registration procedure for geographical 
indications is currently under discussion in the Council. 
 
WT/TPR/S/177 III (4) (iii
)  
 
Question 11 
Concerning paragraph 123, could the EC a) clarify the criteria used in order to identify the so-called « 
priority countries» ? ; b) explain why countri es with a better law enforcement record against 
counterfeiting and piracy can be worse labeled than those countries with less significant commitment 
in these areas?  
 
Answer 
a) The "priority countries" have been chosen b ased broadly on three lements: i)the Enforcement 
Survey 2006 ; ii) an evaluation of the countries' relevance in terms of actual or potential volume of 
trade with the EC; and iii) data on customs sei zures of counterfeits at the EC border.  
 There is at least a minimum legal framework protec ting IPR in all the "priority countries". But the 
problem is one of poor enforcement of rules by  authorities such as courts, police, customs and 
administration, with infringements increasi ngly carried out by criminal organisations. 
 b) One of the criteria being the evaluation of a c ountries' relevance in term s of actual or potential 
volume of trade with the EC, it is possible that a mo re economically relevant c ountry engaging in some 
level of IP enforcement, but nevertheless with a c onsiderable level of IP in fringements be mentioned, 
while a country with a smaller economy and no IP enforcement record, has not been considered a 
priority.   
Question 12 
Also with respect to paragraph 123: a) consideri ng that the EC « Enforcement Survey 2006 » cautions 
that « The published results reflect the view of the parties and their perception of the situation; and not 
necessarily the strict reality”, could the EC eluc idate how it is willing to redress the negative 
consequences that might ensue for affected countries in terms, e.g., of foreign investment from the 
dissemination of information that does “not necessarily [reflect] the strict reality”? b) in view of the 
trade-adverse effects that might stem from the dissemination of such anecdotal information as 
contained in the “Survey”, could the EC please explain how the publication of studies of such as these WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 274  
 
 are in conformity with TRIPS Article 41, according to which enforcement “procedures shall be applied 
in such a manner as to avoid the crea tion of barriers to legitimate trade”?  
 
Answer 
The results of any
 survey based on public questionnaires will always " reflect the view of the parties 
and their perception of the situation; and not necessarily the strict reality ”. This being said, the EC 
considers that the number of replies and the vari ety and representativeness of many respondents (large 
associations with extensive membership) faithfully depict the perception by the EC of intellectual 
property right-holders about the state and problems of IPR enforcement around the world.  Publicizing the results of a public survey cannot be c onsidered as a barrier to legitimate trade. Finally 
the results of the survey focus not only on weaknesses in the IP systems of the countries concerned, but 
also on the strong points and best practices exis ting in such countries. The overall perception for 
several countries included in the Survey was actually very positive.  
V – SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES 
 
WT/TPR/S/177 IV (2) (ii) Page 94 Paragraph 34 to 37 
 
 Question 13 
The new European Community sugar regime entered into force in July 2006. Could the EC provide 
information (including figures) regarding the operation of the new instruments, such as: private storage 
aid; sugar withdrawal; temporary and permanen t quota reduction; quota surrender; intervention 
purchases; intervention exports (if any); export refunds ; budgetary situation, a nd; restructuring aid. 
Could the EC provide statistical recent data (and est imates for the next marketing year) regarding:  
a. production (under quota a nd non-quota sugar);  
b. exports (within and outside the legal tender system);  
c. imports;  
d. consumption;  
e. quota surrender;  
f. sugar carried-forward;  
g. sugar for industrial use, and;  
h. sugar destined to “outermost regions”  
 Answer 
a) Production under quota for 2007/08 is currently  estimated at 15.2 million tonnes for EC 27. 
 b) Forecast not yet available and will depend on uptake under the restructuring scheme and eventual 
withdrawals as well as the overall production. 
 
c) Forecast for EC sugar imports for 2006/07 (15 mo nths for transitional reasons) is 4.2 million tonnes 
and 3.9 million tonnes in 2007/08 (12 months).   d) Consumption for 2007/08 is fo recast to around 16.2 million tonnes 
e) No forecasts available 
f) N.A.   g) An import quota of 200 000 tonnes of white sugar for industrial uses will be open on an erga omnes 
basis.  
 
h) N.A   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 275 
 
 
 Question 14 
Sanitary and phytosanitary Measures   Citrus fruits:  
 Could the EC explain why SPS measures affecting Br azilian exports of citrus  -Council Directive 
2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 and Commission Decision 2004/416/EC of 29 April 2004 - were not 
notified to the SPS Committee?  
 
Answer 
Directive 2000/29 is a codification in a single text after 23 years of existence of EC Phytosanitary law 
created in 1977. This codification did not introduc ed new SPS requirements therefore it was not 
notified. 
The EC has taken temporary emergency  meas ures through Commission Decision 2004/416/EC; an 
annual review has taken place  in order to assess whether the measures should be maintained, improved 
or deleted, based on the technical reports on the resu lts of the plant health checks carried out on the 
fruits imported pursuant the Decision. Moreover the Commission has sought on many occasions to 
obtain additional info on the situation in  Brazil by letters and on the spot visit. 
 Decision 2004/416 is in compliance with IPPC so a notification is not compulsory. Moreover next to 
numerous requests by the concerned countries, the EC policy is not to notify (to the 150 members of the WTO) any temporary import suspension from a speci fied trade partner. Nevertheless, all the EC 
adopted measures are in compliance with Article X of GATT (1947).  
 
Question   
Brazil is aware that there will be a cost of regi stration, within the REACH. European Small and 
Medium Enterprise (SMEs) will be granted allowanc es, thus they can afford the additional costs 
generated by the Program. Will deve loping countries SMEs have access to these same allowances?  
 
Answer 
A separate document with answers to all REACH-rela ted questions asked in the framework of the EC 
TPR 2007 will be made available.  
UNITED STATES
 
 
Comments for the Secretariat:  
 
We note that the Secretariat’s report does not provi de any comment on the EC’s launching of a review 
of its Trade Defense Instruments, nor the subseque nt Green Paper commenting on the EC system.  The 
Secretariat may want to include a section in the repor t that describes the examination that is currently 
underway in the EC. (See Secretariat report section “Measures Directly Affecting Imports – 
Contingency Trade Remedies”.)  
 
Paragraph 64 on page 104 of the report states that “[t]he EC's trade relations in the subsector are 
governed, at the bilateral level, by the 1992 EC/U.S.  Agreement on Trade in Large Civil Aircraft.”  
The main objective of this bilateral agreement is to regulate the level of both direct and indirect 
government support to the aircraft industry.  On Oc tober 6, 2004, the United States abrogated the 1992 
agreement on grounds of non-compliance by the EC.  Therefore, the agreement is not in effect between 
the parties, and it is inaccurate to state that th e agreement governs the EC's trade relations on this 
issue.  The two sentences referenci ng the agreement should be deleted. ( See Secretariat report section 
“Manufacturing - Selected industries – Aerospace”. ) 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 276  
 
 Questions for the EC:
 
 
II.TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
Policy Formulation and Implementation 
 1.  Paragraph 11 on page 19 of the Secretariat report explains that the EC has carried out a number of 
Sustainability Impact Assessments (SIAs) of bot h its WTO DDA objectives and of several bilateral 
FTA negotiations.  Current SIAs are being prepared  for agreements with China and Ukraine.   
 Please describe how the output of the SIA process is incorporated into the EC's trade negotiations and 
the development of provisions for trade agreements. 
 
Answer 
Trade SIAs are a policy tool to help trade ne gotiators better understand the potential effects on 
sustainable development of a trade negotiation. Trad e negotiators are involved in the SIA process right 
from the outset as they sit in th e steering committee together with the independent contractors that 
carry out the research, and they are committed to take  this information into account in negotiations. 
Through the SIAs negotiators are informed of the possible social, environmental and economic 
consequences of a trade agreement. Negotiators can  therefore foresee exceptions or delayed agendas of 
commitments as well as possible flanking measures lik ely to correct or mitigate potential negative 
effect of a negotiation.  
 
Moreover the whole SIA exercise is public, open to th e civil society and third country negotiators, who 
therefore have access to information of the SIAs ju st like the EC negotiators and can make comments. 
Third country negotiators can therefore react as  appropriate during the negotiation. The public 
character of the exercise represents substantial pressu re on negotiators to take it into account.     
 
Trade Policy Objectives 
 
2.  Paragraph 15 on page 20 of the Secretariat report notes that “markets are still fragmented in retail 
financial services, public procurement, transport,  energy and telecommunication”, especially for 
SMEs, and that public consultati ons concluded in June 2006.   
 
Please describe the EC’s plans for completing the in ternal market, and for consultation with third-
country stakeholders in this process.  Is ther e an update on the state of the internal market? 
 
Answer 
In its Communication of 10 May 2006 on “A citizen s’ agenda: delivering results for Europe”, the 
Commission proposed to launch a fundamental review of  the Single Market It also announced that it 
would present a report on the Single Market in the 21st century in 2007.  
 
The report sets out a vision for the Single Market of  the 21st century. It highlights the achievements of 
the Single Market to date and the need to adapt it in  order to deliver further concrete results for the 
benefits of citizens and businesses, and to reinfo rce its contribution to ec onomic growth and social 
cohesion in an era of globalisation. The report will be followed by a full review of the Single Market 
and proposals for further action in the autumn of 2007.  
Trade Agreements and Arrangements - Overview 
 
3.  Paragraph 25 on pages 23-24 of the Secretariat report notes the accession of Romania and Bulgaria on January 1, 2007.     WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 277 
 
 
 A) Please describe the transitional arrangements that  new member States have been provided in terms 
of their adoption of the acquis communautaire . 
 
Answer 
Please refer to http://ec.europa.eu/enlargem ent/key_documents/index_en.htm  
 
B) Please describe the specific intellectual propert y rights commitments that new member States are 
required to adhere to as part of their adoption of the acquis communautaire  or as part of enlargement 
generally.  
 
Answer The New Member States had to apply the whole  acquis  in the area of intellectual property rights as of 
the day of their accession.    
C)  In advance of the January 1, 2007 accession of Romania and Bulgaria to th e EC, the United States 
entered into negotiations with the EC pursuant to  GATT 1994 provisions relating to the expansion of 
customs unions.  As part of their accession, the tw o new EC member States were required to change 
their tariff schedules to conform to the EC’s commo n external tariff schedule, resulting in increased 
tariffs on certain imported products, including certa in U.S. products.  Pursuant to GATT 1994 Articles 
XXIV:6 and XXVIII, the United States and certain other WTO Members are entitled to compensation 
from the EC to offset some of th ese changes.  The expansion of EC quotas to account for the addition 
of Romania and Bulgaria to the EC common market is another key element of  the negotiations.  Please 
comment on the EC’s timeframe for concluding bila teral compensation agreements with interested 
WTO Members and the timeframe for implementing the resulting commitments.  
Answer 
The European Commission shares th e US' wish to conclude negotiations under Art. XXIV.6 following 
the enlargement to Bulgaria and Romania as fast as  possible. The deadline for receiving claims from 
WTO partners, following the EC's notification, e xpired 21 January 2007. Several discussions with the 
US have already taken place, and the Commission is happy to continue these negotiations in due time. 
Given that the magnitude of the problems is much smaller than during the previous enlargement, with 
very few products where partners may actually incu r losses, we are confident that we can soon reach a 
mutually satisfactory agreement with all con cerned partners, including the US. The Commission 
intends to complete the negotiation process during the first half of 2007. In case these negotiations 
result in compensation due to a certain country, th ey will be implemented as soon as all necessary 
procedures have been completed. 
 
4.  In paragraph 26 on page 24 of the Secretariat repo rt, it is explained that in many of the EC’s PTAs 
“liberalization is asymmetrical,” with partner count ries liberalizing at a slower pace and over a longer 
period of time than the EC.    At the end of the transition period, is the degree of liberalization also asymmetrical?  That is, at the end of the transition period, has the EC eliminated a larger number of tariff lines, covering a larger share of trade, than its partners?   
 
Answer 
While ensuring full compatibility with the requireme nts in GATT Article XXIV for its FTAs, several 
EC FTAs with developing countries in the past indeed  have asymmetric levels of liberalisation even at 
the end of transition periods, wher e the EC has eliminated duties on a larger number of tariff lines 
covering a larger share of trade than its trading partners. The asymmetry reflects the difference in the 
levels of development between th e EC and its FTA partners and, more specifically, the capacity 
constraints and less availability of domestic means of addressing structural adjustment arising from 
tariff dismantling for particularly sensitive products or groups of products in developing countries. It WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 278  
 
 should be stressed that the degree of asymmetry for both transition periods and levels of commitments, 
if any, is determined on a case by case basis – depe nding on the nature of the FTA, the assessment of 
specific developmental concerns of EC counterparts and the negotiations. This is also likely to remain 
the case for future EC FTAs. 
 
5.  Paragraph 27 on page 24 of the Secretariat report explains that the EC has launched a new initiative 
to pursue new PTAs around the world.  Paragraph 27 also describes how the EC’s preferential trade 
agreements (PTAs) increasingly include provisio ns related to the harm onization of technical 
requirements (including standards).   
A)  What criteria does the EC apply to identify markets with which to negotiate a PTA? 
 Answer 
As far as criteria for identifying new FTA partne rs are concerned, the Global Europe Communication 
specifies that they should cons ider economic size and growth (representing market potential) as well as 
the level of tariffs and non tariff barriers against EC interests (accounting for the level of protection). It 
also recalls that the EC should also take account of the potential partners’ negotiations with EC 
competitors, the likely impact of this on EC mark ets and economies, as well as the risk that the 
preferential access to EC market s currently enjoyed by our neighboring and developing country 
partners may be eroded.  B)  Please describe what types of technical requireme nts are most frequently subject to harmonization. 
 Answer 
For potential Member States (e.g., Croatia, FYRo M) the ultimate aim of pre-accession FTAs is the 
complete adoption of the acquis .  For other countries (e.g., Mediterranean countries under the ENP 
action plan) the priority sectors are identified by the country concerned, in consultation with the 
Commission, on the basis of what is likely to be th e most economically advantageous.  This process is 
still at an early stage.  C)  How do harmonized standards apply to tradi ng relationships with third countries as well as 
countries that have PTAs with the EC?    
 
Answer Irrespective of any PTA, a supplier from a third count ry that uses harmonized standards as a means of 
meeting the requirements of European "New Ap proach" legislation has the right to access the 
European market on the same basis as a supplier from a Member State.   
 
D)  Does harmonization of standards include recogn ition of third-country products that meet those 
standards and qualify for the CE mark or other approval in either the EC or its partners? 
 
Answer 
It is necessary to understand that the CE mark doe s not itself denote the use of harmonized standards; 
rather, it indicates that all New Approach Directiv es applicable to the product have been complied 
with. As already indicated, the EC system does not  discriminate according to their origin between 
products bearing the CE mark.    
Trade Agreements and Arrangements - WTO 
 6.  Paragraph 29 on page 24 of the Secretariat report states that “[t] he EC supports key elements of 
sustainable development (environment protection, libe ralization of trade in environmental goods, social 
development, and cons umer concerns)”.   
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 279 
 
 
 A)  Can the EC clarify how consumer concerns are applied in determining policy approaches to 
sustainable development?    B)  How are these concerns defined and what weight  are they given when they conflict with science-
based analysis of the environmental implications of a given policy?    Answer 
The EC and its Member States aim to ensure that all Community internal policies, including consumer 
and environmental policies, are consistent w ith and supportive of its policies on sustainable 
development. In this context certain  horizontal considerations such as the requirement for policies to be 
science based and in conformity with internationa l obligations are also fully taken into account.  
 
Trade Agreements and Arrangements – Pref erential trade agreements and arrangements 
 
7.  Paragraph 53 on pages 33-34 of the Secretariat report states that the EC’s  Euro-Mediterranean free 
trade area is based on “agreements between the EC and individual Mediterranean countries.”   
 How does this approach conform with the EC’s ear lier statement in paragraph 25 that it tries to 
establish “regional groupings”?  Is the EC worki ng to create free trade between the Mediterranean 
countries?   
 
Answer The policy objective of the Barcelona process is to  establish a regional Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade 
Area at the horizon 2010 which involves all Mediterranean  partners. The legal instruments to make this 
happen are, on the one hand, FTA-oriented Associa tion Agreements concluded between the EC and 
each Mediterranean partner and, on the other, Fr ee Trade Agreements concluded by the partners 
themselves. The EC has constantly encouraged su ch South-South Agreements. These are, inter alia, 
instrumental to operate diagonal cumulation of or igin within the Euromed, which allows wider 
sourcing opportunities for the sake of preferential treatment. A number of such South-South agreements are already in force or for imminent implementation, but additional work remains to be 
done. Further push to this effect is provided on the occasion of Euromed Trade Ministerial 
Conferences, the last of which took place in March 2006 in Marrakech, or through EC assistance to 
South-South liberalisation efforts. Additional liber alisation initiatives to extend and deepen the scope 
of relevant provisions in the Association Agreemen ts, such as recent negotiations on the liberalisation 
of services and right of establishment, have an im portant regional dimension, insofar as they will 
encourage concessions by the partners among themselv es not less favourable than those granted to the 
EC. 
 
Furthermore, regional work has been conducted within the Euromed on trade facilitation and on 
approximation of standards and technical legisl ation to help remove trade barriers.        
 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
Measures Directly Affecting Imports - Customs procedures  
 8.  In view of its recognition of the complaints of economic operators regarding lack of harmonization 
of penalties for customs infractions, the EC Comm ission, in its draft Modernized Customs Code, 
proposed establishing a “common framework” on administrative penalties for customs infractions.
13  
What steps, if any, has the EC take n to establish that “common framework”? 
 
                                                      
13. European Commission, Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, TAXUD/447/2004 
Rev 2, An Explanatory Introduction to the modernized Customs Code , p. 13 (Feb. 24, 2005). WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 280  
 
 Answer 
The proposal on the Modernized Customs Code addresses  the issue and aims at establishing a common 
framework on customs penalties. 
 
9.  Pages 40-42 of the Secretariat report describe the EC’s customs regimes, but do not address the 
January 1, 2007 enlargement. 
 A) What have the new member States done to brin g their customs regime in line with those of the 
EC(15)?     
B) Have any transitions been granted to the new member States in this area?   
 
Answer 
Bulgaria and Romania have fully harmonised their customs legislation and procedures with the other 
25 (not 15) Member States, at the moment of their accession. 
First of all, the EC Customs Code and its Implem enting Regulations are directly applicable in all 
Member States, and - as such - they became legally directly applicable in Bulgaria and Romania as 
from 1 January 2007. 
Second, the European Commission strictly monitored the consistent and uniform application of EC-
compliant customs rules in Bulgaria and Romania on  a regular basis, by means of an established and 
well-tested methodology. 
Finally, no transitional periods or de rogations were granted to either Bulgaria or Romania in the field 
of customs.  
 
Measures Directly Affecting Imports – Common Customs MFN Tariff 
 10.  The United States is concerned about EC proposals that would no longer guarantee duty-free 
treatment for certain products covered under the Information Technology Agreement (ITA).  For 
example, set-top boxes with a communication functio n are covered under Attachment B of the ITA but 
the EC is considering no longer guaranteeing duty-fr ee treatment for almost all set-top boxes as they 
incorporate a cable or network-based modem instea d of a telephone-base modem or have a hard drive. 
 We have similar concerns with respect to the EC's  treatment of other ITA products and raise questions 
about the EC’s obligations under GATT Article II. 
 Please explain how the EC’s proposals to no longer guarantee duty-free treatment for set-top boxes with a communication function are consistent  with its commitment to bind and eliminate 
customs duties on these products wherever  they are classified in the HS?  
 Answer 
The US has presented – albeit in a more general form – to the Committee of Participants on the 
Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Pr oducts two documents concerning the "Coverage for 
information technology products under the Info rmation Technology Agreement (ITA)" - WTO 
documents G/IT/W/23 and G/IT/W/26. 
As the US is aware the Europ ean Community is of the opinion that the "Modalities and Product 
Coverage" annexed the Ministerial Declaration on trade in information technology provides for the 
necessary mechanisms for reviewing the product sc ope (paragraph 3) and resolving classification 
divergences (paragraphs 5 and 7).   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 281 
 
 
 Not all set-top boxes are covered by the ITA. Only  those which fall into th e following description are 
covered: "Set top boxes which have a communi cation function: a microprocessor based device 
incorporating a modem for gaining access to the In ternet, and having a function of interactive 
information exchange".”  Measures Directly Affecting Imports—Import Licensing 
 
11. In paragraph 33, page 53 the S ecretariat briefly mentions the EC’s import licensing system.   Could 
the EC provide further information regarding its import licensing system?  In particular: 
 
A)  Can the EC confirm whether import licenses can be issued to applicants ot her than EC companies? 
 
Answer 
Yes, import licenses can be issued to applicants ot her than EC companies. Please see the Questionnaire 
on Import Licensing Procedures (G/LIC/N/3/EEC/9), page 13. 
 
B)  Has the EC established common criteria for product counting against import licenses (tons vs. boxes) across its different ports?  If yes, what steps h as the EC taken to ensure effective application of 
such criteria among all member States?   
 
Answer 
Member States have to ensure the proper management of the import licenses; they are, however, 
obliged to report to the Commission on implementation.  
Measures Directly Affecting Imports - Contingency Trade Remedies 
 12.  Paragraph 37 on page 54 of the Secretariat repo rt states that “if the Council establishes that the 
combination of either anti-dumping or countervailing,  and safeguard measures could lead to effects 
greater than ‘desirable’ under the EC's trade defe nse policy, then the anti-dumping or countervailing 
measures may be amended, suspended, or repealed (partially/totally)…”.   
 
Please describe the process that the Council follows and the criteria that it applies in determining 
whether the application of trade remedies “leads to ef fects greater than ‘desirable’ under the EC’s trade 
defense policy.”    
Answer 
On 6 March 2003, the Council of the European Union adopted Regulation (EC) No 452/2003 on measures that the Community may take in relation to the combined effect of anti-dumping or anti-
subsidy measures with safeguard measures (O fficial Journal L 69, 13.3.2003, p. 8).  
 According to this Regulation, the European Commu nity can amend, suspend or repeal existing anti-
dumping and/or anti-subsidy measures, or exempt imports from anti-dumping or countervailing duties 
which would otherwise be payable, if it considers that the combination of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy 
measures with safeguard tariff measures could have e ffects greater than those intended or desirable in 
terms of the Community's trade defence policy and objec tives. This would be in particular the case, if 
such a combination could place an undesirably one rous burden on certain exporting producers seeking 
to export to the Community, which could have the effect of denying them access to the Community 
market.  
 
This Regulation has in particular been applied to  the anti-dumping measures applicable to certain hot-
rolled coils and to certain tube and pipe fittings , of iron or steel (Council Regulation (EC) No778/2003 
of 6 May 2003, Official Journal L 114, 8.5.2003, p. 1). In this case the Community Institutions considered that in those cases where an anti-dum ping duty and a safeguard duties would normally be WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 282  
 
 payable and where the anti-dumping duty is less than , or equal to, the amount of the safeguard duty, no 
anti-dumping duty should be payable. Where the anti-dumping duty is greater than the amount of the safeguard duty, it was considered appropriate that only that part of the anti-dumping duty which is in 
excess of the amount of the safeguard duty should be payable. As regards the procedural aspects, the usual practices in trade defence cases were followed.  In particular, all parties directly concerned 
received prior disclosure about the intended way of  action and were given an opportunity to comment. 
Their submissions were duly taken into account. The Council decided on the basis of a Commission proposal.  
Measures Directly Affecting Imports - Contingency Trade Remedies – Anti-dumping Measures 
 
13.  Paragraph 41 on page 55 of the Secretariat re port discusses recent EC anti-dumping legislation.   
 Please provide information regarding the transparency  of the EC’s investigation process, including 
whether and how interested parties are provided the opportunity during the investigations to view and 
comment on detailed facts and ca lculations upon which findings ma y be based, and the decision-
making process of Commission staff and the Advisory Committee.  
Answer 
Article 6(7) of the basic Anti-Dumping Regulation identifies interested par ties as the complainants, 
importers and their representative associations, expo rters and their representative associations, users 
and consumer organizations  and representatives of the exporting country. In order enjoy the procedural 
rights ensured by the basic Anti-Dumping Regulati on, interested parties are requested to make 
themselves known within the time lim it specified in the notice of initia tion. These procedural rights are 
set out in Article 20 of the basic Anti-Dumping Regul ation which is in full conformity with the WTO 
Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
 
If the interested parties make themselves known with in the applicable deadlin es they will benefit from 
the following rights: right to submit information, right to be heard, right to obtain confidential treatment of information, submitted, 
right to access the non-confidential files, 
right to comment on other parties' submissions, right to receive disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which provisional measures have been imposed or on the basis of wh ich it is intended to recommend the imposition of 
definitive measures. 
 
These extensive rights ensure that the interested parties are fully informed and give them the 
opportunity to comment on facts and calculations upon which findings may be based and on the legal 
considerations made in this respect.   As regards the decision-making process, the Commi ssion carries out the investigation and has the 
competence to impose provisional measures after c onsultation of the Member States. Definitive 
measures are imposed by the Council, acting on a proposal submitted by the Commission after 
consultation of the Advisory Committee. The proposal is adopted by the Council unless it decides by a simple majority to reject the proposal. Further details of the decision-making procedures are set out in the basic Anti-Dumping Regulation, in particular Ar ticle 9 (imposition of definitive measures) and 15 
(consultation of the Advisory Committee).  
 14.  While paragraph 42 on page 55 of the Secretar iat report indicates the number of investigations 
initiated, the number of provisional and final measu res imposed, and the number of cases terminated, it 
does not report such details for the EC's price undert akings or their reviews (e.g., refund and interim).  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 283 
 
 
  
Please provide further information on the EC’s prac tice with regard to Price Undertakings, Refund 
Reviews, and Interim Reviews.  In particular, pl ease provide information on the number of agreements 
in place (including the type of agreement), the numbe r of reviews (by type) that were conducted, and a 
summary of the results of such reviews.    Answer 
During the period 1 January 2004 to 30 September 2006 the EC initiated and concluded the following 
reviews.  
Expiry reviews Initiated 35 
 Concluded with confirmation of duty 15 
 Concluded terminating the measures 8 
Interim reviews Initiated 55 
 Concluded with confirmation or amendment 
of duty 40 
 Concluded by termination 10 
Other reviews Concluded with confirmation or amendment 
of duty 29 
 Concluded by termination 3 
New exporter reviews Initiated 6 
 Concluded with imposition of duty 6 
 Concluded by termination 2 
Anti-absorption investigations Initiated 2 
 Concluded with increase of duty 1 
 Concluded without increase of duty 2 
Anti-circumvention investigations Initiated 12 
 Concluded by extension of duty 10 
 Concluded without extension of duty 4 
 
UNDERTAKINGS ON 30 SEPTEMBER 2006 
 
On 30 September 2006, there were 40 undertakings in place.  R
EFUNDS COVERING PERIOD 1 JANUARY 2004  TO 30 SEPTEMBER 2006 
 
In the period January 2004-Sept ember 2006, 33 requests for refund of anti-dumping/ countervailing 
duties were received, of which 19 have been finali sed (i.e. concluded by granting a partial or total 
refund, or rejected). 14 refund requests are still on-going. 
 
15.  Paragraphs 42 and 43  on page 55 of the Secretariat report state that “the definitive AD measures 
applied were mostly  ad valorem duties” and “most  AD rates applied were ad valorem.”    
 A)  Please provide a further explanation for those measures that were applied and did not
 use the ad 
valorem  duty.  How and on what basis were these other AD measures applied? What was the rationale 
for doing so?   
 
Answer 
Article 14 of the basic Anti-Dumping Regulation on ly stipulates that an anti-dumping duty shall be 
collected in the form, at the rate specified and accord ing to the other criteria laid down in the regulation 
imposing such duties. Although, there are no explicit rules on the different forms of duties which may 
be imposed, the most common form of an anti-dumping duty in the EC is the ad valorem duty. However, there might be situations in which an ad valorem duty is considered not to be appropriate, for 
example where there is a risk of collusion between  exporters and importers which can lead to the 
manipulation of the invoice value of the goods concerne d.  In such cases, a specific duty, consisting of 
a fixed amount, may be considered more suitable sin ce it prevents price manipulation. Furthermore, in 
certain cases the Community Institutions have also  applied so-called variable duties. These duties WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 284  
 
 function like a price undertaking in the sense that the duty is determined by reference to a fixed 
minimum price. Only if export prices are below this threshold price (which corresponds to the normal value or the non-injurious price, whichever is less),  duties have to be paid  on the difference between 
the threshold price and the actual export price. Vari able duties are generally preferred by exporters, 
because the payment of duties can be avoided, but in  the same way as price undertakings, they can only 
be used under certain conditions. Variable duties would not be suitable, for example, if the number of 
different types of the product concerned makes it virtually impossible to fix a minimum price level for the product concerned. Furthermore, variable du ties are also easily prone to price manipulation. 
 B)  In how many antidumping investigations since March 2001 have the EC authorities made 
comparisons pursuant to the “targeted dumping” provisi on in the last sentence of Article 2.4.2 of the 
Antidumping Agreement?  Please identify these investig ations.  How many of the investigations, in 
which comparisons were made on this basis, resulte d in imposition of definitive antidumping duties?  
In which investigations, since Marc h 2001, have the EC authorities not
 made comparisons pursuant to 
this “targeted dumping” provision?  Answer 
The EC does not have statistical data available on the use of the different methods of comparison 
provided by the Anti-dumping Agreement. However, in  general, the EC would use this method, where 
appropriate, provided the conditions stipulated in Article 2(11) of the basic Anti-Dumping regulation, 
which reflects Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, are fulfilled. Experience over the last 
years shows that the method is rather rarely used . One recent example in which it was applied is the 
case concerning certain side-by-side refrigerators from Korea, where a pattern of export prices significantly differing among different regions was found (Official Journal L 236, 31.8.2006, p. 11, 
recital 27). 
 
16.  With respect to the information provided on an ti-dumping in paragraphs 41-44 of the Secretariat 
report:  Will the EC extend any existing antidumping orders to imports of goods under those orders into the 
new member States?  Will injury investigations be  conducted in those markets in relation to those 
orders?    Answer 
Like in the previous enlargements, as of 1 January  2007 all trade defence measures that were in force 
in the EC-25 are automatically applied also to the new Member States (Bulgaria and Romania), i.e., all imports into the enlarged EC-27 are subject to th ese measures. On the same date, all trade defence 
measures that were applied individually by the acceding countries before their accession to the EU, 
automatically lapsed.   The EC has not been considering to automatically review all the existing EC trade defence measures 
due to enlargement but rather offers to open revi ews for those cases where in terested parties request 
such reviews and submit evidence th at the measures would have been significantly different if they 
were based on information including the new Member States. Accordingly, exporting producers in 
third countries have been encouraged and are welc ome to submit such requests for enlargement-related 
reviews. 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 285 
 
 
 Measures Directly Affecting Imports—Technical Barriers to Trade 
 
17. Paragraph 48 on page 57 of the Secretariat re port states “full harmonization of standards and 
technical regulations in the EC has not been achieved.”   
A)  When and how does the EC envision achievi ng full harmonization of standards and technical 
regulations across member States?   B)  Could the EC outline specific steps being ta ken and future action plans to ensure full 
harmonization?   Answer 
A & B) 
Harmonised legislation allows new EC  laws to be introduced with detailed rules that apply across the 
EC and therefore replace diverging national rules. Th is principle has been applied successfully within 
the EC and has been one of the main mechanisms  used to create the in ternal market for goods. 
However, “full” harmonisation of European regulati ons is not really a realistic goal, and there is 
therefore no specific target date for this. There are fi elds in which harmonisation is not even a desirable 
goal. Harmonised legislation is made on a case by case basis depending on the need for adopting 
European legislation, as well as taking into account th e principle of subsidiarity (Article 5 of the EC 
Treaty). 
 
As far as standardisation is concerned, it has to be kept in mind that in the EC standards are voluntary technical documents which are developed by inde pendent European Standa rdisation Organisations 
over which none of the EC institutions has any direct  influence. Accordingly, it is up to the Standards 
Organisations themselves to decide which area needs harmonisation. The past practice has shown a 
strong tendency towards harmonisation of standards at European level. Whereas 25 years ago, the 
proportion between national standards and European  standards was 80/20% in favour of national 
standards, today at least 85% of the standards acquis  are common European standards. 
In Europe, the standards developers follow the intern ationally recognised principles of standardization, 
which include the principles of openness and transparen cy. In practice, this means that any adoption of 
a standard is preceded by a public enquiry where any stakeholder, be it within the EC or outside the 
EC, may submit its comments. 
 C)  How does the EC currently alert third country tr aders of changes in member State legislation to 
adopt the EC standards?   
D)  How does the EC plan to improve transpar ency in alerting trading partners as member 
States come into harmonization with EC regulations?  
 
Answer 
C & D)  
If the requirements of Art. 2.9.2 TBT Agreement are fulfilled, WTO members are notified of proposed new technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures which shall be adopted at EC level 
with a view to harmonization. The notification or the related text of a draft Community measure, in 
principle, already indicate until when Member Stat es shall adopt measures in order to bring their 
national legislation in line with the Community act. Should a Member State fail to comply with the obligations under the Community act, the European  Commission, as guardian of the Treaty, has the 
power to open a procedure against this Member St ate to ensure effectiv eness of Community law 
throughout the EC. The European Commission is curre ntly working on the development of a public 
database with Member States’ transposition measures.  
 18. Paragraph 49 on page 57 gives an overview of th e EC standard setting process and mentions the 
three standard setting bodies.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 286  
 
 A) Could the EC provide further information on how these standard setting bodies operate and the 
extent of their respective jurisdiction(s)?  B) Is there a mechanism in place that allows trad ing partners to provide these entities with comments 
during the standards development process?  Answer 
All the relevant information can be found at th e web-sites of the three recognized European 
Standardisation Organisations. These websites are the following: http://www.cen.eu/cenorm/index.htm
 (CEN) 
http://www.cenelec.org/Cenelec/Homepage.htm  (CENELEC) 
http://www.etsi.org/  (ETSI) 
 19.  Paragraph 52 on page 58 of the Secretariat re port states that “[u]nder the WTO TBT Agreement, 
EC member States made 54 notifications in 2004, 68 in 2005 and 62 in 2006 (up to October 2006) 
whilst the EC made 29, 24 and 35 notifications respectively.” 
 A)  Has the EC undertaken a systematic review of  how to address trading partner concerns that its 
notifications of TBT measures frequently seem to come only after an internal consensus on new measures has been reached between the Commission and member States, i.e., when it is too late for 
trading partners (and their comments) to have an impact on proposed measures?  Is the EC willing to 
undertake such a review if one is not already underway? 
 
Answer 
The timing of the notification under the TBT Agreemen t has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. It 
has to be ensured that a text notified to the WTO is  sufficiently ‘stable’ to be considered as a proposed 
technical regulation. Therefore, a measure which requires adoption by the Council and the European 
Parliament and which fulfils the requirements of Article 2.9.2 TBT Agreemen t generally is notified 
after the proposal has been adopted by the Commi ssion and before a Common Position is adopted by 
the Council. Implementing measures, which may be  adopted by the Commission, are notified after 
consultation of the relevant services involved while respecting the interests and powers of the Member 
States according to Council Decision 1999/468/EC whic h lays down the procedures for the exercise of 
implementing powers conferred on the Commission.  In both cases, possible comments submitted by 
trading partners in accordance with the TBT Agr eement are taken into account by the respective 
legislative institutions.  
Measures Directly Affecting Imports—Sa nitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
 
20.  In paragraph 54, page 59, the Secretariat Report explains the split competency between the 
Commission and member States.    A) Please explain the process by which the Commi ssion ensures that member States implement EC 
legislation in a consistent manner.   Answer 
There is a comprehensive legislative framework in  place to ensure consistent implementation of 
legislation. This includes measures to ensure that Member States have correctly transposed Community 
legislation into their domestic legislative frame works. The European Co mmission also pursues any 
complaints or allegations of non-compliance. In th e areas of animal and plant health and food safety 
this process includes inspections by  the European Commission services in the Member States aimed at 
reviewing implementation measures. Member States  which are found to be non-compliant are pursued 
with a view to proper implementation, including wh ere necessary actions before the European Courts.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 287 
 
 
 B)  What steps, if any, is the EC taking to im prove the current process to guarantee full adoption of 
EC-wide measures in member States? 
 
Answer 
Please see above under A). C) What is the mechanism by whic h exporters to the EC can seek to remedy inconsistencies when and 
if they arise? 
 
Answer 
Third countries exporters have a number of options open to them to remedy inconsistencies. These 
include bilateral contacts with the MS(s) c oncerned or with the Commission services where 
appropriate. Grievances can also be raised at the multilateral leve l, for instance at the WTO SPS 
Committee and TBT Committee.   21.  Paragraph 54, page 59 of the Secretariat Re port highlights that the Commission coordinates with 
member States to implement EC legislation on SPS measures. 
 A)  Could the EC provide further details as to the coordination process between the Commission and 
member States for the implementation of such me asures?  For example, do representatives from both 
the Commission and member States meet regularly to ensure effective and harmonized adoption of EC measures?  Are target dates set for member States to fully comply with EC legislation?  Answer 
There are comprehensive reports available on the tr ansposition, implementation and enforcement (TIE) 
of Community law in the Member States. All Co mmunity legislation and enforcement measures are 
drawn up in very close co-operation with the Memb er States and generally require their agreement. 
This includes very regular meetings to oversee this pr ocess. This is all carried out in a very transparent 
manner with the agendas and reports of meetings  publicly available on the internet. Community 
legislation as a general rule does establish target  dates for the transposition and implementation of 
measures.  B)  How does this coordination process ensure that  member States satisfy their WTO SPS Agreement 
obligations regarding transparency, consultation and notification.  What, if any, steps are taken to 
ensure that member States satisfy their national tr eatment obligations in the implementation of SPS 
measures? 
 
Answer 
Community legislation is notified to the WTO/SPS and third countries are afforded every opportunity 
to comment. Where appropriate, measures are am ended or their implem entation deferred. The 
European Commission also aims to facilitate "up-st ream" co-operation and information exchange with 
trade partners to avoid problems. 
C) What type of oversight does the Commission have or employ in order to ensure member States’ 
compliance to their WTO SPS Agreement obligations?    Answer 
There are comprehensive measures in place to ensu re that Member States notify measures with a 
potential trade impact to the European Commission for review and, where appropriate, approval. As 
external trade issues are essentially harmonized at the EC level, including in the field of SPS, it is very 
unusual for problems of Member St ates compliance with their WT O/SPS Agreement obligations to 
arise.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 288  
 
 22.  Paragraph 55, on page 59 no tes the differences in risk analys is responsibility between European 
Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the Commission, and member States.    A) Does the EC have a legal framework providing m echanisms to ensure that risk management and 
risk communication decisions are based on risk assessments?    Answer 
Yes, see article 3 of the Regulation (EC) No 178/2 002 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the 
European Food Safety Authority and laying do wn procedures in matters of food safety. 
 
B) Are EFSA risk assessments used as the bases for EC SPS measures?  If not, what is the competent 
body that produces such assessments?” Or, are we ta lking about the potentia l for an SPS measure 
applied by an individual member State? 
 
Answer Yes. 
 
23.  Paragraph 56, on page 59 men tions certain transitional measures or  derogations the EC has granted 
to member States.    
A)  Are similar transitional measures or derogations  automatically extended to other non-member State 
trading partners?  If not, what steps does the EC ta ke to ensure that such transitional measures or 
derogations do not raise potential most-fa vored-nation or national treatment issues? 
 
Answer 
No. However where third countries request simila r transitional measures or derogations, these are 
considered on their merits and if appropriate are also extended to the third countries concerned. All 
decisions in this field are reviewed as to thei r compliance with the EC's multilateral obligations, 
including WTO/SPS and the European Commission is satisfied that they are compliant. 
 B)  Please provide a brief description of any deroga tions or transitional periods provided to Romania 
and Bulgaria for meeting EC food safety requirements and standards. 
 
Answer 
See annex on legislation for the accession of Bulgaria and Romania. 
 
1)  In particular, please describe the transitiona l periods or derogations from meeting EC meat 
processing requirements granted to the new member States. 
 
Answer 
Meat processing establishments in Bulgaria and Ro mania were required to upgrade their facilities to 
meet EC requirements or to close. However, for a certain transitional period certain establishments 
which were close to meeting requirements were a llowed to continue to market their product on 
domestic markets pending the necessary upgrading work. This process is assisted through a range of 
support programs funded by the EC aimed at facili tating the integration of the new Member State 
economies into the EU.  
2)  Have third countries been granted similar tran sitional periods or deroga tions?  If so, will such 
derogations be kept in place until the end of the tr ansitional period provided by the EC to Romania and 
Bulgaria? 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 289 
 
 
 Answer 
No 
3)  Are third country exports of meat and meat products permitted to enter Romania and Bulgaria 
subject to the same restrictions or standards cu rrently applied by these new member States in their 
domestic markets, or are third country imports subjec t to more-restrictive EC requirements?  If imports 
into Romania and Bulgaria are subject to more-rest rictive conditions, how will the EC ensure that it 
and the new member States satisfy their national treatment obligations? 
 
Answer 
Bulgaria and Romania are required to apply the same harmonized import conditions as are applied by 
other Member States, i.e. there is no discrimination. 
 C)  What is the process by which non-member Stat e trading partners may seek similar transitional 
measures or derogations in the event that they are unable to implement EC measures?  Answer 
These transitional measures are in pl ace in the context of the accessi on of the countries concerned to 
the European Union and are temporary in nature. They  are especially aimed at assisting the adjustment 
process of the countries concerned to EU membership a nd in particular at bringing their standards up to 
the harmonized levels which exist elsewhere in the EU. The alternative to such transitional measures 
would be immediate closure. These circumstances do not apply to third countries. 
 
24.  Paragraph 57 on page 60 notes that the EC a nd member States notified 107 SPS measures in 2004, 
44 in 2005, but only 11 through October 2006.    A)  Has the EC undertaken a systematic review of  how to address trading partner concerns that its 
notifications of SPS measures frequently seem to come only after an internal consensus on new 
measures has been reached between the Commission and member States, i.e., when it is too late for 
trading partners (and their comments) to have an impact on proposed measures?  Is the EC willing to 
undertake such a review if one is not already underway? 
 
Answer 
The figures for year 2004 and 2005 are correct, but the right number for the period from January to 
October 2006 is 39 from the EC and 2 from the Member States (41). The total for year 2006 is 48 EC notifications and 3 from the Member States.  No such review is underway, nor have any such c oncerns been addressed to the Commission by trading 
partners. 
 B) Please comment on the timing of the EC approving a regulation that would allow the import of poultry treated with Anti-Microbial Treatments,  the efficacy and safety of which has been 
demonstrated by several EC scientific studies.   
 
Answer As soon as the necessary regulatory process has b een completed. The EC is taking all reasonable 
efforts to expedite this process. As it has been explained to the US on a number of occasions, there are 
considerable concerns relating to the use of such subs tances which are not authorized for use in the EC  
for either imported or domestically produced poultry meat or poultry meat products. These concerns 
have to be fully addressed if approval is to be secured. 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 290  
 
 Measures affecting production and trade - Competition policy and regulatory issues  
 
25.  The Secretariat Report does not address the issue of price controls maintained by EC member States (paragraphs 85-97 on pages 67-73).  American companies have reported that a number of EC 
Members maintain measures related to price cont rols, maximum allowable reimbursement for drugs 
under national health insurance systems, and periodi c mandatory price reductions, among others.      
 A) With respect to price controls on pharmaceuti cals, what steps do the Communities and its member 
States take to avoid to the fullest practicable extent  effects prejudicial to the interests of the United 
States, which is a principal global source of innova tive pharmaceuticals, and other members supplying 
imported pharmaceuticals, within the meaning of paragraph 9 of Article III of the GATT 1994?   
 
Answer  
As the US, the EC is a principal global source of innovative pharmaceuticals. Pricing and 
reimbursement decisions regarding pharmaceuticals are subject to European Directive EEC/89/105 
which stipulates minimal procedural requirement, thus ensuring transparency and opportunity to 
prevent potential discrimination. To our knowledge, Member States are making these pricing and reimbursement decisions in a non-discriminatory wa y regardless of origin of the product, thereby 
ensuring full compliance with Article III:9 of the GATT 1994.  B) The Government of Poland implemented a pri ce reduction regulation for pharmaceuticals in July 
2006 that appears to apply exclusively to impor ted products, including those imported into Poland 
from other EC member States.  Please explain how th is regulation can be rec onciled with the national 
treatment requirements of GATT Article III, as well as with the EC’s own rules for ensuring non-
discriminatory treatment within the si ngle European market for goods.  
 
Answer 
Given that the EC is a customs union, there is actually no "importation" from EC Member States into 
Poland. The Commission is aware of the Polish price reduction regulation of July 2006. The compatibility of this measure with Art. 28 of the EC Treaty establishing the principle of free movement 
of goods and Directive 89/105/ EEC is  currently under investigation.  
 
Measures affecting production and trade – Intellectual Property Rights 
 
26.  The Secretariat report’s discussion of patents (paragraphs 109-115 on pages 74-76) fails to address 
the status of implementation, by the EC’s memb er States, of Directive 98/44, governing patent 
protection for biotechnological innovations.    
Please provide an update on the status of implementation, by the EC’s member States, of Directive 
98/44. 
 
Answer 
Please refer to http://ec.europa.eu/in ternal_market/indprop/invent/index_fr.htm
 
 
27.  Paragraph 116 on page 76 of the Secretaria t report refers to the enactment of a new Council 
Regulation governing the protection of geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs.  While the United States welcomes certai n clarifications achieved through this Regulation, 
some elements of the Regulation appear to create new uncertainties.  For example, Article 14(2) of this 
Regulation, which is concerned w ith the relationship between tradem arks and geographical indications, 
appears to introduce a new potential confusion rega rding the status of trademarks applied for, 
registered, or established by use after January 1, 1996, a reference date which was not present in the 
predecessor Regulation.     WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 291 
 
 
 Please clarify whether, under this provision, a tr ademark owner could be prevented from using its 
trademark, or could be prevented from exercising its TRIPS Article 16 rights, with respect to trademarks applied for, registered, or established by use after this reference date, even if such 
application, registration, or establishment occurs prior to the registration of a related geographic 
indication.   Answer 
The EC had the opportunity to discuss this issue w ith the United States at the time of adoption of 
Regulation 510/06 in March 2006. A trademark that was protected prior to the filing of an application for a GI that by reason of its renown and the length of  time it had been registered such that consumers 
would be confused by the registration of the GI, would, under Article 3(4)  of Regulation 510/06 
prevent the registration of the GI. The case raised by the United States appears to be hypothetical. 
However, the EC is currently conducting a polic y review of the regulation and would welcome 
comments for improvements, hypothetical or real, in the regulation.  
 
 
28.  Paragraph 117 on page 76 of the Secretariat report states that the EC maintains a shortlist of 
regional products that does not yet contain the products of new member States.   A)  Could the EC confirm whether this list c ontains any products from non-EC sources?   
 
Answer 
The EC does not intend to update the list in questi on in the short term. It therefore does not include 
products from non-EC sources for the time being.  B)  Could the EC confirm whether they have recei ved any requests for GI status for products from non-
EC sources – either in the area of food and food products  or in the area of wine and spirits – and, if so, 
how those requests are being processed?   
 
Answer 
In the area of food and food products the EC confir ms that it has received a request for GI registration 
of "Café de Colombia". This request has been publis hed in the Official Journal of the European Union 
(OJC 320 of 26.12.2006). This publication has opene d a period of six months for objections, after 
which, if the European Commission has not receive d any admissible objection, the name "Café de 
Colombia" shall be registered by a regulation publishe d in the Official Journal of the European Union. 
 29.  Paragraph 118 on page 76 of the Secretariat repor t briefly discusses copyright-related issues.  The 
United States is aware that at least one member  State of the European  Communities has enacted 
copyright legislation during 2006 which establishes procedures for the mandated disclosure of 
potentially proprietary and IPR-protected technical  information on technological protection measures 
related to digital rights management, under certain circumstances.  The Unite d States understands that 
similar legal measures may be under considerat ion by other member States of the European 
Communities.    
A)  Please discuss how such a mandatory disclosur e is, or is not, in accordance with Community 
legislation, including in the area of copyright or other aspects of intellectual property rights.   
 
Answer 
The question of compatibility with EC legislation by any Member State is a matter for the European 
Commission to raise it with the Member State concerned. If the EC is of the view that the Member 
State has failed to fulfill any of its obligations un der any Community measure, then the EC may begin 
infringement proceedings against that Member St ate in the European Court of Justice under the 
procedure established in Article 226 of the EC Treaty. However, such matters are dealt with bilaterally WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 292  
 
 between the EC and the Member State concerned. The views of the EC on the particular offending 
measure are not made public until infringement proceed ings are formally opened and the matter is sent 
to the European Court of Justice.   
B)  Could the EC answer the same question with resp ect to obligations in international agreements to 
which the EC and/or its member States are parties, including the TRIPS Agreement and the WCT and 
WPPT?   
 
Answer 
The response to A above also applies to the ob ligations under the WPPT and the WCT which have 
been implemented into EC law with Directive 2001 /29 on the harmonisation of copyright and related 
rights in the Information Society. As far as the TRIPS Agreement is concerned, if the relevant 
obligation which the Member State has failed to impl ement is found in the TRIPS Agreement, then, of 
course, it will be put to the Member State con cerned should there be infringement proceedings. 
 30.  Paragraphs 119-121 on pages 77-78 of the Secr etariat report discuss enforcement legislation and 
activity within the European Communities.  Owners of intellectual property in the United States have 
noted that, while the EC appears to apply a more  effective approach to IPR enforcement on an 
aggregate level, problems of internal piracy and co unterfeit activity remain difficult in a number of 
individual member States of the EC.    
Please elaborate on how Directive 2004/48/EC and othe r EC legal and policy instruments are being 
applied in order to foster a more even implementa tion of high standards of IPR enforcement across the 
territory of the EC. 
 
Answer 
Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectua l property rights is currently being transposed 
into national law by the EC Member States. The Di rective will help create a level playing field for 
right-holders to defend their rights in the face of an  infringement of their intellectual property right by 
bringing national legislation on civil measures, pro cedures and remedies closer into line with ‘best 
practice’ - taking what was felt to be the most effective from Member States’ current legislation. The Directive covers all intellectual property rights – copyright and related right s and industrial property 
rights. 
 The wide set of rules covered by the Directiv e (on evidence and the preservation of evidence, 
injunctions, seizure, recall and destruction of go ods, damages, blocking of bank accounts and seizing 
of assets, financial compensation, a presumption of ownership of related rights, the publication of 
judicial decisions, etc.) should not only ensure a high standard of IPR enforcement across the EC but 
also give out a political signal that the fight against counterfeiting and piracy is an important issue.    
IV.TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
Introduction 
 31.  Paragraph 3 on page 79 of the Secretariat report states that “the EC is seeking to save 20% of its 
energy consumption by 2020 through, inter alia , the use of energy-efficient technologies…” and that 
“[s]ome of the EC's key policy aims in the subsector are security of energy supply, promotion of competition, and completion of the internal market by 2007.” Please provide further information on the EC’s “k ey policy aims” for the use of energy efficient 
technologies and the promotion of competition.  Please also provide further details on whether the key 
policies direct institutions to provide financial as sistance to energy efficient technology industries. 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 293 
 
 
 Answer 
The policy aims are detailed in the Communicati on on "Energy for a changing world" and in the 
Energy Efficiency Action Plan available at h ttp://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/index_en.htm . 
The action plan will consider ways and means to support the financing of energy efficiency (see 
relevant chapter) however no financial assistance is dir ected to energy efficient technology industries.   
 
Agriculture and Related Activities - Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 
 
32.  Paragraph 22 on page 89 of the Secretariat re port explains that the EC is currently applying 91 
tariff-rate-quotas on agricultural products.  
A)  What, if anything, is the EC doing to addr ess tariff-rate quotas in the enlargement context?  
Specifically, when will it consolidate quotas and incr ease quota volumes to account for the addition of 
Romania and Bulgaria as part of the January 1, 2007 enlargement.   
 
Answer 
The EC has submitted a notification on 28 September 2006 to the WTO and indicated its willingness to 
enter into XXIV.6 negotiations with WTO partners. The aim of the XXIV.6 negotiations is to reach a 
mutually satisfactory solution in form of compen satory adjustments for addressing any imbalances 
which might occur as a result of possible increases in the bound duties following the enlargement. 
 The EC is in the process of consolidating the Bulg arian and Romanian tariff rate quotas into the EC25 
tariff rate quotas. For consolidating the quotas the EC follows the same methodology as was applied in 
the previous enlargements of 199 5 and 2004 which is netting-in and netting-out of tariff rate quotas. 
 B)  When will the EC notify a revised tariff schedule reflecting new TRQ commitments?   
 
Answer The revised tariff schedule reflecting new TRQ commi tments following the Bulgarian and Romanian 
accession will be notified once all XXIV.6 agreements with all partners with whom the EC negotiates 
have been signed.  C)  What is the EC doing to ensure that quota commitments by acceding countries are upheld, or if 
eliminated by their adoption of the EC’s common extern al tariff, that third countries are appropriately 
compensated?   
 
Answer 
Please see answer to A) D)  How is the EC monitoring fill rates of the EC-25 quotas?   
 
Answer 
EC is monitoring fill rates of the EC-25 quotas either  through import licenses or through administration 
procedure on a First Come First Served basis. 
 
E)  How will the EC ensure that third country ma rket access is not affected by enlargement for 
products such as pork, where, prior to enlargem ent, exports to Romania were not subject to 
quantitative restrictions but now are subject to an EC TRQ?   
 
Answer 
Prior to enlargement Romania did have a quantitative r estriction for pork in its schedule in the form of 
a tariff rate quota with an in-quota-rate of 115%. In cases where the EC25 tariff rate quotas have lower 
in-quota-rates than those of the acceding countries,  the EC will not consolidate the quotas into the 
EC25 quotas. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 294  
 
 F)  Please provide an update on how the EC is addr essing complaints from various WTO Members that 
the banana import regime it implem ented on January 1, 2006 fails to meet the conditions of the 2001 
Doha banana waivers - specifically, that the regime  will not “at least maintain total market access for 
MFN banana suppliers”? 
 
Answer As laid down in point B of the 2001 Doha waiver of the Cotonou Agreement (Doha waiver), "the EC 
will introduce a Tariff Only regime for imports of  bananas no later than 1 January 2006." The 
European Council Regulation No 1964/2005 of 29 Nove mber on the tariff rates for bananas establishes 
that as from 01.01.2006 the applied tariff rate for ba nanas shall be € 176/tonne. The tariff rate applied 
was set after a careful and lengthy examination of th e impact of the new tariff rate, consultation with 
banana suppliers and took into c onsideration the awards issued in 2005 pursuant to the arbitration 
envisaged in the Annex to the Doha waiver. Du ring the examination process different econometrical 
models were used. However, the large number of va riables involved made it impossible to agree on the 
"right" tariff rate. Even if the EC was convinced th at the new import regime in force since 1 January 
2006 maintained total market access for MFN banana s uppliers, it was aware that it is only empirically 
possible to measure the impact of the applied tariff rate to the market access level by monitoring trade 
flows.  The trade data available to date  indicate that imports from MFN banana suppliers to the EC 
have increased by about 10% in 2006 compared to 2005, which confirms our position. The EC is 
happy to share all the data on banana trade and we  also remain open to discuss any additional argument 
put forward by Members. 
 
Fisheries – Main features 
 
33.  Paragraph 38 on page 95 of the Secretar iat report discusses the EC's production of fishery 
products, stating that the output of the processing sub sector is nearly twice the value of production of 
the catching subsector, but does not provide the underlying value information. 
 Please provide information on the value of the EC’s harvest fisheries production. 
 
Answer 
The European Commission cannot confirm the above assertion made in the Secretariat's Report. The figures that can be provided by the European Commission concern the year 2003 and are the 
following: Value of total landings for EU-15 in thousands of EURO: 6.185.395 
Value of the output of the processing in thousands of EURO: 17.312.200  
These figures have been taken from the booklet: "Fact s and figures on the CFP" Basic data on the 
Common Fisheries Policy, edition 2006. This booklet is available at the following website address: 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/facts/pcp06_en.pdf
 
 
Fisheries – Common Fisheries Policy 
 34.  Paragraphs 41-42 on page 96 of the Secretariat report explain the EC’s Common Fisheries Policy.   
 A)  In 2006 the EC revised its Common Fisheries Polic y to allow certain aid for vessel modernization.  
Please describe the types of modernization meas ures that would be eligible for support under the 
revised policy and how they would be distinguished from vessel “renovation”. 
 Answer 
Overall, "modernisation" refers to equipping the v essel over the main deck to improve safety on board, 
working conditions, hygiene and product quality may in crease the tonnage of the vessel, provided that 
such modernisation does not increase the ability of the vessel to catch fish.   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 295 
 
 
 Modernisation of vessels should relate to: 
the rationalisation of fishing operations, in particular  the use of more selective fishing methods (e.g. for 
reducing the impact of fishing on non-commercia l species and on ecosystems and the sea bottom);  
the improvement product quality of products on board; the improvement of working conditions and safety. 
 
Aid for "renovation" (or fleet renewal) relates to th e construction of a new vessel or the replacement of 
an old vessel with a newly built one. Under the Europ ean Fisheries Fund public aid is not available for 
the renewal of the fleet nor for the increase of fish holds.  For further details please refer to Council Regul ation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the 
European Fisheries Fund. Official Journal of the European Union, L223 of 15/08/2006, pp. 1 – 44. 
 The above Council Regulation and fu rther information on the EFF is av ailable at the website of the 
European Union www.europa.eu
 
 
B)  We understand that the EC has proposed raising the ceiling on de minimis  state aid from Euro 3000 
to Euro 30,000 for small enterprises.  Please desc ribe what purposes this aid could be used for. 
 
Answer 
In June 2005 the European Commission issued its St ate aid action plan, aiming at a State aid policy for 
less and better targeted State aid. Within this cont ext, the Commission proposed to set clear ‘positive’ 
and ‘negative’ priorities and thereby, on the one hand strengthening the rules for granting aid and 
refining the economic approach in assessment of Stat e aid; on the other hand, in order to focus on the 
most distortive types of aid, excluding from ex ante  assessment certain categories of aid, and 
increasing the level of de minimis  aid. The proposal for the increase of the de minimis  aid for fisheries 
should be seen in this context.  
 
Furthermore, and as mentioned in the "Draft Explanatory Memorandum" to the aforementioned 
Commission's proposal, experience has shown that the de minimis  ceiling of  € 3.000, over any period 
of three years, is too low, in particular due to  the higher turnover of the average EU fishing firms 
compared to agriculture firms, as well as the f act that, unlike certain sectors under the common 
agricultural policy, the fisheries sector do es not benefit from direct income support. 
Finally, it should be noted that, with regard to the specifics of the fisheries sector and seen the 
objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy concerning the conservation of fish stocks, the proposed 
regulation contains two additional exemptions specific to  fisheries. No aid shall be granted that serves 
to increase capacity or for the purchase and construction of fishing vessels . 
C)  Please describe in more detail “the price support system that sets minimum prices below which fish 
products cannot be sold”.  Does this system apply fo r all fisheries products?  How is the price level set? 
 
Answer 
The EC runs two market intervention schemes, i. e. a withdrawal scheme and a carry-over scheme. 
Guide prices are fixed annually for the species (wild  capture fisheries) covered by the withdrawal 
system on the basis of average prices registered ove r the previous three years in representative ports. 
The guide prices are then used as a reference to set withdrawal prices, which represent a proportion 
(between 70-90%) of the guide price and which depe nd on the quality of the product. If the price falls 
below this level the Producer (fishermen) Organi sations (PO) may take products off the market. 
Products are subsequently used for non-human consum ption purposes or destroyed or may be "carried-
over". 
 Withdrawn products may be eligible for “carry-over”  where the product is stocked and subsequently 
released once the demand/supply situation has improved. The aid (carry-over premium) is a flat rate to WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 296  
 
 cover stabilisation and storage costs, and bank ch arges. The carry over aid may be granted for a 
maximum of 18% of the quantities placed on the market.   Other EC measures include:  - Independent interventions by producer organisation for products for which it is not possible to fix a 
withdrawal price because of extreme regional dispar ities and/or the fact that the product is limited to 
certain areas;  - Private storage aid applicable to  products frozen on board fisheries vessels in the event of a serious 
market disturbance; and  - Compensatory allowance for tuna, which is paid to Producers Organisations when the market price 
and import price fall below a threshold of 87% of the Community production price. 
 More information on the above mechanisms can be  found in the brochure "The common organisation 
of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products" available at the following website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/facts/ocm_en.pdf
 
 
35.  Paragraph 47 on page 98 of the Secretariat re port states that the 2007-13 budget for the EC’s new 
fisheries support mechanism, the Eu ropean Fisheries Fund (EFF), is Euro 3.8 billion, a Euro 1 billion 
increase from assistance for the 2000-06 period, including “strengthening the competitiveness and 
viability of operators in the subsector” and “promo ting environmentally frie ndly fishing and production 
methods”.  An additional Euro 2.3 billion will be a llocated to finance the “so -called second instrument 
of the CFP,” including assistance to “conservati on, control and surveillance, governance, and 
international aspects.”  A)  Please provide further details on the major di fferences between the new European Fisheries Fund 
(EFF) and the current Financial Instrument for Fi sheries Guidance?  What specific provisions are 
included in the EFF for “strengthening the competitiven ess and viability of operators in the resources?”   
 
Answer 
The EFF, which succeeds the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) covering the 2000-
2006 period, will operate on a similar basis as its pr edecessor. However, it will be simpler to manage. 
It will also better target the objectives of the refo rmed CFP. It will integrate better other Community 
policies, such as environment and employment and follow a stronger and more comprehensive 
strategic approach. The EFF will re-conduct most of the measures under the FIFG. But it will also offer new and innovative measures to take account of the changing  needs of the sector. Most striking examples are 
the measures to accompany the implementation of recovery plans, the encouragement of selective 
fishing methods and the funding for local development strategies to foster the sustainable development 
of fisheries areas. Support for inland fishing and en vironmentally-friendly aquaculture has got a more 
prominent position. For the implementation of measu res, Member States will have more flexibility as 
eligibility rules are kept to the strict necessary at EC level. This will help to adjust measures more 
easily to the needs of their fishing industry.  Implementation of assistance will be considerably simplified. FIFG support for the fisheries sector was 
split up between different programmes in a Member State. In the future, a single EFF programme per 
Member State will allow to concentrate support and to  maximise the efficiency of measures. Moreover, 
the requirement to draw up a national strategic plan for the entire fisheries sector of a Member States 
will help to identify better priorities, targets and publ ic resources for attaining the identified objectives.  
 
The EFF was designed as a real tool to help delive r sustainability for the fishing industry. Aid will 
promote and accompany the adjustment of fishing fleet s to available resources, particularly for those 
targeting endangered stocks. The envi ronmental dimension is also reinforced through a set of measures 
to promote selectivity and reduce the negative imp acts of fishing and aquaculture activities on the 
environment. The Fund will also dedicate more atten tion to the preservation of human resources in the  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 297 
 
 
 fisheries by providing adequate answers to the ec onomic and social needs of the people employed in 
the sector. The EFF will contribute better to the sustainable de velopment of fisheries areas, particularly those 
which are heavily dependant on fishing, through the financing of local development strategies, 
designed and implemented by the stakeholders themselves. 
For the second part of the question under A) please refer to the answer to C) 
 B)  Please explain the distinction between EFF f unding and funding under the “second instrument” for 
conservation measures —what programs are eligible for assistance under each? 
 
Answer The second instrument of the CFP encompasses all bud getary means for fisheries other than those 
covered by the EFF. This includes the conservatio n, control and surveillance, governance (which 
includes expenditure for maritime affairs) and international aspects. Examples of expenditure under this "second instrument" are:  
- Support for the management of fish resources (colle ction of basic data and improvement of scientific 
advice)  - Contributions to international organisations  - Inspection and surveillance of fishing activ ities in Community waters and elsewhere  
- International fisheries agreements - Preparatory work for new international fish eries organisations and other non-compulsory 
- European Community financial contribution to the bodies set up by the United Nations Convention 
on the Law of the Sea, 1982 - Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA)  Detailed information on the aforem entioned expenditure can be found in the General Budget of the 
European Union (Volume 4, Commission). An online vers ion of this budget is available at is available 
at the website of the European Union www.europa.eu
 
 C)  Please describe in more detail what steps to  strengthen “competitiveness and viability” would be 
eligible for assistance under the EFF. 
 
Answer Steps to strengthen “competitiveness and viability” eligible for assistance under the EFF may include 
financial assistance to competitiveness of the fish eries sector, including the improvement of its 
structure, organisation and its working environment.  
For further details please refer to Council Regul ation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the 
European Fisheries Fund. Official Journal of the European Union, L223 of 15/08/2006, pp. 1 – 44. The above Council Regulation and furthe r information on the EFF is available at the website of the 
European Union www.europa.eu
. 
Energy 
 36.  Paragraphs 52 and 53 on pages 100-101 of the Secr etariat report state that the EC’s Action Plan for 
Energy Efficiency is comprised of seven ty-five measures in ten priority areas.  
 Please provide further details on the seventy-five  measures and list the ten priority areas.  
 
Answer The Action Plan and relating docum ents are publicly available at 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/action_plan_energy_efficiency/index_en.htm
   
37.  Pages 99-101 of the Secretariat Report describe EC energy initiatives.    WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 298  
 
 As the EC drafts product-specific directives implem enting the EUP Directive, how will the EC ensure 
transparency for third-country producers and tec hnologies before minimum levels and methodologies 
are established?  Will third-country producers and experts be able to participate in stakeholder 
sessions?  Answer 
Full transparency is ensured straight from the st art of the process to forge possible implementing 
measures. Developments of the studies are ava ilable and open for comments or questions on the 
following European Commission ecodesign website site: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand /legislation/eco_design_en.htm.  
 
 
The contractors are open to all stakeholders c ontributions. Stakeholders sessions will be for 
representative industry associations and the formal consultations will be throughout the Consultation 
Forum where the industrial sectors affected will be  invited to attend depending on the agenda and 
product group discussed. Seats will be allocated to re presentative associations of the sector and not on 
a "flag" basis. Due to logistic constraints, the num ber of seats will be restricted but all documents will 
be made available to all stakeholders with po ssibility to comment well ahead of the meeting. 
 
Manufacturing – Selected industries – Chemicals 
 
38.  Paragraphs 69-71 on pages 107-108 of the Secret ariat report explain that the EC’s key policy 
objective on chemicals is to ensure a smooth tran sition from the existing legislation to the REACH 
framework.  Implementation of REACH will present  substantial challenges for industry as well as 
governments – both within the EC and overseas.     A)  How does the Commission intend to evaluate  and address the costs and other effects of REACH 
on imported products? 
B)  How does the Commission plan to ensure the consistency of member State implementation of 
REACH? C)  What specific guidance does the Commission pl an to develop for member States and foreign 
stakeholders on the operation of REACH? D)  How does the EC intend to ensure that im plementation focuses on chemicals that present the 
greatest risk? 
E)  Please comment on how REACH will effectively streamline and simplify the EC regulatory system.  How will the European Commission, EC me mber States, and the European Chemicals Agency 
efficiently and coherently coordinate this process?  Answer 
The EC recently notified REACH Regulati on No 1907/2006 under the WTO/TBT Agreement 
(G/TBT/N/EEC/52/Add.3). The Regulation will enter into force on 1 June 2007.   Regarding the US' and other Members' concerns about REACH as inter alia  raised in document 
G/TBT/GEN/46, the EC provided a comprehensiv e reply in Appendix 1 and 2 of the REACH 
notification document. In addition, REACH expe rts will be present at the next TBT Committee 
meeting on 21-22 March to present the adopted REACH Regulation.  39.  Paragraph 71 on page 107 of the Secretariat Report states that the EC believes that the costs to industry of REACH will be 2.3 billion Euros over an 11 year period.  Some assessments suggest that 
total costs could be considerably higher. 
 How does the EC intend to reflect downstream cost s (and the impact of EC enlargement) in its 
assessment of the impact of this legislation?   
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 299 
 
 
 Answer 
Please see answer to question 38 
 40.  Paragraph 71 on page 108 explains that th e European Chemicals Ag ency has to be fully 
operational one year after entry into force of this new legislation. 
 
How does the EC plan to ensure that  the agency is fully operational, and that it is able to evaluate 
applications promptly in order to prevent trade barriers and supply chain disruption?  
 
Answer 
Please see answer to question 38 
 
Manufacturing - Selected Industries - Textiles and Clothing  
41.  Paragraph 74 on page 108 of the Secretariat report states that “[t]he textile and clothing subsector 
does not enjoy any specific incentives.  However, like any manufacturing industry, it can benefit from 
incentives listed in the guide of ‘G rants and Loans from the EC’.”  
 Please provide further information regarding the type s of incentives listed in the guide of “Grants and 
Loans from the EC.”  Are all industries in all sectors eligible for the incentives lis ted in this guide?   
 
Answer All industries are indeed eligible for the incentives listed in the guide 
(http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/smes/download/sp_2007_en.pdf
). 
 
Accession of BULGARIA and ROMANIA 
VETERINARY and PHYTOSANITARY issues 
 Technical adaptations 
 
L363/352 20/12/2006 Council Directive 2006/ 104/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting 
certain Directives in the field of agriculture (vet erinary and phytosanitary legislation), by reason 
of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania 
 L363/1  20/12/2006 Council Regulation (EC)  No 1791/2006 of 20 November 2006 
adapting certain Regulations and Decisions in th e fields of free movement of goods, freedom of 
movement of persons, company law, competition policy, agriculture (including veterinary and 
phytosanitary legislation), transport policy, taxa tion, statistics, energy, environment, cooperation 
in the fields of justice and home affairs, cust oms union, external relations, common foreign and 
security policy and institutions, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania 
 L362/97 20/12/2006 Commission Directive 2006/83/EC of 23 October 2006 adapting 
Directive 2002/4/EC on the registration of estab lishments keeping laying hens, covered by 
Council Directive 1999/74/EC, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania 
 L362/1  20/12/2006 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1792/2006 of 23 October 2006 
adapting certain regulations and decisions in th e fields of free moveme nt of goods, freedom of 
movement of persons, competition policy, agricultu re (veterinary and phytosanitary legislation), 
fisheries, transport policy, taxation, statistics, social policy and employment, environment, 
customs union, and external relations by reas on of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania 
Integration in the EU systems 
 
ADNS WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 300  
 
 L354/48 14/12/2006 Commission Decision 2006/924/EC of 13 December 2006 amending 
Decision 2005/176/EC laying down the codified fo rm and the codes for the notification of 
animal diseases pursuant to Council Directive 82/894/EEC 
 TRACES 
L7/23  12/01/2007 Commission Decision 2007/13/EC of 22 December 2006 adapting Decision 
2002/459/EC as regards the additions to be made to the list of units in the Traces computer 
network as a result of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania 
 BIPs 
L354/52 14/12/2006 Commission Decision 2006/926/EC of 13 December 2006 amending 
Decision 2001/881/EC as regards the list of border inspection posts in view of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania 
 
Approbation of plans 
 
Foot and Mouth Disease L7/36  12/01/2007 Commission Decision 2007/18/EC of 22 December 2006 approving 
contingency plans for the control of foot -and-mouth disease pursuant to Council Directive 
2003/85/EC 
 
Classical Swine Fever 
L7/38  12/01/2007 Commission Decision 2007/19/EC of 22 December 2006 approving 
contingency plans for the control of classical  swine fever pursuant to Council Directive 
2001/89/EC 
 
Avian Influenza – Newcastle Disease 
L8/26  13/01/2007 Commission Decision 2007/24/EC of 22 December 2006 approving 
contingency plans for the control of avian influenza and Newcastle disease 
 Establishments – Poultry and Hatching Eggs L7/33  12/01/2007 Commission Decision 2007/17/EC  of 22 December 2006 approving plans for 
the approval of establishments for the purposes of  intra-Community trade in poultry and hatching 
eggs pursuant to Council Directive 90/539/EEC 
 
Residues 
 
L7/30  12/01/2007 Commission Decision 2007/15/EC of 22 December 2006 approving 
monitoring plans for the detection of residues or  substances in live animals and animal products 
pursuant to Council Directive 96/23/EC as submitted by Bulgaria and Romania 
 
Finances 
 L337/57 05/12/2006 Commission Decision 2006/876/EC of 30 November 2006 approving 
programmes for the eradication and monitoring of  animal diseases, of certain TSEs, and for the 
prevention of zoonoses presented by Bulgaria a nd Romania for the year 2007 and amending 
Decision 2006/687/EC 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 301 
 
 
 Transitional measures 
 
semen, ova and embryos obtained before 01/01/2007 L7/31  12/01/2007 Commission Decision 2007/16/EC of 22 December 2006 laying down 
transitional measures for intra-Community trade in semen, ova and embryos of the bovine, 
porcine, ovine, caprine and equine speci es obtained in Bulgaria and Romania 
 Products of animal origin  obtained before 01/01/2007 
L8/59  13/01/2007 Commission Decision 2007/30/EC of 22 December 2006 laying down 
transitional measures for the marketing of certain pr oducts of animal origin obtained in Bulgaria 
and Romania 
 Products of animal origin introduced before 01/01/2007 L8/57  13/01/2007 Commission Decision 2007/29/EC of 22 December 2006 laying down 
transitional measures for certain products of an imal origin covered by Regulation (EC) No 
853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council introduced into Bulgaria and Romania 
from third countries before 1 January 2007 
 Plant protection Products L38/96  23/12/2006 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1980/2006 of 20 December 2006 
laying down transitional measures amending Regulation (EC) Νο 2076/2002 and Decisions 
2001/245/EC, 2002/928/EC and 2006/797/EC as rega rds the continued use of certain active 
substances not included in Annex I to Dir ective 91/414/EEC by reason of the accession of 
Bulgaria 
L384/79 29/12/2006 Commission Regulation (EC) No 2024/2006 of 22 December 2006 
laying down transitional measures derogati ng from Regulation (EC) No 2076/2002 and 
Decisions 98/270/EC, 2002/928/EC, 2003/308/ EC, 2004/129/EC, 2004/141/EC, 2004/247/EC, 
2004/248/EC, 2005/303/EC and 2005/864/EC as regards the continued use of plant protection 
products containing certain active substances not included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC 
by reason of the accession of Romania 
 
Classical Swine Fever 
 
Bulgaria  Plans L325/35 24/11/2006 Commission Decision 2006/800/EC of 23 November 2006 approving 
the plans for the eradication of classical swine fever in feral pigs and the emergency vaccination 
of those pigs against that disease in Bulgaria  
 Protective measures L329/67 25/11/2006 Commission Decision 2006/ 805/EC of 24 November 2006 concerning 
animal health control measures relating to classical  swine fever in certain Member States 
 
Romania  Plans L329/34 25/11/2006 Commission Decision 2006/802/EC of 23 November 2006 approving 
the plans for the eradication of classical swine fever in feral pigs and the emergency vaccination 
of those pigs and of pigs in holdi ngs against that disease in Romania  
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 302  
 
 Protective measures 
L314/48 15/11/2006 Commission Decision 2006/ 779/EC of 14 November 2006 concerning 
transitional animal health control measures relating to classical swine fever in Romania 
 L32/167 06/02/2007 Commission Decision 2007/69/EC of 18 December 2006 authorising 
Romania to postpone the application of certain provisions of Council Directive 2002/53/EC with 
regard to the marketing of seed of certa in varieties of agricultural plant species 
 
Establishments and quality of raw milk 
 Bulgaria 
Raw Milk L8/35  13/01/2007 Commission Decision 2007/26/EC of 22 December 2006 amending the 
Appendix to Annex VI to the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania as regards certain milk 
processing establishments in Bulgaria 
 
Establishments L8/61  13/01/2007 Commission Decision 2007/31/EC of 22 December 2006 laying down 
transitional measures as regards the dispatch of certain products of the meat and milk sectors covered by Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council from 
Bulgaria to other Member States 
 
Romania Raw Milk L8/45  13/01/2007 Commission Decision 2007/27/EC of 22 December 2006 adopting certain 
transitional measures concerning deliveries of raw milk to processing establishments and the 
processing of this raw milk in Romania with rega rd to the requirements of Regulation (EC) Nos 
852/2004 and 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of Council 
 Establishments L8/9   13/01/2007 Commission Decision 2007/23/EC of 22 December 2006 amending 
Appendix B of Annex VII to the 2005 Act of Access ion as regards certain establishments in the 
meat, milk and fish sectors in Romania 
 
Answer 
Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), as Free Tr ade Agreements, will eff ectively provide for the 
liberalisation of substantially all trade between the EC and the ACP, thus eliminating both tariffs and 
non-tariff measures. EPAs will also contain provisi ons on cooperation in the trade-related areas 
referred to in the question. The selection of area s and the specific content of the cooperation will be 
determined in the individual nego tiations with the six ACP regions. 
 
REPLIES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTI ONS FROM THE UNITED STATES
 
 
II.  TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIMES Trade Agreements and Arrangements
 
 
1.  With respect to U.S. question 4, page 3:  Pa ragraph 66 on page 38 of the Secretariat report states 
that the EC’s Economic Partne rship Agreements with the ACP countries will recognize 
“[d]evelopment concerns…through flexibility vis-à-vis depth of liberalization…”   
 
The EC states in its response that “several EC  FTAs with developing countries in the past 
have…asymmetric levels of liberalization even at  the end of transition periods, where the EC has 
eliminated duties ….covering a larger share of tr ade than its trading partners….” And that this  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 303 
 
 
 “asymmetry reflects the difference in the levels of development….”   Please explain how, in 
preferential agreements which require lower levels of liberalization from developing country partners, 
the EC ensures that the agreement will enhance th e economic development of the developing country 
partners.  If a number of agreements are in effect  where one partner’s level of liberalization is 
substantially less than that of th e EC, does the EC intend to revis it these agreements as levels of 
development change?  If not, how does the EC inte nd to avoid trade diversion caused by disparities 
among PTAs?  
Answer 
Asymmetric liberalisation in certain EC FTAs w ith developing countries, with respect to both 
transition periods and coverage, allo ws those FTA partners to addre ss, when necessary, the adjustment 
challenges of liberalisation with prudence. In many instances, this is critical to ensure continued 
domestic support for further liberalization bilaterally  and multilaterally. In addition, the EC FTAs often 
include review clauses which allow the Parties to  gradually reduce or eliminate any few remaining 
exceptions from full liberalization within a certain time from the entry into force of the agreement. 
Finally, as the asymmetry in levels of liberalizati on only pertains to a selected number of products in 
bilateral trade – over and above th e “substantially all the trade” threshold – the EC does not consider 
that there are additional  concerns of trade diversion, other than those per se related to PTAs, that the 
US seems to be alluding to in its question.    2.  In light of the EC's response to U.S. question 5(c), page 4, that third-country products meeting New 
Approach criteria can access the EC market on the same basis as a supplier from a member State, do 
EC PTA's ensure that third-country products me eting these criteria can also access the markets of the 
partner in the agreement on the same basis as member state products, or do origin restrictions apply? 
 
Answer 
In order to access the EC market , products originating from countries with which the EC has concluded 
a PTA have to comply with the same requirement s as those that have to be fulfilled by products 
originating from non-PTA countries. In other words,  the access to the EC market is done on the same 
basis and terms.  3.  The United States appreciates the EC’s reply to U.S. question 7, page 5.  We have one additional 
question on the EC’s Euro-Mediterranean free trad e area.  Paragraph 53 on pages 33-34 of the 
Secretariat report describes the EC’s aim to create  a Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area through 
elimination of tariffs on industrial goods and “p rogressive liberalization of trade in agricultural 
goods…”.       
Please explain what is meant by “progressive libera lization” and how it differs from the GATT Article 
XXIV requirement that duties be eliminated on substantially all trade?  
Answer 
Unlike industrial goods, where liberalisation took place immediately at the entry into force of the 
Association Agreements or through out transitional periods, substan tial liberalisation of trade in 
agricultural goods will take place over a longer period of time and the conditions for liberalisation of 
certain agricultural products are still being negotiated.   4.  Paragraphs 66-68 on pages 38-39 of the Secretar iat report discuss the replacement of the Cotonou 
Agreement with bilateral Economic  Partnership Agreements.   
 
Please describe the status of negotiations with each of the regional groupings, including duty-
elimination of agricultural goods (including value-ad ded products), and the respective tariff elimination 
schedules contemplated for the EC and its partners.  Will this process be completed by the expiration 
of the WTO waiver for Cotonou preferences?   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 304  
 
  
Answer 
Negotiations of Economic Partnership Agreemen ts (EPAs) are progressing well. Negotiations on 
market access provisions are curre ntly ongoing. The EC and the six ACP regions are committedly 
working towards concluding negotiations within th e deadline and having EPAs enter into force on 1 
January 2008.  
 5.  Several delegations mentioned the latest round of  enlargement and the need for the EC to work with 
members to conclude GATT XXIV:6 tariff compensation as well as agreements on services related the 
accession of Romania and Bulgaria.  We would be in terested in your views on timetable for reaching 
agreements with members on GATT XXIV:6, as.  In addition, despite this enlargement taking place on 
January 1, the EC did not update its tariff schedule to  reflect the consolidation of tariff rate quotas to 
account for the addition of the new members.  Th e EC should notify a revised schedule reflecting 
consolidated tariff rate quotas.  Members should no t have to wait for the conclusion of GATT XXIV:6 
negotiations with all members. (Some of t hose negotiations are still underway from the 2004 
enlargement).  We would appreciate an update on all of these issues.   Answer  
This question was replied to orally on day 2 of the EC TPR meeting. 
 III.  TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE Measures Directly Affecting Imports – Customs Procedures
 
 
6.  The EC's response to U.S. question 8, page 6, states that “[t]he proposal on the Modernized 
Customs Code addresses the issue. . . .”  While Ar ticle 19 of the proposal on the Modernized Customs 
Code deals with administrative penalties, it provid es very little detail on how the EC will go about 
establishing a 'common framework.'  In particular, pa ragraphs 1 and 2 of Artic le 19 apparently require 
each member State to establish its own penalties for 'failure to comply with the customs rules.'  
Paragraph 3 then states that 'the criteria and cond itions for the application of administrative penalties 
for infringements of the customs rules shall be determined in accordance with the committee 
procedure.'  Could the EC please elaborate on how, if at  all, 'the committee proce dure' has been used to 
establish the 'common framework' referred to in the EC 's initial response?  If 'the committee procedure' 
has not yet been used to achieve this end, could th e EC please elaborate on how it is contemplated that 
the committee procedure will be used to achieve this end? 
 
Answer 
The provision regarding customs penalties is now laid down in Article 22 of the Commission's 
proposal for a modernised Community Customs Code.  This provision mainly aims at: 
• confirming in the Code that Member States sha ll provide for penalties for failure to comply 
with Community customs legislation and the general principle of law resulting from the EC Treaty and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, according to which sanctions - 
of whichever nature - for the violation of Commun ity customs law which Member States provide must 
be effective, proportionate, and dissuasive; 
• setting up a common Community framework which allocates jurisdiction for the imposition of 
penalties and delimit those penalties. The proposal for a modernised Community Custom s Code is currently under discussion before the 
European Parliament and the Council. It is not po ssible at this stage of the Community decision-
making process neither to know and explain what will be the final content of this provision nor to 
elaborate on further actions which might be undertaken on these matters.   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 305 
 
 
 Measures Directly Affecting Imports – Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  
 
7.  As we noted in our opening statement, most major U.S. commodities remain blocked from the EC 
market.  A number of our written questions related to the process of developing and coordinating EC 
SPS policies.  This process remains slow and non-transpar ent.  In its response, the EC points to a legal 
framework ensuring that SPS decisions are based on risk assessments.  Howeve r, in specific cases, 
even when the efficacy and safety of a given g ood has been demonstrated by EFSA studies, the 
regulatory process does not move forward.  What is the EC doing to address situations such as biotech 
approval or approval of the use of anti-microbi al treatments for use on poultry where EFSA risk 
assessments are complete but real market openings have yet to occur?  
 
Answer 
This question was replied to orally on day 2 of the EC TPR meeting.  
 
Measures Affecting Production and Trade – Intellectual Property Rights  
 8.  In response to U.S. question 26, concerning wh ich Member States had implemented Directive 98/44 
(on patent protection for biotech inventions), the EC  refers to a website link that does not appear to 
include information after July 2005.  At that time, Italy, Luxembourg, Latvia and Lithuania had not yet 
implemented.  Moreover, since July 2005, Romani a and Bulgaria have acceded to the European 
Union.  Can the EC provide complete implementa tion status for all member countries, including any 
new accessions? 
  
Answer 
Please see transposition table in Annex. 
 9.  The United States appreciates the EC's respon se to U.S. question 27 on page 22.  Could the EC 
clarify whether, under the Regulation, an owner of  a pre-existing trademark could be prevented from 
using its trademark, or could be prevented from exer cising its TRIPS Article 16 rights, if the trademark 
did not have sufficient renown or was used or regist ered a short time before the geographical indication 
was filed?  
Answer  
Concerning the circumstances under which a prior trademark would prevent registration of a 
geographcial indication, the essential test is one of misleading the consumer. If the registration of a GI 
would, by reason of a trademark's reputation and lengt h of time it has been used, mislead the consumer 
then the GI shall not be registered. If it is register ed, the owner of the prior trademark may continue to 
use the trademark, provided no ground for its invalida tion or revocation exists. This provision provides 
for the limited right of coexistence authorised unde r Article 17 of TRIPS. The EC can reassure the US 
that rights under Article 16 of TRIPS, correctly inte rpreted in conjunction with other provisions of that 
agreement and notably Article 17, are upheld by the EC.  
IV.  TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
Manufacturing – Selected Industries – Chemicals
 
 
10.  Under REACH, the United States understands that the Commission and member States will 
compile a list of candidate substances for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV (authorization) which the 
European Chemicals Agency will review.  Can the EC elaborate on its communication plan for 
ensuring that this candidate list is not misused as a “black list” before the Ag ency's Committee for Risk 
Assessment has had a chance to formul ate an opinion on the substance?  
Answer 
A separate document with answers to all REACH-rela ted questions asked in the framework of the EC 
TPR 2007 will be made available. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 306  
 
   
11.  The United States understands that this list of candidate substances could amount to 1500 - 3000 
chemicals, and that importers could be required to  test for trace amounts of these substances -- which 
are not intended to be released into the environmen t -- in components and notify them to the Agency, 
even before there is any requirement to register them and even before these substances appear on the 
Agency's risk assessment work program.   Is this accurate, and, if so, is there a plan to alleviate the 
burden of this testing and reporting?    
Answer 
A separate document with answers to all REACH-rela ted questions asked in the framework of the EC 
TPR 2007 will be made available. 
 12.  REACH appears to require polymer exporters to register monomers that were used to manufacture 
an imported polymer product, even though the monom ers are not present in the product and cannot be 
released into the environment.  Can the EC confirm whether this is the case and explain the rational for 
requiring registration of products that ar e not present in the imported product?  
 
Answer 
A separate document with answers to all REACH-rela ted questions asked in the framework of the EC 
TPR 2007 will be made available.  
13.  REACH also appears to exclude from the defi nition of “phase-in substance” non-toxic substances 
in imported cosmetic products that were previous ly exempted from notification requirements under the 
Dangerous Substances Directive.  The same is appa rently not true of cosmetics manufactured in the 
EC.  The effect appears to be that non-EC cosmetic  manufacturers will have to register all substances 
in cosmetics over the one metric ton per year thresh old by June 2008 in order to continue selling those 
cosmetics in the EC, even though they were prev iously exempted from registration.  Is this 
understanding accurate, and if so, is there any plan for reducing the risk of requiring currently imported 
cosmetics to be pulled from the market after June 2008?  
Answer 
A separate document with answers to all REACH-rela ted questions asked in the framework of the EC 
TPR 2007 will be made available. 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 307 
 
 
 STATE OF PLAY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECTIVE 98/44/EC (Last revision 15-01-2007)  
 
 
  
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 308  
 
  
COUNTRY  STATE OF PLAY OF THE 
IMPLEMENTATION GENERAL 
REMARKS  IMPLEMENTATION DATE  
  28-02-2005   
FIN  F INLAND  The Finnish Parliament (Riksdagen) passed 
the implementing legislation on 30-05-2000 .  30 June 2000  
FR  F RANCE  Bill adopted by the Government on 31-10-
2001. This bill has never been discussed by 
the Parliament. However, the main provisions 
of the directive (art. 5 and 6) have been 
involved in the revision of the bioethics laws. 
Other provisions of the directive should be 
discussed after the adoption of the new laws 
on bioethics. • January 2002 : 1st lecture in 
National Assembly • January 2003 : 1st lecture 
in the Senate • December 2003 : 2nd lecture in 
the N.A. • 6-08-2004: bill adopted in 2 nd 
lecture in the Senate (Law n° 2004-800 
published on 7/8/2004). • 29-11-2004 : 
Remaining implementing measures adopted 
(Law n° 2004-1338 published on 8-122004).  7 August 2004: 
Implementation of Articles 5 
and 6 8 December 2004: 
Remaining implementation 
achieved  
GR  G REECE  Presidential Decree no. 321/2001 (OJ 218, A, 
1-10-2001 ).  22 October 2001  
HU  HUNGARY  Act. XXXIX of 2002  Entry into force: 01.01.2003  
IRL  I RELAND  European Communities (Legal Protection of 
Biotechnological Inventions) Regulations, 
2000 (S.I. No. 247 of 2000)  30 July 2000  : Regulations  
IT  I TALY  19-10-1999:  Bill submitted to Parliament 26-
9-2002:  Adoption of the bill by the Lower 
Chamber with amendments. 02-04-2003:  
Adoption by Senate with amendments 26-06-
2003: Adoption by Lower Chamber with 
further amendments therefore requires final 
approval by Senate. 2004:  Awaiting final 
approval by the Senate after the amendments 
made in the last reading by the Lower 
Chamber. After this, the text should be ready 
for transposition into law (for which the 
administration has 6 months from the final 
approval). 29-12-2005: Decree-Law adopted 
by the Government (Decreto-Legge n.3 del 10 
gennaio 2006, published on 11-01-2006 ). 
Conversion in Law definitively adopted 
(Legge n.78 del 22 febbraio 2006) published 
on 10-03-2006.  11 March 2006   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 309 
 
 
  
COUNTRY  STATE OF PLAY OF THE 
IMPLEMENTATION GENERAL 
REMARKS  IMPLEMENTATION DATE  
LV  LATVIA  •Modification of the Law relating to Plant 
Variety Rights (Groz ījumi Augu š ķirņu 
aizsardzības likum ā), adopted on 17-11-2005 
•Modification of the Law relating to Patents 
(Grozījumi Patentu likum ā), adopted on 8-12-
2005  29 December 2005  
LU  LUXEMBOUR
GThe bill No 4673 was submitted to Parliament 
inJune 2000 Parliamentary Committee on23 April 2006  
LT  LITHUANIA  Law of 30-06-2005  on the Amendments and 
Supplements of the Preamble, Articles 2, 4, 
10, 11, 13, 19, 21, 24, 26, 39, 40, 48, 50 of the 
Patent Law and Amendments of the Law by 
Articles 28(1), 38, Section X(1) and an Annex 
(No X-287). Official Gazette “Valstybes 
žinios” 2005 No 85-3135  Entry into force: 14.07.2005  
MT  MALTA  Patents and Designs Act 2002 (Chapter 417 of 
the Laws of Malta)  Entry into force: 01.01.2004  
NL  N ETHERLAN
DS  Laws passed 10-11-2004  November 2004  
PL  POLAND  Ustawa z dnia 30 czerwca 2000 r. -Prawo 
własności przemys łowej adopted 30-06-2000  Entry into force: 18.10.2002  
PT  P ORTUGAL  Bill has been adopted by Parliament. The 
Minister Council has been definitively 
adopted on November 2002 . The law is 
entered into force 7 months after this 
adoption.   1st July 2003  
RO  ROMANIA  Patent Law No. 64/1991, as amended and 
completed by Law No. 203/2002 of 19 April 
2002 (OJ Nr. 212/1991, Nr. 340/2002) 
approved by Government Decision 
No.499/2003 of 18 April 2003 (OJ Nr. 348 of 
22 May 2003)  Entry into force: 22.05.2003  
SK  SLOVAK 
REPUBLIC  Act. No. 435/2001 Coll. Patent Act  Entry into force: 01.11.2001  
SV  SLOVENIA  Decree n° 3873 published on 18-08-2003  Entry into force: 02.09.2003  
ES  S PAIN  The Directive has been implemented by the 
law 10/2002, dated 29 April and published in 
the Official Bulletin on 30-04-2002 .  30 April 2002  
SE  S WEDEN  12-12-2003: A bill of a law adopted. 1-04-
2004: Bill passed by Parliament without 
amendment.  1st May 2004  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 310  
 
  
COUNTRY  STATE OF PLAY OF THE 
IMPLEMENTATION GENERAL 
REMARKS  IMPLEMENTATION DATE  
GB  UNITED 
KINGDOM  •Implementation of Art 1-11. Entered into 
force on 28-07-2000 •Implementation of Art. 
13 and 14 on 6-07-2001 •Implementation of 
Art 12. Entered into force on 1-03-2002  28 July 2000 : Implementation 
of Articles 1-11 6 July 2001 : 
Implementation of Articles 13-
14 1 March 2002 : 
Implementation of Article 12  
 
  CANDIDATE COUNTRIES   
HR  CROATIA  Patent Act of 8-11-2003  Entry into force: 01.01.2004  
TR  TURKEY  EPC member state. Technical 
Studies in preparation.   
 FYROM  No information   
 
EEA  COUNTRIES  
IC  ICELAND  Iceland has enacted legislation 
implementing the biotech Directive 
(Act of 15-03-2004 , entry into force 
after publication)  Entry into force: 11.05. 2004  
LI  LIECHTENSTEIN EPC member state. No information  
NO  NORWAY  Adapted by Parliament by 2003  Entry into force: 01.02.2004  
NON EU BUT EPC  COUNTRIES  
CH  SWITZERLAND  •07-12-2001: The Swiss Justice-and 
Police department has opened the 
notification procedure 
(Vernehmlassungsverfahren). One of 
the issues is the adjustment of the Swiss 
Regulations on the Patenting of 
biotechnological inventions to the EU 
provisions. • 29-11-2002: The Federal 
Council (Bundesrat) has taken notice of 
the Report of the results of the 
notification procedure • 11-03-2005: 
The Federal Council authorized the 
Federal Department of Justice and 
Police to complete the draft of the 
revised patent law at its March 11, 2005 
session. The draft is supposed to be 
presented to Parliament in the current 
year. The draft focuses on appropriate 
patent protection for Biotech 
inventions. • 23.11.2005 : The Federal 
Council adopted the message 
concerning the revision of the law on Delayed   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 311 
 
 
 the patents. This one adapts the 
substantive patent law to technical 
progress and the developments occurred 
these last years on the international 
level. • 20.12.2006 : The National 
Council approves the revision of the 
law on patents. The National Council as 
a First Council adopted the bill 
concerning the modification of the 
patent law and the approval of the 
Treaty on the substantive patent law.  
 
PERU  
 
X. AGRICULTURA 
Como lo señala el Documento Preliminar del Examen de Política Comercia (EPC), las Comunidades 
Europeas (CE) han iniciado un proceso de reforma de política agraria el cual está orientado a disminuir 
los niveles de ayuda para los productos agropecuarios,  y principalmente desligarla de la producción. En 
este marco, se establecieron los pagos no vinculad os, se redujeron los pagos directos así como los 
precios de intervención para algunos productos.  
A pesar de los avances realizados, las CE man tienen varios programas que continúan generando 
distorsiones al comercio. Esto genera preocupación considerando que la Comuni dad Andina y la Unión 
Europea vienen sosteniendo conversaciones con mir as a iniciar un proceso de negociación hacia un 
Acuerdo de Asociación. Adicionalmente, el EPC  evidencia que algunos productos agropecuarios no 
sólo son beneficiados con ayudas directas sino que también se benefician de instrumentos de política 
comercial, establecidos para proteger a la producción nacional del incremento de las importaciones.   
Subsidios a la Exportación 
Considerando que las subvenciones a la exportación aplicadas por la CE representan aproximadamente el 90% del total de las subvenciones a la expor tación notificadas por los miembros de la OMC
14, causa 
preocupación el anuncio de que éstas recién serán eliminadas en el año 2013.   En particular, cabe resaltar el hecho de que durante  la campaña de comercialización 2002/2003, las CE 
concedieron subvenciones a la exportación por  un valor total de 3100 millones de euros
15. Los 
productos lácteos (yogurt, leche, leche entera en polvo y nata), la mantequ illa, y la carne de bovino 
fueron los más beneficiados aunque también fi guran los vinos, frutas, legumbres y hortalizas16.   
 Otro dato que llama la atención está relacionado co n el azúcar. Para poder exportar este producto, las 
CE deben subvencionar el 75% del precio de intervención
17. Considerando el alto costo del régimen, se 
espera que éste sea reformulado de manera tal que supere las metas establecidas por las CE.  
 
Question 1 
Al respecto, ¿podrían indicar las CE cuáles son lo s lineamientos para la reforma del mencionado 
régimen?  
                                                     
 
14 EPC página xi 
15 EPC página 112 
16 EPC página 82 
17 EPC página 118 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 312  
 
 Answer 
The decision on the reform of the sugar sector was ma de in February 2006 by the agricultural ministers 
of the EC Member States and the purpose of the deal was to offer se ctor long-term certainty for the 
sector. As a result of the reform, the sugar production in the EC is expected to fall by 6 - 7 million 
tonnes and the EC will move from being a net exporter to a net importer of sugar. EC exports will also 
fall dramatically. The EC will remain an attractive market for developing countries. Further and much 
more detailed information of the sugar re form is available on the Europa website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/index_es.htm
 
Ayudas Internas - Régimen de Pago Único  
 
En el EPC elaborado por la Secretaría de la OMC se indica que en el año 2005 la suma total gastada en 
los programas con mayores efectos de distorsión ha  sido el 63.8% de la ayuda a los productores. 
Asimismo, el informe indica que la desvinculación de los pagos es aún parcial. En consecuencia, 
algunos productos como el trigo duro, arroz, lácteos, algodón, entre otros siguen beneficiándose de 
ayudas ligadas a la producción.  
 A pesar de la reducción con respecto al 2003 (71. 7%) aún sigue siendo un monto considerable. Es 
importante que se precise cómo será la escala de reducción de esta medida en la reforma agrícola iniciada por las CE. 
 
Question 2 
¿Podrían  indicar las CE si se ha pensado en m odificar la aplicación que pueden hacer los Estados 
miembros a nivel regional para otorgar pagos direct os a los agricultores, independientemente de los 
que ya hayan recibido como pagos únicos en forma directa? 
 
Asimismo, ¿podrían indicar si se ha pensado en modifi car la disociación parcia l que pueden realizar los 
Estados miembros?  
Answer 
As a result of the reform of the Common Agricultur al Policy in 2003, the vast majority of direct 
support to producers has been paid independently from the type and volume of production. However, 
Member States may maintain a proportion of product specific aids in their ex isting form where they 
believe there may be disturbance of agricultural production or abandonment of production by moving 
to the Single Payment Scheme. This "level of decoupling" varies from product to product and from 
Member State to Member State. A detailed ove rview is available at the Europa website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets/sfp/ms_en.pdf
.  
The 2003 CAP reform is not fully implemented and it remains to be seen what will happen in the 
longer run. 
 
SERVICIOS 
 Question 3 
¿Podrían proporcionar mayor información sobre los re quisitos de residencia que cada país impone no 
solo a los directivos sino para cualquier otro tipo de servicio profesional?  
 
Answer 
No specific information concerni ng Member States is available.  However, Directive 2006/123/EC on 
services in the internal market (published in the OJ L 376 of 27.12.2006) lists in Article 14 some 
prohibited requirements. Member States shall not make access to, or the exercise of, a service activity 
in its territory, provided by a natural person who is  a national of a Member State or a legal person as  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 313 
 
 
 referred to in Article 48 of the EC Treaty, subject to any of the requirements listed. Among them, there 
are discriminatory requirements based directly or in directly on nationality or, in the case of companies, 
the location of the registered office, including in particular: (a) nationality requirements for the provider, his staff, persons holding the share capita l or members of the provider’s management or 
supervisory bodies;(b) a requirement that the provide r, his staff, persons holding the share capital or 
members of the provider’s management or supervis ory bodies be resident within the territory.  
 Member States will have to implement the Directive by 27 December 2009.  
Question 4 
¿Podrían proporcionar mayor información sobre las profesiones en las que se exige títulos de aptitud 
profesional y los mecanismos de reconocimiento de los mismos (ya sea tanto entre países miembro de 
la CE como con terceros)?   
Answer 
Professions which require specific qualifications by vi rtue of the law of the EC Member States are 
"regulated professions" within the meaning of the EC law on the recognition of professional 
qualifications. There is a database containing the lists of regulated professions of the Member States, the EEA countries and Switzerland, in the original language(s) of each country with translations in 
French, German and English, and includes informa tion such as the level at which the profession is 
regulated. The information is updated dir ectly by the Member States themselves. 
 
The recognition of professional qualifications within  the EC is governed by EC legislation, i.e. 
directives which are addressed to all Member States  and which, generally speaking, require Member 
States to permit access to a regulated profession to applicants possessing the qualifications required by 
another Member State. There are sectoral dir ectives which provide for automatic recognition of 
professional qualifications based on harmonised minimu m training standards and which are mainly in 
the health sector (doctors, nurses, dentists, midwives,  veterinary surgeons, pharmacists and architects). 
In addition, there are directives which do not harmonise training standards but ensure mutual 
recognition between national qualifi cation requirements. They apply to all the professions which are 
regulated from the point of view of qualifications  and provide for so-called compensation measures 
where there are major differences in education an d training between the migrants' qualifications and 
the host Member States requirements. Finally, ther e are two Directives applying to lawyers, one of 
which concerns the provision of services, and the other, the establishment under the title of country of 
origin.   Third country nationals do not benefit from the EC  law on recognition of professional qualifications 
(apart from family members of EU citizens and so -called long-term residents under specific EC law 
based on article 63 of EC Treaty). 
 For further information see:  http://ec.europa.eu/internal_marke t/qualifications/overview_en.htm
" 
 
Question 5 
¿Podrían proporcionar mayor información sobre las condiciones en las cuales las autoridades 
nacionales autorizan el reembolso de los gastos médicos en que se haya incurrido en el exterior? 
¿Cuando se reembolsan los servicios médicos que reciben las personas en el exterior?  
 
Answer 
According to the case law of the European Court of  Justice, the freedom to provide and receive 
services (Article 49 of the EC Treaty) includes the ri ght of patients to receive non-hospital care such as 
dental care, specialist advice or ambulant medical tr eatment in another Member State and to obtain – 
within certain limits – reimbursement from their own health system without having to obtain prior WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 314  
 
 authorisation for the reimbursement. By contrast , with respect to hospital care, the Court has 
recognised that the need for planning in the hos pital sector, justifies Member States having prior 
authorisation schemes. The conditions under which such  an authorisation has to be granted and the 
level of assumption of costs are governed by the Regulation 1408/71.  
 
OBSTACULOS TECNICOS AL COMERCIO 
 
Question 6 
¿Podrían las CE explicar con mayor detalle la intera cción entre la potestad de los Estados Miembros de 
aplicar reglamentos técnicos naci onales y el principio de reconocim iento mutuo, tanto para productos 
nacionales como importados?  Answer 
This interaction is explained in detail in the European Commission's "Communication on facilitating 
the access of products to the mark ets of other Member St ates: the practic al application of mutual 
recognition."  This communication was published in the Official Jo urnal of the EC, C265 of 4 November 2003. It is 
also available on  
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/regulation/goods/mutrec_en.htm
 
 
Question 7 
¿Las CE permite la participación de personas inter esadas de terceros países en el desarrollo y 
elaboración de normas, reglamentos técnicos y pro cedimientos de evaluación de la conformidad? 
 Answer 
As part of its Better Regulation initiative, the Eu ropean Commission prepares new legislation with an 
online consultation which would also be open for interested parties of third countries. 
 Question 8 
¿Podría la CE entregar mayor información acerca de las prácticas de control del mercado para 
productos regulados? En particular, si la verificación del cumplimiento se efectúa principalmente en la 
aduana o en el mercado ¿cómo ope ra para productos nacionales?  
 
Answer 
Products to be placed on the EC market must be in c onformity with the EC legislation whether they are 
manufactured in the EC or not. The control of products on the market is addressed by market 
surveillance, which ensures that the provisions of  the various directives are complied with across the 
EC. Market surveillance is carried out by Member Stat es, and the aim is to provide an equivalent level 
of protection throughout the internal market for all citizens, irrespective of the origin of the product . 
These controls are made on products placed on th e EC market coming from European producers or 
from third countries. Member States nominate the authorities responsible for market surveillance 
activities and the same controls apply equally to go ods produced in the EC as well as to imported 
goods. For products coming from third countries, the provisions of Regulation 339/93 shall apply. 
Customs authorities do not make technical checks on imported products.  Question 9 
 
Respecto a la aceptación de evaluaciones de la conformidad de primera parte (declaración de proveedor), se agradecerá conocer ¿qué criterios utili zan las CE para determinar los productos sujetos a 
este tipo de evaluaciones y si cuentan con informac ión estadística sobre su confiabilidad luego de 
acciones de fiscalización posterior?. 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 315 
 
 
 Answer 
The EC does not use any specific "criteria" to deci de whether supplier's declaration of conformity 
should be proposed in the legislation or not. In most cases, it can be linked to the level of risk (safety) 
that the product would pose, but this is not the only factor. The choice of the most appropriate 
conformity assessment procedure is really made on a case by case basis and the views of the various 
stakeholders play an important part in this decisi on. On the whole, our experience in the use of SDoc 
has been positive, and there is no evidence to suggest  that this procedure leads to an increase in non-
compliance of the products. 
 
Question 10 
Los Acuerdos OTC y MSF de la OMC establecen que los reglamentos nacionales o regionales no 
pueden imponer un tratamiento difere nte sobre productos similares como consecuencia de como son 
producidos o formulados. Esto se  exige particularmente cuando el  producto final no muestra ningún 
signo de haber seguido tal proceso o formulación. Sin embargo, el Reglamento REACH ha sido 
utilizado para discriminar entre productos en r azón únicamente de sus procesos o métodos de 
producción. En este caso, las CE han aplicado el principio de precaución a sustancias y artículos 
terminados que contienen tales sustancias, presumi endo a priori que son inherentemente peligrosos 
para la sociedad de las CE. En este caso las CE  está protegiendo al público contra un peligro no 
identificable y no medible para los seres hu manos o el medio ambiente y que aún no se ha 
materializado. Podrían señalar ¿qué medidas han adoptado las CE para modificar el Reglamento 
REACH a la fecha? 
 
Answer 
The EC recently notified REACH Regulati on No 1907/2006 under the WTO/TBT Agreement 
(G/TBT/N/EEC/52/Add.3). The Regulation will enter into  force on 1 June 2007.  The EC informs that 
REACH experts will be present at the next TBT Committee meeting on 21-22 March to present the 
adopted REACH Regulation. 
 
XI. MEDIDAS SANITARIAS Y FITOSANITARIAS 
Con relación al Reglamento de las CE sobre Novel F ood, el propósito original de este Reglamento era 
tomar en cuenta la creciente manipulación en el campo de elaboración de alimentos. Sin embargo, 
también se incluyó, dentro del ámbito de aplicación de l Reglamento, los alimentos de origen natural y 
alimentos que son del consumo de la población del lugar de origen desde tiempos milenarios. El 
procedimiento de autorización bajo el Reglamento de Novel Food resulta ser demandante de tiempo y generador de costos, además de obstaculizar innecesariamente el comercio. A ello se suma que los procedimientos de autorización no están cubiertos con límites de tiempo.   Question 11 
¿Podrían indicar las CE cómo se realizó la eval uación de riesgo correspondiente para adoptar esa 
legislación y cómo se condice dicha evaluación y el Reglamento mencionado con los compromisos asumidos por las CE en el Acuerdo sobre Aplicación de las Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias? ¿Podrían indicar las CE qué medidas están adoptando para corregir esta situación que va en perjuicio 
de los intereses de exportación de varios países en desarrollo?  
 
Answer 
This was replied in G/SPS/GEN/699 and G/SPS/GEN/ 700- circulated by the WTO Secretariat. 
Following a consultation on 8 June 2006, a new proposal is currently  under consideration which will 
take into account historical records on food safety in  the country of origin and other provisions to 
facilitate the approval of such novel foods. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 316  
 
 PESCA 
Question 12 
Respecto  a las 7,3 millones de toneladas de productos pesqueros, el cual 80,8 % corresponde a 
capturas totales. ¿Qué porcentaje de esas capturas to tales se realizan en aguas extranjeras bajo los 
acuerdos de pesca suscritos por la Comunidad?  Answer 
The European Commission is currently preparing an update of the evaluation of the fisheries 
agreements concluded by the EC, which will include  information on the total catches made under such 
agreements. Once completed, the results of this  evaluation will be made publicly available.  
 
For further information on the previous evaluation and on fisheries agreements concluded by the EC 
please refer to the Europa website. Please consult the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/external_relations_en.htm
 
 
Question 13 Con la adhesión de los NEM-10 el número de em barcaciones y su capacidad de tonelaje han 
disminuido debido a la política de la CE de reducir el  exceso de capacidad de flota. ¿Cuántas de estas 
naves han sido trasladadas a terceros países para disminuir el esfuerzo pesquero? ¿Cuántas han sido 
desguezadas? 
 
Answer Detailed data on the request information can be found in the EC Fishing Fleet Register, commonly 
called "Fleet Register". The Fleet Register is a database wher e all the fishing vessels flying the flag of a Member State have to 
be registered in accordance with EC legislation.   It also includes information on the "Entry/Exit 
Regime" for fleet management with graphics showing the status of the capacity of fleet for each 
country comparing with the ceiling of capacity defi ned after the introduction of Entry/Exit Regime.  
The database is available vi siting the following website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleet/index.cfm
 
 
Question 14 
¿cómo funcionan los precios mínimos de oferta es tablecidos por la OCM para terceros países que 
exportan a las CE?, ¿Este sostenimiento del precio no distorsiona el mercado y afecta a la libre competencia? 
 
Answer 
The reference price is the price used under norma l circumstances as a reference for monitoring the 
prices of imported products. For some of the trade measures that include autonomous tariff reductions 
(tariff suspensions, tariff quotas), the benefit of th e tariff reduction cannot be invoked when the import 
price (free-at-frontier) is lower than the reference price. When this is the case (the import price is lower 
than the reference price), the full tariff is applied. Reference prices may be fixed only for products that are subject to: 
 
Tariff reduction or suspension arrangements, where the rules binding them in the WTO provide for compliance with a reference price; 
 
Framework of the reform of the EC's Common Organisation of Markets. 
 
For further information on reference prices please refer to Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 
December 1999 on the Common Organisation of Markets. Official Journal of the European Union L017 of 21/01/2000, pp. 22-52.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 317 
 
 
 The above Council Regulation and further informat ion on Common Organisation of Markets at the 
Europa website, www.europa.eu , and in the brochure "The common organisation of the markets in 
fishery and aquaculture products" available at the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/facts/ocm_en.pdf
 
 Question 15 
A qué parte del proceso productivo son destinadas la s compensaciones pagadas por las CE a terceros 
países bajo el nombre de acuerdos "meridionales" o "septentrionales"?. Consideran las CE que se trata 
de una subvención? 
 
Answer   
This financial contribution paid by the EC to coastal  states in the framework of fisheries agreements is 
made by mutual interest of the two parties to inv est in sustainable fisheries policy and not just as a 
payment for access rights to fishing possibilities for the benefit of European fishing enterprises.  
 
The EC considers that the financial contribution ma de available by the EC cannot be considered as a 
subsidy to the European fishermen. This contributio n is justified by the need for the EC, by mutual 
interest, to provide adequate support to the devel opment and the management of a sustainable fishing 
policy in the third countries where the European fleet is operating. 
 For further information on the previous evaluation and on fisheries agreements concluded by the EC, 
please refer to the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/external_relations_en.htm
 
 
Question 16 
¿Cómo se otorga y quienes son los principales bene ficiarios de la ayuda financiera del Instituto 
Financiero de Orientación de la Pesca (IFOP)?   Answer 
Please note that Financial Instrument for Fisheri es Guidance (FIFG) covering the period 2000-2006 
has been replaced by the European Fisheries F und (EFF) which will run for seven years, i.e. 2007-
2013. For further details, please refer to Council Regul ation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the 
European Fisheries Fund. Official Journal of the European Union, L223 of 15/08/2006, pp. 1 – 44. The 
above Council Regulation and furt her information on the EFF is av ailable at Europa website: 
www.europa.eu
. 
 
Question 17 
¿Podrían indicar las CE en qué estado se encuentra la reforma del sector pesquero?  
 
Answer 
The European Commission publishes an annual report on Member States' efforts during the previous 
year to achieve a sustainable balance between flee t capacity and available fishing opportunities. The 
European Commission's document and Member Stat es' reports are available on the Europa website. 
Please consult the following link:  
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleet/index.cfm?method=FM_Reporting.menu  
 
Question 18 
¿Podrían explicar las CE el concepto de ayuda “de minimis” otorgada al sector pesquero, el monto actual otorgado y el previsto, así cómo la comp atibilidad de estas subvenciones con el mandato 
ministerial otorgado en Doha y en Hong Kong para la elaboración de disciplinas en el sector pesquero? 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 318  
 
 Answer 
In June 2005 the European Commission issued its St ate aid action plan, aiming at a State aid policy for 
less and better targeted State aid. In this cont ext, the European Commission proposed to set clear 
‘positive’ and ‘negative’ priorities and thereby, on the one hand, strengthening the rules for granting 
aid and refining the economic appro ach in assessment of State aid; and, on the other hand, excluding 
from ex-ante assessment certain categories of aid, and increasing the level of de minimis aid, in order 
to focus on the most distortive typ es of aid. The proposal for the increase of the de minimis aid for 
fisheries should be seen in this context.   Furthermore, and as mentioned in the "Draft Explanatory Memorandum" to the aforementioned 
Commission's proposal, experience has shown that th e de minimis ceiling of € 3.000, over any period 
of three years, is too low, in particular due to  the higher turnover of the average EC fishing firms 
compared to agriculture firms, as well as the fact that, unlike certain  sectors under the Common 
Agricultural Policy, the fisheries sector does not benefit from direct income support.  
Finally, it should be noted that, with  regard to the specifics of the fi sheries sector and the objectives of 
the Common Fisheries Policy concerning the conser vation of fish stocks, the proposed regulation 
contains two additional exemptions specific to fisheri es. No aid shall be granted that serves to increase 
capacity or for the purchase and construction of fishing vessels.  
INVENCIONES Y NUEVAS TECNOLOGÍAS 
Question 19 
Con relación al párrafo 111 del Informe de la Secretaría, ¿Cuáles fueron las principales causas del 
fracaso de la propuesta de legislación relativa a la  patentabilidad de las invenciones ejecutadas en 
ordenador? ¿Se ha proyectado una nueva propuesta c onsiderando que, como se menciona en el párrafo 
113, el 39% de solicitudes de patente se refiere a tec nologías basadas en la electricidad y la física, las 
cuales incluyen a las invenciones implementadas en ordenador? 
Answer 
The European Commission's proposal for a directive on the patentability of computer-implemented 
Inventions failed to pass into law because it was reje cted by the European Parliament in a vote taken on 
6 July 2005. This vote and the far-reaching debate wh ich preceded, showed that the time is not ripe for 
a meaningful piece of legislation to be adopted on th is issue. A new proposal dealing specifically with 
the patentability of computer-implemented inventions  would therefore not be desirable at this time.  
 
Question 20 
Respecto al párrafo 115, ¿Cuáles fueron las princi pales divergencias en la armonización respecto al 
tipo preferible de protección para las secuencias de genes y sobre la patentabilidad de las células madre 
embrionarias (pluripotentes)? ¿existe una tendenc ia mayoritaria al respecto de estos criterios? 
 
Answer 
In the implementation of the Directive 98/44/EC th e main question was of whether patents on gene 
sequences should be allowed according to the classica l model of patent claim, whereby a first inventor 
can claim an invention which covers possible future uses of that sequence, or whether the patent should 
be restricted so that only the specific use disclosed  in the patent application can be claimed ("purpose-
bound protection"). On examination of the provisi ons of the Directive, none of the Articles 8-11 
('Scope of protection') addresses the concept of a rest ricted scope of protection relating to the specific 
use identified for the gene sequence concerned. Ind eed Articles 8 and 9 establish that the protection 
conferred by a patent extends to any biological ma terial obtained from the claimed product or in which 
the claimed product is incorporated and the same genetic information expresses its function. This 
might be seen as arguing for a broad scope of protection rather than a restricted one.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 319 
 
 
 On the other hand, it might be thought that the EC  legislator had intended to at least raise the 
possibility of a limited scope of protection covering only the specific industrial application identified in 
the patent, as far as this particular type of inven tion is concerned. The Group of Experts felt that there 
were no objective reasons to create a specific regime  of purpose-bound protection in this area differing 
from the classic patent protection. But only France,  Germany and Luxembourg raised the question of 
whether the fact that human gene sequences have been  isolated from the human body implies that they 
should be given different treatment to chemical substances on ethical grounds, and have introduced a 
purpose-bound protection in their national laws. At present, the European Commission does not intend 
to take a position on the validit y of transposition according to the choice between classical and limited 
scope of protection for gene sequences. The Euro pean Commission will, nonetheless, continue to 
monitor whether there are any economic conse quences of possible divergences between Member 
States’ legislation. 
For pluripotent embryonic stem cells the situation is  complex. As the European Commission stated in 
its last report on Directive 98/44/EC, in the light of the situation in the Member States as regards the 
acceptability of research relating to human embr yonic stem cells, the Commission continues to  monitor 
developments taking into account both the ethical aspects and the potential impact on competitiveness. 
National traditions on the protection of the human  embryo and the related moral exclusion on 
patentability of uses of the human embryo will be subject  to a particular attention. The developments in 
the pending case (G2/06) before the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) 
will be followed as part of the European Commission's monitoring activities. 
HONDURAS  
 WT/TPR/S/177 
IV. POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS
 
2) Medidas que afectan directamente a las importaciones  
i) Procedimientos aduaneros y valoración en aduana 
 Question 1  
El párrafo 6 de la página 50 del Informe de la Secretaría se menciona el concepto de  operador 
económico autorizado. 
 
¿En qué casos se suspende o se retira el estatuto de  operador económico autorizado y cuál ha sido la 
proporción de casos de suspensión y de retiro? 
 
Answer 
The Authorised Economic Operator will not apply be fore 1 January 2008. Therefore, the EC has no 
figures on the proportion but it is expected that there will not be many cases of suspension or withdrawal of status as the AEO status is only given to reliable economic operators. Cases where the 
status will be withdrawn or suspende d will thus remain an exemption. 
The status of Authorised Economic Operator shall be  suspended by the issuing customs authority in the 
following cases:  
(a) Where non-compliance with the conditions or  criteria for the AEO Certificate has been 
detected; 
(b) The customs authorities have sufficient reason to believe that an act, which gives rise to 
criminal court proceedings and linked to an infringe ment of the customs rules, has been perpetrated 
The AEO Certificate shall be revoked by the i ssuing customs authority in the following cases:  
(a) The Authorised Economic Operator fails to take  the measures referred to in Article 14t (1);  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 320  
 
 (b) Where serious infringements related to custom s rules have been committed by the Authorised 
Economic Operator and there is no further right of appeal; 
(c) The Authorised Economic Operator fails to take the necessary measures during the suspension 
period referred to in Article 14u; 
(d) Upon request of the Authorised Economic Operator.  
 
¿Podría la CE compartir su experiencia desde la introducción del estatuto de operador económico 
autorizado? ¿cuáles han sido los logros y los obstáculos?  Answer 
The AEO will only enter into application as of 1 Janua ry 2008.  To date, Member States have carried 
out Pilot Projects to test the authorisation pr ocedure and the results have been positive.  
 ¿Cuáles son las funciones y obligacion es del operador económico autorizado?  
 
Answer The AEO needs to have a record of compliance wi th customs rules, a satisfactory system of book-
keeping that allows for customs controls and has to  be financially solvent. In case of an AEO that 
wants to be secure, he has to comply also with  security and safety criteria. All conditions are 
equivalent/identical to the AEO criteria according to WCO SAFE  
 Question 2 
En el mismo párrafo 6 de la página 50 del Informe de la Secretaría se hace alusión a la presentación a 
las oficinas de aduanas de declaraciones previas a la llegada.  
¿Qué ventajas se obtienen con la presentación en cu alquier aduana, de la información, previa a la 
llegada de las mercancías?  
Answer 
The obligation for the economic operator to provide pr e-arrival/departure declarations allows customs 
to carry out risk analysis for security purposes in time before the goods arrive in the customs territory 
or leave the customs territory of the EC. Therefor e, Customs can determine the risk of particular 
consignment in time and can take the necessary measur es prior to the arrival of the goods and can also 
take control decisions as regards high-risk goods in time. This has the advantage of Customs being able 
to focus resources on consignments of high risk and can take the appropriate measures in time before 
the goods arrive. It has also the advantage for trade that non-risk consignments can be released for free 
circulation as soon as these goods arrive.  
The legislation is in line with the model set out in the WCO SAFE.  
 
Question 3 
En el párrafo 6 del informe de la Secretaría se me nciona que el análisis se llevará a cabo mediante 
“técnicas de tratamiento automatizado de datos”. 
 ¿Podría la CE proveer una explicación más amplia sobre estas técnicas?  
Answer 
The EC uses  IT support to carry out risk analysis . The complete system will enter into force as of 1 
July 2009.  A description of the system is contained in the following EC legislation:  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 321 
 
 
 http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_custo ms/resources/documents/customs/policy_issues/customs_security/su
pply_chain_security_fact_sheet_en.pdf  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/e n/oj/2005/l_117/l_117 20050504en00130019.pdf  
As regards technical specifications  for the comple te system, these are currently being prepared and 
cannot be shared.  
Question 4 
En el párrafo 7 del informe de la Secretaría se indica que entre las propuestas específicas cabe citar las 
encaminadas a la centralización de los procedimient os de despacho, con una sola oficina para la 
realización de los procedimientos a duaneros y de otro tipo aplicables en la frontera exterior de las CE, 
y la puesta en marcha de un punto de entrada electrónico con ventanilla única. 
¿Cuál es la situación actual en cuanto a aplicación del concepto de ventanilla única en la CE, en el que 
los comerciantes tienen acceso a un portal de inform ación y un punto de acceso electrónico único para 
las transacciones de exportación e importación?  
Answer 
The single window and the one stop shop are foresee n in the modernised customs code and e-customs 
decision. Their implementation is foreseen at a later stage.  
Under the 'one stop shop' system goods brought into or out of the customs territory of the Community 
are controlled at the same time and at the same  place by customs authorities and other agencies 
involved in the control of goods (such as police,  border guards, veterinary and environmental 
authorities). 
The single window concept is not specifically a cust oms concept but to illustrate how it could look like 
in a customs environment, the WCO referred to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 
Recommendation on Establishing a Single Window  (Recommendation 33, ECE/TRADE/352) which 
defines it as follows: 'A single window is defined as a facility that allows parties involved in trade and 
transport to lodge standardized info rmation and documents with a single entry point to fulfil all import, 
export, and transit related-re lated regulatory requirements. 
 
Question 5 
En el párrafo 8 página 51 del informe de la Se cretaría, se hace referencia a las declaraciones 
electrónicas.    
¿Cuál es la proporción de utilización de declaraciones electrónicas? 
 
Answer 
In the EC, according to information available, appr oximately 80% of all import declarations and 50% 
of all export declarations by normal procedure are by electronic means. 
 
¿Cuánto tiempo considera la CE que le tomará mode rnizar los procedimientos aduaneros hasta llegar a 
una aduana electrónica?  
Answer 
The Modernised Customs Code provides for the obligatory lodgement of customs information in electronic form. Nowadays, New Computerised Tran sit System enables full electronic handling of 
transit declarations and establishment in stages of the similar systems for export and import procedures 
are envisaged under Regulation (EC) 648/2006 by July 2009. Discussions on the Electronic Customs WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 322  
 
 proposal are well advanced and adoption could be  foreseen during 2007. Concerning the Modernized 
Community Customs Code (MCCC), it is foreseen that it will be adopted in 2008. These dates will depend on the time elapsed during the co-decision procedure. 
 
¿Existe un sistema único automatizado a nivel com unitario para el intercambio de información y 
análisis de riesgo? 
 
Answer 
Currently, electronic exchange of information at the EC level is carried out under NCTS system and 
ECS phase 1.  
The RIF (Risk Information Form) system is operati onal since end of April 2005. This is a secure 
electronic system for the exchange of risk relate d information between EC Member States and between 
the European Commission and EC Member States. 
 
Question 6 
En el párrafo 8, página 51 el informe de la Secretaría se refiere a la declaración sumaria . 
 ¿Cuál es la información que debe contener la declaración sumaria?  Answer 
Please refer to Annex 30A in EC Regulati on 1875/06 at the following website: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/o j/2006/l_360/l_36020061219en00640125.pdf  
 ¿En qué casos se dispensa el requisito de la presentación de la declaración sumaria? 
 
Answer 
Please refer to Article 181c of IPCC as amended by  EC Regulation 1875/06 (i mplementation deferred 
until 1 July 2009), at the following website:  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/e n/oj/2006/l_360/l_360 20061219en00640125.pdf
 
 
¿En qué casos la declaración sumaria puede ser objeto de adaptación? 
 
Answer 
In case the information of the summary declaration is not correct. 
 
¿En qué circunstancias excepcionales las autoridad es aduaneras pueden aceptar declaraciones sumarias 
en papel?  
Answer 
Please refer to Article 183.2 of IPCC as amended by  EC Regulation 1875/06 (i mplementation deferred 
until 1 July 2009), at the following website:  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/e n/oj/2006/l_360/l_360 20061219en00640125.pdf
 
 
vi) Normas de origen 
 
Question 7 
En el párrafo 29 de la página 63 de l informe de la Secretaría se señala lo siguiente: “las certificaciones 
de origen se sustituirían por una declaración de or igen hecha directamente por el exportador, y las 
autoridades competentes del país de exportación tendrí an la responsabilidad de llevar a cabo el registro 
y el control de la certificación de origen”   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 323 
 
 
 ¿Cuál es la diferencia real entre la certificaci ón de origen y la declaración de origen que 
sustituiría a la primera? 
Answer 
at present, exporters have to complete and sign a cer tificate of origin (Form A for GSP), but in order to 
be valid it must then be stamped by the competent authorities of the country concerned. 
In its communication COM(2005) 100 final, "The rul es of origin in preferential trade arrangements: 
Orientations for the future" the European Commi ssion envisages that this form would no longer be 
used. Instead, statements on origin would be give n directly by the exporter to the importer. The 
authorities would have to register exporters before hand and would remain res ponsible for subsequent 
controls, but would have no role at the moment of export.  The purpose of registration would be solely 
to obtain certain basic information about the trader (n ame, address, type of products etc) in order to 
facilitate subsequent controls. It should not be c onfused with prior approval which would be much 
more burdensome. Statements of origin could be  given on a form designed for the purpose or on a 
commercial document, and could be  made electronically on paper. 
 
Question 8 
En este esquema la autoridad competente es la res ponsable del registro, control y cumplimiento de las 
normas de origen.  
¿No han considerado que el responsable de las normas de origen debería ser el exportador o 
importador, considerando que es el benefi ciario directo de las preferencias? 
 
Answer 
We agree that the importer should bear his responsibilit y. One of the aims of the reform of rules of 
origin is to clarify and re-b alance the roles and responsibilities of importers, exporters and 
administrations. Legally, importers are already respons ible for the declarations they make, but this 
tends to be obscured by the role of the authoriti es in exporting countries in issuing forms. Under a 
system relying on statements on origin by registered  exporters, it would be cl ear that the importer was 
liable for his origin declaration, and in particular  for any customs debt that may arise if it proves 
incorrect. Importers should take precautionary measures with their suppliers, in the same way that they 
would with regard to other aspect s of their commercial transactions. 
The responsibility of administrations in beneficiary countries is another matter. In this regard, the 
European Commission's communication COM(2005) 100 fi nal, "The rules of origin in preferential 
trade arrangements: Orientations for the future", in order to establish a so-called secured environment 
for legitimate trade, envisages the establishment of  a periodic monitoring system, backed up by 
appropriate training and technical assistance, to en sure that the authorities of beneficiary countries 
could comply with their obligations. 
 
ix) Obstáculos Técnicos al Comercio  Question 9  
En relación con el párrafo 48, página 70, del informe de  la Secretaría en el que se indica que la CE no 
ha logrado una plena armonización.  
 
¿Qué áreas de producción son las que no han se han podido normalizar?   ¿Para que Miembros de la CE son estas áreas sensibles o de mayor comercio?  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 324  
 
 Podría la CE enumerar las áreas de producción y al gunos de los inconvenientes que se han tenido para 
la armonización de normas que como región están aplicando actualmente en las áreas aun no normadas 
y si esto no va en contra el principio de una Unión como tal.  
Answer 
Harmonised legislation allows new EC  laws to be introduced with detailed rules that apply across the 
EC and therefore replace diverging national rules. Th is principle has been applied successfully within 
the EC and has been one of the main mechanisms  used to create the in ternal market for goods. 
However, “full” harmonisation of European regulati ons is not really a realistic goal, and there is 
therefore no specific target date for this. There are fi elds in which harmonisation is not even a desirable 
goal. Harmonised legislation is made on a case by case basis depending on the need for adopting 
European legislation, as well as taking into account th e principle of subsidiarity (Article 5 of the EC 
Treaty).   There is no global assessment at European level of se nsitive areas in the trade in goods, and there is no 
overall priority list. The European Commission's wo rk programme (which is publicly available on our 
website), gives a "snapshot" of the fields in wh ich legislation is planned over the coming year. 
 As far as standardisation is concerned, it has to be kept in mind that in the EC standards are voluntary technical documents which are developed by inde pendent European Standa rdisation Organisations 
over which none of the EC institutions has any direct  influence. Accordingly, it is up to the Standards 
Organisations themselves to decide which area needs harmonisation. The past practice has shown a 
strong tendency towards harmonisation of standards at European level. Whereas 25 years ago, the 
proportion between national standards and European  standards was 80/20% in favour of national 
standards, today, at least 85% of the sta ndards aquis are common European standards. 
 
In Europe, the standards developers follow the inte rnationally recognised principles of standardisation 
among which figure the principles of openness and tran sparency. In practise, this means that any 
adoption of a standard is preceded by a public enquiry  where any stakeholder within the EC or outside 
the EC may submit its comments.  Any further relevant information can be looked at  the websites of the three recognised European 
Standardisation Organisations. These websites are:http://www.cen.eu/cenorm/index.htm
 (CEN); 
http://www.cenelec.org/Cenelec/Homepage.htm  (CENELEC); http://www.etsi.org/  (ETSI) 
 
Question 10  
En relación con el párrafo 50, página 71 del informe de la Secretaría, en el que se señala que “las CE 
aplican el principio de reconocimiento mutuo en el mercado interior ”. 
 
¿Qué debe cumplir o, es más, que ha establecido la CE para aplicar el principio de reconocimiento? 
 Si dentro de la región no se tiene una normativa com ún, ¿esto no implica tener una libertad para tratar 
de proteger un sector específico y elaborar normativa mas restrictiva, es decir con mas requisitos que 
compliquen el comercio de la región y se conver tiría en un obstáculo técnico al comercio?   
 
Answer 
One of the important prerequisites for an optimal ly functioning internal market for goods is the 
elimination of technical obstacles. In the field of goods, there are two main types of instruments for doing this, namely: 
 
• The approximation of national legislation (“ harmonisation of laws”) whereby technical 
obstacles are eliminated by the harmonisation of national technical rules through secondary EC  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 325 
 
 
 legislation (directives, regulations and decisi ons) under Article 95 of the EC Treaty. This 
secondary legislation is published on ht tp://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/repert/index.htm  
 • Mutual recognition under Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty . Under the “Mutual 
Recognition Principle” different national technical ru les continue to co-exist within the internal 
market. The principle means that, notwithstandi ng technical differences between the various 
national rules that apply throughout the EC, Member  States of destination cannot forbid the sale 
on their territories of products which are not subject to Community harmonisation that are lawfully marketed in another Member State, even if they were manufactured according to 
technical and quality rules different to those th at must be met by domestic products. The only 
exceptions to this principle are restrictions that  are justified on the grounds described in Article 
30 of the EC Treaty (e.g. the protection of public  morality or public security, the protection of 
health and life of humans, animals or plants, et c), or on the basis of overriding requirements of 
general public importance recognised by the case law of the Court of Justice, and are proportionate to the aim pursued. There is no i nventory of possible national technical barriers to 
the free movement of products within the EC. Th e European Commission is preparing a list of 
products to which mutual recognition applies.  The mutual recognition principle al so helps ensure that, in the ab sence of harmonised regulations 
or standards, there should be no restrictions on measures having equivalent effect. 
 
x) Medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias (MSF) 
 
Question 11  
En relación con el párrafo 54, página 73 del inform e de la Secretaría, en el que se indica que los 
Estados Miembros aplican la legislación de la CE sobre cuestiones sanitarias y fitosanitarias en 
coordinación con la Comisión. 
 
¿Pueden los miembros de la CE adoptar dis posiciones nacionales o requisitos de importación 
diferentes a los requerimientos de la legislación comunitaria?  ¿Qué mecanismo o procedimiento se utiliza para l ograr consenso en cuanto a las regulaciones 
sanitarias? 
Answer 
EC Member States shall adopt EC legislation. Consensus is obtained in the Regulatory Committee 
procedure. The EC invites Honduras to consult detaile d Information available at the following website:  
http://ec.europa.eu/food/comm ittees/regulatory/index_en.htm 
 
 
Question 12  
En el párrafo 55, página 73 se menciona que la AESA sigue siendo la principal institución encargada 
del análisis científico de todas las cuestiones sanitarias y fitosanitarias a nivel comunitario. 
 ¿Cómo aplican los servicios nacionales en materia sa nitaria y fitosanitaria, al momento que un tercer 
país solicita una evaluación de riesgo? 
Answer 
Member States collabor ate with the EFSA in the analysis of  risks and cannot act separately adopting 
national legislations.  
¿Cuál es el procedimiento que sigue la Comisión u or ganismo de que se trate para aprobar una Ley y si 
existe una supervisión especial sobre los países de la  CE para verificar si aplican dicha legislación? 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 326  
 
 Answer 
The legislative proposals are made in consultation with Member States in a Regulation Committee. 
The proposals with significant effect on trade are notified under the SPS Agreement. More details can 
be consulted in document G/SPS/ GEN/456, dated 5 December 2003. 
The Food and Office (FVO) is authorized to make in spections in Member Stat es so as to check the 
implementation of the SPS legislation 
 
Question 13  
En relación con las notificaciones, párrafo 57,  página 74 del informe de la Secretaría. 
 
¿Cómo aplica el sistema de notificaciones entre los mismos Miembros de la CE?  
 
Answer 
There does not exist a comparable procedure for SPS notifications among Member States. The 
European Commission, as guardian of the EC Treaties, is responsible to ensure that all Member States 
obey EC rules and therefore, establishes a closer co llaboration and information exchange with Member 
States. However, in the corresponding regulator y committees, Member States discussed issues 
concerned and the legislative proposals of the European Commission are prepared.  
 
¿Cuál es el mecanismo que utilizan internamente pa ra conocer quizás de forma inmediata las medidas 
adoptadas antes de conocerlo por medio de la OMC? 
 
Answer 
All Member States participate in the drafting of legi slative measures and, therefore, they are aware of 
these measures prior to their notification to the WT O. The working documents in paragraph 9 of the 
EC notifications have been therefore circulated between all Member States as working documents.  
 
Question 14  
En el párrafo 58, página 75 del informe de la Se cretaría, se indica que en varios reglamentos se 
establecen procedimientos para la aplicación de la legislación principal sobre sanidad en relación con 
subproductos animales no destin ados al consumo humano. 
 
¿Es vinculante a todos los Miembros la legislación común o aplica solamente para los Miembros que la 
adopten?  
Answer 
The legislation is binding on all Member States.  
 
¿Puede un bien agropecuario importado por un país Mi embro de la CE movilizarse internamente en la 
región comunitaria sin controles en frontera?  
Answer  
Yes. There are no border controls within the EC.   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 327 
 
 
 IV. POLITICAS COMERCIALES POR SECTORES 
2) A GRICULTURA Y ACTIVIDADES CONEXAS  
ii) Política Agrícola Común 
 
Question 15  
En relación con el párrafo 8 de la  página 101 del informe de la Secretaría, en el que se indica lo 
siguiente: “Según la Comisión, para finales 2006 o principios de 2007 se prevén propuestas para reformar los subsectores del vino y los frutos, legumbres y hortalizas ”. 
 
¿Podría la CE explicar si las reformas para el subsector de legumbre y hortalizas que indican 
serán en la misma tendencia que  las reformas para el algodón? 
 
¿La Referencia IP/07/75 de fecha 24/01/2007 de la Co misión Europea, ¿forma parte de dicho paquete 
de reformas?  
 
Answer 
IP/07/75 of 24/01/2007 is the reference number of the press release announcing the proposal for a 
reform of the fruit and vegetable sector. The offici al document number is COM(2007) 17 final and can 
be found on the European Commission website. 
Fruit and vegetable production accounts for 3.1 percen t of the EC agriculture budget and 17 percent of 
total EC agricultural production. In its propo sal, the European Comm ission suggests Producer 
Organisations (PO) to gain greater flexibility and th eir rules to be simplified.  Crisis Management will 
be organised through Producer Organisations.  
As regards the inclusion of fruit and vegetables in  the Single Payment Scheme, the EC would like to 
note that land covered by fruit and vegetables will  be eligible for payment entitlements under the 
decoupled aid scheme which applies in other farm s ectors.  As regards environmental measures, we 
note that the inclusion of F&V in the SPS means th at Cross Compliance will be compulsory for those 
farmers receiving direct payments.  
As regards trade with third countries, and given th at world trade talks are still ongoing, the proposal 
does not touch on the current legal framework on exte rnal trade. However, it is proposed that export 
refunds shall be abolished.  
It should be noted that the abolition of the processing aids will contribute significantly to 
simplification, as will do the new rules on POs and the abolition of export refunds. Simplification will 
be further enhanced by harmonising the basic pr inciples relating to marketing standards for all 
agricultural products, including F&V. 
The proposal will need to be adopted by the Counc il of Ministers and changes may occur. For more 
details about the reform plea se check the Europa website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/ capreform/fruitveg/index_en.htm .  
 
Question 16  
 
En relación con el párrafo 14 de la  página 106 del informe de la Secr etaría en el que se indica que se 
creará un único Fondo Agrario Eur opeo para el Desarrollo Rural. 
 
¿Cuáles son las modalidades para la asignación de los recursos de Fondo Agrario Europeo? 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 328  
 
 Answer 
On 12 September 2006, the European Commission h as determined the annual breakdown by Member 
State, in accordance with the Rural Development Regulation (art. 69 of Council Regulation EC No 
1698/2005) and following the decisions of the Eur opean Council in December 2005 on the Financial 
Perspectives. The amount of money to be receive d by each Member State has been decided based on 
the following criteria: a) some amounts are re served for certain regions under the Convergence 
Objective; b) the historical share for each Member  State of the EAGGF Guarantee envelope for Rural 
Development and Leader+ and c) particular situa tions and needs based on objective criteria (the 
European Council allocated specific amounts to eight Member States).  
 
Question 17  En relación con el párrafo 22 de la página 111 del informe de la Secr etaría, se menciona que la tasa 
media de utilización de los contingentes fue del 62 por ciento en 2002. 
 
¿Podría la CE explicar como influyen las modalidades de asignación de los contingentes a obtener una tasa media tan baja en la utilización de los mismos?  
 
Answer 
The EC is administering the TRQ's in perfectly tr ansparent and non-discriminatory way. The low fill 
rates of the tariff rate quotas in these products were  mainly the consequence of sufficient supply at 
competitive prices on the internal market.  
 
Question 18  En relación con el párrafo 35 de la  página 118 del informe de la Secretaría se indica lo siguiente: “En 
octubre de 2004, las CE también resultaron perdedor as en una diferencia en que un Grupo Especial de 
la OMC resolvió que las CE ya no pueden subvenc ionar las exportaciones adicionales de azúcar para 
equilibrar las importaciones preferenci ales, procedentes principalmente de los países ACP.  En abril de 
2005, el Órgano de Apelación de la OMC conf irmó las constataciones del Grupo Especial” 
 ¿Han cumplido la CE con las resoluciones de lo s Grupos Especiales que indican que no se pueden 
subvencionar las exportaciones adicionales de azúcar para equilibrar las importaciones preferenciales? 
 
Answer 
The EC reformed its common market organisati on for sugar which applies since July 2006. The 
common market organisation for sugar complies w ith the EC international obligations. Further 
background information of the sugar reform  is available at the EC website:  
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/index_es.htm
 
 6) SERVICIOS i) Panorama general 
 
Question 19  
En la página 137 del informe de la Secretaría en el  Recuadro IV.2 sobre los obstáculos al comercio de 
servicios identificados en la CE, el cual se refiere a los monopolios. 
 ¿Para el establecimiento de proveedores de servic ios, en que sectores de servicios hay monopolio en 
los países miembros de la CE?   
 
¿En que Países Miembros de la CE existen monopolios?  
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 329 
 
 
 Answer 
The European Commission does not itself keep, and is  not aware of the existence of, any definitive 
register or statistical information on state-ow ned enterprises or on monopolies (state-owned or 
otherwise) in the EC. Given that EC regulations, in cluding competition rules, apply to all enterprises 
equally, regardless of their ownership structure, ther e is no particular reason to maintain any kind of 
list of state-owned enterprises. The European Commission would also point out that a monopoly can be 
obtained via a patent or through the normal play of competition, as well as be ing conferred by State 
regulation. The EC Treaty (article 86) employs th e concept of "special or exclusive rights", and 
provides a legal base for the adoption of legislation liberalising previously monopolised sectors; this 
has been done in a number of sectors, particularly electronic communications, energy, transport, and 
the postal sector. 
 
Question 20  
En la página 137 del informe de la Secretaría en el  Recuadro IV.2 sobre los obstáculos al comercio de 
servicios identificados en las CE, el cual se refiere a los requisitos de residencia.  
¿En que países de la CE, se requiere que los "Directi vos de las Empresas" sean residentes dos tercios, 
la mitad o por lo menos uno de los miem bros del Consejo de Administración? 
 
Answer The information required is not at the disposal of  the European Commission. However, we can provide 
to Honduras with further information on how the EC is addressing this issue: 
 Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal ma rket (published in the OJ L 376 of 27.12.2006) 
lists in Article 14 some prohibited requirements. Member States shall not make access to, or the 
exercise of, a service activity in its territory, pr ovided by a natural person who is a national of a 
Member State or a legal person as referred to in Article 48 of the EC Treaty, subject with any of the requirements listed. Among them, there are discriminato ry requirements based directly or indirectly on 
nationality or, in the case of companies, the location of  the registered office, including in particular: (a) 
nationality requirements for the provider, his staff, persons holding the share capital or members of the 
provider’s management or supervisory bodies;(b) a re quirement that the provider, his staff, persons 
holding the share capital or members of the provide r’s management or supervisory bodies be resident 
within the territory.   Member States will have to implemen t the Directive by 27 December 2009  
 Question 21  
En la página 137 del informe de la Secretaría en el  Recuadro IV.2 sobre los obstáculos al comercio de 
servicios identificados en las CE, el cual  se refiere a los títulos de aptitud profesional . 
 ¿Se reconocen los títulos profesionales obtenidos en el extranjero por profesionales de la CE y por 
profesionales que no son de la CE?  
 ¿A qué tipo de Reglamento se refieren sobre el Reconocimiento de Títulos Profesionales? 
 
Answer 
The recognition of professional qualifications within  the EC is governed by EC legislation, i.e. 
directives which are addressed to all Member States  and which, generally speaking, require Member 
States to permit access to a regulated profession to applicants possessing the qualifications required by 
another Member State. There are sectoral dir ectives which provide for automatic recognition of 
professional qualifications based on harmonised minimu m training standards and which are mainly in 
the health sector (doctors, nurses, dentists, midwives,  veterinary surgeons, pharmacists and architects). 
In addition, there are directives which do not harmonise training standards but ensure mutual WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 330  
 
 recognition between national qualifi cation requirements. They apply to all the professions which are 
regulated from the point of view of qualifications  and provide for so-called compensation measures 
where there are major differences in education an d training between the migrants' qualifications and 
the host Member States requirements. Finally, ther e are two Directives applying to lawyers, one of 
which concerns the provision of services and the other establishment under the title of country of 
origin.  
 Third country nationals do not benefit from the EC  law on recognition of professional qualifications 
(apart from family members of EU citizens and so -called long-term residents under specific EU law 
based on article 63 of EC Treaty). 
 
For further information see: http://ec.europa.eu /internal_market/qualifications/overview_en.htm
 
 
Question 22  
En el párrafo 78, página 138 del informe de la Secr etaría señala lo siguiente: “El 4 de abril de 2006 la 
Comisión adoptó una versión modificada de la propuest a de Directiva sobre los servicios en la que se 
elimina la norma del país de origen, que estaba encaminada a que los proveedores de servicios pudieran observar la legislación de su país cuando operaran en otro Estado miembro de las CE;  esa 
cláusula se ha sustituido por una disposición sobre el libre suministro de servicios”.  ¿Podría la CE proveer una explicación más a fondo sobr e la disposición sobre el "libre suministro de 
Servicios"? 
 
Answer 
Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal ma rket (published in the OJ L 376 of 27.12.2006) 
has introduced in Article 16 a provision on the free dom to provide services to facilitate provision of 
services across borders within the EC. Member States shall ensure free access to and free exercise of a 
service activity within its territory and will be ab le to apply their own requirements to incoming 
services provided that they are non-discriminatory a nd proportionate and only to the extent they are 
necessary for reasons relating to public policy, pub lic security, public health and the protection of the 
environment. In order to implement this provisi on, a screening process of national requirements has 
been established.  Question 23  
En el mismo párrafo 78, página 138 del informe de  la Secretaría, se hace alusión a que la versión 
revisada abarca todos los subsectores de  servicios, con unas pocas excepciones. 
 
¿Podría la CE identificar cuáles son las pocas excepciones? 
 
Answer 
Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market (published in the OJ L 376 of 27.12.2006 
does not cover financial services, transport, matter s covered by the 2002 telecommunications package, 
gambling, audiovisual services, health services, tem porary work agencies, private security services, 
services provided by notaries and bailiffs and social services relating to social housing, childcare and 
support of families and persons in need.  
 
ii)  Servicios financieros  
a) Panorama general  
Question 24 
En el párrafo 82 del informe de la Secretaría, página 139 se hace alusión a que pese a los progresos 
logrados con el PASF, las diferencias institucionales y los obstáculos transfronterizos entre los Estados 
Miembros siguen entorpeciendo el desarrollo de un mercado unificado para los servicios financieros.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 331 
 
 
  
¿Cuáles son las diferencias Institucionales y los obst áculos transfronterizos de servicios financieros?  
 
Answer 
Despite considerable progress in the integration of Financial Services within EC, cross-borders 
obstacles and institutional differences remain. The following policy measures implemented in 2006 
give a good example of the issues addressed to remove  obstacles and further integrate UE financial 
markets:  
- supervisory co-operation has been developing , improved inter-institutional balance has been 
 achieved,  
- several steps have been taken to improve  communication with consumers and users,  
- a proposed directive aims to achieve greater  clarity in supervisory assessments of M&A 
 transactions has been proposed,  
- the Capital Requirements Directive was fo rmally adopted, recommendations on future 
 revisions of the E-money Directive and on wa y forward for Deposit Guarantee Schemes were 
 made,  
- preparatory work for Solv ency II proceeded apace,  
- motor insurance compensation bodies and accide nts with trailers has been addressed,  
- an expert group looking at mobility with regard to bank accounts has been created,  
- consultation on mortgage credit has continued, competition inquiries into retail banking have 
 revealed market fragmentation and barriers to entry,  
- discussions have gathered speed on the proposed Payments Directive,  
- essential implementing measures of the Market in Financial Instruments Directive were 
 adopted,  
- calls for evidence on transparency in non-equity markets and on regulatory framework for 
 commodity and exotic derivatives have been  launched,  
- amendments to prospectus requirements for issuer s with complex financial histories have  been 
proposed,  
- an Industry-led Code of Conduct has been a dopted in Clearing & Settlement, a White Paper 
 on Investment Funds published in November 2006 has proposed measures to improve the  efficiency of the EC investment fund market,  
- the future priorities for Company Law and Corp orate Governance have been clarified, the 
 required procedures under Transparency Direc tive have been clarified in implementing 
 measures,  
- clarifications in application of 3
rd Money Laundering Directive has been made in 
 implementing measures,  
- reports have assessed the impact of money la undering directives on the legal profession and 
 on non face-to-face transactions,  
- numbers of regulations adopting IASB standa rds and interpretations have been adopted,  
- the framework for auditors' liabilit y in the EC has been examined.  
 
Question 25 from Honduras 
En el párrafo 84, página 140 del informe de la Secr etaría se menciona que en el marco de la nueva 
estrategia, la Comisión trabaja actualmente con los Estados Miembros y los colectivos interesados en 
un Código de Conducta sobre compensación y liquidaci ón de operaciones transfronterizas con el fin de 
mejorar su seguridad y eficiencia y reducir su costo. 
 
¿Podría la CE identificar "los colectivos interesados"? 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 332  
 
 Answer 
The interested parties are stock exchanges, Centra l Counterparties and International Central Securities 
Depositories.  b) Sector bancario 
 
Question 26  
En el párrafo 92 del informe de la Secretaría, pá gina 143, se señala lo siguiente: “Con arreglo a la 
legislación comunitaria, los Estados miembros no con cederán a las sucursales de entidades de crédito 
de terceros países un trato más favorable que el di spensado a las que tengan su oficina principal en las 
CE. No obstante, las CE pueden concluir acuerdos c on terceros países y, en consecuencia, conceder a 
las sucursales de entidades de crédito de terceros países un trato idéntico al dispensado en el territorio 
de las CE”. 
¿A qué tipo de acuerdos se refiere en lo indica do arriba, para conceder a las sucursales de  
entidades de crédito de terceros países el mism o trato dispensado en el territorio de la CE? 
 Answer 
The reason for the requirement that branches of thir d country credit institutions cannot be treated more 
favourably than those having their head offices in the EC is to ensure that the prudential requirements 
of the banking directives are fully respected by both types of branch on the basis of a level playing 
field. 
 
c) Seguros  Question 27  
Con relación al tema de seguros se formulan l as siguientes preguntas (Párrafos 93-98, páginas 143-
144):  ¿Se permite el establecimiento de su cursales (Banca y Seguro) de terceros países en el territorio de la 
CE? 
 
¿Se permite el establecimiento de sucursal es (Banca y Seguros) de los países de la CE? 
 ¿Cuales son las normas que se establecen para los compañías de seguros de terceros países? 
 
Answer Rules applicable to agencies or branches of undertak ings with head offices in third countries are the 
same for life and non-life insurance. Article 51 of Directive 2002/83/EC and Article Art. 23 of Directive 73/239/EEC state that each branch needs an authorisation granted by the EC Member State in question. Such authorization may be granted if at least the conditions laid down in the Directive are 
fulfilled. However, there is no obligation for an  EC Member State to grant authorisation.  
As regards branches of EC insurance undertakings  in other EC Member States, these may be 
established in accordance with the European Singl e Passport principle meaning that based on the 
authorization granted by the Home Member State (state  of the head office)  insurers have the right to 
run insurance business throughout the EC either in th e form of a branch or on a cross-border basis. 
Notifications procedures are required to that end.   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 333 
 
 
 iv) Transporte 
c) Transporte por carretera 
 
Question 28  
En el párrafo 119 del informe de la Secretaría, pági na 154, se señala que el cabotaje realizado por los 
NEM-10 fue tan sólo del 6 por ciento del total de las CE-25, y más de la mitad de esa proporción 
correspondió a transportistas polacos (500 millones de toneladas-kilómetro). Ello se debe a que los 
transportistas de la mayoría de los NEM-10 se enfrentan aún con restricciones legales.  ¿A qué tipo de restricciones legales se enfrentan los transportistas? 
 
Answer 
Regulation 881/92 states that temporary cabotage within  a Member State by a company registered in 
another Member State is permitted if the company h as a licence. If the cabotage is systematic, regular, 
or continuous it is not considered temporary. Pl ease refer to European Commission Communication of 
27 January 2005.  
 
OTRAS PREGUNTAS  
 
Question 29  
En los párrafos 52 y 53, página 19 del Informe de las Comunidades Europeas (WT/TPR/G/177), se 
mencionan las relaciones de las CE con los 77 paí ses de África, el Caribe y el Pacífico (ACP). 
 ¿Podría la CE indicar si la negociación de los Acuerdos de Asociación Económica entre la CE y los 
ACP estarán concluidas a finales del 2007 y que para no demorar su aplicación entrarán en vigor al 
momento de su firma? 
 
¿Está consciente la CE que otorgar un mejor acceso a los países ACP como resultado de Acuerdos de 
Asociación Económica significa que otros países en desarrollo similarmente ubicados, como Honduras, 
perderán ese acceso en un porcentaje equivalente?  Ya que el informe de la CE no proporciona mayo r información en cuanto al tratamiento que será 
otorgado a los países ACP bajo los Acuerdos de Asociación Económica. ¿Podría la CE ampliar la 
información en lo que concierne a productos de interés para Honduras, como el banano? 
 ¿Podría la CE confirmar que los Ac uerdos de Asociación Ec onómica conferirán al banano de los países 
ACP condiciones de acceso que son superiores al ré gimen de preferencias que tienen hoy en día? 
 Answer 
Negotiations of Economic Partners hip Agreements (EPAs) are on track. The EC as well as the six ACP 
regions are committed to concluding  negotiations within the deadline.  The market access provisions of 
individual goods will be a result of the ongoing negotiations.  
 
Question 30  El párrafo 55, página 20 del Informe de las Comunidades Europeas (WT/TPR/G/177), se indica lo 
siguiente: En 2005 se aprobó un nuevo Reglamento  sobre el SGP para el período 2006-2008 que 
mejora el acceso a los mercados para los producto s de exportación de los países en desarrollo y 
economías en transición. Se entiende que la vigencia  del SGP-plus normalmente  concluiría el 31 de 
diciembre 2008. 
 ¿Podría la CE indicar si dicho régimen preferencial será ser ampliado y por cuantos años?  
Answer WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 334  
 
 The Communication from the Euro pean Commission to the Eur opean Council, the European 
Parliament and the European Economic and So cial Committee from 7 July 2004 -"Developing 
countries, international trade and sustainable development:  the function of the Community's 
generalised system of preferences (GSP) for th e ten-year period from 2006 to 2015" envisages the 
application of a special incentive arrangement to encourage sustainable development and governance 
(GSP+).  
 
Question 31  
Siempre en relación al SGP, el párrafo 64, página  45 del informe de la Secretaría, se indica lo 
siguiente: “El SGP ha mejorado las posibilidades de los pa íses en desarrollo de obtener acceso a los 
mercados de las CE.  No obstante, existe una tende ncia a la disminución de la participación en el 
comercio y los índices de utilización del SGP son bajos”
  
 ¿Está de acuerdo la CE con lo expresado en el inform e de la Secretaría de la OMC respecto al bajo 
índice de utilización del SGP-plus y a qué lo atribuyen?  Answer 
For the period 2000-2005, an increasing trend in the sh are of GSP imports in total EC imports has been 
recorded. The GSP imports to the EC increased in this period by 61% and their share in total EC 
imports rose from 41% in 2000 to 66% in 2005. Conse quently, also in the GSP utilisation rate an 
increase was recorded.  
 
Question 32  
Arancel del Banano: 
  
¿Por qué la CE ha impuesto un arancel de 176€ t. m. a nuestras importaciones de banano que es muy 
superior a su arancel medio NMF para productos agrícolas?  
  ¿Reconoce la CE que el haber impuesto un nuevo aran cel que es más del doble del que se pagaba bajo 
el régimen anterior es contrario a los objeti vos de la Programa de Desarrollo de Doha?  
  
Answer 
The EC introduced an applied tariff of 176€/t on im ports of bananas of MFN origin following its 
commitment to move on 1 January 2006 from the fo rmer TRQ system to a tariff-only regime while 
maintaining market access for MFN suppliers. It is worth noting that the TRQ regime to be replaced 
consisted in an in-quota tariff of 75€/t and an out-of-quota tariff of 680€/t.   
The EC agreed to a monitoring process on the impact of this applied tariff and to continue Article 
XXVIII GATT negotiations with interested MFN s uppliers on a possible agreement on a new bound 
tariff. Import statistics available to date confirm an increase of 10% in imports of bananas of MFN 
origin as compared to 2005.  The EC continues to favour a negotiated solution with  banana suppliers and with this purpose in mind 
the EC has maintained Article XXVIII GATT negotiations open.  
 Question 33  Ampliación de la CE 
  
¿Podría la CE indicar si la ampliación ha servi do para otorgar nuevas oportunidades de acceso a los 
países ACP en mercados donde nunca antes habían tenido presencia? 
  ¿Podría la CE indicar cuando reconocerá el inte rés de Honduras como abastecedor sustancial de 
banano al mercado de la CE?   
Answer  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 335 
 
 
 EC Enlargement has provided an enlarged single ma rket for the benefit of all suppliers. EC tariff 
concessions to ACP countries apply to the whole terr itory of the EC. Since 1 January 2006, ACP TRQs 
increased from 750,000 tons to 775,000 reflecting im ports from the ACPs into the 10 new Member 
States. 
 
Question 34  La CE ha consignado en su Informe que aplica puntualmente las resoluciones del Órgano de Solución 
de Diferencias .  
 
¿Cómo compatibiliza la CE esa declaración con el hecho de cada mes en las reuniones de ese órgano un creciente numero de delegaciones han expresa do preocupación por el no cumplimiento de 
Banano III?  
Answer 
Honduras, Panama and Nicaragua have systematically  brought the new EC import banana regime to 
the attention of the DSB. As repeatedly stated in DSB meetings, the EC already amended its regime 
according to the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in the past. Therefore, the import regime 
introduced on 1 January 2006 by EC Council Regula tion 1964/2005 cannot be considered as an issue 
of "implementation" of the DSB recommendations in the so-called EC-Bananas III case.  
The EC remains open to addressing the concerns of La tin American suppliers in relation to its import 
regime in the appropriate fora. The EC is well awar e of the importance of the banana industry for Latin 
American countries, as well as ACP countries, and has always taken these interests into consideration. 
We are in regular contact with the WTO members involved to discuss this issue, including the rebinding of the MFN tariff.  
 
¿Por que ha preferido recurrir a un mecanismo de mo nitoreo que solo desvía la atención y no es idóneo 
para resolver las dificultades que están enfrentando lo s países de América Lati na, ni para impedir que 
las mismas se magnifiquen en el futuro cercano? 
 
Answer 
In light of the failure to find a solution in 2005, the EC became convinced that for any negotiation on 
the EC import regime for bananas to have any chan ces of succeeding, discussions had to be based on 
"market realities", as opposed to theoretical scenarios. The EC wa s committed to introduce a tariff-only 
regime by 1 January 2006. Following the WTO Hong-Kong Ministerial, the EC and several MFN banana suppliers agreed to conduct a joint monito ring process under the good offices of Norway which 
was aimed at: (a) ensuring that the new applied ta riff maintained market access for MFN bananas; and 
(b) providing a solid basis for an agreement on a new bound tariff. Data available to date confirm that 
the 176€/t tariff has increased access by MFN banana suppliers to the EC market.  
COLOMBIA
 
 WT/TPR/S/177 
CAPITULO
 II. REGÍMENES  DE COMERCIO  E INVERSIÓN 
Reglamentación comercial y entorno empresarial 
 
En el párrafo 19 el informe de la Secretaría come nta que de conformidad con el capítulo 4 del Tratado 
de las CE, están prohibidas, con escasas excepciones, todas las restricciones de la circulación de mercancías y capitales, así como del suministro de servicios entre los Estados miembros, y entre éstos 
y terceros países.  Además, los Estados miembros pueden adoptar medidas para impedir la infracción WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 336  
 
 de leyes y reglamentos nacionales y por otra parte,  los Estados miembros pue den aplicar disposiciones 
pertinentes de su legislación fiscal que diferencien a los contribuyentes en función de su lugar de 
residencia o del lugar donde se invierta el cap ital, siempre y cuando ello no dé lugar a una 
discriminación arbitraria o a restricciones encubiertas. 
Question  1 
Respecto a las medidas de salvaguardia que puede adoptar el Consejo sobre los movimientos de 
capital, Colombia desea saber si existe un instrume nto jurídico de las CE estableciendo los criterios 
objetivos que sigue el Consejo para imponer dic has medidas.  ¿Históricamente cuáles son las 
situaciones en las cuales dichas medidas han sido impuestas? 
 
Answer   
Under Article 59 of the Treaty Establishing th e European Community, where, in exceptional 
circumstances, movements of capital to or from third countries cau se, or threaten to cause, serious 
difficulties for the operation of economic and mone tary union, the European Council, acting by a 
qualified majority on a proposal from the European  Commission and after consulting the European 
Central Bank, may take safeguard measures with re gard to third countries for a period not exceeding 
six months if such measures are strictly necessary.  Furthermore, under the conditions described in 
articles 119 and 120 of the EC Treaty, in case if balance of payment problems occur, the Member States who do not belong to the Euro zone can rece ive assistance and they are also entitled to take 
certain protective measures. Adopted on basis of Article 199 of the EC Treaty, Council Regulation 
(EC) No 332/2002 of 18 February 2002 establis hed a facility providing medium-term financial 
assistance for Member States' balances of payments. These provisions remain within the scope of 
articles XI and XII of the GATS.   In the past, balance of payment-related measur es were authorised for Greece (Council Decision of 4 
March 1991) and Italy (Council Decision 18 January 1993).     Question  2 
Por favor especificar cuáles son las restricciones a la inversión directa en bienes raíces, prestación de 
servicios financieros y mercados de capitales (admisión de acciones a cotización).  En caso de que las 
restricciones no sean homogéneas para toda las CE , es decir que difieran por países, por favor 
especificar en qué consisten para cada uno de sus miembros? 
 
Answer  
Concerning direct investments, Article 57 of the EC Treaty allows that the EC and the Member States 
maintain their respective r estrictions on capital movements to or fr om third countries, which existed at 
a cut-off date (31 December 1993, for Estonia;  31 December 1999 for Hungary). The relevant 
investment, real estate and financial services-relate d restrictions are described in the GATS Schedule 
of the EC and their Member States.  
A
CUERDOS COMERCIALES  
Panorama general 
El párrafo 26 establece que algunos de los acuerdos pr eferenciales recíprocos de las CE comprenden 
aspectos bilaterales y multilaterales, y en casi t odos los casos la liberalización es asimétrica. Además 
que se han hecho revisiones y que en la mayor part e de los casos esas revisiones han dado lugar a una 
mayor liberalización del comercio de productos no  agrícolas y productos agrícolas y, en algunas 
ocasiones, del comercio de servicios.  
Respecto a los acuerdos preferenciales que abarcan la esfera de liberalización de las corrientes de 
inversión y de capital, Colombia tiene las siguientes inquietudes:   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 337 
 
 
  
Question  3 
Cuáles son las diferencias en términos de obligacio nes incluidas y de estructura, entre lo que abarcan 
los referidos acuerdos y los acuerdos bilaterales de  inversión que varios Estados miembros de las CE 
suscriben con el resto del mundo?   
 
Answer  
Whereas bilateral investment agreements passed  by Member States are "classical" (concerned 
primarily with the protection of investments) , and do not address market access issues, the EC 
agreements with third countries that cover inv estment are rather based on a GATS-like approach, 
primarily concerned with market access, as well as pre- and post-establishment national treatment. 
 
Question  4. Existe un impedimento legal para que las CE negocien como CE acuerdos bilaterales de 
inversión con terceros Estados? Es decir, existe una directriz Europea u otro tipo de instrumento jurídico que prohíba dicha negociación, o se requeriría un mandato especial para que las CE 
negociaran tratados bilaterales de inversión (o un acuerdo comercial con un capítulo de inversión) 
que incluyeran entre otras disciplinas aquellas de trato nacional, trato de nación más favorecida, 
prohibición de expropiación ilegal, expropiación indirecta, trato justo y equitativo, libre transferencia, 
la resolución de controversias inversionista-Estado, etc.?  
 
Answer  
There is no other legal impediment to covering investment in the ne gotiation of EC agreements with 
third countries than the scope of the authorisatio n to negotiate given by the EU Council to the 
European Commission as EC negotiator. Such scope may be clarified in negotiating directives which 
the Council can attach to the Decision whereby it authorises the European Commission to negotiate. 
 
Question  5 
Existe algún impedimento le gal o constitucional en la legislación de los Estados parte de las CE que 
no permita la suscripción de un acuerdo bilatera l de inversión o de un acuerdo comercial con un 
capítulo de inversión, con las disciplinas antes mencionadas, entre un tercer Estado y las CE? 
 
Answer  
EC Member States can negotiate agreements with th ird countries covering investment aspects to the 
extent that such agreements respect  the EC Treaty and secondary Law.  
 
F
ORMULACIÓN Y APLICACIÓN DE POLÍTICAS  
En el Párrafo 8 se comenta que en el proceso de adopción de decisiones, intervienen diversas 
instituciones. El Consejo o el Parlamento, por su pa rte, pueden delegar facultades en la Comisión, que 
en tal caso adopta las decisiones, asistida por un co mité compuesto de representantes de los Estados 
miembros (comitología), que actúa con arreglo a lo s procedimientos consultivo, de gestión, de 
reglamentación o de salvaguardia.  
Question  6  
Las decisiones asistidas por el comité (comitologí a) a las que se refiere este punto, se establecen para 
el comercio intracomunitario o comprenden tambié n las decisiones y procedimientos sobre el 
comercio proveniente de terceros paí ses o países extracomunitarios?   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 338  
 
 Answer  
There are various committees operating under the comitolo gy procedure in the area of external trade. 
Examples are committees on market access, the trade barri ers regulation or the EU's general system of 
preferences. The most recent report about activ ities of committees under comitology procedure with 
details on trade-related committees can be found at the following website:  
http://ec.europa.eu/prelex/detail _dossier_real.cfm?CL=en&DosId=194562
 
REGLAMENTACIÓN COMERCIAL Y ENTORNO EMPRESARIAL  
En el párrafo 17 el Informe de la Secretaría come nta sobre el fomento y facilitación a la creación de 
nuevas empresas, que hacen parte del Programa de I nnovación. En el párrafo 18 se hace referencia al 
Programa Marco de Competitividad e Innovación, propuesto para el perí odo 2007-2013, tiene por 
objeto fomentar la utilización de tecnologías de la información, tecnologías ambientales y fuentes de 
energía renovables.  
Question  7 
Agradecemos se nos suministre mayor informaci ón cómo operan los programas de apoyo a las 
empresas,  en qué consiste el apoy o y a cuáles empresas se otorga?  
Answer  
The Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Progra mme is aimed at fostering the competitiveness 
of enterprises, in particular small and medium sized enterprises; promoting all forms of innovation 
including eco-innovation; accelerating the development of a sustainable, competitive, innovative and 
inclusive information society; and, promoting ener gy efficiency and new renewable energy sources in 
all sectors including transport. 
 
These objectives will be pursued through the implem entation of three specific programmes: the 
Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme  (Directorate General for En terprise and Industry is “chef 
de file”); the Information and Communi cations Technology Policy Support programme  (Directorate 
General for Information Society is “chef de f ile”); and, the Intelligent Energy-Europe Pogramme  
(Directorate General for Transport and Energy is “chef de file”): 
 I. The Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme
 can be split into 4 modules, with the 
possibility of participating in the most appropriate one:  
*  Policy development (open method, analyses etc), 
*  Networks (EIC/IRC), 
*  Innovation actions (INNOVA, Pro-Inno etc.), *  Community Financial Instruments (including the new securitisation and GIF2 
instruments). 
 
II.  ICT Policy Support Programme 
This Programme consists of the former e-Content,  Modinis and e-TENs. Participation under CIP will 
be on an "all or nothing" basis.  
III. Intelligent Energy Europe Programme 
This Programme comprises the former STEER, ALTENER and SAVE programmes. Again participation will be on an "all or nothing" basis. 
 The relevant European Commission services are co-o rdinating their work and are still working on the 
appropriate methodology to enable third countries to participate.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 339 
 
 
 The idea is that participation should be establis hed by a Memorandum of Understanding with the 
European Commission service responsible for each Programme. That participation should imply a 
financial contribution from third countries to the Pr ogrammes. As regards the financial contribution, 
the European Commission proposes to base the formula on relative GDP, which is fairly standard 
practice for EC programmes. 
 
For the Entrepreneurship and Innovation specific progr amme the participation of third countries should 
be treated on an “ad hoc” basis and when the European Commission is approached. 
 The participation procedure should be initiated by a formal request addressed to Vice-President 
Verheugen.  
 The European Commission has recen tly issued a call for proposals to establish a new network 
providing integrated services to SMEs, building on th e work already developed by the current Euro 
Info Centre and Innovation Relay Centre networks. The deadline for presenting proposals is 2 April 
2007. 
 For countries which will participate in the CIP, it is possible to participate in the network on the same 
conditions as organisations from Member States an d to receive co-financing of up to 60% of the 
eligible costs.   
Organisations from countries which will not particip ate in the CIP may be granted the possibility to 
participate in the network but will not qualify fo r any financial support from the CIP budget.  An 
expression of interest to co-operate with the networ k on this basis can be submitted at any time during 
the CIP programme and is not subject to the d eadline for the joint network call for proposals. 
en el párrafo 19 se comenta que de conformidad con el capítulo 4 del tratado de las ce, están 
prohibidas, con escasas excepciones, todas las restricc iones de la circulación de mercancías y capitales, 
así como del suministro de servicios entre los estados miembros, y entre éstos y terceros países.  
Question 8 
Nos podría indicar la ue cuáles son las excepci ones que se mantienen a la libre circulación de 
mercancía y capitales y en el suministro de servi cios entre los estados miembros y entre éstos y 
terceros países?    
Answer  
Under Article 59 of the Treaty Establishing th e European Community, where, in exceptional 
circumstances, movements of capital to or from third countries cau se, or threaten to cause, serious 
difficulties for the operation of economic and mone tary union, the Council, acting by a qualified 
majority on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Central Bank, may take 
safeguard measures with regard to third countri es for a period not exceeding six months if such 
measures are strictly necessary. Furthermore, under the conditions described in articles 119 and 120 of 
the EC Treaty, in case if balance of payment problem s occur, the Member States who do not belong to 
the Euro zone can receive assistance and they are also entitled to take certain protective measures. 
Adopted on basis of Article 199 of the EC Treaty, Council Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 of 18 
February 2002 established a facility providing me dium-term financial assistance for Member States' 
balances of payments. These provisions remain within  the scope of articles XI and XII of the GATS.  
In the past, balance of payment-related measur es were authorised for Greece (Council Decision of 4 
March 1991) and Italy (Council Decision 18 January 1993).    
 
En el párrafo 20 se comenta que el Tratado prohí be también las restricciones a la libertad de 
establecimiento, con inclusión de la apertura de agencias, sucursales o filiales, aunque puede haber 
excepciones con respecto a las disposiciones que pr evean un régimen especial para los extranjeros. 
Adicionalmente, a partir del 2004 entró en vigor el Estatuto de la Sociedad Anónima Europea, en WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 340  
 
 virtud del cual las empresas que operen en varios Estados miembros  pueden constituirse como una sola 
empresa.  
Question  9 
Existe alguna limitación o restricción comunitaria o na cional de alguno de los países miembros de las 
CE, a la conformación de sociedades dedicadas  al comercio exterior, con socios o capital 
extracomunitarios? 
Answer  
Concerning direct investments, Article 57 of the EC Treaty allows that the EC and the Member States 
maintain their respective r estrictions on capital movements to or fr om third countries, which existed at 
a cut-off date (31 December 1993, for Estonia;  31 December 1999 for Hungary). The relevant 
investment, real estate and financial services-relate d restrictions are described in the GATS Schedule 
of the EC and their Member States. 
 
CAPITULO III. POLITICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS, NUMERAL 2)   
Procedimientos aduaneros y valoración en aduana 
La Secretaria informa al final del párrafo 7 que “ ... Entre otras propuestas específicas cabe citar las 
encaminadas a la centralización de los procedimient os de despacho, con una sola oficina para la 
realización de los procedimientos a duaneros y de otro tipo aplicables en la frontera exterior de las CE, 
y la puesta en marcha de un punto de entrada electrónico con ventanilla única.” 
Question 10 
Podrían explicar mas ampliamente como funcionará el centro de procedimientos de despacho y la 
ventanilla única? 
Answer  
Under the 'one stop shop' system goods brought into or out of the customs territory of the EC are 
controlled at the same time and at the same place  by Customs authorities and other agencies involved 
in the control of goods (such as police, border guards, veterinary and environmental authorities). 
 igualmente la secretaria informa en el párrafo 8 que  “ por otra parte, el reglamento (ce) nº 648/2005 
prevé la presentación de información previamente a la llegada de las mercancías, en forma de 
declaración sumaria y por vía electrónica, en cualquier  oficina de aduanas, excepto cuando se trate de 
mercancías que atraviesen aguas o espacios aéreos territoriales.” 
 
Question 11 
Cómo garantiza las ce el cumplimiento del principi o de trato nacional, que puede ser no atendido al 
discriminar los procedimientos aplicados a las im portaciones intracomunitarias, frente a la de 
terceros países? Cuál es la diferencia tanto en cost os como en tiempos de esta diferencia en la 
presentación de la declaración de las mercancías?  
Answer  
Since 1 January 1993 intra-EC movements of goods  are no longer subject to customs controls. 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 341 
 
 
 Otros derechos e impuestos 
El párrafo 17 contiene información relacionada con el IVA y su completa armonización en el ámbito 
comunitario. 
Question  12 
Existe en el corto o mediano plazo, iniciativas de las autoridades comunitarias competentes para 
establecer un único sistema armonizado en materia de IVA y de impuestos al consumo de bienes y 
servicios?   
Answer  
It is worth noting that, within the EC, harmonised VAT rules have been in existence since 1967. These 
can be found in Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006. However, even if rules are 
harmonised through EC legislation these are provisions  which need to be transposed into national 
legislation. How these rules are applied depends, th erefore, on the national rules which have been 
adopted by each Member State. 
Since taxation is a national matter, EC legislati on to harmonise VAT rules is, in any event, only 
possible if necessary to ensure th e establishment and the functioning of the internal market. It sets 
certain limits to the level of harmonisation which ma y be provided for at EC level. This is further 
compounded by the fact that taxation is an area governed by unanimity voting.  
Therefore, the European Commission focuses all of its efforts on improving the operation of the VAT 
system within the context of the internal market. Among the initiatives already taken in this regard is 
the proposal for a one-stop scheme which would pr ovide simplification of tax obligations for non-
established traders. The European Commission will con tinue this work but also recognises that, as 
regards the outcome, much will depend on Member States and their willingness to harmonise further 
the way in which VAT is applied throughout Europe. 
MEDIDAS COMERCIALES ESPECIALES 
 
En el párrafo 37 numeral viii), se informa que las CE pueden aplicar simultáneamente sobre un mismo 
producto, medidas de salvaguardia y derechos antid umping o compensatorios. Sin embargo, cuando 
esta combinación de medidas da lugar a efectos mayores de lo “deseable”, las CE pueden derogar los derechos antidumping o compensatorios y reemplazarlos por “otras” medidas.   
Question  13 
Cuáles son esas “otras medidas” que reemplazan lo s derechos antidumping o compensatorios y cuál 
ha sido la experiencia práctica de la CE en este tema?.  
Answer  
On 6 March 2003, the Council of the European Union adopted Regulation (EC) No 452/2003 on 
measures that the EC may take in relation to the combined effect of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy 
measures with safeguard measures (Offic ial Journal L 69, 13.3.2003, p. 8).  
 According to this Regulation, the European Commu nity can amend, suspend or repeal existing anti-
dumping and/or anti-subsidy measures, or exempt imports from anti-dumping or countervailing duties 
which would otherwise be payable, or to adopt any other special measures if it considers that the combination of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy meas ures with safeguard tariff measures could have 
effects greater than those intended or desirable in terms of the EC's trade de fence policy and objectives. 
This would be in particular the case, if such a combination could place an undesirably onerous burden WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 342  
 
 on certain exporting producers seeking to export to the EC, which could have the effect of denying 
them access to the EC market.   As regards the practical experience this Regulation h as in particular been applied to the anti-dumping 
measures applicable to certain hot-rolled coils and to certain tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel 
(Council Regulation (EC) No778/2003 of 6 May 2003, Offi cial Journal L 114, 8.5.2003, p. 1). In this 
case the EC Institutions considered that in t hose cases where an anti-dumping duty and a safeguard 
duties would normally be payable and where the anti-dumping duty is less than, or equal to, the amount of the safeguard duty, no anti-dumping duty should be payable. Where the anti-dumping duty 
is greater than the amount of the safeguard duty, it w as considered appropriate that only that part of the 
anti-dumping duty which is in excess of the amount of the safeguard duty should be payable.  
 En el párrafo 41, se menciona la modificación de la legislación de la CE, en materia de elusión.   
 
Question  14 
Han aplicado las CE medidas anti-elusión contra  terceros países y qué procedimiento se utiliza para 
comprobar que se están anulando los efectos correctivos de un derecho antidumping ? 
 
Answer  
Yes, the EC has applied anti-circumvention measures against third countries. 
 
The procedure to be followed is set out in Article  13 of the basic anti-dumping regulation. According 
to this provision, an investigation shall be initiate d on the initiative of the Commission or at the request 
of a Member State or any interested party on the b asis of sufficient evidence, regarding factors set out 
in paragraph 1 of Article 13 of the basic an ti-dumping regulation. That  paragraph  defines 
circumvention as "a change in the pattern of tr ade between third countries and the EC or between 
individual companies in the country subject to measures and the EC, which stems from a practice, 
process or work for which there is insufficient due  cause or economic justification other than the 
imposition of the duty, and where there is evidence of in jury or that the remedial effects of the duty are 
being undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities of the like product, and where there is 
evidence of dumping in relation to the normal valu es previously established for the like product, if 
necessary in accordance with the provisions of Article 2. 
 
The initiation, which has to be decided within 45 da ys after the request has been lodged, falls within 
the exclusive competence of the European Commission. The Eu ropean Commission is, however, 
required to consult the Advisory committee pursu ant to Article 15 of the basic anti-dumping 
regulation. Investigations must be carried out by the European Commission, within nine months. If the 
facts finally ascertained justify an extension of  measures, the European Commission will make a 
proposal, after consultation of the Advisory Comm ittee, to the European Council. The European 
Council finally adopts the proposal unless it decides by a simple majority to reject the proposal  
 
OBSTÁCULOS TÉCNICOS AL COMERCIO (OTC) 
 En el párrafo 48 Informe la Secretaría que “en las ce no se ha logrado la plena armonización de las 
normas y los reglamentos técnicos.  Los productos introducidos en el mercado de un estado miembro 
deben cumplir, cuando corresponda, la legislación naciona l y la legislación comunitaria pertinentes;  el 
cumplimiento se determina mediante procedim ientos de evaluación de la conformidad.” 
 Question 15 Al respecto, solicitamos nos informen si el alcance de la legislación comunitaria en el tema de normas 
y reglamentos técnicos, así como las relacionadas con medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias,  es más 
restrictiva que las  disposiciones de  legislación de cada estado miembro?   
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 343 
 
 
 Answer  
In the field of goods EC legislation is, in principle, no more restrictive than legislative provisions of the 
Member States. In both cases the provisions of the TBT agreement Article 2.2 apply.  
Question 16 
El cumplimiento de lo dispuesto en los reglamentos  técnicos comunitarios, podría ser suficiente para 
que se permita el ingreso de productos a los estados  y no imponer así mayores obstáculos al comercio, 
habida cuenta de la existencia de tantas no rmativas y reglamentos técnicos como estados 
pertenecientes a las comunidades.  lo que se cumple para ingresar a un estado no es suficiente para 
ingresar a otro? 
 
Answer  
The principle of mutual recognition in the internal ma rket for goods within the eu applies to products 
that are lawfully marketed in one member state. this  means that the principle also applies to products 
manufactured in a third country and that are lawfu lly marketed in a member state (see article 24 ec 
treaty). In addition please refer to the more specific answers below.  
 En párrafo 50 se comenta que en las  materias del otc no  armonizadas, los estados miembros pueden 
legislar para aumentar la transparencia y están obligados a notificar los proyectos de normas a los 
organismos comunitarios de normalización y los pr oyectos de reglamentos técnicos a la Comisión 
Europea.  
 
Por su parte, el párrafo 52 contiene informaci ón sobre las notificaciones que realizaron los Estados 
Miembros y la comisión europea a la secretaría de  la omc en desarrollo de las disposiciones del 
acuerdo otc. sobre el particular, colombia está interesada en conocer si:   Question  17 
Las Comunidades Europeas y  los países miembros  han notificado a la OMC todos los  reglamentos 
técnicos vigentes? 
 
Answer  
The European Commission is vigilant that all propo sed technical regulations at EC level which fulfil 
the conditions of Article 2.9.2 are timely notif ied to the WTO Members via the Secretariat in 
accordance with the TBT Ag reement. The EC Member States are responsible to comply with the 
transparency obligations regarding thei r national technical regulations.    
 
Question  18 
Existe un inventario de reglamentos técnicos vige ntes en las Comunidades Europeas y en los países 
miembros? 
 
Answer  
All legislation of the EC is published in the Offici al Journal which is available on-line at http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/  . There is a search function by classification heading at http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/RECH_repertoire.do  
 The publication of legislation in the Member States falls within their own competence. Since Member States are obliged to notify any technical regulations  at a draft stage pursuant to Directive 98/34/EC, a 
large number of technical regulations (dra fts and final texts) are available at  
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/tris/
  
 
Question  19 
Para cuándo tienen previsto las Comunidades Europeas lograr la plena armonización de sus normas y 
reglamentos técnicos?  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 344  
 
 Answer  
Harmonised legislation allows new EC  laws to be introduced with detailed rules that apply across the 
EC and therefore replace diverging national rules. Th is principle has been applied successfully within 
the EC and has been one of the main mechanisms  used to create the in ternal market for goods. 
However, “full” harmonisation of European regulati ons is not really a realistic goal, and there is 
therefore no specific target date for this. There are fi elds in which harmonisation is not even a desirable 
goal. Harmonised legislation is made on a case by case basis depending on the need for adopting 
European legislation, as well as taking into account th e principle of subsidiarity (Article 5 of the EC 
Treaty).  
In a similar way, the development of standards with in the EC will not result in “full” harmonization. 
Standardisation is a voluntary process based on consensus amongst different economic actors 
(industry, SMEs, consumers, workers, public author ities, etc). It is carried out by independent 
standards bodies, acting at national and European level.  
 
Question  20 
Qué porcentaje de reglamentos técnicos en la s Comunidades Europeas están basados en normas 
técnicas internacionales? 
 
Answer  
According to the European Standardisation system , the European standards are voluntary technical 
documents which are developed by the European Sta ndardisation Organisations over which none of the 
EC institutions has any direct influence. One of the main objectives of the European Standardisation 
Organisations, which is also in line with the Eu ropean Communities policy, is to align European 
standards with international standards whenever po ssible and promote interna tional standardisation as 
a tool for international cooperation.   
The Vienna and Dresden Agreements between CE N and ISO and CENELEC and IEC respectively, 
have proved to be very efficient instruments for coordination between the European and international 
arena in the standardisation field. As a result of these Agreements, roughly 80% of the CENELEC 
standards are identical with IEC standards and 35% of  CEN standards are identical with ISO standards.  
 For more detailed information, the EC recommends  Colombia to visit the following websites:  
http://www.cen.eu/cenorm/index.htm
 (CEN), http://www.cenelec.org/Cenelec/Homepage.htm  
(CENELEC) and http://www.etsi.org/  (ETSI) 
 
Question  21 
Las Comunidades Europeas realizan estudios de im pacto en el comercio cuando elaboran sus 
reglamentos técnicos?  
Answer  
The EC is implementing a package of measures whic h fall under the heading of "Better Regulation". 
Included in these measures, there are rules on impact assessments and minimum consultation standards, which must be adhered to whenever  new EC  legislation is being proposed.  
 
A) On impact assessments the main questions that are addressed are:  What is the problem the proposal is expected to tackle? What are the objectives? What main policy options are available?  
What are the likely economic, environmental and social impacts of the identified options; and 
What are their advantages, disadvantages and implied trade-offs? B) The European Commission has also established a set of General principles and minimum standards 
for consultation . The aim of these standards is to st reamline and improve the Commission's 
consultation practices and to make them more tran sparent.  For example, they will help ensure:  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 345 
 
 
 That the consultations have a clear content;  
That all interested parties - including from non-EU countries - have an opportunity to express their opinions; That the consultations are made widely known (e.g . through publicity campaigns and a "single access 
point" on our web-site);  
 
Such consultations are without prejudice to the notif ication of proposed technical regulations under the 
TBT agreement. Comments received from third countri es and interested parties within this framework 
are taken into account in the legislative process.  
 
Question  22 
Son tenidas en cuenta por las Comunidades Europe as las observaciones que presenta un país sobre un 
proyecto de reglamento técnico al momento de expedir lo? Cuál es el procedimiento para trabajar las 
observaciones comunitariamente? Que sucede si un  Estado miembro no está de acuerdo con las 
observaciones formuladas por un tercero? 
 
Answer  
All comments which are submitted by WTO Member s under the framework of the TBT notification 
procedure are transmitted to the responsible services of  the European Commission so that they can be 
taken into account before adoption of the definitiv e text. If necessary, the other institutions (Council, 
Parliament) are informed. The EC replies to all comments duly submitted regarding a notified EC text 
by stating to which extent these comments have b een taken into account and, if not, explaining the 
reasons why.  
 
Question23. Se ha aplicado el Plan de Acción para la Normalización Europea en lo relativo a la 
incorporación de normas internacionales en el marco de la CE? 
 
Answer 
One of the three main areas for action identified by  the Action Plan for European Standardisation 
which aims to implement the European Standardisa tion policy at operational level is to reinforce the 
role of international standardisation as a tool to pr omote international cooperation. In order to achieve 
this objective, the Action Plan includes a series of actions which recommend the use of voluntary 
international standards: 
 
to promote to our trading partners the use  of th e international model for technical harmonisation via 
the use of international standards which w as recommended by the United Nations Economic 
Commission for Europe (UN/ECE), 
to promote the adoption of international standards as European ones (if they fit to European needs) and 
their uniform transposition in the EU/EFTA countries, to increase the support to European stakeholders in orde r to facilitate their part icipation in international 
standardisation, to further improve the current European policy in vi ew of increasing need for international standards 
and taking into account European needs where inte rnational standards are used in support of EU 
policies, 
to support regulatory cooperation b ased on the use of international standa rd in all bilateral agreements.  
 As a result, the Action Plan demonstrates the EC co mmitment to an increased r ecourse to international 
standards -either in support of legi slation or even as a replacement to it - and to extend their use in 
areas such as transport, security, energy, ICT and environment. 
Question  24. Puede un país miembro celebrar acuerdos de reconocimiento mutuo sobre algún 
producto con un país no miembro? 
 
Answer  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 346  
 
 In principle, yes. 
 
Question  25. Existen en la actualidad organismos de a creditación, certificación  y/o laboratorios, de 
carácter comunitario? En caso a firmativo, ¿Cuáles son los requisitos, trámite y procedimiento para 
celebrar acuerdos de reconocimiento mutuo ent re estos y un organismo de un país no miembro? 
 
Answer  
Since all conformity assessment bodies, including accreditation bodies, certification bodies and test 
laboratories are located in the territory of a Member State, they are fundamentally national in character. 
However, taking the example of notified bodies,  these national bodies are designated to perform 
conformity assessment procedures for goods and services at pan-European level and in this sense they 
have an EC character. In the field of accreditati on, European Co-operation for Accreditation (EA) is 
the European network of nationally recognised  accreditation bodies based in the European 
geographical area. For further information on EA  and on its MLA please refer to the following 
website: http://www.european-accreditation.org
 
 Question  26. Podrían señalar el link a través del cual  se puede acceder a la información sobre 
reglamentos técnicos comunitarios en la página Web de las Comunidades Europeas? 
 
Answer  
Please consult the following link:  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
  
 Question  27.Existe un trato especial y diferenciado para países en desarrollo en la Propuesta de 
Reglamento del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, rel ativo al registro, la evaluación, la autorización 
y la restricción de las sustancias y preparados químicos (REACH)?  
Answer  The EC recently notified REACH Regulati on No 1907/2006 under the WTO/TBT Agreement 
(G/TBT/N/EEC/52/Add.3). The Regulation will enter into  force on 1 June 2007. The EC would like to 
note that REACH experts will be present at th e next TBT Committee meeting on 21-22 March to 
present the adopted REACH Regulation.  MEDIDAS SANITARIAS Y FITOSANITARIAS (MSF)  
El párrafo 54 señala que el régimen común en mate ria sanitaria y fitosanitaria tiene por objeto, entre 
otros, mantener la legislación comunitaria en materia sanitaria y fitosanitaria se prevé una Política 
Comunitaria de Sanidad Animal que es taba en curso de examen en octubre de 2006. Por su parte, en el 
párrafo 55 se expresa que la AESA (Autoridad Eur opea de Seguridad Alimentaria) sigue siendo la 
principal institución encargada del análisis científic o de todas las cuestiones sanitarias y fitosanitarias a 
nivel comunitario y que pretende ampliar las comisi ones científicas para incluir expertos en diversas 
esferas fitosanitarias.   
Question  28. Se basan efectivamente las me didas adoptadas por las CE en los resultados científicos 
obtenidos por los organismos internacionales de ref erencia y AESA o se apartan de estos? De ser así, 
¿Podrían las CE explicar las razones para esto y el sustento legal sino se basan en los análisis de 
riesgo conforme establece el Acuerdo sobre MSF de la OMC?   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 347 
 
 
 Answer  
Yes, all the measures adopted by the EC are always based on scientific advice provided by the 
international setting bodies mentione d in the SPS Agreement or by EFSA. 
 
Question  29.  Teniendo en cuenta que la AESA sigue siendo la institución encargada del análisis 
científico de las cuestiones sanitarias y fitosanitari as a nivel comunitario, centrada en la evaluación 
de riesgos, como se compatibilizará la actividad de esta Agencia con las actividades de la Comisión y 
de los Estados miembros quienes son los responsables de  la gestión de riesgos y el funcionamiento de 
los sistemas de control alimentario? 
 
Answer  
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Par liament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 
laying down the general principles and requirement s of food law, establishing the European Food 
Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matte rs of food safety, in article 3 clearly gives the 
definitions of "risk analysis" "risk assessment" "risk management" and "risk communication". In 
Chapter III it details the tasks of the EFSA, its cooperation with the EC and the participation of the 
bodies of the Member States. The mission of EFSA is perfectly complementary with the function of the EC and the Member States. 
 
Question  30. Colombia desea conocer si la CE tiene p revista la ampliación de sus programas de 
asistencia técnica a los países en desarrollo, par a adecuar su capacidad institucional a las nuevas 
exigencias fitosanitarias que se deriven de los estudios y los conceptos emitidos por las nuevas 
comisiones científicas de la AESA.  
En consonancia con lo anterior, las CE vienen tr abajando en la modificación del Reglamento 258 de 
1997, sobre los nuevos alimentos.  
Answer  
According to the study sent last year to the WTO Secretariat (document G/SPS/GEN/669, dated 30 
March 2006) the EC has a strong commitment to assist countries and regions to improve their food safety situation and meet SPS-related standards. In th is inventory of the projects it is highlighted the 
EC support to the OIE, IPPC, CODEX and the STDF. 
 
Question  31. Toma la CE en consideración la informaci ón técnica y científica que pueden suministrar 
los demás países miembros, generalmente PED y PM A, y el historial de consumo seguro en sus 
lugares de origen, para la elaboración de los resp ectivos análisis de riesgo que sustenten las 
exigencias que deben cumplir los nuevos alimentos?    
Answer  
The EC is currently considering a major review of  the Novel Food Regulation, including of the risk 
assessment procedures for "products of biological diversity". The EC accept all the technical and 
scientific information that WTO members send related to the activities under study. Furthermore, in the 
SPS notification procedure, the EC always open a comme nt period to allow interested countries to send 
the information they consider relevant  in order to be taken into account. 
 
Question  32. Qué acciones adelantan las CE para evitar que estas exigencias no representen una 
restricción o un mecanismo de discriminación a las exportaciones de los PED y los PMA? 
Answer  
As the world's largest importer of fruits and vege tables, the EC's record of compliance with the 
principles of free and fair trade with developi ng countries in food products is without equal. 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 348  
 
 Question  33.  En qué casos particulares las CE han aplicado el trato especial y diferenciando a los 
PED conforme lo establece el artículo 10 del Acuer do MSF  para la implementación de MSF en los 
países exportadores y mediante cuál(es) modalidad(es), de tal manera que les permita cumplir con los 
niveles adecuados de protección exigidos por las CE?   
Answer  
The EC always applies the SDT to all developing co untries whenever the EC level of protection allows 
for this. This means that several exceptions have  been tailor-made tackling specific problems in the 
countries concerned without jeopardisin g the EC level of protection.  
Methods used:  - time-limited exceptions, upon substantiated request the EC can grant time-limited exceptions upon 
condition that the EC level of protection is maintained 
- where no particular legislation exists related to th e type of product, a substa ntiated request (scientific 
risk assessment) may be taken into account (e.g. SO
2 in cinnamon) 
- acceptance of measures as offering an equivalent leve l of protection, even though they are not to the 
same requirements as apply in the EC. 
- the application of SDT is by definition a bilateral issue that needs be assessed ad hoc. 
 
En el párrafo 57, menciona la S ecretaría que para ayudar a sus exportadores las CE han establecido una 
base de datos sobre MSF de terceros países "con efect os de distorsión del comercio". Tales distorsiones 
del comercio se refieren, entre otras cuestiones, a encefalopatía espongiforme bovina, influenza aviar 
altamente patógena, certificación, fiebre aftosa, aditi vos alimentarios, peste porcina clásica y lista de 
establecimientos.  
 
Question 34 . No obstante la explicación dada, Colombia  desea conocer la interpretación que las 
Comunidades Europeas le dan a la frase “efectos de distorsión del comercio”, principalmente en 
relación con el Acuerdo MSF de la OMC. 
 
Answer  
In recent years, the use by third countries of food safety, animal and plant health issues as a trade 
barrier for imports has increased considerably. Gove rnments frequently go beyond what is needed for 
health protection and use sanitary and phytosanitar y restrictions to shield domestic producers of 
agricultural products from economic competition. Europ ean exporters are frequently the victim of such 
distortion of trade.  
 
CONTRATACIÓN PÚBLICA 
 
En el párrafo 62 se indica que las nuevas direc tivas introdujeron cambios en varios temas.  
 Question 35.  Agradecemos ampliar la información sobre el  tema: "vi) aclaraciones sobre el trato de 
cuestiones sociales y ambientales". 
 
Answer  
Recitals of the new directives explain in detail the rationale, as well as the content, of the new 
provisions relating to social or environmental issues in public procurement. For instance, recital 5 of 
Directive EC/2004/18 clarifies how public entities can c ontribute to the protection of the environment 
and the promotion of sustainable development. Recita l 28 of the same directive further explains that 
employment and occupation are key elements in guaranteeing equal opportunities for all and contribute 
to integration in the society. Lastly, recital 46 pr ovides explanation on the rules applicable to award 
criteria relating to social or environmental requirements. 
 The text of the directive can be found at the following website: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/ publicprocurement/legislation_en.htm
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 349 
 
 
 In addition, a handbook on environm ental issues in Procurement has been published by the European 
Commission services. Please refer to the following website: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/guidelines.htm#handbook
. 
 El párrafo 64 menciona que en las nuevas directivas, las CE otorgan trato no discriminatorio a los 
proveedores en el ámbito comunitario.  
 
Question 36.  Agradecemos aclarar si el concepto de no discriminación establecido en las nuevas 
directivas,  cubre a los proveedores extranjeros ademá s de los proveedores de la CE.  Si no es así, 
apreciamos una explicación de cuáles condiciones so n diferentes para un proveedor extranjero de un 
país con el que la CE no ha suscrito un acuerdo de contratación pública.   
El párrafo 65 se refiere a los contratos que pueden quedar exentos del proced imiento establecido en la 
Directiva 2004/17.   Answer  
Suppliers established in third countries have the righ t to participate and are granted national treatment 
in EC tendering procedures if an international agreem ent in the field of public procurement grants them 
the right to do so (Government Procurement Agreemen t or bilateral agreements with the EC). In case 
there is no such an agreement or the agreement does not apply to the procurement in question, 
suppliers of third countries have no legal right to participate.  Question 37 Entendemos que las empresas de servicios públicos que hacen parte de los sectores consignados en la 
directiva mencionada, los cuales están en compet encia abierta, dado que no hay restricciones al 
acceso, no están obligadas a aplicar la Directiva 2004/17 en sus contratos. De esta forma, los 
contratos se realizan de acuerdo con las normas del derecho privado. Si no es así, por favor explicar. 
 
Answer  
This understanding is correct. More inform ation can be found at the following website : 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/ publicprocurement/legislation_en.htm
 
 Medidas que afectan a la producción y el comercio  Derechos de propiedad Intelectual 
 
En el párrafo 115 el Informe de la Secretaría comenta que en 2005 la Comisión adoptó un informe 
sobre patentes relacionadas con secuencias de gen es y sobre la patentabilidad de invenciones 
relacionadas con células madre y que la Comisi ón no ha adoptado una posic ión con respecto a las 
interpretaciones de los Estados miembros sobre el tipo preferible de protección para las secuencias de 
genes, ni tampoco ha adoptado una posición defin itiva sobre la patentabilidad de las células madre 
embrionarias. 
 
Question 38.  Cuándo la Comisión proyecta considerar nueva mente el tema descrito con el fin de 
adoptar alguna posición uniforme respecto del paten tamiento de células madre pluripotentes? 
 
Answer  
As the Commission stated in its last report on Direc tive 98/44/EC, in the light of the situation in the 
Member States as regards the acceptability of researc h relating to human embryonic stem cells, the 
European Commission continues to  monitor developments taking into account both the ethical aspects 
and the potential impact on competitiveness. National traditions on the protection of the human embryo 
and the related moral exclusion on patentability of uses of the human  embryo will be subject to a 
particular attention. The developments in the case concerning human embryonic stem cells (G2/06) WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 350  
 
 pending before the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) will be followed as 
part of the European Commission's monitoring activities. 
 
Question 39.  Cuáles son los medios de protección que han  sido considerados para las secuencias de 
genes? 
 
Answer  
Discoveries, which do not extend human ability, but only human knowledge, are by their very nature 
not patentable. This is certainly the case for the mere sequencing of  a genome which belongs to the 
area of discovery and for that reason alone cannot be the subject of patent protection. It is different, 
however, if a DNA sequence is released from its  natural surroundings by means of a technical 
procedure and is made available for the first time to a commercial application. Here there is a step 
taken from knowing to being able. Such a gene is ne w in the patent sense and therefore patentable, if it 
was not previously accessible to the public as such , and thus technically was not available.  
The Directive 98/44/EC therefore provides that inve ntions based, on or comprising of, gene sequences 
or partial gene sequences can be  patented provided that they satisfy the normal criteria for any 
invention, namely that they are novel, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial 
application. In this last respect, the Directive took account of some of the controversy surrounding 
some of the earlier patent applications for gene se quences that were filed and indeed granted before the 
Directive was agreed. In particular the Directive ma kes clear that patents should not be granted where 
the application does not include specific reference to  the industrial application of the gene sequence. 
 En el párrafo 114, 121 y 122, se comenta que la Of icina Comunitaria de Obtenciones Vegetales recibió 
una gran mayoría de solicitudes y los títulos correspondía a obtenciones or namentales y sobre la 
observancia de los DPI, así como el aumento de los artículos falsificados y pirata decomisados en las 
fronteras de las CE. 
Colombia desea saber si, 
 
Question 40. Dentro de las medidas de observancia adopt adas o por adoptar para la protección de 
los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual, existe algún tipo de medidas que permitan a la autoridad 
aduanera la suspensión de operaciones en frontera  que impliquen una infracción a los Derechos de 
Obtentor de Nuevas Variedades Vegetales, o de cualquier otro modo, que permitan proteger este tipo de derechos en las fronteras? 
 
Answer  
A system for the protection of plant variety rights has been established by Community legislation 
(Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94on Community Plant Variety Rights (OJNo L 227 of 19.1994). 
The system allows intellectual property rights, va lid throughout the EC, to be granted for plant 
varieties. The Community plant variety right (CPVR) is  a form of intellectual property akin to a patent. 
The Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) in Angers  (France) implements and applies this scheme. 
On the basis of one application to the CPVO, a br eeder may be granted a single intellectual property 
right operative throughout the European Community.  
 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1891/2004 of 21 October 2004 (OJNo L 328,30.10.2004) lays down 
provisions for the implementation of Council Re gulation(EC)No 1383/2003 concerning customs action 
against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights (including Communty Plant 
Variety Rights) and the measures to be taken agai nst goods found to have infringed such rights. 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 351 
 
 
 CAPITULO IV. POLITICAS COMERCIALES POR SECTORES 
AGRICULTURA Y ACTIVIDADES CONEXAS 
 
En el párrafo 8  se indica que en el marco de la re forma de la PAC iniciada en 2003, las CE en 2006 
empezaron a introducir reformas en algunos sectores , orientadas a reducir las subvenciones causantes 
de distorsión del comercio.  
 En el caso del algodón, se estableció que “el 65% de las subvenciones de las CE al algodón se 
disociarán de la producción y se pagarán como sosten imiento de los ingresos de los agricultores (pagos 
del compartimento verde) y el 35% se destinará a los productores como ayuda por hectárea cultivada 
con algodón (pagos del compartimento azul)”.  
 
Question 41.  Cómo garantizan las CE que esta recomposic ión de apoyos de una caja a otra no sigue 
causando efectos distorsionantes  sobre la producción y el comercio?  
Answer  The EC has eliminated the most trade distorti ng support for cotton (amber) and now 65% of the 
payment has no or limited trade distorting effect (g reen). The remaining part, 35% of support is now 
blue box and is therefore less trade-distorting than the previous programme. Furthermore, there are no import duties applied to imports of cotton and nor is  there any export subsidise on cotton exports.  
 
En el párrafo 9 de la página 102, se presentan los elem entos claves de la reforma de la PAC iniciada en 
2003.  Dentro de ellos, el régimen de pago único desvinculado de los precios y la producción es uno de 
los más importantes. Sin embargo, también se señal a que “los Estados miembr os también pueden optar 
por mantener un vínculo limitado entre los pa gos y la producción ("disociación parcial")”.  
 Question 42. Bajo este escenario en el que siguen existie ndo los dos sistemas, ¿cuál es el mecanismo 
aplicado por las CE para asegurar la condición de  desvinculación parcial entre los pagos y la 
producción?, ¿en qué consisten las propuestas de ref orma para los subsectores del vino y los frutos, 
legumbres y hortalizas?  Answer  
The 2003 CAP reform allows for a limited possib ility of partially coupled payments. There is no 
commitment for replacing the partially decoupled pa yment with fully decoupled payments. However, 
Member States may retain a proportion of product-speci fic direct aids in their existing form, notably 
where they believe there may be disturbance to ag ricultural markets or abandonment of production by 
moving to the SPS. Member States may choose between several options, at nati onal or regional level, 
but only under well-defined conditions and within clear  limits. Whether to partially decouple some of 
the payment is entirely a choice of the individual Member States. 
Fruit and vegetable production accounts for 3.1 percen t of the EC agriculture budget and 17 percent of 
total EC agricultural production. In its propo sal, the European Comm ission suggests Producer 
Organisations (PO) to gain greater flexibility and th eir rules to be simplified.  Crisis Management will 
be organised through Producer Organisations.  
As regards the inclusion of fruit and vegetables in  the Single Payment Scheme, the EC would like to 
note that land covered by fruit and vegetables will  be eligible for payment entitlements under the 
decoupled aid scheme which applies in other farm s ectors.  As regards environmental measures, we 
note that the inclusion of F&V in the SPS means th at Cross Compliance will be compulsory for those 
farmers receiving direct payments.  
As regards trade with third countries, and given th at world trade talks are still ongoing, the proposal 
does not touch on the current legal framework on exte rnal trade. However, it is proposed that export 
refunds shall be abolished.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 352  
 
 It should be noted that the abolition of the processing aids will contribute significantly to 
simplification, as will do the new rules on POs and the abolition of export refunds. Simplification will 
be further enhanced by harmonising the basic pr inciples relating to marketing standards for all 
agricultural products, including F&V. 
The proposal will need to be adopted by the Counc il of Ministers and changes may occur. For more 
details about the reform plea se check the Europa website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/ capreform/fruitveg/index_en.htm
.  
On 22 June, 2006, the European Commission pub lished a Communication on reform of the EC’s 
Common Market Organisation for wine, which during the second half of 2006 has been discussed with 
Member States and consulted with stakeholders . A proposal from the European Commission for a 
reform of the wine sector is, therefore, expected by the second semester of 2007.  
 
Otras medidas utilizadas por las CE se refieren a la  “reducción obligatoria de los pagos directos 
(modulación) aplicables a las grandes explotaciones para  financiar la nueva políti ca de desarrollo rural; 
la reforma del mecanismo de intervención para los productos con desequilibrios estructurales, como la 
mantequilla, el centeno y el arroz;  el ajuste de los mecanismos de ayuda pa ra otros productos (por 
ejemplo, el trigo duro, las patatas de fécula, lo s forrajes desecados y los frutos de cáscara) y un 
mecanismo de disciplina financiera que garantiza que los gastos no sobrepasen el presupuesto para la 
reforma, fijado hasta 2013”.   Question 43. De acuerdo con lo anterior, ¿cómo se ha venido cumpliendo esta reducción de los pagos 
directos y cómo se garantiza que estos apoyos al desarrollo rural no son distorsionantes?, ¿qué entienden las CE por productos con desequilibrios est ructurales y en qué consiste la reforma del 
mecanismo de intervención?, ¿en qué consiste el ajuste del mecanismo de  ayuda para otros productos 
como el trigo duro, las patatas de fécula, los forrajes desecados y los frutos de cáscara? 
 
Answer  
Modulation provides a means to ensu re the transfer of CAP funds fro m direct aids to farmers and 
market measures to rural development measures. Howe ver, modulations will apply to direct payments 
up to an amount of €5000 per farm.  The Rural Development policy 2007-2013 itself will focus on 
three areas in line with the three thematic axes laid down in the new rura l development regulation: 
improving competitiveness for farming and forestry ; environment and countryside; improving quality 
of life and diversification of the rural economy. A single European Agricultural Fund for Rural development has been set up with a total budget of EUR77.7 Billion over the period 2007-2013. The 
Member States have made their individual rural development programmes with due respect to the 
overall guidelines. At this stage in the programming period it is not possible to indicate exactly what 
amount will be spend under each measure of the individual axes of the Rural Development 
Programmes. The Rural Development programmes needs to be approved by the Commission. The 
Member States have flexibility on how they want to prioritise under each of the axes. The rural 
development support is green box support and theref ore has no or limited trade distorting effects. 
 
Cereals intervention are retained but monthly incr ements are reduced by 50%. Rye is excluded from 
the intervention system. Intervention buying for rice c ontinues but the intervention price will be cut by 
50% to € 150/tonne. Monthly increments to the in tervention price will no longer apply. Intervention 
buying for rice continues. Intervention will be limited to 75 000 tonnes per year.  
Under the Single Payment Scheme, Member States may apply a number of options, at national or 
regional level but only under well-define d conditions and within clear limits.  
For cereals and other arable crops for example Member  States may retain 25% of the arable component 
of the SPS as coupled per hectare payments. The aid supplement for durum wheat in traditional 
production zones will be paid independently from production (within national and regional base areas  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 353 
 
 
 established for this production in the six producer c ountries). Member States may decide to keep 40 % 
linked to production. The specific aid for other regi ons where durum wheat is supported currently set at 
EUR 139.5/hectare will be phased out. For peas, field beans and sweet lupins the amount of aid is EUR 
55.57/hectare. It will be paid within the limits  of a new maximum guaranteed area of 1.6 million 
hectares. If the area is exceeded, the aid is reduced  proportionally. The existing regime, applying to 
lentils, chick peas and vetches, remains unchanged fo r 2004/05. Thereafter it will be integrated in the 
SPS.  The supplementary payment for drying aids is in creased from EUR 19/hectar e to EUR 24/hectare. 
For beef Member States may keep up to 100% of  the suckler cow premium and up to 40% of the 
slaughter premium coupled. There are though other opti ons available.  For sheep and goat 50% of the 
premia can be granted as coupled payments.  
 
A more thorough description of the Single Payment Scheme is available at the European Commission 
website:  http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets/sfp/index_en.htm
 
 Question 44. Con base en lo establecido en el párrafo 16 ¿cuál es el cumplimiento que se ha venido 
dando al reglamento sobre la ayuda de “de minimis”? y ¿cómo se vincula con el compromiso de “de minimis” establecido en el Acuerdo so bre la Agricultura en la OMC?  
 
Answer  
There is a "de minimis", which should not be confu sed with the "de minimis"  in relation to the WTO 
rules, regulation under which Member States may gr ant aid which, provided specific requirements are 
met, is not regarded as State aid as long as a certain ceiling is not exceeded.  These rules are 
compatible with the EC's international obligati ons, in particular the WTO Agreement on Agriculture . 
 
Con relación a los métodos de asignación de continge ntes arancelarios señalados  en el párrafo 22:  
 
Question 45. A qué productos se aplica el método de  asignación mixta y en qué proporción? 
 
Answer  
A complete list of all the tariff quotas and all pr oducts included would be too voluminous to include 
here. Furthermore, instead of using mixed alloca tion it would be more correct to use the wording 
"licences on demand" as specified in the EC notifications to the WTO.  
De acuerdo con lo indicado en el párrafo 24, sobre la necesidad de las CE de mantener subvenciones 
para la exportación de algunos excedentes y para ciertos productos agrícolas elaborados: 
 
Question 46. Cuál es el nivel de subvención a la exportación que consideran las CE como 
indispensables y para qué productos? 
 
Answer  
The EC does not have such a predetermined level of  appropriate needs for export subsidies. However, 
and what is more important, is that the EC has offered to eliminate all its export subsidies under 
condition that all export measures with equivalent effect be eliminated.  
 
Para el caso de los cereales, definido en el párrafo 29: 
Question 47. Cómo opera el precio de intervención para cada producto? 
 
Answer  
Intervention agencies designated by Member States  buy in common wheat or durum wheat, barley, 
maize and sorghum at the intervention price. This  price can vary depending on the product quality. The WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 354  
 
 periods of intervention are from 1 August to 30  April for Greece, Spain and Portugal, from 1 
December to 30 June for Sweden and from 1 Novemb er to 15 May for the other Member States. In 
special circumstances, in particular where the market  price falls below the intervention price on part of 
the Community market, the use of intervention can be decided at Community level. A more detailed 
description of the intervention system is provided for in Article 4 of Council Regulation 1783/2003 
available at this website: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUr iServ.do?uri=CELEX:32003R1784:ES:HTML  
 Con relación a la reforma al régimen del azúcar expresado en el párrafo 35 y 36: 
 
Question 48. Cuándo empezó a operar esta reforma? 
 
Answer  
The sugar reform was adopted in 2006 and it has been  applied since July 2006. The key components of 
the reform are a 36 percent cut in the guaranteed mi nimum sugar price, and a restructuring fund to 
encourage uncompetitive sugar producers to leave the industry. As a result EC exports is expected to 
fall dramatically, allowing the EC to respect its WTO commitments and EC production is expected to 
fall by between 6 and 7 million tonnes. Detailed info rmation is available on the European Commission 
website: http://ec.europa.eu/agricu lture/capreform/sugar/index_en.htm
 
 
Question 49. Cómo se han venido cumpliendo las reducciones en el precio de referencia definidas en 
los periodos de tiempo de 2006/07 y como se prevé realiz arlas en el período  2009/10 para asegurar 
un equilibrio sostenible en el mercado? 
 
Answer  
As indicated above the EC sugar production is predic ted to significantly decline while EC exports will 
be reduced and imports increase. From the 2009 onw ards the Least Developed Countries will have 
duty free and quota free access to the EC market for sugar. The ACP countries have export sugar 
quotas to the EC under the Cotonou Agreement. The reference prices for white sugar and raw sugar 
and the minimum price for sugar beet have been set  for the 2006/07 to 2009/10 marketing years. For 
white sugar, the price is set at: EUR 631.90 per tonne for the 2006/07 and 2007/08 marketing years;  
EUR 541.50 per tonne for the 2008/09 marketing year; EUR 404.40 per tonne as from the 2009/10 marketing year onwards. For raw sugar, the refere nce price is set at: EUR 496.80 per tonne for the 
2006/07 and 2007/08 marketing years; EUR 448.80 pe r tonne for the 2008/09 marketing year; EUR 
335.20 per tonne as from the 2009/10 marketing year onwards.   Question 50. Cómo opera el “sistema de almacenamiento pr ivado como red de seguridad en caso de 
que el precio del mercado baje a un nivel inferior al precio de referencia”? y ¿bajo qué modalidad es notificado a la OMC? 
 
Answer  
Private storage aid for white sugar may be granted to undertakings which are allocated a sugar quota if 
the market price falls below the reference price for a representative period and if it is likely to remain at 
this level. Up until the 2010 marketing year, th e intervention agency ap pointed by each sugar-
producing Member State will buy in any quantity of  white sugar or raw sugar offered to it, under 
certain conditions and up to a total quantity of 600.00 0 tonnes per marketing year. The sugar must have 
been produced under quota and manufactured from beet or cane harvested in the EC. In addition, it 
must have formed the subject of a storage contr act concluded between the seller and the intervention 
agency. The EC notifications for the period under which the Single Payment Scheme has applied are 
under preparation.  
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 355 
 
 
 En el documento de la Secretaría no se hace alus ión al banano, producto de especial interés para 
Colombia. El acceso al mercado europeo de este producto procedente de los países latinoamericanos 
sigue siendo restrictivo y discriminatorio, considerando el contingente arancelario preferencial de 775.000 Ton libre de arancel otorgado a los países AC P, frente al arancel único de 176 EUR/Ton para 
los países NMF, adoptado a partir del 1° de enero de 2006.   
 
Question 51  
De acuerdo con lo anterior, ¿ tienen las CE previstas accion es concretas para equilibrar las 
condiciones de acceso para los países NMF que  son grandes exportadores como Colombia? 
 
Answer  
The EC introduced an applied tariff of 176€/t on im ports of bananas of MFN origin following its 
commitment to move on 1 January 2006 from the fo rmer TRQ system to a tariff-only regime while 
maintaining market access for MFN suppliers. It is worth noting that the TRQ regime to be replaced 
consisted in an in-quota tariff of 75€/t and an out -of-quota tariff of 680€/t. The new regime provides 
for unlimited MFN access to the EC market, without prejudice to the right of the EC to establish a 
quantitative limit to the preference granted for ACP bananas.  The EC has always been and remains committed to ma intaining access to the EC market for all banana 
supplying countries.  To do so, the EC agreed to a monitoring process on the impact of this applied 
tariff and to continue Article XX VIII GATT negotiations with interested MFN suppliers on a possible 
agreement on a new bound tariff. Import statistics ava ilable to date confirm an increase of 10% in 
imports of bananas of MFN origin as compared to 2005.   Those data give no reason to believe that 
such access is not maintained. However, the EC continues to favour a negotiated solution with banana supp liers and, with this 
purpose in mind, the EC has maintained Article XXVIII GATT negotiations open.  
 
Question 51. bis  
En el informe de la Secretaría se indica que la s CE han consolidado en la OMC todas sus líneas 
arancelarias (Lista CXL).  Con motivo de las am pliaciones de las comunidades de 15 a 25 Estados 
miembros, y ahora a 27, ha habido cambios en los aran celes tanto consolidados como aplicados. En el 
caso del banano, las CE notificaron su intención de sustituir sus concesiones respecto de la partida 
08030019 (bananas) incluida en su Lista y a la fec ha no se ha notificado la modificación de la Listas. 
Podrían en ese sentido indicar las CE cuál es el arancel consolidado de las bananas?  
Answer  
As from 1 January 2006, the EC moved to a tariff only regime with a new applie d rate of 176€/t, which 
also takes Enlargement into account. The EC h as chosen not to conclude Article XXVIII GATT 
negotiations on a new bound rate, in the hope that a negotiated solution is still at reach. The EC would 
be ready to rebind the tariff for in 2007 as part of such negotiated solution.   
The EC considers that Article XXIV.6 negotiations in the context of Enlargement to EC25 and Article 
XXVIII negotiations on the new bound tariff have been merged. The new bound tariff will take into 
consideration Enlargement to EC10.  As regards negotiations for Enla rgement to EC27, these have just 
been opened. The EC has already recognised Ecuador  (with respect to Bulgaria) and Costa Rica (with 
respect to both Bulgaria and Romania).  
 
Otro de los mecanismos que hacen parte de la políti ca comercial de las CE y que no se menciona en el 
informe de la Secretaría es el Sistema de Pr ecios de Entrada que se aplica a algunos productos 
agrícolas. Este mecanismo que establece aranceles fijos y variables a las importaciones es uno de los 
obstáculos más importantes para el acceso al mercado europeo.  
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 356  
 
 Question 52. Teniendo en cuenta que las reducciones ar ancelarias a través de este mecanismo han 
sido limitadas en los acuerdos de libre comercio  suscritos por las CE, es de interés conocer ¿qué 
acciones concretas han previsto las CE para reducir  significativamente los aranceles aplicados bajo 
este esquema en el marco de fu turas negociaciones comerciales? 
 
Answer  
Negotiations are currently taking place in the WT O on market access, domestic support and export 
competition. The EC is committed to a successful outcome and in favour of a multilateral agreement. The EC has put forward a substantial proposal for th e DDA negotiations. It is first and foremost in 
those negotiations we should address market access. 
 
PESCA 
 
Se menciona en el párrafo 39 que en el 2004, la  flota pesquera de las CE constaba de 92.422 
embarcaciones;  6.713 pertenecían a los NEM-10, con una antigüedad media de 19 años.  Antes de la 
adhesión de los NEM-10, el número de embarcacion es y su capacidad en tonelaje y en potencia había 
disminuido, debido principalmente a la política de l as CE de reducir el exceso de capacidad de flota 
con el fin de lograr un mejor equilibrio entre el esfue rzo pesquero y los recursos pesqueros disponibles.   
 
Question 53. Podrían proporcionar información en torno al tamaño actual de la flota pesquera de las 
CE y sus planes de reducción, si los hay?.  Existe algún cronograma p revisto para tal reducción? 
 
Answer  
As regards the first question, we inform Colombia that the requested information is contained in the 
Statistical Bulletin on the EC fishing fleet. This bulle ting is available in electronic form to the general 
public on the Internet. It provides information on: 
- Composition of the fleet by fishing gear; 
- Geographical distribution of the fleet; - Evolution of the fleet's number of ve ssels, tonnage and engine power, and 
- Analysis of the fleet by age.   This information is taken directly from the EC fish ing fleet register (see he reunder), which is updated 
quarterly by the Member States themselves. This bu lletin is available on the Europa website. Please 
consult the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/manage ment_resources/fleet_management_en.htm
 
 Further detailed data (fleet size) on the requested information can be found in the Community Fishing 
Fleet Register, commonly called "Fleet Register". The Fleet Register is a database where all the fishing 
vessels flying the flag of a Member State have to be registered in accordance with Community 
legislation.  It also includes information on th e "Entry/Exit Regime" for fleet management with 
graphics showing the status of the capacity of fl eet for each country comparing with the ceiling of 
capacity defined after the introduction of Entry/Ex it Regime. The database is also available on the 
Europa website. Please consult the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleet/index.cfm
 
 
As regards the second question, Colombia should note that the European Commission publishes an 
annual report on Member States' efforts during the pr evious year to achieve a sustainable balance 
between fleet capacity and available fishing oppor tunities. The European Commission's document and 
Member States' reports are available on the Eur opa website. Please consult the following link:  
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleet/index.cfm?method=FM_Reporting.menu  
 El párrafo 44 señala que “un aspecto importante de la  política pesquera de las CE, a la luz de la 
fragilidad de las poblaciones de peces de sus aguas terr itoriales y de la excesiva capacidad de la flota,  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 357 
 
 
 sigue siendo el desarrollo de opor tunidades de pesca en otras pa rtes, ya sea mediante acuerdos 
bilaterales o, en alta mar, mediante las organizaciones regionales de pesca (ORP)”.    
Question 54. En desarrollo del Código para la Pesca R esponsable de la FAO, varias ORP vienen 
implementando medidas para el control de la P esca Ilegal No Declarada y No Documentada (IUU), 
que incluyen la adopción de medidas comerciales.  Podrían las CE explicar cómo ha sido la 
implementación de tales medidas, según corresponda,  en las diferentes ORP en las que participan? 
 
Answer  
At regional level, the EC has been playing a leading role in the setting up of new Regional Management Fisheries Organisations (RFMO's) and in the adoption by existing RFMO's of measures 
designed to combat Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing. Most measures in place to combat IUU fishing within RFMO's have been intro duced at the initiative of the EC, or with its active 
support.  Where no objections are raised, instruments (recomme ndations) adopted by a RFMO's in which the EC 
participates must be complied with by it as soon as th ey become binding under the rules of that RFO. 
To be effective against operators,  these instruments are incorporated into the EC legal order.  The 
European Commission ensures that the Member States apply the recommendations uniformly and 
effectively.   The instruments (recommendations) that have been transposed into EC law include inter alia : 
- the establishment of control and inspection schemes, 
- the adoption of port state control measures, - the obligation for vessels to be equipped with VMS, - the registration of catches, - the regulation of fishing gear, 
- specific measures targeting non-Parties vessels present in the RFMO's areas, 
- the imposition of accompanying documents for certain species to certify compliance with 
conservation and management measures, without which no commercialization is possible, - lists of vessels authorised to fish, lists of IUU- vessels identified as having engaged in IUU activities, 
- trade measures towards States non complying with relevant measures,  - regulation of transhipments at sea. 
 
Within the EC legal framework, the application of  conservation and management measures adopted by 
the RFMO's is a matter for the Member States which are required to apply them once they have been 
transposed into EC law in the same way as measures  adopted for the management of internal resources. 
For example, the same mechanisms  apply to the management of quot as as to management of quotas in 
EC waters (collection of catch data, closed season, et c.). The same applies in the case of fishing by EC 
vessels on the high seas. 
 
En el párrafo 47 se proporciona información sobre el  Instrumento Financiero de Orientación de la 
Pesca (IFOP), que será sustituido a partir de 2007 por el Fondo Europeo de la Pesca (FEP) con 
funcionamiento similar. Así mismo se relacionan lo s objetivos del   FEP y se mencionan datos sobre el 
presupuesto para el período 2007-2013.  
 
Question 55. Podría las CE ilustrar algunas de las acci ones o proyectos que se piensan adelantar con 
recursos del FEP?.  En particular, qué tipo de pro yectos en materia de explotación sostenible se 
contempla financiar? 
 
Answer  
The EFF, which succeeds the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) covering the 2000-
2006 period, will operate on a similar basis as its pr edecessor. However, it will be simpler to manage. 
It will also better target the objectives of the reform ed CFP. It will integrate better other EC policies, WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 358  
 
 such as environment and employment and follo w a stronger and more comprehensive strategic 
approach.  The EFF will re-conduct most of the measures under the FIFG. But it will also offer new and innovative measures to take account of the changing  needs of the sector. Most striking examples are 
the measures to accompany the implementation of recovery plans, the encouragement of selective 
fishing methods and the funding for local development strategies to foster the sustainable development 
of fisheries areas. Support for inland fishing and en vironmentally-friendly aquaculture has got a more 
prominent position. For the implementation of measu res, Member States will have more flexibility as 
eligibility rules are kept to the stri ct necessary at Community level. Th is will help to adjust measures 
more easily to the needs of their fishing industry.  
 Implementation of assistance will be considerably simplified. FIFG support for the fisheries sector was split up between different programmes in a Member State. In the future, a single EFF programme per 
Member State will allow to concentrate support and to  maximise the efficiency of measures. Moreover, 
the requirement to draw up a national strategic plan for the entire fisheries sector of a Member States 
will help to identify better priorities, targets and publ ic resources for attaining the identified objectives.  
 The EFF was designed as a real tool to help delive r sustainability for the fishing industry. Aid will 
promote and accompany the adjustment of fishing fleet s to available resources, particularly for those 
targeting endangered stocks. The envi ronmental dimension is also reinforced through a set of measures 
to promote selectivity and reduce the negative imp acts of fishing and aquaculture activities on the 
environment. The Fund will also dedicate more atten tion to the preservation of human resources in the 
fisheries by providing adequate answers to the ec onomic and social needs of the people employed in 
the sector.  
The EFF will contribute better to the sustainable de velopment of fisheries areas, particularly those 
which are heavily dependant on fishing, through the financing of local development strategies, 
designed and implemented by the stakeholders themselves.  For further details please refer to Council Regul ation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the 
European Fisheries Fund. Official Journal of the European Union, L223 of 15/08/2006, pp. 1 – 44. The 
above Council Regulation and furt her information on the EFF is av ailable at Europa website:  
www.europa.eu
 
 
Sector Manufacturero  
La Secretaria menciona importantes montos de ayuda estatal  que se dirigen en cerca del 65 por ciento a 
actividades manufactureras y diversos subsectores de ser vicios, el 24 por ciento a la agricultura y la 
pesca, el 9 por ciento al carbón y el 2 por ciento al transporte (cuadro III.13).  Igualmente informa en el 
Capítulo IV, que el sector manufacturero (CIIU, re visión 2, definición) sigue siendo uno de los 
principales beneficiarios de la ayuda estatal.  
Question 56. Podrían informar en que cons iste la ayuda estatal y bajo que disposiciones del Acuerdo 
de Subvenciones y Medidas Compensatorias de la  OMC  están amparados los beneficios otorgados al 
sector manufacturero?  A que Est ados miembros se destinan?  
Answer  
The WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervaili ng Measures (hereinafter ASCM) sets out in 
Article 3 that all subsidies within the meaning of Article 1 are prohibited if they are contingent upon 
export performance or contingent upon the use of  domestic over imported goods . They are deemed to 
be specific in accordance with Article 2.3 of the Ag reement. Other subsidies are actionable if certain 
conditions are fulfilled pursuant to the ASCM. A lthough, there are no provisions in the ASCM  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 359 
 
 
 "supporting" subsidies they are, however, permitted if the conditions set out in the ASCM are not met. 
The EC state aid rules do not permit export aid and it goes without saying that the EC does not grant export subsidies, insofar as these are prohibited by Article 3 of the ASCM.  Information relating to certain subsidies by indi vidual EC Member States has most recently been 
notified to the WTO in the EC's subsidy notifi cation in the year 2005 (covering the years 2003 and 
2004). This notification is available on th e WTO website under the document numbers 
G/SCM/123/EEC and G/SCM/123/EEC/Add.1 until Add.25.   To put on paper detailed information about all the st ate aids granted in the EU would require thousands 
of pages and soon become out of date. For this r eason detailed information about all state aid granted 
in the EU is available in the on-line state aid regi ster and scoreboard on the Europa website, which can 
be consulted by anyone in the world. This informa tion is updated every six months, and is considered 
by the European Commission to be a model of tr ansparency. The available statistics include the 
amount of state aids granted in each Member State and in the EC as a whole, and the breakdown by 
economic sector and aid instrument. The state aid regi ster, on the other hand, is a searchable database 
of all individual state aids notified to the European Commission.   The European Commission would point out that all state aids in the EC, with the exception of those covered by a "Block Exemption Regulation" must  be notified to the European Commission before 
being granted, and all such notified aids appear in the register; failure to notify before granting the aid 
results in the aid in question automatically bein g deemed illegal. If illegal aid is subsequently 
considered incompatible with the rules, would nor mally be ordered to be repaid. Information about 
state aids covered by a "Block Exemption Regulatio n" must be provided to the European Commission 
after the aid is granted, thus ensuring the completen ess of the statistics (such aids are covered in the 
scoreboard but not the register) 
On-line state aid information is available at the following websites: 
State aid statistics: http://ec.europa.eu/comm/co mpetition/state_aid/scoreboard/stat_tables.html
 
State aid "scoreboard" and other studies relative to state aids in the EU: http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/state_ aid/studies_reports/studies_reports.html
 
State aid register: http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/state_aid/register/  
 
Servicios 
 
La Secretaría menciona en el párrafo 76 que en 2005 el sector de los servicios (incluidos los de 
construcción) representó el 77,7 por ciento del valo r añadido bruto y un porcentaje similar del empleo 
total (156 millones de personas). Además, que entre lo s principales obstáculos al comercio de servicios 
existentes en las CE figuran los monopolios y las diferencias de reglamentación entre los Estados 
miembros. 
Question 57. En qué sectores de servicios se mantienen a la fecha monopolios en las CE? 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 360  
 
 Answer  
The European Commission does not itself keep, and is  not aware of the existence of, any definitive 
register or statistical information on state-ow ned enterprises or on monopolies (state-owned or 
otherwise) in the EC. Because EC regulations, in cluding competition rules, apply to all enterprises 
equally, regardless of their ownership structure, ther e is no particular reason to maintain any kind of 
list of state-owned enterprises. The European Commission would also point out that a monopoly can be 
obtained via a patent or through the normal play of competition, as well as be ing conferred by State 
regulation. The EU Treaty (article 86) employs th e concept of "special or exclusive rights", and 
provides a legal base for the adoption of legislation liberalising previously monopolised sectors; this 
has been done in a number of sectors, particularly electronic communications, energy, transport, and 
the postal sector. 
 
Question 58. Frente al pie de página, por favor explicar por qué las PYMES no pueden realizar 
actividades tranfronterizas? Es por la diferencia de  reglamentación entre los Estados? De ser así, la 
Directiva de Servicios del 2004 no pretende liberaliz ar el mercado interno de servicios en las CE? 
 
Answer  
SMEs are too often discouraged from exploiting th e opportunities afforded by  the internal market 
because they do not have the means to evaluate, and protect themselves against, the legal risks 
involved in cross border activity or to cope with  the administrative complexities. The aim of the 
Services Directive (Directive 2006/123/EC published in the OJ L 376 of 27.12.2006) is to establish a 
legal framework to facilitate the exercise of free dom of establishment for service providers in the 
Member States and the free movement of services between Member States. It aims to eliminate certain legal obstacles to the achievement of a genuine in ternal market in services and to guarantee service 
providers and recipients the legal certainty they need in order to exercise these two fundamental 
freedoms enshrined in the EC Treaty in practice.  
 
En el párrafo 77 el Informe de la Secretaría co menta que la Comisión presentó en 2004 su propuesta de 
Directiva sobre los servicios en el mercado interior ("Directiva sobre los servicios") y considera que la 
Directiva sobre los servicios constituye el principa l marco para las reformas y beneficios derivados. 
Pese a preverse esos beneficios, la Directiva tropezó  con una gran oposición de diversas partes, en 
particular de los sindicatos, que temían un "dumping social". 
Question 59. De la lectura del párrafo anterior se entiende  que la propuesta de directiva de servicios 
de las CE sólo aplicaría a los prestadores de servi cios que estén establecidos en un Estado miembro 
(modo 3). Sin embargo, el Tratado Constitutivo de la CE establece que quedarán prohibidas las 
restricciones a la libre prestación de servicios dent ro de la Comunidad para los nacionales de los 
Estados miembros establecidos en un país de la Co munidad que no sea el del destinatario de la 
prestación, o sea el modo 1. La inquietud que le su rge a Colombia es, en definitiva, a cuáles modos de 
suministro aplicaría la liberación del comercio de servicios? 
 
Answer  
The Services Directive applies to both the exercise of  freedom of establishment for service providers in 
the Member States and the free movement of services between Member States.   
 Question 60. Si la Directiva tiene como propósito lograr un verdadero mercado interior en el plazo de 
10 años, significa ello que actualmente no exist e libre comercio de servicios en las CE? 
 
Answer  
The fundamental rights of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services are 
enshrined in Articles 43 et seq and Articles 49 et seq of the EC Treaty. However, many obstacles exist. 
The Services Directive will have to be implemented by Member States by 27 December 2009.  
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 361 
 
 
 Question 61. Cuáles son las disciplinas que rigen la libera lización del comercio de servicios en las 
CE? Es decir, se aplica trato nacional, acceso a mercados, presencia local obligatoria y trato de 
nación más favorecida?  Answer  
The applicable rules are the ones established in the EC Treaty (Articles 43 et seq and Articles 49 et 
seq) and in Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market.  
 
Question 62. Cuáles son las pocas excepciones a las que hacen referencia, Por cuánto tiempo se 
mantendrán esas excepciones? 
 
Answer  
The Services Directive includes in Article 16 a provision on the freedom to provide services to 
facilitate provision of services across borders within the EC. Member States sha ll ensure free access to 
and free exercise of a service activity within its territory and will be able to apply their own 
requirements to incoming services provided that they are non-discriminatory and proportionate and 
only to the extent they are necessary for reasons rela ting to public policy, public security, public health 
and the protection of the environment. In order to implement this provision, a screening process of national requirements has been established.  Concerning sectoral coverage, Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market (published in 
the OJ L 376 of 27.12.2006) does not cover financia l services, transport, matters covered by the 2002 
telecommunications package, gambling, audiovisual services, health services, temporary work agencies, private security services,  services provided by notaries and bailiffs and social services 
relating to social housing, childcare and support of families and persons in need.  
 
En el párrafo 79 el Informe de la Secretaría co menta sobre los principales acontecimientos que han 
tenido lugar en el sector de los servicios desde el anterior Examen de las Políticas Comerciales de las 
CE, entre ellos: progresos con respecto a la aplicación del marco regulador de las telecomunicaciones y de la Directiva sobre los servicios postales. 
 
Question 63. Cuáles son los principales progresos con respecto a la aplicación del marco regulador 
de las telecomunicaciones?  
Answer  
The Report on the Implementation of the Telecommuni cations Regulatory Package prepared each year 
by the European Commission provides an accurate pict ure of the situation. It can be consulted on the 
following website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/polic y/ecomm/implementation_enforcement/index_en.htm
 .  
A new Report will soon be available providing updated information on the questions raised.  
 
Question 64. Qué se entiende por plena realización del marco interior de servicios postales? 
 
Answer  
By "completing the internal market for postal services" is meant the suppression of the monopoly 
which is still allowed for postal services by the curr ent EC Postal directive. A proposal suggesting 
alternatives for financing the obligation to provi de a universal service has been adopted by the 
European Commission but has still to be finally agre ed by the European Parliament and the European 
Council.  
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 362  
 
 Servicios financieros 
 
El párrafo 82 comenta sobre el PASF para el perí odo 1999-2005, como principal instrumento de las CE 
para fomentar la integración de los mercados fina ncieros y que pese a los progresos logrados con el 
PASF, las diferencias institucionales y los obstáculo s transfronterizos entre los Estados miembros 
siguen entorpeciendo el desarrollo de un mercado unificado para los servicios financieros.   
 
Question 65. Cuáles son los obstáculos transfronterizos que  entorpecen el desarrollo de un mercado 
unificado para los servicios financieros en las CE? 
 
Answer   
See reply under question 66.   
 
El informe de la Secretaría en el párrafo 83 estab lece que en diciembre de 2005 se puso en marcha una 
nueva estrategia quinquenal sobre los servicios financ ieros para consolidar los progresos realizados y 
eliminar los obstáculos subsistentes a la plena inte gración de los mercados de servicios financieros. 
Question 66. Cuáles son los obstáculos que aun persisten que  impiden la plena integración de los 
mercados de servicios financieros en las CE? 
 
Answer  
Despite considerable progress in the integration of Financial Services within EC, cross-borders 
obstacles and institutional differences remain. The following policy measures implemented in 2006 
give a good example of the issues addressed to rem ove obstacles and further integrate EC financial 
markets:  
- supervisory co-operation has been developing,  
- improved inter-institutional balance has been achieved,  
- several steps have been taken to improve  communication with consumers and users,  
- a proposed directive aims to achieve greater  clarity in supervisory assessments of M&A 
 transactions has been proposed,  
- the Capital Requirements Directive was formally adopted,  
- recommendations on future revisions of the E-money Directive and on way forward for 
 Deposit Guarantee Schemes were made,  
- preparatory work for Solv ency II proceeded apace,  
- motor insurance compensation bodies and accide nts with trailers has been addressed,  
- an expert group looking at mobility with regard to bank accounts has been created,  
- consultation on mortgage credit has continued,  
- competition inquiries into retail banking have re vealed market fragmentation and barriers to 
 entry,  
- discussions have gathered speed on the proposed Payments Directive,  
- essential implementing measures of the Market in Financial Instruments Directive were 
 adopted,  
- calls for evidence on transparency in non-equity markets and on regulatory framework for 
 commodity and exotic derivatives have been  launched,  
- amendments to prospectus requirements for issuer s with complex financial histories have  been 
proposed,  
- an Industry-led Code of Conduct has been adopted in Clearing & Settlement,  
- a White Paper on Investment Funds published in November 2006 has proposed measures to 
 improve the efficiency of the EC investment fund market,  
- the future priorities for Company Law and Corporate Governance have been clarified,  
- the required procedures under Transparency Dir ective have been clarified in implementing 
 measures,   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 363 
 
 
 - clarifications in application of 3rd Money Laundering Directive has been made in 
 implementing measures,  
- reports have assessed the impact of money la undering directives on the legal profession and 
 on non face-to-face transactions,  
- numbers of regulations adopting IASB standa rds and interpretations have been adopted,  
- the framework for auditors' liabilit y in the EC has been examined.  
 
Servicios de telecomunicaciones y servicios postales  
En el párrafo 104 la Secretaría comenta sobr e helecho que la competencia está llevando a los 
operadores de telecomunicaciones fijas y móviles a inve rtir en nuevas tecnologías para reducir costos y 
situarse en un entorno de convergencia.  Esta compet encia en el mercado de voz fija de las CE sigue 
basándose en gran medida en el acceso indirecto a productos al por mayor, por ejemplo preselección de operador y selección de operador.   También que ú ltimamente ha aumentado considerablemente el 
número de operadores que ofrecen servicios VoIP, y actualmente puede disponerse de esos servicios en 
la mayor parte de los Estados miembros. 
 
Question 67. Cuáles son las razones que explican el crecimi ento en el número de operadores públicos 
de telefonía fija y el reducido número de compet idores importantes? Existen estímulos especiales 
dentro del régimen de la CE que impulsen este crecimiento?  
Answer  Please see above answer to question 63.  
 
Question 68. En qué consiste el esquema de presel ección y selección del operador? Cómo se 
relaciona este esquema con la por tabilidad del número? Existen obligaciones específicas para estos 
operadores en cuanto a portabilidad? Cuál es el régimen aplicable en esta materia?  
Answer  
Please see above answer to question 63.  
 
Question 69. Se consideran los proveedores de telefoní a móvil proveedores importantes (principales 
operadores) en el régimen de la CE? 
 Answer 
Please see above answer to question 63.  
 
Question 70. Cuáles son las obligaciones de los proveedores importantes (principales operadores) en 
materia de desagregación, reventa e interconexión dentro de la CE? En qué consiste el acceso 
indirecto (acceso bitstream)? 
 
Answer  
Please see above answer to question 63.  
 Question 71. Existen obligaciones especiales para los operadores que ofrecen  serviciosVoIP?  
 
Answer  
Please see above answer to question 63.  
 Question 72. Existe un régimen especial para los pro veedores de los servicios de valor agregado? 
Answer  
Please see above answer to question 63.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 364  
 
  
Transporte 
 
En el párrafo 115, se comenta sobre el hecho que todos  los modos de transporte están liberalizados en 
las CE desde 1993, aunque se mantienen algunas restricciones;  por ejemplo, no existe aún cabotaje en 
el transporte de carga por ferrocarril, ni apertura de l mercado de transporte de pasajeros por ferrocarril.  
Question 73. Esa liberalización en cabotaje aplica únicamente para los países de las CE? 
 
Answer  
According to Community Directive 91/440/EEC as ame nded successively, access to the market for rail 
freight transport services (including the right of cabotage) has been fully opened on 1 January 2007 for 
each railway undertaking licensed in a Member States of the EC.  
For the time being, there are no such open access rights yet for rail passenger services in the EC. 
El Informe de la Secretaría en el párrafo 117 comenta que las empresas extranjeras que se establecen 
como personas jurídicas en las CE están sujetas al mismo marco regulador en materia de transporte que 
las empresas de las CE. 
Question 74. Cuáles son esas medidas incluidas en la mayoría de los acuerdos bilaterales? 
 
Answer  
The principle of equal treatment is enshrined in all bilateral agreements entered into by the EC.  
 
PREGUNTAS E INQUIETUDES PLANTEADAS POR LA REPUBLICA DE COLOMBIA 
EN EL MARCO DEL EXAMEN DE POLITICA COMERCIAL DE LAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEAS  INFORME DEL GOBIERNO (WT/TPR/G/177) 
CAPITULO
 II. PRINCIPALES  ACONTECIMIENTOS  REGISTRADOS  EN LAS  CE (2004  – 
2006) 
EVOLUCIÓN DEL MERCADO INTERIOR Y DE LOS EL EMENTOS PRINCIPALES DE POLÍTICA GENERAL  
En el párrafo 11 del Informe de Gobierno, menciona n las CE que se  ha puesto en marcha una nueva 
iniciativa destinada a facilitar la reintegración en el mercado laboral de los trabajadores excedentarios, 
como consecuencia de los cambios en la estructura de l comercio mundial.  Cada año, a partir de enero 
de 2007, se pondrán a disposición 500 millones de eu ros con cargo al Fondo Europeo de Adaptación a 
la Globalización.   
Question 75. Cómo consecuencia de los cambios en la est ructura del comercio mundial, cómo se prevé 
que va a funcionar este Fondo Europeo de Adap tación a la Globalización?, será sólo para las 
personas cesantes?, involucrará ot ras esferas o sólo las consecuen cias derivadas del comercio 
mundial?  
Answer 
The opening of economies to international competition brings new opportunities in terms 
competitiveness and the creation of high-quality jobs. However, trade openness can also have negative 
consequences for the most vulnerable and least qualif ied workers in some sectors and areas of the EC. 
The European Globalisation adjustment Fund (EGF) will provide personalised support to workers who 
have been made redundant as a result of trade libera lisation, so that they can either remain in 
employment or find quickly a new job. The EGF w ill thus express the European Union's solidarity in 
complement to the support provided by the Member  States at national, regional and local levels.  
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 365 
 
 
 The EGF will specifically and directly support peopl e, not companies or institutions, through active 
labour market measures such as: counselling; job search and mobility allowances; new ICT skills and 
other forms of training; entrepreneurial support, including micro-credits. These measures will retain 
workers in, or reintegrate workers into the labour market. Assistance cannot be provided to companies, 
or to assist in the restructuring of companies or sectors. 
 
Assistance from the EGF will be granted to Member States only on request. Each application must satisfy the strict requirements of the EGF Regulation; following assessment by the European Commission, a proposal will be made to the EU's budgetary authority, which will take the decision on 
whether or not to grant assistance. Any assistance gran ted must be used within a very short period (12 
months from the date of application). 
 All applications for assistance from the EGF must prove  that the redundancies in question are the result 
of major structural change in world trade patterns th at have led to a serious economic disruption. Thus 
there must be clear evidence of a link to globalisa tion in order for the application to be eligible. 
 
En el párrafo 12 del informe de gobierno, se coment a que se tomaron diversas medidas para consolidar 
el mercado interior, tanto de los estados miembros co mo de terceros países.  en diciembre de 2006, la 
directiva sobre servicios que, una vez incorporada y aplicada, eliminará los obstáculos que subsisten a 
la libre circulación de servicios en las CE.    C
OLOMBIA DESEA POR FAVOR AMPLIAR LA SIGUIENTE INFORMACIÓN : 
Question 76. Ampliar la información acerca del alcance de  la Directiva sobre servicios de diciembre 
de 2006.  
 
Answer 
Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parlia ment and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on 
Services in the Internal Market h as been published in the Official Journal of the European Union L 376 
of 27.12.2006. The main aim of the Directive is to  achieve a genuine Internal Market in services by 
removing legal and administrative barriers to the de velopment of service activities and thus facilitating 
the freedom of establishment and the freedom to pr ovide cross-border services. This will be supported 
by legally-binding obligations for effective admi nistrative co-operation between Member States. 
Equally, the Directive aims at strengthening the rights of consumers as users of services, introducing a 
general non-discrimination clau se and information rights.  
 The Directive follows a horizontal approach and c overs services provided as an economic activity, as 
defined by the European Court of Justice, both to  consumers and/or businesses. The Directive covers a 
wide variety of activities, including business services, such as management consultancy, certification 
and testing; facilities management, including office ma intenance; advertising; recruitment services; and 
the services of commercial agents. The Directive does not cover: financial services, transport, matters covered by the 2002 telecommunications package, ga mbling, audiovisual services, health services, 
temporary work agencies, private security services,  services provided by notaries and bailiffs and 
certain social services. Needless is to say that for the sectors excluded, the EC Treaty and in particular 
the fundamental freedoms still apply.  
 
Question 77. A partir de qué fecha se permitirá la libre ci rculación de servicios en las CE. Esa libre 
circulación abarcará también a las personas físicas? Answer 
The free movement of services is already applied following Article 49 of the EC Treaty. However, due 
to the existing barriers in the internal market, the Services Directive was proposed to improve the 
situation. The Services Directive will have to be implemented by Member States by 27 December WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 366  
 
 2009. Specific provisions on the free movement of pe rsons (i.e. visa permits) are regulated by other 
pieces of EC legislation which have to be app lied together with the Services Directive.  
 
Question 78. Cómo se concreta esta nueva Directiva en los compromisos específicos de las CE en el 
marco de las negociaciones de servicios en la OMC? 
 
Answer 
The Services Directive regulates the in ternal market for services. It is applicable to natural persons who 
are nationals of a Member State or legal persons as referred to in Article 48 of the EC Treaty and 
established in a Member State, who offer or prov ide services. Therefore, the Services Directive does 
not interfere with trade negotiations.  
 
CAPITULO
 III. PRINCIPALES  ACONTECIMIENTOS  REGISTRADOS  EN LA POLITICA  
COMERCIAL  DE LAS  CE (2004  – 2006) 
PRINCIPALES COMPONENTES DE LA POLÍTICA COMERCIAL DE LAS CE 
Iniciativas bilaterales, birregionales y au tónomas en materia de política comercial 
El párrafo 46 comenta sobre las relaciones mediante  acuerdos comerciales de varios países europeos 
con las CE, especialmente mediante acuerdos comerciales.  
Question 79. Cuál es el alcance del acuerdo en materi a de movimiento de personas suscrito con 
Suiza?Qué categorías específicas cubre? 
 
Answer The EC-Switzerland Agreement on the free moveme nt of persons covers the following issues: 
 
Free movement of workers and the establishmen t for self employed persons, non discrimination 
provisions, coordination of social security prov isions and mutual recognition of diplomas; 
Residence for non-active pers ons under certain conditions; 
Short term services (up to 90 days per calendar year in total) on the territory of the other contracting 
party (excluding cross-border services)   Menciona la CE en el párrafo 53 de su informe, que las negociaciones de los Acuerdos de Asociación 
Económica comenzaron en septiembre de 2002 con deba tes en todos los países ACP.  La fase 
siguiente, a escala regional, se centró en cuestiones relativas a la creación de mercados en las seis 
regiones abarcadas por los acuerdos (África Occidental , África Central, África Oriental y Meridional, 
la Comunidad de Desarrollo del África Meridional, el Caribe y el Pacífico).  Están en curso 
negociaciones técnicas, centradas en el texto de los ac uerdos y el enfoque de la liberalización de bienes 
y servicios. Continúan intensificándose las relacion es con Sudáfrica sobre la base del Acuerdo de 
Comercio, Desarrollo y Cooperación de 1999.  
Question 80. Nos podrían indicar las CE si el cronograma previsto para culminar el Acuerdo de 
Asociación con los ACP se está cumpliendo?  Se ut ilizará un esquema simila r al empleado con los 
miembros del Acuerdo de Cotonú para las negocia ciones previstas con los países de la Comunidad 
Andina?  Negotiations of Economic Partners hip Agreements (EPAs) are on track. The EC as well as the six ACP 
regions are committed to concluding negotiations within the deadline. 
 
As for the forthcoming negotiations with the Andean  Community aimed at concluding an Association 
Agreement, the EC will pursue a strong regional a pproach aimed at setting the best basis for the 
establishment of a truly bi-regional Agreement. In this respect, the preliminary work undertaken during  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 367 
 
 
 the Joint Assessment exercise on regional economic integration in 2005 and 2006 would certainly be 
very useful.  
HONG KONG, CHINA
 
 
Competition (WT/TPR/S/177, P. xii, Para. 22; P. 69, Para. 91; and WT/TPR/G/177 P. 11, Para. 29) 
 Question 1 Para. 29 of the European Communities’ Repor t states that “the Commission will further 
renew its Market Access Strategy to focus on non- tariff barriers and ask EC industry to identify key 
sectors and priority problems.  These may include, for example, the services or other sectors or 
particular markets as well as issues related to … … restrictions on competition , and other regulatory 
issues.”  What are the plan and e xpected outcomes for such a renewa l of the Market Access Strategy, 
especially in relation to the matters pointed out at Para. 22 of the Secretariat Report’s Summary 
Observations concerning “significant barriers to trade in services remain both at the intra-EC level and 
vis-à-vis third countries; these include monopolies  and differences in regulation across Member 
States”? 
 
Answer As mentioned in the European Commission's Gl obal Europe Communication in October 2006, the 
Commission will bring forward a Communication on a renewed Market Access Strategy with regard to 
accessing third country markets in early 2007. 
The EC does not agree that there are significant "i ssues of monopolies" in the EC, and would like Hong 
Kong, China to elaborate on which monopolies it has in  mind. As regards domestic regulations in the 
EC and its Member States, they fully comply with GATS Article VI.  Tariffs 
(WT/TPR/S/177, P. 42 – 46, Paras. 11, 13 – 15, Tables III.1, III.2 & III.4)  
Question 2 The proportion of tariff lines with quotas has increased from 3.3% in 2004 to 3.4% in 
2006.  Would the EC consider lowering the number of such tariff lines? 
 
Answer 
The EC has negotiated tariff rate quotas in the c ontext of Article XXVIII and Article XXIV.6 of the 
WTO Agreement between 2004 and 2006, which can explain the increase of tariff lines under quotas. 
For the moment the EC is not planning to change the amount of tariff lines. 
 
Question 3 In 2004, 6.8% of the EC's tariff lines carried nuisance applied rates.  This figure increased 
to 9.4% in 2006.  Would the EC take steps to decr ease or even totally elim inate nuisance tariffs for 
trade facilitation purpose? 
 
Answer The definition of nuisance duties is somehow subjec tive. For instance, real nuisance duties are duties 
above 15% which is the recognised international p eak. The very low duties which are currently known 
as "nuisance duties" are not a real barrier to traders as even if there were zero duty, customs formalities 
would have to be carried out. The EC considers that dismantling those duties is a concession top be 
negotiated in a round, as stated in Article XXVIIIbis  whereby "[t]he binding against increase of low 
duties or of duty free treatment shall, in principle, be  considered equivalent in value to the reduction of 
high duties". 
 
Question 4 We appreciate that the EC has bound all its tari ff lines and has maintained the same applied 
and bound rates for over 98% of its tariff lines.  Ho wever, while the overall average applied tariff is 
6.9% in 2006, the average rate for agricultural pro ducts is more than twice standing at 18.6% and for 
individual agricultural products, the applied rates are extremely high (up to 427.9%).  Besides, we note WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 368  
 
 that for three product categories, the applied tariffs appear to have problems of consistency with the 
corresponding bound tariffs.  Grateful for the clarification from the EC.  Answer 
When autonomous rates of duty are lower than the conventional rates of duty, the autonomous duties, 
shown by means of a footnote, are applicable.  Technical Barrier to Trade 
(WT/TPR/S/177, P. 57, Para. 50) 
 Question 5 In non-harmonized areas of technical regulations , the EC applies the principle of mutual 
recognition in the internal market: goods lawfully  produced in one Member State cannot be banned 
from sale on the territory of another.  Nevert heless, as harmonized regulations are more trade 
facilitating, is there any plan for the EC to fu rther reduce the number of non-harmonized technical 
regulations (“old-approach directives”)?   Answer 
On 14 February 2007, the Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation facilitating the free 
movement of goods in the non-harmonised areas of products [COM(2007)36]. This proposal should 
improve the functioning of the "mutual recognition"-principle.  
Nevertheless, if evidence would re veal that the completion of the internal market for goods requires 
further harmonisation measures pursuant to Article 95 EC Treaty, the EC wi ll adopt such measures. 
However, the regulatory technique of the so-called "old approach" will, in  that case, not be used. In the 
area of products, the regulatory technique of the "new approach" prevails over any other regulatory 
approach. As regards the "new approach", the Co mmission adopted a proposal for a decision on the 
general framework of marketing products [COM(2007)53]. 
 
FINANCIAL SERVICES 
(WT/TPR/S/177, P. 113-114, Para. 89) 
Question 6 We note that Member States of the EC must not apply more favourable EC provisions to 
foreign bank branches than those applied to bran ches of credit institutions having their head office 
within the EC.  However, the EC may agree to appl y identical provisions to branches having their head 
office within or outside the EC when the principle of reciprocity is observed by the country in which 
the head office of the foreign bank branch is based.   Could the EC advise on the consistency of such a 
condition of reciprocity for the granting of nationa l treatment to foreign bank branches with its MFN 
obligation undertaken under  Article II of the GATS? 
 
Answer 
In fact, the relevant Article of Directive 2006/48/ EC (Article 38) does not contain a condition of 
reciprocity.  AIR TRANSPORT SERVICES 
(WT/TPR/S/177, P. 126, Para. 131) 
 Question 7 We note that the common air transport policy en tered into force in January 2006 authorized 
the EC to ban or restrict the activities of unsafe airl ines within the EC.  An initial list was established 
of airlines considered to be unsafe, and therefore not permitted to fly passenger or cargo in the EC or 
operate within European airspace.  We are inter ested to know how the EC drew up such a list. 
Answer 
The list was established based on in formation provided by Member Stat es. It is updated on information 
provided by Member States and Commission investiga tions. There are agreed common criteria. All the 
criteria are based on safety issues only. 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 369 
 
 
 Trade Facilitation 
(WT/TPR/G/177, P. 18, Para. 56) 
 
Question 8 Para. 56 of the European Communities’ Repor t states that “[i]n addition to the FTA, 
regional or autonomous initiatives described above, the EC has also established frameworks with a 
number of developed countries for continued dialogue on trade issues, and  certain more specific  
bilateral initiatives related  to trade facilitation ”.  What are these bilateral initiatives? 
 
Answer 
The EC has established frameworks with a number of  developed countries for continued dialogue on 
trade issues, and certain more specific bilateral in itiatives relate to trade facilitation. Here, notably, 
there are initiatives which relate to customs an d border formalities. The potential for mutually 
beneficial initiatives is evident in , and evidenced by, arrangements close to home and examples include 
an agreement with Switzerland on the facilitation of c ontrols and formalities relating to the transport of 
goods. Another example is the European Economic Ar ea co-operation in custom s-related matters and 
trade facilitation (Chapter 3 of the EEA Agreem ent) and  on simplification of inspections and 
formalities in respect of carriage of goods ( Protocol 10 of the EEA Agreement) . 
 
TURKEY  
 WT/TPR/S/177 I-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT (2)RECENT ECONOMIC DE VELOPMENTS,  Para 9 
 
Secretariat Report  reads that “Unemployment in the EC-25 peaked at 9.1% in 2004  before decreasing 
to 8.8 % in 2004 to 8.6% in 2005”. The  Report further reads that new and some old Member States still experience high unemployment.  It is understood from the Report that the Commission  relinguished  to attain the Lisbon and Stockholm 
employment targets, except for female employment, unless all Member States   urgently pursue 
comprehensive  labour market reforms.  
Question 1 
How does  EC consider the future of labour market in member states? Are there any  new 
targets for  employment replacing those  set by th e Lisbon and Stockholm Councils in order to be 
attained by  2010?     Answer 
Labour market reforms are paying off. The employmen t rate is rising and forecast to be 66% in 2008. 
Unemployment is falling, down to 7.5% in December 2006. Although a great deal needs to be done to 
ensure more and better sustainable jobs. The original targets, 70% overall employment rate, 60% for 
women and 50% for older workers by 2010, remain, though are increasingly unlikely to be met except 
perhaps for women.  
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 370  
 
 Question 2 
Does EC consider to take measures to accelerate the labour market reforms including those to 
enhance productivity in member states ?   Answer 
There have been recent improvements in the functioni ng of the labour market in the EC which cyclical 
factors alone cannot account for. Labour productivity grew  by an annual rate of 2 per cent in the first 
half of 2006, a considerable improvement when compar ed with the average rate of 0.7 per cent in the 
previous five years. Structural reforms enacted by Member States are leading to a better functioning of the labour market. Reforms cover many areas: lab our taxation, switch from passive to active labour 
market policies, employment protection legislation (EPL), flexible work orga nisation, public pension 
systems.   While the European Commission acknowledges the benefici al effects of past structural reforms, the 
most immediate challenge is to avoid complacency  and to fully seize the opportunities presented by 
favourable growth conditions. The notable progress in the employment rates of women and older 
workers should not hide the substantial scope for further progress towards the Lisbon targets. Higher 
employment rates, and in particular the extens ion of working lives, can make a considerable 
contribution to offset the projected decline in labour supply and the potential negative impact of ageing on potential growth rates. Finally, globalisation is  an ongoing challenge. The integration of countries 
with very large labour forces, such as India and China, in the world economy is leading to a new 
international division of labour.  
 The European Commission is working to help Member  States pursue ambitious reform strategies. As 
part of common efforts at EC level to inject dyna mism into European economies, the Lisbon strategy 
underlines the need for EC countries to pursue reforms in the labour market, but also in wide range of 
areas, as there are complementarities between labour market reforms with those on product and service 
markets. By reducing mark-ups, more competiti on on product and service markets implies sizable 
long-term gains in output and employment. Efforts to create a single EC market for goods and services, coupled with national reforms to strengthen competiti ve pressures in poorly contested markets, would 
also favour job creation, for example by opening new jobs in the services sector. 
 
Question 3 
How does  EC see the  impacts of  enlargemen t on the  employment  targets in general? 
 Answer 
Enlargement, to 25 and now 27 Member States, has not necessitated new employment targets. The 
newer Member States start from slightly lower employ ment rates and thus have made the targets all the 
more challenging for the EC but the targeted empl oyment rates are necessary to ensure the desired 
growth and jobs and standards of living.  
 
WT/TPR/S/177 II-TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(5) TRADE AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS, Para 58, 64 
 
Secretariat report mentions that the new GSP sc heme which applies from 1 January 2006 to 31 
December 2008   aims to promote sustainable development and good governance  in vulnerable countries. 
 
It is also noted at the Report th at the GSP Scheme has enhanced th e potential for developing countries 
to access markets . 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 371 
 
 
 Question 4 
How does EC consider the  assessment by the  Secretariat Report, para 64  that there is  a 
declining trend  in trade shares and low ratios of  GSP utilization? If it is so considered, what 
reasons does  EC think  could be claimed to that regard?   
Answer For the years 2000-2005 an increasing trend in the sh are of GSP imports in total import is recorded. 
The GSP imports to the EC increased in this period  by 61% and their share in total EC imports rose 
from 41% in 2000 to 66% in 2005. Consequently, also  in the GSP utilisation rate an increase was 
recorded. 
 
Question 5 Are there any impact analysis concluded to indicate the effectiveness of new   GSP Scheme of the EC to promote sustainable development?   
Answer The Council Regulation No 980/2005 of 27 June 2005 applying a scheme of generalized tariff 
preferences (GSP) entered into force on 1 January  2006. In accordance with Article 28 of this 
Regulation the effects of the GSP scheme will be ex amined covering the period from 1 January 2006. 
 
COSTA RICA
 
 
Agricultura IV. Políticas comerciales por sectores / 2. Ag ricultura / i) Características principales 
 
Question 1 from Costa Rica 
El párrafo 6 indica que las CE son el principal exportador e importador de productos agrícolas del 
mundo; que sus exportaciones en el 2004 de dete rminados productos  representaron una parte 
sustancial del comercio mundial, entre ellos están lo s vinos (alrededor del 40 por ciento);  carne de 
porcino, quesos y leche en polvo (cerca de un tercio);   y mantequilla, huevos y azúcar (alrededor del 20 
por ciento). Además se indica que las CE son auto suficientes en una amplia variedad de productos 
agrícolas, en donde en el año 2004, el nivel más a lto de autosuficiencia corr espondió a la leche entera 
en polvo, seguida de la leche desnatada en polvo, el azúcar, el trigo y la mantequilla; asimismo, una 
parte de la producción agrícola de las CE de pende de las oportunidades de exportación.  
 De esta forma, ¿consideran las CE coherente con el  proceso de desarrollo de países como Costa Rica 
(que es un país exportador de productos agrícolas), el  mantener un alto nivel de apoyo a la producción 
y a las exportaciones (pese a sus reformas en el 2003 ) en aquellos productos agropecuarios en los que 
las CE representan una parte sustancial del comerc io mundial, así como un alto nivel de protección 
arancelaria en aquellos productos agropecuario s en los que las CE son autosuficientes? 
 
Answer 
The 2003 CAP reform significantly changes the way the EC agricultural policy operates. The Single 
Payment Scheme has been operational since 2005. The results of the reform are already starting to 
emerge and projections indicate a fall in production of beef, sugar, butter and Skimmed Milk Powder. 
The sugar reform, implemented less than a year a go, will see EC sugar production fall by 6-7 million 
and exports to decline. The EC will become a net importer of sugar. While a reform proposal for the 
wine sector is underway, a reform proposal for th e fruit and vegetable sector has been recently 
presented. One of the suggestions contained in th ese proposals establishes to eliminate export refunds 
for fruit and vegetables. The EC also provides a number of preferential agreements, including the 
Generalised System of Preferences, which also applies to Costa Rica. The poorest countries in the 
world, the LDCs, have quota free and duty free access to the EC.  
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 372  
 
 IV. Políticas comerciales por sectores / 2. Agricultura / i) Política Agrícola Común  
 
Question 2 from Costa Rica 
Tomando en cuenta los pasos que han dado las CE en  la reforma de su Política Agrícola Común (PAC) 
y reconociendo la necesidad de mayores esfuerzo s en la misma y en otras políticas que ayudan a 
distorsionar el comercio mundial, ¿creen las CE que han logrado reducir las distorsiones que provocan 
este tipo de ayudas internas al pasar programas de apoyo del compartimiento ámbar (con límite de cuantía) a los compartimientos azul y verde (ambos sin límite de cuantía)?   
Answer 
The EC 2003 CAP reform went in the right direction towards less trade distorting support and the share 
of trade distorting support will decline significantly.  Other reforms, as mentioned in the previous questi on, are underway, and going in the same direction as 
the 2003 reform. The EC will submit a notificatio n on domestic support for the years 2004/05 and 
2005/06 in compliance with WTO rules.  Question 3 from Costa Rica 
 
Pese a las reformas de la PAC en el 2003, aún exis ten sectores productivos aisl ados de los mercados 
mundiales, recibiendo altos apoyos a la producción. De  esta forma, ¿qué porcentaje de la producción 
por sector se encuentra aún en esta situación?   Answer 
The EC is not clear about what products and sectors Costa Rica is referring to.  
 
Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias 
 
Question 4 from Costa Rica 
En el párrafo 54 se habla sobre la Política Comunitaria de Sanidad Animal aplicable en el ámbito de las 
CE; ¿dónde se puede encontrar información sobre la  misma? ¿Qué implicaciones puede tener sobre 
terceros países?   Answer 
Please consult the following website:  http://ec.europa.eu/food/intro_en.htm
 
 
Question 5 from Costa Rica 
¿Se encuentran todos los requerimientos de importa ción sanitarios y fitosanitarios que aplica cada país 
de las CE acordes con la legislación comunitaria?  ¿Cuáles regulaciones sanitarias y fitosanitarias de 
importación aplicadas por un país de las CE son más rigurosas que la regulación comunitaria?  
Answer 
As regards the first question, that is the case fo r products in the Annex I on the EC Treaty and the 
WTO Agreement on Agriculture, and for products of  secondary transformation, food containers, in 
which a harmonized legislation exists.  
 
As for the second question, please note that the EC Treaties prohibit this possibility in areas 
harmonized by EC law.  
 
Question 6 from Costa Rica Párrafo 60. ¿A qué obedece la restricción impuesta al aceite de palma? 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 373 
 
 
 Answer 
Following Commission Decision 2005/402 Curcuma, Ch illi, Cilli products and virgin palm oil must be 
accompanied by an analytical report showing that th ey do not contain Sudan I, Sudan II, Sudan III or 
Scarlet Red (Sudan IV) dyes, in orde r to be imported into the EC. Sudan dyes have been classified as 
carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, in addition Sudan I is considered as 
Genotoxic. They are excluded from the EC positive list of colours authorised for use in food, and are 
banned from food use in the EC.   
Commission Decision is a consequence of the 63 alert notifications received in 2004 and the 43 
received in 2005 indicating the presence of some of  these dyes in palm oil imported from third 
countries.  
 
Procedimientos aduaneros y valoración en aduanas. 
 
Question 7 from Costa Rica 
Página 50, Párrafo 5. En este párrafo se hace menc ión a que durante el período objeto de examen se 
han añadido al Código, procedimientos relacionados  con la seguridad y se han hecho preparativos y 
celebrado consultas con miras a una importante reforma.     Quisiéramos conocer si esta importante 
reforma atiende la resolución del Órgano de Apelación en el sentido de poner las medidas de 
conformidad con los compromisos del GATT,  en el marco de la contr oversia "Determinadas 
cuestiones aduaneras" 
 
Answer 
The reforms Costa Rica refers to are based on the EC's continuous effort to improve its legislative 
framework and they have nothing to do with the A ppellate Body's ruling in the EC Selected customs 
matters case. With regard to the mentioned ruling, the EC is currently in full conformity with its 
WTO's obligations.  
Normas de Origen 
 
Question 8 from Costa Rica 
Página 63, Párrafo 28. En el marco de las consult as tendientes a las  modificaciones en las normas de 
origen para promover su simplificación y específica mente el trabajo del Libro Verde, quisiéramos 
conocer los  avances posteriores a la Comunicación sobre el futuro de las normas de origen 
preferenciales (COM (2005)100) con miras a su defi nición, posterior aprobación y puesta en práctica 
por parte de las instituciones de la Unión Europea y otros usuarios. 
 
Answer 
The draft regulation based on COM (2005)100, has not b een finalized yet. It is in the stage of inter-
service consultation inside the European Commission. As a result, the European Commission is not in 
a position to provide information on its s ubstance, timing and implementation.   
 
Antidumping, medidas compensa torias y de salvaguardia 
 
Question 9 from Costa Rica 
Párrafo 41 ¿Cuál es el procedimiento establecido po r la UE con relación a la determinación de la 
legitimación activa para la solicitud de inicio de investigación en materia de prácticas de elusión? 
 
Answer 
According to Article 13 of the basic anti-dumping regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 
22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European 
Community (OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 374  
 
 (OJ L 340, 23.12.2005, p. 17)) and  Article 23 of the basic anti-subsidy regulation (Council Regulation 
(EC) No 2026/97 of 06 October 1997 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not 
members of the European Community (OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p.1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L77, 13.03.2004, p.  12) , so- called 'the basic Regulations) an anti-
circumvention investigation shall be initiated on the initiative of the European Commission or at the 
request of a Member State or any interested party. . The basic Regulations define interested parties as 
the EC producers, importers and their representa tive associations, exporters and their representative 
associations, users and consumer organizations and representatives of the exporting country. In 
practice most anti-circumvention investigations ar e initiated at the request of the EC industry. 
 
Obstáculos Técnicos al Comercio 
 Question 10 from Costa Rica 
Párrafo 48. ¿Cómo se da la convivencia de las normas y reglamentos técnicos nacionales y 
comunitarios? ¿Qué pasa si hay aspectos que se contraponen entre uno y otro reglamento técnico? 
¿Respecto a cuál de ellos se da la evaluación de la  conformidad? ¿Existe alguna directiva comunitaria 
que establezca una estructura definida para los reglamentos técnicos?   
Answer 
As far as standardisation is concerned, it should no ted that in the EC, standards are voluntary technical 
documents which are developed by independent European Standardisation Organisations over which 
none of the EC institutions has any direct influence. 
 European regulations do not co-exist with national re gulations in the same field. Potential barriers to 
trade, which result from the adoption of divergi ng national technical regul ations and conformity 
assessment procedures, can be prevented through a procedure laid down by the directive 98/34/EC. 
Under this Directive, Member States are obliged to notify draft technical regulations and standards to 
the European Commission and other Member States. During a standstill period these may not be adopted, which leaves the European Commission and the other Member States the possibility to react. 
Directive 98/34/EC also gives the Commission the possi bility of inviting, after consultation with the 
Member States, the European standards organi zations to elaborate European standards. 
 
The 98/34 procedure establishes a genuine forum for discussion and exchange, within which the 
European Commission and Member States together  ensure observance of the rules governing the 
Internal Market. The possibility for the European  Commission and the Member States to make 
comments and issue detailed opinions on notified draf ts has led to the development of a genuinely open 
and transparent consultation mechanism when nationa l regulations are drawn up. The Member States 
endeavour to take account of the impact of their na tional regulations on the operating of the Internal 
Market from the very outset, when they are first drafted and discussed. 
 
Question 11 from Costa Rica 
¿Con relación a las directivas de antiguo enfoque y las de nuevo enfoque, están migrando las directivas 
de antiguo enfoque hacia el nuevo enfoque? ¿Deben l as directivas que se emiten en cada país seguir el 
criterio del nuevo enfoque? 
 
Answer 
There is no formal programme to move directives from old to new approach, but this is considered on a 
case by case basis, as legislation is updated.  
 
Each new approach directive makes detailed provi sions which oblige Member States to transpose 
directives into national law, within a specified transitional period. 
 
Question 12 from Costa Rica  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 375 
 
 
 Párrafo 49. Con relación a la evaluación de la conf ormidad, ¿es realizada por organismos de gobierno y 
privados? ¿Deben estar acreditados? ¿Existen órgano s de acreditación comunitarios o a nivel de cada 
país? Si es a nivel de cada país ¿cuál es el proced imiento para la aceptación de dicho organismo como 
acreditador por parte de los demás países de la UE?   Answer 
In the field of accreditation, European Co-operation for Accreditation (EA) is the European network of 
nationally recognised accreditation bodies based in  the European geographical area. For further 
information on EA and on its MLA please refer to the following website: http://www.european-
accreditation.org  
 Question 13 from Costa Rica 
En materia de acreditación, ¿existen acuerdos de re conocimiento para órganos de acreditación entre la 
UE y otros países? Si es así, ¿abarca todo tipo de productos? ¿Con qué países?  ¿En qué tipos de producto se permite el uso de la declaración de  conformidad del proveedor? ¿Esa posibilidad es 
comunitaria o a nivel de cada país? ¿En qué instrume nto consta la posibilidad de l uso de la Declaración 
de Conformidad del Proveedor?  
Answer 
On accreditation, the EC invites Costa Rica to visit th e EA website (see previous answer). This website 
provides detailed information on all EA multi and bilateral agreements. 
 
On supplier’s declaration of conformity, the EC invites Costa Rica to consult the Guide to the 
Implementation of Directives Based on New Approach  and Global Approach, in particular Annex 8, 
which gives a flow chart presentation of confor mity assessment procedures as provided for by the 
directives, including supplier’s declaration of conf ormity. This indicates the products for which SDoc 
can be used. Your attention is also drawn to Ch apters 3, 4 and 5 of the Guide for more detailed 
information on how to apply SDoc in practice. The link is the following:  http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newapproach/legislation/guide/index.htm
 
 
Question 14 from Costa Rica  
Párrafo 50. Si bien no se prohíbe  la comercialización de una mercancía producida en un estado parte de 
la UE bajo especificaciones que difieren de las que tie ne el otro país donde se comercializará; sí podría 
prohibirse dicha comercialización por razones de sal ud, consumidor y medio ambiente. En ese caso, 
¿quién y cómo se determina que efectivamente se est án afectando dichos aspectos? ¿lo hace el país de 
consumo o debe ser una decisión comunitaria? En  el caso de productos importados que han ingresado 
por un país pero el destino final es otro país de la UE, ¿puede este país interponer aspectos de salud, 
consumidor y medio ambiente pa ra prohibir la comercialización del producto importado aunque haya 
sido permitido su ingreso en el punto de ingreso perifé rico? ¿Como aplica el criterio de libre movilidad 
de mercancías para producto importado?  
Answer 
One of the important prerequisites for an optimal ly functioning internal market for goods is the 
elimination of technical obstacles. There are, in the field of goods, two main types of instrument for 
doing this, namely:  The approximation of national legi slation (“harmonisation of laws”) whereby technical obstacles are 
eliminated by the harmonisation of national t echnical rules through secondary EC legislation 
(directives, regulations and decisions) under Article 95 of the EC Treaty. This secondary legislation is 
published on http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/repert/index.htm
 
 Mutual recognition under Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty. Under the “Mutual Recognition 
Principle”, different national technical rules contin ue to co-exist within the internal market. The WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 376  
 
 principle means that, notwithstanding technical di fferences between the vari ous national rules that 
apply throughout the EC, Member States of destina tion cannot forbid the sale on their territories of 
products which are not subject to Community harmoni sation that are lawfully marketed in another 
Member State, even if they were manufactured ac cording to technical and quality rules different to 
those that must be met by domestic products. The only exceptions to this principle are restrictions that 
are justified on the grounds described in Article 30  of the EC Treaty (e.g. the protection of public 
morality or public security, the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants, etc), or on 
the basis of overriding requirements of general public importance recognised by the case law of the 
Court of Justice, and are proportionate to the aim pursued. There is no inventory of possible national 
technical barriers to the free movement of produc ts within the EC. The European Commission is 
preparing a list of products to which mutual recognition applies. 
 The mutual recognition principle also helps ensure that, in the absence of harmonised regulations or 
standards that there should be no restrictions on measures having equivalent effect.  
 
The principle of mutual recognition in the internal ma rket for goods within the EC applies to products 
that are lawfully marketed in one Member State. Th is means that the principle also applies to products 
manufactured in a third country and that are lawfu lly marketed in a Member  State (see Article 24 EC 
Treaty).  
 
Question 15 from Costa Rica 
Párrafo 51. Respecto a las  normas y reglamentos técn icos comunitarios, ¿qué porcentaje de ellos se 
basan en normativa internacional?  En los casos que no están basados en normativa internacional, 
¿cuales son las razones por las que se presenta dicha situación?  
 
Answer 
The EC and the European Standardisation Organisati ons are aligned to international standardisation 
and promote international standards. The princi ple is "go international wherever possible". 
Accordingly, CEN and CENELEC have developed cooperation agreements with their respective 
international counterparts. For CEN, it is the Vie nna agreement concluded w ith ISO. For CENELEC, it 
is the Dresden Agreement concluded wit IEC. In th ese agreements the partners agree to cooperate and 
to develop common standards wherever possible. As  a result, roughly 80% of the CENELEC standards 
are identical with IEC standards and 35% of CEN standards are identical with ISO standards.  
For further detailed information, the EC invites Co sta Rica to visit the CEN and CENELEC website:  
http://www.cen.eu/cenorm/index.htm
 (CEN) and http://www.cenelec.org/Cenelec/Homepage.htm  
(CENELEC) 
 
Propiedad Intelectual 
 
Question 16 from Costa Rica  
Con respecto al nuevo reglamento 510/2006 del Con sejo, del 20 de marzo del 2006 relativo a la 
protección de indicaciones geográficas y de las denominaciones de origen de los productos agrícolas y alimenticios, ¿podrían detallar en qué consisten las modificaciones principales en relación con la 
normativa anterior de la UE (Reglamento 2081/92 del Consejo)?  
 
Answer 
Council Regulation No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 repealed Council Regulation No  2081/92 on the 
protection of geographical indications and designa tions of origin for agricultural products and 
foodstuffs, as a consequence of a Panel Report by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) on the 
protection of trademarks and geograp hical indications by the EC.  The new legislation, i.e. Council 
Regulation No 510/2006, addressed the following issues:   (i) clarification and simplification of the 
registration procedure  (ii) a better definition of responsibilities between Member States and the 
Commission;  (iii) the need to clarify that th e provisions under Council Re gulation No 2081/92 on  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 377 
 
 
 equivalence and reciprocity did not apply to GIs corresponding to geographical areas located in other 
WTO Members;  (iv) opening registration directly  to producer groups in third countries and not 
through their national administration; and (v) cl arifying the procedures concerning amendments to 
specifications, objections, or cancellation in the event of failure to respect specifications.  
 
Question 17 from Costa Rica  
En el párrafo 123 del Informe de la Secretaría se  menciona que a finales del año 2004, la Comisión 
adoptó una nueva estrategia para mejorar la observanc ia de los derechos de propiedad intelectual en 
terceros países y que como parte de dicha estra tegia se está procediendo a revisar los capítulos de 
propiedad intelectual de sus acuerdos bilaterales.  As imismo, se menciona que en el año 2005 se inició 
un estudio sobre la observancia de los derechos de propiedad intelectual en 40 países, cuyos resultados 
se anunciaron a finales del año 2006.  En este sentido,  ¿podrían explicarnos si a raíz de esta revisión de 
los capítulos de propiedad intelectual en los acu erdos bilaterales, la UE piensa impulsar nuevas 
políticas o medidas en la negociación de nuevos acuerdos comerciales en el tema de observancia de los 
derechos de propiedad intelectual? Si es así, ¿en  qué consistirían estas nuevas políticas o medidas? Por 
otra parte, en relación con el estudio sobre la obser vancia de los derechos de  propiedad intelectual, 
¿podrían detallarnos las principa les conclusiones a qué llegó la UE sobre dicho estudio y si han 
valorado tomar medidas correctivas a raíz de este estudio y cuales serían dichas medidas?  
Answer 
Bilateral trade agreements are increasingly becomi ng an important tool to promote adequate and 
effective protection and enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). There is a shift towards the 
inclusion of detailed sections dedicated to the topic, and they go beyond the minimum standards 
required by the TRIPs Agreement. At the moment, wh en the European Union is entering into a new era 
of carefully constructed and ambitious bilateral ag reements with partners such as India, ASEAN, 
Korea, Central American Countries and the Andean  Comunity, it will ensure that they include 
provisions allowing for a solid protection and enforcement of IPR, modelled on those in place within 
the EC.  Additionally, the EC has strengthened its resources in certain countries to help businesses find reliable 
suppliers, spot the risks from Intellectual Property thef t and deal with the domestic authorities. In some 
countries, we have created a regular dialogue pro cess with their enforcing authorities to resolve our 
problems. We have also established mechanisms be tween right-holders and the competent enforcement 
services, so that concrete problems can be addressed face-to-face. The results of such cooperation are periodically assessed in order to measure if there is concrete progress. 
Substantial information about the 2006 Enforcement Survey, including a summary of the findings for 
each of the countries for which meaningful informa tion was received, is available at the European 
Commission's DG Trade website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/sector al/intell_property/survey2006_en.htm
 
Regarding the corrective measures being proposed  by the European Co mmission for each of the 
countries defined as priorities, these can be found on the individual fiches prepared for the 14 countries 
listed: http://ec.europa.eu/tr ade/issues/sectoral/intell_prope rty/ipr_epc_countries_en.htm  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 378  
 
 Pesca 
 
Question 18 from Costa Rica 
Párrafo 42. ¿Cómo se determinan los precios mínimo s de venta de los productos de la pesca y cada 
cuánto se determinan? 
 
Answer 
Producer organisations (fishermen) may take fish and shellfish products off the market when prices fall 
below a given level. This level, called the withdraw al price, is determined annually by the European 
Commission for each type of product marketed. It is set on the basis of guide prices, which in turn are 
fixed annually by the European Council of Minister s on a proposal from the European Commission.  
 Guide prices are fixed annually for the species (wild  capture fisheries) covered by the withdrawal 
system on the basis of average prices registered ove r the previous three years in representative ports.  
 
More information on the above mechanisms can be  found in the brochure "The common organisation 
of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products", available at the following website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/facts/ocm_en.pdf
 
 
Question 19 from Costa Rica 
Párrafo 44. ¿Cómo determinan las CE el monto o el  tipo de asistencia financiera que otorgan a los 
países con los que mantienen acuerdos bilaterales de pesca? 
 
Answer 
The EC Council of Ministers Council of the Eur opean Union (AGRICULTURE and FISHERIES) held 
in Brussels on 19 July 2004, adopted conclusions  on a Communication from the European Commission 
on "An integrated framework for fisheries partners hip agreements with th ird countries" (document 
COM(2002) 637 final of 23.12.2002). In its conclusions, the Council stated that:  "[…] [the] EC financial contribution under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) should take into 
account the means necessary to implement sustaina ble fishing. Among the parameters, on a case by 
case basis, the EC financial contribution should be defined according to the following: 
 
all fishing opportunities accessible to EC fishing v essels in the light of the best scientific opinion 
available and better knowledge of the state of the fish eries and of the fishing effort deployed by both 
national and foreign fleets; 
 
pinpointing action to promote the sustainable developmen t of fisheries, in particular action to improve 
the scientific and technical evaluation of the fisheri es concerned, monitoring and supervision of fishing 
activities, hygiene requirements and the business environment of the sector; 
 
the impact of the partnership agreement as well as th e participation of European interests on the partner 
coastal State’s fisher ies sector as a whole, with regard to its aspirations towards development under 
rational and sustainable economic and social cond itions and to its commitment to implementing a 
sustainable fisheries policy in the interest of both Parties." 
 For further information on fisheries agreements co ncluded by the EC, please refer to the following 
website: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/external_relations_en.htm
 
 
Question 20 from Costa Rica  
Párrafo 47. ¿Qué programas específicos se han id entificado para el periodo 2007-2013 dentro del 
Fondo Europeo de la Pesca (FEP)?   
Answer  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 379 
 
 
 The European Fisheries Fund (EFF), which succeeds th e Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance 
(FIFG) covering the 2000-2006 period,  will operate on a similar basis as its predecessor. However, it 
will be simpler to manage. It will also better targ et the objectives of the reformed Common Fisheries 
Policy (CFP). It will integrate better other EC pol icies, such as environment and employment and 
follow a stronger and more comprehensive strategic approach. 
 
The EFF will re-conduct most of the measures under the FIFG. But it will also offer new and innovative measures to take account of the changing  needs of the sector. Most striking examples are 
the measures to accompany the implementation of recovery plans, the encouragement of selective 
fishing methods and the funding for local development strategies to foster the sustainable development 
of fisheries areas. Support for inland fishing and en vironmentally-friendly aquaculture has gained a 
more prominent position. For the implementation of measures, Member States will have more 
flexibility as eligibility rules are kept  to the strict necessary at EC le vel. This will help to adjust 
measures more easily to the needs of their fishing industry.   
Implementation of assistance will be considerably simplified. FIFG support for the fisheries sector was 
split up between different programmes in a Member State. In the future, a single EFF programme per 
Member State will allow to concentrate support and to  maximise the efficiency of measures. Moreover, 
the requirement to draw up a national strategic plan for the entire fisheries sector of a Member States 
will help to identify better priorities, targets and publ ic resources for attaining the identified objectives.  
 
The EFF was designed as a real tool to help delive r sustainability for the fishing industry. Aid will 
promote and accompany the adjustment of fishing fleet s to available resources, particularly for those 
targeting endangered stocks. The envi ronmental dimension is also reinforced through a set of measures 
to promote selectivity and reduce the negative imp acts of fishing and aquaculture activities on the 
environment. The Fund will also dedicate more atten tion to the preservation of human resources in the 
fisheries by providing adequate answers to the ec onomic and social needs of the people employed in 
the sector. The EFF will contribute better to the sustaina ble development of fisheries areas, particularly 
those which are heavily dependant on fishing, throu gh the financing of local development strategies, 
designed and implemented by the stakeholders themselves.  For further details please refer to Council Regul ation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the 
European Fisheries Fund. Official Journal of the European Union, L223 of 15/08/2006, pp. 1 – 44. 
The above Council Regulation and further information on the EFF is available at the Europa website 
www.europa.eu .
 
 
Energía 
 
Question 21 from Costa Rica 
Párrafo 50. ¿En qué consiste el régimen de franquicia arancelaria aplicable a las importaciones de 
electricidad?  
Answer 
Electrical energy is a product traded under HS code (2716). The import tariff is 0%. 
 
Question 22 from Costa Rica  
Párrafo 51. ¿En qué consisten las medidas de polític a general en materia energética que permitirían la 
plena apertura de los mercados a todos los consumidores y productores para el 2007? 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 380  
 
 Answer 
The full market opening in gas and electricity in the EC will be completed in July 2007, when 
industrial and household customers in all EC Member  States will be entitled to freely choose their gas 
and electricity suppliers. The dates are fixed in the two European Directives setting out the 
liberalisation process for gas (2003/55/EC) and electricity (2003/54/EC).  
 
Servicios 
 Question 23 from Costa Rica 
Párrafo 76. ¿Qué sectores se mantienen bajo monopo lio en la Unión Europea? ¿Cuáles sectores tienen 
legislación diferente entre los Estados Miembros? 
 
Answer 
The European Commission does not itself keep, and is  not aware of the existence of, any definitive 
register or statistical information on state-ow ned enterprises or on monopolies (state-owned or 
otherwise) in the EC. Because EC regulations, in cluding competition rules, apply to all enterprises 
equally, regardless of their ownership structure, ther e is no particular reason to maintain any kind of 
list of state-owned enterprises. The European Commission would also point out that a monopoly can be obtained via a patent or through the normal play of competition, as well as be ing conferred by State 
regulation. The EU Treaty (article 86) employs th e concept of "special or exclusive rights", and 
provides a legal base for the adoption of legislation liberalising previously monopolised sectors; this 
has been done in a number of sectors, particularly electronic communications, energy, transport, and 
the postal sector.  
 
Question 24 from Costa Rica  
¿Cuáles son las limitaciones para que prestadores extranjeros puedan prestar servicios profesionales? ¿Cuáles servicios profesionales se regulan a nivel de la Unión Europea y cuáles a nivel de la 
legislación interna de cada Estado Miembro?  
Answer 
Professions which require specific qualifications by vi rtue of the law of the EC Member States are 
"regulated professions" within the meaning of the EC law on the recognition of professional 
qualifications. There is a database containing the lists of regulated professions of the Member States, 
the EEA countries and Switzerland, in the original language(s) of each country with translations in 
French, German and English, and includes informa tion such as the level at which the profession is 
regulated. The information is updated dir ectly by the Member States themselves. 
 
The recognition of professional qualifications within  the EC is governed by EC legislation, i.e. 
directives which are addressed to all Member States  and which, generally speaking, require Member 
States to permit access to a regulated profession to applicants possessing the qualifications required by 
another Member State. There are sectoral dir ectives which provide for automatic recognition of 
professional qualifications based on harmonised minimu m training standards and which are mainly in 
the health sector (doctors, nurses, dentists, midwives,  veterinary surgeons, pharmacists and architects). 
In addition, there are directives which do not harmonise training standards but ensure mutual 
recognition between national qualifi cation requirements. They apply to all the professions which are 
regulated from the point of view of qualifications  and provide for so-called compensation measures 
where there are major differences in education an d training between the migrants' qualifications and 
the host Member States requirements. Finally, ther e are two Directives applying to lawyers, one of 
which concerns the provision of services, and the other, the establishment under the title of country of 
origin.    WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 381 
 
 
 Third country nationals do not benefit from the EC  law on recognition of professional qualifications 
(apart from family members of EU citizens and so -called long-term residents under specific EC law 
based on article 63 of EC Treaty).  For further information see:  http://ec.europa.e u/internal_market/qualifications/overview_en.htm
" 
 Question 25 from Costa Rica  
Párrafo 79. Dado que muchos servicios no están su jetos a una política general de mercado interior 
¿cuál es el marco regulatorio para el sector turismo? ¿Se regula este sector como un mercado unificado o aplica la legislación de cada Estado Miembro? 
 
Answer 
The EC understands the question in the sense that services falling under tourism are concerned. It 
should be noted that tourism as such is not a service in itself. From that point of view, the EC would like to point out that part of the tourism activity is already 
covered partly by EC initiatives and policy . 
 
Question 26 from Costa Rica  
Párrafo 82. ¿Cuáles son las diferencias instituciona les y los obstáculos transfronterizos entre los 
Estados Miembros que interfieren en el desa rrollo del mercado unificado para los servicios 
financieros? 
 
Answer  
Despite considerable progress in the integration of  Financial Services within the EC, cross-borders 
obstacles and institutional differences remain.  - The following policy measures implemented in 2006 give a good example of the   
 issues addressed to remove obstacles and further integrate EC financial markets:  
- supervisory co-operation has been developing,  - improved inter-institutional balance has been achieved,  - several steps have been taken to improve  communication with consumers and users,  
- a proposed directive aims to achieve greater clarity in supervisory assessments of  M&A transactions, 
- the Capital Requirements Directive was formally adopted, 
- recommendations on future revisions of the E-money Directive and on way forward   for Deposit Guarantee Schemes were made,  - preparatory work for Solv ency II proceeded apace,  
- motor insurance compensation bodies and accide nts with trailers has been addressed,  
- an expert group looking at mobility with  regard to bank accounts has been created, 
- consultation on mortgage credit has continued,  - competition inquiries into retail banking ha ve revealed market fragmentation and  
 barriers to entry,  - discussions have gathered speed on the proposed Payments Directive,  - essential implementing measures of the Market  in Financial Instruments Directive  
 were adopted,  
- calls for evidence on transparency in non-equity markets and on regulatory    framework for commodity and exotic derivatives have been  launched,  - amendments to prospectus requirements for issuers with complex financial histories  
 have been proposed, 
- an Industry-led Code of Conduct has been adopted in Clearing & Settlement,  
- a White Paper on Investment Funds published in November 2006 has proposed    measures to improve the efficiency of the EC investment fund market, - the future priorities for Company Law and Co rporate Governance have been clarified,  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 382  
 
 - the required procedures under Transparency Directive have been clarified in   
 implementing measures,  - clarifications in application of 3
rd Money Laundering Directive has been made in   
 implementing measures,  - reports have assessed the impact of mone y laundering directives on the legal   
 profession and on non face-to-face transactions,  
- numbers of regulations adopting IASB sta ndards and interpretations have been   
 adopted,  - exemption for third country GAAPs has been  extended until end-2008 provided that  
 certain conditions are met,  and  
- the framework for auditors' liabilit y in the EC  has been examined. 
 
Question 27 from Costa Rica  
Párrafo 83. ¿Qué mecanismos de superv isión consolidada se han implementado? 
 Answer 
The different mechanisms that the Commission want to  promote to ensure a safe, coordinated and cost 
effective supervision across EC are (i) better cross-bo rder cooperation in times of crisis to strengthen 
financial stability (ii) a clarification in roles and responsibilities of home/host supervisors (iii) a 
delegation of tasks and responsibilities between supervis ors (iv)  some practical steps to improve the 
efficiency of supervision : streamlined common re porting, common data and reporting requirements – 
and where necessary – common supervisory datab ases (v) developing a pan-European supervisory 
culture with  common decision-making and enforcement practices - in particular for multi-country or cross-sectoral groups - joint inspections, peer revi ews and practical measures such as staff exchanges, 
joint training between supervisors, ex change of information and expertise.  
 
Question 28 from Costa Rica  
Párrafo 84. ¿Cuáles son los obstáculos jurídicos de las operaciones transfronterizas de servicios 
financieros?   
Answer 
Please refer to Question 26.   
Question 29 from Costa Rica  
Párrafo 90. ¿Qué tipo de regulación se pretende adoptar para el caso de las empresas especializadas en 
reaseguros?  Answer 
EC rules on reinsurance were adopted in 2005 in th e form of Directive 2005/68/EC. This Directive 
introduced the European Single Passport, also for reinsurance undertakings, which means that these 
companies are free to carry out their activity within  the EC provided a granted authorization by their 
home Member State. The Reinsurance Directive, in principle, does not apply to undertakings which do reinsurance business to a limited extent only and which are already authorised under Directives 
73/239/EEC (Non-Life) or 2002/83/EC (Life). The Directive must be transposed by Member States by 
10 December 2007, at the latest.  
 
Question 30 from Costa Rica  
Párrafo 134. ¿Puede un extranjero pr estar servicios de turismo en la  Unión Europea? ¿Cuáles son las 
limitaciones o restricciones que aplican para la prestación de servicios de turismo por parte de un 
proveedor extranjero?   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 383 
 
 
 Answer 
In order to reply properly to this question it sh ould be specified to which services Costa Rica is 
referring. Tourism is not as such a specific servi ce in this sense as far as the European Commission 
understands the question.  
Disposiciones Institucionales 
En el párrafo 7 del documento WT/TPR/G/177  se indica que el Consejo Europeo inició en el mes de 
junio del 2006, consultas internas sobre el modo de continuar el proceso de reformas al proyecto de 
Constitución de la Unión Europea. En este sentido: 
 
Question 31 from Costa Rica 
¿Han habido avances y acuerdos logrados en  dicho foro de consultas? ¿Cuáles? 
 
Answer 
As agreed by the European Council in June 2006 , the European Union has followed a two-track 
approach. It has focused on making best use of th e possibilities offered by the existing treaties to 
deliver concrete results while pr eparing the ground for continuing the reform process.  In December 
2006, the Finnish Presidency provided an assessment of its consultations with Member States. The 
outcome of these consultations was passed on to the German Presidency as part of its report to be 
presented during the first half of 2007. 
 
Question 32 from Costa Rica  
¿Se mantienen suspendidos los procesos de referéndum  y ratificación en el resto de países de la UE? 
 Answer 
 
The ratification process remains the re sponsibility of each Member State. 
 REPUBLIC OF KOREA
 
 Economic Environment  
1. 11 EC Members Trying to Fulf ill the Maastricht Convergence Criteria 
(WT/TPR/S/177 pp.2~3, para.3~5)  
 
   ㅇ  Currently, 11 EC Member States are showing effort to fulfill the Maastricht convergence 
criteria in order to join the euro zone.  
 
   ㅇ  In the case of the Baltic countries, which are Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, higher growth 
rates are an imperative in order for them to catch up with the euro z one in terms of per capita income. 
However, it is difficult for these countries to achieve  high growth rates while meeting the inflation 
convergence criterion at the same time. This is beca use high growth rates usually cause high rates of 
inflation, while the monetary policy is constr ained by pegging exchange rates to the euro.  
  
     We would like to request the EC's reco mmendations to these countries regarding which policy 
strategies would be the best in order to simultaneous ly achieve these two goals, i.e., reaching the euro 
zone level of income and meeti ng the economic convergence criteria.  
 
Answer 
For all EC Member states their fu lfilment of the convergence criteri a will be assessed in way that 
guarantees equal treatment with previous cases.  The December 2006 Commission Convergence Report 
concluded that some of the EU Member States that are catching up and aim to introduce the euro have WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 384  
 
 already made impressive progress towards meeting th e convergence criteria. Experience with countries 
currently in the euro area shows that consistently pursuing stability-oriented policies has been a major 
factor in ensuring sustainable growth and price stab ility and has helped to achieve entry into the euro 
area. 
 
2. Higher Inflationary Pressure  
(WT/TPR/S/177 p.6, para.10) 
 
   ㅇ  Despite peaks in the price of oil, inflat ion rates in the EU economy have been rather 
modest. Recently, however, there are growing c oncerns about higher inflation rates in the 
economy, as inflation rates have consistently surpassed 2%.  
      What is the ECB's opinion in regards to th is situation and what are your plans in overcoming 
inflationary pressure? 
Answer 
The hike in energy prices kept headline HICP in flation above 2% until A ugust 2006. Thereafter, the 
drop in oil and energy prices helped to bring in flation down below 2%.Since September 2006, headline 
inflation has been below 2 percent. On average, h eadline inflation in the euro area was 2.2 percent in 
2006. In contrast, core inflation (HICP excluding ener gy and unprocessed food prices) remained fairly 
steady at 1.5% on average in 2006, suggesting th e absence of second-round effects from the energy 
price hikes. This is highly significant as it took place in a situation of cyclical acceleration and strong labour demand.  
Since December 2005, the ECB has increased its policy interest rates six times by a total of 150 basis 
points to ensure that medium to longer-term inflat ion expectations in the euro area remain solidly 
anchored at levels consistent with price stability. 
 
Trade and Investment Regimes  
3. The Influence of Association Agreements and FTAs on the Economy 
  (WT/TPR/S/177 pp.32~33, para.50~51)  
      Since the establishment of the Association Agreement with Chile and the formation of an FTA 
with Mexico, what are your general evaluations  of the impact of liberalization in the 
agriculture and service areas in both countries?  
   The liberalization schedule shown in the FTA with Mexico was designed to be more drastic 
than that of Chile's schedule. How do you evaluate this scheme?  
Answer 
A complete evaluation of the impact of the FTAs w ith Chile and Mexico in the agriculture and services 
areas is premature, as liberalisation is still in pr ogress in the agricultural sector, and evolution clauses 
for both sectors in both agreements have not yet been implemented.  
However, a positive impact of these two FTAs on total trade flows between Chile / Mexico and the EC 
can be observed. In the case of Chile, total exports  to the EC were in 2006 approx. 12 billion €, as 
compared to 4.8 billion € in 2002 (last year before  FTA), a 150% increase in 4 years; Chile's share in 
total EC imports, which was less than 0.6% in 2002, is now close to 1%. Of course, this is partly due to 
high copper prices, but there have also been very si gnificant increases in Chilean exports of fruits, fish 
and other agro-food products, counting for 23% of thei r total exports to the EC in 2005. In the other 
direction total EC exports to Chile have increased by 40% in 4 years, with the EC keeping its position 
as main trading partner of Chile, but with EC agricu ltural exports remaining at a very modest level. 
 In the case of Mexico, the increase  of trade since the agreement was signed (2000) has been of approx. 
50% in 6 years for Mexican exports to the EC a nd 35% for EU exports to Mexico, with a strong 
increase in 2005-2006. Our evaluation is that there is  a potential for further benefit of the agreement.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 385 
 
 
 But in general, trade in agricultural products has ne ver been very important in either direction and has 
not significantly increased in recent years, with a large part of the preferential quotas for Mexican 
agricultural exports to the EC remaining unused.  As for the services area, it is not possible to evaluate  at this stage the impact of liberalisation, as the 
agreement with Chile in this area only entered into  force in 2005, and the agreement with Mexico 
remains limited to a few sectors (mainly financial services), pending further liberalisation under a revision clause under negotiation. 
 
4. The Status Quo of the EC's Performance in FTAs  
  (WT/TPR/S/177 pp.27~36, para.38~66)  
 
    ㅇ The EC announced its new trade policy titled "Gl obal Europe" proposing to conclude a bilateral 
FTA although priority was given to the WTO/DDA negotiation.  
 
       - According to the new trade policy "Global Europe", it is known that the EC has selected Korea, 
India and the ASEAN as its primary FTA part ners and that the Council is discussing the 
mandate submitted by the European Commission.  
     When are these FTA negotiations expected to be launched? 
 Answer 
The negotiations will be launched once the discussions on the authorizations to negotiate have been 
concluded and the authorizations to nego tiate adopted by the European Council. 
 
     Does the EC consider any other potential FTA partners excluding Korea, India and the ASEAN? 
Answer 
The "Global Europe" Communication identified Korea,  India and ASEAN as priorities for the time 
being. Discussions on the authorization to negotiate  for agreements with Central America and the 
Andean Pact are also curr ently underway in the Council. The EC will also give speci al attention to 
finalising current ongoing negotiations (such as GCC or Mercosur).  Negotiations with Russia and 
Ukraine will be undertaken as soon as their WT O accession processes have been completed. 
 
Although we acknowledge that the FTA  negotiations may not be influenced by the DDA negotiations, 
does the EC envisage that the resumption of the DD A negotiations will affect the timing of the FTA 
negotiations?  Answer 
No, the DDA negotiations and the FTA negotiations are complementary processes, and the timing of 
the DDA negotiations will not affect the timing of the FTA negotiations.  5. Increasing Unemployment in the Labo r Markets of the Original Members  
Caused by the Enlargement of the EU 
  (WT/TPR/S/177 p.29, para.38~39)  
 
   ㅇ  According to paragraph 38 ～39 of the Secretariat's report, the EC's enlargement in May 2004 
brought many positive effects, including more economic growth in the ten new Member 
States. However, the report expresses concern that the potential combination of relocating 
economic activities to the new Me mber States, together with FDI flows and labor migration 
from the new to the original Member States, will cause unemployment rates to rise in the 
original Member States.  
    We would like to know the EC's re sponse to the concerns mentioned above.  
Answer WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 386  
 
 The European Commission Communication "Report on the Functioning of the Transitional 
Arrangements set out in the 2003 Accession Treaty  (period 1 May 2004-30 April 2006)" has drawn, 
inter alia, the following conclusions from the analysis of the impacts of enlargement and application of 
free movement: 
 
• The migration flows following the enlargement have had positive effects on the economies of 
the EU15 Member States: EU10 nationals positivel y contribute to the overall labour market 
performance, to sustained economic gr owth and to better public finances. 
• This employment rate has increased in several countries since enlargement. Enlargement has 
helped to formalise the underground economy cons tituted by previously undocumented workers 
from the EU10, with well-known beneficial eff ects, such as greater co mpliance with legally 
sanctioned labour standards, improved social c ohesion and higher State income from tax and 
social security contributions. This also improv es the integration of EU10 nationals due to a 
change in employers' attitudes, greater opportunities to set up private businesses, better information and regulation. 
• The sectoral composition of the EU15 national workforce has not shown significant changes 
since enlargement showing no evidence of crowdi ng out of national workers by the limited 
inflow of workers from EU10 Member States. EU  10 nationals have a complementary role to 
play. 
• EU10 nationals alleviate skills bottlenecks in the EU15 Member States and contribute to long-
term growth through human capital accumulation.  
These conclusions made on the basis of data availabl e in early 2006 appear to be borne out also by 
the recent data indicating further labour market im provements in both old and new Member States 
of the EU:  
Trade Policies and Practices by Measure  
6. The Trend of Revising the Rules of Origin  
   (WT/TPR/S/177 p.51, para.28~29)  
It is known that the EC is working to comprehensiv ely revise the current complex preferential rules of 
origin named the pan-Euro-Mediterranean system . As follow-up measures of this initiative, the 
Communication on the future of preferential rules of origin was adopted in 2005.  
 
We would like to kindly request the EC to provide detailed information to the greatest extent possible 
on the development of new preferential rules of origin since the 2005 Communication.   Answer 
Although the 2005 Communication was a general docume nt concerning all preferential arrangements, 
it made clear that the first concrete applicati on of the reform should be  priority, development-
orientated arrangements such as GSP. Consequently , reform of the Pan-Euro-Med system is not 
currently under consideration. The communication favoured action in three areas with  a view to making preferential rules of origin 
simpler (and where, appropriate, more development- friendly) while also improving management and 
control procedures: - a new, single method for determining what is sufficient working or processing and for allocating 
origin in cumulation, based on value added; 
- clarification of roles and responsibilities of trad ers and administrations, including in particular 
evidence of origin to be given through stat ements on origin by registered exporters; 
- a secured environment for legitimate trade, to ensu re beneficiary countries could comply with their 
obligations (periodic monitoring, plus appropr iate information and technical assistance).  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 387 
 
 
 The communication acknowledged that the value adde d method needed further analysis. Two studies 
by outside consultants were commissioned, which have only recently been completed. These will feed 
into an overall impact assessment the Commiss ion is making on all aspects of the reform.  
 
     When does the EC expect the ne w rules of origin to be introduced? 
 
Answer 
Currently, it is expected to complete the impact  assessment and present a proposal on GSP rules of 
origin in late spring 2007, with a view to implementation at the beginning of 2008. When the European Commission makes a proposal it will also publish its impact assessment.  
     What is the relationship between the revised ru les of origin and the rules of origin in the EU's 
previous FTAs?  
Answer 
The Communication indicated that after GSP the re form should be progessively extended to existing 
FTAs, taking account of experience. However, there is no specific timetable for this and existing 
arrangements should not be disturbed unnecessarily.  
 
     Does harmonizing preferential rules of or igin mean that the EC seeks to apply diagonal 
cumulation among countries who have FTAs with the EC?  
 Answer 
There is no intention to extend diagonal cumulation in a way that would inter-link all the EC's FTAs. 
Diagonal cumulation will always be based upon spec ific conditions, applied within a given area. 
      It is reported that the EU determines the origin of some imported products, including copy 
machines, based on a negative list. Although th e WTO Rules of Origin Agreement defines 
their rules of origin principally based on a po sitive standard, what is the EC's reason for 
determining these products on a negative list? 
 
Answer 
The EC's current non preferential rules of origin are based on the principle of "last substantial 
transformation" (where more than one country is involved in the production of the good), in 
accordance with Article 24 of Regulation (EC) no.  2913/92 (the Customs Code). The more detailed 
rules in the implementing provisions contain positive standards for virtually all products concerned. A 
so-called "negative" rule exists for only 2 prod uct categories, grape juice/wine and photocopying 
apparatus. These rules were included in the legisla tion long before the conclusion of the Agreement on 
Rules of Origin and are the consequence of jurisp rudence of the Court of Justice of the European 
Communities. While awaiting the outcome of th e Harmonisation Work Program resulting from the 
Agreement, the EC has decided not to make any majo r changes to its legislation. This has allowed a 
more flexible position during the negotiations a nd will thus favour a speedy conclusion of the 
harmonisation efforts. 
 
7. Adopting a Green Paper to Enhance the EC's Trade Remedy  
  (WT/TPR/S/177 pp.54~56, para.37~47)  
 
    ㅇ The EU undertook a total of 250 contingency tr ade remedies since 1995 (as of June 30, 2006), 
which puts the EU at third place in the list of  countries that frequently resort to such 
measures. Furthermore, the EU has initiated a total of 345 anti-dumping investigations since 
1995 (as of June 30, 2006).  
 
Contingency trade measures should be placed to protect domestic industries from unfair 
foreign trade practices in exceptional cases.  Gi ven that even a initiation of an investigation WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 388  
 
 affects the business activities of the company under investigation as it imposes additional 
burdens, the EC is requested to be mo re cautious before taking such measures.  
 
    ㅇ  On 12 Dec. 2006, the EU adopted the Green Paper for public consultation about the effective 
use of EU's trade defense instruments in a changing global economy.  
 
     What are the major issues in the Green Paper to be addressed by the EC and how have Member 
States responded to the Green Paper? 
 
Answer 
Generally speaking, the EC is a moderate user of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy instruments. When 
comparing the period from 1995 until the end of 2003 with the period of 1 January 2004 to 30 September 2006, the number of new investigations has gone back from 30 on average to 26. Over the 
same periods definitive anti-dumping measures have  declined from 23 on average to 13 on average 
during 1 January 2004 to 30 September 2006. Furtherm ore, the total number of measures in force by 
the EC has significantly decreased since 2002 (from 184 to 135 in September 2006). As regards the 
imposition of definitive measures, the absolute figures are only meaningf ul when put in relation to the 
overall trade volume. In that respect, it should be not ed that the percentage of trade volume covered by 
AD measures is relatively stable over years at a ve ry moderate level. In comparison with other WTO 
members and taken over time, the EC can therefore be seen as an important trade defence user, but nevertheless a moderate one when considering the overall volume of trade. 
 
The EC applies high standards when examining whet her the conditions for initiating an investigation 
are met. However, if the conditions, as set out in the basic anti-dumping regulation, which are in full 
conformity with the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreemen t, are met, the EC is obliged to initiate 
investigations.  
The EC has recently published a Green Paper on Trade Defence Instruments (TDI) for public 
consultation. The aim of this Green Paper is to la unch a reflection on whether there is a need to adapt 
these instruments in light of the far-reaching ch anges taking place in the global economy, while 
maintaining the efficiency of the TDI to defend EC producers against unfairly traded, subsidized 
imports or dramatic shifts in trade flows.  
 
This process is open and without any preconceived ideas. Consequently the Green Paper does not put 
forward proposals for a change of TDI, but only contains 32 open questions. They cover several 
aspects of TDI law and practice mainly focusing on wh ether our TDI are still sufficiently adjusted to 
today's globalized world. After the consultati on process, which extends until 31 March 2007, the 
Commission will consider on the basis of the r eactions received, how to  follow-up. Since the 
consultation process is still ongoing the EC has not yet received responses of the Member States. 
However, all replies to the questionnaire are electronically accessible (see website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/respectrules/anti_dumping/comu061206_en.htm
), unless confidential 
treatment is requested.   
     The review of the EC's current trade defen ce instruments could have implications for the ongoing 
WTO/DDA negotiations on Rules. What is  the EC's position on this issue? 
 Answer 
There is no direct link between the Green Pape r process and the ongoing WTO/DDA negotiations. The 
EC's TDI legislation goes in several areas be yond the requirements of the WTO Anti-dumping 
Agreement, e.g. lesser duty rule, community inter est test. The ongoing negotiations should not prevent 
it from further refining its TDI legislation, if this is warranted.   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 389 
 
 
 8. Harmonizing Standards and Technical Regulations with International 
Standards  
  (WT/TPR/S/177 p.57 para.49, 53)  
 
   ㅇ  According to the Secretariat's Report, when members develop standards and technical 
regulations that are not in harmony with intern ational standards, they are required to notify 
the European standards organizations of dr aft standards and the European Commission of 
draft technical regulations.  
 
    With regards to the development of the sta ndards and technical regulations, we would like to be 
informed of a way to gain access to the speci fied directives that describe the procedure 
mentioned above, and also receive detailed info rmation on how transparent this procedure is. 
 Answer 
As regards the notification of technical regulations by Member States in accordance with Directive 
98/34/EC, all notifications and notified texts are available at http://ec.eu ropa.eu/enterprise/tris/
. More 
information about the functioning of this pr ocedure is also available at this website. 
 As far as standardisation is concerned, it has to be kept in mind that in the EC, standards are voluntary 
technical documents which are developed by inde pendent European Standardisation Organisations 
over which none of the EC institutions has any direct influence.   
The EC and the European Standardisation Organisati ons are committed to international standardisation 
and promote international standards. The princi ple is "go international wherever possible". 
Accordingly, CEN and CENELEC have developed cooperation agreements with their respective 
international counterparts. For CEN, it is the Vi enna agreement concluded with ISO. For CENELEC, it 
is the Dresden Agreement concluded with IEC. In th ese agreements the partners agree to cooperate and 
to develop common standards wherever possible. As  a result, roughly 80% of the CENELEC standards 
are identical with IEC standards and 35% of CEN sta ndards are identical with ISO standards. For more 
detailed information, it is recommended to ha ve a look at the CEN and CENELEC websites: 
http://www.cen.eu/cenorm/index.htm (CEN)
 and http://www.cenelec.org/Cenelec/Homepage.htm 
(CENELEC).  
 9. Type Approval System for Automobiles  
  (WT/TPR/S/177 p.57 para.49, 53)  
 
   ㅇ  The EC member states utilize the type approva l system for automobiles in which the safety of 
a vehicle is inspected by the respec tive government prior to manufacture.  
 
   ㅇ  Although the Korean government exempts inspections on 25 out of the 41 items subject to 
safety inspections in automobiles produced in the EC, the EC committee inspects all 41 items 
on Korean cars.  
 
     Is the EC considering reciprocal exemp tion of safety inspections on items that the Korean 
government has already exempted for EU automakers?  
 
Answer The EC understands that the Korean authorities requ est that vehicles produced in Korea be exempted 
from EC type-approval related to 25 entries mentione d in Annex IV Part I to Framework Directive 
70/156/EEC as amended.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 390  
 
 The European type-approval system does not allo w for such exemptions. However, the European 
Communities have acceded to most of the UN/EC E Regulations annexed to the 1958 (Revised) 
Agreement. A list of equivalence of UN/ECE Regulati ons against EC Directives  is set up in Annex IV 
Part II of Directive 70/156/EEC as amended. Consequently, vehicles or vehicle components which are type-approved in accordance with these UN/ECE Regulati ons, either granted by the Korean competent 
authority or by the competent authority of any other Contracting Party to the 1958 (Revised) 
Agreement, signatory of any of the UN/ECE Regula tions in question, will be automatically accepted 
by the EC Type-approval authorities and no further checks or tests will be required.  
 
10. Restriction of the Use of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) 
(WT/TPR/S/177 p.57 para.48)  
 
   ㅇ  Since July 2006, the EU has banned the u se of lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), polybrominated 
biphenyls (PBBs), and hexavalent chromium polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in 
electronics.  
Due to the enactment of the RoHS, manufactur ers have had difficulty  securing substitutable 
substances for 65 specific materials and constructi ng a risk assesment system. The regulation is 
actually recognized as a trade barrier.  
 
   ㅇ  In addition, enforcement regulations and penalties vary by EU member state.  
 
     Does the EU have a plan to prevent the RoHS from being recognized as a substantial trade 
barrier and unify the enforcement regulati ons and penalties of each member state? 
 
Answer 
The RoHS Directive, which appli es to European and non-European producers alike, was adopted early 
in 2003 and the ban on the restriction of the use of certain substances entered into force on 1 July 2006. 
Article 5(1)(b) of the Directive sets out the followi ng criteria for adding or deleting exemptions for 
materials and components:  a) their elimination or  substitution via design changes is technically or 
scientifically impracticable or b) the negative envi ronmental, health and/or consumer safety impacts 
outweigh the environmental, health and/or consumer  safety benefits. Producers have had the time since 
early 2003 either to comply with the provisions  or to submit a request for an exemption.  
 
Over the past years, enforcement authorities fro m the Member States, along with the European 
Commission services, have made good progress in de veloping a common approach towards checking 
compliance of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) with the RoHS Dire ctives requirements. At 
present, an informal EU RoHS Enforcement Bodi es Network has published a guidance document at: 
http://www.rohs.gov.uk/content.aspx?id=9
. The document contains a section on sampling and testing. 
At the same time, intensive standardisation effo rts in relation to the measurement of hazardous 
substances in EEE are underway at international level.  
 
11. Unifying the Certification Systems  
    (WT/TPR/S/177 p.57 para.48)  
 
   ㅇ  Certain EU member states including France, Spain and the Netherlands, require separate 
certification in addition to the CE mark.  
   ㅇ  Regulations on product liability require exporters  to affix a laundry label on products for sale 
in the EU. As there is no unified standard re lating to laundry labels, each EU member state 
regulates for itself.   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 391 
 
 
    ㅇ  Therefore, there are concerns that this double certification system imposes a heavy burden on 
exporters and can act as a technical barrier to trade.  
  
    Does the EU plan to unify regulations and the certification system?  Answer 
It is unclear whether this question refers to horizontal issue or to a specific sector.  
Korea would need to specify to what products and to what certification it refers when stating that 
certain EC Member States require additional certifica tion to the CE mark, as some products need to 
have a mandatory CE mark and for others it is illegal to put a CE mark. 
 Laundry labels are not mandatory everywhere in the EC . In some Member States they are. So far it has 
not been feasible to have harmonised provisions on this. The difficulties are the same whether products come from third countries or are produced in the EC. There is no CE mark for textiles and clothing.  12. Green Government Procurement Policy  
    (WT/TPR/S/177 p.62 para.62)  
 
   ㅇ  It is known that the EU committee is consid ering the enactment of the Green Government 
Procurement Policy, a policy that gives incentives to environment friendly products including 
goods with eco-labels.  
 
     We would like detailed information rega rding this policy. Does the EU plan to revise 
regulations relating to this policy in order to  prevent the eco-label from becoming a de facto 
technical regulation?  
 
Answer 
The EC seeks to actively promote green public  procurement practices with procuring entities 
throughout the EC. Considering that public purchasers  can serve as an example to society, as well as 
their huge purchasing power (expenditures covering build ings, transport, office equipment, catering..), 
green public procurement is considered an impor tant tool for steering a change towards more 
sustainable consumption and pr oduction patterns and increased competition in the field of 
environmental technologies. Green public procuremen t is a voluntary policy, which is furthermore 
subject to the EC (and international) legal framewo rk on public procurement. Environmental elements 
can only be included in procurement procedures if they  are defined in an objective, transparent, non 
discriminatory and verifiable way so as to allow fair competition between bidders and that they are 
linked to the subject matter of the contract. Ec o-label criteria which have been enacted through 
stakeholder consultation, on a scientific basis a nd which are open and transparent to all economic 
operators, are considered very useful for practisi ng green public procurement. Such criteria, provided 
they relate to the purchased product, can be copied  verbatim into a tendering document and provide an 
objective basis for comparing bids against each other. Therefore, in the framework of its green procurement policy, the EC strongly promotes the u se of European or nationa l eco-label criteria in 
public tendering procedures.  
For more information on green procurement in the EC, please see the following website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/guidelines.htm#handbook
 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 392  
 
 13. Decreasing the Rate of Advertising Procurement Contracts  
    (WT/TPR/S/177 p.63 para.68)  
 
   ㅇ  The percentage of public procurement c ontracts published in the Journal is known as an 
indicator of market transparency. According to  Eurostat, procurements advertised in the 
Official Journal represented about 16% of total procurements in 2004.  The reported 
percentage of 2004 decreased in comparison to 2003 when the open procurement rate was 
about 22% of the total. Such decrease reflect s that the percentages published by the newly 
acceding countries are substantially low.  
 
     Such decrease implies that it is not mandato ry to advertise procurement contracts. Are there 
any strategic plans that will encourage th e active participation of Member States? 
 Answer 
The indicator of the value of public procurement contracts advertised in the Official Journal as a 
percentage of total public procurem ent was affected in 2003 by several very large contracts (amounting 
to some €40 billion), for Urban Transport services, in the United Kingdom.  In addition, the 2004 
figures for the newly acceding countries reflect only the second half of 2004, following their accession. 
The overall percentage reported in 2004 does not ther efore reflect a decreasing trend but a return to a 
generally increasing trend, as should be borne out by the figures for 2005 when they become available. 
 
14. The Effect of Privatizing EC State-Owned Enterprises  
    (WT/TPR/S/177 p.67, para.82~84)  
 
   ㅇ  According to paragraph 84 of the Secretaria t's report, an OECD study reveals that the 
privatization of EC state-owned enterprises (SOEs) has not achieved the initially envisioned 
level of competitiveness.  
     What is the EC's view on the problems point ed out by this study, such  as the lack of a clear 
distinction between the role of the State as a regulator and as an owner of competing 
businesses?  
 
Answer 
As explained in paragraphs 82 and 83 of the Secr etariat's report, the EC Treaty and its competition 
rules make no distinction between treatment of St ate-owned and private companies. The competition 
rules fully apply to State owned and State-controlled companies. Neither are there any specific EC 
regulations that would specifically target the behavi our of public companies. All companies, public and 
private, are subject to market forces, and their perfo rmance is purely a matter for shareholders. It is not 
possible to make specific interventions to help th e performance of certain companies on a market but 
not others, as that would be a distortion of comp etition falling under the competition rules. Financial 
interventions would fall under the State Aid rules,  which prohibit such measures, unless compatible 
with EC Regulations in this area. 
 
Regarding the OECD Study referred to in the Secretar iat's paper, it is very important to clarify the 
focus and conclusions of the study. The study is ca lled "Board composition, structure and practice in 
European State-controlled listed companies". It examines 11 State-controlled companies (SCCs) in 
EU15 in four sectors: airlines, utilities, telecoms a nd energy. The study examines the following issues: 
board size and composition, board independence, boa rd nomination and election, board authority, 
board remuneration, executive remuneration a nd incentives, and board evaluation. The Study 
concludes that EU SCCs are increasingly espousing inde pendent directors and that the levels of board 
independence are comparable to those of their priv ate benchmark. On the ne gative side, SCCs under-
perform their private sector peers in terms of fi nancial and operational performance. The study then 
lists number of corporate governance differences that  might be contributing to this performance gap.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 393 
 
 
 Issues mentioned are i.e: SCCs ha ve higher board and management tu rnover than private companies, 
SCCs have more civil servants/state representativ es and employee representatives in their boards and 
fewer foreign professionals, authority of the board to hire CEO is often weaker than in private 
companies, the average remuneration of board members and CEO is approximately half of that of his 
private colleagues. It is important to note that thes e are the findings of the study. Many of the issues 
listed in paragraph 84 of the Secret ariat's report cannot be found in ope rative part or conclusions of the 
study. It appears that the issues listed in the Secret ariat's report have been taken from the first page of 
the study, its "abstract/synthesis", where issues are li sted which according to the authors of the study 
make the governance of SCCs problematic. Howeve r, these issues are not substantiated or even 
mentioned in the study itself, so the EC does not consider these valid for comment in this context. 
 
What comes to the real conclusions of the study,  the underperformance of the EU SCCs, the comments 
of the first paragraph of this reply apply. The perfo rmance of the companies is strictly the matter of 
shareholders, and it is not up to the authorities to intervene in financial performance of companies, 
private or public. 
 
15. EU‘s Policy in Enforcing IPR  
(WT/TPR/S/177 pp.73~78, para.104~123)  
 
    ㅇ Korea acknowledges the fact that the number of c ounterfeit and pirated goods in the market have 
significantly increased year after year. Therefore,  effective measures must  be adopted to solve 
this problem. In this regard, we sincerely agree with the EU's policy to intensify the 
enforcement of IPR.  
      However, Korea estimates that it is inappropr iate that the EU has included Korea in category 3 of 
"the list of priority countries/regions" announced as a follow-up measure of the "Strategy for 
the Enforcement of IPR in Third Countries" beca use of certain problems it has, such as its 
grounds being unclear. Korea urges the EU to exclude Korea from this list. 
 
Answer 
The EC is willing to continue discussing with Kore a, on a bilateral basis, the enforcement problems 
identified by our rightholders.   
    ㅇ Korea fully recognizes that firm and effici ent IPR law enforcements are required for the 
protection of IPR. Therefore, various meas ures are being actively taken to improve the 
enforcement of IPR throughout all the relevant authorities on IPR by taking measure such as 
reinforcing the protection control of IPR, enha ncing in the legal and regulatory system, and 
improving of the awareness the protection of IPR.   
 
     In this context, Korea believes that it is not  appropriate that the EU has made a list of priority 
countries/regions with a unilateral standard based on the results of the IPR Enforcement 
Survey in which the repliers were only by EU  right-holders, associations and other groups 
concerned. Accordingly, Korea requests the EU should approach this issue prudently based on 
statistics and data gathered in a fair and tran sparent way. We would like to ask the EU to 
explain its position. 
 
Answer 
Korea is taking positive steps to improve the enfo rcement of IP rights belonging to foreign right-
holders in its territory, however further progress is required. However, the EC continues to receive 
detailed and well documented info rmation from representative sectors of IP right holders about 
enforcement problems in Korea.  
16. Plan to Change the European Patent System  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 394  
 
     (WT/TPR/S/177 p.74, para.109~110)  
 
   ㅇ  Changes in the European patent system is a matter of huge concern to Korean companies. 
According to paragraph 74 of the Secretariat's re port, much effort has been made in order to 
adopt a Community Patent System and a Eur opean Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA) in 
Europe at the same time.  
      We would like to ask the EC to explain th e current situation of discussions that have been 
made and the future prospects in introduci ng the Community Patent System and the EPLA. 
 Answer 
Work on patent reforms is ongoing in both the Euro pean Patent Organisation (EPO) and the European 
Community (EC) since 1999/2000. Whereas the focus of  the EPO has been the reduction of translation 
requirements for European patents and the setting up of a pan-European patent litigation system 
complementing the European Patent Convention, the EC is considering the creation of a single 
Community patent (COMPAT) which would have identical effect throughout the EC. Whilst the 
London Agreement addressing the translation issu e was adopted in October 2000 work on the other 
reform projects temporarily came to a halt. The diff iculties in making progress in the field of patent 
reforms led the European Commission to launch, in January 2006, a broad consultation on the future 
patent system in Europe.  
 
Moreover, the European Commission organised a public hearing which took place on 12 July 2006. Responses to the consultation exercise have shown that stakeholders favour the introduction of a 
COMPAT and the improvement of the existing Eu ropean patent system. However, the Common 
political approach of the Council on COMPAT which was adopted on 3 March 2003 is strongly 
criticised in relation to translation requirements and the jurisdictional system. As a follow-up to the 
consultation, the European Commission indicated  that it will submit a Communication on patent 
strategy which is likely to be adopted on 28 March 2007.   
17. Compulsory License Needed for Patents  
    (WT/TPR/S/177 p.75, para.112)  
 
   ㅇ  In 2006 (Regulation No. 816/2006), compulsory  licenses were adopted for patents relating to 
the manufacture of pharmaceutical products e xported to countries with public health 
problems.  
 
     In addition to the case stated above, is the EC willing to allow compulsory licensing when the 
patent right is not active? And can patent term s related to pharmaceutical products that take a 
considerable amount of time to conduc t safety tests also be extended?   
 
Answer 
Patents in the EC are national titles (even where gr anted on a regional basis by the European Patent 
Office). It follows that compulsory licensing under pa tent law is in the first instance under the remit of 
national patent offices. Many (if not all) Member States provide for a compulsory licence of a patent to 
be granted where the patent has not been 'worked' (m aybe what is meant by 'not active'). However, as a 
signatory to the TRIPs Agreement, the EC is respons ible for ensuring that the terms of this Agreement 
relating to compulsory licensing of patents are respected within the EC.  
As regards the extension of the period of validit y of patents for pharmaceutical products, this is 
foreseen for a period of up to five years under 'Counc il Regulation (EEC) No 17 68/92 of 18 June 1992 
concerning the creation of a supplementary pr otection certificate for medicinal products'.  
 
18. The EC's Policies to Improve EC Copyright Management  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 395 
 
 
     (WT/TPR/S/177 p.76, para.76~118)  
 
   ㅇ  Recently, there have been discussions on improving the copyright system in Europe. One 
issues is the improvement of the copyright levy system. This is because the present EC 
copyrights are managed by national copyright associ ations of each Member State, a procedure 
widely acknowledged as complicated and costly in the making of contracts for licensing 
copyrights in several Member States.  
 
     In this regard, we would like to ask th e EC to explain the Commission's policy direction to 
improve the EC copyright management, its expe cted benefits to the EC copyright holders, 
and the possible impact on Non-EC copyright holders. 
 
Answer 
The European Commission has adopted a Recommend ation on collective cross-border management of 
copyright and related rights for legitimate online music services (2005/737/EC), which puts forward 
measures for improving the EC-wide licensing of copyright for online services. The Recommendation 
and the accompanying Impact assessment reformi ng cross-border collective management of copyright 
and related rights for legitimate online music servic es (SEC(2005) 1254) address different aspects such 
as multi-territorial licensing, dispute resolution, cross-border distribution of royalties, etc.  
The European Commission has launched in Janua ry 2007 online public consultation where all 
interested stakeholders are invited to submit vi ews and comments on their initial experience with the 
Recommendation. After the completion of this monitoring exercise the European Commission will be able to assess how many EC licensing platforms have been established and how many EC-wide 
licenses have been issued. The initial experience w ith the Recommendation shows that until now seven 
EC-wide licensing schemes have been a nnounced or have become operational. 
 
Trade Policies by Sector  
19. The Classification of Agricultural Subsidies  
    (WT/TPR/S/177 p.82, para.9)  
 
     According to paragraph 9 of the Secretariat report, Member States may choose to maintain 
"partial decoupling" payment. If a Member St ates chooses to maintain payment, is it 
categorized as a domestic subsidy of a green or blue box? 
 Answer 
Under the Single Payment Scheme of the 2003 reform  Members States were allowed to keep parts of 
their previous support partially decoupled. These direct  payments will be classified in the Blue Box if 
they comply with the relevant criteria for Blue Box classification.  
 20. The Basis of Exemption from Labeling GM food/feed  
    (WT/TPR/S/177 p.85, para.17)  
      According to paragraph 17 of the Secret ariat's report, the EC has introduced an exemption 
from labeling genetically modified(GM) food and feed if it contains adventitious or 
technically unavoidable traces of GMOs that  are 0.9% in Regulation(EC) No.1829/2003. 
Could the EC explain the scientific basis of this exemption? 
 
Answer 
Conventional products, i.e. products  created without recourse to genetic modification, may be 
accidentally contaminated by GMOs during harvesting,  storage, transport or processing. This does not 
only apply to GMOs. In the production of food, feed and seed, it is practically impossible to achieve 
products that are 100% pure. Taking this into account, the legislation has laid down limits above which WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 396  
 
 conventional food and feed must be labelled as pro ducts consisting of GMOs, containing GMOs or 
produced from GMOs. These conventional products “contaminated” by au thorised GMOs are not however subject to 
traceability and labelling requirements if they contai n traces of these (authorised) GMOs below a limit 
of 0.9%, provided the presence of this material is a dventitious or technically unavoidable. This is the 
case when operators demonstrate to the competent au thorities that they have taken adequate measures 
to avoid the presence of this material. 
 21. Division of Processed Agricultural Goods  
    (WT/TPR/S/177 p.89, para.23)  
      According to paragraph 23 of the Secretar iat's report, processed agricultural goods are subject 
to custom duties if comprised of an industr ial and an agricultural component. How does the 
EC differentiate between industrial compone nts and agricultural ones when making tariff 
concession schedules for bilateral trade agreements, such as FTAs? 
 
Answer 
The duties of processed products are either ad valorem or specific or compound or mixed duties which 
leads to a number of possibilities. The EC update d agricultural schedule CXL does not mention any 
agricultural or industrial element. There are some cases under Part I, section I, section I-A with a 
reference to the annex 1of this sec tion. This annex is explicit in it self. Furthermore, the bilateral 
negotiations are carried out on a case by case basis acco rding to the interests of both parts with the 
view to achieve a win-win situation in the framework of the WTO rules. 
 
22. The Low Fill Rate of the TRQ in Some Products 
    (WT/TPR/S/177 p.89, para.22)  
 
    According to the WTO document (G/AG/N/EEC/ 48), the average fill ratio for the TRQ of the EC 
was 62% in 2002. In particular, there was zero u tilization for several products, for instance, fresh 
or frozen swine carcasses, sw eet potatoes, preparation of malt, a nd barley. Zero percent of the fill 
rate for several products can be interpreted as an  example in which the TRQ administration of the 
EC was operated toward restricting fair trade.  
 
     How does the EC evaluate such a lo w fill rate for the TRQ in terms of the TRQ 
administration? 
 
Answer 
The EC is administering the TRQs in perfectly tr ansparent and non-discriminatory way. The low fill 
rate of the tariff rate quotas in these products was mainly the consequence of sufficient supply at 
competitive prices on the internal market. As for ma lt preparation and barley, in 2002 the internal 
supply was good particularly for barley and malting barley.   
 
23. The Intervention System in Cereal Markets  
    (WT/TPR/S/177 p.91, para.29)  
      According to paragraph 29 of the Secret ariat's report, rye is excluded from the intervention 
system. Would the EC explain the reason for this exclusion? Is there any other cereal products that will be excluded from the intervention system in the future? 
 
Answer 
The introduction of a single intervention price for cereals has led to the accumulation of large intervention stocks of rye as a result of the lack of sufficient disposal outlets on internal and external  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 397 
 
 
 markets. Rye has as a result been excluded fro m the intervention system. A proposal for the 
abolishment of the intervention for maize has recen tly been put forward to the European Council. 
 24. Energy Policies  
    (WT/TPR/S/177 p.99, para.49~55)  
 
   ㅇ  Though the EC as a whole is efficient in usi ng energy, the new Member States, which consist 
of countries in Central and Eastern Europe, are not as advanced. Therefore, substantial steps 
must be taken to in order to improve their energy efficiency rates.  
 
     It is questionable whether the EC can ach ieve its goal to increase the share of renewable 
energy from the present 6% to 12% by 2010. What major policies are being implemented to reach this goal? 
 
Answer 
Following the setting in 1997 of the 12% 2010 target fo r the share of renewabl e energy, two European 
directives were passed: Di rective 2001/77/EC that established sp ecific 2010 targets for each Member 
State, to achieve a 21% renewable share of the elec tricity market. This directive also provided rules 
and guidelines on grid access and other measures to promote renewable electricity. The second 
directive adopted, Directive 2003/30/EC sets a 2010 target of 5.75% for the biofuels share of petrol and 
diesel consumption in each Member State.   
Despite these directives, substa ntial research programmes and th e support programmes in place in 
several Member States, it is true that  it is unlikely that the EC will reach its 2010 targets. It is partly for 
this reason that the Commission has announced furthe r plans for the promotion of renewable energy, 
including plans for legislation which will establish longer term targets for renewable energy (a 20% 
target for 2020) to provide policy stability for the growth of the sector. The legislation will also take 
further measures to improve market access and reduce market barriers to the growth of renewable 
energy in all three sectors, electricity, transport and heating and cooling across the EC. The 20% target 
will include a significant contribution from biofuels fo r transport, where the ta rget has been increased 
from 5.75% to a minimum of 10% of petrol and diesel consumption. These new measures, together 
with strong ongoing R&D support, renewable ener gy support programmes and the implementation of 
the biomass action plan are expected to spur effort s in all Member States to increase renewable energy 
consumption to reach the targets by 2020. 
      Though the EC regulator is trying to make the energy market more co mpetitive, it is true that 
the market became more oligopolistic or monopolistic as a result of big merges between 
energy companies. Some member countries are al so inclined to limit the entrance of foreign 
energy enterprises in the name of national energy security. What policy directions or 
responses does the EC have in regards to these challenges? 
 
Answer 
The EC is considering a wide range of additi onal measures known as third package to strengthen 
competition in the energy markets. 
 
25. Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals  
    (WT/TPR/S/177 pp.107~108, para.69~71)  
 
   ㅇ  We understand that REACH, a regulated system for the safe use of chemicals, is consistent 
with global trends to protect the health of  humans and the environment. However, such 
system should be implemented in a way that minimizes any possible negative impacts on WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 398  
 
 trade and the industries concerned. In additio n, REACH should not act as a trade barrier or 
increase the cost of trade in chemical products.  
 
      -  The European Commission finalized the draft of the REACH regulation in October 2003, and 
submitted it to the European Parliament and C ouncil. The REACH regulations were adopted in 
December 2006, and will enter into force on 1 June 2007.  
 
     During the EU's internal review process on REACH regulations, the EC was kindly advised to 
positively reflect the views of chemical indus tries and countries outside the EU. As the 
regulation is finally being adopted, we hope th at the EC positively reflects the views of non-
EU countries and chemical industries in the process of establishing the REACH 
Implementation Projects(RIPs) through CWG and SEG meetings. This will help the producers 
and importers of chemicals adapt to the new REACH regulations.  
   ㅇ  The adoption of the REACH regulation positively contributes in protecting public health 
standards and the environment while promoti ng sustainable development and is therefore 
being evaluated in a positive light. However, ther e is concern that the regulation will act as a 
shield to chemical industries within the EU, and that the elements that discriminate non-EU 
countries could impose a heavy burden on the industries concerned, thus shrinking the 
international chemical industry.  
 
     In particular, we are concerned that pre -registered substances in Articles and Polymer within 
the EU will be exempt from registration, eventu ally discriminating non-EU countries. What is 
the EC's view on this opinion?  
     Therefore, we hope that the EC revises this discriminative aspect and makes the range of 
Articles limited and clear in the process of establishing RIPs through CWG and SEG 
meetings. 
 Answer 
The EC recently notified REACH Regulati on No 1907/2006 under the WTO/TBT Agreement 
(G/TBT/N/EEC/52/Add.3). The Regulation will enter into force on 1 June 2007.   Regarding Korea's and other Members' concerns about REACH as inter alia  raised in document 
G/TBT/GEN/46, the EC provided a comprehensiv e reply in Appendix 1 and 2 of the REACH 
notification document. In addition, REACH expe rts will be present at the next TBT Committee 
meeting on 21-22 March to present the adopted REACH Regulation.  26. Integration of Service Market  
    (WT/TPR/S/177 pp.109~111, para.76~78)  
 
    ㅇ  As the Secretariat's report has aptly pointed out , the EC has a significant barrier in the service 
sector mainly due to different regulations in Member States. Having considered this, the 
European Commission proposed a Directive on Serv ices in the Internal Market(the "Service 
Directive) on Jan. 13 2004, and it was approve d by the European Parliament on November 
2006 and finally by the Council on December 2006.  
  
      In order to fully implement this Servi ce Directive across the EU, member states must bring 
into force the laws, regulations and administ rative provisions necessary to comply with this 
Directive. With this in mind, when does the EC expect this Directive to be implemented? In 
addition, what is the scope of this Directive? 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 399 
 
 
 Answer 
Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parlia ment and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on 
Services in the Internal Market h as been published in the Official Journal of the European Union L 376 
of 27.12.2006. It will have to be implemented by Me mber States by 27.12.2009. The main aim of the 
Directive is to achieve a genuine Internal Mark et in services by removing legal and administrative 
barriers to the development of service activities provi ded by a natural person who is a national of a 
Member State or a legal person as referred to in Article 48 of the EC Treaty and thus facilitating the 
freedom of establishment in Member States and the freedom to provide cross-border services between 
Member States.  
 The Directive follows a horizontal approach and covers services provided as an economic activity, as 
defined by the European Court of Justice, both to  consumers and/or businesses. The Directive covers a 
wide variety of activities, including business services, such as management consultancy, certification and testing; facilities management, including office ma intenance; advertising; recruitment services; and 
the services of commercial agents. The services covere d are also services provided both to businesses 
and to consumers, such as legal or fiscal advi ce; real estate services such as estate agencies; 
construction, including the services of architects; dist ributive trades; the organisation of trade fairs; car 
rental; and travel agencies. The Directive also covers  services provided to consumers, such as those in 
the field of tourism, including t our guides; leisure services, sports  centres and amusement parks; and, 
to the extent that they are not excluded from the scope of application of the Directive, household 
support services, such as help for the elderly. Th e Directive does not cover: financial services, 
transport, matters covered by the 2002 telecommun ications package, gambling, audiovisual services, 
health services, temporary work agencies, private security services, services provided by notaries and 
bailiffs and certain social services. Needless to say th at for the sectors excluded, the EC Treaty and in 
particular the fundamental freedoms still apply. 
 
     Will the Service Directive be applied to th e service sector in the EC's future FTA negotiations? 
 Answer 
This question falls outside the scope of  the Trade Policy Review Mechanism. 
 
     What is the relationship between the Servi ce Directive and other Directives that have been 
excluded from the scope of this Directive, but  covered by individual directives regarding 
financial services, telecommunications, transportation, port services, and healthcare? 
 
Answer 
The Services Directive does not apply to sectors that  have been excluded, although the EC Treaty and 
in particular Articles 43 et seq on the right of est ablishment and Articles 49 et seq on the freedom to 
provide services are always applicable. Concerning areas which have not been excluded and which are 
covered by other provisions of EC law, the Servi ces Directive is complementary to those provisions. 
 
     The Directive does not apply to several servi ce areas such as the area of culture, audio-visuals, 
education, and health. Does this mean that th ese areas will be excluded from the scope of the 
EU's plans for further market integration of services? If so, are these areas also excluded from 
the EU's future FTA negotiations regarding the service sector? 
 
Answer 
The areas not covered by the Services Directive are still covered by Articles 43 et seq on the right of 
establishment and Articles 49 et seq on the freedom to provide services of the EC Treaty. 
As concerns the question on future FTA negotiations  regarding the services sector, this question falls 
outside the scope of the Trade Policy Review Mechanism. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 400  
 
     ㅇ  According to the 'Single Market Scoreboa rd' published by the Commission in December 2006, 
infringement proceedings (e.g. misapplication a nd/or incorrect transposition) of service rules 
in itself accounted for 9%, with 107 cases across the EU. This has been one of the biggest 
barriers for market integration in the service sector.  
 
       -    In particular, the 'Financial Services Action Plan (FSAP)' was the EC's central tool for fostering 
market integration in the financial service se ctor. However, institutional differences and cross-
border barriers between member states run count er to full integration. In this light, 
infringement of new regulations or directives regarding the services of member states are a 
major concern.  
 
     Does the EC have any measures in deali ng with infringements conducted by member states? 
 Answer 
The European Commission's role in Financial Se rvices is to propose Directives or in a few case 
regulations which have to be adopted by the Eu ropean Council and the European Parliament. Once 
adopted, these Directives are transposed  into Member States' legislativ e corpus with possible additional 
elements. Supervision is a Member States' competence.  
   ㅇ  The EU becomes a regulatory authority for the financial service sector through financial 
market integration. However, it is our understanding that each member state still has 
supervisory competence over financial service sectors.  
       Could the EC indicate the service areas to  which shared competence between member states 
and the EC is applied?  
 
Answer 
Supervision is an exclusive Member States' competen ce; therefore, there is no shared competence in 
this area.  
     In addition, will these areas be included in the EC' future FTA negotiations regarding financial 
services?  
Answer 
This question falls outside the scope of  the Trade Policy Review Mechanism. 
 27. Services Market  
    (WT/TPR/S/177 pp.109~127, para.77~133)  
      The liberalization of service in the EC faced great opposition from labourers residing in the 
original member states. If the EC sticks to  its position on liberalization, how will the EC 
soothe its opposition? Does the EC ha ve a persuasive plan for this?  
 
Answer 
Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parlia ment and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on 
Services in the Internal Market h as been published in the Official Journal of the European Union L 376 
of 27.12.2006. It will have to be implemented by Member States by 27.12.2009. The main aim of the Directive is to achieve a genuine Internal Mark et in services by removing legal and administrative 
barriers to the development of service activities provi ded by a natural person who is a national of a 
Member State or a legal person as referred to in Article 48 of the EC Treaty and thus facilitating the 
freedom of establishment in Member States and the freedom to provide cross-border services between 
Member States.    WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 401 
 
 
      Transport: Because of the 'EU Community Close', airliners in non-EU countries hesitate being 
placed on EU lines in fear of losing in excessive  competition against European airlines. This 
reluctance may result in aggravating the trans port service in the EC. Do you have any plans 
or opinions regarding this issue? 
 
Answer 
Within the EC, a genuine single aviation market has de veloped over the last decade. In this context, 
nationals of one EC Member State can invest in, est ablish and control airlines in any other EC Member 
State. 
 If an Air Services Agreement (ASA) permits design ation only of companies owned and controlled by 
nationals of the signatory EC Member State, such discrimination is in breach of EC law. This was 
confirmed by a judgement of the European Court of Ju stice – equivalent to a supreme court in the EC 
context – in November 2002.  
 
As a result, every EC Member State is required to grant equal market access for routes to destinations outside the EC to any EC carrier with an estab lishment on its territory. ASAs between EC Member 
States and their bilateral partner States mu st be amended to reflect this position. 
 The European Commission and EC Member States are making very encouraging progress in this 
respect, and nearly 70 non-EC countries have alread y accepted the principle of Community designation 
and as a result legal certainty has been restored to nearly 500 bilateral ASAs. 
 
It is important to understand that traffic rights – the provisions of existing ASAs relating to the number 
of airlines that may be designated and any frequency,  capacity or other traffic right restrictions - 
remain unaffected by the proposed am endment.  There will be no effect on the balance of air traffic 
rights, previously agreed between a partner State and an individual EC Member State, and existing 
bilateral Air Services Agreements will remain in  force after amendment. The proposed changes are 
limited to amending the specific areas in bilateral ag reements of incompatibility with Community law.  
 Accepting the Community designation clause will thus not affect the competitive situation between the 
airlines of the two sides but will restore legal cert ainty for carriers on both sides i.e. based on mutual 
benefits.  
It is in the interest of both sides that the issue is solved as soon as possible, and the risk of legal 
challenge to existing Agreements removed. Our aim is to eliminate the element of legal uncertainty, 
and to create a solid basis for the future development of our aviation relationship. 
 
The proposed amendments would not only restore le gal certainty for the airlines on both sides but 
would represent an important first step towards cl oser EU-South Korea relations and co-operation in 
the aviation sector. 
The Commission has therefore been pleased that the dialogue we have had in recent months with the Korean authorities have been useful allowing us to make some progress. Korea has made it clear to the 
European Commission that the EC clauses should not be  a stumbling block in our relations. Indeed, the 
European Commission was very pleased that during its  recent bilateral negotiations with France, Korea 
accepted the concept of Community designation. It is important and urgent that similar steps are taken 
by Korea in relation to its bilateral ASAs with ot her Member States in order also to bring these on a 
sound legal basis. 
 
     Tourism:  In order to keep its leading position in tourism, the EC may have to invest its 
resources in tour infra for the new Member st ates as they may be under-developed. Do you 
have any plans or projects regarding this issue? 
Answer WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 402  
 
 Paragraph 135 of the WTO Secretariat's Report already refers to contents and mechanisms of Cohesion 
Policy to support tourism initiatives. In the mean time, a new funding period (2007-2013) has been 
launched which will continue to support the development of tourism business, services and 
infrastructure. With more emphasis on the objectives of the Lisbon agenda, the European Development 
Fund (ERDF) will  focus on supporting competitive a nd sustainable patterns of tourism, such as 
innovative SMEs in tourism, networ ks and clusters of businesses in tourism, sustainable enhancement 
of cultural and natural heritage, joint cross-borde r tourism strategies or inter-regional exchange of 
experience. Unlike other European Funds, the Struct ural Funds will continue to be managed by the 
Member States and regions.    
For an example of an initiative that has been  financed in the past, please refer to 
http://www.gnto.gr/pages.php?pageID=885&langID=2
 
 28. Inclusion of the Aviation Sector into the EU ETS  
 
   ㅇ  The European Commission has proposed to revise its current Directive (Directive 2003/87/EC) 
to include civil aviation sectors into the EU Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Schemes 
(ETS) regardless of the nationality of carriers.  
 
      -  Although we acknowledge the EC's overa ll aim to combat climate change, we are concerned 
about the unilateral nature of this measure and its  scope, as it has an extra-territorial effect. It 
also disregards the basic principle of "common but differentiated responsibility", which is 
described in international climate regimes,  such as the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.  
 
     In this context, we suggest that the EC lim it the scope of legislation to intra-EU flights, while 
pursuing a multilateral consensus in the intern ational arena through bodies such as the ICAO 
or the UNFCCC for extra-territori al application of the legislation. What is the EC's position 
on this?  
 Answer 
The EC attaches great importance to international cooperation on civil aviation matters through ICAO. 
The Commission and the EC Member States have worked in ICAO for sever al years towards the 
application of market-based measures, including emi ssions trading, to limit or reduce the impact of 
aviation on climate change and are directly involved in discussions in ICAO on the development of ICAO Guidance for States wishing to include aviation in their emissions trading schemes. 
 
Rather than being a unilateral decision, the measure proposed by the Commission aims at 
implementing the EC's multilateral commitments under  the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, and is in 
line with an approach endorsed unanimously at multila teral level in ICAO.  The inclusion of aviation 
in the EC Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) w ould be fully compatible with ICAO Assembly 
Resolution A35-5. This Resolution was unanimously adopted at the General Assembly in 2004 and, 
among other things, endorses open emissions trading a nd the integration of international aviation in 
States' existing emissions trading schemes. This is exactly the approach that the Commission has 
proposed to follow and implement in Europe - whic h of course would necessitate an amendment of the 
EC legislation currently in force. As the proposed  legislation will not be adopted before the ICAO 
Assembly in 2007, there is time to take account of the final ICAO Guidance before the proposal is 
adopted by the Council and the European Parliament. Indeed the objective of the proposal is to provide 
a model for aviation emissions trading that can be extended or replicated worldwide.  
The proposal is also in line with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities as no 
similar action of developing countries is expected or required, and the large majority of compliance 
costs will be borne by EC citizens and companies. Article 2.2 of the Kyoto Protocol provides that  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 403 
 
 
 Parties included in Annex I shall pursue the limita tion or reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases 
from aviation fuels, working through the Intern ational Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). This 
contains an express obligation for Annex I parties to show leadership and take action to reduce aviation 
emissions. It does not, however, exempt compan ies from non-Annex I countries from measures to 
address climate change wherever they operate in the world. 
 29. Terminating the TBR Procedure for Korea n pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries  
 
    ㅇ Although the original reasons that caused the in itiation of TBR against Korean pharmaceutical and 
cosmetic industries in 1998 have been settle d, the EC has not yet terminated the TBR 
procedures suspended on 1 January 2000  raising new issues on both regimes.  
 
       -  In case of the pharmaceutical industry,  the new Drug Expenditure Rationalization Plan entered 
into force on 29 December 2006. With regards to the cosmetic industry, bilateral consultations 
are progressing on new issues raised by the EC although all previous issues have been settled.  
 
     Having considered this, the EC is requ ested to terminate the TBR procedure for Korean 
cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries as soon as possible.     
 Answer 
The EC decided to suspend on 9 January 2001 the pr ocedures under the EC Trade Barriers Regulations 
on the regulation of cosmetics in Korea following  an agreement between Korea and the EC on the 
elimination of the pre-marketing quality test fo r cosmetics, as well as the adoption of new Korean 
legislation on these products. After a thorough evaluation of the new legi slation and its application, the 
EC concluded that the Korean regulatory system remained discriminatory and more burdensome than 
necessary, in contravention of Articles 5.1.1 and 5. 1.2 of the TBT Agreement. The improvements made 
in recent years (amendment of the screening regul ations on functional cosm etics), have failed to 
address satisfactorily this situation. Imports of EC cosmetic products into Korea continue to face a non-
transparent regulatory system, too burdensome requirements and a pre-customs clearance control that requires importers of EC products to provide co mmercially-sensitive information to an industry 
association.   
 The EC is currently working with Korea on agreed te rms for the possible termination of this TBR case. 
The EC hopes that this discussion will allow us to  leave this longstanding trade irritant behind. 
 
CHINA
 
 
Chapter 2: Trade and Investment Regime 
Preferential Trade Agreement p. 28-29, para. 47-40   
 
1. According to statistics by WTO, total trade va lue by EU25 reached US$8,137 billion in 2005, of 
which US$5,346 billion was among the EU Member St ates, accounting for 65.7% percent of total 
value, US$2,791 billion was with non-EU trading pa rtners, accounting for 34.3% of total value, 
slightly over 1/3. 
 
What measures will EC take to promote trade between EU member states and non-EU trading partners so that the effects of trade diversion could be eased? 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 404  
 
 Answer 
It is quite normal that the 6 among the 10 biggest economies and trading nations in the world and on 
top of that geographically close to each other trad e among themselves more than with the rest of the 
world. The single European market further facilitate d the free movement of goods and services within 
the EC. 
 
It is worth to note that the Single Market has not only increased trade between European countries, but 
also with third countries outside th e EC. Because it has replaced 25 sets of rules with one, it is easier to 
trade with Europe. Europe’s external trade barrier s have been consistently  cut in parallel to the 
implementation of the Single Market: unila terally and through two WTO trade rounds.  
 
Please note also that the general level of protecti on in the new Member States fell following the 2004 
and 2007 enlargements after they ad opted the common external tariff. 
 
Chapter Three: Trade Policies and Practices by Measure  
Customs Valuation (p. 40-42, para 5-9) 
 
Some EU member states use the prices of similar products from “the third country” for the purpose of 
customs valuation regarding certain imported products , which is not consistent with the Article 7 of 
GATT 1994 and Article 1.1 of the WTO Customs Valuation Agreement.  
Article 7 of GATT 1994 and WTO Customs Valuation Agreement provides that each member shall 
recognize that the basis for valuation of goods fo r customs purposes should, to the greatest extent 
possible, be the transaction value of the goods bei ng valued; each member shall recognize that the 
customs value should be based on simple and equita ble criteria consistent with commercial practices 
and that valuation procedures should be of general application without distinction between sources of 
supply. Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the WTO Custom s Valuation Agreement provides that the customs 
value of imported goods shall be the transaction valu e. Therefore, the practices by some EU member 
states are obviously not in line with the above provisions.  
Article 11 and Article 13 of WTO Customs Valuati on Agreement provides that each member shall 
provide in regard to a determination of customs valu e for the right of appeal, without penalty, by the 
importer or any other person liable for the paymen t of the duty and Article 13 of WTO Anti-dumping 
Agreement specifies that if, in the course of de termining the customs va lue of imported goods, it 
becomes necessary to delay the final determination……, the legislation of each Member shall make 
provisions for such circumstances. However, Ar ticle 245 of the EC Council Regulation 2454/92 
specifies that the provisions for the above pr ocedures be decided by each member state. 
 
2. Would EC please explain the consistency of the practices of some of its member states regarding 
customs valuation with the WT O Customs Valuation Agreement? 
 
Answer 
In the application of the WTO Customs Valuation Ag reement,  the practices of the Member States of 
the EC are consistent.  3. How those member states implement the requirement  that “the basis for valuation of goods for 
customs purposes should, to the greatest extent possi ble, be the transaction value of the goods being 
valued” and “the customs value should be based on simple and equitable criteria consistent with 
commercial practices”?  
Answer The principles and objectives of the WTO Customs Valua tion Agreement, as set out in the Preamble to 
this Agreement and cited here by China, are the basis for the methods of customs valuation which 
WTO Members apply. China refers to Article 1 of the Agreement (the transaction value - the primary 
method) and Article 7 of the Agreement (the last and so-called fallback method). Although the first  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 405 
 
 
 method is used in 95% (approximately) of cases and the last method is used very little, the EC can 
assure China that both methods are applied in a ma nner that respects the respective content of WTO 
provisions (Articles 1 - 8 of the WTO Customs Valuation Agreement and the related Explanatroy Notes) and ensures uniform application.   
 
4. During the process of customs valuation, how to safeguard the substantial and procedural rights of 
complainant and consistent implementation among member states?  
 
Answer 
It is understood that here China is referring to a ppeals made by persons against decisions of the 
customs authorities in relation to customs value. Article 11 of the WTO Customs Valuation Agreement 
requires Members to provide a right of appeal in rega rd to a determination of the customs value. This 
right is enshrined in Community law (Article 243 of the Customs Code) and is mainly exercised before 
the courts and tribunals of the EC Member States. The Appellate Body and the Panel have stated in 
their reports in "EC - Selected customs matters" (DS315) that WTO members are not under obligation 
to give effect to first instance review decisions throughout their whole territory. 
 Compulsory labels of origin  (p. 51, para. 28-29)  The draft regulation on Compulsory Labels of Or igin on certain products from third countries (com 
(2005) 661 Final) submitted by the European Commission to Council of Ministers on Dec. 162005 
requires compulsory labels of origin on certain industrial products from third countries, including 
leather, shoes, textiles, clothing, potte ry, glassware, jewellery, furniture, etc. 
Industries in some EU member states have continuous ly requested EC to adopt compulsory labels of 
origin. 
 
5The proposed system of compulsory labels of origin only applies to certain products from third 
countries, mainly those produced by developing countr ies, while not to EU products. Could EC please 
elaborate on how this conform to the national treatment principle of WTO and Article 2 of WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin? 
 
Answer 
The proposal is WTO compatible. Article IX GATT provides the specific legal benchmark for origin 
marking and the said article does not contain a National Treatment requirement.  Import procedures (p. 40-42, para 5-9.)  
Although the Customs Code and its implementation rul es are applied to all EU member states, customs 
authorities of member states are also granted much  discretion in customs and tariff matters, which 
leads to the inconsistencies in classification, va luation and custom proce dures on imported products in 
different customs authorities of member states. This  has created the uncertainty for foreign exporters. 
 
6. Is EC planning to remove such inconsistencies? 
 
Answer 
The EC denies that any inconsistency in classificat ion, valuation and customs procedures in product 
imported into its customs territories occur. Technical Barriers to Trade (p. 57-59, para. 48-53)  
 
z REACH Regulation:  
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 406  
 
 The Council of Ministers passed Regulation (E C) No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, 
Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chem icals (REACH) on Dec.18, 2006, which will take in 
effect on June.1, 2007. REACH will replace the existing 40 legal acts and create a single system for all chemical substances and be implemented in all the EU Member States. 
Certain aspects of REACH have negative impact on trade. First, the over complicated registration 
procedures and high testing fees will significantly in crease the cost of production enterprises. Second, 
only enterprises and individua ls within EU have the right to make registration. This will lead to 
different treatment between EU and non-EU producers. Moreover, the regulation does not provide 
specific procedures for evaluation and approval of chemicals, which may lead to much discretion in 
approval process. These will be negative impact as a whole on downstream industries and international 
trade of chemical products.  
 
7
．Fees for registration and experiment will be a burden for many developing member exporters of 
chemicals, would EC consider to reduce the cost  for developing member exporters to obtain the 
experiment data needed for registration? 
 
Answer 
The EC recently notified REACH Regulati on No 1907/2006 under the WTO/TBT Agreement 
(G/TBT/N/EEC/52/Add.3). The Regulation will enter into force on 1 June 2007.  
 Regarding China's and other Members' concerns about REACH as inter alia raised in document 
G/TBT/GEN/46, the EC provided a comprehensiv e reply in Appendix 1 and 2 of the REACH 
notification document. In addition, REACH experts will be present at the next TBT Committee meeting on 21-22 March to present the adopted REACH Regulation. 
 
8
．With regard to the data sharing system establishe d by REACH, what measures would EC take to 
protect the trade secrets of the enterprises concerned?  
Answer 
Please see answer to question 7. 
 
9．How does EC prepare to disclose the information regarding implementation of REACH in a timely 
manner? 
 
Answer Please see answer to question 7. 
 
Regulation on Traditional Chinese Herbal Medicine  
Pursuant to the Regulation on Traditional Chinese Herb al Medicine (2004/24/EC), there are a series of 
conditions for such medicine to access to EU ma rket: producers who export medicine to EC market 
must obtain the certification of GMPthe quality of the exported medicine must meet the standards 
provided in Medicine Code of EC and the importe rs of EC must obtain medicine import licence. 
However, it should be noted that a lot of Chinese he rbal products are not just used as medicine, but 
also as food additives and health care products. 
 
10. Does EC have any plan to improve market access fo r Chinese herbal products in the form of food, 
food additives and health care products? 
 
Answer 
With regard to food, food additives and health care products, the European Commission does not plan 
any change of the relevant legislati on in relation to Chinese herbal products.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 407 
 
 
  
However, in relation to herbal medicinal produc ts, Community legislation requires the European 
Commission to present a report concerning the app lication of the provisions on traditional herbal 
medicinal products, by including an assessment on the possible extension of traditional-use registration 
to other categories of medicinal products. 
 
the eco-design requirements for energy-using products (EuPs)  The European Commission issu ed Directive 2005/32/EC on establishing a framework of eco-design 
requirements for energy-using products (EuPs) in Ju ly 2005. It is provided that manufacturers should 
control products’ energy consumption by mean s of product design or adopting environmental 
management system, conduct conformity assessment pur suant to the implementation rules formulated 
by the European Commission separately, and the CE  marking be attached. Otherwise, the product is 
not allowed to be placed on the market. In line with the regulation, the EU Member States should formulate relevant laws and regulations to officia lly implement the directive as of 11 August 2007 at 
the latest. 
According to the requirement of the directive,  enterprises are required to conduct environmental 
evaluation in the entire process from designing to dis posal of the energy-using products. This will 
entail huge technical and financial burden to export enterprises of third countries, in particular the 
developing ones.  11. Could EC specify what products exactly a re covered by the directive and what procedures are 
needed for conformity assessment?  Answer 
Directive 2005/32/EC setting eco-design requirements fo r energy-using products (EuPs) covers all 
EuPs, except the means of transport for persons or goods. However, the directive does not set 
ecodesign requirements for products in respect of the CE mark. These requirements will be set by implementing measures based on product specific studies. Currently, there are 14 studies underway on which information can be found on the Commission ecodesign web site: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/dema nd/legislation/eco_design_en.htm
. The studies are open for 
participation by all interested stakeholders.  
All forthcoming implementing measures will be the subject of WTO notifications. 
 The conformity assessment procedures will be specifi ed by the implementing measures. Manufacturers 
will be able to choose between the internal design control set out in Annex IV and the management 
system set out in the Annex V of the Directive.  There are no requirements for enterprises to conduct 
environmental evaluation in the entire process from de signing to disposal of the energy-using products. 
 
12. Considering that implementation of EuPs w ill have adverse effect on developing members, is EC 
prepared to take concrete actions  to alleviate such effect? 
 
Answer 
The implementation of the EuP Directive will appl y to all products covered by an implementing 
measure and put on the EC market, wherever the prod uct will is manufactured.  It will have no adverse 
effects on any particular country. The WTO notification will be part of the process. The transparency of the preparatory process for implementing measures (including full access to information for all stakeholders) and the publication throughout in th e studies of the best available technologies will 
contribute to improving the environmental performan ce of the EuPs with a contribution to help 
mitigate climate change, avoid market frag mentation and support sustainable growth.  
 New CR Solution Concerning Cigarette Lighter  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 408  
 
 The EC adopted the CR Solution, which requires Memb er States to take measures to ensure that only 
child-resistant lighters  are placed on the market and to prohibit the placing on the market of novelty lighters on May 11, 2006. The Solution also emphasized that only tests made in EC-recognized laboratories are accepted. Up until now, only laborator ies in the US and Europe (only one lab) are 
recognized, which falls far short of the test  applications from foreign companies.  
 13. Could EC please explain how negative effects on trade caused by this CR Solution could be minimized in accordance with the TBT Agreement? 
 
Answer 
Decision 2006/502/EC requires Member States to ensure that only child resistant (CR) lighters are 
placed on the market and prohibits the placing on the market of novelty lighters. These requirements 
come into force on 11 March 2007.   Presumption of conformity with the child resistance requirements is given to lighters which conform to 
national standards transposing EN 13869 or to lighter s which conform to the relevant rules of non-EU 
countries where equivalent CR requirements are in force.  Test reports certifying child resistency of a model of  lighter shall be established either by testing bodies 
accredited as fulfilling the requirements of EN ISO/IE C 17025 by a member of ILAC or recognised to 
that end by a competent authority of a Member State;  or 
testing bodies whose reports of a child resistance test are accepted by one of the countries where 
equivalent CR requirements are in place.  In effect, lighters that are already allowed to be placed on markets where equivalent requirements are 
in force (i.e. USA, Canada, Australia and New Z ealand), will also be allowed on the EC market, 
provided relevant evidence is available to the Member  State authorities. To facilitate such 'recognition' 
the Commission is co-operating with all stakehol ders, including the Chinese authorities as represented 
by MOFCOM and AQSIQ. This has so far involved a training seminar for industry in China regarding 
the requirements and exchanges of information on the testing that is being undertaken in AQSIQ 
laboratories in China.  
Given these efforts, we do not expect any significant negative impacts on trade. 
 
two directives concerning electronic and electrical equipments 
 
On 13 August 2005, Directive 2002/96/EC on waste el ectrical and electronic equipment (Directive 
WEEE) went into effect. The Directive provides that producers of products sold in EC markets after 13 
August 2005 shall provide deposit to  ensure that the expenses incurred in the collection, treatment, 
recycling and environment-friendly disposal of wast e electrical and electronic products will be paid by 
the producers, and that producers should also pay fo r the disposal of waste products (not intended for 
private household users) placed on the market (his torical wastes) before 13 August 2005 in accordance 
with the corresponding market share of the producers.  
In addition, Directive 2002/95/EC on the restricti on of the use of certain hazardous substances in 
electrical and electronic equipment (Directive RoHS) specifies the maximum amount of six hazardous substances including lead, mercury, cadmium, chromi um VI, PBB and PBDE used in electrical and 
electronic equipment. RoHS Directive does not specify how Member States should monitor the implementation of RoHS and how to punish activities violating the Directive. Furthermore, standard 
testing methods and procedures for the amendmen t to the exemption list is still lacking.  
The product scope covered by the two directives almost includes all electrical and electronic 
equipments for civilian use, thus directly affec ting the exports of household appliances and electronic 
products to the EC market. The above requirement s and associated problems will inevitably increase 
the costs of exporters, and create uncertainties for them.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 409 
 
 
  
14. Could EC 
a.  provide a detailed guideline on the implementation of RoHS? b.  promulgate the exemption list on the basis of scientific evidence as soon as possible, and 
 c.  provide reference testing methods? 
 
Answer 
A) To help implement the WEEE and RoHs Direc tives, the Commission has published a guide in the 
form of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) - see: http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/waste/weee_index.htm
. This guide provides exhaustive information on 
both directives, in particular, in section 1, crite ria for determining whether a product falls under the 
scope of the directive(s). While the document do es not provide criteria on the categorisation of 
products, it can assist producers in making this assess ment. The other sections give further detailed 
guidelines for the implementation of the directives.   
B) For the purpose of adapting to technical progr ess, the Commission has adopted several Decisions 
amending the Annex to Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the 
restriction of the use of certain hazardous substan ces in electrical and electronic equipment. The full 
list can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee_index.htm
 under "secondary 
legislation".   
C) As the RoHS Directive does not refer to speci fic testing methods, EC Member States are fully 
responsible for setting the rules. Over the past y ears, enforcement authoriti es from the Member States, 
along with the European Commission services, have made good progress in developing a common 
approach towards checking compliance of electrical  and electronic equipment (EEE) with the RoHS 
Directives requirements. At present, an info rmal EU RoHS Enforcement Bodies Network has 
published a guidance document at: http ://www.rohs.gov.uk/content.aspx?id=9
. The document contains 
a section on sampling and testing. At the same time, intensive standardisation efforts in relation to the 
measurement of hazardous substances in EEE are underway at international level. 
 Other directives and general comments In recent years, EC has promulgated a series of directives which greatly increase the numbers of 
applicable standards, hence increase the cost of co mpliance by exporters of re levant products. These 
directives include, but not limited to: the Directiv e on batteries and storage batteries and disposed ones 
on Sept. 6, 2006; the Directive 2004/108/EC on electromagnetic compatibility in December 2004; Directive 2000/53/EC banning the use of cadmium in batteries for electrical vehicles; Directive 
76/769/EEC prohibits the use of six types of phthalates in toys. 
No doubt, WTO agreements allow members to prot ect the environment and human health through 
appropriate standards. However, we are quite c oncerned on certain aspects of these EC Directives 
relating to standards. These include:  lack of sufficient scientific evidence; lack of sufficient consideration of technical feasibility and economic cost; ambiguity in standards, with some standa rds lacking practical operational procedures; 
discretion of EU member states in implementation, hence significant discrepancies among different 
member states; 
15. Could EC elaborate on how such Directives and their implementation conform to the TBT 
Agreement, especially on whether this constitutes disguised restrictions on international trade? 
 
Answer Following the introduction, in 2002, of a new im pact assessment arrangement (integrating and 
replacing previous single-sector type of assessments) all legislative proposals tabled by the European 
Commission are based on thorough ex ante im pact assessments (for further information see: 
http://ec.europa.eu/govern ance/impact/index_en.htm
). Such assessments, that take account of available WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 410  
 
 scientific and technical information, describe the pr oblem at hand, consider different available policy 
options to address it (including the option of not ta king any action) and assess their economic, social 
and environmental impacts. Aspects related to prac tical policy implementation and monitoring are also 
covered by impact assessments. An example of such work is provided by the study conducted in preparation of Directive 2006/66/EC on batteri es and accumulators and waste batteries and 
accumulators (see: http://ec.europa.eu/environmen t/waste/batteries/pdf/ext en_impact_assessment.pdf
). 
Closely linked to the impact assessment process is the requirement of carrying out ex ante stakeholder consultation based on mimimum standards. Finally, while in Community legislation the form of a 
directive leaves implementation to EC Member Stat es, the latter are bound as to the achievement of the 
results laid down in directives.  
 
SPS measures(p. 59-61, para. 54-59)  
directive on indication of food ingredients 
 
On December 22, 2006, EC issued a directive (20 06/142/EC) to amend the original directive about 
listing of ingredients on food labels. The main reason in doing so, as we understand it, is that research 
results have shown the existence of allergy caused by  lupin. However, strictly speaking, albumen in 
many beans may cause allergy. There are quite detailed rules on indicating allergens passed by 
Codexwhich do not include lupin and products ther eof, and under which it should suffice to indicate 
the raw materials used in production for the purpose of labelling the allergens. 
 
16. While China believes that the Codex standard is  sufficient for the regulatory purpose of the EC, 
could EC explain how this new directive confor m to the requirements of Codex as well as SPS 
Agreement? 
 
Answer 
Following the scientific advice of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) pronounced in the 
Opinion of the Panel on dietetic products, nutrition and allergies [NDA ] related to the evaluation of 
lupin for labelling purposes  (adopted on 6 Dece mber 2005 and published on 12 January 2006), the 
European Commission decided to adopt the mentioned Commission Directive 2006/142/EC of 22 December 2006 amending Annex IIIa of Directive 2000/13/ EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council listing the ingredients which must under all circumstances appear on the labelling of 
foodstuffs. 
The European Commission considers that the above mentioned directive is fully supported by the 
scientific opinion of EFSA and that this is in fully  compliant with the obligations under the WTO/SPS 
that measures should be science-based.  
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is a se parate legal entity, independent from the other EU 
institution which provides the European Commission with independent scientific advice on all matters 
with a direct or indirect impact on food safety. The establishment of EFSA was one of the key measures contained in the Commission’s White Paper on Food Safety of which the EC circulated an 
explanation to all WTO Member States in document G/SPS/GEN/169 (14 March 2000). EFSA collects 
information and analyses new scientific developmen ts so it can identify and assess any potential risks 
to the food chain. It can carry out scientific assessment  on any matter that may have a direct or indirect 
effect on the safety of the food supply, including matte rs relating to animal h ealth, animal welfare and 
plant health. 
 
Anti-dumping Issues 
(p. 55-56, para. 41-44)  
 
Notification before initiation of  antidumping investigation  
Both Article 5.5 of WTO Anti-dumping Agreement and Article 5.5 of EC Anti-dumping Regulation 
provide that the investigation authority shall notif y the government of the exporting member concerned 
before they make the decision to initiate an investiga tion. However, in quite a number of investigations  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 411 
 
 
 initiated by EC against Chinese export products, EC  didn’t notify Chinese government in advance, 
which made it extremely difficult for Chinese res pondents to submit responses on time. For example, 
in the silico-manganese inves tigation initiated on September 6th, 2006, it was on the day of its initiation 
of the investigation that EC sent a notification to Chinese government. In certain plastic sacks and bags 
investigation initiated on June 25th, 2005, EC gave a notification to Chinese government two days (i.e. 
June 27th) after EC initiated the investigation. In certain  plastic sacks and bags investigation on June 
30th, 2005 and ironing board investigation on February 4th, 2006, EC didn’t send a notification to 
Chinese government in advance.  
 
17. Could EC explain how such practice conform to the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement? 
 
Answer 
According to Article 5.5 WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and 5.5 Anti-Dumping Regulation 
authorities shall notify the government of the expo rting Members concerned before proceeding to 
initiate an investigation. Both Ar ticles do not stipulate a minimum time. However, the EC tries to send 
out the "Note Verbale" to the government concerned around five days in advance. 
 As regards certain plastic sacks and bags the cas e was not initiated on June 25th 2005 but on 30th June 
2005. A Note Verbale (reference number) 7782 dated 16 June 2005 was posted on 17 June 2005 
reference number and the reception was signed on 20 June 2005 and returned to us. The further Note 
Verbale (reference number 8135) was sent dated 30 June 2005 with a copy of the Notice of Initiation.  
 
As regards ironing boards a pre-initiation Note Verbal e was sent by registered ma il and received by the 
Chinese Mission 5 days before initiation.  Disclosure of information 
 
Disclosure of information regarding anti-dumping inv estigations by EC has been insufficient. For 
example, in the anti-dumping investigation against Chinese exports of certain footwear, the name of 
the complainant could not be found in the public ve rsion of the complaining document. In the anti-
dumping investigation of certain finished polyester filament apparel fabrics, EC didn’t disclose the 
name of seven complainants and the market shar e of each of them. It was difficult for Chinese 
respondents to evaluate whether the complainants we re eligible to represent the domestic industry of 
the EU. 
 
18. Would EC please explain how this practice c onform to Article 4 and Article 5 of Anti-Dumping 
Agreement? 
 
Answer 
According to Article 5(11) of the basic anti-dumpi ng regulation (basic Regulation) the complainant is 
provided ex officio both to known exporters and the authorities of the exporting country and is made 
available upon request to other interested parties. However, where the disclos ure of the complainant's 
identity could lead to a risk of si gnificantly adverse effect it may be granted confidential treatment of 
its identity if the complainant can reasonably make th is evident. This is c overed by Article 19 basic 
Regulation and is fully in line with the WTO Anti-Du mping Agreement. Moreover, the market share of 
each complainant is obviously business confidential information.  Review of new exporter   
Article 9.5 of WTO Anti-dumping Agreement provides th at the investigation authorities shall promptly 
carry out a review for the purpose of determining individual margins of dumping for any exporters or producers in the exporting country. And such a re view shall be initiated and carried out on an 
accelerated basis, compared to normal duty assessme nt and review proceedings in the importing 
Member.   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 412  
 
 However, Article 11.4, Article 9.6 and Article 17 of EC Anti-dumping Re gulation (384/96) provide 
that if sampling method is used in antidumping inves tigation, then foreign producers and exporters can 
only apply for new exporter treatment , and the rate granted will be the weighted average rate of the 
rates given to the enterprises in the sample, rather than a dumping margin calculated on the basis of the 
individual applicant’s normal value and export price. 
Furthermore, EC has no clear provisions regardi ng the examination of new exporter’s petition of 
review and the time of initiation.   
19. How EC justifies the provisions on new expor ter review with the rules of WTO Anti-dumping 
Agreement?  
 
Answer 
In case of sampling it would be contradictory with th e principles of fairness and equality to grant an 
individual examination to new expor ters knowing that in the original investigations most of the 
exporters did not have individual treatment. Since sam pling has been done in the original investigation 
and the new exporter will be examined in the framewo rk of sampling this is not inconsistent to the 
WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.   
20. Regarding petitioners meeti ng the requirements of new exporters, could EC’s investigation 
authority determine the individual dumping margin for each of them based on their own normal value and export price, without considering whether there is a sampling method used in the initial 
investigation?  
Answer 
Please see reply to previous question. 
 
Intellectual Property (p. 74-76, para. 109-115) 
 The EU is yet to establish a uniform pan-European IP  protection system. At present, each member state 
has its own patent application and protection system. Membership of the European Patent Office is not 
the same as EU membership, which adds to th e difficulty of foreign patent application. 
EU is yet to establish an efficient mechanism to encourage innovation, as the IP application cost is high 
and the time needed is long. For example, a patent  application through European Patent Office could 
take as long as 4-5 years in some cases.  
21. Does EC consider to have a uniform IP system applicable to all EU member states and to enhance 
the efficiency for patent application and examination? 
 
Answer 
In the field of patents, at present, the EC's le gislation does not address pre-grant issues, with the 
exception of Directive 98/44/EC of the European Par liament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the 
legal protection of biotechnological inventions. Work on patent reforms is ongoing in both the Euro pean Patent Organisation (EPO) and the European 
Community (EC) since 1999/2000. Whereas the focus of  the EPO has been the reduction of translation 
requirements for European patents and the setting up of a pan-European patent litigation system 
complementing the European Patent Convention, the EC is considering the creation of a single 
Community patent (COMPAT) which would have identical effect throughout the EC. Whilst the 
London Agreement addressing the translation issue was adopted in October 2000, work on the other 
reform projects temporarily came to a halt. The diff iculties in making progress in the field of patent 
reforms led the Commission to launch, in January 2006, a broad consultation on the future patent 
system in Europe. Responses have shown that stak eholders favour the introduction of a COMPAT and 
the improvement of the existing European patent system. However, the common political approach of 
the Council on COMPAT which was adopted on 3 Ma rch 2003 is strongly criticised in relation to  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 413 
 
 
 translation requirements and the jurisdictional sy stem. As a follow-up to the consultation, the 
Commission indicated that it will submit a Communica tion on patent strategy which is likely to be 
adopted on 28 March 2007.  
 
22. Could EC please explain the reasons why EU has  not become a member of WIPO Copyright Treaty 
and WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty 
 Answer 
The EC has already signed the WIPO Copyright Treaty (the WCT) and the WIPO Performances and 
Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). By way of a Council D ecision adopted in 2000 (Council Decision of 16 
March 2000 (2000/278/EC)) , it was decided that deposit of the instruments of conclusion of the EC 
should take place as far as possible simultaneously with the deposit of the instruments of ratification of 
the Member States. Directive 2001/29 on the harmonisation of copyright and related rights in the Information Society implements the obligations of  the WCT and WPPT. Member States were required 
to implement these obligations into national law befo re the EC and its Member States could ratify the 
Treaties. The last Member State to complete implementation did not ta ke place until August 2006. 
Member States are currently completing the formaliti es necessary for ratification. It is expected 
therefore that ratification will take place in the c ourse of 2007. However, it should be noted that those 
Member States that became members of the Europ ean Community in 2004 have already ratified the 
Treaties as they were not bound by Council Decision 2000/278/EC.  23. What actions has EC taken to impl ement Art.6.3 of TRIPs on transparency? 
 Answer 
The following measures were recently  notified to the WTO: (i) the En forcement Directive, (ii) the 
Revision of Customs Regulations and (iii) two in struments on Geographical Indications (a Council 
regulation and a Commission regulation). 
 
24. Dose EC impose criminal penalty concerning piracy on Internet? What is the responsibility of the Internet service providers in Internet piracy? Does it include criminal penalty? 
 Answer 
Criminal sanctions have not been harmonised within  the EC. However, all Member States of the EC 
have criminal sanctions in place in their national law.  European law prevents, via the E-Commerce 
Directive 2000/31/EC, the Member State from imposing a general monitoring obligation on Internet service providers with respect to third party inform ation they transmit or store, as well from imposing a 
general obligation to actively seek facts or circ umstances indicating illegal activity. This same 
Directive, through its Articles 12 (3), 13(2), 14(3) and 15(1) does not, however, preclude the possibility 
of injunctions requiring the Internet service provider to  terminate or prevent an infringement (including 
the removal of illegal information or the disabling access to it). Through Article 8(3) of Directive 
29/2001/EC, on the harmonisation of certain aspects of  copyright and related rights in the information 
society, right-holders should be in a position to apply for an injunction ag ainst intermediaries whose 
services are used by a third party to infringe a copyr ight or related right. This would normally be via 
judicial proceedings.  
 
25.  How does EC plan to push forward the DDA through its efforts in the agricultural sector? 
 
Answer 
The EC is committed to a successful outcome of  the WTO negotiations and has made significant 
reforms to its agricultural sector, eliminating most of  its trade-distorting subsidies to switch to fully 
decoupled direct payments, green box compatible . Further reforms are underway in the fruit and 
vegetable sector and wine sector which demonstrate just how serious the EC is. 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 414  
 
 Trade in Services (p. 109-111,para. 76-80)  
 General issues:  26. Movement of people is an important mode of services trade, however, difficulties associated with 
the visa requirements and complex procedures to get work permit by EU has been a major obstacle in 
this regard. Furthermore, for those who have al ready obtained a visa and a work permit, there is 
restriction on their free movement within EU. The inability of construction workers who are permitted 
to work in one of the EU member states to move freely to another member state is just one example, 
 Is EC prepared to take meas ures to improve the situation? 
 
Answer 
The EC shares the view that Mode 4 is an important mode of supplying services. However, visa 
requirements do not fall within the scope of GATS liberalisation. 
 
Postal Service  (p.117-121, para. 103-111)  
 
27. During the process of liberalization of postal services and the elimination of monopoly, what 
measures will the European Commission prepare to  take to avoid (remove) discrimination against 
postal service providers of other WTO members? 
 
Answer 
The text of the EC Postal directive and of the draft directive are available on the internet. This 
Directive contains a number of provisions that ensure a level playing field between the traditional postal service suppliers and new market entrants . Examples are i.e. the reinforcement of the 
independence and powers of the Independent National Regulator, several provisions to ensure that any 
measures applied to postal companies (e.g authorisatio ns, contributions to a universal service fund)  are 
based on objective, proportionate,  and non-discrim ination principles, transparency of accounting 
principles of the incumbent operator in order to avoid unjustified cross-subsidisation outside of the Universal service area and on prices in order to avoid anticompetitive behaviour. These provisions 
have to be introduced in national legislation a nd enforced by the EC Member States and can be 
eventually be also enforced by  the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. 
Furthermore, the provisions of the EC Treaty c oncerning competition law and non discrimination in 
the provision of services and establishment, within WTO commitments, will also continue to apply to 
the postal sector  
Professional Services 
 28. The nationality requirement and limit on the number of professionals  allowed to enter EU has been 
a major concern. These sectors include accounting, arch itectural, medical and legal services. In the tax 
service sector, only tax consulting service is open to foreign service providers.  
Is EC prepared to reduce the restrictions me ntioned above so as to grant foreign professionals 
meaningful market access?  
Answer 
This question, which is outside the scope of Trade Policy Review, is to be addressed in the framework 
of services negotiations under the DDA. 
 
Travel and Tourism (p. 127-128, para. 133-135)  
29. Some of the EU member states have not fulfilled their obligation to allow foreign travel agencies to 
set up and provide travel and tourism services in EU . E.g., one member state committed in its service 
schedule to allow foreign travel agencies to set up branches or subsidiaries “subject to approval”.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 415 
 
 
 However, in practice, neither specific criteria nor  operational procedures are in place to guide the 
relevant authority in processing the application. Foreign service providers therefore find it difficult to do their business in that member state. 
 
Could EC please clarify this issue? 
 
Answer 
We can confirm that the European Communities and th eir Member States fully honour all their existing 
GATS commitments, including those on tourism and tr avel related services. We would also appreciate 
if China could further elaborate on the difficulties encountered by foreign service providers in the 
Member State mentioned. 
 Telecommunication Services (p.117-121, para. 103-111)  
 
30. Could EC please provide basic informa tion regarding foreign investments in EU’s 
telecommunication markets, including, inter alia, the main sources investment, number of foreign 
carriers, their scope of business, income, num ber of users and their individual market shares? 
 
Answer 
The EC does not have available any collected data sp ecific to the information asked by China. This is 
because the EC does not distinguish between forei gn and domestic operators as long as they operate 
within the scope of the EC GATS commitments. Th ere has been a constant increase, both in the 
number of notified operators as well as in the nu mber of operators actually providing electronic 
communication services in the EC.   The Report on the Implementation of the Telecommuni cations Regulatory Package prepared each year 
by the European Commission provides an accurate pictur e regarding players in those markets. It can be 
consulted at http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/polic y/ecomm/implementation_enforcement/index_en.htm
  
 A new Report will soon be available providing up-date information on the questions raised. This been 
said available data do not discriminate between foreign and EU carriers. 
 
31. Could EC please provide information regar ding the charges imposed on telecom carriers 
operating in the EU markets, including license fee,  charge for frequency occupation, and regulatory 
charge.  
 
Answer 
On the basis of relevant EC legislation, nationa l administrations are obliged to impose licence fees 
which would cover only the administrative costs which incurred in the management, control and 
enforcement of the general authorisation scheme and of the rights of use and of specific obligations. 
The EC legislation also forces the EC national admini strations to publish a yearly overview of their 
administrative costs and the total sum of the charge s collected. Such informat ion can easily be found 
on the websites of the EC national regulatory authoriti es. The issue of spectrum fees is not relevant to 
the above administrative costs as it involves the us e of scarce resources for which EC Member States 
are free to determine their level.    
32. When foreign invested telecom carriers settle r evenue with telecom carriers of Great Britain, a 
17.5 VAT is imposed, which increases the operating cost of foreign telecom carriers. Would EC please 
clarify the rationale, criteria, scope and purpose for the VAT? Answer 
It appears that this concerns a situation where an international operator supplies telecom services to an 
EC operator (UK in this case). VAT is a consumpt ion tax, normally borne by final consumers and WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 416  
 
 should generally have a neutral effect on a business. In the situation outlined, the tax is not a real cost 
and the obligations involved are more of a book-keeping nature.   A UK operator who acquires telecom services from an operator based in a third country will however have to self-assess VAT  (the technical term is reve rse charge) but will normally offset this against the 
tax it charges on services supplied to domestic consumers (its sales). Ev en in the event that this tax 
collected on sales is less than the self-assessed tax,  the difference will be refunded – this might happen 
if for instance the bulk of the UK operator's customers were outside the EC. The end effect is that the 
operator never has to bear the burden of this tax – it is either passed on to consumers or refunded. 
 
The situation would be somewhat different if the non-EC operator is supplying the telecom service to 
final consumers in an EC Member State. This does not however seem to be the case here. Were it so, the non-EC supplier would be obliged to register fo r VAT wherever it has customers and to charge and 
account for VAT at the rate appropriate to the Me mber State where the se rvice is consumed. The 
European Commission has proposed amending the VAT  rules so all telecom services are taxed where 
consumed. This proposal is nearing adoption in the Eu ropean Council and in the near future all telecom 
suppliers, EC or otherwise, will account for the tax in the same way on supplies they make to EC 
consumers. 
 
33. Foreign inter-corporate transferees in Great Britain may not enjoy th e benefit for low-income 
families and the tax rebate for child raising alth ough they are taxed no less than those working for 
domestic enterprises. Would EC please clarify whet her Great Britain is planning to eliminate this 
discriminatory treatment?  
 
Answer 
As there is no harmonisation of income taxation in the EC, such tax issues remain the responsibility of 
the individual Member States. The EC Treaty provisions on the freedom of movement of workers do 
not apply to third country nationals. Perhaps the Foreign inter-corporate transferees can invoke anti-
discrimination provisions of the UK's tax treaties to eliminate the discrimination, but this is not an 
issue for the EC. 
 
34. Germany adopted an Amendment to “Telecommunication Law” in 2006, allowing Deutsche Telecom to refuse foreign telecom carriers to get in terconnected with its newly built high-speed cable 
networks. Could EC please give more informati on about the Amendment and provide a copy of the 
Amendment? Has the Amendment been implemente d? How would EC ensure the consistency of the 
Amendment and its implementation with the requi rements of the Reference Paper regarding 
interconnection? What is the rate of interconnec tion charged by Deutsche Telecom? Is the rate 
regulated by government or subject to consultation between telecom operators? 
 
Answer 
The European Commission takes not e of the Chinese questions. We are currently not in a position to 
provide further information on this point. We will provide a more detailed response in due course. 
 
REPLIES TO ADDITIONAL ORAL QUESTIONS FROM CHINA
 
 
Question 
The EC only accepts testing for child resistant cigare tte lighters from two laboratories, one located in 
the EC and one in the US. This is not sufficient. Could the EC please explain how it intends to tackle 
this problem. Answer 
It is not correct to state that the EC only accepts testing from two laboratories.  
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 417 
 
 
 As already indicated in our first response, test reports certifying child resistance of a model of lighter 
shall be established by: 
 
• Testing bodies accredited as fulfilling the requirements of EN ISO/IEC 17025 by a 
member of ILAC; or 
• Testing bodies recognised to that end by a competent authority of a Member State;  or 
• Testing bodies whose reports of a child resistan ce test are accepted by one of the countries 
where equivalent CR requirements are in place. 
•  
In the US there are currently 5 or ganisations whose reports are accepted  by the CPSC. In the EC there 
will shortly be a laboratory accredited according to EN ISO/IEC 17025 for undertaking child resistance 
testing for lighters. Reports by any other laboratory that is accredited by a member of ILAC as fulfilling the requirements of EN ISO/IEC 17025 regard ing child resistance testing for lighters, will be 
accepted in the EC. 
 
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU
 
 Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/177) 
V. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 
(3) TRADE PERFORMANCE AND INVESTMENT (iii) Foreign Direct Investment 
Question 1 
(page 13, paragraph 23) 
According to our understanding, the investment ince ntives provided by the EC are divided into four 
different regional categories. The EC reviews th e regional categories every two years and makes 
adjustments. Therefore, the investment incentives pr ovided by each Member State may be modified as 
a result of such reviews.  
As transparency and predictability are vital to ma king investment decisions, could the EC please 
advise whether the existing incen tives enjoyed by foreign investors in the EC may be nullified or 
diminished by such reviews? If so, will any transition measures be granted?  
Answer 
The regional aid approved by the European Commi ssion and already granted to companies before 31 
December 2006 on the basis of 1998 regional aid guidelin es is not affected by the entry into force of 
the new guidelines. Transition measures are therefore in such cases not necessary. 
The regional aid granted by EC Member States mu st comply with the Regional Aid Guidelines in 
force. The new Regional Aid Guidelin es (OJ C54/13 4.3.2006, http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriS erv.do?uri=CELEX:52006XC0304(02):EN:NOT ) entered into force 
on 1 January 2007 and will apply for the period 2007 - 2013. The previous regional aid guidelines were 
applicable until the end of 2006. The Member States devise their regional aid policies on the basis of 
regional aid maps, which need to be notified and a pproved by the European  Commission. They are in 
principle covering 7 years (2000-2006, 2007-2013). Th e approved regional aid ma ps can be found at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/stat e_aid/regional_aid/regional_aid.html  
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 418  
 
 Question 2 
We understand that the EC has recognized some 20 investment incentives offered by its individual 
Member States. Any other investment incentives offe red by individual Member States could be subject 
to challenge by the EC, on the grounds that the measu res are inconsistent with relevant EC regulations. 
 Could the EC please advise how foreign investors can assess whether an investment incentive offered 
by an individual Member State is consistent with relevant EC regulations?  Answer 
Regional aid (like any other type of State aid) need s to be notified to the European Commission. The 
European Commission analyses the co mpatibility of the notified aid with  the applicable rules and takes 
a decision. Only after a Commission decision declaring the aid compatible the Member State may pay 
out the aid. If aid fall under a block exemption regulation, this notification is not necessary. In principle, regional aid is compatible with the relevant State aid rules when: 
• it is granted on the basis of a State aid scheme approved by the European Commission and 
complies with all its conditions, or 
• it is granted on the basis of the block exemp tion regulation on regional aid and complies with 
all its conditions (for the block exem ption regulation on regional aid, see 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/L exUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006R1628:EN:NOT
), or 
• for an ad hoc aid (meaning individual aid not granted on the basis of an aid scheme) or an 
individual aid granted on the basis of the scheme but which needs to be individually notified to the European Commission, after the Europ ean Commission takes a decision declaring the 
aid compatible.  
 VI. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(3) TRADE POLICY OBJECTIVES 
Question 3 
(page 20, paragraph 14) The harmonization of regulations across all Member States, and a single standard for investment-
related regulations, are important fact ors to be taken into considerati on by foreign investors. However, 
differences exist between the requirements and standard s of each Member State with regard to the EC's 
CE standards, the free movement of business personne l, and participation of labour unions in direct 
investment or mergers and acquisitions.  
Given the above, could the EC please provide more detailed information on its future plans for 
economic and regulatory harmoniza tion and standardization, whic h will make the newly-expanded EC 
a less complex and a more predictable, integrated  and attractive foreign in vestment destination? 
 
Answer 
In its Communication of 10 May 2006 on “A citizen s’ agenda: delivering results for Europe”, the 
European Commission proposed to launch a fundam ental review of the Single Market. It also 
announced that it would present a report on the Single Market in the 21st century in 2007. The report 
sets out a vision for the Single Market of the 21
st century. It highlights the achievements of the Single 
Market to date and the need to adapt it in order to deliver further concrete results for the benefits of 
citizens and businesses, and to reinforce its contribut ion to economic growth and social cohesion in an 
era of globalisation. The report will be followed by a full review of the single market and proposals for 
further action in the autumn of 2007.  
As far as standardisation is concerned, it has to be kept in mind that in the EC standards are voluntary 
technical documents which are developed by inde pendent European Standa rdisation Organisations 
over which none of the EC institutions has any direct  influence. Accordingly, it is up to the Standards 
Organisations themselves to decide which area needs harmonisation. The past practice has shown a  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 419 
 
 
 strong tendency towards harmonisation of standards at European level. Whereas 25 years ago, the 
proportion between national standards and European  standards was 80/20% in favour of national 
standards, today at least 85% of the standards acquis  are common European standards. 
(5) TRADE AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS  
(i) Overview 
 Question 4 
(page 24, paragraph 27) It is noted in the Secretariat Report that the EC a nnounced its intention to launch new preferential trade 
negotiations, and indicated that key economic criteri a for new PTA (Preferentia l Trade Area) partners 
included market potential and the level of protection against its export interests. Based on these 
criteria, the current priorities are ASEAN, the Republic of Korea, India and MERCOSUR. 
 
Could the EC please elaborate further on the terms and scope of the two economic criteria mentioned 
above, and on the status of the ongoing negotiations with ASEAN and the Republic of Korea? In addition, will the EC revise its intention to launc h new preferential trade negotiations following the 
recent full resumption of the previous ly-stalled Doha Round negotiations? 
 
Answer 
First of all, it should be clarified that negotiati ons with ASEAN and the Republic of Korea have not 
been launched yet; discussions are still ongoing am ong Member States on the negotiating directives. 
As regards the relations between these future nego tiations and the DDA, the EC would like to note that 
multilateral negotiations remain the main priority fo r its trade policy – while the EC will pursue its 
bilateral agenda as presented in the "Global Eu rope" Commission Communication and endorsed by the 
Council, this is to be seen as a compleme nt and not as an alternative to the DDA. 
 As far as criteria for identifying new FTA partne rs are concerned, the Global Europe Communication 
specifies that they should cons ider economic size and growth (representing market potential) as well as 
the level of tariffs and non tariff barriers against EC interests (accounting for the level of protection). It 
also recalls that the EC should also take account of the potential partners’ negotiations with EC 
competitors, the likely impact of this on EC mark ets and economies, as well as the risk that the 
preferential access to EC market s currently enjoyed by our neighboring and developing country 
partners may be eroded. 
 
VII. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(2) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS 
(viii) Contingency trade remedies 
Question 5 
(page 55, paragraph 41) 
Following such dispute settlement cases as India-Be d Linen (DS141) and US-Zeroing (DS294), what is 
the EC’s view on the possibility of WTO Members ma king changes to their zeroing practices? In light 
of the results of the aforementioned cases, has the EC made any adjustments to the method used to 
calculate dumping margins in its AD investigations and reviews?  
Answer The EC would expect WTO Members to fully respect  the Appellate Body's reports in the two cases 
cited by the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan , Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu. Furthermore, the EC 
fully respects the Appellate Body's report in the tw o cases. In regard to theses reports no adjustments 
are necessary to the EC's current prac tice in calculating dumping margins. 
(x) Sanitary and phytosa nitary (SPS) measures  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 420  
 
 Question 6 
(page 59, paragraph 54) 
The EC’s common SPS regime aims to comply with WTO rules and regulations, and to maintain EC 
SPS legislation in line with international guidelin es. Since 27 October, 2005, however, the EC has 
imposed a suspension of imports of commercial cap tive live birds from the third countries, regardless 
of their status concerning the highly pathogenic av ian influenza (2005/760/EC). Neither the relevant 
notifications nor any scientific justification for the imposition of the above-mentioned measure have 
been received from the EC.  
Could the EC please explain how the above is in co mpliance with the relevant international standards, 
such as the requirements of Chapter 2.7.12. of th e OIE’s Terrestrial Animal Health Code, and how it 
fulfils its transparency obligations under the WTO SPS Agreement ?   
Answer 
Commission Decision 2005/760/EC complies with OIE guidelines; therefore a notification to the SPS 
agreement is not necessary. It was a dopted in the frame of the spread of the Asian strain of the avian 
influenza virus in wild birds during 2005 as notif ied in G/SPS/N/EEC/234 (dated 29 January 2004) and 
G/SPS/N/EEC/235 (dated 9 February 2004). The origin of the EC actions was not only the spread of 
the virus via wild birds, but also the finding, in a quarantine station in Great Britain of this virus in 
imported birds. See more about EC measures in  G/SPS/GEN/641 (dated 20 March 2006) questions and 
answers on the EC control measures for avian influenza.   The European Commission follows the scientific advice of the European Food Safety Authority 
(EFSA) as in its "Scientific Opinion on the animal h ealth and welfare risks associated with the import 
of wild birds other than poultry into the Comm unity". (Adopted on 27 October 2006) and is working 
on a proposal that removes the suspension on imports of birds other than poultry, while at the same 
time strengthens the import requirements. If adopted, the import of captive bred birds from countries already approved to export live pou ltry to the EC will be allowed. 
 (3) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING EXPORTS (v) Export assistance 
Question 7 
(page 66, paragraph 80) As indicated in the Report, the EC undertook co nsultations with Brazil (along with other OECD 
members) with a view to establishing an understanding on export credit for civil aircraft.  
Does this mean that OECD members are trying to reach an agreement with Brazil on the issue of 
Annex I(k) of the Agreement on Subsidies and Co untervailing Measures (ASCM)?  Has any progress 
been made on this issue? 
Answer The EC is currently negotiating a new Aircraft Sector Understanding (ASU) with the other OECD 
Participants and with Brazil. The aim is to have  export credit financing c onditions for the aircraft 
sector that establish a level playing field and that ar e market reflective. Among other things, the goal is 
to set minimum levels for export credit insurance prem ia and for interest rates,  the latter in case of 
government involvement in the loans. The new ASU would also be open to other Parties to join.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 421 
 
 
 (4) MEASURES AFFECTING PRODUCTION AND TRADE 
(i) State-Owned Enterprises 
Question 8 
(page 67, paragraph 84) An OECD study has pointed out that the priva tization of EC State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) 
produced mixed results as most have not achieved th e level of competitiveness initially envisioned. A 
range of factors has contributed to the under-performance of many partly privatized SOEs, in terms of 
profit margins and returns on equity and investment , compared with competing private enterprises.  
Does the EC plan to take any action to improve the performance of partly privatized SOEs? If so, what 
type of action is contemplated  and how would it be implemented? 
Answer 
As explained in paragraphs 82 and 83 of the Secr etariat's report, the EC Treaty and its competition 
rules make no distinction between treatment of St ate-owned and private companies. The competition 
rules fully apply to State owned and State-controlled companies. Neither are there any specific EC 
regulations that would specifically target the behavi our of public companies. All companies, public and 
private, are subject to market forces, and their perfo rmance is purely a matter for shareholders. It is not 
possible to make specific interventions to help th e performance of certain companies on a market but 
not others, as that would be a distortion of comp etition falling under the competition rules. Financial 
interventions would fall under the State Aid rules,  which prohibit such measures, unless compatible 
with EC Regulations in this area. For these reasons, the EC is not in a position to take any action to 
improve the performance of partly privatised SOEs.  
VIII.  TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(2) AGRICULTURE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES 
(ii) Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 
 Question 9 
(page 83, paragraph 12) It is noted that the EC’s Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) in the marketing year 2003/04 was 
reduced to €30,884 million, and domestic support through green box and blue box measures amounted 
to €22,074 million and €24,782 million, respectively.   
It would be appreciated if the EC could please descri be in detail for us the related agricultural policy 
reform programmes responsib le for the above results. 
 
Answer 
The EC undertook a reform of its agricultural policy in  1999 also called Agenda 2000.  It is mainly the 
results of the implementation of this reform that e xplains the distribution between the different levels 
and types of support for the products in questions. 
(3) FISHERIES 
(ii)  Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) 
 Question 10 
(page 96, paragraph 42) It is mentioned that the EC spent €14.5 million on price support interventions in 2005 and this budget 
was increased to €18.2 million in 2006.   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 422  
 
 Could the EC please provide more detailed backgr ound information on the price support system, its 
mechanism and the fish species involved?   Answer 
The EC runs two market intervention schemes, i. e. a withdrawal scheme and a carry-over scheme. 
Guide prices are fixed annually for the species (wild  capture fisheries) covered by the withdrawal 
system on the basis of average prices registered ove r the previous three years in representative ports. 
The guide prices are then used as a reference to set withdrawal prices, which represent a proportion 
(between 70-90%) of the guide price and which depe nd on the quality of the product. If the price falls 
below this level the Producer (fishermen) Organi sations (PO) may take products off the market. 
Products are subsequently used for non-human consum ption purposes or destroyed or may be "carried-
over". 
Withdrawn products may be eligible for “carry-over”  where the product is stocked and subsequently 
released once the demand/supply situation has improved. The aid (carry over premium) is a flat rate to 
cover stabilisation and storage costs, and bank ch arges. The carry over aid may be granted for a 
maximum of 18% of the quantities placed on the market.  
Other EC measures include:  - Independent interventions by producer organisation for products for which it is not possible to fix a 
withdrawal price because of extreme regional dispar ities and/or the fact that the product is limited to 
certain areas;  
- Private storage aid applicable to  products frozen on board fisheries vessels in the event of a serious 
market disturbance; and  
- Compensatory allowance for tuna, which is paid to Producers Organisations when the market price 
and import price fall below a threshold of 87% of the EC  production price. 
The lists of the species covered by the aforemen tioned mechanisms can be found in the relevant 
annexes to Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the Common Organisation 
of Markets. Official Journal of the European Union L017 of 21/01/2000, pp. 22-52. 
The above Council Regulation and further inform ation on Common Organisation of Markets is 
available at the website of the European Union www.europa.eu
 and in the brochure "The common 
organisation of the markets in fishery and aquacu lture products", available at the following web 
address: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/facts/ocm_en.pdf  
(4) ENERGY 
Question 11 
(page 99, paragraph 51) 
The Green Paper adopted by the Co mmission in March 2006 set up three main policy aims for the EC 
in energy: completion of a fully competitive internal  market; assuring the security of energy supply; 
and achieving environmentally sustainable, clean , and efficient energy supply and use.   
 
At present, measures to achieve th ese aims seem to be concentrated on energy supply.  We are 
interested in learning about any demand-side measures which will encourage more consumer 
participation in efficient energy use.  
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 423 
 
 
 Answer 
A comprehensive framework of Community (EC) ener gy efficiency legislation is now in place that 
covers energy performance labelling, minimum ef ficiency and eco-design requirements, the energy 
performance of buildings, the promotion of cogenera tion and a Directive on energy end-use efficiency 
and energy services in all end-use sectors. Recen tly a six-year Action Plan was adopted by the 
European Commission that contains 75 measures in all sectors, including the energy transformation 
sector, with all the measures designed to improve ener gy efficiency. There is a 9-year 9% final energy 
consumption savings target in the energy services Di rective, a requirement to be respected by all EC 
Member States, starting in 2008. Th ere is also a longer-term savings objective to save 20% of primary 
energy consumption by 2020.  Pl ease visit the following website:  
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/demand/index_en.htm  
 
Question 12 (pages 100-101, paragraph 52)  
It is noted that the Energy Community Treaty signed on 25 October 2005 between the EC and nine Southeast European countries constitutes the largest intern al market for electricity and gas in the world.   
 
Since market structures and the development status of  the EC differ from those of the nine Southeast 
European countries involved, could the EC please  describe the benefits that the above-mentioned 
development is expected to bring ab out in the future? Since it came into force on 1 July 2006, has the 
Treaty yet resulted in any concrete achievemen ts in the European electricity and gas market? 
 
Answer 
The Energy Community Treaty entered into force in late 2006, and as such has had little time to have 
had real effects on markets in its own right. Howe ver, the associated reform process is ongoing and 
new investments are being undertaken. The total cap ital stock in the region has to be increased and 
expected investments are huge. The infrastructure pr ogram of the Energy Community will start in 
2007. 
 
Question 13 
We understand that on 6 July 2005, the EC Council and Parliament adopted and approved the Energy-
using Products (EuP) Directive, which will enter in to force on 11 August 2007. This Directive defines 
conditions and criteria for setting, through subsequent implementing measures, requirements regarding 
environmentally relevant product characteristics (suc h as energy consumption) and allows them to be 
improved quickly and efficiently.  However, it does not introduce directly binding requirements for 
specific products.  In view of the fact that the EC is not a producer of many of the products in question, will the EC invite 
stakeholders from third countries to participate in consultations, such as the Eco-design Consultation 
Forum, to help draw up the implementing measures for particular product groups , as well as to assess 
voluntary steps that might be taken to achieve the Directive's aims?  Answer 
The Consultation process allows all stakeholders to  have their say, either through the Consultation 
Forum directly or through websites designed to allo w international and non-European stakeholders a 
possibility to comment on the Eco-design requirements and steps that are placed there while they are 
under development. The European branch organisations  that take part directly in the Consultation 
Forum also represent and include the major internat ional manufacturers of these products. EICTA, the 
European Information, Communica tions and Consumer Electronics Te chnology Industry Associations, 
for instance, represents more than  10,000 enterprises in Europe, including the sales offices of non-
European producers. For further informatio n, please refer to the following website: 
http://europa.eu/comm/energy/index_en.html
 
Question 14 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 424  
 
 (page 101, paragraph 54)  
Several Member States either missed the implemen tation deadline of 1 July 2004, or have still not 
implemented recent Directives on key issues promoti ng the liberalization of the electricity and gas 
market.   
How are the EC authorities intending to deal with  this delay? Apart from pursuing judicial 
proceedings in the European Court of Justi ce, are there any accompanying countermeasures 
envisaged to bring about the necessary legislation for liberalization and ensure effective enforcement 
of the Directive in advance among Member States?  
 
Answer 
The European Commission considers the European Court of Justice to be the appropriate vehicle for 
any necessary enforcement of the Directive.  
Question 15 
(pages 101-102, paragraph 55)  
While the EU Commission in 2003 set up the European Regulators Group for Electricity and Gas 
(ERGEG) and all Member States now have electricity and gas regulators, in 2006 EC energy ministers 
rejected a Commission proposal for a single EC-wid e regulator seeking to counter national monopolies 
and reduce bills. Furthermore, a flurry of cross-bor der takeovers and bids h as seriously undermined 
steps taken by EC regulators to open up national energy markets to competition.  
Could the EC please inform us of the current attitu des of each Member State towards strengthening 
EC-wide regulations for promoting competition in  the energy markets, and what future enforcing 
measures are contemplated by the EC authorities? 
 
Answer 
The EC is considering a wide range of additi onal measures known as third package to strengthen 
competition in the energy markets. 
 
(5) MANUFACTURING  
(ii) Selected industries (c) Chemicals 
Question 16 
(pages 107-108, paragraph 71) The application of the new REAC H (registration, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals) 
legislation is widely expected to place an extr a burden and higher costs on business. Although the EC 
commits to making the transition to the new syst em as easy as possible, a lack of certainty and 
transparency apparently still exists  regarding application procedures, standards and testing methods.  In 
particular, there is a lack of information about the standards applying to chemical products not 
currently manufactured in the EC.  
 
In this connection, could the EC please clarify whether the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) will 
consult and cooperate with thir d countries regarding the standards applicable to these chemicals? 
 
Answer 
The EC recently notified REACH Regulati on No 1907/2006 under the WTO/TBT Agreement 
(G/TBT/N/EEC/52/Add.3). The Regulation will enter into force on 1 June 2007.  Regarding the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu's and other 
Members' concerns about REACH as inter alia ra ised in document G/TBT/GEN/46, the EC provided a 
comprehensive reply in Appendix 1 and 2 of the REACH notification document. In addition, REACH 
experts will be present at the next TBT Committee meeting on 21-22 March to present the adopted 
REACH Regulation. 
Question 17  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 425 
 
 
 In addition, for the implementation of the REACH, it is a prerequisite to fulfil the inspection and 
qualification requirements for all European imports bearing valid certificates.    In the interests of enhancing the effectiven ess of the REACH implementation and avoiding any 
suspicion of monopolization by specified institutes,  as well as shortening the inspection period for 
manufacturers, it would be appreciated if the EC could clarify whether it will recognize and accept 
certificates issued by those institu tes with export nations’ approval. 
 
Answer 
Please see answer to question 16. 
 
Textiles and clothing 
Question 18 
(page 108, paragraph 75) 
As indicated in the Report, the EC has set restricti ons on the import levels of  certain textile products 
originating in China until the end of 2007. 
Could the EC advise whether these restriction meas ures are likely to be extended, or will they be 
replaced by other control or monitoring measures? 
Answer 
The EC maintains agreed levels of imports of certain  textile products originating in China until the end 
of 2007. 
 
(6) SERVICES 
(iii) Telecommunication and postal services 
Question 19 
(page 118, paragraph 105) We are pleased to see that most Member States had notified the Commission of their telecoms market 
reviews by October 2006, as required by the new regulatory framework.    
We would appreciate knowing, however, the reasons why some countries are still unable to implement 
the new regulatory framework?  Ca n the EC say by when exactly a ll Member States are expected to 
implement the framework?  Answer 
The Report on the Implementation of the Telecommuni cations Regulatory Package prepared each year 
by the European Commission provides an accurate picture of the state of implementation of the 
European Framework for electronic communications . It can be consulted on the following website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/polic y/ecomm/implementation_enforcement/index_en.htm
 
 A new Report will soon be available providing up-date information on the questions raised. 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 426  
 
 (iv) Transport 
Question 20 
(page 126, paragraph 128) 
As indicated, air carriers established in the EC have  free access to the market to provide services within 
the EC, including cabotage within individual Member States.   
We would be interested in having the EC's view on th is granting of cabotage in the context of Article 7 
of the 1944 Chicago Convention which states that each contracting State undertakes not to enter into 
any arrangements which specifically grant any such privilege on an exclusive basis to any other State 
or an airline of any other State, and not to obtain any such exclusive privilege from any other State. 
 
Answer 
Under Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2408/92 on access for Community air carriers to intra-
Community air routes, the EC Member States ag reed to open, from 1 April 1997, access to their 
respective domestic markets to any Community ai r carrier in possession of an Operating Licence 
granted in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2407/92 on the licensing of air carriers. 
These rights were made available to all Member Stat es of the EC in the context of establishing an 
integrated internal market on the basis of common rules. These arrangements were not made available 
on an exclusive basis to any one State or airline of any one State, and it is not specified in the 
arrangements that these are exclusive rights. 
 
Question 21 
Please could the EC provide a list of countries w ith which it has concluded air service agreements, and 
also describe the relationships between such ag reements and those which individual Member States 
have concluded with non-EC States?  
Answer 
The EC has comprehensive aviation agreements with  Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein (through the 
Agreement on the European Economic Area), with Switzerland, with Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, 
Croatia, Macedonia, Iceland, Montenegro, Norw ay, Serbia and Kosovo (Multilateral Agreement 
establishing the European Common Aviation Area), and with Morocco. These agreements replace 
those which have been concluded bilaterally by individual Member States with these countries. In 
addition, it is negotiating a comprehensive aviation agreement with the United States. 
 
The EC has also reached so-called "horizontal ag reements" with and Australia, Azerbaijan, Chile, 
Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldiv es, Moldova, New Zealand, Panama, Paraguay, 
Singapore, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay,  and Vietnam. These horizontal agreements do 
not replace the existing bilateral air services agreem ents between individual Member States and these 
countries, but they ensure the legal certainty of  these agreements substituting standard clauses for 
certain provisions which have been found by the Eur opean Court of Justice to be incompatible with 
Community law. 
 
(v) Tourism 
 
Question 22 
(page 127, paragraph 134) The Report mentions that the Commission will presen t, by 2007, a proposal for an “Agenda 21 for 
tourism”. It would be appreciated if the EC could share with us the relevant details of this proposal.  
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 427 
 
 
 Answer 
The planned Commission Communication on an “A genda for the Sustainability of a Competitive 
European Tourism”, foreseen to be adopted at th e end of September 2007, will be based on the report 
of the Tourism Sustainability Group (TSG). A web- based consultation on the recommendations of the 
TSG Report will be launched shortly.  
 
Information Technology  
(Without reference to specific paragraph/s in the Secretariat Report) 
 
Question 23 
It has been more than 10 year s since the WTO Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information 
Technology Products (ITA) entered into force. From our experience over these years, we conclude that 
the ITA has been contributing significantly to the growth of trade in IT products among Members, as well as to the global development of the IT industr y and general utilization of information technology 
around the world. 
 
Recently, several IT products previously classified unde r the ITA have either been excluded, or have 
been scheduled to be excluded from continuing to enjoy the zero tariff treatment in the EC.  Some 
Members have expressed their serious concerns in  the ITA Committee and a workshop was held in 
January this year for ITA participants to meet with industry representatives. 
 We would appreciate knowing more about the EC’s reas ons for the changes to its tariff classifications, 
and how it proposes to address industries’ concerns that  fewer and fewer IT products in future might 
be qualified to enjoy tariff-f ree treatment within the EC? 
Answer 
The EC has not changed the classification of elect ronic products in the Combined Nomenclature, 
whether falling within or outside the scope of th e Information Technology Agreement as described in 
Attachment A and Attachment B in the Annex to that agreement. As the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu,  Kinmen and Matsu is aware the EC is of the 
opinion that the "Modalities and Product Coverage" anne xed to the Ministerial Declaration on trade in 
information technology provides for the necessary mechanisms for reviewing the product scope 
(paragraph 3) and resolving classifica tion divergences (paragraphs 5 and 7). 
 
NICARAGUA
 
 III. POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS 
2) M
EDIDAS QUE AFECTAN DIRECTAMENTE A LAS IMPORTACIONES  
xii) Contratación pública  
En el párrafo 63 del documento WT/TPR/S/177, páginas 77 y 78 señala: 
 En virtud de la Directiva 2004/18, los proced imientos de licitación pública y restringida pueden 
utilizarse a discreción de las autoridades. 
 
Los contratos de servicios públicos pueden adjudicar se mediante procedimientos de licitación pública o 
restringida o procedimientos negocia dos.  Habida cuenta de que en la Directiva sobre los servicios 
públicos se establece que las entidades contratantes  pueden elegir entre esos tres procedimientos a 
discreción, no se ha estimado necesario introducir más flexibilidad (ni, por consiguiente, un diálogo 
competitivo).” 
 
Question 1 
¿Al respecto, por favor explique sobre el al cance o efecto de la aplicación discrecional de los 
procedimientos de licitación pública o licitación restringida,  especialmente en lo referente al respeto WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 428  
 
 de los principios inherentes a esta materia como la transparencia, y como contribuye esto a lograr la 
máxima competencia posible? 
 
Answer 
Both open and restricted procedures are subject to detailed rules laid down in directives EC/2004/17 and EC/2004/18 to ensure non discrimination, na tional treatment and maximum transparency. In 
particular, contracting authorities shall publish in  both cases a notice of intended procurement, an 
award notice and shall comp ly with specific deadlines 
 
Question 2 
 
¿A su criterio cuáles son las ventajas o desv entajas que resultan de dicha discrecionalidad? 
 
Answer 
It depends on the subject matter of the contract a nd the state of competition of the market concerned. 
According to EC latest available data, 25.72% of EC  tenders published in the Official Journal of the 
European Union have been awarded following an op en procedure. Restricted procedures amounted to 
18% of the tenders.  
Question 3 
¿Podría explicar el procedimiento de la licitaci ón pública y la licitación restringida, los montos o 
umbrales que dan lugar la aplicación de cada uno de ellos, así como las condiciones que dan lugar a la 
aplicación de cada uno de ellos? 
 
Answer 
The thresholds provided under directives EC/2004/17 and EC/2004/18 are the same for both procedures: please see table 3 "minimum thresholds 2006". As to the rules applicable to both open and 
restricted procedures, please see the answer provided under question 1. 
POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS 
4) MEDIDAS QUE AFECTAN A LA PRODUCCIÓN Y EL COMERCIO iii) Derechos de propiedad intelectual 
 En base al párrafo 105, Pág. 91, del Informe de la Secretaria, WT/TPR/S/177, la adhesión de la CE al 
protocolo de Madrid, efectiva a partir de octubre de  2004, permitió a los titular es de marcas de fábrica 
o de comercio  de los países miembros del Prot ocolo de Madrid pueden designar a las CE en su 
solicitud de registro internacional de marcas de fábrica o de comercio, de manera que si la Oficina de 
Armonización del Mercado Interior (OAMI) no la deniega, la protección es válida en los 25 Estados 
miembros de la CE.   
 
Question 4 
Puede considerarse que esta adhesión ha fortalecido a la OAMI y cuál es el rol del resto de oficinas de 
propiedad industrial, en materia de conces ión de marcas de fábrica o de comercio? 
 Answer 
The accession of the EC to the Madrid Protocol has made the Community trade mark system more 
attractive. Moreover, the establishment of a link be tween the Community trade mark system and the 
international registration system under the Madrid Protocol promotes a harmonious development of 
economic activities, eliminates distortions of compet ition, is cost efficient and increases the level of 
integration and functioning of the internal market.  
The Community trade mark system and the intern ational registration system as established by the 
Madrid Protocol are complementary. Therefore, in or der to enable firms to benefit from the advantages  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 429 
 
 
 of the Community trade mark through the Madrid Pr otocol and vice versa, it was necessary to allow 
Community trade mark applicants and holders of such  trade marks to apply for international protection 
of their trade marks through the filing of an intern ational application under the Madrid Protocol and, 
conversely, holders of international registrations unde r the Madrid Protocol to apply for protection of 
their trade marks under the Community trade mark system. 
The Madrid System is becoming more and more universal. It is a successful system for the 
international registration of marks (WIPO has re gistered its 900,000th mark in 2006) and it was 
important to offer the possibility to link this sy stem with the CTM System. 2006 was a particularly 
successful years as regards the registration activity undertaken under the Madrid system.  Throughout 
the year, the International Bureau received some 36, 500 international applications (8.6% more than 
in 2005). 
As regards the question on the role of other offices, it can be said that the largest share of the 33,565 
international trademark applications received by WIPO  in 2005 was filed by users in Germany (17.3% 
of the total), followed by users in France (10.4% ), the United States of America (8.5%), Benelux 
(7.2%), Italy (7.0%), Switzerland (6.7%), the Eur opean Community (5.5%) and China (4.0%).  These 
figures  relate to international a pplications filed through the nationa l trademark offices of the members 
concerned. Applications from developing countri es increased by 30.6% over 2004, with China ranking 
first in the list of users.   
 
En el párrafo 109, Pág. 93, del Informe de la S ecretaria, WT/TPR/S/177. El ejercicio de consultas 
realizado en el año 2006, por la CE sobre la materi a de patentes, conllevó a la ejecución de un plan de 
Acción.   
Question 5 
Explique el contenido del Plan de Acción en materia de patentes , producto de las audiencias 
realizadas? 
 
Answer 
The results of the 2006 consultation exercise have s hown that stakeholders favour the introduction of a 
Community patent and the improvement of the exis ting European patent system which is governed by 
the European Patent Convention. However, the Common political approach of the European Council 
on the Community patent which was adopted on 3 March 2003 is strongly criticised in relation to 
translation requirements and the jurisdictional system. 
The follow-up Communication on patent strategy has been somewhat delayed because of the 
complexity of the patent litigation reforms issue.  The Communication is now likely to be adopted on 
28 March 2007. 
 
En el párrafo 112, Pág. 94, del Informe de la S ecretaria, WT/TPR/S/177, se indica que el 27 de mayo 
de 2006, la Comunidad Europea (CE) adoptaron el  Reglamento  No. 816/2006 relativo a la concesión 
de licencias obligatorias de patentes para la fabric ación de productos farmacé uticos destinados a la 
exportación a países con problemas de salud pública.  
 
Question 6 De conformidad con el citado Reglamento, cuál es el  procedimiento jurídico  para la concesión de  
licencias obligatorias  con fines de exportación?   
 
Answer 
The procedure for granting of compulsory licences under Regulation 816/2006 is  defined in Articles 6-
12 of the said Regulation. The application is made to a 'competent authority' in the Member State 
where the medicines would be manufactured (technically where the relevant patent would be WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 430  
 
 exploited). This would normally me an a national patent office. The 'competent authority' would decide 
whether the application fulfilled the requirements of the Regulation and also the maximum quantities 
of medicines which could be manufactured under the compulsory licence(s) in the EC. However, it 
must be noted that, to date, the European Commissi on has not received any notifications under Article 
12, of the granting of compulsory licences under the terms of the Regulation. 
 
El párrafo 114, Pág. 95, del In forme de la Secretaria, WT/TPR/S/177, indica las estadísticas de la 
Oficina Comunitaria  de Obtenciones Vegetales, muestra que recibió  2,517 en 2003,  2656 en 2004 y 
2733 en 2005, así como 1,701, 1,867 y 2,178 títulos, respectivamente.    Question 7 
Señalar cuántos de estos títulos obtuvieron doble protección, es decir mediante la protección “sui 
generis” de obtenciones vegetales  y mediante la protección de patentes? 
 
Answer 
There seems to be a misundersta nding regarding the concept of the bodies involved. The patents 
protection system mentioned in para. 113, the European Patent Office (EPO, http://www.european-
patent-office.org/index.en.php ) and the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO, 
http://www.cpvo.europa.eu/others.php?res=1& w=1272&h=869&lang=es&pa ge=accueilothers.php ), 
mentioned in para.113, are two separated mechanis ms. There is no direct relation between them, and 
they do not have the same members.  
 
En el párrafo 116, Pág. 95, del Informe de la Secr etaria, WT/TPR/S/177, menciona la nueva legislación 
referida a marcas de fábrica o de comercio y las indicaciones geográficas, contenidas en el Reglamento 
No. 510/2006 del Consejo, de 20 marzo de 2006.  Question 8 
Favor explique si dicho reglamento establece un tratamiento especial entre Marcas y Denominaciones 
de Origen ?   
Existe relación entre ambos, o quien goza de me jor jerarquía (Una marca o una denominación de 
origen 
 
Answer The relation between GIs and trademarks containe d in the original EC Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 
was upheld by the Panel as being compatible with  WTO obligations and these provisions were not 
changed in the new regulation.  
En materia de Derecho de Autor y Derechos Conexos, en el párrafo 118, Pág. 96, del Informe de la 
Secretaria, WT/TPR/S/177, indica que las CE cuen ta con una recomendación relativa a la gestión 
colectiva transfronteriza de los derecho de autor y derechos conexos en el ámbito de los servicios 
legales  de música en línea.   
 
Question 9 
Favor Indique el aumento de las licencias de música digital.   
Explique las directrices generales sobre solución de  diferencias, responsabilidad, y distribución de los 
derechos recaudados?  
Answer 
The European Commission has adopted a Recommend ation on collective cross-border management of 
copyright and related rights for legitimate onlin e music services (2005/737/EC), which puts forward 
measures for improving the EC-wide licensing of copyright for online services. The Recommendation 
and the accompanying Impact assessment reformi ng cross-border collective management of copyright  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 431 
 
 
 and related rights for legitimate online music servic es (SEC(2005) 1254) address different aspects such 
as  multi-territorial licensing, dispute resolution,  cross-border  distribution of royalties, etc.   The European Commission has launched in Janua ry 2007 online public consultation where all 
interested stakeholders are invited to submit vi ews and comments on their initial experience with the 
Recommendation. After the completion of this monitoring exercise the European Commission will be 
able to assess how many EC licensing platform s have been established and how many EC-wide 
licenses have been issued. The initial experience with the Recommendation shows that until now 
seven EC-wide licensing schemes have been announced or have become operational.  
 
En los párrafos 119 al 123, Pág. 96 y 97, del Info rme de la Secretaria, WT/TPR/S/177, Las CE han 
indicado que continúa esforzándose en mejorar la ob servancia, tanto dentro de la CE como en sus 
fronteras exteriores, que le permitan luchar eficazmente  contra los actos de falsificación y piratería.   
 
Question 10  
Explique cuál es el mecanismo de cooperación que desarrollará con sus interlocutores comerciales, 
para luchar contra la piratería y falsificación ? 
 
Answer 
The basic approach to address this problem  was set out at the end of 2004, in the Strategy for the 
Enforcement of IPR in Third Countries . Since then, we have substa ntially increased our efforts, 
creating specific dialogues with some of the key pa rtners, leading the debate at the World Trade 
Organisation (TRIPs Council), preparing more deta iled IPR chapters for our future FTAs, shifting 
technical assistance resources to enforcement, working closely with industry and establishing 
reinforced cooperation with countries sharing our co ncerns. The EC has strengthened its resources in 
certain countries to help businesses find reliable supplie rs, spot the risks from IP theft and deal with the 
domestic authorities.  We have also established me chanisms between right-holders and the competent 
enforcement services, so that concrete problems ca n be addressed face-to-face. The results of such 
cooperation are periodically assessed in order to  measure if there is concrete progress. 
Over the last year the European  Commission has conducted a wide consultation with EC businesses to 
get a sense of where the problem is focussed and wher e we need to act. The results of our Enforcement 
Survey were published in October 2006. On this basis,  we established a list of priority countries and 
regions on which to focus activity and resources in  the fight against piracy and counterfeiting. 
Although we cannot afford to accept continued, systematic and large scale infringements of the rights 
of our industry, our emphasis when addressing the problem with third countries will be on a constructive and result-oriented dialog ue, cooperation and technical assistance. 
Question 11  
 
Explique cuáles serán los nuevos estándares de Propiedad Intelectual que exigirán a sus socios comerciales?  From WTO Members we expect adequate and effective protection and enforcement of IP rights pursuant to the standards set by the TRIPs Agreemen ts. From those partners which have engaged in 
Free Trade Agreements or other types of bilatera l commitments with the EC, we expect compliance 
with the IP enforcement and protection st andards stipulated in those agreements. 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 432  
 
 PAKISTAN
 
 
Question 1.  EC's MFN tariff is applicable to only ni ne WTO Members accounting for its 30% of 
merchandise imports (Para 9). Such a trade policy regime of one of the major trading nation hints to 
undermine the multilateral trading system. How would EC reconcile its commitment to the Multilateral 
System in this backdrop?  
Answer  
The nine partners referred to in the question are all th e first trading partners of the EC. It is therefore 
correct to say that the EC has a strong interest in the multilateral system. It is equally important to note 
that while the EC grants preferential treatment to many countries, such preferences go largely 
unreciprocated. This second aspect is again clear ev idence of the attachment of the EC to the 
multilateral system since the bulk of its exports are under MFN treatment and hardly receive any 
preferences. 
Question 2.  Despite having average tariff of 4% for non-agricultural goods, EC maintains tariff 
peaks as well as tariff escalations especially on the products of export interest to the developing 
countries like textile and clothing and leather pr oducts. On one hand, EC through its EBA and GSP 
scheme is helping some developing countries and on the other hand, its trade policy is discriminated 
against products of interest to the remaining de veloping countries. How would EC justify such a 
dichotomy in its policies? 
Answer  
The Community's common commercial policy is consis tent with and consolidates the objectives of its 
development policy. It is to this end that developi ng countries benefit in the access to the EC market 
from non-reciprocal tariff preferences granted under the Community's scheme of generalised tariff 
preferences (GSP). 178  independent countries and territories, classified by the World Bank as 
developing countries, are benefiting from a preferen tial access to the EC market under the current GSP 
scheme.  In 2005, out of the 10000 products in the Combined Nomenclature, almost 3000 were  duty free (MFN 
zero) and the vast remaining majority – more  than 6000 products – benefited from GSP trade 
preferences, including the majority of industrial products and a great many agricultural and fish products, of interest for developing countries. Half of the GSP covered products entered the EC market 
duty free. 
 
BOLIVIA
 
 Documento de la Secretaría WT/TPR/S/177 
Capítulo I) Entorno Económico, 3) Result ados Comerciales e Inversiones iii) Inversión 
Extranjera Directa, parágrafo 23.  
Siendo que las CE-25 son el principal origen y destino de IED del mundo:  
 
Question 1
 
¿Existen restricciones  a las inversiones extranjeras directas en la Unión Europea? ¿En caso afirmativo 
en qué sectores económicos se presentan estas restri cciones? ¿Pueden ser diferentes las normas de los 
25 países examinados en lo referente al tratam iento a las inversiones extranjeras directas? 
 
Answer 
Concerning direct investments, Article 57 of the EC Treaty allows that the EC Member States maintain 
their respective restrictions on capital movements to or from third countries, which existed at a cut-off 
date (31 December 1993, for Estonia and Hungary: 31 December 1999). The relevant investment, real  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 433 
 
 
 estate and financial services-related restrictions ar e described in the GATS Schedule of the EC and its 
Member States.   
Capítulo  II Regímenes de Comercio e Inversión,  2) Formulación y Aplicación de 
Políticas,  Parágrafo 11 
 Siendo que “la Comisión utiliza evaluaciones del impact o del comercio en la sostenibilidad (EIS del 
comercio) para analizar los efectos económicos, ambientales y sociales de los acuerdos comerciales tanto en las CE como en sus interlocutores comerciales.”  Question 2:
 
¿La CE tiene algún método o mecanismo para controlar o medir el impacto ambiental en la aplicación 
de los subsidios y medidas de ayuda interna, pa rticularmente en aquellos sectores donde se involucran 
el manejo de los recursos naturales y la biodiversidad?  Answer 
Under the Trade SIA methodology a set of nine core indicators, three for each pillar of sustainable 
development: economic, social and environmental h as been carefully set to assess the potential impacts 
on sustainability arising from trade negotiations. One of  the three indicators used to assess the potential 
effects on the environment is biodiversity, the tw o others being environm ental quality and natural 
resource stocks. In addition, a wide range of detailed indicators covering economic, social and 
environment issues are used in a case by case basis under the Trade SIA analysis
18.  
 The studies do not just look at each indicator sep arately because often something which affects one 
indicator can have knock on effects to another (e .g.: linkages between poverty and environmental 
degradation). The potential effects of a trade agreement on any of these indicators can be positive, 
negative or a combination of both. Where the studies  identify positive effects,  they also propose so-
called "enhancing measures" which can be used to magnify the expected benefits. Where the findings 
flag up potential negative side effects, the study proposes "flanking" or "complementary measures" in 
order to offset them.   The potential effects are measured using economic modelling and causal chain analysis but 
Computable General Equilibrium models (GCEs) are not able to deal with the complex environmental 
impacts related to effects on biodiversity and natu ral resources stocks. In addition to economic models, 
Trade SIAs also use input from stakeholders and experts. A vital part of these studies is the 
involvement of stakeholders in the countries w ith which we are conducting trade negotiations.  
 
In addition, Trade SIAs look at different scenarios of  liberalisation and usually examine the effects of 
different degrees of trade liberalisation and compare the likely effects of a little bit of trade liberalisation with the potential consequences of a mo re ambitious result. Whether relevant in trade 
negotiations, these studies take into account, not only  the impacts of tariffs reduction but also the 
reduction of export support and domestic support.   
Taking into account the limits of the economic models  have for capturing and measuring the effects of 
trade liberalisation especially on biodiversity, th e Trade SIAs generally indicate more negative 
potential side effects on biodiversity than positive on es but biodiversity as said previously is just one 
indicator used to measure sustainable development.  The negative effects identified in the Trades SIAs 
are often linked to issues such as deforestation, more intensive use of chemicals, or moves to replace 
diverse small scale farming with more uniform agricultural landscapes.  
 For example, in the area of fisheries, our Trade SIA indicated mixed results:  
                                                     
 
18 See the Trade SIA Handbook: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/ docs/2006/march/tradoc_127974.pdf  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 434  
 
  
• On one hand, a reduction in subsidies could bring environmental benefits but it could 
imply social costs. 
• On the other hand, a cut in tariffs under the DDA NAMA negotiations could have 
negative environmental effects because of an expansion in aquaculture in some non-
ACP countries but at the same time women would be the main beneficiaries from 
increased employment. 
•  
This highlights the complexity of trying to evalua te the overall impacts on su stainable development of 
any trade negotiations: benefits in one area might  be offset by negative impacts elsewhere.  
 Another important aspect stressed by various Trade SI As is that although increased trade can magnify 
the stresses on biodiversity it is rarely the underl ying cause. Two main drivers are population growth 
and growing per capita consumption. Pressure on ha bitats come from abandoning traditional farming 
practices, change in land use, constr uction and the spread of alien inv asive species. In addition, there 
are often weaknesses in the regulatory regime and govern ance that also threaten not just biodiversity 
itself but efforts to protect it.   
The sectoral DDA SIA on forestry, for example, indicat ed that trade liberalisation could potentially 
exacerbate existing problems but that the mains causes of deforestation, forest degradation and illegal logging were primarily due to other factors such  as poor governance and weak law enforcement.  
 These are some of the effects and potential consequen ces of trade on biodiversity that Trade SIAs have 
been able to identify so far. In line with the two priorities objectives of the EC Communication on 
Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010 (2006),  the European Commission is fully committed to 
continue to reducing the impacts of internationa l trade on biodiversity and to strengthening the 
effectiveness of international governan ce. One of the main thrust of th is exercise is to feed the Trade 
SIAs results into aid policy. Finally, it is also important to underline that as the Trade SIA results 
which are independent are public,  our trading partners  also have a source of information on which they 
can draw when making their own policies choices.  
 
Capítulo II Regímenes de Comercio e Invers ión, 5 Acuerdos Comerciales, ii) OMC a) 
Negociaciones del Programa de Doha para el Desarrollo,  Parágrafo 30 
 Debido a que en octubre de 2005 las CE ofrecieron eliminar para 2013 todas las prácticas de 
exportación causantes de distorsión del comercio, co n inclusión de las subvenciones a la exportación 
 
Question 3:
 
¿Qué mecanismos aplicará la CE para eliminar hasta el 2013 todas las prácticas de exportación 
causantes de distorsión del comercio, con inclusión de las subvenciones a la exportación, así como 
aumentar el acceso a los mercados y reducir la ayuda interna, y cómo compensará a sus países 
miembros que mantienen un alto porcenta je de dependencia de estas medidas? 
 
Answer 
The EC has made it clear that its offer to elimin ate export subsidies in the DDA negotiations is under 
condition that other export measures with equi valent effect will also be eliminated. 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 435 
 
 
 Capítulo II Regímenes de Comercio e Inversión , 5 Acuerdos Comerciales, iii) Acuerdos y 
disposiciones comerciales preferenciales, a) Ac uerdos con países y grupos de países europeos, 
Adhesiones a la CE, Parágrafo 37 
(a)  
En referencia a que  la mayor parte de los nuevos Estados  miembros han introducido medidas 
temporales con respecto a la adquisición de tierras agrícolas por ciudadanos de otros países. 
 
Question 4:  
¿Las medidas que aplican los nuevos Estados miembr os de la CE para la  adquisición de tierras 
agrícolas pueden considerarse discriminatorias? 
 
Answer 
With regard to acquisition of agricultural land and forests the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, 
Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria have  been granted a seven-year transitional arrangement 
during which they can maintain their national legi slation regarding the purchase of agricultural land 
and forests. The Commission can decide to extend this transition period by a further three years in case 
of serious disturbances on the agricultural land mark et of the above countries. Poland was granted a 
twelve-year transitional arrangement during which it can  maintain its national legislation regarding the 
purchase of agricultural land and forests. A general re view of these transitional arrangements shall be 
held before the end of the third y ear following the date of accession.  
 
Capítulo III Políticas y Prácticas Comerciales po r Medida, 3) Medidas que Afectan Directamente 
a las Exportaciones, iv) Subvenciones a la Exportación, Parágrafo 78  
Se hace referencia a que durante el período obje to de examen se han otorgado subvenciones a la 
exportación de diferentes productos.  
 
Question 5:
 
¿Podrían las CE proporcionar información adicional a las notificaciones realizadas en materia de 
subvenciones a las exportaciones?  Es decir por  producto, cuantía y países de la CE que son 
beneficiarios? ¿Puede describirse el mecanismo para la obtención de l subsidio a la exportación que debe realizar el 
productor y/o exportador de la CE y si existe un li mitante en cuanto al monto máximo que se puede 
recibir de subsidio a la exportación, al r especto, los pequeños productores de la CE no
 son beneficiados 
con este subsidio?  
Answer 
Paragraph 77 of the WTO Secretariat's report desc ribes how export refunds are granted. For more 
details please consult Regulation (EC) No 800/19 99 and Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (Customs 
Code) and 2454/93 (Implementing Provisions Cust oms Code). The EC notifications on export 
subsidies specify the expenditure and quantity used  for each product category in the period in question 
and is not specified for each of Member States of the EC.  
 
Capítulo III Políticas y Prácticas Comerciales  por Medidas, 4) Medidas que afectan a la 
producción y el comercio, ii) Política de competencia y cuestiones normativas, a) Medidas antimonopolio, parágrafo  87  
Debido a que la Comisión ha revisado sus normas sobre el acceso a los expedientes de las partes 
implicadas en asuntos antimonopolio y que en di ciembre de 2005 publicó un documento de debate 
sobre abusos excluyentes, donde se hace referencia a la marca única.  
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 436  
 
 Question 6
: 
¿Sobre la marca única mencionada en este párrafo, el  problema que este puede ge nerar es de exclusión 
de mercado a los proveedores, reflejándose en una colusión vertical que pue de afectar de manera 
directa a los consumidores, y obviamente al resto de proveedores. ¿Este tipo de consideraciones  están siendo tomadas en cuenta en el examen del docum ento de debate sobre abusos excluyentes?  
Answer 
The European Commission began in 2005 a reflection on the policy underlying Article 82 (which deals 
with abuses from dominant companies that exclude other competitors from the market) and the way in 
which it should enforce that policy. This review aims to set out in a clear and consistent manner 
theories of harm underlying the application of Ar ticle 82 based on sound economic assessment and to 
develop practical and workable rules, which take into account the reality on the market. At the same 
time the European Commission rema ins committed to firmly enforce all aspects of Community 
competition law to help strengthen the European economy to the benefit of all EU citizens.  In 2005 the European Commission published a Staff Discussion Paper
 for discussion with the public. 
This paper is available at the following website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/art82/discpaper2005.pdf ). 
 The paper describes a general framework for analys ing abusive exclusionary conduct by a dominant 
company. Where a dominant company is present on a market, competition on that market is already 
weak. The concern of the competition rules is ther efore to prevent conduct by that dominant company 
which risks weakening competition still further, and ha rming consumers, whether that harm is likely to 
occur in the short, medium or long term. Comments received on the staff discussion paper are available 
at: http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/art82/contributions.html
.  
The most important topics raised by the replies were discussed in a public hearing in June 2006. 
The European Commission wants to  concentrate its resources on those anti-competitive practices that 
are most likely to cause harm to consumers. As  a result it has recently increased its enforcement 
activities against cartels. The proposals made in the Discussion Paper on Article 82 would in a similar way imply a strong focus on those abuses of dominant positions most likely to harm consumers. "Single branding" is dealt with in paragra phs 148-150 of the Discussion Paper. The Commission 
recognises the foreclosure potential of single branding, and considers as follows (§149): 
"Where the dominant company applies a single brandi ng obligation to a good part of its buyers and this 
obligation therefore affects, if not most, at least a substantial part of market demand, the Commission 
is likely to conclude that the obligation has a mark et distorting foreclosure effect and thus constitutes 
an abuse of the dominant position. In its assessmen t the Commission will however not only look at the 
capability of the obligation, the degree of dominance and the level of the tied market share, but will 
also take into account evidence why for particular reasons no market distorting foreclosure effect may 
result. For instance, whereas in general a short duration or a right to terminate the single branding 
obligation does not limit its likely foreclosure effect , under particular circumstances a short duration or 
right to terminate at short notice may make a market distorting foreclosure effect unlikely.  Such may be the case where the product is a ho mogeneous good and competitors are not capacity 
constrained. In case the dominant company does not  apply the single branding obligation to a good part 
of its buyers but only selectively to some and not to  others, the Commission will investigate whether or 
not these selected buyers are of particular importan ce for the possibilities of entry or expansion of 
competitors." 
Capítulo III Políticas y Prácticas Comerciales  por Medidas, 4) Medidas que afectan a la 
producción y el comercio, ii) Política de comp etencia y cuestiones normativas, b) Fusiones, 
Parágrafo 97 
Durante el período objeto de examen no han variado las directrices establecidas por las CE en relación 
con las fusiones horizontales.  
 
Question 7
:  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 437 
 
 
 ¿Qué medidas se tienen contempladas para temas como colusiones implícitas? 
 
Answer 
Regarding horizontal mergers, the European Commission adopted guidelines on the assessment of 
horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on the control of concentrations between 
undertakings in 2004 (Official Jour nal C 31, 05.02.2004, p.  5-18). These Guidelines, being relatively 
recent, are not currently under review. The reference to "implicit collusion" is not complete ly clear, but the European Commission takes it as 
being a reference to "concerted practices". Article  81 of the Treaty prohibits both agreements and 
concerted practices between undertakings which "whi ch may affect trade between Member States and 
which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the 
common market". Concerted practices have been de fined by the European Court of Justice as "co-
ordination between enterprises, which has not yet reach ed the point of true contractual relations but 
which had in practice substituted co-operation for th e risks of competition". This definition is well-
established in case-law and is not under review. 
 
Capítulo III Políticas y Prácticas Comerciales  por Medidas, 4) Medidas que afectan a la 
producción y el comercio, iii) Derechos de propie dad intelectual, a) Propiedad Industrial, Marcas 
de fabrica o de Comercio y dibujos y modelos industriales,  Parágrafo 106 
El Comité Económico y Social Europeo (CESE) public ó un dictamen que reforzaba la opinión antes 
citada y manifestó que el obrar de otra manera conduciría a un monopolio de producto de facto  en el 
mercado secundario 
 
Question 8:
 
¿El dictamen del CESE ha considerado otros posibl es efectos en el mercado secundario, además de 
prever un posible monopolio de facto, tras la modificación? Answer 
The Opinion does not consider other possible effects on secondary markets. 
 
Capítulo III Políticas y Prácticas Comerciales  por Medidas, 4) Medidas que afectan a la 
producción y el comercio, iii) Derechos de prop iedad intelectual, a) Propiedad Industrial, 
patentes, parágrafo 114 
La Oficina Comunitaria de Obte nciones Vegetales recibió 2.517 solicitudes el 2003; 2.656 el 2004 y 
2.733 el 2005, así como 1.701; 1.867 y 2.178 títulos, respectivamente;  la mayoría de las solicitudes y 
los títulos correspondía a obtenciones ornamentales.  
 
Question 9:
 
¿Tiene la Oficina de Obtención de Vegetales de la CE un regi stro sobre variedades vegetales 
provenientes de Sudamérica?   
Answer 
No, the registry is organised by: Botanical Na me of Species, Applicants / Holders name, 
Denomination, Breeder's Reference and File number. 
This registry is available at: http://www.cpvo.europa.eu/module_tech/index.php
 
Capítulo IV Políticas Comerciales por Sectores  , 2) Agricultura y Actividades Conexas, ii) 
Política Agrícola Común , a) Panorama general, Parágrafo 22 
Debido a que la CE tiene 91 contingentes arance larios para productos agrícolas (en comparación 
con los 89 de 2003)  Question 10
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 438  
 
 ¿Cuál es el alcance de la última notificación presentada  a la Secretaría de la OMC sobre administración 
de contingentes arancelarios y cuáles son los cambios principales con respecto a la administración en 
años anteriores? 
 
Answer 
For specific details please consult the fo llowing EC notifications: G/AG/N/EEC/1/Add 3, 
G/AG/N/EEC/3/Add 2,G/AG/N/EEC/14/Add 2, G/AG/N/EEC/15/Add 2.  
INDIA
 
 
NTBs related to SPS issues  
 
Question 1. Rejection of fishery product consignm ent on the ground of high content of Cadmium. 
Consignments of fishery products have been reject ed by Italy and Ireland on the grounds of cadmium 
above prescribed limits. However, it has been observe d that the sampling followed by them is not in 
line with Commission Directive 2001/22/EC of 8th March 2001, which prescribes drawl of two samples 
and results reported as mean of the two, where-in  the above cited case, we  understand that only one 
sample was tested.   In view of the above, EC may need to issue inst ructions that for sampling of the consignments (for 
heavy metal); Member States should follow  the Commission Directive 2001/22/EC of 8
th March 2001.  
 
We request the EC to issue instructions to Me mber States that they should follow the Commission 
Directive 2001/22/EC of 8th March 2001 for sampling of consignments (for heavy metal)  
 
Answer 
The Application of EC law is the responsibility of  the EC Member States. The European Commission 
has no evidence of incorrect application by Italy or Ireland of EC law concerning products under HS 
heading 03 (Fish and crustaceans, mollus cs and other aquatic invertebrates).  
Global imports from India by EC-25 of products circulation under HS 03 passed from 67.646 tons in the year 2000 to 116.213 in 2005; this is an 
increase of 70 %. In value, the imports of 2005 
could be estimated above 300 million Euros. These import figures confirm that a high level of protection of the European Consumer health is compatible with a satisfactory evolution of the 
economic exchanges with its trade partners.  
 
 
   
 
Question  2.Import of Meat and Meat Products 
EU does not allow import of  Indian buffalo meat due to prevalence of foot and mouth diseases (FMD) 
in Indian cattle.  Like the Codex standards for f ood products, OIE guidelines are taken as international 
standards for trade in animal and animal products.  A ccording to article 2.1.1.22 of the OIE Terrestrial 
Animal Health code, fresh meat could be expor ted from an FMD infected country provided the 
veterinary requirements as stipulated in the OIE code are followed.   Following OIE guidelines, India 
exports deboned and degl anded frozen boneless meat.  The carcasses are compulsorily chilled at 2-4
0C 
for 24 hours resulting in a pH value of less than 6, which guarantees availability of safe and risk free 
product for export.  Scientifically, it has been pr oved that deboned and deglanded boneless meat EC25 Imports from India of "Fish and 
fisheries products" - HS 03 
60.00070.00080.00090.000100.000110.000120.000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
YearsTons WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 439 
 
 
 having pH below 6 is a risk free product wherein no harmful virus including FMD virus can survive.  It 
is further stated that OIE experts on FMD ha ve opined that if the recommendations of OIE 
international animal health code are followed, it would be sufficient to prevent transmission of FMD 
and rinderpest from one country to another.   FMD is not transmissible to humans and pose no public health hazards.  The EU is not agreeing to our contention that they should be guided by the OIE 
stipulations for trade in Livestock products and ar e adopting higher and more stringent standards than 
the International Standards which is not WTO comp atible.  The European Commission is, apparently, 
taking recourse to the “precautionary principle” in spite of the fact that the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission, at its 24
th session held at Geneva in 2001 had agreed to as follows: 
 “When there is evidence that a risk to human hea lth exists but scientific data are insufficient or 
incomplete, the Commission should  not proceed to elaborate a standard but should consider 
elaborating a related text, such as a code of practice,  provided that such a text would be supported by 
the available scientific evidence.” 
 
Will EC take steps to be guided by the OIE stipula tions for trade in Livestock products to make its 
procedures WTO compatible?   
Answer 
The four Member States hit by the FMD epidemic in 2001 spent a total of 12 billion Euros  on 
eradication measures. To preserve these huge investments, the protective measures applied by the EC 
follow strictly the scientific advice provided by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (see 
"Opinion of the AHAW Panel related to Assessing the risk of Foot and Mouth Disease introduction 
into the EU from developing countries " in 
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/ahaw/ahaw_opinions/1357.html
).  
This measure complies with OIE and WTO law. 
 
Question 3. Non-availability of Sanitary and Phy tosanitary standards  in English language 
At times, EU member countries have been releasing SPS standards only in the language of EU country 
which has introduced the measure. This results in  difficulties for Indian exporters to understand the 
standards.    
May we request the EC to ensure that all SPS st andards are available in English language also. 
 
Answer 
All SPS standards in EC MS correspond to EC law in the corresponding classification heading of the 
"Repertoire of EC law" that is available in all Community languages (see http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/RECH_repertoire.do ). 
 
Question  4.Issues relating to delay in clearance of flowers: 
Most farms exporting floricultural products in Indi a have a very stringent pest control management 
system operational which adheres to Internatio nal standards. Most farms have adopted Good 
Agricultural Practices (GAP). Some of them even ha ve MPS-A certification. Many of them are at the 
certification stage.  
Despite high quality procedures prevalent on the e xporting farms and very stringent phytosanitary 
inspection procedures, Indian floricultural produce is  being subject to 50 % checks at entry points in 
the Netherlands. This is a time consuming process and results in unwanted delays in clearances, 
processing and delivery of the consignments to the en d clients.  Such delays cause loss of quality and 
reputation.  During the past five years it has been ob served that the rejection has been virtually nil.  
Only one shipment each during 2004, 2005 & 20 06 has been destroyed at Amsterdam.   
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 440  
 
 When will it be possible for EU to reduce checks on Indian floriculture consignment to a reasonable 
level of say 3-5% so as to avoid unnecessary delays leading to heavy losses in the ornamental quality 
of flowers? 
 
Answer 
The European Commission has no evid ence of incorrect application by the Netherlands of EC law. 
Through a methodology developed by the Commissi on and after consultation with the Regulatory 
Committee a given product from a specific origin may be subject to at least a minimum level of plant health checks. For this India must introduce a demand with a dossier containing the information 
required by Council Directive 2000/29/EC  and Commission Regulation 1756/2004. 
EC25 imports from India of commodities under HS06 (L ive trees and other plants; bulbs, roots and the 
like; cut flowers and ornamental foliage) increased from 5.5 (year 2000) to 6.5 thousand tons in 2005: an increment of 900 tons; this confirms that a high le vel of protection of the plant health of European 
agriculture is compatible with a satisfactory evolution of the economic exchanges with its trade 
partners. Moreover, there have been no similar comp laints from other trade partners who continue to 
benefit from the EU's position as the world's la rgest importer of floricultural products. 
 
    
 
    
 
 Market Access Issues
 
 Question  5.Milk Products: 
EIC is operating a food safety management system  based certification (FSMSC) for export of milk 
products to ensure that the quality of the produc ts exported meets importi ng country requirements. 
Under this scheme, processing units having the cap abilities to meet the requirement specified in the 
GOI Notification No. SO 2720 dated 28/11/2000 EC  Directive No. 92/46/EEC dated 16/06/92, are 
approved. The processing unit is assed in terms of raw materials, process and finished product controls, 
GMP, GHP, testing facilities, tec hnical competence of manpower, wast e disposal mechanism, record 
keeping and capability to confirm to standards. Re gular 3- tier surveillance in terms of routine 
monitoring visits, periodic supervisor y visits and corporate audit is done to ensure the implementation 
of the norms laid down as well as any additional re quirements of the importing countries. The farms 
from where the milk is procured are also monito red and representative samples are drawn and tested 
for residue and toxic contents as per the RMP (Resi due Monitoring Plan). The above ensures that the 
requirements of the importing country are met.     
During the recent visit of the FVO mission team to India to evaluate control of residues in live animals 
products, including controls on veterinary medicinal products in line with Council directive 96/23/EC, 
the residue monitoring system for milk was also assessed. The team visited farms, milk collection 
centre and processing units to assess control of residues of VMPs in milk and Milk products. The team 
also visited a recognized laboratory being used by  Export Inspection Council of India for the purpose 
of analysis of raw milk for different residues as pe r RMP. Overall the team was broadly satisfied with 
the control measures in place from milk production level to processing level and the analytical 
facilities.    EC25 Imports from India, Heading HS06
5.0005.5006.0006.5007.000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
YearsTons WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 441 
 
 
 In view of the above, a letter was addressed to The Director, European Commission, Ireland on 27th 
November 2006 inviting a FVO Mission team for assess ment of our Milk products processing plants so 
as to allow imports of milk products from India into  the EU. However they have so far not responded 
or fixed any date. As a result export to EU has still not started.    
We request that an FVO Mission may be orga nized urgently and approval expedited.  
 
Answer 
India has been requested to submit the informati on which will allow an FVO mission to be organized . 
 
Question  6. Egg Products: India is on the list of authorized third countries from which member state of the EU can import egg 
products (Commission Decision No.94/278/EEC), theref ore, India can export egg products to member 
states on the basis of bilateral agreements. Presen tly Belgium, Germany, Austria and Denmark are 
importing egg products from India on bilateral basis.  
However some of the EIC approved establishments  have expressed difficulti es in exporting their 
products to some of the European member states like Germany and Denmark. in light of the new EC 
Regulation 853/2004, and Decision 2006/696/EC dated 28-8-2006. The matter has been taken up with 
the German Authorities. The German authorities have also been informed that official veterinarians 
who are authorized by the German Federal Minist ry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection 
may inspect our Milk establishments for conformity.  As far as exports to Denmark is concerned, it is 
informed that Danish authorities are insisting for a different type of Health certificate in which both 
Health aspects and veterinary aspects are addressed. Presently EIAs are issuing health certificates for 
EC as per Directive 89/437/EEC dated 20/06/1989. Meanwhile, Article 25 and 26 of the Commission 
Decision 2006/696/EC dated 28/08/2006 provides for tran sitional period which is six months after the 
day following that of its publication in the official Journal of the European Union. i.e. upto 28 February 
2007. Danish Authorities may be requested to accept the present form of Health Certificate i.e. as 
given in the earlier EU directive, which is pr esently in force, till the new Commission Decision 
2006/696/EC is effective.   During the recent visit of the FVO mission team to India to evaluate control of residues in live animals 
products, including controls on veterinary medicinal products in line with Council directive 96/23/EC, 
the residue monitoring system for egg was also  assessed. The team in their overall conclusion 
expressed the view that there are comprehensive resides control plans in place for egg products. 
 In view of the fact that different countries are a ddressing import of egg produc ts differently and also 
the need to negotiate bilateral agreements with co untries separately, it is essential that EC notifies a 3
rd 
country list for import into all EC member states wh ich would also help in facilitating trade. This issue 
has been taken up even before 2000, but th e same has not been addressed till date.  
 We request EC may take steps for an early notif ication of the third country list for egg products. 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 442  
 
 Answer 
The requirements for the production and placing on the market of egg products are harmonised at EC 
level. The general hygiene requirements for food processing establishments are laid down in 
Regulation 852/2004, the specific requirements for egg product establishments are laid down in Regulation 853/2004. At the moment there is no harmonised list of third countries egg product 
establishments from which import is allowed into th e Member States at Community level. The import 
of egg products into the EU is allowed from third c ountry establishments agreed by Member States on 
a bilateral basis. The European Commission has no evidence of incorrect application by Germany or Denmark of 
EC law concerning products under HS heading 
0408. Moreover EC-25 imports from India of products under heading HS 0408 Birds' eggs, not 
in shell, and egg yolks, fresh, dried, cooked by 
steaming or by boiling in water, moulded, frozen 
or otherwise preserved, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter passed 
from 815 tons in year 2000 to 3.153 tons in 2005, this is an increase of x 2.3 folds or 280 %.   These import figures confirms that a high level of protection of the human and animal health in 
Europe is compatible with a satisfactory evolution of the economic exchanges with its trade partners.  
 
Question  7.Harmonization of microbiological standards by EU  
The EC has not harmonized norms for microbial Sta ndards as well as methods of inspection, sampling 
and test.  Member countries are, therefore, havi ng their own norms. Examples of such cases are from 
Spain, Norway, Italy and France where many consignm ents have been rejected due to detection of 
Vibrio parahaemolyticus and Vibrio cholerae  in consignments.  Based on information collected from 
other countries, it is observed that none of th e importing countries have specified limits for Vibrio 
parahaemolyticus  in raw products. Standards for this micro-or ganism have been laid only in ‘ready to 
eat cooked products’ or ‘seafoods for raw consumption’ and here again, limits have been specified at 
level ranging from 1,000 to 10,000 per gram. 
 
One of the key elements of the Agreement on SPS is  ‘harmonization’ in which member countries are 
expected to base their SPS measures on international standards. It also means that within the EU 
member states there should be common norms follo wed, and in case of different norms, these should 
be justified through risk analysis.  Further while  processing, an exporter may at times not be clear 
about the specific country of destination within the EU countries. As a result, while certifying the 
consignments of marine products for export to the countries of EU, it becomes difficult for Export 
Inspection Council of India to decide against which norms to certify, which may in effect lead to 
rejection of the product.  Will EC initiate steps for harmonization of microbiol ogical requirements within the EU and are there 
any time limits being fixed for completing harmonization? 
 
Answer 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 on microbiological criteria for food stuffs notified in 
G/SPS/N/EEC/263 (19 July 2005) harmonizes the situ ation for the EC. The Regulation came into 
application on 11 January 2006. Member States ma y not, thereafter, use national criteria to sample 
product from outside their territory. Nevertheless, Member States may, under Article 14 (food safety 
requirements) of the general food law, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, impose appropriate restrictions if 
the food is unsafe. EC Member States have especially in the field of food safety still a large responsibility due to subsidiarity.  Imports From India HS 0408 -Egg 
products
05001.0001.5002.0002.5003.0003.500
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Years 2000-2005Tons WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 443 
 
 
 The European Commission has no evidence of 
incorrect application by Spain, Italy and France (Norway is not a member of the EC) EC law concerning imported products. Furthermore, the global imports from India by EC-25 of products 
circulation under Heading 03 (Fish and 
crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates) passed from 67.6 thousand tons in year 2000 to 116.2 thousand tons in 2005, this an increase of 70 % and confirms that a high level 
of protection of the European Consumer' health it is  compatible with a satisfactory evolution of the 
economic exchanges with its trade partners   Question 8. Upgradation of GBR Status of India  
The Scientific Standing Committee of the European  Commission after examining the application of 
India for determination of BSE status, categorized India as the country of GBR level-II, i.e., BSE is 
unlikely but not excluded that domestic cattle are infect ed with BSE agent.  The Department of Animal 
Husbandry has provided additional de tails to the European Commission for upgrading India’s Status to 
GBR level-I (no risk of BSE).  India has made effo rts to re-determine its status from GBR level II to 
GBR level-I by submitting the requisite details.  Howeve r, this is being delayed by the EC.  The delay 
in re-determining the status of India is affecting our  exports of bovine animal casings to the European 
Commission even though 15 units of animal casings  have been approved by the EC. Since the GBR 
status of India has not changed in the intervening pe riod, the restrictions on import of bovine animal 
casings from India still apply.   
 
We request the EC to re-determine the GBR status of  India at the earliest so that export of meat and 
meat products to the EU can resume. 
 
Answer 
The OIE as World Animal Health Organisation shoul d play a leading role in the categorisation of 
countries according their BSE risk. The process should be carried out in full transparency in order to 
allow the Member countries to evaluate the work do ne at OIE level in this respect. The Commission is 
very pleased with the preparatory work carried out at OIE level to perform this task. The European 
Commission will not mandate the EFSA to carry ou t neither new GBR assessments nor re-assessments 
of country dossiers. India should apply to the OIE to be categorised in one of the three BSE risk 
categories. 
 
Question  9. Export of Animal Casings to EU – Notification of additional animal casings 
processing plants 
Export of Animal Casings to EU – Notification of  additional animal casings processing plants - The 
matter regarding notification of additional animal ca sings processing plants was taken up with the EC 
authorities in Sept. 2004, however, the EC had clarified that since India was categorized as a GBR II country, it could neither certify the bovine casings no r the ovine and caprine casings for exports to the 
EU.  In March 2005, APEDA had sent a detailed justif ication wherein it was clarified that  the ileum 
part of the small intestine of sheep and goat is re moved from casings of sheep and goat in order to 
remove the SRM.  It was also clarified that in case of bovine casings, India is not exporting any part of 
intestine from duodenum to rectum which have been declared as SRM.  However, India is exporting 
only weasand and bladders which are not the part of SRM.  The EC was requested to notify the 
additional animal casings processing plants.  
 
We request the EC to inform the date by whic h the animal casing units will be notified.  
 EC25 Imports from India of "Fish and 
fisheries products" - HS 03 
60.00070.00080.00090.000100.000110.000120.000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
YearsTonsWT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 444  
 
 Answer 
In the last request, dated 28/12/2006, India asked for 2 Bovine establishments. Therefore we requested 
by fax D/440101 of 26/1/2007 to clarif y the point and to submit a definitive consolidated version of the 
list of casings establishments. The reply is still pending.  Question  10. Pesticides Residue Limits in Gherkins, Grapes, etc. 
One of the main problems being faced by our exporte rs of grapes, gherkins etc., is the differential 
pesticide residue levels followed by different member st ates of the EU, in spite of the fact that there are 
EU wide harmonized levels prescribed by the EC as well as Codex.  This problem has been pointed out 
to the EC.  However, such variation in the resi due levels pose difficulties for intra-EU trade for 
products exported by India. This is resulting in a s ituation that the Indian exporters are able to trade 
with only some of the EU countries.  This amounts to a breach of WTO obligations by the EC (under SPS Agreement and GATT Articles III, VIII, X and XXIV).    The problem continues to stay and intra-EU trade is  becoming more and more difficult.  This problem 
is being faced in a number of products and India is  expected to have bilateral agreements with the 
member states for export of various items.    Most of time, the maximum residue levels of p esticides and antibiotics are introduced without any 
scientific justification.  This is done on arbitrary b asis taking recourse to “precautionary principle”.   
This principle is being followed in spite of the f act that the Codex Alimentarius Commission, at its 24
th 
session held at Geneva in 2001 had agreed to as follows : 
 
“When there is evidence that a risk to human hea lth exists but scientific data are insufficient or 
incomplete, the Commission should  not proceed to elaborate a standard but should consider 
elaborating a related text, such as a code of practice,  provided that such a text would be supported by 
the available scientific evidence.”  
Not only this, the European Commi ssion keeps on reducing the maximum residue levels of pesticides 
and antibiotics very frequently and without giving ade quate notice.  It becomes difficult for developing 
countries like India to keep pace with the ever changing MRLs. 
 
Will EC take steps to bring the regulations prevailing in all its member states at to remove such 
disparity, provide adequate advance notice to frequent  changes made by it and thus facilitate trade?   
 
Answer 
The difference in maximum authorized pesticide resi due levels existing in different Member States of 
the EC is not in breach of the SPS Agreement a nd GATT Articles III, VIII, X and XXIV. These reflect 
the situation existing before the harmonization wo rk started and the diverging consumption habits 
leading to divergent MRL on products-pesticide co mbinations. It is totally incorrect that " Most of time, 
the maximum residue levels of pesticides and an tibiotics are introduced without any scientific 
justification ". The procedure to establish MRLs has been cl early explained several times to India and is 
also available on the internet site of the Director ate General for Health and Consumer Protection.  See 
more details below . 
With the aims to facilitate trade within the internal market and with third countries by overhauling and 
streamlining the legislation on pesticides while ensuri ng a consistent level of protection for products 
which are intended for human consumption and anim al nutrition in the Euro pean Union a new frame 
was established by Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 
February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal 
origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC , notified in G/SPS/N/EEC/196 (11 April 2003). 
This regulation stipulates that maximum residue le vels will always be set at Community level and 
defines the role of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which will be responsible for 
performing risk assessments on the basis of reports from the Member States.   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 445 
 
 
 An ambitious work programme launched in 1992 st arted a Community-wide review process for all 
active ingredients used in plant protection products within the European Union. In a review process 
based on scientific assessments, each applicant  had to prove that a subs tance could be used safely 
regarding human health, the environment, ecotoxi cology and residues in the food chain. This 
programme will be completed by 2008. From th e end of 2003, the new European Food Safety 
Authority deals with risk assessment  issues. These are made by the  Panel on plant protection products 
and their residues  [PPR]. The work of this panel can be followed at 
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/ppr.html   
The European Commission retains the risk manage ment decision and provides extensive information 
including the information provided by the competent au thorities in Member States, in order to ensure a 
maximum of transparency on the decision making procedure.  
On page http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/evaluation/index_en.htm  information can be found 
regarding the current situation in the Report from th e Commission to the European Parliament and the 
Council : Evaluation of the active substances of plan t protection products , Technical annex to the 
regulation, Status of active substances under EC revi ew, list of Existing active substances, 4th stage of 
the review programme, New active substances and Contact points in the MS.  
In addition to the above the EC produced the WTO document G/SPS/GEN/557 (29 March 2005) 
"Questions and answers on the procedure to obtain Import Tolerances and the inclusion of active 
substances for plant protection uses in the European communities list ". This paper explains clearly that 
India can apply and obtain "Import tolerances".  Import tolerance is defined as a MRL based on a Codex MRL
 or on a GAP implemented in a third 
country for the legal use of an active substance. A pplications for import tolerances may be made by the 
EC member States, interested parties, including manufacturers, growers, importers  and producers  of 
plant protection products applied outside the Eu ropean Communities. There are three cases where 
"import tolerances" would be required (Article 29 of  proposal), namely if a trader wants to import a 
commodity:  
• containing residues of a substance used in  the European Communities but where the 
commodity is not produced in the European Co mmunities e.g. papayas.  In this case there 
would usually be expertise (Rapporteur Member State); 
• treated with a substance no longer  or not yet used in the EC.  In this case, there would 
normally not be expertise in the European Communities and full toxicological and residues data would be required.  A significant workload would be expected for each individual evaluation - for which there could be many due  to our withdrawal of numerous substances 
from the market
19; 
• treated with a substance in use  in the EC but where the foreign GAP allows higher residues 
than the European Commun ities’ critical GAP.  In this case, marginal data specific to the GAP 
for the crop would be needed since a dossier and Rapporteur member State would be available.  The additional workload would be slight. 
In all cases where a particular PPP is not
 authorized on a commodity or when no data are available to 
demonstrate that its residues do not endanger consum er health, no residues may be permitted on this 
commodity at levels higher than 0.01 mg/ kg which is an enforceable default for zero.20  Exceptions 
will be made for substances where a level of 0.01 mg/kg is not safe for the consumer by setting MRLs 
at a lower level (i.e. strong carcinogenic residues). 
 
Question 11. Definition of Whisky – CN Code  
India has been constantly requesting European Commission for recognition of Indian whisky as a 
“whisky” in the EU market to ensure a level playin g field.  The EC has so far not responded positively. 
                                                      
19 An exception would be for substances that had b een evaluated at EC level and which were withdrawn 
for reasons of consumer protection e.g. because they were genotoxic. For the small number of cases where this has happened, no import tolerance could be considered.  
20 This also applies to products used outside the European Communities and for which an import 
tolerance has not been requested. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 446  
 
 As per the CN Code, an alcoholic  beverage can be calle d a whisky only if it produced exclusively from 
cereals by distillation and is matured for a period of three years.  The EC authorities have informed that 
there is no scope for change of definition of whisky by them.  They suggested that India should come 
up with some creative solution that could be consid ered but the use of term  ‘whisky’ may not be 
possible.  The EC has also sugg ested that in case we can give detailed clarification on technical 
aspects, their customs experts could consider the issue for tariff concessions.   
 
The technical experts from the All India Distillers’ A ssociation are of the view that the extra neutral 
alcohol (ENA) produced from molasses and used as  a base for production of Indian whisky is as good 
as the ENA produced from cereals/grains .  In the EU countries, whisky has been traditionally produced 
from cereals because they do not produce sugarcane.  Even in USA, no one has ever challenged whisky 
produced from molasses.    It is also pertinent to mention here that EU countries are adopting double standards.  They are reluctant to import Indian whisky as “whisky”, but at the same  time they insist that their whisky should be 
allowed to be imported into India under the ‘national treatment clause’.  It appears that Indian whisky 
is dissimilar to EU whisky when exported from India to the EU, but when EU whisky is to be imported 
into India, then it is similar to Indian whisky.    During the Sub-Commission meeting, the EU side maintained that Indian whisky made from molasses 
could not be recognized as whisky.  To this, the Indi an side has informed about the difficulties faced by 
the Indian spirit industry in getting their trade marks registered in the EU and indicated that the action 
taken by European Commission was not conducive to enhancement of trade.  There has been no 
positive outcome on the matter.   We again request the EC to reconsider th e case of the Indian whiskey as “whiskey”.  
 
Answer 
The Indian question(s) in relation to whiskey call fo r a number of clarifications. First, under EC law 
the CN code does not play any role for the denomin ation ("whisky") under which spirits drinks may be 
sold on the EC market. The rules on sales denomina tions are laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 1576/89 of 29 May 1989 layi ng down general rules on the definition, description and presentation 
of spirit drinks, Article 1(4)(b). According to this  Regulation, a spirits drink may be sold under the 
denomination "whisky" only if it meets certain re quirements.  Those requirements apply to spirits 
drinks irrespective of whether they are produced in  the EC or imported from WTO Members, and they 
are in line with requirements imposed by a number of other WTO members. Indian spirits drinks based on molasses, rather than on grain spirits, do not meet  those requirements, and may therefore not be sold 
under the denomination "whisky" in the EC.  However, such spirits drinks may be sold in the EC under 
other
 denominations, in accordance with Council Regul ation (EEC) No 1576/89. As regards the issue 
of tariff concessions, whiskies from all destinations already enter the EC duty free, as do most other categories of spirits drinks.  Therefore, all (Indian ) spirits can be freely sold  in the EC, under the 
correct sales denomination as defined by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89, and benefit from duty-free importation (except products classified as rum under CN code 2208.40 which pay duties at 
levels which are much lower than those applied by India to imported spirits). 
 
Question  12. Equivalence Agreement with European Union on Organic Products 
Vide Regulation No.956/2006 dated 28.06.2006, th e EU notified equivalence of Indian organic 
standards with those of the European Union and Indi a was included in the list of third countries eligible 
to export organic products certified by accredited certif ication bodies in India.  In para 3(2) of the 
Annexure to the Regulation it is stated under the heading ‘Orgin’ that ‘products of category 1(a) and organically grown ingredients in products of category 1(b) that have been grown in India
’ can be 
certified by the Indian certification bodies. 
  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 447 
 
 
 The provision that products of Indian origin only are allowed to be certified by the accredited 
certification bodies is trade restrictive as they are not able to expand their business outside the shores 
of India.  organic certification is a process certific ation and products certifie d under the NPOP (which 
is equivalent to the EC standards and procedures) should be allowed to be cer tified, if such products 
are otherwise allowed to be expor ted from such countries to the EU.  There may be situations where 
nearby countries may wish to get their products certified by India certification bodies for exports to the 
European Union on account of lower cost involved in sourcing the services from India.  However, in 
light of the restriction imposed by the said regulation, the Indian certification bodies are deprived of this opportunity and the grower/exporters are deni ed the choice to source less expensive services for 
organic certification. 
 
We request that the restriction imposed by para 3( 2) of the EU Regulation be removed to facilitate 
trade. 
 
Answer 
It is correct that Commission Regulation 956/2006 is restricted to products that have been grown in 
India. However, products not grown in India but in spected and certified by Indian inspection bodies 
can enter the EC if the importer of these goods obtains an import authorisation from a Member State according to Article 11 (6) of Regulation 2092/91.  Moreover, according to Regulation 1991/2006, insp ection bodies from whatever origin will get the 
opportunity to be listed on a future list of inspection bodies approved by the Commission for their 
activities in third countries.  
 
Question  13. Impact of 10 new EU members on India’s Export of non-basmati rice   
Ten new countries have joined EU  on 01.05.2004. Countries, Czech  Republic, Latvia, Lithuania and 
Poland used to import fair quantities of non-basmati rice from India prior to their accession to EU 
while Cyprus, Malta and Estonia imported small quantities from India. But the details given in the 
table below show that post accession Poland, Latvia, Malta and Czech Republic have not imported any 
quantities of non basmati rice from India during 2004 -05 and 2005-06 whereas Estonia after importing  
400 tonnes in 2004-05, has stopped importing in 2005-06. Lithuania is the only country, which has continued importing from India during these two years. 
 
It is noteworthy that prior to the accession of th ese ten new countries into the EU, rice from India was 
permitted duty free entry. According to the current du ty structure of the EU for rice, a duty of Euros 
152.50 per tonne is levied on white milled rice  and Euros 42.5 per tonne on brown rice. The 
application of import duty into these countries has ha mpered market access for Indian non basmati rice. 
 
Details of exports of non basmati rice from India to the new members of EU during the period 2000-01 
to 2005-06 is given in the table below: Qty : MTs     Val : ‘000$ WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 448  
 
  
Country 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 
 Qty Val Qty Val Qty Val Qty Val Qty Val Qty Val 
Cyprus 92 29 206 58 15 4.13 0 0 9 3 121 43 
Malta 0 0 20 9 60 15 20 5 0 0 0 0 
Estonia 0 0 112 19 1351 233 192 42 400 183 0 0 
Czech Rep 57 13 4985 809 5050 834 1930 365 0 0 0 0 
Hungary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.10 0.06 
Latvia 0 0 3675 51 31287 1401 341 69 0 0 0 0 
Lithuania 0 0 0 0 885 145 1778 343 250 69 1150 258 
Poland 10 1 3895 702 24336 3966 1263 276 0 0 0 0 
Slovenia 0 0 264 63 130 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Slovania 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
TOTAL 159 44 13157 1711 63114 6622 5524 1122 659 257 1271 319 
Source : DGCIS 
 
We request EC to enter into consultations with Indi a to compensate due to le vying of duty on import of 
Basmati rice by the new members of the EU. 
 
Answer 
The EC notified its 2004 enlargement to the WTO under GATT Art. XXIV.6  and carried out the 
necessary procedures, including bilateral negotiations  with India. India's claim dated 23 April 2004 did 
not include rice. As the deadline for claims expired 90 days after the EC's notification (dated 19 
January 2004), it is at this stage not possible to en tertain a new request from India in the context of the 
EC's 2004 enlargement. 
 
Question  14. Market Access for Mushrooms  
India and other developing countries have been ta king a position with the European Union and in the 
WTO deliberations that market access through pref erential treatment should not form part of the 
minimum access.  The reason that it does not provide equal trade opportunity to all trading partners 
which are party to the multi lateral agreement.  The most vivid example in this regard is camouflaging 
of the TRQ for preserved mushrooms.  India has b een denied fair-market access to the European 
Union.  In this context, India ask the European Union to provide data on the value of the imports covered under preferential agreements out of the total imports of the European Union. 
 
In case compensation negotiations have to be he ld for a reasonable share of market access under 
Article XXVIII, a country should either be an IN R (Initial Negotiating Right), or a PSI (Principal 
Supplier Interest) or should have a substantial s upplier status in a commodity.  For qualifying as a 
substantial supplier status, a count ry should have a minimum of 10% turnover of that product in a 
particular market.  In the case of mushrooms, although India is the third largest supplier to the EU, the 
import licencing procedures have been formulated by substantial supplier inter est.  In 1977, our share 
of preserved mushrooms in the EU market was about  12.5% which has substantially been eroded by 
the EU licensing procedures.  One reason is the limita tions in exports due to limited quota available in 
“others” category in which India figures.  Secondly, import licences, which are issued to new importers 
are not for economically significant quantities.  It is  suggested that these flaws in the TRQ system and 
licensing procedure in case of mushrooms may be questioned.   
 
Under the Agreement on Agriculture, the EU is expect ed to provide market access to a certain extent 
every year.  It is observed that they have incr eased market access in case of preserved mushrooms, but 
only in the case of those countries who do not have the capacity to fulfill even half of their quota.  The  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 449 
 
 
 policy followed by the EC under their mushroom quot a regime is a clear example of camouflaging 
market access.  Under the Agreement on Agriculture , WTO members are obliged to administer TRQs 
in such a way that the quota gets fully utilised.  The members are bound to maintain by entire TRQ 
even if re-allocation becomes necessary.   This h as been held by the appellate body in the banana 
dispute against the EC.  It is felt that the same l ogic will have to be applied in the case of mushrooms. 
 
In the early nineties, when India made a request fo r a separate quota for mushrooms, the EU side had 
stated that India should first fulfill “others” category and then if there is an additional demand, then a 
separate quota could be offered.  When India fille d up the “others” category quota and requested for 
additional access, this was denied stating that the country specific quotas could not be opened up.  
India then requested for increasing the quota in the “others” category on the same lines as they had 
done for the country specific quotas. But, this request has always remained pending.  
 
The issue of mushrooms was raised by India during  the last JWG meeting reiterating its long pending 
request for an increase in the quot a for the “others” category that h as remained static (it has been 
partially increased for the year 2007) while the same  had been increased for other countries that did not 
fulfill even half of their allotted quota.  It w as added that the licensing policy in the EU was 
discriminatory against the new exporters, which re sulted in an underutilization of the quota in the 
“others” category.  Now, the EU side has again been  advising India to first utilize quota in the “others” 
category.   
The issue of quota for mushrooms is a long standing  demand from India and we request the EC to 
respond positively.  
Answer 
India, like any other WTO Member, has the possib ility to export preserved mushrooms into the EC 
outside quotas or within the tariff-rate-quota for 'other ' suppliers than China. This quota in question has 
been enlarged as of 2007 from 3 290 to 5030 tons per year (Regulation 19 79/2006 of 22 December 
2006). However, the quota is only marginally used; ca 20% in 2005, 2% in 2006 and 1% in 2007.  While it is true, that the new trad ers get a 5% share out of the total TRQ set aside for 'others', nothing 
prevents also the traditional traders from India to partic ipate in the tariff rate quot a. The lack of interest 
to import cut mushrooms (the product India supplies) into the EC is linked to market realities rather 
than to the EC quota system; the EC industry mostly uses whole mushrooms. 
 
Question 15. Product testing approach  
There are impractical approaches to product testi ng. Taking the example of aflatoxin in spices, 
processed food, groundnuts, cereals, etc., there is a requirement of meeting a certain MRL value of 
aflatoxin in these products.  The sampling procedure for testing purposes is extremely complex and expensive.  In other words, it is technically and economically not feasible in case of developing countries.  Moreover, it is expected that the MRL sh ould be respected on arrival of the consignment at 
the port of the importing countries (e.g. EU ports).  This is impractical because aflatoxins can come up at any stage after drawl of samples for testing.  The voyage provides an optimum environment for 
growth of aflatoxins.  No exporting country can abso lutely guarantee this, not even the most developed 
countries.   We request the EC to be practical in its approach to product testing.  
 
Answer The EC approach towards testing is fully compatible  with its international obligations and with best 
laboratory practice. It is possible through appropriate packaging, storage and shipping conditions to reduce the environmental conditions conducive to aflatoxins growth. 
Question  16. Destruction of consignments  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 450  
 
 Customs clearance procedures are unreasonable on many occasions. As per the EU procedures, the 
inspection authorities destroy processed food consignment at their ports if the risk to human health is 
high.  This is unreasonable.  The exporting countr ies must have the first right to the rejected 
consignment and should have the option to either take it back to their country or to ship it to another 
country where it is acceptable according to its laws.   
 
May we request the EC to drop this unreasonable procedure.  
 
Answer 
The EC only destroys product where there is a risk  to health. Otherwise there are provisions whereby 
products can be returned, with the agreement of the country of origin and the Member State of import. 
Full details can be provided bilaterally.  
Question 17. Destruction of export consignments by importing customs 
Commission Decision 2005/34/EC on Minimum Required Performance Limits fo r certain residues, 
allows for the re-dispatching of consignments containing prohibited or non-authorized substances at 
levels above the MRPL under the following c onditions (Article 3, 3 a), b) and c): 
 
3.    The competent authority shall allo w re-dispatch of consignments only if : 
 (a)        the destination has been agreed with  the feed or food business operator responsible for the 
consignment; and 
 (b)       the feed and food business operator has fi rst informed the competent authority of the third 
country of origin or third country of destinati on, if different, of the reasons and circumstances 
preventing the placing on the market of the feed or food concerned within the Community; and 
 
(c)        when the third country of destination is not the third country of origin, the competent authority 
of the third country of destination has notified the competent authority of the preparedness to 
accept the consignment. 
 Previous to the adoption of the decision, rejected  consignments were being destroyed by the health 
authorities of importing countries of EC as per the provision of the EC Directive 97/78/EC. However 
based on the representation of exporting counties including India this aspect was reviewed and conditions to allow for return of non-conforming consignments incorporated in the above Decision  
 There have been instances in th e recent past, where two consignments of fish and fishery products 
exported to UK through Southamp ton port have been destroyed due to presence of nitrofurans 
metabolites above MRPL (Notification 2006.AVP da ted 31.3.2006 and 2006.BJ M dated 14.6.2006).  
The issue was taken up with Food Standards Agen cy, UK as well as Principal Port Environmental 
Health authority, UK  to permit the cargo to be returned to I ndia for further testing and disposal as per 
laid down norms.    
The UK authorities did not agree on the grounds that  the consignment has exceeded the MRPL of 1 
ppb for Nitrofuran, and that Article 19(2) does not allow re-dispatch as an option.   They have further elaborated that, Article 19 to  22 of Regulation (EC) 882/2004 provide the current 
enforcement options to be taken as regards non-co mplaint imported food cons ignments. Article 19 of 
882/2004 sets out the measures that may be taken and Article 19(2) sets out the options available for 
products which are deemed to be in jurious to health or unsafe. As per their understanding, this measure 
would be applicable for consignments that exceed the MRPL of 1 ppb for Nitrofurans and that Article 
19 (2) does not allow re dispatch as an option. Further, following advice from the Food Standards 
Agency, the Association of Port Health Authoriti es has advised member authorities in the UK that  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 451 
 
 
 destruction should be the considered course of acti on for any future consignments for products which 
are deemed to be injurious to health or unsafe, a nd that this approach should be consistent across the 
UK.   In India’s understanding, the clause 21 has been in serted to allow the re-dispatch of non-conforming 
consignments based on a mutual understanding between the Competent Authorities of the importing 
and exporting country.   In view of the above case, this issue had been discussed in the India-EU TBT/SPS Joint Working 
Group meeting held on 10-11 July 2006, wherein the EU side had clarified “that in January 2005 the 
Commission had adopted Decision 2005/34/EC on Mini mum Required Performance  Limits for certain 
residues, which allowed for the re-dispatching of co nsignments containing levels above the MRPL.  
Previous to the adoption of the decision such consignments had to be destroyed.  Following the adoption of the Decision, such consignments can be returned with the consent of the exporting 
country.  EU Member States are responsib le for implementing the Decision.”    
 
It may be pointed out that other Member States are returning such consignments back to the country of 
origin.   We seek EC’ urgent action to clarify and issue necessary instructions to the member states on interpretation of clause 19 2 (a) of Regulation (EC)  no. 882/2004 as well as Article 21 regarding re-
dispatch of consignments to ensure smooth trade between the EU and India. 
 
Answer 
The situation is generally as outlined above. However,  the decision on whether to return consignments 
is the responsibility of the EC Member States. The Commission has not information on incorrect 
application of EC law by the United Kingdom. (See also response to question 17) 
Between 1999 and 2005, EC imports of crustaceans (HS 0306) from India increased from 14.5 
thousand tons to nearly 40 thousand. The Comm ission notified under RASFF 20 cases of interceptions 
of products originated in India containing Nitrofuranes residues; this includes Notifications 2006.AVP (31.3.2006) and 2006.BJM (14.6.2006). Import figures confirm that a high level of protection of the 
European Consumer' health is compatible with a sat isfactory evolution of the economic exchanges with 
its trade partners.  
 
Q  18. Countervailing duty on graphite electrodes of Indian origin 
The Council of the European Union by its regula tion dated 13 September 2004, imposed a definitive 
countervailing duty on graphite electrodes originating from India. This was applicable only for imports 
from India and not from other countries having si zeable quantity of exports to EU countries.  
 The Indian manufacturers had submitted a joint appli cation pursuant to Article 230 of the EC Treaty on 
29 November 2004 to the Court of First Instance of the European Community.  No hearing has so far 
taken place in the matter.  
May we request the EC to ensure an early decisi on on the joint application made by the Indian 
manufacturers.  
Answer 
Please note that both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice are fully independent and the 
other Community institutions ha ve no influence whatsoever on the time-schedule of these Courts. 
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 452  
 
 Q  19. Export of Refrigerators 
The mandatory CE certification requirement imposed by the EU have made export of refrigerators 
difficult for Indian exporters. In particular, there are two clauses in EU standards which create barriers for Indian exporters :  
(a) In India, R141B, an internationally accepte d insulating foam is used in manufacture of 
refrigerators, which is not allowed by EU, alth ough it is acceptable in USA and Australia. The 
insulating effectiveness of C-Pentane, the insulatio n foam preferred by EU, is not as good as R141B.  
Conforming to this requirement would al so increase cost for Indian exporters.  
 
(b) The restrictions on hazardous substances (RoHS), restricts the use of certain metals in 
refrigerators.  This not only has negative impact on the product quality and reliability but also entails 
high cost of compliance to small businesses.  May we request the EC to look into these regulations which are adding to cost for the Indian exporters 
and also resulting in a less efficient product. 
 
Answer 
(a) Under Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 the placing on the market of foams with HCFCs such as R 
141b - ozone depleting substances - is forbidden. Th ere is no discrimination since this means that both 
EC and third country manufacturers cannot put pr oducts containing these foams blown with HCFCs on 
the market. The aim of this legislation is to redu ce further emissions of ozone depleting substances and 
contribute to the recovery of the ozone layer. In  addition, the EC refrigerator manufacturers have 
demonstrated that it is possible to produce insulating foams that do not contain ODS (they are usually hydrocarbons or CO2) and which are as effective in terms of insulation as the HCFC foam blown 
products. 
 
(b) The Directive on the restriction of the use of  certain hazardous substances in electrical and 
electronic equipment was adopted on 27 January 2003. The current ban on the restriction of the use of these substances entered into force since 1 July 2006.  
 If producers cannot comply with the provisions of the Directive, there is a possibility for being granted 
an exemption to the restriction of the use of the hazardous substances. The criteria for adding or 
deleting exemptions for materials and components laid  down in Article 5(1)(b) of the Directive are the 
following: i) if their elimination or substitution via design chang es is technically or scientifically impracticable or  
ii)where the negative environmental, health and/or consumer safety impacts outweigh 
the environmental, health and/or consumer safety benefits.  
 The Directive equally applies to European and non- European producers and therefore a level playing 
field for all manufacturers is created at the sa me time avoiding trade/competition distortions. 
 
Services issues 
 
Q  20. Mode 4 issues 
There are a number of Mode restrictions in the EC, namely requirement for 3-6 years of professional 
experience for contractual suppliers and independe nt professionals, delays in awarding of Visas and 
differing regulations governing pr ofessional qualifications across Members. For example, a service 
provider from a Member State that has no requirement for a professional diploma, who wishes to 
become established in another Member State that h as such a requirement will not find it easy to have 
professional qualifications recognized. This creates barriers to trade.  
 
What steps is the EC taking to remove such restrictions?   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 453 
 
 
 Answer 
These issues are generally outside the scope of this Trade Policy Review and in parts even outside the 
scope of the WTO Agreement. 
 
Q  21. Television Broadcast Directive of EC 
EC has adopted a legislative proposal of Television w ithout Frontier Directive. In spite of this several 
member states have their own specific legislations  resulting in different policies being pursued in 
different member states. This is affecting market access for Indian broadcasters who cater to a large 
Indian Diaspora in the EC.  
 
Is the EC contemplating bringing all member nations  to adhere to the Directive by committing this in 
its GATS schedule? 
 
Answer 
This issue falls outside the scope of the Trade Polic y Review as it relates to the ongoing negotiations. 
 Q  22. Economic Needs Test (ENT) 
It has been observed that EC has imposed ENTs on unclear basis on the entry of Foreign Service 
providers.  
 
What is the EC position on the application of ENTs? 
 
Answer 
The EC does not consider that the basis for applying  ENTs to the entry of foreign service suppliers is 
unclear. Nevertheless, we would like to note that our revised DDA offer includes significant improvements concerning the scope a nd application of ENTs, notably in the area of Mode 4 which is 
of great interest to India. 
 
Q  23. Telecommunication Services 
Under GATS EC has given commitments for MA a nd NT for voice telephony and data services, 
however, implementation of these requirements is  uneven across Member nations, specially in 
provisioning and pricing of unbundled local loop, line sharing, co-location and provisioning of leased 
lines.  
 
What steps is the EC taking to correct this anomaly?  
Answer 
The European Commission is empowered to monito r the implementation of Community Law by the 
Member States, and to take appropriate legal action whenever necessary. 
 
Q  24. Architectural Services  
It is seen from the EC schedule under Mode 3, that there are no restrictions for Architects to obtain a 
license to provide services in Austria. However, it has been seen that only citizens from EU and EEA 
Member States are eligible to obtain a license to prov ide independent architectural services in Austria. 
 
We request the EC to change the restrictive regime. 
 
Answer 
Please note that the commitments of Austria under ar chitectural services (CPC 8671) are limited to 
pure planning services. Furthermore, we would like to add that this question falls outside the scope of 
this Trade Policy Review.   
 WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 454  
 
 Q  25. Business Visitors 
 
Under the EC commitment in the horizontal section for the category of ‘Business Visitors’, does it also include business visitors for meeti ngs, discussions and training etc?  
 
Answer Yes, those categories are also covered.   
 
Q  26. Territorial Requirement to set up business  
 
A service provider who wants to provide services thr oughout the EC is obliged to establish in several 
regions due to nationality a nd residency requirement leading to unnecessary costs.  
 
By when does the EC intend to do away with this barrier? 
 
Answer This question falls outside the scope of this Tr ade Policy Review. We note furthermore that such 
requirements only relate to natural persons. 
 
Q  27. Residence and Requirements 
In a large number of member nations there are requirements of number of board members to be residents. This leads to increasing cost for service providers.  
 
Is the EC considering to do away with these requi rements especially when the incorporation of 
company can ensure compliance of laws and regulations? 
 
Answer This question falls outside the sc ope of this Trade Policy Review. 
 
Q  28. Discriminatory Tax treatm ent against foreign service providers  
 
More favourable tax treatment for services by local providers is a major hindrance to the provision of 
services. For example, in some Member States the costs of professional training are tax-deductible only 
if the courses take place within the Member State. Similarly, life insurance and additional insurance 
policies, pension fund and investment fund contracts can  be offset against tax only if concluded with 
local insurance companies. 
 
We request the EC to take steps to provide a level playing field to all service providers irrespective of 
the nationality?   
Answer 
The tax treatment applied in the EC respects the re levant MFN obligations and the NT limitations of 
the EC schedule, with the exception of those aspect s which are covered under Article XIV (d) and (e) 
of the GATS. 
 
Q  29. Reimbursement of Medical Costs: 
 
Authorization for the reimbursement of medical cost s incurred in another Member State is only granted 
by national authorities under certain conditions, and this may discourage persons insured under social 
security schemes from turning to service providers established in another Member State. Often, persons who decide for various reasons to travel to  another Member State to receive medical treatment 
will not be reimbursed. This discour ages persons from seeking medical care in countries like India, and 
therefore hinders trade.   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 455 
 
 
 By when is the EC planning to provide a more trade friendly regime? 
 
Answer 
This issue falls outside the scope of the GATS. 
 
Q  30. Disciplining Domestic Regulations:  
 
It is seen that market access commitments are nega ted by invoking a plethora of domestic regulations. 
Even in cases where a policy regime has allowed the entry of professionals , such regimes have 
witnessed sudden changes making it difficult for Indian  professionals to continue. A recent example is 
that of Indian doctors in the UK, who are facing an uncertain future due to the recent sudden change in 
policy announced by the Department of Health of  the UK.  The Indian doctors undergoing training 
have been affected midway. Hence, there is a st rong case for disciplining domestic regulations in a 
transparent manner after discussions and public deba te and also allowing period for transition.  
 
Is the matter being examined for putting in place di sciplines autonomously and in particular for having 
some transitional arrangements for the affected Indian doctors? 
 
Answer 
WTO Members are entitled to amend their domestic re gulations, provided that such regulations remain 
in compliance with Article VI of the GATS and ar e applied in a reasonable, objective and impartial 
manner. Domestic regulations in the EC meet these criteria. 
 
REPLY TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM INDIA  
 Non-uniform testing procedures for Mari ne products exported from India 
 
 
There have been several complaints relating to rejection of Indian marine products for use of 
antibiotics and bacterial inhibitors.  It was found that rejection at different des tinations was on different 
grounds for the same or similar consignments.  Nearly  50% of rejections within EC destinations were 
in Italy and Spain.  Indian exporters submit that the rejection patterns coincide with the high season for 
Mediterranean catch when domestic prices fall.  During this period, almost all detentions in Italy were 
for use of bacterial inhibitors and none for antibio tic residues whereas in the same period, the majority 
of detentions were for antibiotic residues and none for bacterial inhibitors.  This pattern was observed 
even where the processing/exporting unit was the same.     We request the EC to provide complete details on these rejections of Indian marine products and to 
avoid repeat of such instances in future.   
 
Answer 
The application of EC law is the responsibility of  the EC Member States. The European Commission 
has no evidence of incorrect application by Spain a nd Italy of EC law concerning the import checks of 
the fishery products. 
 
In case of the rejected consignments, the competen t Indian authorities have been provided with 
completed details via the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed.   If India has additional questions on the specific cases of the rejections, please provide us with the 
details of the consignments (Date, name of the pr oduct, importer, Member State, name of the border 
inspection post).  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 456  
 
 Room Document for the TBT Committee meeting on 21 March 2007 
G/TBT/N/EEC/54 - REACH - and  
EC Trade Policy Review (26 and 28 February 2007;  
WT/TPR/G/177 and WT/TPR/S/177) 
Questions & Answers 
 
A. Questions submitted in the context of the TBT Committee  
ASEAN - (G/TBT/GEN/46, 26 January 2007) I. MANDATORY SUBSTITUTION OF SUBSTANCES 
Questions 
(a) How will information on acceptable testing methods  for substances of very high concern be 
 made available to industries outside the EU ? How will non-EU stakeholders have access to 
 this determination process? 
Answer 
The test methods relevant for the Regulation as a whole will be adopted in the form of a Commission 
Regulation (Article 13 (2-3)); the timescale for this  is not specified in the Regulation but the 
Commission intends to adopt such a measure as soon  as possible after REACH enters in to force on 
1 June 2007. 
Substances of very high concern will be identified an d included onto a list according to Article 59. To 
initiate the process, either a Member State (MS) or  the Agency, if requested  by the Commission, will 
prepare a dossier in accordance with Annex XV that identifies the substance, justifies that it is a 
CMR
21 category 1 or 2, PBT22, vPvB23, or substance of equivalent concern and gives information on 
exposures, alternative substances and risks from th e substance. The proposal then goes through an 
agreement procedure where either all the MS have to agree or the Commission takes the decision by 
Comitology. However, before this procedure begi ns the Agency will publish on its website a notice 
that an Annex XV dossier has been  prepared for a substance and all interested parties, including 3rd 
country stakeholders, can submit comments (Article 59 (4)). 
(b) How will European Chemical Agency official s evaluate the required analysis asked of 
 registrants, as a matter of routine, on possi ble alternative substances? Given the significant 
 lead times needed for producers to make  any changes in product development and 
 increasingly global supply chains, how will the in formation on possible alternative substances 
 be used? What kind of consultation process will occur with companies facing possible 
 requirements for the substitution of subs tances, including substances in articles? 
                                                      
 21 Carcinogen, mutagen or substance toxic to reproduction (CMR). 
 22 Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substances 
 23 Very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) substances  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 457 
 
 
 Answer 
Applicants for an authorisation must investigate whether there are any possible alternative substances 
or technologies for their substance of very hi gh concern (SVHC) that has been included into 
Annex XIV. They will then have to submit an analys is of these substitutes, if any, including the risks 
posed by the alternative, and the technical and ec onomic feasibility of replacing the SVHC with the 
alternative. If the applicant does id entify a suitable alternative then he must also submit a substitution 
plan that includes a timetable for proposed action by the applicant. 
If the applicant cannot demonstrate adequate c ontrol of his substance (according to Annex I 
Section 6.4), then the Agency's Committee for So cio-economic Analysis will give an opinion on the 
suitability and feasibility of alternatives submitted by th e applicant or those iden tified by interested 3rd 
parties following a call for such information on the Agency's website (Article 64 (2)). The Committee 
for Risk Assessment will also give an opinion on the risk from any proposed alternatives. The 
applicant will have the opportunity to comment on these opinions (Article 64 (5)) within 2 months; the 
Committees will then consider these comments befo re giving their final opinions. When deciding on 
whether a suitable alternative exists, the Commis sion will consider all relevant aspects including 
whether the transfer to the alternative would mean  a reduction in overall risk to health and the 
environment, and the technical and economic fe asibility of alternatives for the applicant. 
If the applicant can demonstrate adequate control of a substance then an authorisation will be given. 
If the applicant cannot demonstrate adequate contro l of his substance to the satisfaction of the 
Committee for Risk Assessment and th e Commission is of the opinion that  a suitable alternative exists, 
then the Commission may not give an authorisation fo r that substance. If a suitable substitute does not 
exist then the applicant will have to demonstrat e that the socio-economic benefits of using the 
substance outweigh its risks. 
In all cases the information on substitutes will inform  the Commission when determining the length of 
the time-limited review of the authorisation. Duri ng a review of an authorisation the Commission may 
amend or withdraw the authorisation if su itable alternatives have become available. 
(c) Applicants for authorizations must include  socio-economic and alternatives assessments. 
 These assessments include, by necessity, information (e.g., price, performance and other  aspects) considered to be confidential. What procedures and safeguards exist for the 
 protection of confidential business informati on, including rights of appeal from adverse 
 decisions prior to disclosure of information? 
Answer 
An analysis of alternatives must always be  submitted in applications for authorisation 
(Article 62 (40(f)). There is no absolute requireme nt for an applicant to include a socio-economic 
analysis in their application (Article 62 (5)) but it is in  their interest to do so if they are unsure if they 
can demonstrate that the substance is adequately controlled. 
Article 105 of REACH requires Agency staff (including the Management Board and members of the 
Committees) not to disclose information of the ki nd covered by the duty of professional secrecy. In 
addition, Article 118 regulates the access to informa tion to all documents held by the Agency. To 
implement this Article, the Manage ment Board shall adopt practical arrangements, including appeals or 
remedies for cases where a confidentiality re quest was partially or fully rejected. 
(d) How will the European Chemicals Agency address the lack of capacity of laboratory facilities 
 in overseas markets? Are capacity building projects foreseen? Will overseas laboratories be WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 458  
 
  able to enter into mutual recognition agreem ents with European labs for the purpose of 
 carrying out REACH requirements? 
Answer 
REACH does not prescribe where the tests or analysis have to take place and the current world 
capacity for laboratories should provide sufficient fl exibility to meet all RE ACH requirements. With 
regard to 3
rd country laboratories it will be up to them how they organise themselves and gain funding 
in relation to carrying out any tests or analysis required because of REACH.  
However, one possibility to enter into a mutual re cognition agreement is to contact the OECD Working 
Group on Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) as some Asia n countries have already done. This will give 
the possibility to join the OECD's Mutual Accep tance of Data Decision, as a non-OECD country 
similarly to South Africa and Israel. 
II. REQUIREMENTS FOR MONOMERS IN IMPORTED POLYMERS 
Question 
(a) How will the wholesale registration of monome rs in imported polymers by non-EU firms 
 enhance the protection of human hea lth or the environment in Europe? 
Answer 
In relation to polymers, REACH is constructed w ith the concept of using monomer information to 
determine the risks of any polymer, to avoid the re quirement to register all polymers and so endanger 
its workability; thus allowing the exemption of polymers from registration and evaluation. This 
concept is based on a number of principles: 
 Any reaction of monomers will lead to the crea tion of a number of polymers of different chain 
lengths. Even if the average chain length is larg e there will be a fraction of either free monomer 
or of smaller chain lengths, and it is usually this fraction that leads to polymer (eco) toxicity. 
These smaller chains, or oligomers, are conventionally defined as components with a molecular weight (MW) of less than 1000 Daltons; 
 Oligomers are likely to be bio-available due to this low molecular weight and so present a risk 
if exposure occurs. The information on the mono mer can therefore be used to assess this risk.  
REACH requires that substances used as monomers th at are manufactured or imported at or above one 
tonne must be registered. The risks of identifie d uses such as polymer manufacture and use can be 
assessed through required Chemical Safe ty Assessments. To ensure that all polymers are treated in the 
same way, and thus protect human health and the en vironment, Article 6 (3) requires the registration of 
monomers, and other substan ces, contained in a manufactured or imported polymer. 
III. COMPLIANCE DETERMINATIONS 
Questions 
(a) Given that compliance enforcement for REACH will occur at the Member State level, how  will 
 consistency be maintained with respect to  registration, evaluation and authorization?  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 459 
 
 
 Answer 
REACH will significantly improve the consistency with regard to how Member States apply the 
chemicals legislation within the EU, compared to the situation under the current legislation, and 
therefore facilitate trade flows. First,  it is a regulation, directly appli cable in all Member States, without 
the need for transposition laws, as is the case for current directives. 
A large number of tasks will be carried out by the Agency (such as dossier evaluation) or the Agency 
will have responsibility for coordinati ng them (such as substance evalua tion), so ensuring a consistent 
approach. The Member States are responsible to enfor ce that individual duty holders in their territories 
comply with the decisions of the Agency or the Commission. The MS will have to submit their 
legislation on penalties to the Commission for scru tiny within 18 months of entry into force.  
To help ensure such enforcement is carried out consistently, a Forum for exchange of information on 
enforcement will be set up in the Agency, to carry  out a number of tasks (Article 77 (4)), including 
spreading good practice and highlighting problems, co-ordinating enforcement projects, etc. 
The European Commission also rec ognises the need of a clear guidance for all stakeholders, including 
Member States Competent Authorities, to ensure consistent, cost-effective and smooth operation of the 
system. It has already started a major programme of  work to develop such guidance, in co-operation 
with stakeholders. The Commission intends that appr opriate guidance will be available before the time 
each part of the REACH system comes into operation. 
(b) How will the transparency of REACH compliance procedures be guaranteed? 
Answer 
It will be up to MS own rules on transparency to re gulate access to information on enforcement within 
their own territories. However, each MS will have to  submit a report every 5 years on the operation of 
REACH in their territories including a section on en forcement, including the results of official 
inspections, the penalties provided for and other measur es taken. When it comes to the transparency of 
the Agency, stakeholders may be invited to attend sessions of the Forum. 
IV. DEVELOPMENT OF REACH GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES 
Questions (a) How can non-EU firms be assured that their uni que viewpoints, comments and concerns have 
been taken into account in the developm ent of REACH implementation guidance? 
Answer 
Third parties are involved in the REACH Implementation Projects (RIP) that include the drafting of 
guidance documents. All draft reports are placed on the website of the European Chemicals Bureau 
(ECB) for commenting by all those interested, incl uding third countries. In addition, there is the 
possibility that third countries could be involved in the stakeholder expert group for a RIP project, if 
they have specific expertise that would be valuable. This has of course to be done after agreement with 
the ECB but for several RIPs this  is already common practice. In addition, the Commission has agreed 
that a 3
rd country representative should have a seat at the Commission Working Group that oversees all 
RIP projects; this representative will act as a fo cal point, feeding comments into the process and 
conclusions back to the 3rd countries. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 460  
 
 (b) In anticipation of determinations that are advers e to non-EU firms’ interests, what avenue(s) of 
appeal or review will be available to firms to secure redress, particularly for firms downstream in 
the supply chain? 
Answer 
The legal obligations under REACH lie only with  EU entities, whether manufacturers, importers, 
downstream users, suppliers or only representatives. A ll avenues of appeal or review lie with them. 
Article 91 of REACH contains a comprehensive list of decisions against which an appeal to the 
Agency’s Board of Appeal is possible. These may then  be further appealed to the European Court of 
Justice, as can any other decision. 
3
rd countries are however welcome to use all othe r ways of communicating their suggestions and 
concerns to the European institutions, especially to the European Commission. 
Other questions contained in document G/ TBT/M/40 of 26 January 2007 (Minutes of the 
Meeting of the TBT Committee of 9 November 2006)  
European Communities – Regulation on the Registrati on, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals 
(REACH) (G/TBT/W/208 and G/TBT/N/EEC/52 and Add.1) 
43. The representative of Singapore, speaking on behalf of ASEAN members  raised a concern 
relating to the EC REACH Regulation. He r ecalled that ASEAN members, both as a group and 
individually had expressed concer ns on various aspects of the REACH Regulation at previous 
meetings of this Committee. He reit erated that they supported the right  of Members to take measures to 
protect health, safety and the environment. However, in keeping with the spirit and letter of the TBT 
and other WTO Agreements it was also incumbent upon Members not to adopt measures that created 
unnecessary barriers to trade. In this connection th e industry in ASEAN countries remained concerned 
about the adverse impact that the REACH regulation's complex and broad regulatory structure could have on international chemical and downstream tr ade. While ASEAN appreciated the consultations 
that the European Communities had undertaken with  industry and other interested parties, there 
continued to be many outstanding questions and co ncerns about the REACH. In addition, apart from 
the ASEAN context, the REACH proposal had been discussed in the broader APEC setting, to which 
ASEAN members belonged. At its meeting in Da Nang, Viet Nam, in September 2006, the APEC Chemical Steering Group consisting of industry experts and government  officials from the Asia-Pacific 
region discussed the latest developments of the REACH regulation. That meeting had identified a 
number of concerns that ASEAN's industry continued to have, primarily with respect to: the mandatory 
substitution of substances; requirements for monomers in imported polymers; compliance 
determinations; and the devel opment of REACH guidelines and procedures (G/TBT/GEN/46). 
ASEAN requested the European Comm unities to provide clarification to its industries' concerns and 
questions. 
44. The representative of Japan supported the stat ement by Singapore and drew the Committee's 
attention to the fact that REACH Regulation was undergoing the European Union Parliament's Second 
Reading, and was on the verge of adoption. Yet,  Japan had remaining concerns. In particular, 
Article 6.3 of REACH required registration of monomers in polymers which did not harm the 
environment. The reacted monomers were not adverse to the environment and the monomers in polymers hardly existed. Therefore, the obligation to register the reacted monomers in polymers was 
not appropriate and might, according to Japan, not be in line with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. A 
simple notification should be required if the agency  needed to understand the material composition of 
polymers for reference. Industries in APEC had the sa me concern. It was also pointed out that at the 
previous Committee meeting, the European Co mmunities had noted that once the common position 
was adopted, an amendment to the original no tification would be submitted to the Committee  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 461 
 
 
 explaining some provisions, for instance Article 6. 3 of REACH. Japan requested answers to the 
specific questions contained in document referre d to by the previous speaker (G/TBT/GEN/46). 
45. The representative of Costa Rica  supported the previous speakers and asked for more detail 
about the new agency that would be established under the REACH regulation. For instance, how 
would this agency operate as a depository fo r information regarding dangerous substances? 
Would it have representatives in the various entr y points into the European territory or would 
there just be one agency with centralized information? 
Answer 
There will be only one European Chemicals Agency, lo cated in Helsinki, Finland. However, it will of 
course cooperate closely with the competent aut horities in the Member States, often with long 
experience in implementing chemicals legislation, which are responsible for carrying out substance 
evaluations and enforcement.   
The Agency will be at the centre of the REACH system. It will manage the registration process, will 
undertake dossier evaluation (compliance check and ev aluation of testing proposal s) and is responsible 
for substance evaluation. It will also play a ke y role in supporting the Member States and the 
Community Institutions with scientific and technical expertise, and by establishing and running the IT 
infrastructure. It has significant decision-making powe rs, and so its decisions are subject to review 
provided by a Board of Appeal. Through its expe rt Committees, it will advise the Commission on: 
• priorities to set up the authorisation procedure, • applications for authorisations for the uses of substances of very high concern, 
• other risk reduction measures for dangerous substances (restrictions). 
46. The representative of China
 supported the previous speakers and noted that, taking into 
account the complexity and wide scope of REACH,  the Chinese industry was concerned that the new 
registration system would have a significant im pact on the production and trade of the products 
concerned. It was recalled that China had expressed it s concerns at different occasions to the European 
Communities; hence, China wished to know whethe r the European Communities was considering any 
plan or arrangements to accommodate the concerns of indus try from developing country 
Members, for instance in terms of technical assistance or special and differential treatment.  Since 
REACH was in the process of adoption, these concerns were becoming increasingly urgent. 
Answer 
This will be done through guidance documents a nd access for all companies (including from non-EU 
countries) to the REACH helpdesks of the Chem icals Agency and of the Member States. The 
helpdesks are aware of the special problems that developing country Members may face and they will 
take these problems into consideration when giving advice.  
In addition, the European Chemicals Agency may be asked by the Commission to provide technical 
and scientific support to improve co-operation between the Community, its Member States, 
international organisations and thir d countries on scientific and technical issues relating to the safety of 
substances, as well as active pa rticipation in technical assistance and capacity building activities on 
sound management of chemicals in developing countries. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 462  
 
 47. The representative of Korea
 supported the comments made by previous speakers and asked for 
clarification on the meaning and scope of Article 7 of REACH regarding "substances intended to 
be released under normal and reasona bly foreseeable conditions of use". 
Answer 
Guidance on such issues is currently being de veloped in REACH Implementation Project (RIP) 
3.8(further information, including the final report of the contractor, is available from 
http://ecb.jrc.it/reach/rip/ ).  
48. The representative of Canada  supported the health and environmental objectives of REACH 
and expressed appreciation for the opportunities fo r consultation provided by the European 
Communities during the development of REACH. More over, Canada supported several of the recently 
proposed amendments. One of these amendments pr ovided an exemption for ores and concentrates 
from authorization. This would compliment previous  exemptions for ores and concentrates as well as 
those for cellulose pulp from registration. Canada believed that these exemptions would significantly 
reduce the administrative burden without jeopardizi ng environmental or human health in any way. 
Nevertheless, based on Canada's analysis of th e proposed REACH regulation, Canada remained 
concerned that there were several provisions which would hamper the effective operation of REACH if 
not addressed. These included issues such as monomers and polymers, authorization and 
substitution, and substances in articles. Canada  also had additional concerns regarding the 
proposed regulation of intermediates and the prop osed approach to the listing of substances of 
very high concern . 
Answer 
Please see the answers to Singapore/ASEAN paper in th is section and to Canada in the TPR section. 
49. The representative of the United States  joined previous delega tions in expressing concern 
about REACH. Like others delegations, the Unite d States shared the objectives of protecting human 
health and the environment, but remained concer ned that the revised proposal was overly expansive 
and could be made more effective. The United States  was concerned that the economic implications of 
the proposed approach to industry, governments  and consumers would not be adequately assessed. 
There continued to be a number of outstanding quest ions and the United States had identified a number 
of priority areas for attention: the REACH Implementation Projects (RIPs), harmonization, 
coverage of articles, registration of monome rs and polymers in the authorization process . It was 
noted that the paper circulated by Singapore on behalf of the ASEAN (G/TBT/GEN/46) raised a 
number of questions that also the United Stat es was raising in the TBT Committee. Among other 
things it was noted that REACH guidelines a nd procedures were being developed through a process 
which was not fully open to direct participation by non-EU firms; questions were also raised 
about how non-EU firms would be assured that their unique viewpoints would be taken into 
account in the development of this guidance . 
Answer 
 Please see the answers to Singapore/ASEAN paper in this section. 
50. The representative of Chile  supported previous speakers a nd noted that her delegation had 
closely followed the development of the REACH re gulation and had used all opportunities to provide 
comments; she expressed appreciation for the transpar ency of the process. Now that the regulation was 
about to be adopted in the European  Parliament, it was of importance to Chile that certain exclusions 
from the scope of the regulation were approved regarding ores and metals.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 463 
 
 
 Answer 
Please see the answers to Canada in the TPR section.  
Other concerns related to the fact that th e regulation extended its requirements beyond the 
borders of the European Communities through th e wide concept of "duty of care" and the 
establishment of a quality mark for articles. 
Answer The duty of care concept was taken up in the final proposal as two additional recitals (no's 16 and 17) 
and will not extend the requirements of RE ACH beyond the EU. The Commission is required 
according to Recital 14 REACH Regulation to study the usefulness of a European Quality Mark, not 
just for articles, but in view of the short term dead lines imposed for reviews of the Annexes, this task is 
not a current priority for the Commission. 
Chile was also concerned that the obligatory subs titution system could, in certain cases, entail 
that certain substances were substituted with less dangerous substances although the substances 
being substituted had actually been rigorously controlled. 
Answer 
REACH encourages, and in many cases requires, substitution of substances classified as causing 
cancer, mutations, or reproductive problems, or of su bstances that are persistent and accumulate in the 
environment in our bodies. The Commission cons iders that substituting such highly dangerous 
substances when the risks cannot be adequately co ntrolled and there are suitable alternatives is a 
proportionate measure to protect health and environm ent. Even substances that have a threshold and 
where adequate control has been de monstrated are among the most dangerous and if there is a suitable 
substitute available it is proportionate that the Commi ssion can amend or withdraw the authorisation at 
the first or subsequent reviews, for exampl e if suitable alternatives are now available.  
Chile emphasized the need for European authorit ies to make available technical assistance to 
facilitate the understanding of this regulat ion for partners in developing countries. 
Answer 
Please see the answers to China above.   
51. The representative of Cuba
 and Chinese Taipei  associated themselves with the concerns 
expressed by previous speakers. 
52. The representative of the European Communities  noted that he was not in a position at the 
current meeting to reply to the specific questions raised. Nevertheless, he would take note and report 
back to experts. In respect of the current st ate of play, the Council's Common Position had been 
adopted in late June 2006 and this had been comm unicated to WTO Members by means of a second 
addendum to the original notification; the main ch anges compared to the or iginal proposal were 
outlined in an appendix to this addendum (G/T BT/N/EEC/52/Add.2). The second reading had taken 
place on the basis of the Council's Common Positi on and since these proposals had not yet been 
adopted it was difficult to go into detail in respect of some of the questions raised as the issues were 
still under discussion. Moreover, the final text was need ed before guidance material could be finalized. 
Members were assured that the text would be made av ailable to all stakeholders, interested parties, 
domestic or foreign in the same way. Guidance, ca pacity building and technical assistance would be 
provided, in particular to manufacturers in developi ng countries. It was noted that REACH could still WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 464  
 
 be adopted in 2006 (subsequently, REACH was adopted  in December 2006 and will enter into force on 
1 June 2007). 
B. Questions submitted in the context of the Trade Policy Review (TPR)
 
(Questions to the Report by the European Communities (WT/TPR/G/177)) 
ARGENTINA  
Párrafo 71, página 134 
Q60. En cuanto al sistema REACH, la Argentina desea  manifestar su preocupación respecto de su 
futura implementación, no sólo en razón del evide nte encarecimiento que el mismo implicará para la 
industria, sino su eventual consistencia con los compromisos asumidos en el orden multilateral, 
debiendo evitarse que el futuro régimen pudiera cons tituirse en una barrera técnica para el comercio 
en contraposición a las normas (TB). En este senti do, el régimen recientemente aprobado ha desatado 
controversias aún en el ámbito de las CE, las c uales no parecen a la fecha haber sido debidamente 
superadas. La Argentina, en tanto país en desarro llo, no observa hasta el momento un esfuerzo de las 
CE por explicitar y aclarar los diferentes aspectos del régimen en cuestión acorde con su complejidad 
y envergadura, por lo que se apreciaría poder evaluar  con mayor detalle la compatibilidad de este 
complejo instrumento con las normas multilaterales, así como prevea las CE la asistencia necesaria 
para su instrumentación por los países en desarr ollo potencialmente afectados, tales como la 
Argentina. 
Frente a esta nueva situación, la Argentina desea conocer:  
¿Si se ha evaluado el impacto negativo que REACH tendrá en las exportaciones de los países en 
desarrollo?  
Translation:  Has the EC studied the negative impact that REACH will have of the export of developing 
countries? 
¿Si se ha evaluado si la implementación de REACH impondrá costos excesivos que pudieran resultar 
en distorsiones no sólo en el sector químico, sino en distintos sectores industriales relacionados con la 
industria química en los países en desarrollo?  
Translation: Has the EC examined whether REAC H will create additional costs which will result in 
distortions, not only in the chemical sector, but also  in other industrial sectors which are related to the 
chemical industry of the developing countries? 
Answer 
The Commission has carried out an extensive Impa ct Assessment on its REACH proposal of 2003. The 
main document as well as the background document s can be found on the Commission’s website 
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/reach/eia_en.htm ). 
Following discussions with stakeholders on the impacts of REACH, the Commission decided to 
engage in further work on the Commission’s REAC H Impact Assessment. Two further studies were 
therefore undertaken. A study by KPMG for a UNIC E/CEFIC industry consortium has examined four 
downstream sectors (i.e. automotive industry, high-t ech electronics, flexible packaging industry, 
inorganic material producers) and included 6 SMEs. A second study by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission dealt with th e potential impacts of REACH on the New Member 
States (NMS).  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 465 
 
 
 The European Parliament's Committee on Developm ent commissioned a study on the implication of 
REACH for developing countries, in particular the ACP countries. The study concluded that the 
overall effects on these countries are limited  as a large share of their exports concern products which 
are not affected by REACH at all or exempted from registration (minerals); the exports potentially 
affected by REACH predominantly concern hi gh volumes coming from large multinationals, joint 
ventures, and large ACP firms that are presumed to be able to cope with the regulatory requirements 
under REACH. The assistance from the Agency, Commun ity budget, Member States or international 
organisations can therefore be focussed on those ACP small-scale producers exporting to EU (e.g. in 
essential oils). 
It should also be noted that REACH also brings benefits  to developing countries in the form of better 
information on the hazardous chemicals they import from the EU together with targeted advice for 
their safe use and handling. This is of particular  importance for those countries where the regulatory 
framework is currently lacking. 
¿Si se prevé respetar el principio de proporcionalid ad, buscando los menores costos comerciales en la 
aplicación de las medidas, en especial para los país es en desarrollo y asegurar que su aplicación no 
genere ninguna disrupción del mercado?  
Translation: Is it foreseen to respect the proportiona lity principle, by ensuring that the implementing 
measures are the least costly, especially for th e developing countries and by ensuring that its 
implementation does not generate any distortion in the market.  
Answer 
Proportionality is a well recognised principle of comm unity law used in the context of the legality of 
Community action. It is worth noting that the principle of proportionality does not automatically mean that the least onerous measures should be applied, so long as the measure taken is appropriate. Indeed, 
in drawing up implementing measures, the Commission will strive to ensure that any measure it takes 
is appropriate for the risk to be controlled or th e policy aim to be met and conforms to WTO law and, 
in particular, does not create unnecessary obstacles to trade. 
CANADA
 
Part III. Key Developments in the EC’s Trade Policy (2004-06), (3) Main Components of EC 
Trade Policy, (i) The EC and the WTO, page 14, Paragraph 43: 
In paragraph 43 of the EC’s Report, the Eu ropean Communities high lights the health and 
environmental objectives of several legislative initi atives that have received attention from trading 
partners due to the possibility of negative trade implications. The new EC legislation on chemicals – 
REACH – is one of the initiatives cited. 
Canada appreciates legitimate hea lth and environmental objectives of REACH, and the stated intention 
not to impede international trade. 
40. Could the EC outline efforts underway or anticipated to ensure that the implementation 
of REACH does not create unn ecessary barriers to trade? WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 466  
 
 Answer  
Throughout the development of REACH, the Co mmission has been careful to avoid creating 
unnecessary barriers to trade and the Commission is confident that this is the case in the final 
Regulation. In particular, we have consulted widely with trading partne rs to ensure that we were aware 
of their concerns and have discussed the issues carefully with our trade experts. 
Several features embedded in the Regulation will con tinue to ensure that unnecessary barriers to trade 
are not created during implementation. First, REACH is a regulation, which is directly applicable in all 
Member States. Secondly, the future European Chemi cals Agency will take decisions directly in some 
areas (e.g. Registration), while in other areas it w ould have powers to ensu re consistent decision-
making (e.g. Substance evaluation). Thirdly, the Commission is overseeing the development of 
guidance for industry and the authorities which will promote consistent interpretation of REACH. 
Fourthly, the Forum for Exchange of Information on Enforcement would also have a role to play in 
promoting consistency in enforcem ent. And fifthly, stakeholders have numerous possibilities for 
appeal to the Agency an d to the European Court of Justice in  cases where they might feel that the 
regulation had not been consistently applied, as we ll as to Member State national courts, which have 
the possibility to request a preliminary ruling of th e Court of Justice in accordance with Article 234 of 
the EC Treaty. In addition the Commission has th e possibility to start infringement proceedings 
(Article 226 of the EC Treaty). 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector, (5) Manufacturi ng, (ii) Selected industries, (c) Chemicals, 
page 107, Paragraph 71: 
The Secretariat Report states that a key policy objec tive is to ensure a smooth transition from existing 
legislation to the new regulatory framework for chemicals called REACH. The REACH legislation was 
expected to be adopted by the end of 2006, with entry into force around April 2007. The Secretariat Report further notes that REACH will be costly, in the order of 2.3 billion euros in direct costs over an 
11-year period, to the chemicals industry. 
Comment: The considerable costs,  whatever the figure, will be borne by the chemicals industry 
globally, not just within EU, due in part to possible trade impediments. 
Comment Commission:  
The anticipated overall benefits to environment and human health  are generally expected to be 
significant although a quantitative assessment is di fficult. The Commission’s Impact Assessment in 
2003 developed an illustrative scenario which put the hea lth benefits alone in the order of magnitude of 
€ 50 billion over a 30 year period. Moreover, governme nts, companies and consumers from outside the 
EU will also profit from the information generated by  REACH, mainly through the Safety Data Sheets 
on EU chemical products but also by the toxicolo gical data freely accessible on the Agency website. 
Both will help to improve the risk ma nagement of chemicals outside the EU 
Canada understands that REAC H will impose more stringent requirements on transported 
intermediates than onsite intermedia tes. Because they are transported,  imported intermediates will face 
more stringent assessment requirements than locally  produced onsite intermediates, potentially placing 
foreign manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage. 
25. Could the EC provide information on how it  intends to implement these requirements 
such that they do not create  unnecessary barriers to trade?   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 467 
 
 
 Answer 
The REACH Regulation contains more stringent requi rements for transported intermediates than for 
on-site intermediates. These are necessary due to the increased risks involved due to the transport and a 
potentially greater number of exposed persons. The requirements put on transported intermediates are 
the same for EU based or a non-EU based ente rprises. However, the requirements for on-site 
intermediates will only fall on EU enterprises as by defi nition, such an intermediate should be used up 
completely in the manufacturing process of anot her substance, which in the case of a non EU 
enterprise would occur outside the EU. 
Canada also understands that the requirement that all monomers used in the manufacture of polymers 
be registered is not risk-based, and that it could unfairly disadvantage importe rs. The polymer importer 
will be responsible for registration of substances that  they may never handle or use. Moreover, in many 
instances the monomer has been transformed prior to  import and no longer exists in the polymer. The 
supplier may not know the identity of the monomers or the manufacturers of the monomers that were used to make the polymer. Canada believes a risk-based approach would focus on any unreacted 
monomers in polymers that are present in sufficient c oncentrations to present a risk to humans or the 
environment. 
26. Could the EC confirm that the requirement to register will apply only to unreacted 
monomers in polymers? 
Answer  
No, REACH requires registration of monomers if they are contained in a polymer ≥ 2% w/w in the 
form of monomeric units and the total quantity of such monomer makes up 1 tonne or more per year.  
In relation to polymers, REACH is constructed w ith the concept of using monomer information to 
determine the risks of any polymer, to avoid the re quirement to register all polymers and so endanger 
its workability; thus allowing the exemption of polymers from registration and evaluation. This 
concept is based on a number of principles: 
 Any reaction of monomers will lead to the creation of a number of polymers of different 
chain lengths. Even if the average chain length is large there will be a fraction of either 
free monomer or of smaller chain lengths, and it is usually this fraction that leads to 
polymer (eco) toxicity. These smaller chains, or  oligomers, are conventionally defined as 
components with a molecular weight (MW) of less than 1000 Daltons; 
 Oligomers are likely to be bio-available due to  this low molecular weight and so present a 
risk if exposure occurs. The information on the monomer can therefore be used to assess 
this risk.  
REACH requires that substances used as monomers th at are manufactured or imported at or above one 
tonne must be registered. The risks of identified uses such as polymer manufacture and use can be 
assessed through required Chemical Safety Assessments. To ensure that all polymers are treated in the 
same way, and thus protect human health and the e nvironment, Article 6 (3) requires the registration of 
monomers, and other substan ces, contained in a manufactured or imported polymer. 
Canada understands that mineral or es and non-chemically modified concentrates are not subject to 
registration or evaluation but are poten tially subject to authorization. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 468  
 
 Comment: 
The Regulation exempts the registration of minerals, ores and ore concentrates when they are not 
chemically modified. If registration does apply to a chemically modified mineral or ore, it will be 
possible to make one single registration of such a su bstance of variable composition, provided that the 
hazardous properties do not differ significantly and warrant the same classification Should the 
hazardous properties differ significantly and result in more than one classification, the potential 
registrant could either make several registration or one registration that will use the most severe 
classification. 
Minerals, ores and ore concentrates are potentially subject to authorisation but the following points 
should be noted. 
Substances subject to authorisation are those of very high concern, i.e. those that meet the criteria for 
being carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to the repr oductive system Category 1 and 2, (CMRs). Other 
substances subject to authorisation and identified on a case-by-case basis are those that are persistent, 
bioaccumulative and toxic, (PBTs), those that are very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvBs) 
and those that are of equivalent level of concern. 
A substance having the property making it subject to authorisation is the one appearing on the 
candidate list and on Annex XIV. Nevert heless a mineral or an ore might have to be authorised if it is a 
substance subject to authorisation or due to the pr esence of such a substance as an impurity. In the 
latter case it would be specified that this kind of complex substances are to be covered by this 
obligation under cer tain conditions. 
As not all substances being subject to authorisation ca n be authorised at once or at the same time, there 
is a need for prioritisation and REACH requires that priority is normally given to substances with PBT 
and vPvB properties, wide dispersive use or high volumes. 
Given that PBT/vPvB properties are not applicable to inorganic substances, only minerals which are 
CMRs, or have properties of equivalent con cern, could be subject to authorisation. 
In the case that a mining company h as to apply for authorisation for a substance contained in one of 
their minerals or ores that is included in Annex XI V, the Annex XIV entry would need to specify the 
range of variation in the composition. One or more au thorisations could be then granted for ores within 
that range of variation in composition.  This is in line with the appro ach for registration of substances of 
variable composition, when it will be possible to  make a single registration for a variety of 
compositions. 
Consequently, there would not necessarily be a n eed to check/test each and every batch of 
minerals/ores imported to the EU. 
In addition, when selecting substances for authori sation, the Commission may exempt certain uses of a 
substance from the requirement to be authorised  if, on the basis of exiting specific community 
legislation imposing minimum requirements relati ng to the protection of human health or the 
environment for the use of the substance, the risks are properly contro lled (Article 58 (2)). 
27. Canada seeks clarification as to the EC int erpretation of “chemically modified” in the 
context of mineral ores and concentrates. Will th e EC interpret and equate a chemical surface 
treatment of an ore or concentrate that does not alter the bulk composition of the concentrate to 
be equivalent to a chemical modification of the concentrate?   WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 469 
 
 
 Answer 
Article 3 (40) of REACH states that "not chemically  modified" means that the chemical structure of a 
substance remains unchanged, even if it has undergone  a chemical process or treatment, or a physical 
mineralogical transformation, for instance to remove impurities. If in the above case there is a modification of the chemical structure, then the concentrate will be subject to registration  
Canada understands that the EC plans to review the exemptions in Annex IV and V within one year of 
the entry into force of REACH. 
28. Does the EC plan to consult its trading part ners when it reviews the scope of exemptions 
under REACH? 
Answer 
The Commission will indeed review Annexes IV and V pertaining to exemptions to registration within 
12 months after entry into force of REACH and will,  if appropriate, propose amendments on which the 
decision will be taken by Comitology. The Commission is  still in the planning stages of this review but 
will make information available to stakeholders about the arrangements it is making for the review. 
Revision of other exemption to other Titles of REACH or to the whole REACH Regulation are not yet 
planned and will require a full legislative proposal from the Commission to be adopted by the Council 
and the European Parliament through co-decision. 
CHILE
 
2) (ix). Obstáculos técnicos al comercio. 
Q2. Pág. 70, párrafo 48 del Informe de la Secretar ía. ¿En qué plazo estiman las CE la posibilidad 
de alcanzar la plena armonización de las normas y los reglamentos técnicos al interior de las CE? 
Translation: Page 70, para. 48 of the report of the Secretariat. What is the estimated deadline (by the 
Community) to achieve a full harmonisation of the rules and technical regulations? 
Answer 
REACH will significantly improve the consistency with regard to how Member States apply the 
chemicals legislation within the EU, compared to the situation under the current legislation, and 
therefore facilitate trade flows. A large number of tasks will be carried out by the Agency (such as 
dossier evaluation) or the Agency will have res ponsibility for coordinating th em (such as substance 
evaluation), so ensuring a consistent approach. Th e Member States are responsible to enforce that 
individual duty holders in their territories comply with the decisions of the Agency or the Commission. The MS will have to submit their legislation on penalties to the Commission for scrutiny within 18 
months of entry into force. 
To help ensure such enforcement is carried out consistently, a Forum for exchange of information on 
enforcement will be set up in the Agency, to carry  out a number of tasks (Article 77 (4)), including 
spreading good practice and highlighting problems, co-ordinating enforcement projects, etc. 
The European Commission also rec ognises the need of a clear guidance for all stakeholders, including 
Member States Competent Authorities, to ensure consistent, cost-effective and smooth operation of the 
system. It has already started a major programme of  work to develop such guidance, in co-operation 
with stakeholders. The Commission intends that appr opriate guidance will be available before the time 
each part of the REACH system comes into operation. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 470  
 
 Q3. Pág. 70, párrafo 48 del Informe de la Secr etaría. Entre los reglamentos armonizados se 
encuentra el Reglamento REACH. ¿Se ha considera do su impacto una vez que entre en vigor sobre la 
industrias comunitarias y extranjer as? ¿Qué medidas se piensan tomar para disminuir el impacto 
negativo relacionado. 
Translation: 
They ask whether the EC has studied the impact REACH will have on EU and foreign industries when 
it comes into force. And what measures the EC intends to take to reduce its negative impact. 
Answer 
Please, see answer to Argentina. 
CHINA
 
Technical Barriers to Trade (p. 57-59, Para 48-53) 
• REACH Regulation 
The Council of Ministers passed Regulation (E C) No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, 
Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Ch emicals (REACH) on 18 Dec 2006, which will take in 
effect on 1 June 2007. REACH will replace the existi ng 40 legal acts and create a single system for all 
chemical substances and be implemented in all the EU Member States. 
Certain aspects of REACH have negative impact on trade. First, the over complicated registration 
procedures and high testing fees will significantly incr ease the cost of production enterprises. Second, 
only enterprises and individuals with in EU have the right to make registration. This will lead to 
different treatment between EU and non-EU producers. Moreover, the regulation does not provide 
specific procedures for evaluation and approval of ch emicals, which may lead to much discretion in 
approval process. These will be negative impact as a whole on downstream industries and international 
trade of chemical products. 
7. Fees for registration and experiment will be  a burden for many developing member exporters 
of chemicals, would EC consider to reduce the cost for developing member exporters to obtain the 
experiment data needed for registration? 
Answer The registration requirements of REACH only apply to EU manufacturers and importers, not to 3
rd 
country exporters, unless they appoint an only re presentative, and therefore the fees and costs of 
information gathering will fall on the EU based en terprises. The level of the fees will depend on the 
tonnage that is registered and whether the registrant  is an SME. In the development of REACH, great 
care was taken to reduce the costs of information coll ection to the minimum that is necessary to ensure 
a high level of health and environm ental protection. In addition, the scope for sharing of data and 
ensuring further testing costs are shared  has also been carefully designed. 
8． With regard to the data sharing system establis hed by REACH, what measures would EC take 
to protect the trade secrets of the enterprises concerned?  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 471 
 
 
 Answer 
 Detailed rules are set out in Regulation (EC) No  1049/2001 of the European Parliament and the 
Council of 30 May 2001. A registrant may request  that one or more pieces of information be 
kept confidential. Where the Agency agrees that  this information is confidential then such 
pieces of information may only be disclosed in  emergency situations. The registrant must 
provide justification for any such requests,  for example commercial sensitivity of the 
information. 
 The Agency will decide whether to agree to such requests. 
The design of the REACH-IT system will be such  that information can readily be protected or 
made public according to the provisions. 
9． How does EC prepare to disclose the inform ation regarding implementation of REACH in a 
timely manner? 
Answer 
Comprehensive guidance documents for Member States and stakeholders are produced under the 
Interim Strategy (more information on the development of guidance documents: 
http://ecb.jrc.it/REACH/ ). These will be made available progressively and the full set of guidance 
documents should be available at the beginning of 2008. 
The Commission has initiated an extensive work pr ogramme to ensure that the Agency will be 
operational. It will initially second 40 of its own sta ff and has already begun the process of recruiting 
the permanent staff of the Agency. A building has been selected and infrastructure will be put in place. 
IT tools are being developed. 
Every 5 years, the Agency shall submit to the Commission a report on the operation of this regulation. 
The Agency shall include in its report informat ion on the joint submission of information in 
accordance with the rules for the joint submission of data by multiple registrants and an overview of 
the explanations given for submitting information separately. 
JAPAN  
Question 22 (Paragraph 71, page 107) 
Japan would like to be advised of the EC’s views on the following questions and concerns of Japan 
with regard to REACH, which is now examined within the EC. 
(1) Time frame for the duty to communicate info rmation on substances in articles (Article 33) 
According to Article 33, any supplier of an article containing a substance listed in a candidate list, 
which will be made in accordance with Article 59 (1),  shall provide information for safe use just after 
the list is made. Japan believes this requirement does not provide enough notice. 
Some transitional period, such as that for notification of substances in articles (Article 7 (2)), should be 
set. 
Answer 
The EC has taken note of Japan’s concern and is discussing the matter with Member State enforcement 
authorities to arrive at a practical solution. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 472  
 
 (2) Establishment and disclosure of  a candidate list (Article 59 (1)) 
A candidate list which will be made in accordance with  Article 59 (1) could have a big impact on all 
industries which use substances listed in it. It shoul d be made clear when and how it will be established 
and enough time for comments should be allowed for when drafting it. 
Answer 
Substances of very high concern will be identifie d and included onto a candidate list according to 
Article 59. To initiate the process, either a Member  State (MS) or the Agency, if requested by the 
Commission, will prepare a dossier  in accordance with Annex XV th at identifies the substance, 
justifies that it is a CMR
24, Category 1 or 2, a PBT25, a vPvB26, or a substance of equivalent concern 
and gives information on exposures, alternative s ubstances and risks from the substance. The proposal 
then goes through an agreement procedure where eith er all the MS have to agree or the Commission 
takes the decision by Comitology. Ho wever, before this procedure be gins the Agency will publish on 
its website a notice that an Annex XV dossier has b een prepared for a substance and all interested 
parties, including 3rd country stakeholders, can submit comments (Article 59 (4)). 
(3) Substance-tailored exposure-driven testing (ANNEX XI) 
Based on the exposure scenario, testing in accord ance with Sections 8.6 and 8.7 of ANNEX VIII, 
ANNEX IX and X may be omitted, and the Commissi on shall adopt the criteria for justification. 
Japan expects imported polymers could be included in this waiver clause and, therefore, would like to 
ask the Commission to hear from non-EU participants in drafting it. 
Answer 
Third parties are involved in the REACH Implementation Projects (RIP) that include the drafting of 
guidance documents All draft reports are placed on the website of the European Chemicals Bureau 
(ECB) for commenting by all those interested, incl uding third countries. In addition, there is the 
possibility that third countries could be involved in the stakeholder expert group for a RIP project, if 
they have specific expertise that would be valuable. This has of course to be done after agreement with 
the ECB but for several RIPs this  is already common practice. In addition, the Commission has agreed 
that a 3rd country representative should have a seat at the Commission Working Group that oversees all 
RIP projects; this representative will act as a fo cal point, feeding comments into the process and 
conclusions back to the 3rd countries. 
The review of Annex XI, section 3 will be carried  out by the Commission and will include consultation 
with stakeholders. However, the precise deta ils of the project are still under discussion. 
However Japan is invited to provide up-front in  writing some ideas on how exposure based waiving 
criteria for monomers used in the manufactur ing of polymers could be developed. 
(4) SIEF (Substance Information Exchange Forum) (Article 29) With regards to consortium formati on and data sharing in SIEF, ther e are still many unclear points in 
practice, e.g. who will lead the consortium, what the function of SIEF leader will be, and so on. Non-
EU registrants especially, do not have enough informa tion on the organization and/or the situation of 
                                                     
 
 
 24 Carcinogen, mutagen or substance toxic to reproduction (CMR). 
 25 Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substances 
 26 Very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) substances  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 473 
 
 
 the EU industry, and this could leave them at a disadvantage. Japan hopes for a clear and detailed 
guidance that will enable us to avoid legal risks in view of competition law and intellectual property 
rights. 
Answer 
There is no obligation under REACH for a non-EU manufacturer. Non EU manufacturers must have 
importers established in the commun ity to export their substances to the EU. It will be the importers 
duty to fulfill the obligation of re gistration under REACH. Alternativ ely, an only representative may be 
used. 
It is important to point out that the Commission in  co-operation with the stakeholders is currently 
developing a guidance document on pre-registra tion and data sharing. (REACH Implementation 
Project RIP 3.4) Users are invited to be kept informed by visiting the following Web site: 
http://ecb.jrc.it/reach/rip/ (5) Requirements for recycle products When recycled materials that will be used for recycl ed products in the EU are exported to the EC, are 
they subject to registration/notification? In cases where exporters of those products have to make 
registration/notification for them, detailed pr ocedures should be presented as soon as possible. 
Answer 
Yes, Articles made of recycled mate rials are covered by Article 7. It is important to underline that the 
Commission is currently developing a guidance doc ument on fulfilling requirements for articles. 
(REACH Implementation Project RIP 3.8)  see also above web site references. 
KOREA
 
25. Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals  
(WT/TPR/S/177 pp. 107~108, Para 69~71)  
 We understand that REACH, a regulated system fo r the safe use of chemicals, is consistent 
with global trends to protect the health of humans and the environment. However, such 
system should be implemented in a way that minimizes any possible negative impacts on trade and the industries concerned. In additio n, REACH should not act as a trade barrier or 
increase the cost of trade in chemical products.  
 The European Commission finalized the draft of the REACH regulation in October 2003, 
and submitted it to the European Parliament  and Council. The REACH regulations were 
adopted in December 2006, and will enter into force on 1 June 2007. 
 During the EU's internal review process  on REACH regulations, the EC was kindly 
advised to positively reflect the views of chem ical industries and countries outside the EU. 
As the regulation is finally being adopted,  we hope that the EC positively reflects the 
views of non-EU countries and chemical indus tries in the process of establishing the 
REACH Implementation Projects(RIPs) through CWG and SEG meetings. This will help 
the producers and importers of chemicals adapt to the new REACH regulations. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 474  
 
  The adoption of the REACH regulation positivel y contributes in protecting public health 
standards and the environment while promoti ng sustainable development and is therefore 
being evaluated in a positive light. However, ther e is concern that the regulation will act as 
a shield to chemical industries within the EU , and that the elements that discriminate non-
EU countries could impose a heavy burden on the industries concerned, thus shrinking the international chemical industry. 
 In particular, we are concerned that pre-registered substances in Articles and 
Polymer within the EU will be exempt from  registration, eventually discriminating 
non-EU countries. What is the EC's view on this opinion?  
Answer 
 The question is not clear but we assume it refers to registered substances.  
With regard to articles the provisions for regi stering or notifying substances in articles are 
equally applied to both EU producers and importers.  
With regard to polymers, Article 8 of th e REACH Regulation introduces the option of the 
“only representative of a non-Community manuf acturer” by analogy to the same concept 
of current new substances Community legisl ation, i.e. Article 2 (1) (d) of Council 
Directive 92/32/EEC. This provision aims at addressing the legitimate interests of a manufacturer to protect commercially sensitive business information.  
 Therefore, we hope that the EC revises this  discriminative aspect and makes the range of 
Articles limited and clear in the process of establishing RIPs through CWG and SEG meetings.  
PERU
 
10. Los Acuerdos OTC y MSF de la OMC estable cen que los reglamentos nacionales o regionales 
no pueden imponer un tratamiento diferente sobre pr oductos similares como consecuencia de como son 
producidos o formulados. Esto se  exige particularmente cuando el  producto final no muestra ningún 
signo de haber seguido tal proceso o formulación. Sin embargo, el Reglamento REACH ha sido 
utilizado para discriminar entre productos en r azón únicamente de sus procesos o métodos de 
producción. En este caso, las CE han aplicado el principio de precaución a sustancias y artículos terminados que contienen tales sustancias, presumi endo a priori que son inherentemente peligrosos 
para la sociedad de las CE. En este caso las CE  está protegiendo al público contra un peligro no 
identificable y no medible para los seres hu manos o el medio ambiente y que aún no se ha 
materializado. Podrían señalar ¿qué medidas han adoptado las CE para modificar el Reglamento 
REACH a la fecha? 
Translation 
The TBT and SPS agreements provide that national a nd regional regulations ca nnot provide a different 
treatment for similar products on the basis of the way in which they have been produced or formulated. 
This is required in particular when the final pr oduct does not contain any evidence of having been 
produced in one way or the other. In this case, the EC has applied the precautionary principle to 
substances and finished articles that contain such substances, assuming a priori that they are inherently 
dangerous for consumers. In this case, the EC is pr otecting consumers against a risk that has not been 
identified and that is not measurable for human beings  or the environment and that has for the moment 
not materialised. Could the EC indicate whic h measures it has adopted to modify the REACH 
Regulation?  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 475 
 
 
 Answer 
The question is not very clear. However, the Eu ropean Communities want to emphasise the following 
points on the basis of its understanding of the question: 
First, REACH does not assume a priori that substances are dangerous. It requires manufacturers and 
importers to gather certain information on their substa nces and if that information reveals that they are 
dangerous, then they are required to manage the resulting risks. 
Second, REACH deals with product characteristi cs but not with process and production methods 
outside the EU that are not related to the products. 
Third, Article 7 (3) of REACH provides that the oblig ation to notify if a substance meets the criteria in 
Article 57 and is identified in accordance with Ar ticle 59 (1) does not apply where the producer or 
importer can exclude exposure to humans or the e nvironment during normal or reasonably foreseeable 
conditions of use, including disposal. Hence, this provision deals with situations where no risk has 
been identified. 
CHINESE TAIPEI  
(pages 107-108, paragraph 71) 
Q16. The application of the new REACH (registration,  evaluation, and authorization of chemicals) 
legislation is widely expected to place an extr a burden and higher costs on business. Although the EC 
commits to making the transition to the new system  as easy as possible, a lack of certainty and 
transparency apparently still exists regarding app lication procedures, standards and testing methods. In 
particular, there is a lack of information about  the standards applying to chemical products not 
currently manufactured in the EC. 
In this connection, could the EC please clarify  whether the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) will 
consult and cooperate with third countries regar ding the standards applicable to these chemicals? 
Answer 
The question is unclear but we assume that it refe rs to testing standards. REACH places the onus on 
industry to provide adequate information. No labo ratories will be recognised or designated under the 
provisions of REACH. New toxicological or ecotoxicological tests and analyses need to be carried out in accordance with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) or  another international standard recognised by 
the Commission or the Agency. 
REACH is not intended as a testing programme. New tes ting should only be a last resort and available 
information should be used wherever possible. The regi strant will have to make decisions as to what is 
reasonable information for use in a registration. Annex XI sets out the general rules for what 
information is acceptable. Guidance on information re quirements will be developed. (more information 
on the development of guidance doc uments: http://ecb.jrc.it/REACH/).  
Q17. In addition, for the implementation of the REACH,  it is a prerequisite to fulfill the inspection 
and qualification requirements for all Eur opean imports bearing valid certificates. 
In the interests of enhancing the effectiveness of the REACH implementation and avoiding any 
suspicion of monopolization by specified institutes,  as well as shortening the inspection period for 
manufacturers, it would be appreciated if the EC could clarify whether it will recognize and accept 
certificates issued by those institutes with export nations’ approval. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 476  
 
 Answer 
Please, see the answer above, no laboratories will be  recognised or designated under the provisions of 
REACH and no inspections will be carried out. 
USA
 
38. Paragraphs 69-71 on pages 107-108 of the Secretar iat report explain that the EC’s key policy 
objective on chemicals is to ensure a smooth tran sition from the existing legislation to the REACH 
framework. Implementation of REACH will present substantial challenges for industry as well as 
governments – both within the EC and overseas. 
A) How does the Commission intend to evalua te and address the costs and other effects of 
REACH on imported products? 
Answer  
The Commission has carried out an extensive Impact  Assessment on its REACH proposal of 2003. The 
main document as well as the background documen ts can be found on the Commission’s website 
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/ reach/eia_en.htm); the large amount  of data contained therein is 
also a useful starting point for those who want to develop an idea of the REACH impacts for particular 
cases. 
Following discussions with stakeholders on the impacts of REACH, the Commission decided to 
engage in further work on the Commission’s REAC H Impact Assessment. Two further studies were 
therefore undertaken. A study by KPMG for a UNIC E/CEFIC industry consortium has examined four 
downstream sectors (i.e. automotive industry, high-t ech electronics, flexible packaging industry, 
inorganic material producers) and included 6 SMEs. A second study by the Joint Research Centre 
(JRC) of the European Commission dealt with th e potential impacts of REACH on the New Member 
States (NMS). These studies included cases of imported chemicals. 
In addition, the European Parliament had an as sessment of the Implications of REACH for the 
developing countries (available from 
http://www.chemsec.org/documen ts/Implications_of_REACH.pdf ) carried out that found that, for the 
most part, the effects of REACH on will be manag eable and will not interfere with existing trade 
patterns. 
B) How does the Commission plan to ensure the consistency of member State implementation of 
REACH? 
Answer 
REACH will significantly improve the consistency with regard to how Member States apply the 
chemicals legislation within the EU, compared to the situation under the current legislation, and 
therefore facilitate trade flows. First, it is a regula tion, directly applicable in all Member States, and 
does not require transposition laws, as is the case for current directives. 
A large number of tasks will be carried out by the Agency (such as dossier evaluation) or the Agency 
will have responsibility for coordinati ng them (such as substance evalua tion), so ensuring a consistent 
approach. The Member States are responsible to enfor ce that individual duty holders in their territories 
comply with the decisions of the Agency or the Commission. The MS will have to submit their 
legislation on penalties to the Commission for scru tiny within 18 months of entry into force.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 477 
 
 
 To help ensure such enforcement is carried out consistently, a Forum for exchange of information on 
enforcement will be set up in the Agency, to carry  out a number of tasks (Article 77 (4)), including 
spreading good practice and highlighting problems, co-ordinating enforcement projects, etc. 
The European Commission also rec ognises the need of a clear guidance for all stakeholders, including 
Member States Competent Authorities, to ensure consistent, cost-effective and smooth operation of the 
system. It has already started a major programme of  work to develop such guidance, in co-operation 
with stakeholders. The Commission intends that appr opriate guidance will be available before the time 
each part of the REACH system comes into operation. 
C) What specific guidance does the Commission plan  to develop for member States and foreign 
stakeholders on the operation of REACH? 
Answer 
Comprehensive guidance documents for Member States and stakeholders are produced under the 
Interim Strategy (more information on the development of guidance documents: 
http://ecb.jrc.it/REACH/). 
D) How does the EC intend to ensure that impl ementation focuses on chemicals that present the 
greatest risk? 
Answer 
According to REACH substances of very high con cern (SVHC) will be included in the candidate list 
for Annex XIV. Those that are prioritized and select ed from that list and included in Annex XIV will 
be subject to a procedure of authorisation. It should be noted that the Commission is currently 
developing a guideline on priority setting of subs tances fulfilling the criteria for inclusion in 
authorization system for the attention of authorities. REACH Implementation Project RIP 4.3/4.5. 
E) Please comment on how REACH will effectively streamline and simplify the EC regulatory 
system. How will the European Commission, EC memb er States, and the European Chemicals Agency 
efficiently and coherently coordinate this process? 
Answer 
The REACH regulation already streamlines the previ ous regulatory system as it will replace over 40 
existing pieces of legislation. See also answer provided under B) 
39. Paragraph 71 on page 107 of the S ecretariat Report states that the EC believes that the costs to 
industry of REACH will be 2.3 billion Euros over an  11-year period. Some assessments suggest that 
total costs could be considerably higher. 
How does the EC intend to reflect downstream cost s (and the impact of EC enlargement) in its 
assessment of the impact of this legislation? 
Answer 
Please, see answer to Argentina. 
40. Paragraph 71 on page 108 explains that th e European Chemicals Agency has to be fully 
operational one year after entry into force of this new legislation. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 478  
 
 How does the EC plan to ensure that  the agency is fully operational, and that it is able to evaluate 
applications promptly in order to preven t trade barriers and supply chain disruption? 
Answer 
The Commission has initiated an extensive work pr ogramme to ensure that the Agency will be 
operational. It will initially second 40 of its own sta ff and has already begun the process of recruiting 
the permanent staff of the Agency. A building has been selected and infrastructure will be put in place. 
IT tools are being developed. 
C. Further rounds of questions
 
Singapore 
Q1: REACH will affect the chemical trade inevitably and may lead to trade unbalance and disputes 
after its entry into force. How is the European  Commission going to resolve these potential problems? 
Which measures will the EU take to reduce the nega tive impacts of the REAC H Regulation on trade? 
Answer 
Please see answer to Canada 
Q2: There are concerns that REACH may introduce a more complex and onerous burden on foreign 
companies exporting to the EU. What  measures has the EU taken (or will take) to ensure a more level 
playing field? 
Answer  
Please see answer to Canada  
Q3: On the implementation of REACH, is the Commi ssion planning to provide certain financial and 
technical assistance to help countries 
Answer 
REACH foresees that the Agency de velops guidance documents and their helpdesk will be accessible 
to third country companies as well. In addition, th e European Chemicals Agen cy may be asked by the 
Commission to provide technical and scientific support to improve co-operation between the 
Community, its Member States, international or ganisations and third countries on scientific and 
technical issues relating to the safety of substanc es, as well as active participation in technical 
assistance and capacity building activities on sound mana gement of chemicals in developing countries.  
Q4: Due to the big differences between the large-scal e enterprises and SMEs on financing, technology, 
and human resource, SMEs will face more difficultie s in compliance with REACH administration than 
large-scale enterprises. How did th e European Commission balance the different interests between the 
large-scale enterprises and SMEs? How are the interests of SMEs addressed then? 
Answer 
REACH has been designed so that the duties placed on SMEs are light: First of all, SMEs are more 
likely than other companies to register at the 1- 10  tonne/year level. They will therefore not have to 
register until 11 years after entry into force. The information requirements for these volumes are light 
compared to the higher tonnages and no Chemical Sa fety Report needs to be developed. Research and  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 479 
 
 
 development exemptions have been  extended, thus encouraging i nnovation in particular by the 
speciality chemicals sector. SMEs who manufacture or import substances will also benefit from lower registration fees. In addition, it should be noted that most SMEs affected by REACH are Downstream 
users of chemicals, not producers or importers. The REACH system has been designed with very light 
obligations for downstream users which will k eep the obligations of many SMEs limited. 
Brazil 
Question 1 Brazil is aware that there will be a cost of re gistration, within the REACH. European Small 
and Medium Enterprise (SMEs) will be granted allo wances, thus they can afford the additional costs 
generated by the Program. Will deve loping countries SMEs have acces s to these same  allowances? 
Answer  
REACH foresees that SMEs will be subject to reduced registration fees, whether they are a 
manufacturer, importer or only representative. 
Argentina 
Párrafo 71, página 134  
Question 8 En adición a las preguntas ya formuladas sobre el sistema REACH, el mismo establece 
una distinción entre sustancias “nuevas” y sustancias “existentes”, las cuales no estarían sujetas a los 
mismos requisitos de ensayo. ¿Podrían las CE i ndicarnos cuáles son los criterios para determinar 
cuando una sustancia es “nueva” y cuando es “existente”? 
Asimismo, con relación a la carga de la prueba ¿ podrían las CE explicar por qué esta carga debe 
recaer en el solicitante?¿Cómo se determina si el riesgo derivado del uso está adecuadamente 
controlado? ¿Cómo se demuestra al solicitante que “las ventajas socio económicas compensan los 
riesgos”?¿Qué criterios se utiliz arán para determinar si la ventaja socio económica compensa los 
riesgos?¿Cómo es posible compatibilizar este punto c on el objetivo del sistema de garantizar un nivel 
suficientemente elevado de protección de la salud humana y del medio ambiente? 
Por otra parte y en cuanto al registro, ¿podrí an las CE explicarnos qué periodo o periodos de 
referencia se utilizan para determinar el registro obligatorio cuando la sustancia posee propiedades 
peligrosas y esté prevista la liberación de la misma fu era del artículo, y la notificación obligatoria en 
el caso de las sustancias que se liberen de man era fortuita al utilizar el artículo?¿Cómo se 
determinará fehacientemente la c antidad de sustancias químicas c ontenidas en artículos que son 
comercializadas en cantidades superiores a una tone lada? ¿Los importadores tienen la obligación de 
efectuar una declaración del contenido de estos artí culos? ¿Qué autoridad ejercerá el control y la 
determinación de estas cantidades? La agencia eu ropea encargada de administrar el sistema REACH 
¿elaborará orientaciones tendientes a ayudar a lo s productores e importadores para la aplicación de 
estas disposiciones? Si es así, ¿en qué conspira  el apoyo? ¿Tendrá algún costo adicional al del 
registro de la sustancia?  
¿Podrían las CE brindar información específica sobre los costos que deberá afrontar el solicitante 
durante todo el proceso de registro?¿Podrían explicar  cómo funcionará el “sistema de autorización 
de los usos de las sustancias extremadamente preocupantes”, y cuál será el costo para la 
empresa?¿Podrían explicar cuáles son los requis itos  que debe cumplir el representante del 
fabricante no comunitario?  
Las sustancias intermedias ¿estarán sometidas a los mismos procedimientos que las demás sustancias 
incluidas en el REACH? ¿En estos casos, los co stos del procedimiento serán los mismos para las WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 480  
 
 empresas? ¿En cuánto se reducirían los costos  del proceso para las empresas que realicen 
presentaciones conjuntas? ¿Podrían informarnos los pl azos con los que cuenta la Comisión Europea 
para evaluar, si es que ya se ha efectuado, el info rme sobre determinados polímeros y de qué manera 
se incorporarán y se implementarán estas comunicaciones al REACH? Finalmente ¿podrían explicarnos cómo funcionan los foros de información sobre sustancias? 
Se estima oportuno manifestar al gunas inquietudes respecto al nuevo marco normativo para productos 
químicos (REACH), el cual afectará de manera negativa las exportaciones hacia las CE. En este 
sentido, nuestras mayores preocupaciones giran en torno a cuándo entrará en vigencia este nuevo 
sistema, cuáles serán los costos que deberán af rontar las empresas solicitantes del registro, 
fundamentalmente para empresas no comunitarias de  países en desarrollo, y cuales serán las medidas 
de apoyo que se tomarán para ayudar a los prod uctores e importadores a fin de cumplir con los 
requerimientos de esta nueva legislación 
Answer 
The European Commission would like to take the oppor tunity to refer to the documents submitted so 
far for notification of REACH, in particul ar document G/TBT/N/EEC/52/ Add.3/Rev.1 of  9 February 
2007 (also available on the Commission's website under 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/tbt/index.cf m?fuseaction=Search.submitSearch&dspLang=EN
). This 
document answers these questions in a systematic way.  
Further information can be found on the website of the European Commission: REACH in Brief: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemi cals/reach/reach_in_brief04_09_15.pdf 
Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/reach/index_en.htm Directorate-General for Environment: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/c hemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm 
United States 
Manufacturing – Selected Industries – Chemicals
 
10. Under REACH, the United States understands  that the Commission an d member States will 
compile a list of candidate substances for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV (authorization) which the 
European Chemicals Agency will review. Can th e EC elaborate on its communication plan for 
ensuring that this candidate list is not misused as a “black list” before the Ag ency's Committee for Risk 
Assessment has had a chance to form ulate an opinion on the substance? 
Answer 
Regulation 1907/2006 ("REACH Regulation") requires an authorisation for the import, and use of 
substances listed in Annex XIV. The inclusion of substances in Annex XIV is carried out in 
accordance with a rigorous procedure that is science- based and guarantees the right to be heard of all 
relevant actors.  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 481 
 
 
 The candidate list referred by the United States is the fi rst stage of that procedure. In this regard, we 
note that all interested parties have the right to s ubmit comments to the Agency before a substance is 
included in the candidate list and that, when comment s are received by the Agency, inclusion of the 
substance in the candidate list can only be done if there is unanimity in the Member States Committee 
or if a decision to that effect is taken by the Eu ropean Commission under the comitology procedure. In 
addition, it is important to note that the inclus ion of a substance in the candidate list does not 
automatically trigger an authorisation requirement. Which substances will eventually be included into 
Annex XIV and are therefore subject to authorisation will be decided in a separate step. 
The procedure leading to the preparation of the candi date list will only enter into  force on 1 June 2008. 
The tasks of the European Chem icals Agency, which will be se t up on 1 June 2007, include the 
preparation of guidance on the application of the REACH Regulation and guidance on the 
communication on risks and safe use of substan ces to the public. The Agency will develop any 
communication strategy that is appropriate  with regard to the candidate list. 
The first substances that will appear on this list ar e unlikely to cause any surp rises as the majority will 
already be listed in Annex I of the Dangerous S ubstances Directive as category 1 or 2 CMRs or 
available from the results of th e Commission Joint Research Centre’s Working Group on identification 
of Persistent, Bioaccumulating and Toxic substa nces (PBTs) and very Persistent and very 
Bioaccumulating substances (vPvBs). 
11. The United States understands that this list of  candidate substances c ould amount to 1500 - 
3000 chemicals, and that importers could be required to test for trace amounts of these substances -- 
which are not intended to be released into the e nvironment -- in components and notify them to the 
Agency, even before there is any requirement to regi ster them and even before these substances appear 
on the Agency's risk assessment work program. Is this accurate, and, if so, is there a plan to alleviate 
the burden of this testing and reporting? 
Answer 
At this stage, it is not possible to foresee how many  substances will be included in the candidate list but 
the Commission has previously estimated that up to 1500 substances could fulfill the criteria of 
substances of very high concern (White Paper "S trategy for a future Chemicals Policy", 2001). The 
inclusion of each substance in the candidate list is  the outcome of a procedure that guarantees the right 
to be heard of all relevant actors and, in cases where comments are made, the process may be lengthy. 
Importers of substances must register substances th ey import to the EU in quantities at or above one 
tonne unless they can benefit from one of the specifi c exemptions from registration. In this regard, 
importers are subject to the same rules as manufacturers of substances in the EU. 
The candidate list could have a marg inal impact on producers of articles and importers of articles in the 
EU in so far as substances in the candidate list pr esent in the articles in quantities above 1 tonne and in 
a concentration above 0.1% w/w must be notified to the Agency, unless exposure to human health and 
the environment can be excluded. In this regard, it is  important to note that the 1 tonne threshold is per 
importer and that the importer can establish whet her the 0.1% and 1 tonne thresholds are met by 
enquiring the manufacturer of the product. Moreover,  importers would not need to notify the Agency 
with regard to substances that have alre ady been registered for the same use. 
The information to be notified to the Agency incl udes information on the identity of the substance and 
its classification, the registration number and a brie f description of the use. The notification procedure 
does not trigger any testing requirement. WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
Page 482  
 
 12. REACH appears to require polymer exporters  to register monomers that were used to 
manufacture an imported polymer product, even th ough the monomers are not present in the product 
and cannot be released into the environment. Can th e EC confirm whether this is the case and explain 
the rational for requiring registration of products that are not present in the imported product? 
Answer 
Please see answer to Singapore 13. REACH also appears to exclude from the definition of “phase-in substance” non-toxic 
substances in imported cosmetic products that were previously exempted from notification 
requirements under the Dangerous Substances Directive. The same is apparently not true of cosmetics 
manufactured in the EC. The effect appears to be that non-EC cosmetic manufacturers will have to 
register all substances in cosmetics over the one metric  ton per year threshold by June 2008 in order to 
continue selling those cosmetics in the EC, even  though they were previously exempted from 
registration. Is this understanding accurate, and if so, is  there any plan for reducing the risk of requiring 
currently imported cosmetics to be pulled from the market after June 2008? 
Answer 
"Phase-in substances" So-called "phase-in substances" may benefit from extended registration deadlines provided that they 
are pre-registered (i.e. the obligation to register by  1 June 2008 also applies to phase-in substances that 
are not pre-registered). The definition of phase-in substances is as follows: 
(1) Substances that are listed in the European  Inventory of Existing Commercial Chemical 
Substances (EINECS); 
(2) Substances that have been manufactured in the EU (including in the new Member States) at 
 least once since 1 June 1993 but have neve r been placed on the Community market; and 
(3) substances placed on the Community market befo re 1 June 2007 that had been considered as 
notified in accordance with Article 8 (1) of Dir ective 67/548 but does not meet the definition of 
a polymer provided the registrant has documentary evidence of this. 
Substances that do not meet any of these criteria must be registered as from the 1 June 2008 if they are 
imported in the EU (on their own, in preparations or  in articles under the conditions of Article 7.1) in 
quantities above 1 tonne/year. These conditions apply without discrim ination to EU and non-EU 
manufacturers 
Cosmetics 
Article 1 of Directive 67/548/EEC only excludes "prepa rations in the finished stated, intended for the 
final user, such as cosmetic products as defined by Directive 76/768/EEC". This means that substances 
used in cosmetics were required to be notifie d under Directive 67/548/EEC and further to their 
notification are included in ELINCS. It is worth noting that the Commission's inventory of ingredients for cosmetics shows that there is an EINECS/ELINCS number for the majority of the ingredients. This 
means that either the ingredients are part of EINECS or that they have been notified under 
Directive 67/548/EEC and are included in ELINCS (t he latter would require no further registration 
under REACH). For your convenience, the link to the inventory is as follows: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/co smetics/inci/inci_2006.pdf).  WT/TPR/M/177/Add.1 
 Page 483 
 
 
 The Manual of Decisions of Directive 67/548/EEC clearly explains this point, when stating: 
5.4 COSMETICS Article 1(2) of Directive 92/32/EEC indicates that the Directive does not apply to substances or 
preparations for which Community notificatio n or approval procedures exist and for which 
requirements are equivalent to those laid down in  the Directive. Directive 76/768/EEC relating to 
cosmetic products, as last amended by Directive 86/199/EEC, cannot be considered equivalent to 
Directive 92/32/EEC. Consequently, substances intended for use in a cosmetic fall within the scope of 
Directive 92/32/EEC and must therefore be notified, ex cept if they are exclusively put on the market as 
cosmetic products in their final form, intended fo r the final user (according to Directive 92/32/EEC, 
Article 1). 
The notification of cosmetic ingredients was also discussed at the 43rd meeting of Competent 
Authorities. On that occasion it was confirmed that ingredients used in cosm etics placed on the market 
and sold as the substance or as preparations (excl uding cosmetic products in the final form, intended 
for the final user) would fall within the scope of th e 7th Amendment as they did fall within the scope of 
the 6th. 
The Manual of Decisions can be fo und at: http://ecb.jrc.it/DOCUMENTS/New-
Chemicals/Manual_of_decisions.pdf. 
In this regard, we would stress that the same principl e applies to cosmetics manufactured in the EU, i.e. 
imports of cosmetics from the US would not be put in a worse position than cosmetics manufactured in 
the EU. 
__________